Inside Line tests Tahoe Hybrid

[MelvinJ]

Originally Posted by Olds88

Uh its entirely possible to achieve 22mpg in a Suburban @63-65mph. AFM does make a difference. My Avalanche routinely returns 21-23 cruising at those speeds. If you want proof, I can record a time lapsed video of my drive to work and throw it up on youtube. If the hybrid added 1-2mpg I'd be perfectly satisfied. The highway mileage is already good enough, its the city that needs bolstering.

There was someone who posted yesterday or the day before that said their 2004 (no AFM) got 23 mpg driving 70 and stuck in traffic for an hour and a half. Does that sound realistic to you?

I've seen enough posts from GMT900 owners with 5.3L AFM to believe that you can get low 20's under the conditions you describe (hopefully you are all calculating from the pump because DIC's are notoriously optimistic). Mostly, I have a pet peeve of people quoting the best mileage their car or truck has ever gotten (or could ever get ) and comparing it to the magazine test reports, who drive like, well, magazine testers. Even comparing the same magazine's test figures is pretty meaningless unless they have a consistent test loop they run.

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by MelvinJ

There was someone who posted yesterday or the day before that said their 2004 (no AFM) got 23 mpg driving 70 and stuck in traffic for an hour and a half. Does that sound realistic to you?

I've seen enough posts from GMT900 owners with 5.3L AFM to believe that you can get low 20's under the conditions you describe (hopefully you are all calculating from the pump because DIC's are notoriously optimistic). Mostly, I have a pet peeve of people quoting the best mileage their car or truck has ever gotten (or gould ever get ) and comparing it to the magazine test reports, who drive like, well, magazine testers. Even comparing the same magazine's test figures is pretty meaningless unless they have a consistent test loop they run.

Those are pump figures using 87 octane. 22mph is average highway economy for me @63-65mph. @75mph its 19mpg. With ethanol at @65mph its ~19mpg also. I find the DIC lowballs figures for E85 routinely.

[MelvinJ]

Originally Posted by Olds88

Those are pump figures using 87 octane. 22mph is average highway economy for me @63-65mph. @75mph its 19mpg. With ethanol at @65mph its ~19mpg also. I find the DIC lowballs figures for E85 routinely.

I never drive very far at 63-65 (unless I'm towing), but 19 at 75 mph sounds reasonable compared to my 16.5 at 78 mph, considering mines a 2000 non-AFM 5.3L, without all the aero improvements of the GMT900s. Interesting that the DIC lowballs for E85 (I'm assuming not for regular gas). I don't see why they can't measure fuel more accurately. The DIC in our Venture van a few years ago gave a readout of gallons consumed and it was without fail 1-2.5 gallons shy of what the gas pump said, which in turn gave it inflated MPG numbers. My Malibu doesn't give the gallons used readout, but it must be low because calculating from the pump always gives lower MPG than the DIC is showing.

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by MelvinJ

I never drive very far at 63-65 (unless I'm towing), but 19 at 75 mph sounds reasonable compared to my 16.5 at 78 mph, considering mines a 2000 non-AFM 5.3L, without all the aero improvements of the GMT900s. Interesting that the DIC lowballs for E85 (I'm assuming not for regular gas). I don't see why they can't measure fuel more accurately. The DIC in our Venture van a few years ago gave a readout of gallons consumed and it was without fail 1-2.5 gallons shy of what the gas pump said, which in turn gave it inflated MPG numbers. My Malibu doesn't give the gallons used readout, but it must be low because calculating from the pump always gives lower MPG than the DIC is showing.

Also my Avalanche is ~500lbs lighter than an 2006 or older Suburban, that helps too. AFM doesn't kick in very often above 67mph or above 2100 RPMs. Economy drops rapidly after 68.

The DIC lowballs mileage for regular but not as badly as E85 (its usually 3-4mpgs off). When I first used a tank of ethanol my reaction was 14mpg??? how is that possible? Then I filled the truck and divided trip odometer by gallons put in and the figure was ~18.8 something. I think the AFM must confuse the DIC or something because the truck consistently thinks there is less fuel in it then there actually is. It'll say 20 gallons used then take only 18 on a fillup. I never trust DIC information anyway. The only metric of use to me is odometer. The instant economy thing is cool though, teaches you how to drive to maximize AFM usage.

Also if you ever to upgrade to a GMT900 you'll be very pleased with it. This Avalanche has been an amazing highway machine and handles the task of towing fishing boats and ATVs with 5 people in the truck with no issues.

[stevecmh]

9 grand is a lot of money

hopefully in the future it will get even more mpgs

[wtgkb8]

I find this comment in acceleration comments a little odd...
"The additional thrust from the Hybrid system's electric motors makes itself apparent immediately when the throttle is mashed. The electronically variable transmission is very effective at utilizing the added power in passing situations, saving drivers from the slow and intrusive kickdown of GM's conventional four-speed automatic transmission."

Since when were GMs 4-spd autos slow to downshift...and intrusive? My experience is just the opposite. Downshift is almost instantaneous when throttle is mashed...and the feel of the down shift is appropriately firm...not intrusive. Under relaxed driving...rarely know when it shifts it's so smooth.

[carscomblogger]

Not to toot our own horn or anything but I like how they call it an "exclusive test" when we had our review live two weeks ago.

http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research....ection=reviews

[starlightmica]

Originally Posted by GMforME

Why does no one ever talk about the government subsidized Tax write off you get in the overall recoup costs.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml
$2200 at this time.

[biggerj]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

However Edmunds ( along with everyone else ) continues to make the same mistakes in every analysis of this type when they estimate that it will take 15 yrs to recoup the extra price.
...
In addition they should have done the analysis the way any small business would do it. Forecast some inflationary factor for fuel then add the cost of the vehicle to the cost of the fuel for both a the 2-Mode and a non-hybrid then compare the costs. The one that costs less is the better buy. Depending on the owner a potential resale value might have to be factored in as well. None of this is done.

The "right" way to do this would be to use Net Present Value. All the magazine analysis I have seen assumes that your financial rate of return is 0%. If you take the $6-9k difference and invest it at 10%, the break even date for the hybrid goes even farther out. 10% is too optimistic you say... well how many folks pay cash for their ride? The loan losses would be at least 5-8%.

Most any way you slice it, hybrids lose on the money front. The only use model that might recoup the cost in a reasonable time is a city delivery vehicle or taxi.

[Xenon]

Originally Posted by wtgkb8

I find this comment in acceleration comments a little odd...
"The additional thrust from the Hybrid system's electric motors makes itself apparent immediately when the throttle is mashed. The electronically variable transmission is very effective at utilizing the added power in passing situations, saving drivers from the slow and intrusive kickdown of GM's conventional four-speed automatic transmission."

Since when were GMs 4-spd autos slow to downshift...and intrusive? My experience is just the opposite. Downshift is almost instantaneous when throttle is mashed...and the feel of the down shift is appropriately firm...not intrusive. Under relaxed driving...rarely know when it shifts it's so smooth.

The one in the Aveo and Silverado (800) were a bit slow to downshift from my experience.

[425 HP Denali]

What are we talking about here? Let me get this straight, you've got $55K to spend on a vehicle that needs to be able to seat 5 adults and 2 children (or midgets) right? And here we are all concerned about saving a few bucks on gas / saving the environment / getting better mileage? Seriously? Buy a $22K minivan (aka: you've given up on life, but at least you're saving the environment and not trying to keep up with the Jone's). Whatever. I don't see what the point is. EPA estimates are not for enthusiastic drivers. I bought a $45K gas hog because I don't care about any of the above. I knew I'd pay well over $3 a gallon and would fill up my 26 gallon tank 4-5 times a month. Funny GMC said 13 city, 19 hwy on my new Sierra Denali. I get 10.5 city, 14.5 hwy and I don't care. If money were an issue, I'd drive an Aveo and hope no one who drives a truck like mine hits me.

[ral1960]

Originally Posted by 425 HP Denali

hope no one who drives a truck like mine hits me.

I believe you've answered your own question. Everyone fears the other tanks on the road and wants to be equally armed and dangerous.