Last post on Sep 22, 2013 at 6:10 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon Hybrid
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, GMC Yukon Hybrid, Hybrid Cars, SUV
#221 of 337 Re: Just be warned, it may not be all that they say it is... [trueteller]
Feb 22, 2008 (8:48 am)
On 2/21/08, the Detroit Free Press Auto Review Column presented a GLOWING review of the new GM Cheverolet Tahoe Hybrid SUV. The test vehicle was identified as a 6,200 lb vehicle with 1,465 lb payload capacity and the ability to tow 6,200 lb. The full day driving test yielded a REPORTED 26.3 mpg and was praised to the heavens!!!! These numbers are pure BS (if you check out the real tests conducted by automotive web site evaluation teams). Of particular note, the reviewer did NOT provide his/her name!!!
If you believe this unsigned, Detroit-originated propaganda, then how come the highly respected Edmunds.com equivalent vehicle only demonstrated 19.3 mpg overall for several thousand test miles? Per the new Edmunds video "2008 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid Followup Test" most of these miles were highway miles where GM claims 21-22 mpg. Is the Edmunds evaluation team credible? You bet! FYI, Edmunds.com won OVER HALF of the total awards for Automotive Web Sites for complete and accurate tests and reporting of automotive vehicles. The actual test results are less than either the city or highway mileage estimates published by GM. The mileage should fall somewhere between the two.
Edmunds' reports over the past three years have also indicated that GM's claims for mileage are well in excess of actual delivered performance on the road. (Example, the gas-powered Chevy Silverado advertises 15/21 city highway, but only delivered 14.7 mpg overall in actual tests by Edmunds.)
The extra cost for the Tahoe Hybrid is $9,000 (but is reduced to $6,900 after the IRS rebate). Approximately $450 yearly fuel cost savings is predicted over an equivalent non-hybrid Tahoe. After taxes, the real extra cost is $7,620, and the predicted break-even point over time is 17 years! The hybrid version is considerably more complex; hence, reliability factors and normal vehicle service life indicate one will NEVER recoup the extra cost for the hybrid. But you can claim you are "going green." There are no less than NINE badges on the vehicle screaming HYBRID. Whoo...hooo!
OOPS! Don't forget the extra impact on global warning to produce the batteries, the two electric motors, and the more complex drive train required for the hybrid relative over the standard Tahoe system, to say nothing about the recycling of these extra parts. What a deal!
#222 of 337 Re: Just be warned, it may not be all that they say it is... [mikon]
Feb 22, 2008 (2:21 pm)
After that long ramble, maybe summarizing your point would be a good idea.
What's the break-even time of a set of 22" chrome spinners? How about a satellite radio system? OnStar? Leather seats? Third row seat? Power Liftgate? Heated mirrors?
All those are merely "options" just like a hybrid option. And none of them EVER pay the buyer ONE PENNY back.
At least with the hybrid option, you are keeping gas dollars in your pocket and you HAVE a "break-even" point to look forward to.
#223 of 337 Re: Just be warned, it may not be all that they say it is... [mikon]
Feb 22, 2008 (9:21 am)
"Edmunds' reports over the past three years have also indicated that GM's claims for mileage are well in excess of actual delivered performance on the road. (Example, the gas-powered Chevy Silverado advertises 15/21 city highway, but only delivered 14.7 mpg overall in actual tests by Edmunds.) "
One correction that is critical to your comments direction...
GM does not perform the testing for the mileage numbers on the sticker (the same number they use in advertisements and other published numbers). The EPA performs those tests. Those ratings can not be changed by the manufactures. Many (like Toyota) have wanted to be able to change the numbers or wanted to publish more realistic numbers along side the EPA numbers. The EPA refused to allow this. The manufactures take a real beating over those numbers. They want them to be realistic. It was not only consumers, but the manufactures, that had a hand in the EPA changing the way mileage ratings are calculated for all 2008 and up vehicles to reflect a testing style that was more real-world with an outcome of more realistic mpg ratings.
Manufactures do use the EPA numbers in their literature and advertisements (in a way, they are between a rock and a hard place there because if they used their own numbers, it woud confuse people on why they differ from the EPA ratings, etc.)
So let's stop blaming the manufactures for the sticker or published mpg numbers. If you want to rake someone over the coals on this particular subject, you'll need to direct it to the EPA.
I think most people realize the EPA mpg ratings (even the new 2008 ratings) are acquired during a controlled set of operating procedures and real-world numbers will be less. People usually don't drive with mileage in mind (note the number of peoople that pass you going 80 mph, don't time stoplights when possible, jackrabbit start, etc.) If they did, they would probably get a lot closer to the EPA ratings. Even under the old system, I usually got pretty close to the EPA ratings when I drove with mileage in mind. That never used to be very often, but these days, it's more and more, and it's amazing what kind of mileage ratings one can get with a change in driving style. (I'm getting 17city and 21 hwy with my '03 Avalanche which was rated at 15/18 on the sticker. I'm driving at elevation, which improves mileage, but even when I lived at sea level, I was getting 16/19 when driven with mileage in mind. Probably 14/17 when driven without mileage in mind).
#224 of 337 Re: Just be warned, it may not be all that they say it is... [mikon]
Feb 22, 2008 (2:51 pm)
"After taxes, the real extra cost is $7,620, and the predicted break-even point over time is 17 years! The hybrid version is considerably more complex; hence, reliability factors and normal vehicle service life indicate one will NEVER recoup the extra cost for the hybrid. But you can claim you are "going green."
I think you are missing the point of this hybrid. It is not only about saving money. Actually, no current hybrid is about saving money. At this point, you don't buy a hybrid as a strictly economical choice. If you are only concerned about payback, a hybrid isn't for you. They do, however, use way less gasoline than an equivalent non-hybrid, which is beneficial in so many ways. Plus, the current hybrids are stepping stones in bringing down cost, improving technology, and improving mileage even more. Maybe at some point, there will be a shorter payback and that train of thought will have it's place. It should continue to happen as technology improves and as gas prices continue to rise.
You also seem to complain about the minimal mpg improvement. What most people don't consider is that from a percentage improvement, it is on par with the hybrid cars. On a vehicle that only gets 16mpg on average, and bumping that to 19mpg on average, you jumped almost 19%. For comparisons sake, a non-hybrid that gets 32mpg would have to jump to a little over 38mpg. (and, per both the EPA sticker ratings and edmunds real-world tests, the mileage improvements for the Tahoe hybrid are actually more than 19% improvement)
Even more telling is how many gallons of gas one would save in a year.
Even based on only 15,000 miles a year (many drive much more):
16mpg = 937 gallons
19mpg = 789 gallons
Saved 148 gallons/year with a 19% improvement.
32mpg= 469 gallons
38mpg= 395 gallons
Saved 74 gallons/year with a 19% improvement.
So the 19% improvement in mileage avoided the use of 148 gallons when done on a poor mileage vehicle and the 19% improvement in mileage saved 74 gallons when done on a good mileage vehicle. So this goes back to a point many people have mentioned (but people seem to forget). We should be focusing hybrid technology on the worst of the worst gas guzzlers rather than the best of the best. There is more benefit. More gallons of gas saved per mile driven.
#226 of 337 Re: Just be warned, it may not be all that they say it is... [galvang]
Feb 25, 2008 (6:38 am)
I have ine and it was prices 12,000 below the 68 you are suggesting
#227 of 337 Re: Just be warned, it may not be all that they say it is... [jentrac]
Feb 25, 2008 (9:53 am)
I've been told by more than one dealer that pricing will be close to MSRP - i.e. about $55,500 for a Tahoe Hybrid 4x4 with Entertainment and sunroof.
#229 of 337 Re: Just be warned, it may not be all that they say it is... [bbooze]
Feb 28, 2008 (8:28 pm)
My Yukon Hybrid is supposed to arrive tomorrow. I've not seen the final figures on it yet, but it should come in just under $55K with the sunroof and DVD player.
Does anyone know yet if they all have the big HYBRID sticker along the bottom of the doors?
#230 of 337 Re: Just be warned, it may not be all that they say it is... [dixienbailey]
Feb 29, 2008 (9:41 am)
Apparently they do. However I have talked to the dealer (have a Tahoe hybrid on order that should arrive any day) and have told him that I want those stickers removed. They have told me more than once that that will not be a problem, so you should be able to have them do that for you if you wish.
I don't know why GM has to do that. There's something to be said for being "subtle".