It is a shame because Tahoe Hybrid has higher emission the gas-only model. LEV2 for the hybrid vs. ULEV2 for gas-only.

This is getting out of control.... Who is giving out the award? How do they define "Green"? Fuel saving? Low emission? or combination of both?

http://www.gm.com/explore/fuel_economy/alt.../pdf/2008MY.pdf

Green Car’s online and print publications benefit from the in-depth reporting that's long been provided by the award-winning Green Car Industry Newsletter, an important information source that's been read by executives and decision-makers in the auto industry for over 16 years. It also benefits from Cogan's 30 years as an editor and auto writer – including six years as feature editor on the staff of Motor Trend – that has found him testing production, developmental, and prototype cars around the world and explaining their importance to readers.

from: http://www.greencar.com/aboutus/

Sorry, this whole thing is suspect. Cogan and his publication sounds like a shill for the Big Three.

Anyone can make up an award, and give it a fancy-sounding name.

Harry

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(usbseawolf2000 @ Nov 15 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]540119[/snapback]</div>

Great question. I have people I work with from time to time tell me about a Hybrid. I tell them to beware because Hybrid has several meanings. Point in case: I co-worker came up to me smiling and said he bought a GMC Hybrid Truck. I asked him if his AC worked while he was stopped. He said no. Turns out his Hybrid only shuts the engine off when you are stopped and starts it up for you when you depress the accel pedal. Now he feels like he has been taking to the cleaners.

So next year it will be the Hummer Hybrid?

Sorry, but this is total BS.

The number of people that actually "need" or even make use of the utility of their truck/SUV is somewhere in the <10% of the light duty market range. Encouraging people to go ahead and keep choosing these dirty, wasteful behemoths by claiming that they are now Greenified is nothing less than despicable. I guess I'll just make this Reason #5 on the list of why I will probably never purchase a GM product.

As bad as it already is, it will be very interesting to see if this thing even comes close to its on paper numbers. In the Edmunds drive off, the Aura came in 5mpg (21%) under its city EPA rating. On the same loop the Camry and Altima came in more than 10mpg (33+%) over.

Rob

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob Smith @ Nov 15 2007, 04:13 PM) [snapback]540188[/snapback]</div>

The number of people that actually "need" or even make use of the utility of their 4-door Midsize sedan is in low end of the light duty market range. Encouraging people to go ahead and keep choosing these dirty, wasteful behemoths by claiming they are now Greenified is nothing less than despicable.

How many times do you drive around with four or five people in your Prius? Hmm?? Most of the time you're just hauling around dead weight. You should have gotten a smaller car, like a Honda Insight.


And how is ANY of this GM's fault? GM didn't give itself the award; GM didn't tell these people what to say; and GM shouldn't be made a villian for INCREASING a vehicle's fuel economy by 25% just because you disagree with the manner in which the customer's use it.

And the Aura has nothing to do with this thread at all. It's a completely different "hybrid" system. You just felt the need to do some GM slapping.

You guys are revealing why so many call our cars the Pious Prius. People have the right to purchase any vehicle they want. Just because you think big SUV's are not usefull, that does not mean that someone else cant purchase one. GM makes a ton of money on the sale of their large SUV's. BTW Toyota makes a ton of money on the sale of their large SUV's too.

I think this is an important statement "GM promised they would use hybrid technology, and use it where it would make the most difference – on their biggest vehicles". It makes some sense too.

There is always something to pick on with every car. Even Pri' have their drawbacks. It would be nice if the Hybrid Tahoe had lower emissions than the regular Tahoe, but it doesn't. Probably because of the emissions released during the start stop process of that large engine.

The Tahoe gets 21mpg city. Do you realize that is the same rating as a Honda Civic SI? I don't hear you people railing on Honda as to why they make such a tiny car with such horrible mileage! Plus, no one needs Civic that performs like the SI. It is just a complete waste! Oh, but wait, it is a Japanese car so all is good. Nevermind. <_<

Get off your high horses.

I completely agree. People do have the right to chose what they drive. On the other hand, companies have a big hand in helping us decide what we would like to drive. In recognition of that fact we have a lot of laws regarding truth in advertising. It gets to the point where we have to have legal definitions of "Natural" and "Organic" to keep companies from putting these terms on any old slop in order to sell more. It seems to be getting to the point where we will have to start doing the same with "hybrid" and "green".

Sure the Tahoe hybrid will probably be better than a Tahoe. My mother in law commutes 60 miles a day in a Tahoe, and gets 12-14 mpg depending on time of year. It would be hard for it to not improve on that. Should a company be applauded for making a product that is slightly less terrible? In my opinion the all out media blitz GM is embarking on to paint their same old crappy products (or slightly less crappy versions) green is crossing that line of misleading the public.

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/FalseAdvertising.pdf

If no one ever stands up to these companies and calls bullshit, then they just keep pushing the envelope and misleading people who might actually want to do the right thing. Not that Toyota, or Ford or pretty much any other car company is blameless in this realm. They're just not so in your face about it.

My point on the Aura was this. GM could have done a really good job with it. They could have put out a competitive mid sized hybrid sedan and actually made a positive contribution to society. Instead they put out the same old car with a larger alternator that you can backdrive up to 3mph and focused their development on SUVs. To me that is irresponsible. Thats why I will chose not to purchase their products.

In contrast, Ford actually did a decent job with the Escape. Its a pretty decent blend of utility, performance, and responsibility. Probably a better balance than the Highlander.

Rob

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob Smith @ Nov 15 2007, 06:23 PM) [snapback]540251[/snapback]</div>

Well, this is what the Sierra Club is saying now:

"GM promised they would use hybrid technology, and use it where it would make the most difference – on their biggest vehicles. They have delivered with the Chevy Tahoe,†says Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, pointing out that this vehicle ends the argument that efficiency and vehicle choice are incompatible. He adds that automakers should now make their entire fleets fuel efficient as fast as they can retool.

The truth of the matter is that there will always be a market for large vehicles because many Americans will go for them no matter what. Thus it seems a smart strategy to improve the efficiency of these big trucks (as long as the price premium is not way out of reach) and get some early adoption from the affluent bunch. It's a good strategy to combat Toyota, if not in real MPG then at least in image.

Having said that, I don't buy the argument that this a simple matter of freedom of choice. If we can't learn to choose wisely, we may end up losing that freedom. Our national addiction to oil and our co-dependency on OPEC is bringing us more griefs and troubles than necessary (not to mention the terrible loss of lives and treasury). But it's not clear if your typical urban cowboy consumer considers that angle when purchasing a gas-guzzling Tahoe -- hybrid or otherwise.

There is one other point I want to make here. GM makes a lot of money on their large SUV's. It makes good business sense for them to offer a hybrid SUV. Also, as far as making good environmental decisions, I don't think there is much of a point in trying to reduce oil consumption. I purchased my Prius because I was disgusted with how gasoline cut into my monthly budget.

We will keep consuming oil and eventually we will run out. So what. There are endless energy sources on this planet. Namely Nuclear. Even the Sierra club has quit bitching about Peak oil.

I also think the Ford Escape is a very technologically advanced hybrid. Ford did a good job with the technology. However, I wish they did a bit better with the aerodynamics. That is one of the biggest problems with those little SUV's. The poor aerodynamics prevent them from getting good highway mileage. Note that the Saturn View Hybrid gets better highway mpg than the Escape Hybrid. GM spent a little research on optimizing the aerodynamics of the Vue. I commend them for that.

BTW. I am the type of person to always argue for the underdog instead of jumping on the popular bandwagon. GM is finally doing SOME things right. One other good thing is that their cars are finally starting to look good.

Usbseawolf2000,

Thanks for the reality check with emissions .pdf.

That is truly sad. GM has duped too many for too long. How can they continue?

And, really, how is a 50,000 dollar Giant SUV the answer? Those that can afford that are NOT concerned with 'saving' fuel. sad.

On a better note, the Aura hybrid...wait...nope...no improvement there either...okay, wait...the Volt...now there's..a...not...so ...real ...car..hmm. Seems to be a pattern here.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Winston @ Nov 16 2007, 07:37 AM) [snapback]540541[/snapback]</div>

You should study the effects of extraction and utilization of each of these energy sources. It is not nearly as cut dry as you seem to think it is. This is both cultural and biological effects. The next step is to realze the economy needs to be balanced against the environment, not the other way around which we typically try to do. Unfortunately technology is not going to solve everything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Winston @ Nov 16 2007, 10:37 AM) [snapback]540541[/snapback]</div>

The so what is that currently our entire way of life is dependent on oil. We can chose to barrel full speed ahead until every last drop is gone, and then face the consequences of our entire economy collapsing as we desperately try to adapt to some new mode of transport, or we can do the responsible thing of recognizing ahead of time that we're going to run out and making a controlled transition that minimizes the impact to or even strengthens our economy. It will be far easier and cheaper to transition before the oil runs out than it will be after.

And thats completely ignoring the whole impending environmental crisis side of things.

Saturn's literature claims 25/32 for the 2008, but this is not on the EPA website yet so I'm not sure its official. The '07 Vue hybrid was rated 23/29 or 26 combined ('08 calc). The '07 Escape was rated 31/29 or 30 comb. The '08 escape is rated 34/30, 32 comb. According to the real numbers people are getting, the Vue seems to be coming in at 26mpg while the Escape is running at 31.8mpg. The Vue's numbers are competitive with the Highlander, but the Highlander is larger, carries more passengers, more cargo, has 4wd option, is 3+ sec faster to 60mph and has more towing capacity.
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/saturn-vue.html
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage...-escape2wd.html
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage...hlander2wd.html

I am right there with you on the underdog thing. Except to me GM, being the largest car company in the world, foister of the hummer/suburban, killer of public transportation, saturn, saab, and the EV1 is the evil empire not the under dog :lol: The only thing that makes them the underdog is their greed, lack of vision, and sub-par products. Toyota certainly isn't the underdog either, just marginally less evil (or better at hiding their evil plots). If you want to talk underdogs, lets look at Tesla Motors, Plug in America, Cal-Cars, and some of the real people out there trying to actually bring innovative solutions to the market.

Rob

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Nov 15 2007, 11:57 PM) [snapback]540397[/snapback]</div>

I'm not convinced it has to be that way. In 1975, SUVs represented 1.8% of light duty vehicles sold. In 1988 it was up to 6.3%. In 2007 its estimated at 22.6%. If you add in all light duty trucks and vans, it goes from 19.4% in 1975 to 29.8% in 1988 to an estimated 49% in 2007. At some point not that long ago 80+ percent of us used to get along fine without a truck or SUV. What happened? Did everyone suddenly move out into the middle of the woods/desert to live in caves? No, car companies decided they could make more money selling bigger vehicles and convinced us to buy them. If properly motivated, they could just as easily convince people to buy something else. But they are not motivated.

I think you make a good point about irresponsible actions leading to loss of freedoms. Its looking like it could come to that. Unless the car companies and buyers can get their act together the government is going to have to step in (if they can ever grow a pair and do it). Ironic isn't it that the last guy with enough cahones to stand up to the oil and auto manufacturers was Carter B)
Rob

Rob, you are right 26mpg is not that great. However, I was talking about the 2008 Vue Hybrid. It is completely redesigned from the '07.

http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/vue0...=goo_saturn_vue

However, I do wonder if it will compare the Escape in real world mpg. Since the escape has the atkinson cycle engine.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Winston @ Nov 16 2007, 03:12 PM) [snapback]540703[/snapback]</div>

Glad to hear they are trying to improve it. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it really does. Don't get me wrong, I don't want GM to die a horrible painful death (even if they may deserve it). That would be good for no one. I'm just not in favor of lower the bar for them.

rob

I don't want to lower the bar either. However, it is easy to pick on things because there is something wrong with EVERY car. People tend to point out the faults of American cars but not Japanese cars. I just like to focus on the improvements a bit. Another problem is people making generalizations not based on data. Such as the poor reliability of GM cars. As noted previously their reliability is very good for many brands.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Winston @ Nov 16 2007, 08:31 PM) [snapback]540739[/snapback]</div>

I agree that it is easier to pick on American cars rather than say Toyota cars is that a lot of people on this site have felt duped by American manufacturers because of bad experiences or total disregard for any sort of fuel economy until lately. When you are late to the party and bring crap relative to other guests, people are going to bag on you.

Having said that, most people on PC don't think the Prius is perfect or that Toyota is perfect (at least from my experience). I have read many people complain about Toyota's strategy with the HiHy and the seeming non-interest in providing a hybrid minivan to the US. Despite the improvement in their reliability, the last ratings I saw still had the average reliability less than foreign brands such as Honda and Toyota.

The dangerous part of the technology will save us or there are other sources is that it encourages a wasteful attitude making things run out quicker and can cause a lot of problems when people aren't looking to the future. We can't run out of oil and the next day have the country run off of nuclear power. It would take time to get it ready and it would take time for their to be EVs that people could charge off of nuclear power. Not thinking ahead and trying to maximize our sources of energy and planning for the future will end up with situations like Atlanta and their water crisis.