Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Friday September 19, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-27-2007, 02:21 PM   #1
AVANTI R5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 73805
Join Date: Nov 2004
Default GM Expects 40% mileage boost on Yukon,Tahoe hybrids




Originally, when the GMC Hybrid and the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid made their debut, GM said they expect a 25 percent improvement in fuel-economy than their standard versions. GM is now saying that it expects the to get 40 percent better fuel-economy giving them both 19 or 20 miles to the gallon.
When the Yukon and Tahoe debut this fall, they will be equipped with, what GM calls, a two-mode hybrid that uses two The engine is costing GM $10,000.
“We haven’t decided where we’re going to price it,” Lutz previously said in an interview. “If we price it at full cost recovery, I’d say we probably would sell - not very many.
GM will also offer thewith the to be the first in 2009.
We still think these are just too big to even bother with incorporating. Why not spend hybrid developmental cost somewhere else GM?

http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/07/27...tahoe-hybrids/
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
AVANTI R5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 04:03 PM   #2
scott_gunn
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4203
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Vehicle:
2009 WRX 5spd hatch
Platinum Silver Metallic

Default

Current fuel mileage is 16/22 so that's 22/31 city/highway for the mathematically challenged.

Very, very impressive for a full-size SUV.
scott_gunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 05:55 PM   #3
benyl
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 48833
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Vehicle:
'05 Dirty STi
'08 E92 335,'03 E46 M3C

Default

Quote:
We still think these are just too big to even bother with incorporating. Why not spend hybrid developmental cost somewhere else GM?
Because that is where the fuel needs to be saved. Small cars like the Honda civic already sip fuel.
benyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 07:46 PM   #4
scott_gunn
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4203
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Vehicle:
2009 WRX 5spd hatch
Platinum Silver Metallic

Default

True benyl, a 40% improvement in a Tahoe saves a lot more gas than 40% in a Civic over the same amount of miles.

Plus, the large cost of the hybrid system is a lot easier to absorb in a $40k Tahoe than a $20k economy car.
scott_gunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 08:54 PM   #5
JC
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 692
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
2006 Pontiac GTO M6
Triumph Street Triple R

Default

You actually cut off a pretty important part...

Quote:
GM will also offer the two-mode hybrid engine in Cadillac’s entire lineup with the Escalade to be the first in 2009.
A full size DTS that gets mid size mileage could help Caddy's struggling large cars get an advantage. I'd rock a hybrid Tahoe for what it's worth. I might even buy one in a couple years.
JC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 09:14 PM   #6
Stanley
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 7374
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: North Bay, SFCA
Vehicle:
2007 Grandpamobile
BlingBlingBlue

Default

Wow, completely wasteful vehicles being loaded up with all sorts of batteries. This is nothing but marketing, imho.
Stanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2007, 09:27 PM   #7
Hazdaz
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 14611
Join Date: Jan 2002
Default

OK, I applaud GM for finally pushing forward with a true hybrid (and no, past GM attempts at a hybrid were 1/2-hearted at best), and if those numbers are accurate the gas savings is impressive... but the fact remains that these full-size SUVs are beyond wasteful to begin with - hybrid or not. For the vast majority of cased a nice wagon (or even minivan) would serve the needs of those looking to haul people around better.
Hazdaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 12:53 AM   #8
quentinberg007
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 7887
Join Date: Jun 2001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_gunn View Post
Current fuel mileage is 16/22 so that's 22/31 city/highway for the mathematically challenged.

Very, very impressive for a full-size SUV.
It says in the article "GM is now saying that it expects the to get 40 percent better fuel-economy giving them both 19 or 20 miles to the gallon."



~~Quentin
quentinberg007 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 01:09 AM   #9
Lantec
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 48685
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.
Vehicle:
2010 Prius
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quentinberg007 View Post
It says in the article "GM is now saying that it expects the to get 40 percent better fuel-economy giving them both 19 or 20 miles to the gallon."



~~Quentin


***Quentin, I'm not arguing with you, please don't take offense***

And that's supposed to be good??? Put in a diesel and you get those without all that electronic fuss, most likely even better mileage and more torque
Lantec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 07:19 AM   #10
scott_gunn
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4203
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Vehicle:
2009 WRX 5spd hatch
Platinum Silver Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quentinberg007 View Post
It says in the article "GM is now saying that it expects the to get 40 percent better fuel-economy giving them both 19 or 20 miles to the gallon."



~~Quentin
I'm not sure how the article is getting 40% better = 19 or 20. That would only be true if they currently got 13 or 14. So I think the writer failed math class or made a mistake.
scott_gunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 09:00 AM   #11
quentinberg007
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 7887
Join Date: Jun 2001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantec View Post


***Quentin, I'm not arguing with you, please don't take offense***

And that's supposed to be good??? Put in a diesel and you get those without all that electronic fuss, most likely even better mileage and more torque
I wasn't saying it was good or bad. The was for the math. It doesn't make any sense at all, as ScottGunn pointed out.

I've personally thought everything Explorer sized and larger should have a diesel for several years now.

~~Quentin
quentinberg007 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 09:17 AM   #12
Hazdaz
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 14611
Join Date: Jan 2002
Default

To clarify:

The current Tahoe with the smaller engine (4.8L) gets 14/19 mpg according to Edmunds.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/chev...760/specs.html

40% better mileage than that would be 20/27, not 22/31 as SCOTT_GUNN posted. I am also suspicious of that 40% claim because hybrids in general dramatically improve city mileage but don't improve highway mileage a ton. When the real numbers come out, I am expecting less than either of the numbers are all are guessing at now.
Hazdaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 10:57 AM   #13
GSXR
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 42855
Join Date: Sep 2003
Default

I agree. I bet the 40% gain is only on the city and highway is marginally improved if they have cylinder deactivation.
GSXR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 11:00 AM   #14
scott_gunn
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4203
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Vehicle:
2009 WRX 5spd hatch
Platinum Silver Metallic

Default

The hybrid system will be paired with their 5.3L V8, which in the 2007 model got 16/22. That's what I was looking at. http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/chev...944/specs.html

For the 2008 model it says 14/20 for the 5.3L V8 - I guess it's the new EPA ratings.

I would assume they mean a 40% improvement in the combined mileage, so I would expect it to be better than 40% in city driving and less than that in highway driving.
scott_gunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 11:06 AM   #15
scott_gunn
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4203
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Vehicle:
2009 WRX 5spd hatch
Platinum Silver Metallic

Default

I just found another article that clears things up a bit - disregard mine (and everyone else's) speculation:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-hybrids_N.htm
scott_gunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 11:21 AM   #16
prometheum
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92003
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: International
Location: Tatooine
Vehicle:
04 bicycle!

Default

the lexus rx400h gets 32/27 for the fwd version and 31/27 while the rx330 (discontinued in 2006 they both have the same displacement engine though) gets 19/25 and 18/24 for fwd and awd versions respectively

thats a 68%/8% increase in economy for the fwd version and a 72%/12% increase in economy for the awd version....so i certainly hope that the 40% is some type of combined mileage number, but wouldn't it make more sense from a marketing standpoint to just publish the city number...
prometheum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 12:41 PM   #17
WRXBob
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 12455
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: CA
Vehicle:
02 WRX

Default

Up to 40% increase in gas mileage from EPA rating only happens under best condition like carrying single occupancy and going down hill with tail wind and hot air from GM marketing people.
WRXBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 01:57 PM   #18
prometheum
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92003
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: International
Location: Tatooine
Vehicle:
04 bicycle!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXBob View Post
Up to 40% increase in gas mileage from EPA rating only happens under best condition like carrying single occupancy and going down hill with tail wind and hot air from GM marketing people.
i got pretty much what the sticker told me i'd get on my accord and on my celica...
prometheum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 05:19 PM   #19
silverlegacy
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 90877
Join Date: Jul 2005
Default

The dual mode hybrid is supposed to increase highway mileage as well.
silverlegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 05:34 PM   #20
Hazdaz
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 14611
Join Date: Jan 2002
Default

Quote:
USA Today:
giving the hybrid Chevrolet Tahoes and GMC Yukons 19 or 20 miles a gallon in stop-and-go driving.
...
If GM's forecast is accurate, expect the big hybrid SUVs to be rated 19 or 20 miles per gallon in town, 20 or 21 in both highway and combined city-highway driving, using the government's 2008 fuel economy formula.
So basically 20 city/20 highway...
WOW that will solve all our oil problems in the US!!

No wonder GM is being semi-vague about the actual EPA numbers... cuz they still suck. They suck less, but they still suck for a vehicle that is driven by people that would be much better served by a more economical vehicle.
Hazdaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 05:49 PM   #21
soldmyboxster
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 65520
Join Date: Jul 2004
Chapter/Region: International
Default

Anyone who buys a Tahoe or Yukon to save money at the pump is just kidding themselves.

I think GM (and the USA) would be better served trying to make the behemoth lighter and more aerodynamic. Does every large SUV have to be shaped like a brick? I'll bet they could easily lose 1000 lbs. off of it, more if they actually tried.
soldmyboxster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 08:02 PM   #22
Lantec
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 48685
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.
Vehicle:
2010 Prius
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soldmyboxster View Post
Anyone who buys a Tahoe or Yukon to save money at the pump is just kidding themselves.

I think GM (and the USA) would be better served trying to make the behemoth lighter and more aerodynamic. Does every large SUV have to be shaped like a brick? I'll bet they could easily lose 1000 lbs. off of it, more if they actually tried.
But then people that buy it will notice their miniscule bulge in their pants shrinking even more because it won't look as imposing and as big on the street.
Lantec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 08:06 PM   #23
Stanley
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 7374
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: North Bay, SFCA
Vehicle:
2007 Grandpamobile
BlingBlingBlue

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_gunn View Post
I'm not sure how the article is getting 40% better = 19 or 20. That would only be true if they currently got 13 or 14. So I think the writer failed math class or made a mistake.
EPA estimates notwithstanding, my sister gets 12-13 mpg in her 2005 Tahoe. She says it doesn't really matter if she's on the freeway or in town.
Stanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 08:26 PM   #24
scott_gunn
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4203
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Vehicle:
2009 WRX 5spd hatch
Platinum Silver Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
EPA estimates notwithstanding, my sister gets 12-13 mpg in her 2005 Tahoe. She says it doesn't really matter if she's on the freeway or in town.
I used to have a 2002 Avalanche (hence my attraction to the big Chevy vehicles - it was awesome and by far the highest quality vehicle I've ever owned) and I averaged 18-19 combined and the vast majority of my driving was a city rush hour commute. Before that I had a 2002 WRX and I didn't do much better, maybe 21-22 (but I drove it like a bat out of hell ). Now I have an older (1999) Maxima and think I get about the same gas mileage I got with the Avalanche although I haven't done a precise calculation so I can't say for sure.

Regardless, the Chevy 5.3L Tahoes/Silverado are the most fuel efficient vehicles in their class already. Adding a 40% in-town improvement will just extend their lead and I think GM deserves a little credit here.

Sure, a lot of people who drive Tahoes don't *need* them, but it's not GM's fault if they insist on driving a large SUV. At least GM will be able to offer them the most fuel efficient behemoth that still retains large truck towing/hauling capability.
scott_gunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2007, 08:46 PM   #25
Hazdaz
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 14611
Join Date: Jan 2002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_gunn View Post
I used to have a 2002 Avalanche (hence my attraction to the big Chevy vehicles - it was awesome and by far the highest quality vehicle I've ever owned) and I averaged 18-19 combined and the vast majority of my driving was a city rush hour commute. Before that I had a 2002 WRX and I didn't do much better, maybe 21-22 (but I drove it like a bat out of hell ). Now I have an older (1999) Maxima and think I get about the same gas mileage I got with the Avalanche although I haven't done a precise calculation so I can't say for sure.

Regardless, the Chevy 5.3L Tahoes/Silverado are the most fuel efficient vehicles in their class already. Adding a 40% in-town improvement will just extend their lead and I think GM deserves a little credit here.

Sure, a lot of people who drive Tahoes don't *need* them, but it's not GM's fault if they insist on driving a large SUV. At least GM will be able to offer them the most fuel efficient behemoth that still retains large truck towing/hauling capability.
Seeing as how the EPA numbers for even the lowest grade 2002 Avalanche is 14 city / 18 highway, my BS-sense is tingling. Either you have no clue how to calculate miles per gallon or you are just flat out full of it.
Hazdaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GM pursuing Chrysler for repayment of Two-Mode Hybrid development Tea cups Non-Subaru News & Rumors 0 06-24-2009 05:38 AM
GM Reveals “Fuel-Saving” Chevy Silverado & Tahoe and GMC Sierra & Yukon XFE Models AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 6 08-12-2008 01:37 PM
REVIEW: Spies get a first drive in the new Tahoe Hybrid- Does it deliver? AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 18 01-10-2008 08:51 PM
Tahoe hybrid also flex-fuel capable. scott_gunn Non-Subaru News & Rumors 0 11-27-2006 01:19 PM
gas mileage, boost controllers scott_gunn Factory 2.0L Turbo Powertrain 1 04-26-2001 06:32 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.