Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon Hybrid
Let us discuss these vehicles.
Chevy Tahoe Hybrid:
http://www.chevrolet.com/hybrid/
GMC Yukon Hybrid
http://www.gmc.com/yukonhybrid/index.jsp
Chevy Tahoe Hybrid:
http://www.chevrolet.com/hybrid/
GMC Yukon Hybrid
http://www.gmc.com/yukonhybrid/index.jsp
0
Comments
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.
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.
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.
Edmunds says the Tahoe Hybrid will get 23 mpg:
Tahoe Hybrid infomation
The whole program is riddled with IFs.
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.
"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.
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
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.
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/07/26/its-big-its-tough-its-powerfulits-a-hybrid-gmc- -yukon-hybrid-test-drive/
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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....
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.
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?
You notice that Toyota did not follow through with the Tundra hybrid they promised.
"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."
All the info I can find say GM's system uses NIMH.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.