I think I'm going to barf - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-18-2007, 06:24 AM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 682
Country: United States
I think I'm going to barf

GM's new Yukon hybrid gets just 20/20 mpg, AND costs $50,000-52,000! That's a $14,000 premium over the base Yukon, more than the cost of a Yaris.

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/gmc/...chlanding.html

Those idiot GM product planners could have used 4.3 liter engines (or even the 2.9 liter fours) and gotten 25 mpg in a full size SUV ..........but they wimped out. It would have been a publicity coup.

And the price is simply incredible. For this kind of money, GM should be offering a Yukon Hybrid Diesel that gets 30!

GM looks idiotic with this offering. I had much higher hopes for this vehicle. It's no wonder Toyota is eating GM's lunch.
__________________

__________________
Capitalism: The cream rises. Socialism: The scum rises.
Sludgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 07:20 AM   #2
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 110
Country: United States
I know what you mean! We can't even buy a FE vehicle anymore. Anything that was good got discontinued in the US. I guess we have to build our own.

You can take a FULL size 4x4 Chevy / GMC and drop in an Isuzu NPR Diesel and get 32mpg highway. It will still have plenty of power. This can be done for less than $10K.

GM can shove that 20MPG over bloated over priced POS.
I'd rather suck dumpster grease!
__________________

__________________
http://www.maxxgraphix.net
maxxgraphix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 07:31 AM   #3
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sludgy View Post
GM's new Yukon hybrid gets just 20/20 mpg, AND costs $50,000-52,000! That's a $14,000 premium over the base Yukon, more than the cost of a Yaris.

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/gmc/...chlanding.html

Those idiot GM product planners could have used 4.3 liter engines (or even the 2.9 liter fours) and gotten 25 mpg in a full size SUV ..........but they wimped out. It would have been a publicity coup.

And the price is simply incredible. For this kind of money, GM should be offering a Yukon Hybrid Diesel that gets 30!

GM looks idiotic with this offering. I had much higher hopes for this vehicle. It's no wonder Toyota is eating GM's lunch.
It might be 14k over a base Yukon, but it's only a few thousand more than an equivalent Yukon.

I'm not even sure the 4.3 would have helped with mileage if it was used instead. If you look at the Silverado or the Sierra that use the 4.3, it actually gets less mileage than the larger 5.3 in 4wd models. Most of that has to do with weight, not to mention very old design.

Don't knock it just because of its price or because it's in an SUV. It gets good mileage out of a gas hungry vehicle, while still being able to tow 6k lbs and carry 8 people. And no, I'm not saying you can do all that and still get good mileage.

Here's a bad comparison:

Lexus LS 600h L: 20city-22hwy
GMC Yukon Hybrid 2WD: 21city-22hwy
GMC Yukon Hybrid 4WD: 20city-20hwy
tor07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 07:39 AM   #4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 42
Country: United States
I don't like the whole SUV/truck mpg thing anyway. If I buy a giant, 4WD monster, I honestly want the most power possible. That is my first concern. I used to drive a 1982 Range Rover, the big, giant metal tanks, way before they became trendy. It was made for off road. The engine was small by Americna standards, but was still a British V-8. The mileage was maybe 10mpg, but in the hilly Cincinnati snow and ice, nothing compared, also off road and hauling/towing. Now I drive a Yaris because I want mpg. I guess I am philosophically opposed to giant engines trying to get great mpg.
caveatipse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 08:03 AM   #5
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_SD26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 529
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sludgy View Post
Those idiot GM product planners could have used 4.3 liter engines (or even the 2.9 liter fours) and gotten 25 mpg in a full size SUV ..........but they wimped out. It would have been a publicity coup.
I don't think anyone would have bought a big SUV with no power. Who buys a full size pick up or van with a V6? Small market and terrible resale.

I'd love to see more diesels, but the EPA continues to put big hurdles in the way because they are lost.


Isn't the California EPA looking at restricting caffeine? Nice.
__________________
Dave
GasSavers_SD26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 08:56 AM   #6
Registered Member
 
kamesama980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 742
Country: United States
Location: Columbus, IN, USA
Send a message via AIM to kamesama980 Send a message via Yahoo to kamesama980
diesel FTW. on a business trip yesterday I was driving a drop cap mitsubishi fuso 14' truck and got 10 mpg hauling about 5k lbs going 70-80 mph. not bad for a 13' high cube.

4WD trucks lose out because of driveline losses with a transfer case and front drive assembly. I have a friend with a 2wd silverado v6 rated 18 mpg city, 24 highway...same as my cressida and half again the V8

Last spring market news for GM was that they spend 14 million on ****** for pensioners. the same quarter, news for toyota was that they started employing a forging method to make the 3.5l (most common engine) aluminum block stronger and cost 1/2 as much to make each one.
__________________
-Russell
1991 Toyota Pickup 22R-E 2.4 I4/5 speed
1990 Toyota Cressida 7M-GE 3.0 I6/5-speed manual
mechanic, carpenter, stagehand, rigger, and know-it-all smartass
"You don't get to judge me for how I fix what you break"
kamesama980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 10:41 AM   #7
Registered Member
 
jwxr7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 291
Country: United States
Quote:
Who buys a full size pick up or van with a V6?
I did, I am pretty happy with my GMC. My full size gets better mileage (mid 20s) than my 89 s-10 4cyl did and can haul 2X as much. The measly 200 hp does pretty decent hauling wood .

Quote:
Small market and terrible resale.
True, especially with a stick shift. That is how I got mine used at a good price .
__________________
Best tank= 81.23 mpg on july 1st 2008
SAVE SOME GAS, SAVE THE WORLD!

jwxr7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 02:52 PM   #8
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
I seriously doubt the 4.3 would have made any difference in the mpg but alot in functionality and sales. Take a look at the Tundra.

The 5.7L gets 1mpg worse in city and highway than the 4.0 V6 and if you compare power the V6 is pretty much worthless in comparison. 380hp and 401ft/lbs vs 236hp and 266ft/lbs. Almost double the power for 1mpg.

That's a BEAUTIFUL engine by the way. And I'm in no way dogging on that 4.0 V6, in the 4Runner it's a champ. I'd actually prefer it over the 8.
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 03:12 PM   #9
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 682
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by tor07 View Post
It might be 14k over a base Yukon, but it's only a few thousand more than an equivalent Yukon.

I'm not even sure the 4.3 would have helped with mileage if it was used instead. If you look at the Silverado or the Sierra that use the 4.3, it actually gets less mileage than the larger 5.3 in 4wd models. Most of that has to do with weight, not to mention very old design.

Don't knock it just because of its price or because it's in an SUV. It gets good mileage out of a gas hungry vehicle, while still being able to tow 6k lbs and carry 8 people. And no, I'm not saying you can do all that and still get good mileage.

Here's a bad comparison:

Lexus LS 600h L: 20city-22hwy
GMC Yukon Hybrid 2WD: 21city-22hwy
GMC Yukon Hybrid 4WD: 20city-20hwy
I'm sorry, I just can't get over this gas pig at such a ridiculous price. If I were ever to buy a Yukon, I'd be buy a base version anyway. They're already well equipped. Who needs all the geegaws and leather?

If GM had half a brain, they'd offer base Yukons (and pickups) without the pantywaist options.

And if the 4.3 was geared correctly, it would get better mileage than the 5.3...... Who needs the 5.3 (or 6.0) when the electric motor about doubles the 4.3's torque off the line?
__________________
Capitalism: The cream rises. Socialism: The scum rises.
Sludgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 03:25 PM   #10
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_SD26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 529
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sludgy View Post
And if the 4.3 was geared correctly, it would get better mileage than the 5.3...... Who needs the 5.3 (or 6.0) when the electric motor about doubles the 4.3's torque off the line?
Well, right...

But a use for an SUV like that is also pulling something. Boat, travel trailer, etc. An electric motor would get you off the line, which is a short term thing, but sustaining motion at 70MPH with a vehicle that doesn't have good aerodynamics pulling extra weight and potentially more area to pull through the wind.

Again, back to resale. Someone's gotta be the person that buys it new and then used. It's ok if you're buying it on the used side cheap.

And leather? Well, some people don't like 755's or CLK's.
__________________

__________________
Dave
GasSavers_SD26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.