Why does The Detroit News scribe Scott Burgess feel the need to diss environmentalists to praise a gas guzzler? Defensive much? All the time. In this case, Scott uses a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid to launch the usual condescension cruise missiles on tree huggers. “When the word ‘hybrid’ is scrawled across the front, back and sides of this big SUV… It creates a moral dilemma even Dr. Laura may not be able to solve as well as a jagged little pill for 40mpg.org to swallow. Can an American have a vehicle with room for eight but be environmentally sensitive? Could the crest and wreath really create the Cadillac of hybrids? Apparently so. The new Escalade hybrid offers prestige, power and just enough greenness to annoy environmentalists. Naturally, I love it.” And I love that “room for eight” thing. As if the fact that all those empty seats in the blinged-out Yukatoahoeburbalade make it somehow more environmentally friendly like, say, a minivan.
“Now, Cadillac could have opted for a smaller V-8, a criticism many environmentalists have made (though it’s not like they were going to buy one anyway). So give the customer what he wants: power, eco-distinction and the ability to tow 5,800 pounds.”
Eco-distinction? Don’t you mean eco-extinction? And how many buyers are thinking, I’d love to buy a Prius, but I need something with eight seats that can tow my bass boat? Anyway, time to piss on PETA.
“Of course, PETA, another politically oriented group, may not be happy with the Escalade either. The interior uses a small herd of cattle just to wrap the three rows of seats, doors and center console in beautiful leather. It smells delicious every time you enter the SUV.”
And, in closing, all you bastards are a bunch of foreign car loving, sheep-like hypocrites.
“See, despite all of the environmental hubbub we hear today, I don’t believe most Americans want small cars. We like to say we want them, but we don’t. We are victims to automotive fashion and fuel economy is all the rage.
“We want luxury and performance and sport and utility. We want Escalades that get 40 mpg.
“And at least this Caddy is half way there.”
So much for GM’s tradition of 80 percent cars, then.
APRIL FOOLS!
Wait, no, what? I’m confused. Is that guy for real?!?
Long live traditional chrome laden bling.
This guy’s a tool, but the sad thing is he’s completely spot on regarding the mindset of the average envirotwit.
“We want luxury and performance and sport and utility. We want Escalades that get 40 mpg.
“And at least this Caddy is half way there.”
ha ha ha jokes on him. When boasting, he missed a significant point!
mpg is an inverse scale!!!
the escalade is significantly beyond the half way point between 0 and 40 mpg (in terms of actual fuel consumption)…
What an utter BS, I agree – but hey, we’re reading from a rent-a-journo, what else can you expect from this loser industry shills?
Aside of his lack of writing style – the piece reads like a HS submission, written by some clueless but car enthusiast kid – he also lacks generic writing skills: completely illogical, contradicting idiocies in following sentences, (sometimes even in the same one) etc.
BTW did you notice that he’s flat-out BS’ingabout mileage?
“Here’s another way to look at it: the big engine on the Escalade sips fuel around town better than the V-6 midsize sedans built by Honda, Nissan and Toyota — oh, and GM, Ford and Chrysler too.”
Anyone with a little clue will know you are full of it, Burgess – take a look at these numbers:
20/21 vs 19/29 vs 19/27 vs 19/28
First, we are within ONE gallon which amounts next to nothing as anyone can save or burn an extra gallon, even just by simply paying more attention how (s)he drives.
Secondly unless you claim you NEVER TAKE YOUR BUTT-UGLY GAS-GUZZLER TO ANY HIGHWAY WITHIN CITY LIMITS you will ALWAYS END UP WITH WORSE MILEAGE THAN ANY NAMED FOREIGN V6, period.
(And I don’t even ask why the hell would anyone buy this butt-ugly PoS SUV for strictly driving around town… what a nonsense.)
Full of BS, lack of writing skills, incoherent rambling – classic paid industry mouthpiece.
GM has no choice but to make its trucks and suv more efficient. It is the only vehicles people really want to buy from the big three.
The days of a domestic car selling over 300,000+ units a year is long over. As one industry pundit put it the days of the big launch are over. At one time GM expected their best selling car to top 500,000 in annual sales. In the early 80s (get this) Chevrolet sold close to 400,000 cavaliers a year.
The failure of the Delta and Epsilon cars illustrate that truck and SUVs is Detroit’s only remaining gold mine. Alas, poor Ford can’t even sell 150,000 Fusions a year. I don’t think the car is even among the 20 best selling vehicles in North America.
Ford will have more success with an Explorer hybrid.
Who killed the domestic car?
I think we know the answer to that now.
As if the fact that all those empty seats in the blinged-out Yukatoahoeburbalade make it somehow more environmentally friendly like, say, a minivan.
God, does this piss me off. I know a lot of environmentalists (anecdotes are like assholes, I know, but I feel I have a little authority here), and not a single one needs the kind of capabilities that a GMT900 offers. Not one. The closest is a guy who works for the Ministry of Natural Resources. He drives a 4WD Ranger that’s held together with duct tape.
Every other one, if they need a car (most don’t; they live in high-density urban environments) is either driving an early-90s economy car that they’ve inherited, or a new Yaris or Prius, except for one slightly nutty engineer who runs an eighties-vintage Mercedes diesel on vegetable oil, and a few families who’ve opted for either a used Sienna or a new Mazda5. The aforementioned Ranger owner has considered and Escape hybrid, but beats his car too badly to buy new.
Some of these people are quite affluent, so it’s not money that’s stopping them.
GM doesn’t get this: green buyers don’t tow boats or campers or trailers. They don’t go in for the tower-over-everyone feel of a big truck. They don’t buy the biggest car their license allows. They don’t go in for symbols of conspicuous consumption (or at least no more conspicuous than an LS600hL, which outsells the GMT900 hybrids).
Similarly, anyone buying a GMT900 SUV does not give a shit about mileage or emissions, or at least not in the way that, say, greens do. Certainly not enough to drive sales. And traditional truck buyers don’t need, want or are willing to pay for the hybrid option.
The sales of these turkeys should be evidence of that.
I’m sure it gets good enough mileage for what it is, but it appeals to practically no one. GM is making the same mistake with the hybrid, two-mode Vue: they’re pitching it to people who would tow, or want V6 power, instead of using the system to improve the mediocre mileage (but acceptable performance) of the BAS Vue. Hybrid buyers, as evidenced by sales of the wheezy, gutless Prius, Camry and Escape, don’t tow and don’t want V6 power. It’s the same mistake Honda made with the Accord hybrid, and the reason for Toyota’s restricted-to-Lexus offerings of performance hybrids: the market is not there.
Of course, GM, being GM, will blame the customer for not appreciating them.
First of all, I like Scott very much. See him at many shows and launches. Very funny, warm smiley guy.
And he’s off his rocker.
“We are victims to automotive fashion ”
um… in an Escalade review? Seriously?
Sorry Scott, but I’m a socialist, remember?
This guy’s a tool, but the sad thing is he’s completely spot on regarding the mindset of the average envirotwit.
I don’t think people who resent environmentalists understand how one thinks. I know they think they know how an environmentalist thinks (?!) because it gives them an way to feel superior, but it’s not the same.
First, we are within ONE gallon which amounts next to nothing as anyone can save or burn an extra gallon, even just by simply paying more attention how (s)he drives.
I think you meant one MPG. On a car that gets 20 mpg, an improvement of 1 MPG is a 5% increase, a non-trivial figure.
GM has gotten a lot of flack for their large two-mode hybrids, but the fact is that BOF pickups and SUVs are a large part of the national fleet. The best selling vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150 and not far behind is Chevy’s full size pickup. If we could increase the fuel efficiency of that part of the fleet 25%, we’d save more fuel than with half a million 40 mpg econoboxes.
Costs a neat 100K in Canada. 15K more than a gas only version. Mileage increase: 2 mpg.
http://www.wheels.ca/specials/article/494407
I don’t think people who resent environmentalists understand how one thinks. I know they think they know how an environmentalist thinks (?!) because it gives them an way to feel superior, but it’s not the same.
Are you willing to say the same about your own thoughts about political conservatives?
The last time I dealt with a self-avowed environmentalist (Laurie David’s co-author of a book indoctrinating children about global warming hysteria), I was threatened with arrest for asking her an inconvenient question.
My experience with environmentalists is that they are emotionally driven and do things based on how it makes them feel better, and yes, superior. Laurie David and her co-author did a cross country tour in a bio-diesel powered tour bus. When I pointed out that a diesel powered Chevy Suburban could pull a large trailer and still get three or four times the highway fuel efficiency of a tour bus (4-8 mpg) I was shouted down.
Someone who owns a 25,000 sq ft vacation home and a private jet has no business lecturing me about carbon footprints.
“I don’t drive a Prius because it makes me feel good about myself. I drive a Prius to save future generations”
That’s a verbatim quote. I don’t think one can get much more self-deluding.
Sorry Scott, but I’m a socialist, remember?
You need to read some Hayek.
I was going to respond, but I don’t think I could do half as good a job as Ronnie did.
“Someone who owns a 25,000 sq ft vacation home and a private jet has no business lecturing me about carbon footprints.”
Awww now you just proved your feelings against Al (who’s a very smart guy and did a great job waking up the world, thanks God) or anyone rich and environment-savvy person are purely illogical, solely based emotions. :D ;)
What one’s pocket size has to do her/his intentions to enjoy her/his life as much as s/he wants while doing the least amount of damage to the planet?
“Jonny Lieberman :
January 21st, 2009 at 11:34 am
Sorry Scott, but I’m a socialist, remember?
Ronnie Schreiber :
January 21st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
You need to read some Hayek.”
You mean to realize how stupid Hayek’s praise of laissez-faire turned out be?
No offense but anyone who still thinks free market capitalism has any chance to rule again without causing huge unrest worldwide has absolutely no clue about history, economics and the human society (general comment, nothing personal. ;)).
As someone grew up under Comie regime I am really not in love with socialism but you really need a much better example than this utterly failed American pseudo-capitalism (it’s modern corporationism mixed with granted monopolies and predatory banking) to beat one’s claim of socialism being a better system…
“Ronnie Schreiber :
January 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
I think you meant one MPG.”
Sure I meant ONE MPG, of course, thanks. :)
“On a car that gets 20 mpg, an improvement of 1 MPG is a 5% increase, a non-trivial figure.”
And if it would get 2 MPG then it would be 50% – your point is…?
One MPG is still 1 MPG which can be achieved by anyone paying slightly more attention to driving.
“GM has gotten a lot of flack for their large two-mode hybrids, but the fact is that BOF pickups and SUVs are a large part of the national fleet. The best selling vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150 and not far behind is Chevy’s full size pickup. If we could increase the fuel efficiency of that part of the fleet 25%, we’d save more fuel than with half a million 40 mpg econoboxes.”
Sure but my post was mainly about his claim that this butt-ugly behemot gets better mileage than V6 sedans from Honda, Nissan or Toyota – which is clearly a BS, I think we can agree on this.
Are you willing to say the same about your own thoughts about political conservatives?
Yes, actually. That sort of debating style (“Here’s how I think you think, and here’s why you’re an idiot for thinking so”) works for rap battles and demagoguery, but it’s still intellectually dishonest.
I’ve yet to meet one Prius owner who bought the car to make a statement. Most of the casual greens who did buy one did so because they wanted a new car, and picked the one with the lowest emissions on the NRCan list. The more “hardcore” of the bunch just kept their current cars tuned and took public transit or biked.
Someone who owns a 25,000 sq ft vacation home and a private jet has no business lecturing me about carbon footprints.
This would be the equivalent of a Godwin moment in a debate on environmentalism. I think that, like Ralph Nader, people who don’t share his views are automatically predisposed disliking or demonizing him because, to them, he’s the Embodiment Of All Evil, much as Rush Limbaugh is for those on the other side of the fence.
I don’t quite know how I feel about Al Gore: on one hand, he’s a lightning rod for knee-jerk criticism and thusly a bit of a liability, but on the other he has done good work raising awareness of the issue.
And the jet and house? He buys carbon-offset credits, which is more than I can say for a lot of other people in the same socioeconomic bracket. It’s also a solution that’s been supported by many actual, practical environmentalists, and more than a few conservatives as well: assign a cost to being less green, and provide a way to deal with that cost in an up-front manner that puts the burden on the source (the polluter, who can then pass the cost down or absorb it) rather than “socializing” the cost across the whole economy.
“I don’t drive a Prius because it makes me feel good about myself. I drive a Prius to save future generations”
You’re extrapolating your experiences to all environmentalists. I could do the same with the number of people who’ve equated my like for socialized health care with Stalinism: it’s intellectually dishonest, and smacks of someone who’s living in a sociopolitical echo chamber.
Either that, or you’re mis-characterizing the intent of the quote: that they’re buying a Prius as an example, or to support a more sustainable lifestyle. It’s also possible that they found the line of questions you posed baiting, and were annoyed with you for it. I might have been, if it were me.
@ Ronnie:
Perhaps it was not your opinion, but your choice of forum or your attitude that caused the drama. And even if Mrs. Davis was 100% in the wrong, that does not indict the concept that world resources are limited and waste should be avoided.
I think your approaching environmentalists the wrong way. Perhaps instead of public confrontation, you should try a quiet, respectful exchange of ideas. Your post does not have that tone.
In fact, I’ll start:
What was the question that Mrs. Davis refused to answer? I’ll give an honest shot at answering.
“Someone who owns a 25,000 sq ft vacation home and a private jet has no business lecturing me about carbon footprints.”
Awww now you just proved your feelings against Al (who’s a very smart guy and did a great job waking up the world, thanks God) or anyone rich and environment-savvy person are purely illogical, solely based emotions. :D ;)
I wasn’t talking about Al Gore, I was talking about Laurie David. Gore has his own hypocrisies.
It has nothing to do with emotions or jealousy. It has to do with the energy and fuel demands of a huge second or third home and a private jet and the hypocrisy of someone who lives a lavish energy intensive lifestyle lecturing others about global warming. I’m pretty sure that I have better environmental bone fides than either Gore or David. I’ve recycled literally tons more than either one of them and I use a bicycle for transportation much of the year.
What one’s pocket size has to do her/his intentions to enjoy her/his life as much as s/he wants while doing the least amount of damage to the planet?
The point is that David and Gore are doing more damage to the planet with their huge homes, their private jet use and other aspects of their lifestyles, than I am. I have no problem with rich folks. I have a problem with hypocrites.
GM has gotten a lot of flack for their large two-mode hybrids, but the fact is that BOF pickups and SUVs are a large part of the national fleet.
The problem isn’t the technology, or the gains, it’s GM’s marketing and product planning. They’re trying to sell this to a market that doesn’t exist.
I don’t mind the idea of a hybrid truck, but GM seems hell-bent on proving hybrids are a fad by attempting to hock them to groups of people that, frankly, don’t exist. Were the hybrid option a minor cost bump, and one offered on, say, stripped V6 half-ton pickups (or Canyons and Colorados) and backed up by a warranty to assure the more conservative buyer, we might have a different story entirely: instead of a frill that appeals to no one, it would be a competitive advantage versus the F-150 and Ranger.
Or Toyota could get the size of the drive in the hybrid Dyna medium-duty down to the Tundra’s level and do the same.
“On a car that gets 20 mpg, an improvement of 1 MPG is a 5% increase, a non-trivial figure.”
And if it would get 2 MPG then it would be 50% – your point is…?
One MPG is still 1 MPG which can be achieved by anyone paying slightly more attention to driving.
50%??? You better check your math. A 2mpg improvement on a car that gets 20mpg is a 10% increase.
The advantage of improving a vehicle 1 mpg from the factory is that you don’t have to change your driving habits to achieve the savings. Everyone driving that vehicle would save 5% of their gas use.
I’ve yet to meet one Prius owner who bought the car to make a statement.
So all those bumper stickers I see on Priuses are applied at the factory?
“Someone who owns a 25,000 sq ft vacation home and a private jet has no business lecturing me about carbon footprints.”
This would be the equivalent of a Godwin moment in a debate on environmentalism.
Not at all. You’re stretching Godwin well beyond what it ever meant.
And the jet and house? He buys carbon-offset credits, which is more than I can say for a lot of other people in the same socioeconomic bracket.
A Gaia equivalent to buying indulgences from the Catholic church.
“I don’t drive a Prius because it makes me feel good about myself. I drive a Prius to save future generations”
You’re extrapolating your experiences to all environmentalists.
No, I mentioned encounters with a couple of environmentalists. By your logic I suppose I’d have to talk to all environmentalists before I can comment about them as a group.
It’s also possible that they found the line of questions you posed baiting, and were annoyed with you for it. I might have been, if it were me.
The guy was going on about how nobody needs an SUV, and nobody needs a boat to be towed by an SUV. In other words, another nanny stater.
My experience is that true believers of any faith, including environmentalists, are annoyed by anyone asking inconvenient questions.
In fact, I’ll start:
What was the question that Mrs. Davis refused to answer? I’ll give an honest shot at answering.
I wasn’t asking Laurie David, I was attending an event where her co-author was indoctrinating children.
The question that I asked was why, while lecturing us to go around the house and shut off lights and computers, she left her laptop and a projector on (not on standby but on full power projecting the Windows desktop) for the duration of her talk while only using it for 5 minutes?
That one got me shouted down and one of the environmentalist co-sponsors of the event went to get the building’s director to stand next to me and mind me like I was a child or a visitor to the old Soviet Union.
When she asked what was happening to polar bears, I answered the question saying “all species but one are increasing”, which is true, and she said, “No, that’s wrong” and proceeded to give kids prizes for the “right” answer. Like I said, it was an effort in indoctrination.
I then waited until the talk was over and went over to where she was signing books. When I tried to ask her why a tour bus instead of a Chevy Suburban, I was threatened with arrest.
I’ve spoken publicly and know the difference between heckling and asking tough questions, between being disruptive and making a point. I’ve been attending that particular book fair for almost 50 years, have asked my share of tough questions. This is the first time I experienced a totalitarian effort to suppress free speech.
Environmentalists and other true believers will brook no challenging questions.
Ronnie Schreiber :
“So all those bumper stickers I see on Priuses are applied at the factory?”
Where do you live? I’m in western Washington outside Seattle and while I see Priuses all over the place, I’ve yet to note a particular bumper sticker that unifies them. In fact, I’d say 90% or more have nothing more than the registration sticker on their license plates.
I’ve got coworkers who drive them and their primary reason for buying the Prius seems to be that they were in the market for a new car and decided on the one that returned the best mileage given the traffic conditions here (which favor hybrids over diesels)
I’m sorry, but real people wanting to use less fuel and need three rows of seats would get something like a minivan or a mini-minivan (Mazda5 and Kia Ronda) instead of a pimp-mobile with HYBRID written on almost every facet of the car. It’s saying, I’m rich as hell and can afford this gussied up gas-guzzler and I also think I’m saving the planet because my car is a hybrid and I want everyone else to know that I’m saving the earth and rich as hell at the same time….ME….ME…..MEEEEEEE!
“50%??? You better check your math. A 2mpg improvement on a car that gets 20mpg is a 10% increase.”
My math is fine because I said if it (the Caddy guzzler) would get 2 MPG and it would improve it by the same 1 MPG then it would mean 50% improvement – but it’s still ONE MPG which means pretty much no difference, contrary to Burgess’ claims about better mileage on this PoS SUV. :)
“The advantage of improving a vehicle 1 mpg from the factory is that you don’t have to change your driving habits to achieve the savings. Everyone driving that vehicle would save 5% of their gas use.”
Perhaps but again, it wasn’t the point. My comment simply pointed out the pathetic crap this rent-a-journo tried to sell about mileage.
“No, I mentioned encounters with a couple of environmentalists. By your logic I suppose I’d have to talk to all environmentalists before I can comment about them as a group.”
Umm hate to break it to you but yes, you have to talk to a *statistically large enough* group to be able to form a *statisically valid* opinion – which will be, inherently, just another *generalizing* opinion.
But hey, it’s the same thing with conservatives: even though most self-described “conservatives” I met were clueless, Jesus-loving gun-toting arrogant rednecks I still DO NOT think ALL conservatives are Nascar-loving, gun-toting, Bible-screwing rednecks – I believe there are MANY other different streams and most conservatives are far more reasonable than these crazy lunatic extreme fundies I met.
” I answered the question saying “all species but one are increasing”, which is true,”
Well, unless rest of the world is taking acid collectively an it’s causing them to believe all those animals on the fringe of extinction are dying ( you know, their nnumbers are getting lower and lower) then no, it’s not true at all.
“The point is that David and Gore are doing more damage to the planet with their huge homes, their private jet use and other aspects of their lifestyles, than I am. I have no problem with rich folks. I have a problem with hypocrites.”
So are you suggesting they should get rid of their big houses, regardless of their highly efficient energy systems, cars etc, in order to reduce their footprint?
Is that what you’re saying?
And if they do it how says what’s the “required” level to reduce our footprint – why your size? I say my apartment is consuming less than yours, let’s aim to my size – so now you, quick, get rid of your house, please!
If so then I’m speechless – until now I thought you’re some sort of free market capitalist but it sounds like some proto-EnviroCommunist Manifesto… :D
Ronnie: Thanks for the response. My mistake on the name, I missed that nuance the first time.
Like all things in life, there are shades of grey to any issue. This is no exception. In the case of the laptop and projector, I don’t think anyone here would argue that effiecency and conservation take absolute priority over everything else. Both items take time to start up once turned off, during a paid professional presentation this could be quite detrimental. The electricity cost might be a few cents per hour. If everyone left the room I’d agree, but here this doesn’t seem significant. And unless it was the topic of the discussion, it wasn’t the proper time or place to bring it up.
Polar bears. From what I’ve (quickly) read, you’re more right than she was. Polar bear populations are relatively stable. Still, voicing objections during a children’s presentation isn’t the right forum for protest. In my opinion. Also, referencing the Soviet Union and “indoctrination” aren’t helping.
During the book signing would also be an inappropriate forum for debate. That would be disrespectful to other customers.
On the issue of bus vs Suburban, there’s too much unknown information to make an absolute statement. How many passengers? What are the time constraints? How many stops? What does the insurance policy allow? Comfort is also a factor. A less fuel efficient vehicle using biodiesel is a decent comprimise, again in my opinion. Can a Suburban run on bio-diesel? (I honestly don’t know.)
Please take this as constructive criticism. If you don’t agree with her politics that’s fine, but unless it was a debate forum, it’s at a minimum disrespectful. Also, she does not represent all environmental types. She especially does not speak for me (as I don’t know her opinions on anything).
Well, instead of a tour bus, there’s always the option of getting a van, which has plenty of space for someone to move around while someone is driving. The V6 diesel Dodge Sprinter comes to mind. But, brainwashing kids to believe breathing and Tahoes kill polar bears is wrong. This is an issue that the kids need to decide for themselves when they’re old enough. I, for example, am 17, and I have decided that global warming is a huge bubbling cauldron of bullshit. The rise in CO2 from the Industrial Revolution to today couldn’t cause an increase in the global temperature. Plus, what would really happen if the polar ice caps melt? Will it be Texas-hot, or will it cause another Ice Age? It’s supposed to be global WARMING, but arctic waters coming into the gulf stream, or whatever current it was would cause an ice age somehow. I’m sorry, but The Day After Tomorrow isn’t a prediction of things to come. I am completely against the notion of global warming, but I’m not completely anti-Earth. For instance, we do need to be more efficient with our resources. Nothing is infinite. And plus, we have to stop cutting down trees. We kinda need them for breathing, and make for great scenery and a good way to keep the sun out of your eyes when you’re driving, because your OCD father took the sunblinds out of your car because it didn’t swing up all of the way….Where was I? Oh yeah, just because I’m a Southern Conservative doesn’t mean I hate the Earth, I just hate the extreme anti-Carbon crowd.
The Escalade Hybrid is a damn nice big car that gets better fuel mileage than a regular Escalade.
Which is also a damn nice big car.
The other cars mentioned here and in the piece are not damn nice big cars. So they don’t count.
Only the Caddy, Lexus LS Hybrid and Merc GL320 Bluetec count.
So if you want a “damn nice big car” that gets better fuel mileage than “damn nice big cars” traditionally do, get an Escalade Hybrid.
@k.amm
You mean to realize how stupid Hayek’s praise of laissez-faire turned out be?
No offense but anyone who still thinks free market capitalism has any chance to rule again without causing huge unrest worldwide has absolutely no clue about history, economics and the human society (general comment, nothing personal. ;)).
As someone grew up under Comie regime I am really not in love with socialism but you really need a much better example than this utterly failed American pseudo-capitalism (it’s modern corporationism mixed with granted monopolies and predatory banking) to beat one’s claim of socialism being a better system…
You contradict yourself in two paragraphs. You say that anyone who thinks laissez-faire free-market capitalism has a chance is clueless, and then in the next paragraph describe the reality of American economics, which as you mention, is decisively non-laissez-faire or free-market. Which is it?
Environmentalists and other true believers will brook no challenging questions.
I’m sure that, were you to have done so “off-line” you would have gotten a different response. You challenged a presenter in the middle of a lesson for children. I would have probably gotten the same if I had piped up about safe sex in a lecture about abstinence, or started making peacenik points during Rememberance/Veteran’s Day.
You picked a scab in a sensitive moment. You ought not to be surprised that you got their hackled up.
A Gaia equivalent to buying indulgences from the Catholic church.
Red herring. Pollution is real, the state of your immortal soul in the eyes of God is entirely up for theological debate
Carbon offset credits, as well as other pay-to-pollute schemes like taxes per tonne of garbage, as I explained, put the cost of polluting closer to it’s creation, rather than downloading it onto society as a whole. Pollution has a cost, by the way, and just because you can’t see that cost immediately doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.
It’s fun to watch both environmentalists and conservatives fracture into opposing groups in their discussions on offset credits. Ideological greens oppose it because it’s condoning pollution, and all pollution is bad, no matter the economic reality; ideological conservatives either give in to their knee-jerk anti-green tendencies, or view it as a tax, and all taxes are bad, no matter the economic reality.
Which is it?
I think the point he was trying to make is that know-it-all purists on either side of the spectrum need to understand that, well, there’s a reason why the most successful nations are social democracies (to varying degrees) and the utter failures tend to lie to the extremes of the spectrum.
Pinkos like me can’t ignore the horrific failures of as-implemented communism, much as the proponents of laissez-faire can’t ignore the trainwreck of warlord-led countries where government is nonexistent.
The problem is that, the further you get to the extremes, the more radical the middle looks. This is why the average American conservative thinks Barack Obama is a dangerous red, while the rest of the world snorts at such an assertion.
Anyway, as to the vehicle… I think it’s just jaw-dropping amazing that GM’s premiere entries into the hybrid race can still be described as gas guzzlers.
The problem I see with the vehicle is the business case… Who could possibly want it?
If you have to sweat cost of gas, you don’t belong in a Cadillac. You certainly can’t afford an extra $15K for a hybrid Cadillac.
If you don’t have to sweat the cost of gas but don’t want to leave a giant carbon footprint, you’re not going to want an Escalade even if it gets 20mpg… you’ll get something else. Someone who’s reasonably comfortable is probably thinking they’ll take a look at the new small Lexus hybrid.
If you don’t sweat the cost of gas but want an Escalade hybrid, you really don’t care about the fuel economy and you probably don’t care about saving the planet (you think ACC is a hoax or just don’t care one way or the other). So, why spend the extra $15K or whatever for it? It’s unlikely environmentalists have powerboats to pull.
If you need 8 seats, like your luxury and pull 5Klbs or less, GM has thoughtfully provided the Buick Enclave, at roughly half the cost of this thing with similar fuel economy. The Escalade tow limit is 5.8Klbs, so there’s not much lost there.
Really, who wants this? And the problem with Burgess is that he’s gushing over a vehicle that’s doomed.
The other issue I have with Burgess is that he seems to think enviros equate “hybrid” with “environmentally responsible.” While enviros sometimes misunderstand the true impact of some things, this thing is still a gas guzzler. Nobody’s going to be confused about that.
Pinkos like me can’t ignore the horrific failures of as-implemented communism, much as the proponents of laissez-faire can’t ignore the trainwreck of warlord-led countries where government is nonexistent.
I still don’t get it though. Laissez-faire isn’t embodied in a warlord-led country. Indeed, a “warlord lead country” is just a very primitive form of totalitarianism; the warlord is the government. Touch the warlord up with some Ministerial appoitnments and a palace with much pomp and protocol, and now he is the king, emperor, or whatever. Dilute the king’s power through a parliament, and you have diluted the power of one man over the state but have not diluted the power of the state itself over all men.
Laissez-faire implies a lack of coercive meddling on individual’s voluntary interactions – economic and otherwise – by other people. Whether these “other people” originate from the local crime gang or from the recognized government (which in many places is merely the most dominant local crime gang) is irrelevant.
The most laissez-faire environment I can think of right now in the world is this interwebs we are communicating through, and I don’t think its a coincidence that this is where the United States has “beaten” the rest of the world pretty badly in its technical invention, deployment, and the social revolution it has ushered into the world. Where we are the most regulated and straightjacketed by cops, bureaucrats, gatekeepers, and guilds in our economic endeavors (health care, financial markets, heavy industry) the United States lags.
GM is a great example of that. Many self-interests over time have used the law and corporate institutions to insulate themselves from reality, and apparently use the rest of society to involuntarily subsidize their miserable status-quo.
Making a Hybrid Escalade is the automotive equivalent of ordering a diet soda with your super-sized value meal.
Using the same truck platform GM could offer a no-frills 2WD l hybrid contractors version that provides power for the job site. Having an electric PTO could also appeal to Ambulance and other niche markets.
Perhaps but again, it wasn’t the point. My comment simply pointed out the pathetic crap this rent-a-journo tried to sell about mileage.
Did you bother to read all of Burgess’ article? I read the article and respectfully disagree with RF’s characterization.
Robert, if you’d read the dead tree version you would have seen an adjacent article touting Car Tatts.
Well, unless rest of the world is taking acid collectively an it’s causing them to believe all those animals on the fringe of extinction are dying ( you know, their nnumbers are getting lower and lower) then no, it’s not true at all.
The question was about polar bears. One species is in decline, the other species are increasing.
As for extinction, it’s been happening since the pre-Cambrian age, at least. Species die out for all sorts of reasons.
So are you suggesting they should get rid of their big houses, regardless of their highly efficient energy systems, cars etc, in order to reduce their footprint?
Is that what you’re saying?
I don’t care if they want to live in 100,000 sq ft mansions. I just don’t want hypocrites lecturing me when I’m more environmentally benign than they are. I managed waste streams for a large industrial lab and I have more professional and academic environmental experience than Gore and David put together. To begin with they have little standing to comment on the subject. When you add in their hypocrisy the standing goes negative.
This is why the average American conservative thinks Barack Obama is a dangerous red, while the rest of the world snorts at such an assertion.
So when I make a comment about environmentalists I’m using anecdotal evidence in support of my statement but when you stereotype conservatives that’s just hunky dory.
You might want to read the entries on the National Review’s Corner blog today. You’ll find that conservatives can be nuanced in their approach.
For the matter, though, Obama is left of center politically and has surrounded himself by hard lefties for most of his life.
As for “the rest of the world”, a great rabbi once said that since the ‘rest of the world’ was silent during 1933-1945, or worse, he presumes that now they have nothing of value to say.
And unless it was the topic of the discussion, it wasn’t the proper time or place to bring it up.
She made it the topic of discussion when she lectured us about not leaving computers running. At least she could have put the projector in standby mode. Of course that would take some technical ability like RTFM. She also used a microphone to speak to a crowd of about 30 people.
How many passengers?
Two. David and her co-authoer.
Comfort is also a factor.
No doubt. When you’re used to 25,000 sq ft vacation homes, you have to roll in style. A million dollar tour bus is more luxurious than a Red Roof Inn, not that Laurie would stay at something so plebian.
A less fuel efficient vehicle using biodiesel is a decent comprimise, again in my opinion.
Which is why I suggested a Suburban. Of course a tour bus that gets 6 mpg is not a dreaded evil SUV that gets three times that or more on the highway.
Can a Suburban run on bio-diesel? (I honestly don’t know.)
AFAIK, any diesel engine can be converted to bio-diesel.
During the book signing would also be an inappropriate forum for debate. That would be disrespectful to other customers.
I was shouted down (that’s hardly respectful to me) and then told I could ask questions during the signing. When I tried, I was told to leave or they’d call the police. You may think my actions were inappropriate. I think that indoctrinating children about global warming hysteria is worse.
Funny thing is that I’m working on a book that will almost certainly get me an invite to speak at this book fair if I manage to finish it. I plan on walking into the building director’s office, handing her a copy and ask how she’d like it signed.
Why do so many of you not get it? I have a boat that I tow. I have ATV’s and dual sport motorcycles that I put on a trailer and tow to northern Michigan to our cottage at least ten times a year. I have three daughters, who require transport to a multitude of activities, from academic competitions to sports events, along with many of their friends. A minivan cannot tow my boat. This winter, we have had over 40 inches of snow, along with a lot of days with iced over roads. Get over it – a vehicle than gets better fuel economy than a six cylinder Camry in pure city driving, while still meeting my family’s needs in our rural environment irregardless of the weather conditions makes total sense. I am not alone – there are a lot of us out here. Why do you thing there have been so many of these type vehicles sold over the years? What about the people with horses? Farmers? Contractors? Businesses that require these capabilties? We care about the environment and something like this is a way to meet all of our needs.
I don’t need an SUV – I would be very happy to have a van with these capabilities, but that is not available. This is a good alternative – my current van is rated 13 city and 17 highway; when used for non towing duties, it gets 15 mpg. A twenty five per cent improvement in fuel economy would be awesome. And I have ridden in a new Escalade – one of my employees has one – anyone who describes this as a POS is totally delusional. As a luxury vehicle with substantial capabilities over other luxury vehicles it is extremely competitive. Lose your ludicrous assumptions and look at the real world!
Ignoring Burgess’ extraneous rhetoric: The resentment directed to the Escalade Hybrid and its Tahoe sibling here appears to be almost purely emotional. How is any aspect of this vehicle’s availability negative? 2Mode is a robust, efficient, advanced drivetrain technology. Not long ago I saw *three* of the Tahoe variant on University Avenue in Palo Alto, California, within the span of a 10 minute walk. I spoke to one owner who bought it to replace a Tahoe in which his city efficiency was 12 mpg. He was getting a little *better* than the rated 20 mpg city from his new Tahoe Hybrid — 21.5. Freeway mileage was a solid 22 for him. He couldn’t have been happier. How is a nearly 80% improvement in city fuel efficiency for an urban/suburban driver not seriously beneficial to everyone? No, don’t even move your lips to say said driver could/should be piloting a Flex, Buick, Lexus, Honda, Fusion, Focus, Mini or a certain small hybrid car instead. Large, truck-like vehicles that seat 6+ people continue to be in significant demand. Add pickups and there’s more demand still. There is a market segment that likes them. It doesn’t matter why. They’re going to continue to be in demand, and in some areas of North America, they will be in demand for reasons critics might fail to appreciate.
I see Escalade Hybrids in and around Los Angeles a couple of times a week. It’s not difficult here to spend a fortnight at a time driving nothing but slow city streets and freeways. A large, comfortable vehicle that turns in 20+ mpg during successive days and days of city driving would be welcomed by a lot of SUV drivers here if they only knew about GM’s 2Mode. In California, there is a significant population that is interested in fuel economy for other reasons than concern over the cost of fuel, while having no interest in a small front-wheel drive hybrid (or traditionally-powered) car.
Further, this vehicle so villified will impose a smaller city-transit carbon footprint than the vast majority of luxury sedans infesting our streets and boulevards here in SoCal. The primary obstacle to better sales performance of the GMT900 2Modes is inept and anemic marketing, not the price. Price is secondary but important. I’d much rather see the price differential over a gasoline GMT900 be $5,000 instead of $15,000, but in some locales, the difference is being paid because it’s still affordable for many.
Can we abandon the pejorative, “Gas Guzzler?” It seems particularly that New York, San Francisco and Boston writers who don’t own cars and frown on driving slap this label on any vehicle that uses more fuel per mile than whatever mouse hauler is their latest environmentally-approved reference. No need for our host to perpetuate the anti-car crowd’s favorite cheap shot. A large, comfortable vehicle that can roll through grinding city traffic all day at 20 mpg is not “guzzling” gasoline in 2008. It’s doing better than what most people in socially-acceptable semi-lux and luxury sedans rolling under the same circumstances can claim for their iron.
No, I’ve not owned an SUV. I look forward to the day when forward vision on the road is restored by declining incidence of tall trucks presently blocking my view. And yet, given the segment’s size, I see only good that the 2Mode option exists for weightier iron and hope to see its incidence expand in vehicles appropriate to its strengths. In a pickup, it’s a contender for some of my dollars.
Phil
Ressler: “2Mode is a robust, efficient, advanced drivetrain technology.”
You forgot “ridiculously expensive.” I’d be willing to adopt a “wait-and-see” attitude on this but you should remember that this is the third badge-engineered GMT900 lard-assed hybridized vehicle and its siblings adorn dealer lots for months and months and months. Cadillac owners might be willing to go the extra dozen kilobucks but for most of the SUV market these things are pointless.
GM is on the dole and they’re building stuff that won’t make money, won’t confer a strategic advantage and does zippo to counter the problems that beset us.
And the natural habitat for these things is University Ave? What for?
The legions of these things roaming the prairie are the big reason I no longer drive a subcompact car. You don’t have to putt along in your Ford Aspire too awfully long watching these things – and Hummer H2s and whatnot – careening along with a moron at the helm, yakking on his cell phone, eating breakfast, reading or maybe all three at once before you realize that owning a subcompact is sort of a bad idea. Their bumper is aimed at my head.
It tows 5800lbs. The Lambda quads do 5000lbs. What’s the point of this marginal 800lb tow rating, from a utilitarian perspective? And the utilitarian point of view is often a red herring… too few are used in a way that couldn’t be matched by something a lot smaller.
You might also consider that the highway fuel economy of these behemoths could almost be matched, much cheaper, by other GM GMT900 behemoths if GM cleaned up the aero, as they did on these, and installed a VCM engine, as they did on these. And they could do that without losing the original tow rating. And improve the fuel economy of all the SUVs they built, rather than just a blingy and expensive few.
Ressler: “Can we abandon the pejorative, “Gas Guzzler?””
I’m so very surprised someone so sensitive to the use of pejorative language never managed to parse “rice ready, not road ready.”
anoldbikeguy writes, “We care about the environment and something like this is a way to meet all of our needs.”
I see. You need a 3-ton behemoth to tow more CO2-emitting toys a couple hundred miles in rural driving but this particular 3-ton behemoth emits 20% less CO2 than other 3-ton behemoths when driven in the city that you don’t live in.
I’m sure Mother Nature appreciates your concern.
You forgot “ridiculously expensive.”
Efficiency costs. 2Mode isn’t expensive for what it is, and in this vehicle its option cost isn’t prohibitive as a percentage of the price of the vehicle it’s offered in.
GM is on the dole and they’re building stuff that won’t make money, won’t confer a strategic advantage and does zippo to counter the problems that beset us.
The first is irrelevant. 2Mode will make money if it sells and it does offer real advantage in light-duty trucks and possibly other vehicles if economies of scale are reached. It’s early.
And the natural habitat for these things is University Ave? What for?
I made no comment on what the natural habitat might be. Point is, people in that locale bought them and they had their reasons, whatever they were. It’s their call, not yours.
What’s the point of this marginal 800lb tow rating, from a utilitarian perspective?
Tow capability is thrown it. It’s not the primary motive for purchase. Lambdas are not full-frame vehicles. They are also smaller. Some buyers have a preference for body-on-frame trucks. This is a more efficient way to accommodate them, wrt fuel.
…too few are used in a way that couldn’t be matched by something a lot smaller.
Not for you or me to say.
You might also consider that the highway fuel economy of these behemoths could almost be matched, much cheaper, by other GM GMT900 behemoths if GM cleaned up the aero, as they did on these, and installed a VCM engine, as they did on these. And they could do that without losing the original tow rating. And improve the fuel economy of all the SUVs they built, rather than just a blingy and expensive few.
Yup, but there’d be no improvement to city mileage, which is the driving condition many urban buyers of SUVs find themselves in for 80% of their driving. For same vehicle type, the city improvement is huge.
Phil
CarnotCycle :
January 21st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
@k.amm
“You contradict yourself in two paragraphs. You say that anyone who thinks laissez-faire free-market capitalism has a chance is clueless, and then in the next paragraph describe the reality of American economics, which as you mention, is decisively non-laissez-faire or free-market. Which is it?
Err where did I say the two are the same? :)
Joking aside the current American economy, this destructive monopolistic corporatism and this whole depression is exactly the only results you can expect from those lunatic laissez-faire ideas. This system was rotting for very long time and all the politicians etc were clueless or bought off to either shut up or to tell you otherwise.
What’s actually surprising me is this level of brainwash these parasites achieved on ordinary Americans. One would think that at least for a year or so now any idiot who still praises this utterly retarded, corrupt, broken system should be yelled down in Congress immediately – but no, most of the people instead still buy into all the ignorant crap about that ‘horrible socialism’ (WHOA!OMFG!) these paid shills in Congress and other forums spread…
I mean I saw enough brainwashing during my first 20 years back in the Commie era but it never really worked on me or anyone I know in my generation (people in their 30s and 40s now) – why this McCarthy-like BS is so pervasive here, I don’t get it.
Of course, due to the political system almost all politicians here get dirty so *their* interest in saving as much as they can from the current (disgusting) status quo is at least obvious but it doesn’t explain why common people cannot see when the system is dead broken (they didn’t see it was working *against* them for long time either)…
What I was saying is if you are to rebuke someone’s claims about socialism’s supposed superiority you have to forget laissez-faire because one has to point only to the current mess to kill your argument forever. :)
“Did you bother to read all of Burgess’ article?”
In case you haven’t noticed you’re arguing about a part that WAS NOT quoted here – ergo most likely I did read it, don’t you think?
“I read the article and respectfully disagree with RF’s characterization.”
I’m sorry but what does it have to do with his obvious BS about this hybrid gas-guzzler besting V6 sedans in mileage?
“The question was about polar bears. One species is in decline, the other species are increasing.”
Ahh I see: so it’s all about the bottom line?
Interesting approach to our living nature…
Out of professional curiosity: how many extra bees or mosquitoes worth a dead polar bear in your world?
“As for extinction, it’s been happening since the pre-Cambrian age, at least. Species die out for all sorts of reasons.”
Ah, a quick empty cliche – s you’re proposing we just ignore it altogether?
“I don’t care if they want to live in 100,000 sq ft mansions. I just don’t want hypocrites lecturing me when I’m more environmentally benign than they are. I managed waste streams for a large industrial lab and I have more professional and academic environmental experience than Gore and David put together.”
It’s called “proportion” – it’s kinda surprising you never heard of it, despite all your “professional and academic environmental experience”, khm – and *proportinally* I BET you are more damaging.
Speaking of your “professional and academic environmental experience” versus Gore et al – I’m sure there’s a good reason how it escaped your attention during the past few years but they never touted *their* “professional and academic environmental experience” (it’s always risky anyway, you know, how it plays out, especially online :p) because they had at least the better half of the world’s entire scientific community to back their statements.
” To begin with they have little standing to comment on the subject.”
I’m sure managing “waste streams for a large industrial lab” and your “more professional and academic environmental experience” gives you a leg up against Gore but I am not really sure about your credentials when it comes to calling out the entire scientific community…. are you sure you’re ready for such a debate?
And since you’re so worked up on “professional and academic environmental experience” why is it that you discredit Gore et al off hand but somehow you think you deserve the answer from scientists with much higher pedigree than yours…?
Don’t you think there’s a double standard…?
” When you add in their hypocrisy the standing goes negativ”
Ahh, the usual bottom line argument… you could be a great accountant, I’m telling you. ;)
“So when I make a comment about environmentalists I’m using anecdotal evidence in support of my statement but when you stereotype conservatives that’s just hunky dory.”
It’s interesting that you chose to ignore my post about your ineligibility to draw any sweeping generalization of anyone unless you spoke to a statistically significant “ample”…
“You might want to read the entries on the National Review’s Corner blog today. You’ll find that conservatives can be nuanced in their approach.”
And you might want to read The Nation regularly and you’ll realize how much broader the horizon than right and left…
FYI this is another stupid thing I hate in American politics, this very narrow *mainstream* political spectrum here.
“For the matter, though, Obama is left of center politically and has surrounded himself by hard lefties for most of his life.”
For the matter it is NOT true at all.
Obama is and always WAS a centrist himself and you can clearly see it in his cabinet, in his choices.
People around him came from various directions (including wacko Christians, hardcore free-market lobbyists, socialists etc.) but when someone believes in minorities, in liberal values then it’s not a surprise he won’t hang out with downright scumbags like Rove etc.
“As for “the rest of the world”, a great rabbi once said that since the ‘rest of the world’ was silent during 1933-1945, or worse, he presumes that now they have nothing of value to say.”
Too bad the great rabbi forgot to mention that as part of the European arms and industrial lobby a lot of them (rich European Jews including Germans) financed Hitler’s rise to power from 1926-28 and on – typically Jewish bankers, managers, industrialists because he was serving their interests (fighting socialists, the unions etc.) and they thought they can control and use him later (much like any politician is controlled today by big business.) When he went berserk, a lot of people in Europe felt these rich folks got what they deserved. However the great rabbi also forgot to admit that MANY people and countries tried and DID the right thing, even when they were annexed or occupied by the Nazi Germany.
Anyway, I think it’s completely irrelevant here, it has nothing to do with stupidity of the right-wing America versus rest of the world today.
I still don’t get it though. Laissez-faire isn’t embodied in a warlord-led country.
A warlord-led country is the end result of unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism.
Laissez-faire will always lead to the concentration of wealth. The concentration of wealth leads to the concentration of power. The concentration of power leads to it’s institutionalization, sometimes with laws, often with guns.
Communism is similar, except that the process sees the concentration power first, and wealth following after. The reason the US, and other western nations, aren’t a totalitarian state is that they haven’t allowed wealth and power to concentrate quite as quickly. The reason they don’t allow this is that there are restrictions on people and organizations, but not so many restrictions as to allow their abuse.
The end result of any society without safeguards against such concentration is totalitarianism. How you get there is irrelevant.
@ KixStart :
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 am
anoldbikeguy writes, “We care about the environment and something like this is a way to meet all of our needs.”
I see. You need a 3-ton behemoth to tow more CO2-emitting toys a couple hundred miles in rural driving but this particular 3-ton behemoth emits 20% less CO2 than other 3-ton behemoths when driven in the city that you don’t live in.
I’m sure Mother Nature appreciates your concern.”
That is hilarious! It just goes to show how out of touch you are to the real world. I have four vehicles for the four drivers in my family. Two are four cylinders – a pickup and a sedan. The third is a sports sedan with a six that has a long term average of 25.5 MPG over three years.
When we use the van, it is needed – and gets better economy than driving two of the others that would be required if we used them to move the same amount of people. Get over it!
Some of us need a bigger vehicle on a regular basis and having the option of one that uses a significantly lower amount of fuel is not a bad thing!
And about our toys ‘spewing CO2’. You are really out of touch here as well. I have planted over six hundred trees at our property up north, the boat has a six cylinder four stroke (GM 4.3L, imagine that) that uses significantly less fuel and emits significantly less pollutants than any Honda, Yamaha or Suzuki outboard that has suffient power to move our boat – which is one of six that we have – we have a sailboat, rowboat, canoe and two kayaks that don’t use any fuel.
Get off of your high horse – just because I have achieved the ability to obtain things that you have not does not enable you to take the high road. Those of us who take the right steps to limit our emissions while enjoying the fruits of our labors for ourselves and our families are not a problem. Those who think that anyone who does not believe that their inherent (and many times ludicrous) beliefs trump others are obviously wrong headed and don’t understand that there are a huge multitude of needs in our society and picking the optimum methods to meet our and societies needs overall is the way that we can all optimize our world.
“you should remember that this is the third badge-engineered GMT900 lard-assed hybridized vehicle and its siblings adorn dealer lots for months and months and months.”
As opposed to all of the other cars that are FLYING off the lots
“GM is on the dole and they’re building stuff that won’t make money, won’t confer a strategic advantage ”
I’d say the Escalade confers an advantage
“The legions of these things roaming the prairie are the big reason I no longer drive a subcompact car. You don’t have to putt along in your Ford Aspire too awfully long watching these things – and Hummer H2s and whatnot – careening along with a moron at the helm, yakking on his cell phone, eating breakfast, reading or maybe all three at once before you realize that owning a subcompact is sort of a bad idea. Their bumper is aimed at my head.”
Do you complain about commercial trucks?
Minivans?
I have a bigger problem with your typical kids in “tuner” Civics and WRXs
“It tows 5800lbs. The Lambda quads do 5000lbs. What’s the point of this marginal 800lb tow rating, from a utilitarian perspective?”
The BOF SUVs probably feel better while towing.
I don’t trust FWD based vehicles for towing regardless of what the car maker says.
They should have made Hybrid long wheelbase SUVs
“You might also consider that the highway fuel economy of these behemoths could almost be matched, much cheaper, by other GM GMT900 behemoths if GM cleaned up the aero, as they did on these, and installed a VCM engine, as they did on these. And they could do that without losing the original tow rating. And improve the fuel economy of all the SUVs they built, rather than just a blingy and expensive few.”
The regular SUVs get fantastic mileage for what they are. You’ll never match the Hybrid city mileage