Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon Hybrid Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon Hybrid
301 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 10:58 AM
You are in the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon Hybrid Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: tourguide (Sep 27, 2007 7:43 pm) While this is impressive city mileage, it is not entirely impressive at highway speeds. I have seen reports of this highway figure before for the regular ICE Tahoe. All the hybrids do the same thing. Electo-mechanically they improve the City part of one's driving by 40-50% while giving the Highway portion a little boost. This is a huge benefit for us all. 40-50% fuel savings?? OK many don't drive all the time in the city but for that portion of driving it's fantastic. If one could magically sweep a wand over the entire driving fleet and improve the worst characteristic ( city driving ) by 40+% we'd save millions and millions of barrels of oil annually. 'Green' 'Payback' 'Worth it' are all code words for resistance to change IMO. The basic issue we now have is that in the near future, say 5-10 yrs, we will not have enough fuel to power all the vehicles we will be driving. So who will be the first to stand up and say, 'No I don't want my allotment this week. Give it to someone else.' In addition, as a result of the shortage of available supply we may wish for $3/gallon fuel iso $5 or $6 per gallon fuel. Our goal now should be to save as much of our current usage as possible to use later when our own demand is 60% higher. [Rant activated] Here are some sobering thoughts... Now there are probably 100 - 150 million vehicles on the road. No one can agree on the actual number due to differences in state registration procedures. Take the low side at 100 million. The Average Fuel economy of our fleet is about 20 mpg or 50 Gal per 1000 miles driven. We drive about 15000 miles annually or we use about 750 gal per vehicle. Increases in thenumber of drivers and the distances we travel will cause our total 'usage' to increase by about 60% in the near future. This is just we and our neighbors. It has nothing to do with China or India ( +300% estimated ) So if no new sources of fuel are found and we need 60% more fuel by 2015 it has to come from somewhere>>>>> ...more efficient vehicles; +40 - 50% is needed. ...new sources of fuel; very good option but distribution is a problem. ...driving more efficient vehicles than the current fleet; drop off the SUV and buy a Fit or Aveo. ...fuel tax of $2.00 per gal ( on top of $5/gal market price? ) as a disincentive to driving. ...rationing; if demend increases 60% then a driver who now puts 24 gal in an SUV every 3-5 days then may have to do with 15 gal every 3-5 days in order for his neighbor to be allowed his proper allotment. [Rant OFF] This has nothing to do with 'Green' 'Payback' or being 'Worth it'. It has everything to do with keeping the peace in the streets, not having to guard our driveways at night and maintaining our standard of living.
|
|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Sep 28, 2007 3:05 am) Yes Bob Lutz did say that there would be a $10000 'cost' for the 2-Modes. That doesn't mean that the pricing will be $10000 higher. A significant part of this cost is money already spent on R&D. In the GM press release it was estimated at $1 Billion shared by GM, MB and BMW. I'm certain that the 'extra' cost to make each of these vehicles is somewhere in the range of $3000-$4000. Now how GM decides to recoup it's R&D costs ( $6000-$7000 ) is an internal accounting matter. I feel very confident that in comparing two vehicles in the Tahoe/Yukon line with the same equipment, one an ICE and one a hybrid, will show about a $4000 pricing differential. It's very likely that GM buyers of these hybrids may qualify for a substantial tax credit in the coming years. That's up to the IRS and each individual's tax situation. |
|
|
Replying to: galvang (Sep 30, 2007 8:51 pm) Well the second part of your belief is purely subjective - who's to decide what constitutes "harm to others"? Just be sure to figure in the costs that must be borne by "others" when you decide how much freedom to bestow to average working people. |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Oct 01, 2007 12:36 pm) At times like that it will be difficult to stomach an $800+ payment per month, PLUS $140 per tank of fuel. Everyone is going to have to find a way to make ends meet, that includes the cost of commuting to work. Nobody wants rationing, but in my world I need to be able to pay the bills and put food on the table. |
|
|
Replying to: galvang (Sep 30, 2007 8:51 pm) I don't think it is reasonable to expect people (and corporations are composed of people) to lobby against their self-interest. Also, the whole point of a democratic society is that wether or not an issue is incorrect or wrong to the society as a whole is actually determined by the society. I gather that your own individual opinion is that their lobbying is not proceeding in the direction you wish, but I suspect other people would disagree with this view. My observation of history leads me to say that only communist, fascists, or dictatorships have a coherent and unified concept of what is "incorrect and wrong to the society as a whole." I think fuel economy standards should be driven by the consumer, not government regulations.
|
|
|
Replying to: stevedebi (Oct 02, 2007 9:01 am) Thats's corporate facism. Here's what Musalini supported "Corporate Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." I'm not for that. "I gather that your own individual opinion is that their lobbying is not proceeding in the direction you wish, but I suspect other people would disagree with this view." You miss the point and confuse the issue here, Society as whole its about "We the People" as I stated not "I the Corporation" as you want. "I think fuel economy standards should be driven by the consumer, not government regulations." Thats the problem, its not driven by the people but rather from corporations.
|
|
|
Replying to: galvang (Oct 02, 2007 6:18 pm) FWIW, the words "I the Corporation" were not in my post. Use of quotation marks indicates these were my words; they are not. Sorry, I think we've drifted off topic, so I won't be responding to this particular post. Obviously we have differing opinions... 
|
|
|
Replying to: stevedebi (Oct 02, 2007 9:01 am) In the absence of any other considerations I agree, let the market decide and find its own equilibrium. However there are more pressing issues that a lot of the policy makers, academics and professionals in the field know that we the public do not. I really believe that we are just at the doorstep to a huge public crisis which might affect our safety and the fabric of society. In the near future we may suddenly, within months of its onset, be faced with a dramatic fuel shortage. This will be like the one last century with gas lines, rationing, shootings at gas stations and the like. In addition our military will be lining up to get first dibs on what fuel there is in the name of national defense. In addition due to the shortages fuel may skyrocket out of the $2.50 range into the $5-$6 range. Boating? Forget it. Boating Industry? At least in the auto industry most people need their vehicles to get to work. Food? Higher across the board. Clothing, public services, local taxes? All suddenly higher. Vacations? Stay at home is a likely option. From governmental and academic studies we are soon to outstrip the available supply of fossil fuel. Then there's China and India which together are 8-10 times larger than we are. We now use 25% of the world's fuel and it's at its limit soon. Add two hungry giants and we will have to do without our 'rightful' share or outbid the other two for the same amount we now have. But...in the near future we will have to have 30-50% more fuel ourselves just to keep all of us on the road. We now use about 20 million barrels a day..soon we will need 26-30 million barrels a day. It's not there. To keep peace in the streets and to ensure national security it's the governments responsibility make the limited supply last as long as possible until alternate forms of fuel or transportation can be developed and brought to market. Transportation is the biggest user of petrol products. Transportation has to be addressed immediately.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Oct 03, 2007 1:41 pm) I agree that we are at or very close to peak production, and will face declining oil and gas supplies going forward. But I don't think this will result in the doomsday scenario you talk about here...the market will adjust through higher prices (which will impose a real hardship for many, including those in China and India) but as long as the market is able to work as it should, demad will be constrained (due to higher prices) and the pressure and demand for alternatives (hybrids, fuel cells, etc.) will increase. The biggest danger in all of this will be politicians who think it's a good idea to impose "mandates" which will artifically alter the supply/demand equation.
|
|
|
Replying to: JBaumgart (Oct 03, 2007 5:31 pm) The reason they impose or mandate is to insure the above scenerio does not happen. Goverment has to lead not lag such that econmic hardship does not occur. Sort like what the FED did the with interest rates. The problem is still there but the move has mitigated the sub-prime lenders issue. Just an example. stevedebi, Touché bud.... .
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon Hybrid Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon Hybrid
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid
2010 GMC Yukon Hybrid
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
