http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C7282/

 

It doesn't look nearly as cool as the present Durango. This will dissuade people from getting a hybrid that obviously looks different (unless all the Durangos will look that way, but I think the design looks more mini-van, not muscle-wagon.)

 

A few observations:
1. Why is the hybrid improvement so modest? HSD yeilds a 60-80% improvement and IMA is good for a 35-50% boost in fuel efficiency.
2. What is the FE of the base product? 25% more mileage is a *huge* number when the base product gets 30-40 MPG, but a Durango get about 4-6 MPG? That would mean an improvement of 1-2 MPG.

 

Lets say you have a hybrid that boots a vehicle's mileage from 50MPG to 62.5 MPG (25% gain). To travel 100 miles, your fuel consumption has dropped from 2 gallons to 1.6 gallons. You saved .4 gallons.


Now, let's say you have an SUV that gets 10MPG, and that increases to 12.5 MPG. To travel 100 miles, that SUV has lowered its fuel consumption from 10 gallons to 8 gallons, a saving of 2 gallons. That is five times the fuel savings of the hybrid vehicle.


We would all love to have 50MPG SUVs on the road, but don't denigrate the impact of hybrid systems on the low end. THe bulk of fuel savings will come from raising the fuel economy of the worst offenders, rather than squeezing out a few more drops from already high mileage vehicles (given the same number of cars sold... of course, given the popularity of SUVs in this country right now, its even more important).

 

Exactly. I think the car manufacturers have erred by focusing on the relatively efficient small car (and small SUV) for hybrid production. Where the economics works is with vehicles that presently consume large amounts of fuel.

The geek factor and green factor will only sell small hybrids for a while or to a small segment.

 

I disagree completely. You legitimize people driving a 6000lb piece of junk for the purpose of "personal transportation" when you do this. How is trying to get someone to buy the 12.5MPG version saving gas when they could be getting 35MPG with a Civic?

I say let the fuel economy get worse and gas prices go up. They need to be seen as the dorkmobile they were once seen as (Chevy Suburban 20 years ago was NOT cool).

This isn't just about fuel economy... rest assured that we WILL use up all the oil unless the abiotic oil theory is true. What this hybrid does is encourage people to drive vehicles that don't stop worth a crap, can't corner worth a crap, impede everyone's view, and KILL people in cars at a disproportionate rate (look it up).

The small amount of gas saved by the hybrid version will ultimately end up meaning absolutely nothing.

 

The amount of gasoline saved by converting a larger vehicle is greater than that achieved by converting a smaller vehicle.

Economics and science can be frustrating.

In fact, the person considering a hybrid Durango (not 12.5 mpg!) is not going to buy a Civic. Unless gasoline prices increase enormously (which they eventually will) many people will continue to prefer vehicles other than small cars. Making them 30-40% more efficient is important in the meantime.

It only makes sense to insist that big vehicles remain as dirty and wasteful as ever if they are banned.

 

This is probably targeted for "the beef jerky guy" (see sig below)

The land barge lovers are almost impossible to reason with - they "feel" safe, look safe. Could pull up an article, but suffice to say, Consumer Reports had Bradshier or somebody drive with him in a Golf then a Pathfinder SUV. Yes, the Golf seems tiny, but the loud engine and feel for the road reminds the driver they are not invincible. Also, it is very nimble and the test validated that when it easily avoided the hypothetical boy on bike test. The Pathfider killed him just as easily as it had no manuverability.

The article's point is "active safety" (i.e. responsive cars) are more effective. They are more able to avoid the accident in the first place. Again, the driver does not feel invincible. The sad trend today is "passive safety" - crashing with a tank-like vehicle that if you tried to turn sharply, is likely to flip. It gives the driver smuggness they are safe when the reverse is true.

If manuverability works in warfare. It worked when the English defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588. It worked for the Wehrmacht during World War II. Ironically, it was the British fighter pilots that were more manuverable during the Battle of Britain. Never mind....the guys that want the bad a$$ Druango are thinking in their croutch, just as the marketers figured.

 

There is no gas saved... just gas consumption postponed. Oil is a finite resource.

You have to wonder how many people want to buy a hybrid system from the auto manufacturers who have the worst reputation for quality anyway. If Ford builds engines and transmissions that don't last 80,000 miles, do you really want to buy a hybrid from them?

 

The Durango is made by Daimler-Chrysler.