Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The new hybrid Tahoe....

is, sad to say, a dog apart from its mileage. According to the Detnews review, going to the hybrid system costs you the top-end interior materials, a full ton in towing capacity, and you get to pay extra for it as well. All in all, I really don't see a huge advantage that this has over my 1997 Sierra pickup--unless you really like large car payments, of course.

Hint to the Big/Detroit 3; diesel. What about a 230hp six for pickups and (hint, hint) large station wagons that could get the pickup to 25mpg and the wagons to 30-35mpg? With a proper (six speed manual) transmission, it's eminently achievable.

5 comments:

Shawn said...

when you buy a hybrid, you also get your bottom few ribs removed.

I'm not going to explain that.

pentamom said...

With diesel now running $.30/gal above premium, is there really a market for that? I'm not asking whether there rationally should be, but whether there likely is.

Shawn said...

bwahaha...not sure if this is what you were going for, but calling them just the 'detroit 3' implies that they're not big anymore. quality. :)

5(mom): let's say premium is, conservatively, 3.30. .30 is a 9% premium over...well...premium. :) If you get more than 9% better gas mileage, it's worth it. and, to get to 25, that's only coming from 22.9mpg: to get to 35, that's only 32.15.

So, it's likely that cost/gallon goes down.

Additionally, if the big three unleashed a slew of diesels, more pumps would be filled with diesel, and the price would come down even further.

...that's just a landscape architect's opinion, mind you...

Bike Bubba said...

Darned good question, Jane. I know I'd be in the market if they actually deliver 30-50% better mileage, which is eminently doable given the higher compression ratio and more optimal Carnot cycle.

If people concentrate on 0-60 all the time, though, they're likely to end up like the Excursion--very similar mileage, towing, and everything to the gas powered Suburban of the time.

pentamom said...

Shawn, two thoughts:

1. Your comment addresses the "rationally should," but not the actually will. Lots of people aren't going to sit down and do the math, they're going to go, "GACK! Why would I buy a DIESEL when I look at the price of diesel?" They suffer pump-sticker shock and never get out the calculator. In order for the beauty of rationally-driven free markets to work up to the ideal, you've got to get people to the point of actually looking at all the information. Human nature does tend to interfere with information gathering at times.

2. Many people don't buy premium anyway, so you're actually looking at a 50-60 cent price difference for diesel. So now you're talking 18-20% increase needed, which may still fit with your point, but does alter your math.