Article Comments - 2009 Dodge Durango Hybrid First Drive - READ ONLY

10 messages, Last post on Jul 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM

You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Dodge, Hybrid Cars, SUV

First Drive: 2009 Dodge Durango Hybrid - First Impressions: You know that guy that goes to McDonald's and orders two Big Mac Extra Value Meals and supersizes both of them and then gets a Diet Coke? This is his new ride.(more)

Outline

Messages Page 1 of 1: All Messages Displayed

#1 of 10 Article Comments - 2009 Dodge Durango Hybrid First Drive by KarenS HOST Jul 25, 2008 (6:31 am)
Last month the New York Times pointed out that if it weren't for a loophole in the federal regulation of motor vehicles, the 2009 Dodge Durango Hybrid would be eligible for a hybrid-vehicle tax credit and also subject to a gas-guzzler tax. First Drive: 2009 Dodge Durango Hybrid
#2 of 10 Phoned it in by skierx420 Jul 25, 2008 (9:43 am)
After reading this article I get the feeling that this author phoned this review in. I know everything is a matter of opinion but in my opinion the author just chose to say "Well I don't care about the Dodge Durango and I really don't care about the Hybrid version" So this article doesn't give anyone the slightest idea about how the vehicle actually performs. Just kind of a misguided summary to its past performance. Ok its got electric steering. Is it overboosted? Instead of pointing out any of those things the author spends a lot more time reffering to other writers at a large newspaper that no one reads anymore because we all have the internet. See I can be pointlessly sarcastic too. The whole article was an exercise in pointless sarcasm. Ok I do agree with the author that Hybrid SUV's like this are a tiny niche, I also know that Chrysler only intends to sell a few thousand (3000 to 6000) units this year. I can argue the case for hybrid trucks and full size SUV's. I live in the upper midwest. It snows. I also have a good size trailer of some sort. (some of have boats, horses, car haulers, 4 wheelers etc.) But we can only own one or two vehicles. I would rather save a little on gas with my second vehicle if I could. The other person in my family drives the general commuting high mpg car. So thats my niche argument for this niche vehicle. Also the author is correct about the percentage of vehicles that were in this SUV and large truck segment when the EPA put those rules into effect. But times changed. Now, times are changing again. The percentage of vehicles that were cars in the 70's and early 80's will return and the percentage of large SUV's will return to a small percentage. But, all of those arguments did not belong in a driving test of a Durango! Give us the impressions of the Durango and maybe how it drives differently than its Chevy counterpart. Save the EPA loophole stories for a blog entry.
#3 of 10 first paragraph says it all by chewym Jul 25, 2008 (1:26 pm)
good technology but still technically a gas guzzler
#4 of 10 I think you missed the point Mr. Pund by chett81 Jul 26, 2008 (9:41 pm)
I was disappointed by the lack of enthusiasm for the 2-mode Duragno, or more specifically, the two-mode system. I think Chrysler and the two-mode colleagues should get more credit for their system and it’s potential. Pund states, "So what the hell is this thing, this gas-guzzling hybrid?" This strikes me as harsh. No, the regular Durango is guzzling and I would touch one with a 10 food pole, but a 25% improvement overall is impressive. In the next paragraph, he says, "slightly more efficient truck in a world that wants people-moving crossovers." Again, I contest 25-40% is significant. Follow the Math: Over 1000 miles, an average of 13mpg at $4 is $307. When you increase to 19, the price/1000 falls to 210. I don't know how much Mr. Pound makes at Insideline, but I still think saving 100 bucks is worth something, not to mention the warm and fuzzy feeling of knowing your using fewer fossil fuels. I am a car person myself, and it would be best for our addiction to oil if everyone downsized to a Prius or Fit. But these cars are not for everyone. They want versatility. The fact remains, a large portion of rural and suburban Americans are driving frame on truck SUVs and Trucks and getting 10-12 MPG. All of a sudden 19 MPG doesn't sound too bad. Some use these "gas guzzlers” for their intended purpose of towing, others would have been better off with an Odyssey but couldn't bear the stigma. I like variety and I commend Dodge for offering a vehicle that has all the same capabilities and gets 25% better mileage. Imagine if every truck and SUV leaving Detroit had a two-mode system, maybe they might have a chance of reaching the CAFE standards then. There is so much editorial speak in the article, I can't tell if Mr. Pund just doesn't like the Duragno itself or SUVs in general. I'll take a stab at it: Both? Replies to this message: gagrice (Jul 27, 2008 5:54 am)
#5 of 10 Re: I think you missed the point Mr. Pund [chett81] by gagrice Jul 27, 2008 (5:54 am)
Replying to: chett81 (Jul 26, 2008 9:41 pm) Pund just doesn't like the Duragno itself or SUVs in general. I'll take a stab at it: Both? You hit the nail on the head. I for one will always have a nice SUV for taking trips. I like to explore and not worry about dragging my exhaust on a rock or rut. I do think that the hybrid SUVs are skirting the issue of saving fuel. It is proven that a smaller diesel engine will do the job better with much better mileage than any gas hybrid. It is our government that has kept the oil flowing for the oil lobby. They have plenty of gas to sell and do not want to end up with the same situation as is in the EU.
#6 of 10 Good luck to Chrysler... by dharbin Jul 27, 2008 (11:16 pm)
Judging from the comments above, I'm the outlier here, but I really wonder what the heck is going on at Chrysler if they put scarce engineering resources into a vehicle like this. The first hybrid from Chrysler is a Durango??! Couldn't they have tried it on the Patriot or that that sport-utish car of theirs (whatever it's called--I forget)? Maybe I'll be wrong, but I don't see it selling well, or helping their image.
#7 of 10 Dumb by stevedebi Jul 28, 2008 (11:42 am)
A large truck like this would do much better with diesel. Hybrid technology is not so useful for a truck that has to haul or tow.
#8 of 10 Dumb by bvdj84 Jul 30, 2008 (7:09 am)
Dumb! Offsets any saving in cost to own. Pointless, you'll spend more on this thing, and by the time its paid off, its not worth anything, its an SUV, and its a chrysler product. Just as crazy as the Tahoe Hybrid, no savings when your literally dumping your money into the payment. I see no point, unless your going to keep it a long time, but who needs big SUV when the kids are all grown? This is the wrong direction company's need to go. The concept is all wrong. $45,000 for a Durango? Does anyone see anything wrong with that picture? We cannot eliminate SUV's, but there is no savings in this at all. Its like it making it more justified to own one. Chrysler better have though long and hard about this, considering, their company seems to be taking a nose dive. Until the hybrid technology is more affordable, there is no point in moving in on one right yet.
#9 of 10 Ambassador by gwmort Jul 30, 2008 (10:47 am)
We need to get the hybrid technology in front of more of these truck/SUV guys. This is a good thing. It doesn't have to save any money in the long run, there is still benefit to where that money goes. If you spend exactly the same with a larger monthly payment and lower gas bills, isn't it better that more money goes to Chrysler and less goes to the Saudi plane jackers? Plus, hybrids will TOW BETTER than gas models, electric motors have much better torque at low speed. Once the masses see hybrids improve performance, reduce dependence on pump prices, and don't cost more (maybe less with tax incentives and if gas prices rise further), sales will go up, emissions will go down, and everyone will win. Replies to this message: stevedebi (Jul 30, 2008 12:08 pm)
#10 of 10 Re: Ambassador [gwmort] by stevedebi Jul 30, 2008 (12:08 pm)
Replying to: gwmort (Jul 30, 2008 10:47 am) "Plus, hybrids will TOW BETTER than gas models, electric motors have much better torque at low speed. Once the masses see hybrids improve performance, reduce dependence on pump prices, and don't cost more (maybe less with tax incentives and if gas prices rise further), sales will go up, emissions will go down, and everyone will win. " I have seen no evidence that a heavy SUV hybrid tows better. The batteries would only be good for a couple of miles, and electric motors are subject to over heating, at which point they shut off until they cool down. The point is that the hybrid heavy SUV doesn't improve performance, doesn't help much at the gas pump (in absolute terms, not relative MPG), and they cost much more. What's to like?