Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon Hybrid

2456712

Comments

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    ...and I have no indication that they aren't, then the T2M and Y2M should accomplish the same as the TCH and HH vs their ICE-only siblings.

    All of them should save 30-40% of the fuel normally used if the hybrid system wasn't present. This is what we want as a nation. Whether it's done by diesels or hybrids or new gasser technology or the eventual conversion to alternate fuels every step helps.

    Congrats to GM for bringing these to market.

    $10000 'extra cost'? I believe this is marketing posturing. 'Don't beat us over the head. We've got lots of development costs to recoup.' What isn't disclosed in this figure is how much of it is development cost ( already spent money ) and how much of it is variable manufacturing cost for the 2-Mode system? Additionally over how many vehicles are they calculating this cost? 1000? 5000? 50,000? 200,000?

    Whatever the figure most of it is money already spent on development, now they just have to recoup their costs by amortizing the expense.

    One problem in foreseeing this being successful is that these BOF SUVs are a dying breed that fewer and fewer buyers have any interest in supporting. The lambdas are the natural next step and these should be a raging success. Immediately the Outlook, Acadia and Enclave could jump up to 28-30 mpg on average similar to the Highlander hybrid ( HH ). Now that gets attention in a segment that's growing, not dying.
  • JBaumgartJBaumgart Posts: 890
    Did GM/Chevy actually quote $10,000 extra cost? If it's that much extra, count me out. It would never pay for itself over the life of the vehicle.

    I'm seriously considering the Tahoe/Yukon as I need a good towing vehicle with a higher hitch height/better towing capability than most crossovers provide. But I don't tow that often so good mileage would be a major plus too. I would pay $3,000 - $4,000 extra and MAYBE recoup most of the premium over a long ownership period. A reasonable shortfall would be my contribution toward conservation. Will do the math once prices are set and "real world" prices are determined by the marketplace.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Chevy did quote that figure but again what does that figure mean? If they try to get $10000 extra per vehicle then that's dumb. If they recognize that foregoing some profit for a couple of years, say 200,000 vehicles, while only charging a $4000 premium will put them in position to sell 200,000 units per year in the future then it's a good investment.

    This is what Toyota did with the Prius. Now from 5000 units in 2001 it should sell 250,000 units this year alone worldwide....all profitable.

    I posted this here back in May. Y2M 'payback' what think the GM faithful?
  • JBaumgartJBaumgart Posts: 890
    "Chevy did quote that figure but again what does that figure mean? If they try to get $10000 extra per vehicle then that's dumb. If they recognize that foregoing some profit for a couple of years, say 200,000 vehicles, while only charging a $4000 premium will put them in position to sell 200,000 units per year in the future then it's a good investment.

    This is what Toyota did with the Prius. Now from 5000 units in 2001 it should sell 250,000 units this year alone worldwide....all profitable.

    I posted this here back in May. Y2M 'payback' what think the GM faithful?"

    Great points, let's hope GM/Chevy sees the light.
  • nedzelnedzel Posts: 787
    "Did GM/Chevy actually quote $10,000 extra cost? If it's that much extra, count me out. It would never pay for itself over the life of the vehicle."

    They quoted it as the manufacturing cost and went on to say that they were undecided as to how much of that will passed along to the consumer.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    It can't be the manufacturing cost itself ( variable cost ). It's just a normal vehicle with a ~$3000 battery pack ( retail price ) and two small motors in the transmission..
  • nedzelnedzel Posts: 787
    "It's just a normal vehicle with a ~$3000 battery pack ( retail price ) and two small motors in the transmission.."

    The battery pack for a 5000+ lb Tahoe hybrid has got to be much larger (and thus more expensive) than the one for a ~2500 lb Prius. How much more? Unclear.
  • Karen_CMKaren_CM Posts: 5,014
    A freelancer aims to talk with owners of the following hybrid models: Accord, Altima, Camry, all Lexus hybrids and all pick-up truck hybrids.

    Please respond to Chintan Talati at ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Wednesday, September 12, 2007 with your daytime contact information and the hybrid model you own.

    Community Manager If you have any questions or concerns about the Forums, send me an email, karen@edmunds.com, or click on my screen name to send a personal message.

  • galvanggalvang Posts: 156
    Based on what the buyer would get on a hybid you are getting quite a bit of extra standard accessories such as NAV, rear camera and othe goodies. So the 10k adder is probaly in comparison to a stripped down Yukon with no extras. So you need to look at the number closely.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 5,871
    With the mileage numbers some of the new hybrid coming out are offering, you have to look real close at the numbers!

    A Forbes.com article on the least efficient hybrids and the dreaded "hybrid premium" are the subject of today's Alternate Route entry, Boon or Bane?

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? pf_flyer@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • So the 10k adder is probaly in comparison to a stripped down Yukon with no extras.

    Negative.

    The 10K extra is for the cost of the two mode system and all it's components. GM has stated this publicly, it is not a hidden thing, although they have not shouted about it either.

    It sounds like they are positioning the hybrid version as a high-end luxo model that you HAVE to take the extra goodies on. It probably will make it easier to bury the extra cost to the consumer inside this price tag. Nobody is really sure exactly how much GM is going to cover but they will pass on all they figure people will swallow - you can bet on that.

    I give this model the thumbs DOWN. NO WAY am I paying north of 8 franklins a month to lease one of these monsters - forget it.

    I'm buying a used full size and pocket the difference.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,991

    I'm buying a used full size and pocket the difference.


    I'm with you on that note. I see NOTHING offered in the USA that is worth the price asked new. Buy a 12-18 month old vehicle with very low miles and save 20%-30% or more.

    You think the GM hybrid premium is high. Check out the crazy premium on any Lexus hybrid. Up to $25,000 more for the LS600h.
  • So you guys are not "green" or is it you're just not "green with envy"?

    ;)
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,991
    The green in hybrid is still very much open for debate. Though I suppose one of the other threads would be more appropriate.
  • nedzelnedzel Posts: 787
    Green?

    Is someone who buys a Lexus LS600h green, even though his car 1) costs a lot more, 2) is no faster, and 3) gets poorer gas mileage than someone who buys an LS460?

    We'll have to wait and see on the Tahoe to learn 1) what the real-world mileage is and 2) how much it costs, before we know whether it makes economic sense.

    I suspect what may make more sense for me is to keep my gas sucking 4Runner, but get a Chevy Volt as a commuter. If, of course, the Volt ends up meeting the expectations...
  • You guys may have not noticed the wink [ ;) ] in my post above - I was guessing it was the latter of the two, that you are not green with envy over the hybrid option.
  • galvanggalvang Posts: 156
    GM and other car mfg. are setting up the hybrid to be a failure. They are being heavily subsidized by the oil companies to not to proceed with fuel efficent vehicles.

    Who is going to win this struggle eventualy will be the Europeans. As they are much more ahead in terms of small diesel technology then integrating them with hybrids in the near future. Its not too late GM to get in the ball game.

    As for the 10K adder I have never heard of GM mention what the 10k adder was to what. The Yukon Hybrid will be packaged as a luxo SUV with many goodies. A SWAG about mid to upper 40k's.
  • "GM and other car mfg. are setting up the hybrid to be a failure. They are being heavily subsidized by the oil companies to not to proceed with fuel efficent vehicles."

    Do you have any documented proof of this?

    GM would LOVE to be able to build a Tahoe/Yukon hybrid that would average 30 mpg. Even if it were technologically possible today, it would be so expensive that nobody would want to buy one. As it is, people are complaining about the expected $10k markup. If the '08 model did get 30 mpg with just a $10k markup, it would certainly be attracting a lot more interest.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,793
    "GM would LOVE to be able to build a Tahoe/Yukon hybrid that would average 30 mpg. Even if it were technologically possible today, it would be so expensive that nobody would want to buy one."

    Yes, I believe I read of research projects that achieved this MPG or better, but they basically rebuilt the SUV out of lighter materials, IIRC. Cost was over 100 grand.
  • GM and other car mfg. are setting up the hybrid to be a failure.

    Personally, I don't think they are doing this intentionally, no matter the conspiracy theory. I just think the price point these units are going to be brought in at makes no sense whatsoever.

    I suppose though if you are the kind of person who can swallow the bottom line off a standard unit, maybe another $4K wouldn't phase you.

    It should be noted though that the break even point at $4 a gallon would be a little over 4 years before the economics of hybrid versus non-hybrid equal out. That probably means that most lease arrangments are going to be a total and complete waste of resources from a capital outlay standpoint.

    The economics do not make sense in the short term. By the time they do make sense something better will be just around the corner. I'm passing on this one thanks.

    Bring on the low mileage used units and watch me take a 10-16K discount on a 'just broken in' truck. Now THAT makes sense to me.
  • GM's current ICE-only Tahoes and Yukons are rated at 14MPG/20MPG for 2WD models and 14MPG/19MPG for 4WD models. Today, we’ve learned that the use of the dual-mode hybrid system boosts those figures to 21MPG/22MPG and 20MPG/20MPG respectively under the EPA’s new testing methodology. This is from Daily Tech.

    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.

    I still don't see the value in a huge price premium for these. If you drive 15K a year, we are talking about saving 250 gallons of fuel a year over the standard ICE Tahoe. That works out to 4.81 gallons of fuel a week savings. At $4 a gallon, that is almost $20 per week in fuel savings - AND you'll be eating almost all of that savings each week - JUST for the privilidge of driving the hybrid.

    The numbers just do not work out. Especially when you consider what you can get the low mileage used models for.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 5,871
    Ah the "hybrid premium". I'm with with you. If the selling point is that the hybrid is going to save me money on fuel, then I want to save money. If it costs me more to buy and operate the hybrid compared to the non-hybrid version, I'm not saving anything. It's something dealt with in Boon or Bane?

    Kind of reminds me of the government types who project a 20% increase in the cost of some program, then the program comes in at a 15% increase, and they tout the "savings" even though there was still an increase in costs.

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? pf_flyer@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • After these hybrids have been out for a while, it will be market demand vs. supply that will determine the typical actual selling price. If very few people believe paying the hybrid premium is worth it to them, yet GM keeps making them and dealers become overstocked, then the hybrid premium will shrink and entice more buyers. It just depends on how committed GM is to get as many as possible in buyers' hands. They want to sell more vehicles of all models, yet they also want to recoup their hybrid research and development costs, which no doubt are huge.
  • galvanggalvang Posts: 156
    "Do you have any documented proof of this?"

    GM, Ford and others are trying to block the new CAFE standards set by the goverment. They are doing everything to not to pass some of this new legislation. Oil companies lobbies are right there trying to influence the votes.

    As for the cost of the new Yukon Hybrid mid-40Kish, seems reasonable considering what you are getting. its actually cheaper than the Yukon Denali. So I'll ;) on the price. I may be a customer afterall, we'll see.
  • galvang, There is nothing wrong with companies lobbying the government - happens all the time when legislation is being debated and is part of the democratic process. This is far different from what you claimed earlier, that "GM and other car mfg. are setting up the hybrid to be a failure. They are being heavily subsidized by the oil companies to not to proceed with fuel efficent vehicles." Again, there have never been any documented cases where an oil company has subsidized an auto manufacturing company, or vice versa. And after GM's huge investment in this new hybrid technology, they would very much like to sell as many of these hybrid vehicles as possible to recoup their investment and eventually turn a profit. Even if it's a huge success, there will still be plenty of worldwide demand for oil - the oil companies are primarily focused on developing new sources of supply to keep up with rising worldwide demand. A new hybrid model that gets maybe 20% better mileage is not going to make any difference in the big scheme of things.
  • galvanggalvang Posts: 156
    Perhaps I was a little over the top with my statement. However, having lobbies to steer an issue based on their own selfishness or greed and/or power is wrong. In terms of fuel efficiency every bit helps. If we target key industries to use less fuel we enventually will become energy indpendent. We have to start somewhere.

    Right now we and the rest of world are buying oil from unfriendly countries and using profits to build nuclear weapons and fund the instability other countries. Even americans are indirectly being killed because of this. I go on and on. The bottom line everyone has to do their part to become fuel effiecient in terms of its use. Having the Yukon Hybrid is a step in the right direction.
  • galvang, I couldn't agree more with what you are saying in your second paragraph. Every bit helps, for sure.

    I still disagree with what you say on lobbying, however. Everyone including corporations has a legal right to petition their government on issues and pending legislation. Oftentimes legislation is ill-conceived and is proposed only for partisan political purposes. And often corporations know a lot more about the issues that directly concern them than the politicians who think they have a good idea, but don't know all of the facts. It would be really great, for example, if all vehicles got 50 miles to the gallon, or everyone in the U.S. made at least $50 an hour. But passing laws requiring these things doesn't necessarily make sense, as they can cause more harm than good. Car companies and employers in general need to have input on these things. If executives and lobbyists are found to be in violation of the laws - committing bribery, making illegal contributions, etc. - then they should definitely pay the consequences.

    I hope these hybrid vehicles are a tremendous success and the politicians are realistic when it comes to CAFE. The American auto makers need time to develop more fuel efficient vehicles. I totally agree that these GMC/Chevy hybrids are a step in the right direction. But whether or not people buy them instead of conventional models should be up to them - initially the mark-up could be a tough sell for most customers who do the math. Others will pay up, just for environmental reasons and because they can afford it.
  • galvanggalvang Posts: 156
    "I still disagree with what you say on lobbying, however. Everyone including corporations has a legal right to petition their government on issues and pending legislation."

    I never said I was against lobbying efforts. Where I'm against it is where the lobbying efforts are used for their own self interest to promote an idea or an issue which is incorrect and wrong to the society as a whole.

    "But whether or not people buy them instead of conventional models should be up to them" I concurr for right now, however, for the future, as with other auto systems Catalytic converter, Vehicle stability control, the Hybrid motor should be a standard for all vehicles. You don't want to give the choice to people for them to purchase items that you know is going to directly or indirectly create harm to individuals and our society as whole. I beleive in freedom to the utmost as long as my freedom to do what I want does not create or facilitate harm to others.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    GM's current ICE-only Tahoes and Yukons are rated at 14MPG/20MPG for 2WD models and 14MPG/19MPG for 4WD models. Today, we’ve learned that the use of the dual-mode hybrid system boosts those figures to 21MPG/22MPG and 20MPG/20MPG respectively under the EPA’s new testing methodology. This is from Daily Tech.

    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.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    You heard it here first.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.