So for a given amount of driving, and a given number of vehicles, we’d see more improvement uping the mileage on big SUVs by a few MPGs than we would uping the mileage on little econo-boxes by 15.

Of course, it would also help if all the people who drive large SUVs, but have no real need for a vehicle that size would get into something smaller and more efficient.

We’re witnessing automakers in a transitional phase, as we try to get away from the traditional vehicles to something more efficent from diesel to HEV to PEV.

Every little step counts for something.

There ain’t no batteries in a diesel-electric locomotive. The diesel engines turn generators which pump the electricity directly to the traction motors on the wheels. During braking the motors act as generators and the energy is dissipated into huge resistor banks in the roof. No regenerative braking here (except in GE’s newest evolution series locomotives – but they use capacitor banks). IIRC diesel-electric locomotives are about 4000HP, that’s about 3MW of power, I don’t know of any battery technology that can handle charge/discharge cycles of 3MW.

But the real point, is that we really don’t need batteries. Just design the hybrids like the locomotive, the gains from the constant RPM diesel and the lack of weight by getting rid of the transmission driveshafts will more than make up for the added weight of the electric motors at each wheel. The only real downside is the increased unsprung weight at the wheels if you have motors on each wheel.

Scion xB.

Geotpf:Most people can’t fit into small cars because eating and inactivity are hallmarks of their lifestyle.

I see a problem with this line of thinking — that we should demand all or nothing. Our country lacks the infrastructure to support a rapid shift to any alternative fuel. GM could start minting hydrogen fuel-cell minicars tomorrow and no one would be able to find anywhere to fill them up.

We should encourage every step, however minor, towards reducing oil consumption on a large scale. The solution isn’t to take away personal choice (take away people’s new car options and they’ll just keep buying used until someone else returns them) but to offer enough economical choices that driving “green” becomes a viable option on both a financial and a personal level.

Quite frankly, I enjoy driving my (much maligned, especially here at TTAC) Malibu, even though I could use public transportation. I’m willing to make the financial investment necessary to guarantee that I have the personal freedom that I desire (doing nearly all of my grocery shopping once a month, for example, would be impossible on a bus).

We didn’t get into this energy mess instantaneously, nor will we be extricated from it instantaneously. If a Tahoe hybrid can improve 25% this year, maybe it will improve 35% the next year. Maybe that will turn into 45% in two or three years. And during that time, other people will (hopefully) be working on the batteries necessary to make products like the Volt a reality. If we criticize every intermediary step as being insufficient, we’ll never get anywhere.

(Long time reader, first time poster, by the way. I’ve really learned a lot from this site, keep up the great work!)

Glenn A.’s brother must have freakishly long legs; I’m 6′4″ and my legs are reasonably comfortable in the front seat of just about any car (except those with benches where the driver is short… Gaaa!).

Headroom is usually the critical issue. I don’t need a Tahoe for that; I have plenty of head and legroom in my ‘00 Rav4 and in my ‘00 Sienna minivan. Maybe for someone who’s 6′7″ the picture is a little different (I doubt it, I have PLENTY of headroom in the minivan) but most people are just plain wide, rather than tall and the two-up seating that’s common in most vehicles will accomodate all but the widest of us comfortably. Comfort isn’t a function of the total size of the vehicle, it’s a function of how much room you get at your seat. A commercial jet is a lot bigger than a Tahoe but, somehow, I never seem to be comfortable in those. Of course, perspective is important there, too. I’d rather be a little uncomfortable for 3 hours than fairly comfortable in the car for 24 hours.

Since most of the people that i see driving the largest suv’s are women anyway, it should make for a quick sell. If you are going to buy a large truck anyway, you might as well have the advantage of the latest fuel saving technology.

As for the cost, 2 grand over the cost of a gas model is probably less than the leather option, or the upgraded entertainment center – this should not pose a problem. Especally if you can feel better about yoursely doing it. These vehicles can blow past 50 large anyway. a few thousand, who cares?

Having said that, these vehicles are still stupid, most people would do better with a minivan. God forbid.

The second neat thing is that it uses two sets of planetary gears (called a 2-mode hybrid) so it gets away with a smaller set of motor and generator than the Toyota system per equivalent output, saving cost and weight.

The third thing is that these GM Hybrids are things you can tow a boat with — try doing that with a Prius. The 2-mode system figures into this because it delivers more torque over a wider range of speeds owing to the second planetary gear set. For better or ill, towing boats and campers and all kinds of other stuff is a big deal here in the outdoor culture of Wisconsin, and if we can maintain our outdoor-tourist economy and have people save gas at the same time, this is a good thing.

Developing a hybrid system that can work with a large truck apparently isn’t the easiest thing in the world to do – otherwise you can guarantee that Toyota would have beat them to it. So, yes, we should wonder why anyone would want to own an Aspen, hybrid powered or not, but don’t knock the companies for creating the most fuel efficient vehicles in their price range.

That seems like a logical flaw. The fact that Toyota hasn’t built a full-sized hybrid truck doesn’t prove that they’re hard to build. It might only prove that, in Toyota’s estimation, there’s no market for such a beast.

@ leighzbohns:

Choosing a car which gets an additional 3MPG makes such a small carbon difference on your 80 mile round trip commute to your mc mansion than getting a flexcar for your once a week driving errands and using human powered transportation for the rest of it.

As a lot of people have pointed out, the law of diminishing returns means that a small improvement in fuel economy in the most gas-guzzling class is more effective than a larger improvement in an already efficient class. But there’s one more factor to consider too. Sure, for an individual, 3-5 additional MPG in a Tahoe isn’t a huge improvement, in terms of cost savings or carbon footprint. But the scale of the US car market is such that if every vehicle on the road could realize a 3-5 MPG gain, the country as a whole would DRASTICALLY cut demand for gas and carbon emissions. Environmentally speaking, these hybrid SUVs aren’t the stupidest thing ever, if they sell well enough to displace a significant number of non-hybrid SUVs from the road.

@ carguy:

I don’t understand the attraction to hybrid cars – it seems like an overly complex engineering effort for only modest gain. While any gain is good, if you are going to all the trouble of having both an electric and combustion engine you could probably do much better by adopting the model used by diesel-electric locomotives where the combustion engine is only used to charge batteries which in turn are used to propel the train via electric motors.

My understanding is that just such a “serial” hybrid system is what GM is proposing in the Chevy Volt, exactly like in a diesel-electic train. The problem, as I understand it, is that battery technology isn’t good enough yet to support such a system in an automotive application. The discharge/recharge demands on the battery in such a system are much harsher than in a dual-mode hybrid like the Prius, and the batteries we have now can’t keep up. Trains can get away with it because they accelerate and decelerate much less often, and encounter many fewer and less steep grades. Since the demand on the battery is much more constant, the battery tech that we have now can keep up. I suspect that if hybrid technology has a long-term future (rather than fuel cells or another alternative system) they’ll migrate to series hybrid technology as batteries get more advanced since such a system does make way more sense from a fuel economy perspective.

SUV and truck sales have been dropping, not growing. Yes, they still constitute a fair number of vehicles in the US, but you can get them for a song right now thanks to their rapid depreciation and current undesirability. Even in the midwest, where such behemoths are popular. Yes, these trucks will sell, and do a tiny bit to help out the environment, but I doubt it will do anything to actually boost sales.

FWIW, I’m happy to criticize any automaker that puts a hybrid engine in any vehicle and claims they’re helping save the environment. And here is why I don’t think that a little is better than nothing — hybrids are an intermediary step, and in my opinion are slowing the industry down from developing real alternative fuel options. It doesn’t help that congress is pressing them to make significant changes now, when putting out hybrid engines means that alt. fuel options will be put on the back burner.

Just because you’re using less gas than before doesn’t mean you aren’t still using gas, and all that plastic in your car had to come from somewhere. Which saves the environment more, a hybrid Tahoe, or a standard Civic? How about a TDI Jetta? I oppose middling steps because in this case, they are dead ends, and draw funding and distract people from real, long-term solutions. In 10 years, hybrids will be novelties, and environmentalists will be sobbing about how all of those batteries are now polluting landfills. But they’ll make people feel better about themselves while they last.

We are more efficient to spend our resources improving low-mileage vehicles by 25% than doing likewise for high-mileage vehicles. The impact on the bottom line (the number of gallons used nationally) is far greater for improving low-mileage vehicles by a fixed percentage than for applying that same percentage improvement to already-relatively-high mileage vehicles.

Definitely a valid point – every saving counts, and some count more than others. Looking forward to the next generation of aerodynamically efficient and structurally ingenious trucks that achieve a better weight/CE/fuel efficiency result. Still, I’m with the above poster who pointed to the mechanical complexity of hybrid solutions in trucks – the technology is still in development.
At any rate – this will be decided at the gas pump.

I have to respectfully disagree. Here is why. We just took a vacation to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (yeah, I know it’s early in the season, thanks… no mosquitoes, though…)

There were three adults, luggage, two large boxes of food, two guitars, several cases of soda and just HOW does anyone think that all of that was going to fit into a subcompact car?!

The Prius (mine is a 2005) is classified, quite properly, as a midsized car – as in interior and trunk room combined. My brother is 6′4″ and can sit in the front seat with no leg room to spare – but in cars, it is possible to remove seats from their tracks and move them back for extra tall drivers with long legs. We’ve done it on virtually all the cars my brother has had.

My point is – on the trip back from the U.P. to the lower peninsula, with all the luggage and weight, we managed 56.8 miles per gallon (US, not Imperial, just so you know I’m not fudging).

Yeah, I did drive the speed limit. Other than that, I used virtually no “tricks” to improve my mileage. Just sensible, legal and sane driving. While I was away, gas went up 20 cents a gallon (last week) and two days ago, it went up another 25 cents. Anybody else out there paying attention? By Memorial day, at this rate, it is going to be $4.50 a frickin’ gallon!

This 56.8 mpg, by the way, on a car with an EPA “combined” rating of 55 mpg and highway rating of 50 mpg, right? On a car that “everyone” says “can’t get close to EPA numbers.”

Yeah, I DID ask that my front seat passenger take a photo of the computer read-out (first time for everything – I’m not obsessive about gas mileage, I’m not a “hypermiler”).

May I make another point? People “think” they need a huge SUV. In fact, a Prius is probably capable of doing what 95% of the human race “needs” in a car 95% of the time. “Wants” and “needs” are different things. The interior of a colleague’s Tahoe (12 mpg) is virtually no larger than my Prius, though she has more luggage area (hers is a station wagon of sorts, against my hatchback). But 12 mpg vs 48 mpg (being conservative on both) is a 400% difference, isn’t it?!

And let’s be TOTALLY HONEST – most of the drivers of SUVs don’t haul bass boats nor do they off-road, nor do they tow ANYTHING, and 90% of the time or more, never have more than one person in their vehicle.

So GM and Chrysler-Magna whatever it will be are p*ssing into the wind – again – with their “improved hybrid SUVs”. Idiots.

You are better off with: bigger downpayment, shorter financing contract (both bring down the interest rate) and then once the car/truck/whatever is paid off, keep driving it.

I’m looking at my current gas cost per month, around $240 in my not-so-good 23 mpg average car (paid for) and any way I look at it, a new car with much better mileage still is going to cost alot more than the “savings” in gas I could in theory make (I’m not a fuel efficient driver)

So the argument about how much you save by switching to a 16 mpg monster truck to a 19 mpg monster truck is pretty moot. Unless you ditch it for a $800 beater cavalier you will never see any difference in the money you spend.

But what do I know? Cars are status symbols, because we can only measure our worth by what we own, not what we do. Please ignoe what I just typed :)

The way I see it, people who want these fullsize SUV’s, no matter how practical or impractical the reasons, will continue to buy them for those reasons. They complain about fuel prices, but right now they’re still affordable enough to justify the purchase. A hybrid comes with little sacrafice–quicker around-town responses and overall acceleration, better fuel mileage, and low emissions are only qualified by increased price and weight. The price, here, seems to be the major factor…but even still, the owner should be able to break even if he/she keeps the truck long enough. Point is, the hybrid versions have PROVEN, SIGNIFICANT (if incremental)advantages over regular engines, with little downfall. SUV drivers will not suddenly flock to superminis…props to GM for trying to make another category of car more efficient. Unfortunately for GM, the GMT900s are, IMO, already by far and away the best in their class. I think the hybrids will most likely cannibalize their own sales. But there is no reason to hate on GM for undertaking this project.

Oh and to those who say “ease off the right foot” and “make sure the tires have the proper air pressure”, just remember that you can do those things increase the fuel economy of ANY car, hybrid or not. A lot of the comments I’ve seen here are shortsighted and just looking to bash hybrids for the hell of it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

I don’t really know how to respond to that.

Luther: regarding the comment about the Hummer costing (environmentally) less than a Prius, go over to thecarconnection.com and search “prius hummer” (ha, sounds bad, doesn’t it?) and read the article explaining the myth. It puts a better perspective on the myth than one thinks.

spt87a: The Prius has features beyond the hybrid drivetrain that make it more expensive. Like the CVT, synthetic gas tank “bladder” lining that reduces evaporative emissions and the coolant “thermos” that reduces warmup times, all of which could be implemented in future non-hybrid toyotas. Technologically, at it’s current price point, they’re practically giving the car away.

A Prius is also available with navi, HID, auto climate, etc. None of which the Corolla has. I’m sure some people rationalize the Prius’s price as a “premium small car” rather than “Save me some gas.” Most prius owners wouldn’t be caught dead in a Corolla or Yaris anyway.

That’s funny! I hope this isn’t the guy working on my Mr. Fusion.

I wonder what will happen when the enviroment-worshipers/life-haters/profoundly-joyless/envy-n-guilt-ridden/physics-and-chemistry-challenged realize that driving a Hummer H1 at a 100 MPH is better for the environment than putting in a Prius… “Hybrid” will become blasphemous. In my estimation, SUVs are not big and 15 MPG is not “guzzling”. My world is just not that small I guess.