Improvements in SUVs and trucks mileage. Worth the effort?
According to a recent article by the Wall Street Journal, the "eco" trend is reaching the bigger boys on the road. Since sales are going down for SUVs and trucks because of high gasoline prices, automakers are trying to improve fuel economy: New clean diesel engines, hybrid powertrains, shredding pounds and all types of "tricks" that help the vehicle use less fuel.
In general terms, the efforts, although significant in relative terms, aren't that spectacular. As an example, let's check the improvements on the Chevy Tahoe. Last year's model managed 15/19 mpg EPA (city/highway). For 2008, the same model has better numbers, 15/21, which offers a 9.5 percent increase in highway mileage, although 21 mpg still isn't great. Nevertheless, the 2008 model has more HP (320 from 295). This is about the same that has happened with the BMW X5, which has increased mileage 2/4 MPG although has increased more the number of ponies under the hood.
Nevertheless, GM has developed hybrid technology for buses, a descendant of which is the hybrid powertrains that will populate the models, namely the aforementioned Tahoe, the Cadillac Escalade, and the Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra pickups. Is this good? In theory, yes, but this comes at a premium which drivers might or not offset.
Continue reading after the jump a summary of the efforts to increase big vehicles mileage.
How about diesels? Mercedes has installed an oil burner in the ML, hoping that the improvement in fuel efficiency will attract more buyers. Sales of the ML were down a 40 percent last year. Along with the ML, the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Dodge Durango, models known for their poor gas mileage, are offering diesel options (although at a high premium over gas counterparts). Note that these diesel offerings aren't yet 50-state compliant, which will arrive in 1-2 years time.
Finally, among the "tricks" to improve mileage that some vehicles have added for this year, let's mention a few ones that the Chevy Tahoe hybrid will include: a lighter hood, hatch and driveshaft made of aluminium; lighter and more aerodynamic wheels, thinner seats and even keeping out options such as power-operated rear hatch or power-folding seats. Chevrolet has also removed the roof rack and the two hooks on the front bumper.
The article finishes with a forecast by David Healy, an analyst with Burnham Securities, "Hybrids tend to carry higher price tags, and drivers can't always reap fuel savings without altering their driving techniques" (now tell me if you have never seen an SUV at 85 mph on the left lane) and has a winner: "In the long term, I think diesels have a better shot at winning over consumers".
What's your opinion? Are these efforts worthy? What's the technology that will really help big vehicles to improve mileage?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
GoodCheer 3:32PM (8/02/2007)
If you get a combined 16 in last year's Tahoe and 17 in this year's, and you drive 15,000 miles each year (which is about average in America), you're buying 55 fewer gallons of fuel.
In my 37mpg Civic, I'd need to get up to 43 mpg to same the same amount of fuel (again assuming a 15000 miles year).
So while you're still a JackHole for driving such a stupid vehicle, improvements for the ludicrous behemoths are probably more useful than the development of the next Highlander hybrid. (unfortunately).
Reply
jeremie 8:10PM (8/02/2007)
This is a double sided questions. Some people need big truck for work or large families. Now the single guy with a Tahoe cruising with the bling... is an other story.
The improvements should be made with no drought in my mind. But the need for a social human behavior change is even more important..
Reply
art vatsky 7:04PM (8/02/2007)
This is an act of desperation. One SUV uses about the same amount of fuel as about 2 standard size cars. I tell you what: Sell all the existing SUVs to rental agencies all over the US and rent them when you need them. There are probably 50 million SUVs around that use the fuel 100 million cars would use. We also now know that they are not safer overall. If you live in the city and drive in the woods 2 weeks a year, rent an SUV. If you live in the country and drive in the city 2 weeks a year. Keep your SUV and enjoy it.
Reply
Travis Rassat 5:11PM (8/02/2007)
I think there is also a lot that can be learned about the durability of hybrid drivetrains by putting them in these larger vehicles. What can be learned from a Tahoe or Silverado can be applied to make a stronger, better hybrid Equinox or Colorado.
Reply
ug 6:21PM (8/02/2007)
It's not going to get any more efficient than a serial hybrid plugin ala the Volt. That approach should scale up pretty well.
Reply
miike-1-2-7 6:46PM (8/02/2007)
What this article should be pointing out is the ridiculousness of using as SUV as a single passenger commuter vehicle.
Switching to a Prius would save you some Serious Money.
15000 miles divided by 17mpg = 882 * 3 dollars = 2647 dollars
15000 miles divided by 60mpg = 250 * 3 dollars = 750 dollars
Frees up 1879 Dollars a Year.
( I think we all can multiply by 10 to calculate the 10 year savings. )
Not Bad.
Reply
LaughingTooHard 7:16PM (8/02/2007)
I don't think anyone would argue that using a Tahoe on a single occupant daily commute of 50+ miles each way is anything but a bad idea. No math can make that idea work.
Unless you already own the Tahoe and it is paid off. $1900/year pays for about 5 payments of a new Prius v.s. an old truck and even less if someone only drives 5-10K per year.
Now if you had a family of 6 (some people actually breed these days, so who knew?!?) and only made short local trips or it sat in the driveway waiting to be used to tow a boat, horses, quads or other impossible to do with a Prius/Civic task, it is not so horrid.
Heaven forbid anyone uses it to pick up large loads at a warehouse store or for home improvement supplies; you never see anyone doing that.
Even worse, what if your job necessitates needing a large off road vehicle to manage a farm, ranch or construction business? Shame on you!
ANY improvement on vehicle's carbon footprint is just that - an improvement and there is no dollar value for being willing to lessen your impact while maintaining your lifestyle.
I may live in the Big City but there is a lot of people who NEED a truck, SUV or other large vehicle. I hope they would tread lighty but silly comparisons to tiny passenger cars is hardly worth mentioning.
Reply
frank78 8:00PM (8/02/2007)
A more useful use of this technology would be widespread use in delivery trucks, a la UPS, FedEx, and so on. I'm surprised those companies haven't started putting hybrid tech into nearly all new trucks. A 20% gain in MPG for a truck driven many, many miles per year = big savings in fuel used and $$$$$$
Reply
Mike Z 10:43PM (8/02/2007)
Fedex and UPS are working on it. However the issue is that fleet vehicles are pushed a lot harder than passenger ones. So generally they are more conservative about adopting technology until it's reliability is established.
Reply
afg350ci 8:32AM (8/03/2007)
LaughingTooHard:
Finally, someone who's willing to see the other side of the story. Thank you.
Mike 1-2-7:
You forget the commercial for the Suburban that showed 8 people and a dog riding in a Suburban, and three (3) small cars passing by carring the same. Now, does that really make much economic sense? My wife drives a Navigator. She is a house wife that drives maybe 5 miles a week. How much of a carbon foot print do you really think she's making? Now, when we go out with our 1-month old daughter (including the stroller, diaper bag, infant carrier, etc.), my in-laws, and/or our best friends who live across the street, how much more gas would we waste taking that many more cars. Right now, we might not need that much space, but we think long term when it comes to a vehicle purchase. We plan to have more children, and the in-laws aren't going anywhere. We plan on keeping this Navigator for at least 10 years. What do all these Prius drivers plan to do with their cars when the batteries don't hold charge anymore? How long do you think it'll be till then? And then where does the car go? A landfill? Remember that the Prius is not recycleable.
Frank78:
You have the right idea. That's why GM put the Hybrid system into buses. The technology needs to be expanded to all commercial vehicles including delivery trucks, taxis, limos, even 18-wheelers and such. That would drastically reduce the impact on the environment. These vehicles drive around all day, everyday. Most put over 35,000 miles a year. Some even drive over 50,000 miles a year. Most regular automotive consumers drive to and from work. Other than that, the cars sit in parking lots and driveways across the country. We need to focus on the larger problem... Commercial Vehicles.
GoodCheer:
You make the best point of all, and it ties into what Frank78 said. Forget the Tahoe, how many miles per gallon does an 18-wheeler get? And how many miles are driven every year by these beasts? If the fleet changes over to hybrids like the Peterbuilt 360 that was talked about here on AutoblogGreen, we would definitely make a much bigger impact than adding a hybrid system to a 4 cylinder Camry.
Reply
DJ 9:10AM (8/03/2007)
It's probably more "worth it" to activate and program speed governors to the speed where the vehicle operates most efficiently than to spend thousands to extract relatively minimal benefits. The quote "Hybrids tend to carry higher price tags, and drivers can't always reap fuel savings without altering their driving techniques" (now tell me if you have never seen an SUV at 85 mph on the left lane)". You won't come close to getting the EPA estimated fuel usage at 85mph in any vehicle, but you will if you drive it close to a manner in which it was tested. Most vehicle's optimal efficiency is around 90kph. Other than emergency vehicles, really there's no need for anyone to go above 105kph.
Reply
Masospaghetti 9:41AM (8/03/2007)
miike1-2-7: At least compare highway fuel economy of both vehicles, instead of using the Prius's (extremely unrealistic) 60 mpg number against the Tahoe's city mileage. Under the new 2008 EPA estimates, the Prius gets 48 mpg highway, the Tahoe gets 20.
Tahoe, 20 mpg highway, 15,000 miles @ $3/gal = $2250
Prius, 48 mpg highway, 15,000 miles @ $3/gal = $937.5
Reply
matt 10:16AM (8/03/2007)
Throw a rock in Dearborn, and you'll find someone who will say yes. They'll also say that, you know, ladder frames and leaf springs are where it's at.
Reply
Tim Russell 11:46AM (8/03/2007)
matt "ladder frames and leaf springs are where it's at."
In a heavy duty truck that's made to haul stuff they are. After LaughingTooHard and others have pointed out that there's more than one side to the vehicle argument you turn around and take shots at the "Big 3". BTW Toyota's new pickup, ladder frame and leaf springs because it works in a truck.
Reply
Hamster 12:47PM (8/03/2007)
Making arguements about 3$/gallon gas doesn'tmake too much sense - Chinese and Europeans are getting into SUVs too.
Diesel engines have been around a long time and prices have not shotdown considerably in the past few decades. Battery technology is always improving and cutting costs.
Reply
mike77 2:01PM (8/03/2007)
I stand corrected.
from www.fueleconomy.gov
2008 figures - Combined
15000 miles divided by 16mpg = 937* 3 dollars = 2811 dollars
15000 miles divided by 46mpg = 326 * 3 dollars = 978 dollars
2811 - 978 = 1833 dollars saved per year.
Ten year savings is 18,333.
Subtracting 3000 dollars for a new battery in 10 years equals a total savings of $15.333.
If gas goes to 4 or 5 dollars the saving will pay for the car.
Reply
MikeW 3:05PM (8/03/2007)
Where are the 6 speed automatics in the GM tahoe/suburban?
Is that an improvement for 2008?
Is GM doing to add VCT to the 5.3 for 2008?
If you want to go 100mph and get 10mpg, so be it.
you'd want to get the new 4.5V8 diesel, then to improve on that 10mpg, say 15mpg.
Ford has 6 speed automatic in the expedition, but the axle ratios are wrong, too tall.
Stop wasting fuel in a torque converter that isn't locked up.
Reply
Dave 12:01PM (8/04/2007)
afg350ci-
Good points, except:
A hybrid drive train makes a lot of sense for vehicles that do a lot of stop and go such as UPS and FedEx trucks and buses.
Hybrid drive trains don't make sense for an 18-wheeler that spends 90% of its life cruising interstate highways.
Reply
Hamster 8:53AM (8/06/2007)
Long-haul trains have been using hybrid technology for decades now. They are great because electric engines have full torque at 0 rpm and pound for pound produce more torque than any diesel engine. They also reduced the diesel consumption for trains by 30%.
They are especially valuable for heavy vehicles since a 500 pound addition will not cause as many performance issues in a 14000 pound vehicle ast would in a 3000 pound vehicle like a Prius.
Reply
MakeMeSustainable 9:35AM (8/06/2007)
Let's not forget the potential economic impacts from increasing MPG standards. We're talking about a significant reduction on our demand for foreign oil and our reliance on oil tax subsidies. Of course the environmental side is even more important in terms of scale because the American auto fleet is our biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses. When are we going to see American auto makers coming out with a revolutionary car, a plug-in hybrid for instance. As long as the Detroit boys continue to lag behind the Japanese and European manufacturers, they'll continue to drop profits and put out the biggest, pollution intensive makes and models.
Reply