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
300 messages, Last post on Oct 29, 2009 at 10:18 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon Hybrid Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
According to the Chevrolet website the Tahoe Hybrid was due fall of 2007. I think it is fall and have not seen any. Edmund's do not have them listed. Not that I would even consider buying one. I would like to hear from an early adopter.
|
|
|
Replying to: galvang (Oct 09, 2007 10:19 pm) Based on zero evidence. |
|
|
Replying to: peralta (Oct 09, 2007 1:40 pm) That is a realistic increase of more than 50% in fuel economy. That even beats the compacts cars that I used to drive in the past." Yes, but compare it to the Honda CR-V, which gets about 22-24 in town and from 30 MPG (  60-65 MPH) to 26 MPG ( 80 MPH). The increase is not as significant. (CR-V numbers based on Edmunds Forum reports). Also, many people are not getting that kind of MPG from the HH. Compare the prices of these two vehicles to get a feel for the value over the normal ownership of the vehicles based on initial costs and gasoline costs, plus estimated resale...
|
|
|
Replying to: stevedebi (Oct 10, 2007 3:35 pm) I have driven the CR-V and it is underpowered. The real city driving (NYC) is below 20 MPG. The highway is good at about 26-29 MPG. Tank average from combined driving about 23 MPG. Compare it to my Highlander hybrid which has a V8-like power and a 4 cy;inder fuel economy. It's not really a comparison since it is also more expensive, more luxurious, has all the most advanced stability control package. My combined city/highway mielage is 31 MPG. Highway mileage maybe about the same compared to CR-V but that's about it. It is very powerful, low road noise, very comfortable, and has excellent city mileage, sometimes approaching more than 40 MPG on some trips.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 10, 2007 5:51 am) GM is saying next month (Nov) for the Tahoe/Yukon Hybrid. We'll see. MPG- 20MPG is good for this type of truck (Tahoe/Yukon Hybrid). Compare this to my former gas-a hog Nissan Armada 12-13MPG all round. Even to my current truck the Honda Ridgeline 17MPG all round. Smaller SUVs are always a good bet for gas mileage. My second upcoming (next year) maybe a small SUV RAV4, VW Tiguan looks interesting. A diesel Tiguan would fit the bill quite nicely. I'd be interested to see those MPG numbers for that one. Looks pretty nice indeed. CRV is nice but definitely a chic car.
|
|
|
Replying to: galvang (Oct 10, 2007 7:38 pm) I saved $10k on my Sequoia. At $3 per gallon for gas it will buy over 3000 gallons of gas. More than I will use in 6-8 years at 15 MPG. You have to crunch the numbers before you pay a big premium to save fuel. |
|
|
Replying to: peralta (Oct 10, 2007 5:15 pm) The whole point is that it IS less expensive, it HAS an I4 rather than V6, has a lot of usable space for 5 passengers, and I personally found the acceleration and handling to be superior. If an absolutely loaded CR-V EX-L / NAV is 27500, and a loaded HH is 37000, that is almost 10K difference - buys a lot of gas. And after 10 years the CR-V will probably have better resale (though you may not keep your cars that long), because after 10 years / 150K (in NY state) the hybrid parts will no longer have warranty coverage. BTW, I got about 21 MPG in town, in LA traffic. Never drove in New York, a hybrid might make more sense there. I hope you will pardon my posts; I'm still upset with Toyota for putting a V6 in the HH instead of an I4 - just imagine the MPG with the HSD and an I4 (at least as an option)! You are driving in NYC, and I don't think that in such terrain the two extra cylinders of the V6 add much value, especially in traffic - but they do require fuel to run. 
|
|
|
Replying to: stevedebi (Oct 11, 2007 10:03 am) I am glad to have a V6 since my drive to work is hilly terrain, >90% highway. I also had a 2006 Honda Civic hybrid before and it was obviously underpowered going up those hills. Fuel economy suffered on the hills. The highlander hybrid fuel economy and performance is not affected going up and down the hills. For a second car, I traded my HCH-2. I ended up with a Subaru outback and cancelled my order for a CR-V (AWD version) since the outback has slight advantage in fuel economy. I think, the best Toyota can make is a RAV-4 with TCH drivetrain plus a rear motor. I would say this will attain 33 MPG city and 39 MPG highway, oombined of 35. And if I drive, maybe I can squeeze 39 MPG from it. I tried to drive the outback to work. It is able to attain a round trip of 30 MPG on an ideal traffic conditions (no traffic jams, no crowded streets). However, by the time I refuel, the tank average is 23-25 MPG. Those intersections, traffic lights, crowded streets, traffic jams really do add up and kill your fuel economy.
|
|
|
Replying to: peralta (Oct 11, 2007 11:11 am) Yes, a Rav-4 with HSD would be awesome, but it might pull sales away from HH, and where would they put the batteries? Actually, CR-V and Highlander buyers don't tend to mix - Honda engineers for stiffer ride, smaller engines, and road feel, while Toyota engineers for ride quality and power. Different philosophies entirely... |
|
|
Replying to: nedzel (Oct 09, 2007 9:23 am) That is completely false. GM, Ford, and most other car manufacturers are public companies. So are the oil companies. They make statements to their shareholders every quarter. I suggest that you read their quarterly reports and look for such payments. There aren't any. I have to agree that this is false because the one industry is dependent on the other for its survival. When one, the oil industry, jacked the pricing after Katrina the sales of the other went into the dumps. Collaborators wouldn't have done that to each other. GM, Ford, and all the other manufacturers are doing everything they can to improve the mileage of vehicles while building vehicles that people want to buy. The fact of the matter is that, until the last couple years, most people in the US didn't want to drive small, fuel efficient vehicles. More people in the US now want small vehicles, but not everyone. And it takes several years for the manufacturers to bring new models to market. Again no disagreement. The most efficient way to improve the fuel economy of the US fleet is to increase fuel taxes and rationalize the diesel emissions regulations. There is a significant price elasticity to the demand for fuel. We should work with human nature, rather than trying (via CAFE) to force manufacturers to build cars that people don't want to buy. Again agreed, but - HUGE BUT - taxing fuel works very very well as shown in Europe. But to make it work it has to be painful. An additional $2/gal painful. Even if it's phased in it's got to reach a painful level to be effective. BUT... do you realize just how much money this will take out of circulation every single day? It's nearly ONE BILLION DOLLARS every day - forever - that goes into the Fed Govts coffers. Gone. And it's after-tax money. If like most you drive 15000 miles a year and average 20 mpg then you're buying 750 gal a year. That's $1500 additional taxes you'd be paying. Now multiply that by 150 Million drivers, not to mention businesses, and it's probably $300-$400 Billion taken out of our pockets at the pump every time we go there. Talk about a drain on the economy. That's money that currently goes to rent, food, clothes, vacations, schooling, etc. Finally, hybrids work pretty well on small cars in city traffic. But they are not simple technology. Witness the fact that the car company with the most proven hybrid cars, Toyota, has pretty much failed in their efforts to build larger hybrids. The Highlander, Camry, and LS600h hybrids have all had disappointing economy. That isn't because of some back room deal. That's because hybrids are hard to engineer. OK, outside of the first sentence this is just wrong. Unless you are an insider at Toyota you don't have any solid information on what is coming or what their strategy is. It's speculation at best. The fact that they are concentrating their efforts in the area where they are strongest sounds more likely. GM is concentrating its efforts in the area where it's strongest as well. That sounds pretty smart on both players part ( now I can see where there might have been some collaboration here ). And your understanding of the fuel efficieny of the various vehicles is based on your/our faulty measurement system. Do you realize that both the Highlander/400h and Tahoe/Yukon hybrids are more efficient than the Camry or Civic hybrids?
|
|
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
