Saw a Hybrid Tahoe yesterday

and who are you to pollute the air that we breathe? And who are you to think that you deserve more oil than everyone else? Next time you get in your hummer, remember that all actions have consequences, whether positive or negative.

 

This is an excuse 99% of the time. If you really need to tow for work, buy the most fuel efficient car that allows you to do so that is also in your budget. Most of these people just want to have the ability to tow and almost never use it. For them, it would make sense to simply rent a vehicle when needed, and it would do the environment a big favor.

 

Last I checked, our government also doesn't allow you to walk up to someone and stab them in the back. The reason is that it kills people. The same is true with giant SUVs, and our government should heavily restrict sales of those as well.

You have an interesting worldview where one person's actions have no effect on anyone else. Enjoy your fantasy.

 

I don't need or want one (Tahoe hybrid) but hope GM sells a bunch of um, so many they have to rehire some of their laid-off workforce to meet demand (reading this really doesn't make me want a Hummer)

 

Yep - global warming is the excuse to legislate every aspect of our lives and eliminate individual responsibility and freedom!

 

Actually, the most significant source of CO2 is human and animal respirations and the most significant source of methane is cow farts. If you want to make an argument for using less petroleum you might focus on it being a non-renewable resource rather than the other (political) science arguments. There are many good reasons for having a Prius as a daily driver, but I also tow it behind my diesel motorhome on vacation.

We all have a right to our own opinion!

 

Actually the SUV end of the vehicle spectrum is where it makes the most sense to improve fuel economy. So I think this ridiculing of Tahoe Hybrid is quite ill-advised.
A Tahoe hybrid will consume 306 fewer gallons (in a year) which happens to be ~54% better than a cpmparable non-hybrid SUV rated 11/18 mpg city/hwy (driven 6K miles in the city and 6K on highway). Even better if more miles are city-miles than highway-miles.
In contrast if the fuel economy of a Prius was to be improved to say 70 mpg from (current) 48 mpg - over a year that would result in 79 fewer gallons of gas being used.
So thats 306 versus 79 gallons of gas. Think about that ...
It will take almost 4 (hypothetical 70 mpg) Prius cars to equal the net gasoline-gallons effect of 1 Tahoe Hybrid.
Lets keep an open mind and not dismiss such improvements in automotive fuel economy.

 

That's a very good point, jamgolf. I don't ridicule the idea of more fuel efficient SUVs, I just think that we're still pretty far away from them being cost-effective.

 

According to fueleconomy.gov, the 2WD Tahoe Hybrid would save 222 gallons per year or about 24% (714 gal vs. 936 gal) over the non-hybrid. Of course, if you could persuade John Q. America that a Prius would do just as good a job hauling his solo butt to work we would save 612 gallons per year, or about 66% (324 gal vs. 936 gal) over the Tahoe. Transitioning from an average 22mpg car to a Prius actually saves 358 gallons per year, or 53% (324 gal vs. 681 gal). This is already better than the 222 gallons saved going from a Tahoe to Tahoe Hybrid. Additionally, the price of the Prius being well below the average US vehicle sale price of $28k makes it accessible to the majority of American car buyers greatly multiplying the impact the Prius has. The over 1,000,000+ Priuses sold so far are reducing our gasoline consumption by ~358 million gallons per year and growing.

It seems pretty unlikely that anyone is going to buy a $52,000 truck because they "need" to haul stuff. Most folks who actually need a truck are driving a 10 y/o pickup that they can't afford to put $4 a gallon gas into in large part because the rest of us are wasting it all on our toys. Obviously its a free country, and we can choose to be selfish if we want. But lets at least be honest about putting our own fun above others livelihoods and health. I was at a light today behind a single driver in an Infinity Q35 with a patriotic license plate personalized "LVMYSLDR" or something similar. There was a big huge graphic on the back for "SaluteASolider.org". I really would have liked to ask the person to explain to me how their imported 14mpg SUV is honoring the men dying to protect our country's oil supply.

If you want to talk about actually making a difference, lets talk about making significant improvements to the work, transport and delivery vehicles that make up 1/2 of our national annual fuel consumption and considerably more than 1/2 of the air pollutants. Lets talk about meaningful mileage standards for passenger vehicles. Lets talk about renewing our decrepit rail infrastructure. Lets talk about shifting freight and passengers from truck and air to trains as they're ~10 times and ~28 times more efficient respectively. Lets not pretend that a few hundred chrome plated somewhat more efficient land barges are any meaningful part of the solution.

Rob

 

The "save" nonsense is greenwashing. Do the math to reveal why:

15,000 miles-per-year divided by a 7 MPG improvement (from 14 MPG to 21 MPG) is a difference of 357 gallons. 15,000 miles-per-year divided by a 15 MPG improvement (from 33 MPG to 48 MPG) is a difference of 142 gallons. At the current monthly sales rate (about 20,500 to 250), Prius is outselling Two-Mode 82 to 1. That then means 11,287 total more gallons is saved by those Prius per year.

For the favor to actually swing to Two-Mode (Tahoe & Yukon combined) instead, the difference would have to decrease dramatically, all the way to 2.5 to 1.

In other words, selling 150,000 Prius would have to be matched by the sales of 60,000 Two-Mode hybrids. Do you think that will actually happen? What about the sales of Camry-Hybrid? What about those gallons saved too? And what about if even more Prius are sold each year?

.

 

Let me say this again ...

If one person buys a Tahoe Hybrid instead of a large non-hybrid SUV - it will have the same NET gasoline-gallons effect as 3-4 people buying a Prius instead of a non-hybrid car of similar size.

Also - improving fuel efficiencies toward the low end will result in better NET gasoline usage reduction than improving an already efficient vehicle.

I dont think thats hard to understand ... is it?

In an ideal world everyone would be walking to work, using public transportation, riding bikes or scooters and driving Prius or zero-emission vehicles.
But we dont live in an ideal world - do we?

So every small step in the right direction is worth celebrating. A Tahoe hybrid is better than a non-hybrid. Perhaps GM will decide to use their hybrid system in a smaller SUV or a smaller sedan if this hybrid is even mildly successful.

I think these Utopian criticisms are ill-advised. Lets keep an open mind.

Cheers!

 

This thread really makes me want to say something bad about Texans.....

 

And your comment really makes me want to say something bad about you. Wow ... I am at a loss of words.

 

I've been to Texas and that seems to happen to you guys alot.

Ok seriously, why is it always someone from Texas or some other southern state that pops into Prius chat with less than a dozen posts and decides to start spouting off antiquated ideological views and political tantrums?

Your argument would have merit except you ignore the simple fact that the vast majority of SUV drivers could live a perfectly functional life without an SUV and instead opt for a vehicle that gets 35mpg+. I've made a similar case as you describe but after more thought it just didn't hold the same value for me.

 

F8L,

I agree that people switching away from SUVs would be rational and great for everyone, but I think there are hundreds of thousands of people who just won't make that switch (unless they were forced to because SUVs don't meet some future fuel economy standard).

I work with a number of very intelligent people who insist that they need a truck. They'd be happy to buy a hybrid truck, but it must be a Ford Excretion Hybrid or a Mercury Monstrosity Hybrid.

Of course, in reality, they don't actually need these vehicles. However, I take it as a given that they will continue to buy trucks, so I agree that making trucks more fuel efficient is a good goal.

Also, while 20 mpg is pretty poor in the absolute sense, it really is good for a truck. The Lexus sedan that I traded in for my Prius averaged around 19 with the short commute and stop-and-go driving that I do.

 

I hear you and I agree with you as well. The problem is I am looking at a different timescale than most of those other people and I do not see there being enough time for a long transition period. Between ecological damage, climate issues (regardless if they are anthropogenic or not), peak oil, and a collapsing U.S. dollar I don't think we can pull through if people are simply allowed to take their leisurely time to come to their senses and face reality. It's not that people are stupid, they are just usually woefully unaware of the real situations at hand.

If we had started implementing these ideas in the 1970s we would have been able to make a slow and gradual change. I just don't think we have that luxury anymore.

My original post was directed at the likes of fish antlers and his usual uneducated or uncaring responses. :usa2:

 

I was toying with an idea earlier today. Would outlawing trucks (except for commercial purposes) be equivalent in a civil rights sense to outlawing garbage and leaf burning? Both laws are intended to help the environment, and the second is commonly accepted in most American communities.

I'm all for small government, but some issues are important enough that regulation needs to occur.

 

Quite right, but I think you're too generous.

The 2008 Tahoe 5.3L 2WD is rated 16mpg vs. 21mpg for the hybrid. The 4WD are 16mpg vs. 20 mpg for the Hybrid. At 15,000 miles per year on the combined EPA mileage the hybrids save 222 gal/yr for 2WD, and 186 gal/yr for the 4WD. This is an efficiency improvement of 23.7% and 19.9% respectively. Obviously thats better than nothing, but a far cry from the 60% number GM likes to throw around. If you're talking about trading in an older one like a 2002, then you're right its 21 vs. 14. The way I counted is more the difference between buying vehicle A or vehicle B rather than replacing old vehicle A with new vehicle B.

On the other side, I think you're too generous there too. The number I have seen for the average US light duty vehicle (ie passenger vehicle) currently driving around is 19.8mpg. Even if you restrict that to just cars I think its only 22mpg, while just trucks is 18mpg. So if the average American buys a new Tahoe Hybrid, the 1.2mpg improvement will equate to ~43 gal/yr saved per year. If they bought a Prius they would save ~431 gal/yr. Even if only people trading in cars bought Priuses they would save 355 gal/yr, while if people trading in trucks bough Tahoe Hybrids they would save 119 gal/yr.

Looking at it as the choice between buying vehicle A or B, the average new light duty vehicle sold gets about 26mpg. New cars get about 30mpg, and new light duty trucks (pickups/vans/SUVs) get 22.5. So if the average American chooses to buy a Tahoe Hybrid rather than an average vehicle they'll burn 137 more gal/yr. Even if they would have only considered a truck, they'll still burn 48 more gal/yr in the Tahoe hybrid than the average. Conversely if the average American bought a Prius instead of the average vehicle, they would save 251 gal/yr. Even if they would not have considered a truck, they would still save 174 gal/yr over the average car.

In order for the Tahoe Hybrid to look at all favorable you have to believe that only people trading in or considering purchasing a much less efficient vehicle would consider buying one. I think the reality is they will also draw some buyers who might have considered a more efficient vehicle. When Joe America is told by GM he can haul his wife and 2 kids around in style and safety in an environmentally friendly Tahoe hybrid and get the same mileage as a bland unreliable 4 cyl Camry, he may very well choose to do so. That is of course his right, but everyone that does so cancels out any benefit from someone upgrading from a less efficient vehicle. Given the wide variety of people you see here on Priuschat I think you could argue the same is seen on the other side of things. A car like the Prius doesn't just attract people that already drove efficient cars. There are people on here who traded in sports cars, luxury cars, trucks, SUVs, vans, pretty much anything you can imagine. Thats why I think using averages is more reasonable than just assuming people are trading in Festivas for Priuses and Escalades for Tahoe Hybrids.

None of us are perfect, we all do the best we can in our circumstances. :hippie:
It just bugs me when people/corporations seem determined to try and convince us to do less than our best. :rant:

Rob

 

On that note, I was quite interested to find the study below done by the DOE a few years back. I think a lot of people have wanted to see this kind of data, but the DOT party line has always been to only compare a vehicle's safety to one almost exactly like it. I never did quite get that.





By this estimation, Joe America above is about 50% more likely to die in his Tahoe than if he had bought the Camry. He's also almost 3 times more likely to kill another driver. Interesting.

Is Bigger Safer? It Ain't Necessarily So

Rob

 

I cannot fathom knowing exactly what everyone should do. I do know what is best for me however and I traded away 2 suv's for 2 prii's. I spend lots less money on gas.

Thats good for you and thats good for me. Not to mention my carbon footprint is lots and lots less now. Yea and conservative can care about that too. I like my dollars on gas footprint to get small as it can!