Agreed. Most soccer moms who currently drive these behemoths would probably be fine in a Passat wagon or something, except for carpooling when eight seats are handy. But the reality is that hundreds of thousands of full-size SUVs are sold every year, regardless of their fuel consumption.

What we need in this country are MPVs/"people-carriers" and a public that doesn't mind their stigma. The Touran TDI is the length of a Jetta but fits seven passengers and gets 40 MPG. I rode in the third row of an Opel Zafira taxi and that was fine, too.

A friend is thinking of getting a Suburban. He was looking at a diesel equipped one, due to the guzzling nature of the beast. We had a gas powered one where I used to work, and it got pretty good mileage, but it had the smaller engine (5.7 litre). It got 17 l/100 km on the highway.

The two hybrids get about what the diesel equipped unit gets, around 12 l/100 km. That's pretty good for such a large vehicle. For comparison purposes, my previous vehicle (anti-Prius is what I used to call it - a 2001 Nissan Pathfinder) got between 12 and 15 l/100 km, so the new hybrids are pretty impressive.

Bob, wait for the PU hybrid mentioned in the original post. That can be a basis for your RV, either a "camper" or a complete unit based on the PU chassis.

Pearl is a
2007 Driftwood Pearl Prius
Package "B" (everything but leather, nav, and rear camera)

Well they've started advertising them on TV already. I found myself scratching my head trying to figure out if the mileage was "good". Yes, it's good for a 6000 lb monster SUV, as I kept telling myself about my previous anti-Prius (2001 Nissan Pathfinder). But that's lame. Its poor mileage any way you slice it, as most of the time the vehicle will be driven with one occupant!

But it's cool they've finally developed a proper hybrid power train for larger vehicles!

So I'm standing from one foot to the other trying to decide if this is a "good thing".

Pearl is a
2007 Driftwood Pearl Prius
Package "B" (everything but leather, nav, and rear camera)

Here is a simple comparison..

SUVs will be bought and used by the US buyer until the pain is so great ( $4? $5? $6? a gal ) that they have to give them up. Until then...( all according to the new EPA standards )

A driver of an ICE Tahoe will use about 71 gal for every 1000 miles of City driving; This is not so good for us.
A driver of a 2-Mode Tahoe will use abt 47 gal for every 1000 miles of City driving. This is not so bad for us.

Comparing:
A driver of an ICE Camry will use about 47 gal for every 1000 miles of City driving. This is not so bad for us, as a matter of fact it's very common.
A driver of a TCH will use about 30 gal for every 1000 miles of City driving. This is very good for us.

The TCH saves 17 gal for every 1000 miles of City driving over its ICE sibling.
The GMT2M saves 24 gal for every 1000 miles of City driving over its ICE sibling.

Forget the ratings look to the fuel saved. That's the key issue at the moment.

Lifetime fuel usage: 2.1 GPC ( 1.99 recent )

I agree, kdhspyder.

But, IF the GMT2M didn't exist. maybe, just maybe the fringe buyer (who doesn't REALLY need a Tahoe), maybe they buy an Escape Hybrid or EVEN that Camry or Camry Hybrid. Then, they'll for sure be gettng better MPG (using less fuel) than driving the GMT2M. Even more so on highway miles.
That's where I (and I think David) are coming from.
I agree that if someone is dead-set on buying a Tahoe, that an available Hybrid version of it is a good thing. I don't think that can be denied. It's just that it's now easier (and for a longer period of time perhaps) to convince yourself that the "pain at the pump" won't be so bad with this new GMT2M, so let's get it - instead of that Escape, Camry, etc.

So, I'm a little on the fence, too. The thing that makes me believe it's an overall good thing (even if the fringe buyer gets the GMT2M, when they don't need one ), is that hybrids will become MUCH more mainstream if these take off. This can only be good
Plus, the trickle-down effects could be awesome. Putting a similar version of this into an Escalade, Hummer, or monster truck HAS to be relatively easy - should GM choose to do so. IF they sell well, GM will push this technology to their other vehicles. Remember, GM IS still #1 (barely) in the world for vehicle manufacturing.

Steve

STOP terrorism - Drive a HYBRID

Vehicles:
350 miles a week ------------ 2006 HCH II, Magnetic Pearl, w/NAVI (born on May 25, 2006)
350 miles a month ---------- 2003 Mazda Tribute ES-V6
350 miles a year (for now) - 1986 Mercedes 560SL

Escalade 2-Mode has already been announced. H2 Hybrid doesn't make sense for a whole host of reasons. An H2 Diesel makes a lot more sense.

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

The other day I saw one of the neighborhood postal trucks, gas only of course. It seldom goes faster than 30-35 miles per hour with stops at every house and business. A two-mode hybrid would be perfect in this application.

There are a lot of vehicles from the garbage and recycle pickup trucks through all sorts of delivery and service vehicles that are sized perfectly for the two-mode hybrids. Their stop-and-go duty cycles are ideal for a hybrid drive system.

We have a military that often runs on oil and needs a boat load of efficient trucks and light-weight, combat support vehicles. They seldom have to move fast so a hybrid drive is the right answer.

Now I'm a little worried about the complexity of the two-mode transmission. But we fought WW-II with multi-row, supercharged, radial engines. So I would prefer to see a second or third year model. But the hybrid egg is broken.

Unlike the hydrogen fraud, this is real and doesn't require:


Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.