These SUV hybrids are so overpriced that you will come out much better getting the gasoline version. BTW, my gas Tahoe gives me 22/15/11.5 hwy/cty/tow milage. It costs $20k less than the hybird, at $4/gal, that 5000 gals of gas. The only improvement is in the city, and 5000 gals at 15 mgp is 75,000 miles of city driving (that'll never happen). But, the improvement is actually only 5 mpg in the city!
1. New diesels need the particulate filter which kills mpg when it regenerates.
2. Current diesel demand already is higher than the ideal gas/diesel production ratio for the kind of crude and kind of refineries the USA has. Subtract sales of gas vehicles and move them to the diesel category and you will see diesel prices zoom way higher than gas prices. A barrel of crude just WANTS to make X gallons of gas and Y gallons of crude. The country's demand needs to stay balanced to use X and Y equally for efficient refining. One reason gas has been cheap here as long as it has is that the Euros use so much diesel that they refine excess gasoline - and wind up selling it to us at cost!
Go ahead and push diesel hard. It keeps gas prices lower for me!
1. New diesels need the particulate filter which kills mpg when it regenerates.
2. Current diesel demand already is higher than the ideal gas/diesel production ratio for the kind of crude and kind of refineries the USA has. Subtract sales of gas vehicles and move them to the diesel category and you will see diesel prices zoom way higher than gas prices. A barrel of crude just WANTS to make X gallons of gas and Y gallons of crude. The country's demand needs to stay balanced to use X and Y equally for efficient refining. One reason gas has been cheap here as long as it has is that the Euros use so much diesel that they refine excess gasoline - and wind up selling it to us at cost!
Go ahead and push diesel hard. It keeps gas prices lower for me!
Don't be blaming poor fuel economy solely on the dpf. Just because it didn't exist in prior years doesn't mean it's completely at fault. The NOx level for 2007 changed as well. This means MORE egr. EGR is what kills fuel economy. A rig that hauls heavy all the time and takes advantage of passive only regeneration will not see a decrease in fuel consumption due to the dpf, but will still see the affects of increased egr.
This is why urea-based SCR technology for 2010 is so important. By decreasing the amount of egr to 2002 levels and taking care of the excess NOx on the back end, 2010 engines have the real ability to see fuel economy figures of the 7.3 PSD and 5.9 CTD.
These SUV hybrids are so overpriced that you will come out much better getting the gasoline version. BTW, my gas Tahoe gives me 22/15/11.5 hwy/cty/tow milage. It costs $20k less than the hybird, at $4/gal, that 5000 gals of gas. The only improvement is in the city, and 5000 gals at 15 mgp is 75,000 miles of city driving (that'll never happen). But, the improvement is actually only 5 mpg in the city!
Two words: BAD DEAL!
The costs will come down, and the price difference is not 20K based on new prices on the Tahoe. The difference is around 8K for a comparably equipped model (per carsdirect.com), I will give you that, and that buys a LOT of gas.
I think what some forget, is the LESS gas we all use, the better off we all are.
McDonoughDawg wrote: The costs will come down, and the price difference is not 20K based on new prices on the Tahoe. The difference is around 8K for a comparably equipped model (per carsdirect.com), I will give you that, and that buys a LOT of gas.
I think what some forget, is the LESS gas we all use, the better off we all are.
Thank you for pointing that out. GM is dumb I think for only putting the Hybrid system in fully loaded Tahoes.....but since they did, it's only fair to compare to similarly loaded Tahoes.
Also, not that I've seen actually that much brand bashing.....but I want to point out that GM, Chrysler, and BMW combined efforts on the 2-mode hybrid system. Not sure if everyone knew that.
-2006 Nissan Armada LE 4x4
-2007 Coachmen 19FLB SE
-2007 Regal 1900 w/ 4.3 EFI Volvo
Supercharged wrote: 4-in-a-fiver and my statments make the same amount of since.
Pushing hybrid technology, NG, or LP is just not going to go over well for many years. The costs of production aren't the main reasons, either. It's the number of stations out there that offer a fill-up for NG or LP, and even hydro are very few and far between. Just the costs to convert them would raise costs of the fuels themselves to pay for that change.
Hybrid technologies are a fairly good idea, but the companies will always want to drain us of our money to get them, as they are so high priced. The oil companies themselves will always have a hand in keeping them that way, too, because that will cut into their profits. I mean, there are just too many politicians with their hands in the oil companies kitties.
What I think we need is a better alternative that will still allow the use of the regular gas stations, use current technologies with improvements along the way continuing, and more free thinking companies and politicians who don't have their hands under the table across from the oil exec.
This will only go about when and IF there is some way we can get the politicians to leave off their payoff money, and actually push for real change...no, not pushing Obama...lol
Hybrid technology requires improvements in batteries to make them better. That means that there should be a PUSH for R&D into new battery technology, first. Then, a push into actually putting those hybrid engine setups into vehicles that will benefit EACH auto owner, not just some target market from some study done that costs the auto industry millions of dollars to have done to make them look good.
So, what do I mean? Well, let's look at the average Joe and Jane driver.
Joe has a truck, and carries stuff around, works from or using his truck, and tows a boat or rv. He needs hybrid technology that will improve his mileage and still be within reasonable costs to be worthwhile. For him, a hybrid engine setup would require large batteries, the ability to tow or not which would mean a larger engine/electric setup, which adds weight, thus reducing mileage gains at current battery and hybrid engine technological standings. So, he right now can only get a truck that offers very little increases in mileage and if he tows or hauls, will bring the mileage right back down to non-hybrid levels. Plus, the costs for the added technology is too overpriced to pay for itself, so he will not think twice about overlooking that hybrid. Therefore, Joe is left out in the cold due to cost for his applications according to those studies the auto industry has done. Oh, sure they have hybrid trucks coming, but the costs and gains are not in real-life within a range that he will be able to actually use.
Now, Jane, is a different situation. She drives to work, mostly commute in traffic, and requires stop and go situations. Hybrid setups would help her since she would be sitting in traffic and the hybrid would not be running her gas engine as much while just sitting there. She could find from 10% to 50% of an increase in fuel economy in her situation, and, since there are many autos out there that offer her a hybrid she will like and could use for her commute and taking the kids around to soccer, football, ballet, etc games and practice. So, she is the one that is being mostly targeted for the market today.
Now, mind you, Joe may be doing the same thing and it might be Joe instead of Jane doing the commute or running kids around town and such. But, if Joe OR Jane is an rver or a truck person, he/she is not figured into the equation for hyrid use, and thus, costs for him/her is not comparable enough to think about a hybrid due to higher price and not enough increase overall.
So, what am I saying? From what i've seen, hybrid technology use and the market for certain vehicles are not being factored into the equation for those of us who don't want to pay so much more for a hybrid and not get enough gain to make it worthwhile. I mean, this IS an RV forum. We are not part of their ideas to help out OUR expenses. Why would we want to pay $10k more for a hybrid that we will tow our rv or boat with when we won't get a gain or enough gain to pay for itself in years?
What i'm saying is that the auto industry needs to look into more R&D for those of us who do more than just drive to and from work or carry the kids around and such. And, they need to look at those of us who cannot afford the price increase over non-hybrid, and actually DO something to develop something that works for ALL of us, not just a segment of the market. But, in reality, they are not doing this. They are looking at higher payed people and the folks they call the 9 to 5 people, instead of working to improve overall technology and develop a better hybrid that will not cost any more than non-hybrid.
I mean, it's like millionaires only associating with other millionaires. They aren't looking at the low end scale people and doing anything to really help them out. And, they aren't looking at those of us who do more than just drive our car to work or around town.
Until they look at the WHOLE picture instead of just a segment, and actually DO something to help out and make prices lower, then hybrid technology will stay at it's higher price over standard and we will see SUVs and small cars that get better economy, while those of us down the list will continue to pay the high price of fuel, or drop our hobbies to save money.
Does that sound right? Reasonable? Like omething we want and need?
If I don't meet your expectations
Maybe you should lower your standards.
Tim, I applaud you for such in-depth thinking a reasoning. It's obvious the auto manufacturers aren't there yet. A short term fix for all market segments would be diesel power without the enormous option charge we currently pay. Why should we pay so much for efficiency that's already been developed?
Tim, I applaud you for such in-depth thinking a reasoning. It's obvious the auto manufacturers aren't there yet. A short term fix for all market segments would be diesel power without the enormous option charge we currently pay. Why should we pay so much for efficiency that's already been developed?
My sentiments, exactly...on BOTH fronts...diesel AND hybrid.
Offline
Online
