News on hybrid vehicles, fuel cell cars, and the future of automobiles

In the full size version of these vehicles, they say they get about 25% better miliage. On one of these that only gets 14mpg for example (which is about on the high average), thats an additional 3.5 mpg.

So you get 17.5 mpg. Is that worth it? When you compare the additional cost of a hybrid engine vs. a regular gas one, is it just a bit laughable (which I am sure many will use that excuse to not buy the hybrid version)? We probably could get that savings in just slowing down & maintaining our cars properly.

Dont get me wrong, I am not a SUV hater. I like them! But it just seems like they could try harder than that. One article I read says it could make those on the fence about SUVs, come on over b/c they are making them better with less guilt.

Yes, 25% is still 25%, but if it didnt come with the much higher cost (probably about 25%), it could be reasonable that something is being done for the environment. It almost seems like a deterent.
=-^-=
thats what I said. I am refering to full sized ones (Suburban, Tahoe, Blazer, Escalde), not the small/crossover type.

Noone N: I never told anyone what to do! I am asking opinions. Drive what you want.

mystikreaper: good point. I saw Consumers Report earlier this year & they say the small difference in the hybrid version vs. the gas version of the same model (not comparing Prius to Excursion), it is not cost effective due to the cost difference. Not saying its not more fuel efficient–just not cost effiecient–meaning how much you save to recoupe the difference in price.

benzcruiser:gold star for your homework! But I will have to differ on why we make them. They do offer an alternative (as limited as it is) to what there is. Its a start.

Ilovegm:excelent. As I said 25 is 25 & is better than none.

Larger vehicles are harder to make efficient. Could you imagine a jumbo jet improving efficiency by 25%? Boeing has poured their heart and soul into the redesigned 747, and it’s only about 13% more efficient than the models designed 20 years ago.

Also a 25% gain in fuel economy is far more significant in an SUV than a car. Say one car uses 10 gallons a month, and another uses 100. If you improved the fuel economy by 50% on both, you would only save 5 gallons in car one, while in car 2 you would save 50 gallons.

By the way the GM full size hybrids get better than 17 MPG. The Tahoe / Yukon get about 17 with the stand alone gas engine (which is best in class). So these Hybrids should get around 22 MPG. And I believe edmunds had a chance to test one, and that’s about what they got. That’s significant. The much smaller Toyota Camry only does about 2 MPG better.

Four Small SUVs Earn Top Safety Pick Good Ratings for Hybrids, but the Jeep Wrangler is Poor in Side Test Automakers are improving the crashworthiness of their vehicles and quickly installing side airbags and electronic stability control, an important crash avoidance feature, on more models. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently completed front, side, and rear crash test evaluations of eight small SUV models. For the first time, every model the Institute tested comes equipped with electronic stability control as standard equipment.

Institute ratings of good, acceptable, marginal or poor are based on results of front and side crash tests – plus evaluations of seat/head restraints for protection against whiplash injury in rear crashes. The best performers, earning the Institute’s TOP SAFETY PICK award, are the 2009 Ford Escape, 2008 Mitsubishi Outlander, 2008 Nissan Rogue, and 2009 Volkswagen Tiguan. These four models earn good ratings in all three of the Institute’s evaluations – and all are equipped with standard electronic stability control and side airbags. The Escape’s ratings also apply to the hybrid version – which is sold as the Mercury Mariner and Mazda Tribute, as well as the Escape.

Consumers now have multiple hybrid suvs earning TOP SAFETY PICK to choose from. Others include the midsize Saturn Vue and Toyota Highlander, which the Institute evaluated earlier.

The Institute’s frontal offset crash test, which began in 1995, drove major design changes in vehicles to do a better job of protecting people in the most common kind of serious crash. In the mid-1990s, few vehicles earned the top rating of good in the frontal test. Now, nearly every vehicle is rated good for frontal protection. Since the Institute began its side tests in 2003, manufacturers have been following the same path, changing their vehicles to improve protection in serious side impacts.

An exception is the 2-door 2008 Jeep Wrangler, which was tested without its optional side airbags. The previous version of the Wrangler, in which side airbags weren’t available, earned a rating of marginal for protection in side crashes; and the new model performed even worse, earning the lowest rating of poor. A new problem was that the driver door opened during the impact. This didn’t significantly affect the movement of the dummy during the test, but an open door in a crash could lead to partial or complete ejection of occupants.

Duration : 0:1:41

(more…)

I like the Toyota Highlander hybrid with the 3rd row seat; can’t afford an Escalade hybrid. Other thoughts on hybrid suvs with a 3rd row seat?

Not that I’ve heard of. I think Honda is looking into diesels for their larger SUVs/truck, but not Hybrids. Your options are somewhat limited for hybrid suvs with 3rd row seats. If it was me, I’d get the Toyota.

Four Small SUVs Earn Top Safety Pick Good Ratings for Hybrids, but the Jeep Wrangler is Poor in Side Test Automakers are improving the crashworthiness of their vehicles and quickly installing side airbags and electronic stability control, an important crash avoidance feature, on more models. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently completed front, side, and rear crash test evaluations of eight small SUV models. For the first time, every model the Institute tested comes equipped with electronic stability control as standard equipment.

Institute ratings of good, acceptable, marginal or poor are based on results of front and side crash tests – plus evaluations of seat/head restraints for protection against whiplash injury in rear crashes. The best performers, earning the Institute’s TOP SAFETY PICK award, are the 2009 Ford Escape, 2008 Mitsubishi Outlander, 2008 Nissan Rogue, and 2009 Volkswagen Tiguan. These four models earn good ratings in all three of the Institute’s evaluations – and all are equipped with standard electronic stability control and side airbags. The Escape’s ratings also apply to the hybrid version – which is sold as the Mercury Mariner and Mazda Tribute, as well as the Escape.

Consumers now have multiple hybrid suvs earning TOP SAFETY PICK to choose from. Others include the midsize Saturn Vue and Toyota Highlander, which the Institute evaluated earlier.

The Institute’s frontal offset crash test, which began in 1995, drove major design changes in vehicles to do a better job of protecting people in the most common kind of serious crash. In the mid-1990s, few vehicles earned the top rating of good in the frontal test. Now, nearly every vehicle is rated good for frontal protection. Since the Institute began its side tests in 2003, manufacturers have been following the same path, changing their vehicles to improve protection in serious side impacts.

An exception is the 2-door 2008 Jeep Wrangler, which was tested without its optional side airbags. The previous version of the Wrangler, in which side airbags weren’t available, earned a rating of marginal for protection in side crashes; and the new model performed even worse, earning the lowest rating of poor. A new problem was that the driver door opened during the impact. This didn’t significantly affect the movement of the dummy during the test, but an open door in a crash could lead to partial or complete ejection of occupants.

Duration : 0:2:9

(more…)

I like the Toyota Highlander hybrid with the 3rd row seat; can’t afford an Escalade hybrid. Other thoughts on hybrid suvs with a 3rd row seat?

Not that I’ve heard of. I think Honda is looking into diesels for their larger SUVs/truck, but not Hybrids. Your options are somewhat limited for hybrid suvs with 3rd row seats. If it was me, I’d get the Toyota.

If you read the MPG for the SUVs they suck!!!!

There are certain people who really NEED an SUV; whether it’s for hauling soccer balls or bringing home groceries, there are people who really need those things. And SUV buyers tend to be environmentally conscious suburbanites, so they feel the lower gas consumption can’t hurt.

if not, point out the inaccuracy…….

hybrids cost a little more than the average car, so do SUV’s

the difference is why consumers have chosen one or the other-

hybrid owners choose to spend the extra money in an effort to reduce emissions and gas consumption, hoping the savings on gas will in the long run help to pay for the extra cost.

SUV owners spend more on the vehicle, and they pay more for gas. im not against SUVs, some people need them. those who live in cold climates or have jobs that require 4 wheel drive, but the vast majority of them never leave dry pavement. that vast majority are paying more and using more……for what?…..safety? sure, but their own safety comes at the expense of other vehicles. by driving larger vehicles that sit higher up, they put others at risk.

so it boils down to spending more, and then getting in return lower emissions, and lower gas consumption or safefy at the expense of others.

how is this not accurate?

Emission laws have been softened by the Republican party that believes not in Global Warming to protect their right to drive SUV’s. I think that is a sign of selfishness myself with no concern to to our planets ecology and environment.