REAL WORLD Tahoe Hybrid Mileage

[Ktulu]

http://www.autospies.com/news/...Does-it-deliver-25135/

How does a range of 19.5-24.8 sound?

Cruising down the I-5 today we were registering 24.8MPG.

On a full size SUV!

And we have the pictures to prove it!

Around town it was lower but still impressive, just under 20MPG.

Now considering the regular Tahoe we had could only get 12MPG, 15MPG highway, that's a HUGE difference.

24.8 MPG hwy on a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine.

This hybrid delivers :thumbsup:

 

[AdamK47]

They still have that one major problem with the Tahoe. It's an SUV.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: AdamK47
They still have that one major problem with the Tahoe. It's an SUV.

At a combined MPG of about 21MPG, it is a huge step up from most other large trucks. It's starting to get into "station-wagon" mileage territory, which is a good thing....

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Nyati13

Originally posted by: AdamK47
They still have that one major problem with the Tahoe. It's an SUV.

At a combined MPG of about 21MPG, it is a huge step up from most other large trucks. It's starting to get into "station-wagon" mileage territory, which is a good thing....

For comparison, a Honda S2000 gets 18city/25hwy and a Honda Odessy get 16/23.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Cruising down the I-5 today we were registering 24.8MPG.

Yeah right. Tell me how many miles they get out of a tank of gas, not what the computer says. You could get that thing to read 99mpg coasting downhill.

Edit-Funny, I just read an article about the Tahoe Hybrid in Car & Driver and the manufacturer specs read 20 city/20 highway mileage. Car & Driver observed 19mpg in real world testing.

That is substantially less than the article cited here. Considering the gasoline only version gets 14/19 this isn't really much of an improvement IMO. In city only driving that would save you about $900 a year in gas assuming 15k miles a year and $3/gallon. Freeway driving would save you nothing at all and cost you $10k more in initial price.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Cruising down the I-5 today we were registering 24.8MPG.

Yeah right. Tell me how many miles they get out of a tank of gas, not what the computer says. You could get that thing to read 99mpg coasting downhill.

do you really think a reporter is doing such a biased test as that?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Cruising down the I-5 today we were registering 24.8MPG.

Yeah right. Tell me how many miles they get out of a tank of gas, not what the computer says. You could get that thing to read 99mpg coasting downhill.

usually there's one reading for instantaneous mpg and another for long-term mpg. at least that's how my passat is.

i'd take computer readouts with a grain of salt, but they aren't *too* far off, usually.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Cruising down the I-5 today we were registering 24.8MPG.

Yeah right. Tell me how many miles they get out of a tank of gas, not what the computer says. You could get that thing to read 99mpg coasting downhill.

There's a difference between Average MPG and Instant MPG.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Cruising down the I-5 today we were registering 24.8MPG.

Yeah right. Tell me how many miles they get out of a tank of gas, not what the computer says. You could get that thing to read 99mpg coasting downhill.

There's a difference between Average MPG and Instant MPG.

You can reset the average and it will start over calculating mpg based on your current driving situation. If you reset it on the freeway at 55mph while following a big rig for a few miles you could easily get results like this...or even higher.

Like I said, show me how many miles you get out of a tank of gas. Do that a few times with normal driving and I'll be convinced.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Cruising down the I-5 today we were registering 24.8MPG.

Yeah right. Tell me how many miles they get out of a tank of gas, not what the computer says. You could get that thing to read 99mpg coasting downhill.

usually there's one reading for instantaneous mpg and another for long-term mpg. at least that's how my passat is.

i'd take computer readouts with a grain of salt, but they aren't *too* far off, usually.

My Maxima's computer is pretty far off...about 8-10% in fact when it comes to average mpg.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Cruising down the I-5 today we were registering 24.8MPG.

Yeah right. Tell me how many miles they get out of a tank of gas, not what the computer says. You could get that thing to read 99mpg coasting downhill.

There's a difference between Average MPG and Instant MPG.

You can reset the average and it will start over calculating mpg based on your current driving situation. If you reset it on the freeway at 55mph while following a big rig for a few miles you could easily get results like this...or even higher.

Like I said, show me how many miles you get out of a tank of gas. Do that a few times with normal driving and I'll be convinced.

I've tried doing this in my Silverado on several occasions and I've never gotten the kind of mileage you claim. On Instant Economy on the other hand I have seen outrageous numbers.

 

[LTC8K6]

Those displays are notorious for being inaccurate, though.

Without a real test, there's no telling what the economy was.

It might have been better or worse.

 

[Corporate Thug]

50K for a Tahoe?!?!?!?!?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Billy Idol]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
50K for a Tahoe?!?!?!?!?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

According to the Caddy site an Escalade starts at $56.9k. The hybrid version ain't gonna be any cheaper.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Billy Idol

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
50K for a Tahoe?!?!?!?!?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

According to the Caddy site an Escalade starts at $56.9k. The hybrid version ain't gonna be any cheaper.

Funny, the Toyota Sequoia Platinum starts at $52.3K and can be optioned to $60k. I think you're getting a heck of a deal on the Tahoe Hybrid.

But for what it's worth, I agree with Jules. You can't really call these numbers real world unless someone actually takes the time to verify them a few times over.

 

[sniperruff]

well, the question is, why would anyone need a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine to begin with?

if you want to haul people you can get a minivan

if you want to haul cargo, you can get a van/pickup

if you want to off-road, a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine is probably not a good choice of vehicle either.

check out the radio... a $50k+ car with a radio that made its way from a cobalt... ugh!

 

[marvdmartian]

Originally posted by: sniperruff
well, the question is, why would anyone need a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine to begin with?

if you want to haul people you can get a minivan

if you want to haul cargo, you can get a van/pickup

Gee, when my dad used to haul the family (Mom, Dad, 2 girls, 2 boys, and later my Grandma, once she retired) on vacation, towing a 23 foot travel trailer behind, his Suburban sure did the trick better than any van or minivan (which, coincidentally, didn't exist at that time) could have, and had the seating that a pickup lacks.

I'm in no way defending the 90+% of people that buy SUV's that don't need them, I'm only saying that your complete dismissal of them as a useful vehicle is wrong. Let's face it, most people I (and probably most other people) see driving SUV's have 2 kids or less, no equipment or trailer to tow, and are oftentimes driven by women who drive a 5000+LB vehicle the exact same way they drove their crappy small Honda/Toyota/whatever they had before it.......BADLY!!
Believe me, I'd love to see the vast majority of SUV's off the road, but there are occasions where they're necessary, especially for those people that have towing needs and large families.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Originally posted by: sniperruff
well, the question is, why would anyone need a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine to begin with?

if you want to haul people you can get a minivan

if you want to haul cargo, you can get a van/pickup

if you want to off-road, a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine is probably not a good choice of vehicle either.

What about the people that want to do all those things?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf

Originally posted by: sniperruff
well, the question is, why would anyone need a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine to begin with?

if you want to haul people you can get a minivan

if you want to haul cargo, you can get a van/pickup

if you want to off-road, a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine is probably not a good choice of vehicle either.

What about the people that want to do all those things?

And what percentage of the driving population do these people comprise? 1%? 2%?, 5%, at most? The truth is, most drivers have no real need for an SUV, especially the three-ton behemoths barely getting double digit fuel economy on America's roads today. But people will buy them anyway just for the sake of driving a bigger vehicle and for the false sense of safety and security conveyed by the 4WD and large size of body on frame SUVs such as the Tahoe and Sequoia. In reality, the fact that these vehicles use ladder frames underneath give them a disadvantage in terms of safety because the rigid ladder frame is much less apt at crumpling in an accident. The full time 4WD systems in SUVs are also not very useful in most areas around America, and can sometimes lead drivers to think their vehicle's capabilities are more than what it actually posesses, leading to accidents.

This quite from William Chapin, former executive of the now defunct American Motors Company (which was among the first companies to introduce SUVs to the American market and later produced many SUVs under the Jeep brand) probably sums it up best:

?All of the SUV market was psychological, [and] there was no actual customer need for four-wheel drive."

Oh, and for those who think a full size, body on frame SUV is safer than a car or minivan, watch this crash test between a Land Rover Discovery and a Renault Espace Minivan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEBC9PbjPv4

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Cruising down the I-5 today we were registering 24.8MPG.

Yeah right. Tell me how many miles they get out of a tank of gas, not what the computer says. You could get that thing to read 99mpg coasting downhill.

usually there's one reading for instantaneous mpg and another for long-term mpg. at least that's how my passat is.

i'd take computer readouts with a grain of salt, but they aren't *too* far off, usually.

They are dead-nuts on with Chevys. My Suburban has one and it is uncanny. However many gallons it says I've used, it takes that much to fill it up.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Cruising down the I-5 today we were registering 24.8MPG.

Yeah right. Tell me how many miles they get out of a tank of gas, not what the computer says. You could get that thing to read 99mpg coasting downhill.

usually there's one reading for instantaneous mpg and another for long-term mpg. at least that's how my passat is.

i'd take computer readouts with a grain of salt, but they aren't *too* far off, usually.

My Maxima's computer is pretty far off...about 8-10% in fact when it comes to average mpg.

so 90% = 21.6 mpg for a 24mpg vehicle. still not bad at all for an SUV of that size.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
50K for a Tahoe?!?!?!?!?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fully loaded Tahoe MSRP is close to $50k. Yukon Denali will run you over $50k.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf

Originally posted by: sniperruff
well, the question is, why would anyone need a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine to begin with?

if you want to haul people you can get a minivan

if you want to haul cargo, you can get a van/pickup

if you want to off-road, a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine is probably not a good choice of vehicle either.

What about the people that want to do all those things?

And what percentage of the driving population do these people comprise? 1%? 2%?, 5%, at most? The truth is, most drivers have no real need for an SUV, especially the three-ton behemoths barely getting double digit fuel economy on America's roads today. But people will buy them anyway just for the sake of driving a bigger vehicle and for the false sense of safety and security conveyed by the 4WD and large size of body on frame SUVs such as the Tahoe and Sequoia. In reality, the fact that these vehicles use ladder frames underneath give them a disadvantage in terms of safety because the rigid ladder frame is much less apt at crumpling in an accident. The full time 4WD systems in SUVs are also not very useful in most areas around America, and can sometimes lead drivers to think their vehicle's capabilities are more than what it actually posesses, leading to accidents.

This quite from William Chapin, former executive of the now defunct American Motors Company (which was among the first companies to introduce SUVs to the American market and later produced many SUVs under the Jeep brand) probably sums it up best:

?All of the SUV market was psychological, [and] there was no actual customer need for four-wheel drive."

Oh, and for those who think a full size, body on frame SUV is safer than a car or minivan, watch this crash test between a Land Rover Discovery and a Renault Espace Minivan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEBC9PbjPv4

blah blah no most people don't "need" SUVs but a lot of them have them and if this ups the gas mileage what are you people bitching about? No I'm not a SUV guy either.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf

Originally posted by: sniperruff
well, the question is, why would anyone need a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine to begin with?

if you want to haul people you can get a minivan

if you want to haul cargo, you can get a van/pickup

if you want to off-road, a 5,500lb + SUV with a 6.0L engine is probably not a good choice of vehicle either.

What about the people that want to do all those things?

And what percentage of the driving population do these people comprise? 1%? 2%?, 5%, at most? The truth is, most drivers have no real need for an SUV, especially the three-ton behemoths barely getting double digit fuel economy on America's roads today. But people will buy them anyway just for the sake of driving a bigger vehicle and for the false sense of safety and security conveyed by the 4WD and large size of body on frame SUVs such as the Tahoe and Sequoia. In reality, the fact that these vehicles use ladder frames underneath give them a disadvantage in terms of safety because the rigid ladder frame is much less apt at crumpling in an accident. The full time 4WD systems in SUVs are also not very useful in most areas around America, and can sometimes lead drivers to think their vehicle's capabilities are more than what it actually posesses, leading to accidents.

This quite from William Chapin, former executive of the now defunct American Motors Company (which was among the first companies to introduce SUVs to the American market and later produced many SUVs under the Jeep brand) probably sums it up best:

?All of the SUV market was psychological, [and] there was no actual customer need for four-wheel drive."

Oh, and for those who think a full size, body on frame SUV is safer than a car or minivan, watch this crash test between a Land Rover Discovery and a Renault Espace Minivan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEBC9PbjPv4

I find it extremely interesting that you posted this, because, having grown up driving in upstate NY in the snow every winter, I found that a FWD vehicle with excellent weight distribution actually performed exemplary in winter driving.

I don't know where drivers these days got the notion that you NEED a 4WD vehicle if you live anywhere it snows. Great marketing I guess. Kudos to the marketing geniuses at GM, Ford and Chrysler because Americans have been sucking up this load of horse shit for decades.

I remember the first vehicles spinning into the ditch were almost always the 4x4 Chevy Blazers and Ford Broncos. My little FWD 1973 SAAB (my first car) drove easily through it all, in fact, I used to drive my Mom to work during the heavy storms. Maybe the snow these days is more hardcore than it was in the 1980s though...:laugh:

 

[thomsbrain]

There are certainly a few people out there for whom a big SUV is the best vehicle choice. For those people, I'm glad they now have an option with slightly less atrocious mileage. After all, the SUV has a reason to exist! I think it would be a bad thing for the consumer if they disappeared from the market altogether. It looks like this is the first "real" hybrid that GM has released, so kudos to them. Their previous attempts offered benefits that were so slight that one can hardly even count them. But it's a company that is really trying hard lately, at a lot of things.

For the SUV argument in general, I think it's worth noting what the market looked like in the early/mid 80's. People's needs were exactly the same back then, but families were buying vehicles that better fit their needs. As a result, there were only two or three options in the SUV "market," and they were enough to satisfy demand. If you primarily needed off-road prowess, you bought a Jeep. If you needed room and towing power for trailer camping, you bought a Suburban. And if you didn't need those things, for the most part you didn't want to be caught dead in either option, and with good reason. They were (and still are) slow, unsafe, uncomfortable, and expensive. Think about how few of them you actually saw on the road at the time... ALL of the increase in SUV sales since then is due to fashion alone.

I think most people's SUV griping is itself a fashion statement... one that ironically claims to be a rejection of people choosing a fashion statement! Of course, they are correct in their rational that the fashion-SUV drivers choose "cool" over the well-being of the planet their children will inherit (not to mention the politics of the one in which WE live!). SUV fashion is a form of drawn-out suicide for our species, being ironically spearheaded by the mothers who live in one of the countries where it is currently most viable to successfully raise a child.

Of course, the anti-SUV crowd's reasons for being anti-SUV are actually no less selfish and short-sighted than the SUV crowd. I'd bet the few who really and truly drive a station wagon primarily because it best fits their needs don't actually outnumber the few who really and truly drive a Suburban because it best fits their needs. The rest probably bought it because they didn't want to look UN-cool by driving the SUV! And they will bring out the "better for the environment" excuse just like fat-ass soccer mom will bring out the "but I have children!" argument. Both are bogus reasons for most people.

But ultimately being anti-SUV it is a fashion statement that happens to do less damage to our viability as a species on this planet. So there is a clear right and wrong that lurks behind the shallow and selfish reasons that drive both views of what is fashionable. I hope everyone chooses wisely.