Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon Hybrid

auto9999

Let us discuss these vehicles.

Chevy Tahoe Hybrid:
http://www.chevrolet.com/hybrid/

GMC Yukon Hybrid
http://www.gmc.com/yukonhybrid/index.jsp

sherring

I have a 07 tahoe and I bought it new and only had it 5 months My radio has been replaced twice in the last two months. The radio would be working fine one minute and then if I turned the truck off and crack it back up the radio would be black (wouldn't have a anything on it like it lost memory or power. So then I carried it to the dealer and they decided that they would order me another one and after they replaced that one it was working fine then about 3 weeks later it started. :confuse: :mad:

sherring

Not only am I having radio problems I'm also having windsheild wiper problems along with my rear view mirrors that twitch going down the road. My windsheild wipers just start wiping the window and shooting water whenever they feel like it, it doesn't matter if the suns out or not. Sometimes they will shoot water and other times they will just wipe the window. I have the rainsence on mine and I've had it set to work for rain and not set for the rain and it don't work either way just if I maunal turn them on when I need them. Now my mirrors I've reset them once twice a day and that works for awile but the still twitch almost like something is jump out of the corner of your eyes while your driving it's really annoying. I've talked to the dealer about this and they are not sure yet what causing these problems so I'm looking for some help on what to do. :mad: :sick: :confuse:

tourguide

The Tahoe is already an expensive vehicle in it's standard form. This hybrid version will only appeal to an elite few who can afford the price premium.

GM has stated (I can't remember where I read this) that the cost of the system is $10K extra per vehicle. Take an LTZ loaded then add that on top, holy CATS!! My first CONDO didn't cost that much!!

Pricing will be everything here. It all depends on how much of this $10K they decide to eat. Even a $3K premium is a lot to swallow.

I think they should have forgotten this segment for hybrids, now if they made the lambda (Acadia/Enclave/etc.) a plug-in hybrid they would have something that would be on FIRE. I don't see the Tahoe hybrid selling very many units though.

Just my opinion.

larsb

They said they are going to eat some of that $10K.

My guess is that it will be around $4K premium, which for 25% better gas mileage with gas prices not going down in the foreseeable future seems like a no-brainer to me.

tourguide

Well, let's pretend for a minute that you are correct and the premium will be $4K. That buys over 1300 gallons of fuel at today's prices. Assuming you can make a tank last you two weeks, that is TWO YEARS worth of fuel. And that is JUST for the added cost of the vehicle.

I think the real world performance of this tank will have to be spot on or better in order to attract very many buyers. 25% better than 15mpg (city estimates) is 18.75mpg. Pfft - not impressed.

Now, if you put this two mode system into the Enclave/Acadia and added a plug-in capability - then you'd have something to write home about.

larsb

Payback for the hybrid premium in only TWO YEARS !!! That's super fast for a hybrid. Most take 4-7 years - so if GM can recoup the hybrid buyer's money in only two years that is a major advantage.

Edmunds says the Tahoe Hybrid will get 23 mpg:

Tahoe Hybrid infomation

gagrice

Edmund's is dreaming if they think the Tahoe hybrid will get 23 MPG around town. Maybe 20 MPG. That would save about $750 per year for the average driver. Over 5 years pay back if it is only a $4k premium.

The whole program is riddled with IFs.

larsb

It can be riddled with 1000 gigantic IFs but when it returns higher mileage and thus burns less fuel and pollutes less than it's non-hybrid counterparts, then all the IFs will become non-issues.

GM will collect more interest on the higher-priced financing. That will help counter some if not all of the hybrid costs they are eating.

tourguide

In addition to everything you talked about here, there is also another big IF. Yes, it will likely get 18.75-20mpg around town, but it remains to be seen if the "second mode" motor will kick in at a high enough speed to be useful at all. The first drive article on Edmunds says this:

"Toward the 50-mph mark on steady stretches, cylinder deactivation imperceptibly changed the V8 into a V4."

I certainly hope that that doesn't mean it stops working after 50.

If GM hopes for this to make an impact in the real world, then it better work up to 70 or 75mph where many drive (and some drive a good deal faster than that). If not, the second mode is nothing more than marketing baloney.

These kinds of answers though will probably really only come when the thing starts rolling into production and buyers start showing on the lots.

My high hopes for this beast are kind of fading. It seems like details like this would be trumpeted if the news was good for GM, and good for customers.

u045777

http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/13300/spied-2009-toyota-sequoia.html

In page 2 of the the article above it says that the new 2009 Sequoia hybrid will be the Flagship of Toyota's line. Buyers will be able to choose either V6, V8, or Hybrid.

The size of the new Sequoia appears slightly bigger than the Tahoe but smaller than a Suburban.

I'm betting that the Sequoia Hybrid will blow the doors off the Tahoe Hybrid in MPGs and reliability.

Soon well have a choice: Tahoe Hybrid or Sequoia Hybrid! I can't wait

gagrice

I would say it will have the same HSD that is in the LS600h. So figure at least $75,000 for the FLAGSHIP Sequoia. If you don't mind paying $30k premium for a hybrid as is the case with the LS600h go for it. Figure on less than the 21 MPG rating the LS600h has. A Sequoia that gets 19 MPG would be a 22% improvement. Don't expect it to match the Tahoe Hybrid mileage. It ain't gonna happen.

tourguide

I'll agree with what you've said here - cost is going to be REALLY high on this model. As much as I'd love a full size suv that gets a combined 20mpg, I just think it costs too much. You take a vehicle that is a $40K ticket already and add another 10% to the price tag, plus all the added complexity which will likely translate to worse than average reilability. I think I'm going to stay away from this one.

Besides which, people are being mighty optomistic about the "projected" performance here. These things will not defy the laws of physics, and real world numbers are likely to come in below the predicted economy values.

Nope - I'm going to buy used next time and wait this product cycle out.

chevyvolt

I had a chance to test-drive the car. Read review here:
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/07/26/its-big-its-tough-its-powerfulits-a-hybrid-gmc- -yukon-hybrid-test-drive/

stevedebi

"I had a chance to test-drive the car. Read review here: "

Your statements about the Prius are incorrect. The electric motor assists the engine when needed at all speeds; it is never disconnected (unless the battery becomes depleted, which is a rare event, but in any case it is not designed to disengage the electric motors and run on ICE-only at higher speeds).

I haven't studied these full size GM setups, but if they truly have two electric motors, one for slow and one for fast speeds, they are really wasting space and weight. Usually "dual mode" means that the vehicle can run on electricity alone (while the battery lasts) or on combined electric/ICE.

JBaumgart

I need a vehicle with good towing capability, rated to at least 5,000 lbs., but would also like it to get decent mileage. No real hurry to buy. The Tahoe/Yukon hybrids will certainly be worth a close look. I hope the 08's have better materials and more real luxury on the inside that past models. The other vehicle I'm looking at closely is the Acura MDX - probably more luxury but not as good of a tow vehicle and marginally worse mileage. But I would have more confidence in it from a reliabilty standpoint than a first year GM product with brand new technology.

chadx

I love the idea of the new Hybrid Tahoe. I drive a 2003 Avalanche and am excited that GM has decided to make a full size SUV Hybrid. What I don't understand is why they are using a 6.0 liter engine in the hybrid rather than the 5.3 liter in the non-hybrid. Yes the 6.0L is aluminim and saves weight, but why not use a 5.3 or 4.8 liter aluminum blocked engine. And over 300 horsepower? What is the point? If the hp rating were reduced to 260, which is still plenty for this vehicle (after all, it's a hybrid and supposed to get great mileage not win quarter mile acceleration test), you would have a winner because the mileage could be much better.

I guess I don't understand the horsepower wars. In the late 70s and 80s, 200 hp was plenty (granted those half-ton trucks weighed considerably less). Come on GM and use a reasonable engine (maybe even a V6 or your inline 5-cylinder) and get a usable and great mileage vehicle.

The 285hp in my 03 Avalanche has been plenty even when towing heavy loads. Give me a Hybrid Avalanche/Tahoe/Suburban with a V6 or inline-5 that gets better highway mileage and not just better city mileage and we will buy. Don't stay caught up in the unfortunate "horsepower wars" that manufactures love so much. Gear your hybrid toward better mileage rather than worrying about it still accelerating like the non-hybrid Tahoe. If I wanted that, I'd buy that. Make a hybrid that holds to the original spirit of a hybrid. Good mileage.

tourguide

"And over 300 horsepower? What is the point?"

The decision on which engine to use has already been made. The hybrid is getting the 6.0L. My guess as to why this is so, is probably because they need the greater displacement to carry the vehicle when it kicks into V4 mode. This is just my guess of course, but it is a LOT of vehicle to move.

Part of the problem too is these vehicles have developed a certain brawny reputation, and in order to sell them new models need to follow suit.

No matter what, plan on a payment hovering near or significantly above $800 per month. (Fuel NOT included)

larsb

For the larger engine, in part, they chose that because they want the vehicles to be able to tow larger items.

Most hybrid SUVs up to now CANNOT TOW AT ALL, so GM wanted to be the first with significant towing power.

A Very Good idea it was IMHO.

chadx

Per GM, the main reason they chose the 6.0liter was due to the aluminum block. They already had it in their line-up and it weighed less than the heavy 5.3liter block so they used it, along with other features to lighten the vehicle to compensate for a portion of the extra weight of the batteries, etc.

It had little to do with towing. Besides, the 5.3 liter equipped vehicles already tow a lot, so no need for extra power to tow LESS weight (lower rating) even with the extra vehicle weight. No need for a 6.0liter besides weight savings.

6,000 is still quite good tow rating compared to the usual Tahoes mid 7,000 tow range. I will disagree that past hybrids are unable to tow. The Lexus RX400h is rated to tow 3,500 lbs (same as their 3.5liter V6 powered non-hybrid RX350) and that is with a 3.3liter V6. The Toyota Highlander hybrid also tows 3,500 with a 3.3 liter V6 (same as the non-hybrid's tow rating). That's plenty to tow a pretty decent boat, most enclosed motorcycle/snowmobile/utility trailers, and some small campers. And remember the those are small-midsized SUV and the non-hybrid don't tow a whole lot.

Engine size does little to impact the tow rating on Tahoe so they could use a much smaller engine and still tow reasonable loads. If someone towed a great deal, then a hybrid probably isn't a good choice for them anyway. Why handicap the majority of potential owners with a big engine and lower-than-possible mileage so the few that need to tow 6,000 (and feel they must still drive a hybrid) can do so?

larsb

Good information, but what I said was "IN PART" they chose that engine for towing. And that's true.

Sure, the other hybrids can tow with minimal success. But never has a "hybrid SUV" been rated for 6,000 pounds. GM is happy to have this "largest towing load" feather in their hat.

They are glad to tell potential buyers "tow your boat 30 times a year and STILL be driving a hybrid to help the environment."

Believe me, that was/is a factor.

gagrice

After months on Craigslist I have found a buyer for my GMC Hybrid. I may miss it, then again I may not. I found a beater Ford Ranger for my truck duties and I can now buy the Diesel SUV that will be more what I need in a vehicle.

Oh, and I got my price. $7000 more than I was offered in trade. Car Dealers are so greedy. Still has less than 13k miles after 25 months. The guy has looked all over CA for the GM hybrid. Dealers told him they were sent to help out after Katrina. Probably why I have not seen any others. His wife's car, 2002 Prius....

chadx

>>>larsb - Good information, but what I said was "IN PART" they chose that engine for towing. And that's true.

I'm still not sure why you claim the tow capacity had anything to do with the using the 6.0 liter engine. I've found no supporting documentation or articles where GM claims this. The ONLY reason ever stated was it was a lighter engine block.

And my point was that the standard 5.3 liter will tow 7,000 - 9,000 in various GM vehicles, so a larger engine is absolutely not needed to help this vehicle with tow capacity. Even their old 4.8 liter would tow that much, so this in one case where engine size does not correspond with tow capacity. Acceleration or acceleration with load perhaps, but not capacity. That is vehicle set-up.

larsb

From the USA Today review of the Tahoe hybrid:

The 6-liter has nearly 4% more horsepower and 8% more torque than the 5.3-liter in gasoline-only Tahoes.

AND:

Key exception: Hybrids tow less. Rear-drive hybrid is rated to tow 6,000 pounds, vs. 7,500 pounds for gasoline version. Four-wheel-drive hybrid is rated to tow 6,200 pounds vs. 8,200 for gasoline.

My educated guess is that using the smaller 5.3 liter engine would have made for an even LARGER disparity between the hybrid and the non-hybrid in regard to tow ratings.

Do you think GM wanted a GREATER disparity, or a LESSER disparity?

gagrice

I think it is further evidence that hybrids do not belong in any vehicle you plan to tow with. The compromise is too great to make the slight gain in mileage worth the extra complexity. I guess GM will just join Toyota trying to look green when they are not.

You notice that Toyota did not follow through with the Tundra hybrid they promised.

larsb

I can revise your statement to fit reality:

"Hybrids for towing substantial weight is a new phenomenon, first introduced by GM in the 2008 Tahoe/Yukon hybrids. Later hybrid generations will get better at it."

And Toyota is green - the number two behind Honda in most "green rating" studies.

And Toyota never "promised" a Tundra hybrid. They talked some about it, but never said, "we ARE DOING IT."

tpe

My understanding is that this 2008 GMC hybrid will use Li-ion batteries. That's interesting when you consider that Toyota states this type of battery is still a couple years away from being mature enough for use in hybrids. I think what they're really saying is that the particular Li-ion chemistry they're developing (LiNiCoAlO2) still has major obstacles to overcome. This is the type found in laptops and is the most susceptible to thermal runaway. GM has specifically stated that they don't want any of their battery developers to pursue this chemistry because they don't feel it's suitable for an EV or hybrid application.

larsb

Where did you see that the GMC Yukon hybrid is using lithium batteries?

All the info I can find say GM's system uses NIMH.

tpe

Where did you see that the GMC Yukon hybrid is using lithium batteries?


Here's my source (slide 3). In doing more research I think this might be incorrect and the Yukon does in fact use NiMH batteries.

yukon

stevedebi

"I found a beater Ford Ranger for my truck duties and I can now buy the Diesel SUV that will be more what I need in a vehicle. "

What kind of diesel SUV? I haven't heard of any for sale in CA (New) since the Excursion was canceled in 2005. You could get one used, of course.

gagrice

I am looking mainly at the ML320 CDI or maybe the GL320 CDI with 7500 miles. If I find a new one that is the right color I will buy and register to our home in Hawaii. That is an advantage to having more than one home.

kdhspyder

...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.

JBaumgart

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.

kdhspyder

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?

JBaumgart

"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.

nedzel

"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.

kdhspyder

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..

nedzel

"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_S

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.

galvang

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_Flyer

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?

tourguide

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.

gagrice

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.

JBaumgart

So you guys are not "green" or is it you're just not "green with envy"?

gagrice

The green in hybrid is still very much open for debate. Though I suppose one of the other threads would be more appropriate.

nedzel

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...

JBaumgart

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.

galvang

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.

JBaumgart

"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.

stevedebi

"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.

tourguide

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.