Autumn in Texas plays host to a weekly cultural phenomenon known as high school football. Burgeoning grid iron gods burst on to the field of play from inflatable tunnels through mists of smoke and a phalanx of sparkly drill team coeds. A 300-student marching band plays the school fight song while two dozen cheerleaders power tumble across the field to herald the arrival of the young jocks. The stadium fills with ten thousand spectators-– mostly proud parents and rabid students-– who arrived to the game in typical Texas fashion: by truck. It is under the glare of these Friday night lights that I examine the value of GM's new hybrid SUVs.
Contrary to popular belief, these vehicular behemoths are seldom used as single passenger commuter transport. Nor are they all owned by rural hicks working a ranch. They’re mostly driven by busy parents hauling their children, kid’s friends and equipment to dozens of school, church and sporting events. And yes, many of the Lone Star State's SUV owners regularly pull boats to the north Texas lakes. These buyers are, indeed, the “power users” for which these massively-powered big-framed vehicles were designed.
Even if you reject this “justification” for SUV and pickup truck ownership as a luxury our country (or the planet) can no longer afford, even if you disallow the argument that small cars just don’t cut it in America’s rural heartland, know this: Texan big rig buyers aren’t blind or immune to high gasoline prices. They understand and appreciate environmental concerns. And they sure as Hell get the connection between foreign military entanglements and the politics of oil production. For this savvy SUV market at least, the General’s hybridization of the Tahoe makes perfect sense.
Toyota, and to a lesser extent Honda, have occupied the eco-friendly automotive mindspace by fitting hybrid engines into small or midsize front wheel drive cars; vehicles that are already amongst their most economical platforms. Gas – electric propulsion has generally boosted these cars’ fuel efficiency from EPA estimates in the 30mpg range, to the 40mpg range. It’s an amazing technological accomplishment that fully deserves the PR plaudits and financial rewards received.
By comparison, the 4×2 hybrid Yukon looks like a misfire. The two-mode hybrid system “only” delivers 21/22 miles per gallon. Aside from buyers of high-priced luxury cars, no sedan driving consumer in his right mind would settle for that kind of mileage. Mileage in the twenties? How great is that? Counter intuitively, it’s quite amazing. Indeed, by my calculations it is 39 percent better in conservation terms than putting a hybrid engine in an already economical car.
Let’s run some numbers.
The 2008 Honda Civic sedan is powered by a 140hp, 1.8-liter i-VTEC four-cylinder engine. Mated to a five-speed manual, the Civic’s EPA numbers clock-in at 25mpg around town, and 36mpg on the highway. In a year of combined driving (15k miles at 29mpg), a Civic owner would need to pump 517.2 gallons into his or her petrol sipper.
Honda’s effort to supercharge the mpg results with a hybrid electric elevates mileage to 40/45mpg. In a typical year of driving, the Civic owner burns 357.1 gallons of CO2-emitting gasoline (based on combined 42mpg). That’s a savings of 160.1 gallons.
A typical 4×2 Chevy Tahoe rumbling through Lone Star State suburbs has a 5.3-liter V8 Vortec engine mated to ye olde four-speed cogswapper. Tea leaves, chicken bones, and entrails tell the prognosticating bureaucrats at the EPA that the rig will achieve 14mpg while stoppin' and goin' and 20mpg while crusin'. In a year of driving at 16mpg combined, the Tahoe owner will have to feed the beast 937.5 gallons of dead dino juice.
Despite having a larger 6.0-liter V8 engine, the Tahoe Hybrid increases 'round town gas mileage by 50 percent and highway mileage by 10 percent (21/22mpg). Over 15k miles, the hybrid variant chugs only 714.3 gallons; saving the Tahoe driver (and the environment) 223.2 gallons.
In other words, a Tahoe owner that opts for hybrid saves 63.1 more gallons of gasoline every year than a Civic driver who makes the same choice.
This demonstrates what GM has been saying for years: improving the gas mileage of the thirstiest (and most popular) vehicles is more important for reducing consumption, pollution and CO2 than wringing stratospheric mileage from the cars that are already among the most fuel efficient.
Of course, many environmentally-conscious people would like to see Yukon drivers trade-in their “obscenely large” family truckster for a more “practical” Civic Hybrid or suchlike. But as long as we live in a free country, individuals are free to determine which vehicle best suits their lifestyle, financial constraints and belief system. For those of us who huddle against the chill air in rural high school football stadiums, the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid looks like a remarkable, yes sensible, option. I wish it well.
86 Comments on “In Defense of: GM’s Hybrid SUVs...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
This is the most expensive vehicle of its type that GM offers; do you think that this fact could have influenced “The General’s” strategy?
I agree with the benefits of improving the worse offenders ie. SUVs.
My problem is that the Yukahoe is such an inneffiecient vehicle right from the get go.
Instead of spending all that R&D money, then charging a premium on just the hybrid models, why not make the effort to make these things more efficient right from the start? Make them lighter, improve the archaic pushrod, put in a 6-speed (or even a CVT!) transmission… Anything!
The Prius doesn’t just get good mileage because of its hybrid motor. It was designed as a fuel-miser right from the start. Take its hybrid motor out, replace it with a standard 4-banger, or even a V6, and it will still get good mileage.
That’s what GM needs. The “Prius of SUVs”. Right now, these things are the “Saturn VUE Greenline” of big SUVs. Nothing more than half-assed. The only reason they are getting any attention at all is because they happen to be the first.
Blunozer,
The 2 mode hybrid system is anything but half-assed. It is quite an advanced an efficient system, google it to see for yourself.
I think the problem is, as the author pointed out, that the hybrid trucks simply don’t SEEM to improve mileage that much, even though the improvement is impressive.
The GM SBC V-8’s are already some of the lightest most efficient V-8’s on the planet due to their simple, reliable design. Any hot-rodder can vouch for that.
I agree that all of them need to 6 speed transmissions ASAP, not just the Slade & Denali.
Inherently, these big trucks are thirsty from the start.
Hybridization of vehicles like this makes sense for automakers.
This is nothing but a cynical joke foisted on the public. Where is the light duty diesel that could economically power these vehicles? Another poster mentioned more efficient transmissions. GM, Ford and Chrysler have been in a torque/horsepower war with their diesel pickups uprating their diesel engines every year at the expense of economy and reliability. Few users need this but it helps sell vehicles.
Don’t believe for a millisecond that this vehicle is nothing but a sham to sell to the feel good enviro crowd. Excellent options abound but high mileage diesels don’t sound as good as the buzzword of the day “Hybrid”
Hybridization of vehicles like this makes sense for automakers.
For them, yes. For us, no.
PS: I am a little cynical, especially concerning GM.
I am suprised GM didn’t develop this hybrid system for their new Lambda SUV’s. That would seem like a better option for the typical SUV owner, (ie: soccermom, family of 5). A 7 pssger Crossover that was able to get 30mpg city would be a real hit I think.
It would at least be a better starting point than a 3 ton Truck based SUV with a 6.0L V8!
To me, there seems to be confusion about what what people can do, versus what they should do (in an analytical sense, not a moral or ethical way). Of course, people can choose whatever vehicle they want. Period.
But the crux of the discussion is: given a person’s needs, which vehicles best suits them? The GM Hybrid SUVs certainly meet a segment of the population’s needs. It’s how well and in what numbers they do so.
I think one of the biggest factors in buying a full-size SUV is the tough-guy image. If that’s what suits people and they’re willing to pay for it, then that’s the free market working.
But please don’t tell me that it has to do with anything logical or rational. If it did, minivans would rule.
Speaking of light diesels, the GL320 CDI gets the same mileage, is in the same price range, tows 1000lbs more, is available in most states, and doesn’t have the added complexity of the hybrid powertrain which just started production last month. Beta testing, anyone? GM’s own diesel for truck duty is due in a couple of years, I recall.
If you don’t need to tow as much, GM’s Lambda lineup is available for less without having reinvented the wheel as well as multiple competitors’ offerings.
CeeDragon:
I’m a full time minivan driver, does that make me rational or logical? Hah, I wish! Cheap, yes – two minivans cost less than one of these hybrid Yukahoes.
What I don’t understand is why GM didn’t use the 5.3 V8 with its displacement on demand system in combination with the new dual mode hybrid system. Maybe I’m just unsophisticated about this, but it seems to me that the hybrid system could have provided the extra power needed to compensate for the additional weight of the batteries while returning even better gas mileage. Maybe the Tahoe needs the 6.0 V8 to overcome the weight of batteries at slow speeds?
I think if GM was genuinely concerned about improving gas mileage fleetwide, the would make the hybrid option available as a stand-alone option on all of its trucks. GM should also incorporate the displacement on demand technology into all of its LS-based V8, regardless of the displacement. As it stands now in the pickups, the 5.3 makes better power and gas mileage than the 4.8 because of the DoD system. Yes, this kind of technology costs money, but make it an option for those who want it. If you still need a truck to haul your boat to the lake, fine, but at least let’s do what we can to get the best mileage out of trucks as we can.
I think that proves my point. You’ve found vechicles that meet your needs at a good price point for you. I bet you’re getting much better real-world gas mileage than the GM Hybrid SUVs. But you’re not that concerned about image. :)
(Full disclosure – my wife traded in her MDX for an Odyssey and everyone’s happier)
How much weight does the hybrid system add to the already titanic mass of the Yuckahoe?
I want to know because I have foreseen my death, and it is balled up in the wheel well of a Tahoe that just ran a red light as it’s latte-sipping soccer mom was hitting redial on her cell phone and missed seeing both the red light and me out for a Sunday drive in my father’s old Jaguar E-type… the car that I treasure as a family heirloom… which is only 2400lbs and about 36″ high. I’m hoping she hits me with the Hybrid version, because at least she’ll be saving the planet by getting better MPG than my 43 year old car.
–chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
chuckgoolsbee: Amen, thank you. This is my main complaint with SUV’s – they may (almost) get the same mileage as minivans, but I’m not going to get wedged under a minivan in a low-speed collision.
when the market speaks the makers respond. Likea famous genetist recently opined, ” just because you wish it not to be true does not make it so”
To emphasize Mr Montgomery’s point on GM’s strategy to ecomomize the biggest fuel users to save the most fuel, please consider the results from GM’s first application of dual mode hybrids, transit buses. In a recent DOE report, results from the initial commercial usage of these buses was described. The hybrid buses easily reached 27% improvement in fuel savings(diesel in this case) resulting in fuel savings per bus per year over 2000 gallons. The beauty here is that the technology is cost effective in this application, even with the significantly higher initial cost. Read about it here:
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/fleettest/pdfs/40585.pdf
Given that the technology was in hand, if GM hadn’t applied it to the big SUVs, they would have been crucified for holding it back. Guaranteed.
See, the problem I have with the statement of “I need my SUV to haul my kids” is two fold. 1. They could drive something more efficient without question. 2. On my way to work today I counted 72 full size SUVs, Tahoes, Suburbans, Excalades, Sequoias, Durangos, Aspens, etc. There was only one of them with more than just the driver in the vehicle. I dont doubt that the city streets may be filled with more full size SUV kid schlepers, but it does not seem to me to be the majority.
If the object is to move people and “stuff”, a mini-van or FWD-based SUV is an available non-hybrid means to move people and stuff in a vehicle which weighs 1000 to 1500 pounds less than a Yukahoe. And if we saw even a reasonable percentage of these behemoths running around pulling trailers, their use would be justified. The predominance of this class of vehicle is a direct result of their being exempt for many years from the smog, CAFE and safety rules which were applied to automobiles. It was spurred on, and continues to be so, by a tax law which allows businesses to expense vehicles north of 6000 lb GVW. The profit was built in by virtue of the lack of development which had to be done to keep manufacturing them, and consumers responded to a tax law enacted for the benefit of the Big 2.8 by buying them.
Having painted ourselves into a corner, with help from a worthless Congress, the big Hybrid SUV now appears to make some sense, much as having packed a ladder would do had we dug ourselves into a hole. The question should also be, why are we in the hole in the first place?
Jeff in Canada – The Lambda’s will get the 2-mode system within 2 years (GM has said they will average a new hybrid model every 3 months for the 4 years – total of 16)
chuckgoolsbee – Hybrid Tahoe weighs basically the same as normal Tahoe (they used some weight savings tricks to keep the weight gain in check)
Wow these Texas Boyz sure make good writers.
The Friday Night Lights intro works for me: I remember plenty of trips in a 1980’s Surburban to haul drums (or 8 drummers) to and from the stadium. Those were the days. My only beef with the Hybrid is its cost over a regular model. Maybe that can be lowered with tax credits and sweetheart lease deal.
But for those who don’t understand why people like gen-u-wine SUVs, please remember these simple facts:
1. People don’t buy SUVs with the dealer pointing a gun to their heads. They actually want them.
2. The only way to make people NOT like them is to tax the hell outta gas.
3. This is a free country and your freedom ends where my nose begins. Get over it.
First time commenting, but have been a reader for a few years.
I understand that by volume, the switching from a Tahoe to the Tahoe Hybrid saves more gallons of gas than from the Civic to Civic Hybrid, but by your numbers, the Civic 357.1/517.2 = 31% more efficient (or 31% reduction in owners gas cost) compared to the Tahoe 714.3/937.5 = 24%.
The Honda conversion to Hybrid still gains more efficiency than the Tahoe.
See, the problem I have with the statement of “I need my SUV to haul my kids” is two fold. 1. They could drive something more efficient without question. 2. On my way to work today I counted 72 full size SUVs, Tahoes, Suburbans, Excalades, Sequoias, Durangos, Aspens, etc. There was only one of them with more than just the driver in the vehicle. I dont doubt that the city streets may be filled with more full size SUV kid schlepers, but it does not seem to me to be the majority.
You can’t judge vehicle usage by what you see when you are commuting to work. How many parents do you know that take their kids to work every day? By the time they get on the interstate and head downtown they have already dropped off their pediatric payload at school or the local day care. SUV drivers are also not likely to pull their boat to work or haul any of the other junk they busy themselves with on the weekends.
Are there people that buy SUVs as a fashion statement and do none of the above? Of course, but most people don’t. There’s plenty of objective statistical data to back this up.
William C Montgomery:
In other words, a Tahoe owner that opts for hybrid saves 63.1 more gallons of gasoline every year than a Civic driver who makes the same choice.
This demonstrates what GM has been saying for years: improving the gas mileage of the thirstiest (and most popular) vehicles is more important for reducing consumption, pollution and CO2 than wringing stratospheric mileage from the cars that are already among the most fuel efficient.
This is a flawed argument. Of course you’ll save more fuel moving to a Tahoe hybrid because the Tahoe is MUCH thirstier than a Civic in the first place. If we hypothetically say that both the Civic hybrid and Tahoe hybrid get the same percentage improvement in fuel economy over their gas counterparts it will still mean that the Tahoe hybrid saves more fuel compared to a Civic hybrid. It’s simply because a Tahoe is thirsty to begin with, while a regular Civic is very efficient to begin with.
If that’s the main argument for buying a Tahoe hybrid, then it’s not much of an argument at all. Add the fact that GM’s hybrid SUVs have reduced tow ratings and reduced payloads compared to the regular versions of the SUVs, and suddenly they don’t look so great as a people mover. In other words, GM’s hybrid SUVs have limited functionality as people movers compared to GM’s regular SUVs. Then there is the fact that GM’s full-size CUVs offer plenty of interior room, and very close payload and towing numbers compared to GM’s hybrid SUVs while getting just-as-good fuel economy and costing significantly less. The RX and Highlander hybrids also cost much less than GM’s hybrid SUVs.
You have to look at the whole picture here: how many hybrid SUVs will GM even sell? Will it be more units sold than the amount of Civic hybrids Honda sells? The high price of the hybrid SUVs will definitely limit sales. When you consider the fact that GM won’t be selling a whole lot of these hybrid SUVs then it becomes clear that as whole they won’t be making a big impact on reducing fuel consumption or reducing emissions.
“Where is the light duty diesel that could economically power these vehicles?”
Research diesel fuel sulfur content and emissions regulations to see your answer. Reduced sulfur content is finally being phased in.
Many companies, including GM, are working on solutions to hitting the emissions regulations without resorting to urea tanks which need to be replenished on a regular basis (Mercedes’ solution). GM is said to have such an engine in the works for 2009 introduction:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/25/autos/gm_diesel/index.htm
Honda also has a new diesel engine in the works as does VW.
Freedom my @$$. We’re geopolitical and economic hostages to the supply and price of oil, for starters.
$100/barrel oil political cartoons, anyone?
As far as Montgomery’s argument goes, I think he’s right — each hybrid SUV saves more gallons of gas than each hybrid sedan, assuming equal mileage driven per year.
The first question out of the gate, though, is how much more premium do you pay to hybridize an SUV versus the premium to hybridize a sedan? If the premium is much higher, than it can cancel out the fuel savings. I mean that in dollars, and I take dollars to be a rough proxy for energy (and CO2) intensity as well. He hasn’t answered that question yet, and if the numbers are bad, his argument fails before the first vehicle drives off the lot.
But even assuming you are ahead dollars-wise, the argument really only makes sense if you are absolutely wedded to the fact that the SUVs would be sold anyway, or are the best solution to the people- and gear-hauling needs of the Texan suburban masses. I think many people posting here doubt that most motorists who claim to need this vehicle really need quite this much vehicle.
The point is, you can crunch the numbers and decide that even if the hybrid premium is high, the savings still work out in the end. So buy the hybrid version of this vehicle if you have the money and feel inclined. You’ll save money and fuel over the conventional version. And if you desire the image/capabilities of the SUV, you will now be able to enjoy them for slightly less money and environmental impact.
But the one thing you shouldn’t do is wave your green credentials around like you are some sort of hero. Because a lot of spectators will look long and hard at you and your lifestyle, and ask themselves whether your initial choice to buy into the SUV segment was really justified, or whether someone in your position who had real green aspirations would have opted for some other vehicle class instead.
This is a flawed argument. Of course you’ll save more fuel moving to a Tahoe hybrid because the Tahoe is MUCH thirstier than a Civic in the first place. If we hypothetically say that both the Civic hybrid and Tahoe hybrid get the same percentage improvement in fuel economy over their gas counterparts it will still mean that the Tahoe hybrid saves more fuel compared to a Civic hybrid. It’s simply because a Tahoe is thirsty to begin with, while a regular Civic is very efficient to begin with.
That’s exactly the point. The greatest opportunity for reducing fuel consumption is to improve the fuel economy of the least fuel efficient vehicles on the road. Better that GM is addressing the Tahoe than the Cobalt.
Personally, I think the best solution would be for GM to put a fuel efficient 6-cylinder diesel that produces similar power as the 5.3L V8 into the Tahoe at entry level prices. But since that won’t fly in California and the automaton states that follow her environmental standards; I understand why GM chose Hybrid. Besides, they get greener brownie points from the partially informed masses who think that Hybrid vehicles can stop the globe from warming.
William C Montgomery :
That’s exactly the point. The greatest opportunity for reducing fuel consumption is to improve the fuel economy of the least fuel efficient vehicles on the road. Better that GM is addressing the Tahoe than the Cobalt.
I think I’d politely disagree with you; the real numbers need to factor in the quantity of vehicles sold – or really the total mileage driven by all vehicles in each category. In your example of the Cobalt vs. Tahoe, if 10 Cobalts are sold for every Tahoe (and each make is drive the same amount by the owners), you are still much better off making the Cobalt more efficient then the Tahoe – even if the net gain per vehicle is better for the Tahoe.
–Brendon
I’m no SUV fan, but I’ll take the opposite from my usual view on this. Yes, calling a huge hybrid SUV “green” is silly, but improving the mileage of huge SUV’s is not silly. We can argue until we’re blue in the face about whether people need full-size SUV’s, but they do buy them. Given that people buy them, making them more efficient is better than making them less efficient.
Also, today’s premium feature is tomorrow’s standard feature. It won’t be too long until vehicles like this are only available in hybrid form, at which point the “green aura” will probably be gone. But they will still consume less gas than the alternative.
I don’t get the “haul kids around” argument. I’m early 40’s, and I sure as hell don’t remember being driven around. If I had asked my parents to drive me somewhere, they would have looked at me like I had grown an extra head.
We took the school bus to school. Otherwise, we walked or rode our bikes. Later, when I was a teenager, if I had to go some distance, then I either hitch-hiked, used public transport, or Greyhound.
Perhaps it is time to rethink some of the justifications. I can’t help but feel that they are engineered excuses to justify a purchase.
Speaking of driving…. when I was in high-school, my mom absolutely when ballistic when the school district decided to install a high-school student parking lot. She was furious the her tax dollars were being used to pay for a parking lot AND school buses.
Brendon:
I completely agree with your point. Except the Cobalt doesn’t outsell the Yukon 10 to 1. Fifty-four percent of light vehicles sold in the US are light trucks, overwhelmingly dominated by Big 2.8 pickups. The light truck segment has the greatest potential for real impact due to the innate inefficiency of the base vehicles as well as the quantity of vehicles sold.
But even assuming you are ahead dollars-wise, the argument really only makes sense if you are absolutely wedded to the fact that the SUVs would be sold anyway, or are the best solution to the people- and gear-hauling needs of the Texan suburban masses. I think many people posting here doubt that most motorists who claim to need this vehicle really need quite this much vehicle.
And?
Whether they need them or not, they buy them.
Shouldn’t we be happy to see mid-term solutions presented rather than continuing to blather about some un-obtainable fantasy land where everybody in rural Texas drives a Prius?
Americans buy SUVs, whether TTAC readers like it or not.
So, given that giant, useless SUVs will continue to grace our landscape, and given that many of those will be thirsty V8 domestic models, the question becomes rather simple:
Is it better to have a hybrid Tahoe, or not?
Set aside your utopian dreams.
Resist the impulse to formulate yet another anti-SUV diatribe.
Don’t give in to the desire to lecture SUV owners about their environmental responsibility.
Actually think about this instead-
If any of the people who currently drive a large V8 body-on-frame SUV trade it in on one of these, it means they use less fuel and create less pollution this year than they did last year, and it’s my understanding that that’s a good thing.
If we can make even one of those Texas stadium parking lots entirely Hybrid, how much benefit does that bring over what they currently drive?
I’m guessing you’ll have more luck convinving them to trade their current Tahoe in on a hybrid Tahoe than you will getting them to buy a slightly less expensive Prius.
If each of you gave up your efforts to preach the small sedan word and used that zeal to convince just one friend or family member to give up their old SUV and drive one of these instead you’d do a hell of a lot more for our fuel consumption and environment than any amount of inspired anti-SUV diatribes.
The problem is that GM is drinking its own “cool-aide” regarding the the SUV market. People driving around in 6000lb “Trucks” was/is a fashion statement fad that is dying.
What is with America with all of these stupid ideas going around lately? SUVs? Sub-Prime Mortgages? It is a given that folks can and will make money based on false and stupid concepts in the short term, but that is it! There is no longevity in stupid ideas.
Like it or not it is time for GM, and Ford to move away from the full-sized as a core business component. To continue to expect to make profits by selling folks stuff they just dont need is just dumb. The average American has 2 (TWO) children not 4 or 5. The average American of all income levels does not own a boat or trailer of any nature. NO ONE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD TOWS ANYTHING! If they do they rent a damn Uhaul.
By investing in this dual mode Hybrid for their full-sized SUVs GM is foolishly betting that they can continue with this silly fad of soccer moms driving around in APCs. 30 years ago Americans abandoned Detroits full sized sedans and coupes in droves because these cars were seen ineffeicent. The same is happening today for the same reasons.
William Montgomery: “Personally, I think the best solution would be for GM to put a fuel efficient 6-cylinder diesel that produces similar power as the 5.3L V8 into the Tahoe at entry level prices.”
GM’s 4.5 liter diesel is coming (2009?), and will be 50 state compliant. It will increase efficiency 25%. And it will be a better choice for those that spend a lot of time on the highway.
William, your basic argument is correct, and has been well know in green car circles. The economics (of GM’s truck hybrids) is another question, as street prices are not know yet, and may be $8k more than non-hybrid prices.
Bill Wade :
November 19th, 2007 at 9:22 am
“PS: I am a little cynical, especially concerning GM.”
Knowing it is half the battle.
Jeff in Canada writes: “I am suprised GM didn’t develop this hybrid system for their new Lambda SUV’s. That would seem like a better option for the typical SUV owner, (ie: soccermom, family of 5). A 7 pssger Crossover that was able to get 30mpg city would be a real hit I think.
It would at least be a better starting point than a 3 ton Truck based SUV with a 6.0L V8!”
A variation is scheduled to go into the Saturn Vue in about a year, which basically has the same engine/transmission of the Lambdas (same fuel economy in a considerably smaller vehicle).
As the person who covered the GCOTY award for TTAC, I should weigh in on this one.
To the extent that this is a rebuttal to my coverage of that event, I should clarify once again that my criticism was not of the Tahoe per se, but with a self-appointed environmental organization having the gall to refer to such a beast as “green.”
In his fine article of two days ago, Mr. Syed made a basic point that merits repeating: there is no such thing as a “green” car. By their very nature, cars are direct and indirect polluters, as they consume considerable resources to produce and use, and require extensive infrastructure to operate. So some cars are less “brown” than others, but there is nothing environmentally positive about any of them.
Of course, we are all happy that a hybrid Tahoe gets better fuel economy than a normal one, but that was never really the point. It also gets better fuel economy than a Sherman tank, but unless you’re in Normandy fighting the Nazis, you probably don’t need one. What the environmental movement is questioning, rightly or wrongly, is how many people truly need (as opposed to want) such a thing, and to challenge their desire to own one.
A 1969 Mustang got about 10 mpg; a 2008 model averages 18 mpg, an 80% improvement. But I don’t think that any of us would be ridiculous enough to pretend that a ‘08 ‘Stang is a “green” car. It may be a fun car or a fast car, but green it is not.
An environmentalist or anyone concerned about the consumption level of resources would see this as the equivalent of a morbidly obese person reducing the size of breakfast from six eggs to five. While we’re all thrilled with the reduction in egg intake, the question being asked is why you can’t content yourself with just two, for example. The ultimate goal here is not to just have modest improvements over a poor baseline, but to reduce intake and actually lose some weight.
I think that we need to have a reality check here and understand that if you truly, sincerely want to be “green”, then you’re going to have make some sacrifices, end of story. If you don’t want to make sacrifices, then just be honest about it instead of pretending to be green.
I don’t blame GM for making them if people want them, I just find it hilarious that the buyers of such vehicles are vain enough to congratulate themselves for their purchase, when most of them could have figured out how to live with a smaller peoplemover if they really wanted to. (For one thing, a sincere “green” would not even want to spend weekend upon weekend recreating with and towing Jetskis, ATV’s and ski boats, given their environmental impact.) I think what really sets off most of the critics is the hypocrisy, it’s just too blatant not to laugh about it.
That’s exactly the point. The greatest opportunity for reducing fuel consumption is to improve the fuel economy of the least fuel efficient vehicles on the road. Better that GM is addressing the Tahoe than the Cobalt.
Personally, I think the best solution would be for GM to put a fuel efficient 6-cylinder diesel that produces similar power as the 5.3L V8 into the Tahoe at entry level prices. But since that won’t fly in California and the automaton states that follow her environmental standards; I understand why GM chose Hybrid. Besides, they get greener brownie points from the partially informed masses who think that Hybrid vehicles can stop the globe from warming.
Again, you’re missing the point. The greatest opportunity to reduce fuel consumption is NOT just to look at the thirstiest vehicles and be done with it.
The biggest opportunity for reducing fuel consumption is looking at the MOST popular vehicles and looking to see if there is a market for hybrid versions.
Fact is, the Prius is doing more than reduce fuel consumption and emissions than these GM hybrid SUVs ever will. There have been almost 1 million Priuses sold around the world already. Each Prius sold means one less emission-spouting diesel or one less gasoline-powered midsize vehicle on the road.
GM also has to consider that the pickup truck market is very price sensitive. I can already imagine that GM’s hybrid pickups will be expensive and that they will be sold in limited numbers and will not make a real impact.
It’s narrow-minded to look at only the thirstiest vehicles. You also need to look at how many units of those thirsty vehicles are being sold. Then you have to look at the market viability of hybrid versions of those vehicles, and how many of THOSE would be sold.
I will say right here and right now GM will sell less hybrid SUVs each month than Toyota sells hybrid RX and hybrid Highlander models.
William C Montgomery :
I completely agree with your point. Except the Cobalt doesn’t outsell the Yukon 10 to 1. Fifty-four percent of light vehicles sold in the US are light trucks, overwhelmingly dominated by Big 2.8 pickups. The light truck segment has the greatest potential for real impact due to the innate inefficiency of the base vehicles as well as the quantity of vehicles sold.
William:
I’ll concede the point – Yukon sales YTD are ~126k units and the Cobalt is at ~170k units (per gm.com). If truck sales continue to be this high, the potential for impact is quite large… I’m somewhat surprised at the numbers, but perhaps I simply see a greater percentage of cars relative to trucks in my section of Canada.
Johnson:
I think I was trying to make the same point – the real number should reflect the total number of miles driven by all the vehicles of any one type… This is analogous to my argument for buying a LandRover LR3 (still shopping!) – yes, it is not a very efficient vehicle, but I often telecommute, walk or rollerblade to work; my fuel usage is far less then my neighbour with a Prius that drives 3+ hours a day to work and back.
I’ll also echo the sentiment about raising gas taxes – probably the easiest way to solve the issue!
I have three kids and I squeeze them into my 2004 WRX. It supposedly gets 20 mpg in the city by the old EPA standards, but I’ve been getting 18-19 mpg. And honestly, I really am not an aggressive driver, especially with kids in the car.
If the Tahoe Hybrid gets a real world 21 mpg in the city, it’s more fuel efficient than what I’ve been getting in my WRX. And it wouldn’t need premium gas.
Lots of good discussion (full-disclosure I drive an 07 Tahoe and like Brendon from Canada my wife + me both work from home; my carbon offset on it costs $70/yr). I certainly don’t need this vehicle, but I really like using it as our family truckster.
Gas taxes are definitely a necessary part of the remedy, but I believe that displacement tax is perhaps a more effective policy to drive industry change. These are a major component of the vehicular tax structure in the EU. They were phased in since the 80s so the auto makers had time to adjust their product plan. They factor engine displacement of a cars motor into the annual registration fee.
It improves visibility into the cost of ownership for a buyer on the car lot a more than MPG ratings. Our reality in US is that mean math skills are not terribly impressive, so printing the displacement tax on the window sticker for all powertrains available on a given model would have a dramatic impact. Say the tax is eventually ratched all the way up to $300 per 1L displaced – registering that hypothetical 1.3L Camry would be about $400/yr. A 3.5L V6 would be on the order of $1050/yr. Faced with these costs on the window sticker, many Camry buyers would happily chose the 9.6sec 0-60 spec variant of their appliance.
The other environmental benefit is the displacement tax creates an incentive to retire high-displacement legacy stock in favor of cleaner burning, higher efficiency vehicles.
On the enthusiasts front, it’s also the reason that Euro car makers offer such desirable autos with those efficient powerplants they never seem to make it over to the US. Without any systematic advantage to offering smaller engines, the US will be caught in the catch-22 of enthusiasts wanting variants auto makers just won’t offer us…
William C Montgomery,
Your calculations are very nice, but it doesn’t solve the problem the Tahoe hybrid is heavy and inefficient. It can’t really tow all that much and it doesn’t save much gas, so what’s the point?
Toyota’s lineup makes more sense:
Need to tow 5,000 pounds? Take a Toyota Highlander.
Need to tow 10,000 lbs? Take a Toyota Sequoia.
Need to commute long distance? Take a Toyota Prius.
Simply want a large SUV? Take a Toyota Highlander hybrid.
What is the Tahoe hybrid good for?
Adrian Imonti: A 1969 Mustang got about 10 mpg; a 2008 model averages 18 mpg, an 80% improvement. But I don’t think that any of us would be ridiculous enough to pretend that a ‘08 ‘Stang is a “green” car. It may be a fun car or a fast car, but green it is not.
In all fairness, ONE version of the 1969 Mustang – the high-performance, top-of-the-line version – got 10 mpg. The car was also available with mild V-8s and a straight six that got decent mileage for the day, which was more than 10 mpg.
Either way, the new Stang IS a green car compared to the old one, especially since the new car’s exhaust emissions are negligable compared to the 1969 model.
Johnson: Fact is, the Prius is doing more than reduce fuel consumption and emissions than these GM hybrid SUVs ever will. There have been almost 1 million Priuses sold around the world already. Each Prius sold means one less emission-spouting diesel or one less gasoline-powered midsize vehicle on the road.
The Prius still relies at least partially on a gasoline engine, and how often that engine kicks in depends on how the car is driven, so one Prius does NOT mean one less gasoline-powered midsize vehicle on the road.
Johnson: GM also has to consider that the pickup truck market is very price sensitive.
These hybrids are not pickups, these are SUVs. GM’s full-size SUVs appeal to a considerably more upscale crowd than the pickups do.
What is the Tahoe hybrid good for?
You’d need to ask one of the 218K+ North Americans what on earth possessed them to buy a Yukon or Tahoe this year.
As for the Toyota’s, the only one that is analogous to the Tahoe is the Sequoia, which at its best gets worse mileage than the non-hybrid Chevy.
EJ: does the Highlander even tow 5000lbs? I know the Ridgeline claims that number, but I don’t trust the brakes with a full load of cargo, much less 5000lbs in the back. I think Automobile Mag had a good write-up on towing 5000lbs with a Ridgeline to prove my point.
Not to mention a car-based SUV doesn’t have the frame girth and transmission cooling to tow significant loads for long periods of time. Been there, done that.
Maybe you can have you cake and eat it too with the Tahoe Hybrid. I don’t believe so, a clean diesel hybrid is better here. But this is a big step in the right direction.
Again, you’re missing the point. The greatest opportunity to reduce fuel consumption is NOT just to look at the thirstiest vehicles and be done with it.
The biggest opportunity for reducing fuel consumption is looking at the MOST popular vehicles and looking to see if there is a market for hybrid versions.
…It’s narrow-minded to look at only the thirstiest vehicles. You also need to look at how many units of those thirsty vehicles are being sold. Then you have to look at the market viability of hybrid versions of those vehicles, and how many of THOSE would be sold.
I never meant to imply that car companies shouldn’t take measures to increase the fuel efficiency of all of their vehicles. But GM’s light trucks are the biggest gas guzzlers and most numerous products in their consumer fleet. Through October, Chevy has sold 126K Tahoe’s. GMC sold additional 93K Yukon and Yukon XLs. The hybrid drive train could be easily adapted to the full-size GM pickup trucks, of which the company has sold 714K Silverado’s and Sierra’s this year.
So the potential for GM to make significant real world change (per unit savings X volume) is far greater when focusing on their light trucks than on their entry level sedans. Therefore, I think the General is correct in assessing first priority to the trucks.
Toyota’s lineup makes more sense:
From whose perspective?
Need to tow 5,000 pounds? Take a Toyota Highlander.
The Tahoe Hybrid is rated at 6200 pounds, a half ton more than the Highlander. And it gets better mileage when not towing.
Did you really just recommend a less capable, thirstier vehicle in a discussion about needs and capabilities?
Need to tow 10,000 lbs? Take a Toyota Sequoia.
If you need to tow 10,000 pounds you’re not looking at any hybrid, so why not buy a crew cab diesel truck and get better mileage than a Sequoia while sacrificing two seats?
Need to commute long distance? Take a Toyota Prius.
Sure. But then what do I use when I need more than four seats or more cargo room?
Are you suggesting that I own two vehicles with all the attendant costs?
Excellent idea- I don’t understand why everybody doesn’t buy two vehicles rather than one.
Simply want a large SUV? Take a Toyota Highlander hybrid.
Now this is an argument I can agree with.
It’s cheaper than the Tahoe, seats as many people, and is rated for higher mileage.
But, how can you bash the idea of a hybrid SUV and then turn around and recommend one?
If it’s a good idea in the Highlander, then it’s a good idea in the Tahoe.
If it’s not a good idea in the Tahoe, then it’s not a good idea in the Highlander.
What is the Tahoe hybrid good for?
Same thing every other Tahoe is good for, but with lower fuel costs and less pollution.
Why is that mystifying?
It seems to me the Tahoe hybrid is going to be purchased by suburban green posers, not by rugged towers.
The new Highlander hybrid gets 26 MPG (and has 4WD), so that seems a better choice than the Tahoe hybrid (if you don’t need to tow more than 3500 lbs).
Personally, I tow 3500 lbs with my FWD minivan that gets otherwise 24 MPG on average. Works fine for me. On my last camping trip I drove to 8,000 feet elevation towing my camping trailer, then took the whole rig on a dirt road for 5 miles to a remote lake.
I was the only minivan out there; everybody else had some sort of SUV.
Do I need a $50K Tahoe hybrid for that? Don’t think so.
Articles like this wouldn’t be necessary if the US followed the European example and switched its fuel consumption measurement to units of fuel used per distance covered. Going from 16 mpg to 21 doesn’t sound very impressive and provokes a
common reaction: why would I pay thousands of dollars for a lousy 5 extra mpg?
But going from 63 gallons/1000 miles to 48 starts to make some sense. At the $3.55 I paid this morning at Chevron in San Francisco for a gallon of regular unleaded, that’s a savings of $53 bucks every thousand miles. Or $530 every ten thousand. Or $800 a year.
Since we’re buying gasoline, not miles, we ought to measure consumption accordingly.
The two mode hybrid is the cheapest way GM knows to make a buck off the hybrid craze, and that’s it. Rather than build hybrid vehicles they are quite litterally grafting an electric motor and batteries onto existing drive trains, I would not be surprised if ever single car they make gets this quick and dirty treatment. Given their money whoas, perhaps that’s all we should expect from them. The fact remains however, that if marketing wasn’t driving these “innovations”, greenie car of the year would be the all new turbo diesel Tahoe, capable of running on bio-fuel and pulling a small battleship while getting 30mpg.
“I would not be surprised if ever single car they make gets this quick and dirty treatment”
Well then you better slam Toyota, Honda, and Ford who also graft on hybrid technology. Toyota/Lexus has five hybrid versions of standard platforms and only one hybrid only vehicle. Honda killed their hybrid only Insight and has narrow it’s US offering down to the Civic hybrid. Ford’s hybrids are all on existing platforms.
There is exactly one hybrid only vehicle on the market (Prius) and it does not serve every market segment.
The system that allows soccer mom’s to choose a Tahoe, and someone else to choose an old Jag is the only system known to man that can efficiently produce the ability to use even the lightest most efficient vehicle ever designed. Without capitalism and free markets all the peak oil theories and CO2 doomology would be science fiction. You can’t have what you want, limit what choices other people get to choose from, and expect abundance of resources and products.
Here is your choice: Risk death by Tahoe, or let your Jag rot in the garage because your children will not be able to use it. They will likely not have the gas, and certainly will not be able to get the parts.
There is no differentiation between need and want in a free market, capitalist system. GET OVER IT.
Where is the justice in keeping some people from buying SUV’s if the result is that no one can get enough fuel to power their civic? That’s what happens in a state run economy, and that is what so many of you keep pining for. Ban caviar, and before long loaf’s of bread will be scarce.
A problem will not be solved if the guy who has the ability to solve it is deterred from doing so because he is sure that the powers at be will either stop him or steal his rewards.
And, not to pick on the old jag guy too much, they are beautiful and appreciate you keeping it going, but force is now, and has always been, equal to mass times velocity squared. If you really want to talk safety, do you really think you should throw stones from your glass porch? How about we govern all the cars to 35mph or even less?
Nope, if you have a “performance car” your safety concerns all need to come with a big red H for hypocrisy on the label. And don’t start with the better handling and brakes, et al. I actually agree with you on that, but it doesn’t work well when you are complaining about other people’s choices. I have seen a picture of a motorcycle that went through an SUV killing the occupants. Mass is nothing compared to velocity.
I doubt anyone here REALLY owns no more car than they REALLY NEED. Once you cross that line, it makes little sense to draw it where YOU think it ought to go.
If you disagree with me, don’t post, go find someone who has owned a Trabant and get an education.
geeber: the new Stang IS a green car compared to the old one, especially since the new car’s exhaust emissions are negligable compared to the 1969 model.
Geeber, this is where we differ. There is no such thing as a “green” car.
Not even a Prius is a “green” car. By its very nature, no car can be green. A car is a heavy, complex manufactured good that generates pollution from cradle to grave. Although some cars are less wasteful and destructive than others, all of them are destructive and damaging to the environment in some way, shape or form.
The idea of a “green” car is as mythological as the unicorn. They are a construct of PR staffs and advertising agencies, a figment of the imagination. A green consumer is an oxymoron.
Ultimately, your choices are a series of trade offs between what you want and what you are willing to damage in order to get it. If you want to be environmentally conscious in respect to your driving, the solution is obvious: drive as small of a vehicle as possible, as rarely as possible, manufactured and recycled in as efficient of a manner as possible. But even that choice will create a negative environmental impact, it just will be a smaller negative impact than what it would have been had you done the same with a larger, heavier, less efficient vehicle.