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

1356712

Comments

  • JBaumgartJBaumgart Posts: 890
    "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."

    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.
  • tourguidetourguide Posts: 188
    When fuel goes to $5-6 per gallon we are all going to have a bigger problems than the cost of filling up our tank. Try stocking your pantry when the cost of your milk hits $8 a gallon, or the cheeseburger at the drive through is dinging your wallet for $9.

    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.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,815
    "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."

    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.
  • galvanggalvang Posts: 156
    "I don't think it is reasonable to expect people (and corporations are composed of people) to lobby against their self-interest."

    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.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,815
    I don't want to get off topic here, so I will simply say that I stand by my original post, and that, while you read (or at least copied to the clipboard) my post, I don't think you understood anything I wrote.

    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... :shades:
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    I think fuel economy standards should be driven by the consumer, not government regulations.

    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.
  • JBaumgartJBaumgart Posts: 890
    "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."

    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.
  • galvanggalvang Posts: 156
    "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."

    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.... .
  • JBaumgartJBaumgart Posts: 890
    "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."

    Bad example, the Fed is independent and as such is not influenced by politicians who are mainly concerned about their popularity and getting reelected. You have way more faith in government than is deserved. Too much government meddling = distorted economic result. Just look at the Soviet's 5 year plans, Communist China before they adoped a capitalist economic model, and past European Socialist policies for examples of this. High unemployment, low economic growth, high inflation, etc. All of these have learned from past mistakes, but some here (i.e. dedicated leftists) are still determined to repeat what history has shown to be bad economic policy.

    If GM's hybrids sell in mass quantities, it will be because in the aggregate individual consumers decide that it is in their best interest to pay "x" amount more at purchase, in return for the better mileage they will get over the length of time they expect to own the vehicle. And that's the way it should be. Unless government can create huge amounts of more supply, which ain't going to happen, the days of cheap gas for everyone is over.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    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.

    I think that both are going to happen.. tight supplies are going to ratchet up prices. But then if we are not careful suddenly there won't be enough fuel at the pumps one day or the next or the next. Our demand will outstrip the supply unless we can get alternates on stream quickly.

    Right now say an SUV owner puts 22 gal in his 24 gal tank every week and drives 350 miles. With no additional supplies of fuel in the near future he may only be able to put 14 gal in his 24 gal tank and drive 225 miles. Our national demand is going to be 30-50% higher than it is now due to more drivers, more vehicles and more congestion. If our demand is going to be this much higher where will we get the fuel from? How will we get it into our tanks?

    It's the government's reponsibility to ensure the public safety. Demand and market forces will do part of the job unless circumstances sneak up on us as the recent data suggest. Then we'e all scrambling until equilibrium is restored.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    High unemployment, low economic growth, high inflation, etc. All of these have learned from past mistakes, but some here (i.e. dedicated leftists) are still determined to repeat what history has shown to be bad economic policy.

    Regardless of any of our political persuasions we have a Conservative Republican administration and Liberal Democratic Congress both in agreement that we have to have mandates for more fuel efficient vehicles before the crisis arrives. I think both see the same data and hear the same reports anc come to the same conclusions.

    To bring this back on track... hybrid technology, from whatever source, will save 30-60% of the fuel used in City driving. It essentially makes city driving as efficient, or more so, as highway driving. That's a huge saving on a yearly basis. Imagine if the entire fleet of vehicles could save 40% of it's fuel for whenever it was driving in the city.
  • JBaumgartJBaumgart Posts: 890
    "To bring this back on track... hybrid technology, from whatever source, will save 30-60% of the fuel used in City driving. It essentially makes city driving as efficient, or more so, as highway driving. That's a huge saving on a yearly basis. Imagine if the entire fleet of vehicles could save 40% of it's fuel for whenever it was driving in the city."

    I agree, this would make a huge difference. The question is, should government FORCE people to pay extra for the hybrid technology at the intitial purpose? I think individual consumers are in the best position to decide for themselves, whether it's best for them to pay more at purchase or pay more for the fuel they will use over the length of time they will own the vehicle. As the cost of hybrid technology comes down and the cost of fuel goes up, the equation for many will change. But no matter what the cost of fuel is still going up due to growing worldwide demand vs. a stable or even shrinking supply. When it gets to the point that folks of average means can no longer afford to fill their tanks, we will need other affordable solutions, like plug in electrics for commuting, short trips, etc. or eventually hydrogen or fuel cell powered vehicles. But gas will have to get a whole lot more expensive before these technologies will replace ICE's or today's hybrid's.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    The question is, should government FORCE people to pay extra for the hybrid technology at the intitial purpose?

    If it concerns nation secutity and safety then it is the government's concern. It's clearly stated in the Constitution that this is one of the prime purposes of a centralized Federal government. It's the government's reponsibility to FORCE the solution if it sees problems arising that the general population doesn't see.

    The problem of letting 'the market' finding a solution is one of timing. If fuel prices ramp up slowly such that there's no pain only a little discomfort then suddenly all h3ll breaks loose it's too late to react and say back in 2009 we should have been saving. It's like coming to retirement with $57 in the bank.

    Here is a summary from GCC on the latest study by the DOE given to the Administration and to Congress and to the public detailing what needs to be done starting tomorrow.

    DOE Task Force report

    An excerpt:
    The Nation is substantially at risk, from an economic and national security perspective, to warrant development of an aggressive integrated unconventional fuels development program, supported by attendant policies to promote expeditious development of these resources.

    This is only the latest of several recently, all of which come to the same conclusion. We're just on the doorstep of a dangerous situation.

    Note further in the summary that the Task Force recommends other solutions which seem to suggest rationing and/or limiting the amount of driving we do. Now that's a very unpleasant prospect.

    Given the immediate savings I think mandating the imposition of hybrid technology across the board to save 40% of the fuel used in city driving. Tax credits and fuel savings might net the incresed cost out to zero.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,815
    "If it concerns nation secutity and safety then it is the government's concern. It's clearly stated in the Constitution that this is one of the prime purposes of a centralized Federal government. It's the government's reponsibility to FORCE the solution if it sees problems arising that the general population doesn't see."

    My copy of the Constitution (and Bill or rights) does not mention allowing the government to FORCE anything. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of citizens FROM the government.

    I realize you have good intentions, but think about what you are saying. What if people who have the opposite view from you were to implement the plan that is obviously the best one (to them), against your will?

    We have gone for 225+ years without the government doing anything that drastic in an attempt to change people's attitudes. Why start now?
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,815
    "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."

    In this day of Internet information, why should the public be LESS informed than in past years? Democracy is all about the populace making the decisions. This is in fact the definition of democracy. A group of people making decisions for the populace (with no input from the people) describes several forms of government - none of them with happy memories: fascist, communist, plutocracy, absolute monarchy.

    In any case, the economics will take care of themselves (if left to themselves). As gasoline cost goes up, the affordability of alternative energy goes down (relative to gas). If we run out of gas it won't happen over night - but when it happens, people will turn to higher MPG cars and alternative fuels - because it makes sense to the customer, not because someone (somewhere) decided everyone should think the "correct" way and change their behavior.

    When hybrids make complete economic sense, people will buy (more of) them. If clean diesel is introduced, that may make more sense to the consumer...

    Let me attempt to get back on topic here.

    In my opinion, hybridizing a heavy vehicle like a large SUV makes no sense at all. Sure, the relative MPG gain is there, but frankly, saving 1-2 MPG is not that significant in relation to the added hybridization costs.

    Continuing on topic, it would make a lot more sense to use a diesel engine in these vehicles.
  • tourguidetourguide Posts: 188
    "In my opinion, hybridizing a heavy vehicle like a large SUV makes no sense at all. Sure, the relative MPG gain is there, but frankly, saving 1-2 MPG is not that significant in relation to the added hybridization costs.

    Continuing on topic, it would make a lot more sense to use a diesel engine in these vehicles. "

    I think the Lambda platform vehicles need this system (and would likely benefit from it more too) much more than the Tahoe. This would be a breakthough for GM, but nobody at the General's HQ is talking about that. I know - this product isn't even on the streets yet, but still somebody has got to see this - don't they?!

    Then put it in a package that doesn't run me into the poor house trying to pay for it - sheesh.

    Regarding your point about the diesel hybrids - I read somewhere that the benefits of this are less due to the electric motors taking away a big benefit of diesel motors - low end torque. I don't know how much truth there is to this, but this is what I heard.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    FORCE may be too strong a word but IMPOSE a solution, after due process in the Congress, is just part of our system of government. Some may see it as being FORCED to do something against their will. But if it's been decided that it's for the good of society as a whole - and it's done lawfully - then those being forced to comply with what the majority wishes is just being in a minority. There's nothing unusual here.

    We are FORCED to do things everyday that we may not agree are right but they are legal and lawful. Virginia penalizes it's citizens upwards of $3500 along with a residual tax of $1100 each year for 10 yrs thereafter for speeding, or passing a stopped school bus or other dangerous activity. It was just written into law after being voted by the legislature and signed by the Governor. If you are VA resident you are FORCED not to speed.

    I can also see if the situation doesn't improve on the supply side that
    a. there may be rationing;
    b. we may be forced to limit the number of miles we drive;
    c. some of us may be forced to turn in our driver's licenses;
    d. certain cities may force motorists to leave their vehicles at the city limits;
    e. we may be forced to buy hybrids ( all large vehicles must be hybrids ) in order to save fuel.

    Lots and lots of people won't like some or all of these options but if it's a question of keeping peace in the streets and keeping the military fueled up to protect us then and keeping the economy alive then we the citizens may be forced into uncomfortable decisions, legally and lawfully.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    In my opinion, hybridizing a heavy vehicle like a large SUV makes no sense at all. Sure, the relative MPG gain is there, but frankly, saving 1-2 MPG is not that significant in relation to the added hybridization costs.

    Continuing on topic, it would make a lot more sense to use a diesel engine in these vehicles.


    The savings in hybridizing a heavy vehicle is the fact that the worst driving characteristic is improved 50%. For every mile that a hybrid Tahoe or Yukon drives in the city it saves 50% of the fuel that an ICE would use. This is a HUGE benefit.

    Rough numbers taken to the extreme. All new trucks ( pickups, SUVs, Crossovers and Vans ) total about 8 Million new vehicles a year. Each drives about 15000 mi on average now. Each gets from 14 mpg to 19 mpg in the City segment, say an average of 17 mpg. If 'City' driving is about 50% of the total then the new 'truck fleet' each year uses

    8 million x (( 15000 / 2 ) / 17 mpg ) = 3.53 Billion gallons of fuel

    If all of these were to be made hybrids then half that fuel would be saved each year. What does that do for our national consumption of petroleum products?

    We use about 7.6 Billion bbl of oil annually here which is about 25% of the world's usage. Our usage will climb to about 10 Billion bbl in the near future. About 65% of this usage goes toward transportation. 'Forcing' the least efficient vehicles to use a more efficient system like any of the hybrid technologies in place now would save about 63 million bbl annually. That's about 8% of our total current usage or about 12-13% of our transportation usage. That's just city driving in 'trucks'.

    Diesels:
    We'll have to see how the new VW's do in the EPA tests using the new emissions equipment.
    Diesels would seem to be best for heavy vehicles but GM, Ford and Toyota seem to think that the cost of achieving acceptable emissions is too high. Hybrids gain the same benefit at a lower cost.
    Then there is the salability of diesels. Someone, prolly Honda, is going to have to do the grunt work to educate the American public about clean diesel. How long? In the meanwhile GM, F, T can be selling hybrids. Toyota has already done the grunt work to educate the public on hybrids.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,815
    "Regarding your point about the diesel hybrids - I read somewhere that the benefits of this are less due to the electric motors taking away a big benefit of diesel motors - low end torque. I don't know how much truth there is to this, but this is what I heard."

    I think you misunderstood my post. I am not in favor of hybrid diesels, for the exact reasons you mention.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,815
    "The savings in hybridizing a heavy vehicle is the fact that the worst driving characteristic is improved 50%. For every mile that a hybrid Tahoe or Yukon drives in the city it saves 50% of the fuel that an ICE would use. This is a HUGE benefit."

    I don't think it will be 50% improvement in any driving cycle. The Hybrid pickups only get about 1 MPG difference in the city, which is less 10% or so; I expect the Tahoe & etc to get similar. If there is truly a 50% gain in actual driving, that is very good - but I will be surprised. However, even with a 50% gain the net gas savings (to the planet, to the supply of oil, etc) will not be nearly the same as someone switching from a 2.5 ton SUV to a 1 ton compact vehicle - even an ICE only vehicle. That is the second part of my point - it isn't just %, it is total gallons saved.

    It is all about weight, mass, and the energy required to get 2.5 tons of metal up to speed. About the only thing those large hybrids do effectively is shut down the engine when stopped. But then there is a massive amount of weight that has to be hauled to get up to speed, which quickly saps the battery.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,815
    "But if it's been decided that it's for the good of society as a whole - and it's done lawfully - then those being forced to comply with what the majority wishes is just being in a minority. There's nothing unusual here."

    Off to the races again! The right of the minority to be free of "tyranny of the majority" is a well established rule of law in the US.

    Just out of curiosity (purely hypothetical), what would you do if the majority - i.e., Congress - passed a law making it against the law to sell hybrids, or perhaps a national referendum had the same results? Not a pleasant thought from any perspective.
  • galvanggalvang Posts: 156
    I have fairly strong agreement to your points unfortunetly some individuals in this board have a twisted mind set on our alternative energy needs. The bottomline our government needs to step in and take the lead on this and work together with the auto manufactures to resolve this.

    For those who say that these issues take care by themselves are really ignorant.

    Alternative energies in the long term is about saving american lives, enhancing our national security, econmic security and Al gore's environnment. :shades:

    These new technologies on alternative energy will bring new jobs with new prosperity just as the internet did in the last decade. Energy Efficiency is a also part of this equation where these new hybrids will help use less fossil fuels till new one alternative solutions spring up in the near future.

    GM should of introduced the diesel first but I believe the reason they went with hybrid is because of emissions. Diesel is still too dirty but finally new cleaner diesel engines are being introduced. The Germans such as Mercedes, Audi, VW have recently introduced them. Honda is next and they did it with out using "Urea".

    Next step is integrating both technologies to get the double whammy effect of fuel efficiency. It may be initially expensive but I'm sure the prices as these technologies mature will go down. Other technogies in the wing all Plug- in electric car with some exotic battery technology or the infamous Hydrogen fuel cell. Exciting future ahead and the auto corporations along with the government need to work together to resolve our energy needs for our future.
  • nedzelnedzel Posts: 787
    "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."

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,815
    "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."

    I don't think the Camry Hybrid is that disappointing. Most people are reporting Mid-30's, while having V6 acceleration levels. That is better than the I4 Camry.
  • peraltaperalta Posts: 94
    In my book, Toyota is very successful in large hybrid like the highlander. My 2006 highlander hybrid AWD is consistently getting more than 30 miles per gallon on every fill up at the pump, regardless if it is city or highway driving.

    Compare that to an average of less than 20 miles per gallon on the non hybrid version.

    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.
  • galvanggalvang Posts: 156
    "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."

    My statement was an opinion and belief. Do you have any facts to substantiate otherwise?? :mad: With this in mind... .

    I have worked in corporations all my life, almost 30yrs, what corporations say to shareholders are sometimes exagurated and sometimes outright lies. Most have been truthful but one or two have been almost criminal. I usually take corporation statements with a grain of salt and with a little skeptism. Hence Enron, Tyco, and others. So.... .

    Do the quarterly reports show how the car manufactures and oil spend in lobbying efforts in doing everything they can to block legislation to improve efficiency on vehicles. NO. Do the quarterly reports (10q) show the back room deals that went on with oil industry and the white house, No. The quarterly reports only show what is legal for them to report to their shareholders. It does not report any unethical activity or behind the scene deals or any other activity that would benefit soley the suspect corporations.

    I have nothing against government backroom deals as long the intent is to improve the majority "we the people".

    Agreed, Toyota is arguably ahead in the game on hybrids in terms of cost. Although GM did a nice job with the Tahoe/Yukon with the dual mode hybrid. Thats why I'm on this board. For larger trucks and SUVs, diesels will probably improve the highway mileage while Hybrids will improve mostly in city driving. Toyota already acknowledged that they see that hybrids will be a standard for all vehicles in the future. Minimal cost adder for hybrids, Toyota stated recently.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,053
    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.
  • nedzelnedzel Posts: 787
    "My statement was an opinion and belief."

    Based on zero evidence.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,815
    "Compare that to an average of less than 20 miles per gallon on the non hybrid version.

    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...
  • peraltaperalta Posts: 94
    I know that the CR-V and Highlander have been crossed shopped by many but these are different classes of vehicles.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.