"The reality now is that people want maximum mpg," he says. "The most fuel-efficient hybrids are selling a lot better than the hybrids that are oriented toward power."

GM needs to get a clue.

I'd be glad to sell them one.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 23 2007, 11:34 AM) [snapback]516571[/snapback]</div>

That is why I personally am interested in what GM is doing with hybridization of the Tahoe/Yukon platform. There is a real market demand for that type of vehicle in the U.S. If it is possible to get the Tahoe/Yukon platform to become environmentally responsible (and I think that there is a bit further that a hybridized Tahoe/Yukon has to go - like lose about 1,000 lbs., but it is a start), then it should be possible to do the same with Trucks & Muscle cars. Maybe one day, there will be a NASCAR category for hybrid truck races? One can always hope....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 23 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]516571[/snapback]</div>

But these are the self same people bellyaching about the hybrid subsidy. How they're paying an extra $2,000-$4,000 above the equivalent gas only model and there's no difference. The "savings" in gas doesn't "pay for itself". Getting 16 mpg instead of 14 mpg isn't going to do it.

Honda got it. That's why they dropped the hybrid Accord that was hybrid for power, not FE.

I don't think making hybrid SUV or muscle cars is the answer. I think getting people to realize they don't NEED an SUV is the answer. Then put them in a car that gets 50 mpg.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 23 2007, 12:37 PM) [snapback]516591[/snapback]</div>

Good luck (getting them to realize they don't NEED an SUV). Some people like to have the ability to tow a boat or have room for the kids and their friends. I sold my 2003 Yukon Denali to a family that wanted it for annual ski vacations to Lake Tahoe. Once people have made up their mind about something, it is really hard to get them to change it. Remember the 2004 presidential election? The lies about weapons of mass destruction were exposed for all to see. It didn't stop people from voting for 4 more years of lies and deception. So, back to my original point - changing the efficiency of the vehicle becomes a win-win.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Sep 23 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]516595[/snapback]</div>

I'm not talking about those people.

I'm talking about the single commuters that never camp, never haul, don't own a hammer and don't NEED an SUV. I'm talking about those that only drive an SUV because of the status, or that they think it's "safer". The ones that probably also whine the loudest about the price of gas. The ones for which changing to a hybrid would be no trouble at all....except convincing them to do it.

My parking lot at work is full of their SUVs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 23 2007, 02:21 PM) [snapback]516563[/snapback]</div>

You may want to sell one to Lexus too... Last I checked, the purveyor of "Power of a V12 with the economy of a V8" doesn't have one either.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Sep 23 2007, 04:42 PM) [snapback]516610[/snapback]</div>

And at least GM's Lutz finally saw the wisdom of putting the kibosh on his pet project, the 16 cylinder, 1,000 HP Caddy ... though you could really hear the reluctance in his voice. Maybe next year, after he hybridizes it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 23 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]516571[/snapback]</div>

The horribly sad part is that Peak Oil will all too soon make this segment convinced of hybrid's viability.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Sep 23 2007, 04:11 PM) [snapback]516648[/snapback]</div>

Some would be forced to change their ways; but not all. There was an article recently about people that are current on their credit cards but delinquent (some even in foreclosure) on the house.... Go figure that one.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Sep 23 2007, 07:11 PM) [snapback]516648[/snapback]</div>

Meanwhile, Lexus continues with their plans to roll out supercars that nobody will buy... the F division.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Sep 23 2007, 04:33 PM) [snapback]516654[/snapback]</div>

Maybe Lutz will use Lexus' roll-out of its supercars as a way to goad GM into launching his uber-Caddy. It kind of worked with hybrids - talking about how Toyota beat GM to the punch when they both invented Hybrid technology around the same time.... Maybe Lexus knows something that GM doesn't (again?).

Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute have repeatedly demonstrated vehicles are lighter, more durable and more crash resistant, while losing substantial mass, when bodies are made of molded carbon fiber (vs. steel). Reduce mass and you increase fuel economy, without changing vehicle shape or any thing else. According to RMI, Detroit is working with RMI and aware of carbon fiber cost-benefits.

A recent week long conference at Stanford University included Detroit engineers who stated, even under the best of circumstances, Detroit is highly resistant to change or logic. Conference was held 28 March 2007.

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid231.php

Which is larger? The family sedan market or the truck market?

How many driving SUVs and trucks could really drive a sedan? 5%? 10%? I'm thinking more than that.

I get the feeling that if nobody had said the word "hybrid" there'd be little argument here.

Substitute this: GM has decided to offer large SUVs in the 2008 model year that get 25% better mileage than last year's models.

I find it hard to view that as a bad thing. The only downside I can see, from the standpoint of total US fuel consumption, is that it might entice some people who would otherwise downsize their next purchase to continue to buy a large SUV. But that has to be a secondary impact. On net, this is going to cannibalize sales of other large SUV models, mostly. And so, on net, this is going to reduce US fuel use.

And it's probably going to be pretty close to costless to the consumer, over the life of the vehicle. If you take a 25% improvement at face value, start with the egregious E85 version of the Tahoe (12 mpg overall), the fuel savings are worth about $7500 over the life of the vehicle (at $3/gallon, 150,000 mile vehicle life). Even if you start with the straight gas model (16 mpg) the fuel savings with 25% improvement (to 20 mpg) are about $5500. So to the retail customer, in all likelihood this will look like a costless reduction in fuel use. Pretty close to a no-brainer decision, as long as you trust the reliability of the technology.

If you really want to see something awful, go to www.fueleconomy.gov, go to "search by class", list out all the SUVs, and search for the first "Yukon". The list is sorted my MPG best to worst.

The Yukon is nowhere near the bottom of the list -- eyeballing it, I'd say 40% of the SUV models offered for sale in the US have MPG less than or equal to that of the best Yukon model at 16 mpg.

Shoot again, if GM succeeds in getting 20 mpg out of that tank, the, eyballing that list, the hybrid Yukon's MPG will rank it as good or better than 80% of the SUV models sold in the US, where SUV includes wagons like the PT Cruiser and the Subaru Forrester.

For example, if GM gets the 25% improvement, the hybrid Tahoe will get the same mileage as the non-hybrid Highlander 2WD, or the non-hybrid Escape 2WD (with 6 cylinder and automatic), or even the Subaru Outback AWD, which is basically a station wagon. Crawling up the listing, the first "SUV" to beat it would be some version of the the PT cruiser (21 mpg). (The Escape with 4 cylinder and manual transmission would beat it, with 23 mpg).

Obviously, the US would save a lot more fuel if people would buy smaller vehicles. But those more efficient choices are there, so it's clear that the efficiency of the US fleet is limited far more by people's propensity to consume than it is by auto engineering. I'd say few SUV buyers "need" an SUV in any sense of the word "need" that I understand, but that's true of most things Americans buy. Not much can be done about that short of another great depression.

Given that, I try to look on the bright side. People who are going to buy an SUV are going to buy one anyway, whether or not there's a hybrid Tahoe is available. But thanks to the fact that the Tahoe is such a gas hog, a Tahoe buyer who opts for the hybrid model will reduce fuel consumption more than a Civic buyer who opts for the hybrid model. No question that the Civic buyer is using less gas, but if people are going to buy SUVs, boosting the gas mileage 25% in that auto segment is at least as helpful as boosting it for sedans.

So maybe GM will unleash a race to the top. If Ford wants to keep selling a six-cylinder Escape, seating 5 people, maybe it'll have to work on the mileage a bit, once GM is selling a Yukon hybrid that gets the same mileage but seats 8. Not that I think the average Yukon buyer cares about mileage, but it still raises the bar quite a bit in the large SUV segment.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Sep 24 2007, 08:42 AM) [snapback]516826[/snapback]</div>

This is a good point. The big truck, SUV, muscle car group hears the word hybrid and all they can see is one of those dam*ed candy a$$ rice burning toy car Prius sh*t boxes. It's a knee jerk reaction. Eventually we won't think any more about having a hybrid system in a car or truck than we think about the computer in our microwave oven. It's a small computer chip, but who cares. All I want is for my food to get hot. (I'm being a little less than honest; I am endlessly fascinated with all things technical, but you get my point.)

Tom