Green Car of the Year: Chev Tahoe

[Dr Mordrid]

GM has introduced a hybrid version of the Chevrolet Tahoe for 2008 and it just won "Green Car of the Year" at the LA Auto Show.

+25 percent mileage overall, or between +40% and +50% in city driving. Fuel economy in city driving ends up being the same as a Toyota Camry sedan.

Hybrid versions of the Silverado pickup and other large models are also coming including a plug-in hybrid version of the updated smaller Saturn Vue Green Line SUV for 2009.

The large vehicles use a new "two mode" hybrid system co-developed by GM, Daimler-Chrysler (even though they've split Chrysler will get the two mode too) and BMW which places two electric motors in the transmission along with computer controls and both CV and gear drives. In general the electrics drive the vehicle at low speeds and the engine at higher speeds, but there are also mixed modes.

Two modes will make converting existing vehicles over to hybrids much easier as about all there is to do is swap the transmission, upgrade the engine computer & charging system and install the battery pack.

[Kruzin]

IMO, hybrids are not the way to go. They are just the 'flavor of the year'. They're not as 'green' as they pretend to be. Their true fuel milage in the end is not much better than traditional gas engines. Not only do they still require fossil fuels to power (not only in their own gas engines, but also in their coal powered electric plant recharging), but they also have a high cost in maintenence, repairs, and end-of-life cost of disposal of their batteries (not at all good for the environment).

'Flex Fuel' (E-85 type) IC engines are the real way to go for now. They burn cleaner primarily on an easily renewable fuel source (CORN). Not only do they do less damage to the environment than pure gas engines, but they also give 10s of thousands of farmers a reason to grow corn, instead of being payed by the government to sit around NOT to grow corn.

Until a truely viable option is available (solar, hydrogen, or whatever), ethonal powered IC engines are overall better for 'green', employement, taxes, and other concerns...

[Nowhere]

I'm sorry, but...is jury of "Green Car" award at LA Auto Show...well...nuts?!

Yeah, it might have not a bad mileage for what it is...but it is a monstrosity, and the resources spent for building one would be possibly enough for two vehicles which I'd consider "green" (not to mention that they'd really have good mileage).

Doubt this is much more than "feel good" solution, with a bonus of keeping the cashflow going (I think I notice similar thing with LCD/CRT...)

[Nowhere]

Kruzin, AFAIK getting useable fuel/ethanol from corn requires MORE energy than the ethanol can give, so it's really a no solution; mostly, I guess, a way for politicians to keep "farming industry" from campaigning against them.

BTW, we have a very viable alternative - nuclear.

[Kruzin]

Kruzin, AFAIK getting useable fuel/ethanol from corn requires MORE energy than the ethanol can give, so it's really a no solution; mostly, I guess, a way for politicians to keep "farming industry" from campaigning against them.

Yes it does require more than the eth can do on it's own..that's why it's 'E85'. 85% Eth, 15% gasoline. But it's still cleaner than pure gas. 85% less fossil fuel per gallon...OK It's not as efficient, so in reality it's more like 65% less fossil, but in the end, still cleaner.

As far as the 'farming industry' campaining against them...I have a good number of corn farming relatives in Iowa. They LOVE having the government paying them NOT to farm their land, and I HATE paying taxes for them NOT to work while I bust my hump every day....and I'd bet if more people knew how much of their taxes went to paying these farmers to sit on their rumps, they'd prefer to see them working...

[Nowhere]

Still, this also seems like a bit "feel good" solution...building the infrastructure on something not as clean as it seems (I believe even less than 65% less fossil - because you have to also use fossil energy to produce ethanol) and using large areas of land which could be used for...nothing! (but I guess the idea of giving land back to wildlife is a bit too radical and wouldn't go well with farmers...)

[Brian Ellis]

Several issues here

It is true that E85 requires more energy to produce than it will ever give, therefore the overall energy efficiency is lower than pure fossil fuel.

The big problem of E85 from corn/maize is that producing it reduces the amount of corn available for food. Ask the Mexicans about it: cost of corn, which is a staple there, has doubled over last two years, mainly because of E85 production. They are not happy bunnies.

E85-only cars are not viable in most countries because the fuel is not available. It therfore does not make sense to make more expensive E85-compatible engines for a world market.

Large SUV hybrids are for "feel-good" purposes only. They are still gas-guzzlers, no matter what fuel is used and the overall pollution remains almost the same.

Kruzin has it wrong re hybrids. I do not regret having one. It is the same size (except height) but actually heavier, comfort, speed, acceleration etc., in practice as my previous half-roader, and my fuel consumption is halved (actually, better than halved now the weather is cooler). Cost of maintenance is the same and the NiMH batteries are recycled at EOL (and guaranteed 8 years).

If E85 fuel becomes more widely available (which most environmentalists do not want), then there is no reason why hybrids cannot use it.

Today, the best option that is widely available is the medium hybrid (Prius/Civic) or, for smaller cars, the small German diesels. This morning, I drove to the centre of Nicosia, 25 km on highway, 14 km on town roads with traffic. I averaged 4.6 l/100 km (~52 mpUSg 61 mpUKg), running at legal speed limits (on cruise control on the highway) where traffic allowed and this in a mid-sized car.