« Guangzhou Toyota to Set Up Second Production Line in China for Camry | Main | Case Approves B20 Use in Construction Equipment »
Chrysler Prices New Two-Mode Hybrid Full-Size SUVs 15% Below GM
17 June 2008
 |
| Cutaway of the Aspen two-mode HEMI Hybrid. Click to enlarge. |
Chrysler is pricing its full-size 4x4 hybrid sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) (earlier post) about 15%—nearly $8,000—below GM’s full-size SUV hybrids. The 2009 Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango HEMI Hybrid vehicles—based on the two-mode hybrid transmission developed with GM and BMW—will be Chrysler’s first entries in the hybrid market.
The manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) for the new 2009 Dodge Durango HEMI Hybrid is $45,340, including $800 for destination. The MSRP for the new 2009 Chrysler Aspen HEMI Hybrid is $45,570, including $800 for destination. Additionally, customers are expected to receive an estimated tax credit of $1,800.
By comparison, MSRP for the two-mode Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid is $53,295 for the 4x4 models, and $50,490 for the 2WD model.
Because of its low- and high-speed electric continuously variable transmission (ECVT) modes, the hybrid transmission is commonly referred to as the 2-mode hybrid. However, the system also incorporates four fixed-gear ratios for high efficiency and power-handling capabilities in a broad variety of vehicle applications. (Earlier post.)
The 2009 Chrysler Aspen HEMI Hybrid and Dodge Durango HEMI Hybrid couple the two-mode transmission 5.7-liter HEMI V-8 engine. Total output, when combined with the advanced two-mode hybrid system, is 385 hp (287 kW) and 380 lb-ft (515 Nm) of torque. In hybrid form, the HEMI continues to feature Chrysler’s fuel-saving MDS (cylinder deactivation) technology, which allows the engine to alternate between four-cylinder mode when less power is needed and V-8 mode when more power is in demand. The two-mode system provides assistance from electric motors, allowing the HEMI V-8 to remain in four-cylinder mode more often than without a hybrid powertrain, improving overall fuel economy.
Capable of towing 6,000 lbs., the new 5.7-liter HEMI Hybrid is expected to deliver an overall fuel economy improvement of more than 25%, including an improvement of nearly 40% in the city.
In May, sales of the current Aspen were up 12% on volume compared to the year before, with 2,037 units sold. Aspen sales for the first five months of 2008 are up 12% to 12,289 units compared to the same period in 2007.
Durango May sales plunged 69% in May to 1,360 units, with sales for the first five months of 2008 down 44% to 13,186 units compared to the same period in 2007.
June 17, 2008 in Hybrids | Permalink | Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/30264180
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chrysler Prices New Two-Mode Hybrid Full-Size SUVs 15% Below GM:
Comments
Will be enough to ensure the survival of the last dinosaurs?
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 17, 2008 8:32:08 AM
Another huge vehicle with a huge V8, with a hybrid. Hmm. Something's a bit off, here.
Why doesn't American Car Mfg's get it? Or any of them, really--except Honda.
I cannot wait for Honda's new Hybrid--Affordable Hybrid--I should say. 50mpg and $18,000-ish. Not too shabby.
Nate
Posted by: Nate H. | Jun 17, 2008 8:43:42 AM
An improvement, but still behind the curve. Possible next steps: reduce vehicle mass, downsize engine to turbo, DI V6 or I6.
Of course, fewer vehicles of this size are going to be sold as the high cost of gas helps people focus on what their real needs are. This phenomenon is going to have a much larger effect on fleet fuel economy than hybridizing these oversized beasts.
Posted by: Nick | Jun 17, 2008 8:47:15 AM
Lip-stick on a pig.
Posted by: DS | Jun 17, 2008 8:52:37 AM
The reason US manufacturers are sticking a hybrid option with only the big v-8 options is shady. Under the current CAFE rules a car with a green option such as a hybrid option immediately gets taken out of the the average fuel economy for the fleet. GM/Ford and chrysler do it to make themselve look greener in the public eye and profit by not haveing these gas guzzlers included in the averages.
Posted by: zband | Jun 17, 2008 9:02:25 AM
Hemi Hybrid! Now that's an oxymoron if I ever saw one. The truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
No matter how much "green" lipstick you slap on these vehicles- they're still pigs! I mean, really, what is the combined fuel economy benefit one can expect from vehicles with this configuration?
All over-stuffed vehicles with combined fuel economy estimates of less than 30mpg need to go the way of the dinosaur!
Posted by: DieselHybrid | Jun 17, 2008 9:42:04 AM
Some of you folks are really insufferable. This is GOOD NEWS, 25% overall gain on one of the worst offenders.
25% means the avg, based on 12K a year, saves 150 gallons a year over last years gas only model. If they are selling 2K units a month, that equates to saving 3,600,000 gallons of gas each year. At $4.00 a gallon, that's a $600 a year savings for the owner.
Why must you always pound the negative!!!
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 17, 2008 9:51:40 AM
These things should fly out the door at these prices; all the socker moms will be flocking to the salesrooms to buy their four wheel drive to take the kids to school and save gasoline like crazy. All this metal and weight for a mere $50,000 or so...what a steal!... for the auto company maybe!
Posted by: Lad | Jun 17, 2008 9:53:28 AM
Lad, your not helping. The family across the street has 5 children. I can understand why they might need a behemoth. If they trade their old guzzler for one that is 25% better. That is a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 17, 2008 10:30:26 AM
Joseph,
the reason they "pound the negative" is that we're waiting and hoping for the auto co's to bring us a highly fuel efficient car at a price we can afford and they throw this dirt in our faces.
where are they putting their energies? who can afford a 50k price? not many of us.
Posted by: danm | Jun 17, 2008 10:35:32 AM
This is good. For the people who are going to ignore the recent hysteria and buy a Hemi Durango anyway, converting to the hybrid Durango will save more gas than 3 geeks trading in their 1992 Volvos for Priuses. Now we just wait for GM to quit forcing us to buy big cars – or have they already stopped? I’m always a little confused how that works. As to the hysteria about gas prices – of course that’s not a bad thing, but we need to do everything sensible and moral to stop importing oil, including a 25% reduction on the consumption of the biggest gas hogs.
Options that are NOT real, include most that start with “If everybody just…” or “ If Detroit put a much effort in developing …” unless there is some plan to make these courses of action attractive to those at whom they are aimed. I also am "waiting and hoping for the auto co's to bring us a highly fuel efficient car" but since were just waiting, maybe we should whine less about how they do the work.
Posted by: ToppaTom | Jun 17, 2008 10:54:24 AM
@Joseph:
"The family across the street has 5 children."
While I sympathize with your reaction to the preponderance of negativity here, there is little reason for behemoths in this day and age. Years ago my family of five somehow suffered along in a thing called a station wagon. All five of us with luggage, food, soccer balls and board games piled in and drove across the entire country and back (about 6,000 miles)on vacation.
Don't want to sound like a "I walked six miles to school" guy but these big V8s at $50k plunge middle class into debt, sully the atmosphere, continue the oil addiction and... spoil the children. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: sulleny | Jun 17, 2008 10:59:35 AM
While I don't really understand having 5 kids, those families do need a vehicle. Unfortunately (or fortunately) you can't transport 5 kids legally anymore in a station wagon (or the back of a pickup truck). They require various safety seats (and kids are fatter these days).
But it seems the best choice for a big family would be a hybrid (or diesel) minivan. They have more room than SUVs and are safer (and I don't know too many large families that go offroading together anyway). Toyota makes a hybrid minivan but has chosen not to bring it to the US (despite many requests). Chrysler would have had the PERFECT opportunity to be the first to introduce a hybrid minivan....but it looks like they missed the boat.
Posted by: Karkus | Jun 17, 2008 11:22:13 AM
Realistically, people are still going to need large vehicles. I think there is definitely a market for vehicles this size. How many of you people actually live in the 'flyover states' where many people have things to pull? How many of you people have a large family and need the space?
I like the idea of a 22-25mpg large SUV. Regardless of fuel economy, some people still HAVE to buy these. Why not make the best of the situation?
Posted by: bryan | Jun 17, 2008 11:23:39 AM
The only station wagon that can carry two adults, two car seats, two booster seats, a teenager and all their crap, is the dodge. It doesn't get any better mph than their behemoth. As for the old family truckter, we had one too, on a good day it got 12 mpg's.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 17, 2008 11:29:57 AM
Additionally, I would like to point out the laws of supply and demand economics. By reducing your consumption of gasoline, you are doing nothing to change the overall paradigm of transportation energy. Only by having high prices for a sustained amount of time will automakers and energy companies commit the R&D money to alternatives.
Is the government going to bail Exxon out if the price of oil crashes? No. They'll be happy to take their taxes, though. These companies make smart business decisions (mostly) in where to allocate their R&D money. The more oil you consume, the higher the price goes, and the sooner we ultimately switch to a better source.
Posted by: bryan (again) | Jun 17, 2008 11:30:35 AM
I'd prefer to see the 1970's/1980's station wagons on the road with updated hybrid drive trains. Those old wagons weighed about 4,000 lbs. Today's SUVs weigh closer to 6,000 lbs. It's no wonder they get such bad gas mileage. The aerodynamic profile is much better in the wagons than SUVs or minivans too. I'd bet you could get 35 mpg with a hybrid drive train in one of those big wagons from years ago. Stable, safe, aerodynamic too and little danger of rollover accidents.
Posted by: | Jun 17, 2008 11:49:25 AM
A friend sold Durangos. He said to stay away from them.
They were in the shop more than they were on the road.
I'm sure the hybrid will be no different, except maybe
more shop time. Dodge needs to rethink their direction.
Posted by: swen | Jun 17, 2008 11:59:15 AM
why the hell are any othem wasting time and money on SUV hybrids ?
start making the real chamge to compact and subcompact PHEV an EV's.
How stupid are these people running these companies.
Posted by: | Jun 17, 2008 1:20:09 PM
now a vw passat weighs 4000 lbs
Posted by: | Jun 17, 2008 1:28:03 PM
"now a vw Passat weights 4000 lbs"
False.
VW Passat curb weight 3,305 lbs
VW Passat VR6 4Motion 3,829 lbs
The VR6 4Motion is the largest and most capable sedan VW makes. At nearly 50K when loaded, VW doesn't sell many of these.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 17, 2008 1:48:10 PM
Nate H. - There's really nothing surprising here....the American Big 3, which is heavily unionized and reliant on an aging infrastructure and supply network throughout a lot of the rust belt, will make the fewest changes possible in order to survive and protect the economies of scale it has left. While all the newer and/or smaller and/or more nimble foreign automakers can adapt more rapidly to what the consumer really wants and needs, the Big 3 have to go through their unions and figure out how use old plants to the maximum extent possible (ie. everyone has to protect their job). The end result is primarily more of the same with little innovation - as we're seeing. What we need a game-changing technology that can be mass produced cheaply and bring radical disruptive change to the auto industry....but that is doubtful (for the time being anyway).
Posted by: ejj | Jun 17, 2008 1:59:42 PM
I expect that despite the lower price tag, these anachronistic monstrosities will sell at an equally abysmal rate to the Yukon hybrids. Great technology. Too bad they decided to waste it on an overweight, V8 powered brick such as this. It seems to me like a more practical first application would have been to mate the tranny with a nice modern ICE like the GM ecotec 4 cylinder, and put it in full size taxicabs and police cars and sell to fleet owners, for whom the huge fuel savings might actually offset the high upfront cost. But then again what do I know. I'm sure gas will be back down below $1.50 in no time, the Prius fad will end, and we'll see a 6000 lb SUV in every driveway.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Jun 17, 2008 2:08:03 PM
I forgot to mention heavy duty pickups and or delivery vans for fleet owners (maybe a gas version of the Sprinter) would probably make good sense, too.
Private consumers who are trying to project a Green image likely aren't going to buy a $50,000 V8 powered 4wd SUV to get groceries or drive the kids to soccer practice. People who are in the market for such vehicles probably are neither concerned about the price of gas nor projecting a Green image.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Jun 17, 2008 2:28:58 PM
In Europe we have millions of MPVs like the one below which can transport 5 or more kids with (relative) ease:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_s-max
other models are Renault Grande Espace, Citroen C8, etc etc. so imagine my surprise that in the US your only option is a 3-ton, 6-litre, gas-guzzling tank. Ford is an American company so I wonder why it has not introduced an MPV to the American market?>
Posted by: eric | Jun 17, 2008 4:01:50 PM
eric
These vehicles do not pass T2B5 and therefore cannot be sold in the US.
Try again
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 17, 2008 4:13:17 PM
Definitely good news and bad.
When mileage is improved it is good news. When car makers launch another iteration of nearly hopeless models it is bad news.
This seems too little too late.
But Chrysler can't sell what they can't yet make, so they produce something, hope they can sell enough, and pray later models or events will pull them out.
Every major car maker gets in the same bind from time to time. Ford and GM have the same problems but are much stronger.
I'm guessing, not hoping, this time Chrysler will die.
Posted by: K | Jun 17, 2008 5:04:21 PM
Vehicles of this size are needed to tow boats of the water up a ramp, boats from 20-30ft long. To tow large trailers and RVs etc.
Posted by: Herm | Jun 17, 2008 5:07:59 PM
Joseph, those *particular* vehicles might not be certified to meet US safety and emission standards, but that is not to say that they *couldn't* be so certified (or modified). And that is not to say a vehicle of the same concept could not be produced for the North American market - they already are; just not with "big 3" badges on them.
It has already been stated that if a person needs to move 5 - 7 people, there are already more efficient choices on the North American market. A friend of mine is in the market for a Mazda 5 mini-minivan, mostly because he's fed up with the V6-powered Chrysler-built gas-hog heap of junk (that's how he himself describes it) that he's driving now.
Certainly there will always be some people who need the towing capacity *and* people moving capacity of a SUV - it's just that that market is probably no more than 1/10 of the people who have been buying them up to now.
Posted by: Brian P | Jun 17, 2008 5:40:17 PM
what's hilarious these two mode hybrid does not even achieve SULEV emissions ... they only achieve LEV2 .... PATHETIC!
i hope toyota decides to lower the price of their highlander hybrid so i can get one too!
lol as mjuch as i love high mileage cars (like my prius) i still like suv ;)
Posted by: philmcneal | Jun 17, 2008 6:49:52 PM
Not only this vehicle is useless on today's market but also if they don't have secured their battery supply they won't be able to deliver, just as ford and GM.
Posted by: Treehugger | Jun 17, 2008 7:24:57 PM
Quoth Joseph:
This is GOOD NEWS, 25% overall gain on one of the worst offenders.A 25% gain in mileage from 16 to 20 MPG is a 20% reduction in fuel burned.
Eliminating the 16-MPG guzzler and building a 48 MPG hybrid or small car instead yields a 67% reduction.
The average light vehicle covers half its mileage in the first 6 years, so a 20% cut in fuel consumption in the new fleet cuts demand by about 3.3%/year and 67% would cut it by about 11%/year. Domestic oil production is falling by about 2%/year, but imports are about 70% of consumption. The USA is faced with declining world oil exports and hungry competitors for what's left; a large amount of US imports used to come from Mexico, but Mexico may be an importer within 5 years. Do you think we can settle for 3.3%?
Quoth Herm:
Vehicles of this size are needed to tow boats of the water up a ramp, boats from 20-30ft long.Some recreational activities are going to decline radically, possibly disappear. Power boating and RVing are two of them.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 17, 2008 8:18:40 PM
They're probably putting the hemi in this because they've got a ton of hemi's they need to get rid of, either by contract or ready supply, and there's no other way to sell them. Once they get past it, if gas prices are still high, they can put a nice V6 in there and call it a day.
They'll probably sell very few, but it's a step in the right direction. Now I wish they'd stop making the non-hybrid versions altogether, boost electric motor output, and downsize the gas engine to 3.5 liter V6 territory with similar horsepower to the non-hybrid hemi.
Posted by: Elliot | Jun 17, 2008 9:26:43 PM
Engineer-Poet:
Power boating is ALREADY in a rapid decline. Used and new...few average income families want to pay $150 to tool about on the lake for 1/2 a day when they were doing it for $50...not to mention fuel to tow the thing out there.
Posted by: | Jun 17, 2008 10:43:54 PM
The RV and boating industry accounts for more than 5 billion in yearly wages. If those industies just went away the dive toward a 1930's type depression would be almost certain.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 17, 2008 10:55:02 PM
"eric
These vehicles do not pass T2B5 and therefore cannot be sold in the US.
Try again"
Joseph, T2B5 is an EMISSIONS standard, not a weight, volume or power one. Can you explain why bigger would be cleaner ? Yes, we do also have clean gasoline engines in Europe.
Posted by: | Jun 17, 2008 10:57:34 PM
Joseph - 5 billion dollars is less than 0.1% of the economy. Historical growth is 2% so we are looking at losing less than 1 month of growth - hardly a significant problem. When 5 billion extra dollars flows to other countries every 2 weeks from higher oil prices - that might be a little bit more significant. (just guessing on the 2 weeks - it might be more like 2 days).
Posted by: 300TTto545 | Jun 18, 2008 2:39:53 AM
What is 200 lbs between frineds?
Being hit by a passat hurts especially when you are in a vehicle almost 1000 lbs lighter.
1990 Jeep cherokee 4 cylinder rwd 2892
1990 Jeep cherokee limited 6 cylinder 4wd 3076 lbs
2001 jeep cherokee 6 cylinder rwd 3190 lbs
2001 jeep cherokee limited 6 cyl 4wd 3355 lbs
The toyota hybrid specifically states that it was not designed to be used off road. Do the GM and Chrysler vehicles have this problem?
Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 5:06:08 AM
Joseph,
I didn't say that industry went away. I said "rapid decline". It is easy enough to verify this statement - I just happen to know because some of my company's major customers happen to be involved in that industry. When their sales take a nose dive and they tell us they are closing stores - our sales also take a big hit in that division.
Posted by: | Jun 18, 2008 7:45:13 AM
The 5 billion was not the number for the industry, which is in the area of 35 billion. 5 billion is the amount of wages, which is approx 175K families. Do you understand the ramifications of 175K losing thier job? The unemployment rate would be 7+ , the state of Pennsylvania be bankrupt from losing over 1,000 companies. All those people would stop buying durable goods, the loss would make the housing market look like a picnic
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 18, 2008 7:48:36 AM
We can probably use at least 175k people building wind turbines (skilled glass lay-up people might transfer their skills from boat construction to turbine blades).
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 18, 2008 10:43:34 AM
175,000 jobs is not a big deal. On a good month (in expanding times) we create 200,000 new jobs.
Even 35 billion is a drop in the bucket.
Recreational boating and RV and going to decline (as they should) and in the grand scheme of things - it is a minor blip on the US 6 trillion dollar economy.
Joseph - are you in that industry or your family. Personal and local pain always seems catastrophic and it is in isolated patches. But don't expect that a small industry contracting 50% makes a significant dent in the US economy. My in-laws like on a recreational lake - I suspect their relative housing value may decline - that is life. I look forward to picking up a boat really cheap to leave there....
Posted by: 300ttto545 | Jun 18, 2008 1:20:32 PM
175,000 jobs is not a big deal. On a good month (in expanding times) we create 200,000 new jobs.
Even 35 billion is a drop in the bucket.
Recreational boating and RV and going to decline (as they should) and in the grand scheme of things - it is a minor blip on the US 6 trillion dollar economy.
Joseph - are you in that industry or your family. Personal and local pain always seems catastrophic and it is in isolated patches. But don't expect that a small industry contracting 50% makes a significant dent in the US economy. My in-laws live on a recreational lake - I suspect their relative housing value may decline - that is life. I look forward to picking up a boat really cheap to leave there....
Posted by: 300ttto545 | Jun 18, 2008 1:20:48 PM
300tt
No, I am not in that industry and I don't think I have any relatives that are. I have had a daily driver that gets 45mpg since 1997. I have been running reclaimed fryer oil in my TDI since 2000. I am the treasurer of the Arizona Alternative Fuels Alliance. And.... I am a boat owner, one of my most favorite things to do is water-ski. The fact that you don't like it and therefore you wish it would just go away makes me think your self rightous and indignant. Instead of berating my activity, why don't you find a way to make it cleaner.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 18, 2008 2:11:07 PM
"Years ago my family of five somehow suffered along in a thing called a station wagon."
Same here, and we would have traded it in for a hybrid SUV in a heartbeat.
This thing gets about twice the city mileage as our old station wagon, and it's safer and more comfortable.
"Hemi" is a marketing term that refers to hemispherical combustion chambers. Almost all current production engines could be called that (if it wasn't trademarked), including the Prius.
It would be great if this technology was also offered in a cheaper/lighter vehicle, however it is still very expensive, so it makes sense to introduce it in a luxury platform. Hopefully we will see the same tech in more affordable cars within a few years.
Posted by: Bernard | Jun 18, 2008 3:06:57 PM
FYI, one of the reasons Chrysler is pushing Hemis is that they are assembled by cheap labor in Mexico.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 18, 2008 5:02:24 PM
Hey if they got the money to buy and drive it then let them! I live in the country! while I dont have one now we have to drive for our work! hauling hay, horse trailers tractors etc! and for recreation! hunting equipment, boats, oh and yeah we like big old jacked up big block trucks on huge tires simply to go mudding and waste gas! If I had the money i would have a 79 ford on 44 inch boggers? it would get about 2-3 miles per gallon and I would drive it everyday if I wa srich! so yall need quit hatin on the people driving pigs just worry about your own personal budget!
Posted by: Caleb | Jun 18, 2008 5:49:37 PM
"Full sized hybryd suv." The whole idea is assinine. It's a waste of more much needed commodities such as copper and fuel. It's a justification for the wealthy to do what they do best - waste everybodies resources.
When my cousins were growing up in Italy, they were in a family of 8. Their family vehicle? A Volkswagon Beetle. They all grew up unscathed and became very proficient in their professions. Hybrid suv? Chrysler, give your heads a shake!
Posted by: joe | Jun 18, 2008 9:33:30 PM
Joseph - name calling will get you nowhere. I think the recreation using of fuel is a bit wasteful. The decline of cheap oil will mean starvation for millions of people. Boating is fun as is jet skiing but really they are wasteful. And being wasteful is contributing to death of fellow humans.
I was just replying to your concern over the jobs lost from the boating industry which in the grand scheme of things (IMO) is minimal.
Try a sailboat....
Posted by: 300ttto545 | Jun 18, 2008 10:38:52 PM
300tt
We do not need to stifle activities that make life enjoyable. We simply need to make things better. Restricting or shutting down whole industries is just not smart. Nearly everything is wastful to a point. The trick and our challenge is to find a way to reduce the wastfulness. This vehicle reduces waste compared to it's previous version by a fair amount, that's a good thing.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 19, 2008 8:21:29 AM
Some would say the internet is a waste of resourses.. that the gaming industry is a waste that dlight is wasteful that even living in a cold or hot clime is wasteful.
Some people LOVE to drive and when they drive they want to ENJOY it. For many of those people for whayever reason suvs are FUN...
And as we each spend lots on what we LOVE they spend lots on driving.
h2 cars are simply like titanium golfclubs and 2000 buck shoes and expensive safaries to africa and 10000 buck hyper gaming rigs and massive folding farms and a gome windmill and solar setup and and and .. We spend a great deal on what we LOVE. And there are enough people who love driving to ensure the money needed to develope the FUN new 21st century DRIVERS car.
Posted by: wintermane | Jun 19, 2008 9:20:40 AM
The oil companies are putting themselves out of business..16 new electric vehicles are coming to market by 2010..
I have purchased my last old technology vehicle..
Posted by: Albert Goldwyn | Jun 21, 2008 8:20:33 AM
I wish you SUV haters would all go out and help the world by depressing us less and quiet down.
I never owned anything bigger than a mid size sedan but the worst SUV is much more fuel efficient than the auto that hair-shirts like yourselves lusted for in the 1970s.
know I drove one, and was proud of the fuel efficiency, and even matched the CAFE estimated mileage, when others did not.
Did you know that the the little VW bug got 16 mpg per the CAFE ratings? The very same methods that determines that the US fleet sold in 2007 achieved an average of 30.7 mpg. And the worst SUV for sale must measure over 22.7 mpg, by CAFE, not EPA window sticker. That's 42% mpg better than my old Beetle.
In ten years, you hair-shirts will be pecksniffian objecting to an auto that only obtains 110 mpg, calling it an unconscionable waste, and a guzzler. Once again you'll be wrong.
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 10:38:35 PM
Ahem. Some of us here didn't own any cars in the 1970's, and the old Beetle was reputed to deliver 25 MPG if driven correctly. In my experience, it was hard to get a Rabbit down to 20 MPG even with a nut (me) behind the wheel.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 25, 2008 10:44:26 PM
