High-low hybrids, much like automatic transmissions did, are going to change the automotive landscap

That's a lot of technology for a 25% increase in FE.

Are they saying that a Chevy Tahoe with an EPA city rating of 15 mpg will get 19 mpg with their high-low hybrid system?

Boy, talk about baby steps.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(M. Oiseau @ Aug 12 2006, 07:49 AM) [snapback]302054[/snapback]</div>

Percentage increases for low efficiency vehicles save more gallons of fuel than the same percentage in high efficiency vehicles, so 15 now being 19 mpg is a big improvement.

That said, getting rid of the low efficiency vehicles entirely would save even more.

Tom

 

What's all this with transmissions?
You mean these cars actually have to SHIFT GEARS???
Sheesh!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Aug 12 2006, 07:23 AM) [snapback]302063[/snapback]</div>

That's the very reason why all their promotions say "save" gas.

Their worst fear is that people will start saying "use less in the first place" instead.

It's a mindset change that is pretty much inevitable anyway. As much nonsense as they can spew out about practical-size hybrids not being able to offset their initial price later at the pump won't change the reality that the monster-size vehicle drains your wallet at a noticeably faster rate.

And once the technology upgrades reach the point of no return, where the benefit is blatantly obvious, the resistance will just vanish as if it never existed in the first place. There's no admission of defeat. They just accept change. It's the bittersweet measure of success... which evidence of is finally starting to emerge. Yippee!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jdjeep98 @ Aug 12 2006, 08:00 AM) [snapback]302071[/snapback]</div>

Thanks! I knew this document would eventually develop an audience.

It's still a work-in-progress, getting revised as more details are released. But at least you can see how it compares to our design in Prius.

The clutches and extra PSD are buried with the system and all controlled automatically. So there is nothing for the driver to shift. But the articles certainly do leave readers wondering.

By the way, I'm quite amused by the ever-changing name. The system has frequently been called both "dual mode" and "two mode". Now "high low" has been added to the mix. That will provide clarity for the consumer. :blink: They won't know what the heck reporters are talking about.

 

The truth of the matter, from my perspective is that a high-low hybrid is really just an evolution of an ECT transmission mated to a hybrid powertrain, in other words, a way for them to mate a lot of existing technology together. While I admire them for finally waking up, I think retrofitting a bunch of technology together isn't going to shift the paradigm and get them where they need to go long term.

As for the naming conventions, I agree with john -- when I saw high/low I immediately thought it was a craps game. Maybe they'll change the name next to "Horn High" ?

- Matt


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Aug 12 2006, 06:21 AM) [snapback]302078[/snapback]</div>

 

Looks like the Mclaren and BMW F1 race teams found themselves their hybrid F1 design of 2009.

All I can say is good luck to Honda/Toyota now.... maybe the IMA system might be okay, but the HSD is not going to fly with F1 rules.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Aug 12 2006, 08:38 PM) [snapback]302344[/snapback]</div>

Most F1 teams are going hydraulic hybrid, with a carbon-fibre/ultra-strength steel alloy accumulator. Shame.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Aug 12 2006, 07:23 AM) [snapback]302063[/snapback]</div>

Indeed -- going from 15 mpg to 19 mpg (27% improvement) may in fact save more gas than going from 30 mpg to 50 mpg (67% improvement). Look at it in terms of "gallons per mile" instead of miles per gallon:

100 miles at 15 mpg = 6.67 gallons
100 miles at 19 mpg = 5.26 gallons (1.4 gallon savings)

100 miles at 30 mpg = 3.33 gallons
100 miles at 50 mpg = 2.00 gallons (1.33 gallon savings)

Based on some people's refusal to give up their monstermobiles and reluctance to reduce their miles traveled, I don't mind GM starting with the poor end of the spectrum. At least they're dipping their toes in the water somewhere.

Agreed. I'd rather save the 4.67 gallons per 100 miles.

 

And we as a society need to do this... why, exactly?

 

what I find really funny is that Toyota is the first with "two mode" hybrid - ie, first with two CVT gearsets, in their GS450h.

 

You bet it's a short-term fix. There's another thread here about how Toyota is annihilating every other car-maker that sells to the US. They might even be ruining them all with their hybrids alone (debated). Regardless, it's obvious Toyota's done it right; Honda's done it pretty well too. Everyone else is screwed.

These car makers have been left in the dust and waited until the last possible minute to compete in this way that they do not want to compete, because it requires risky, innovative features rather than easily planned, mainly style-related changes year after year. Now they're banding together to get anything they can call a hybrid in place to attempt to compete.

So on one hand, bravo - at least they're trying. They could just fold their arms and stay in denial while they continue to be swallowed up. On the other hand, you can bet the next step is legislation - they're going to lobby hard to make their inefficient high-low hybrids get the same tax breaks and benefits as a Prius or Civic Hybrid. The lobbyists are coming... .

If anyone's interested, I'm a member of Union of Concerned Scientists and have so far been impressed with the way they've fended off that kind of lobbying. They're really effective if you're looking for a way to keep that kind of crap thinking out of US laws.

 

At least the General is finally building and improving what the rednecks want. More trucks/SUVs.

Dang... I am still waiting for Toyota to give me a Sienna Hybrid.

Instead, they go about and make stupid gas guzzler SUV hybrid (and not a real SUV either) and sport sedans with crazy HP. What do Toyota fanboys have to say about that?

The only two hybrid Toyota got it right are the TCH and Prius.

 

What's very interesting is the Vue hybrid. Right now it's a mild hybrid, much like IMA (which still delivers 32MPG highway, best of any SUV, hybrid or not). Next year when the Vue is redesigned, they're going to continue to offer the mild version, along with the full 'two mode version'.

That is very signifigant because it's going to be the first time that a conventional, mild hybrid, and full hybrid version of a single car model is available at the same time. Obviously the mild version is going to have the most appeal in terms of price/economy for the price, but the big question is will people step up to the full version for the price premium for a few more MPG?

This is going to be a very interesting experiment. Kudos to GM for making this happen.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Sep 18 2006, 01:35 PM) [snapback]321242[/snapback]</div>

GM has repeatedly stated that the 2008 Tahoe available in late 2007 will be the first consumer vehicle to feature the "two mode" design.

When did their rollout plans get accelerated and the choice of first vehicle change so drastically?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Sep 18 2006, 04:03 PM) [snapback]321275[/snapback]</div>

John, you're a blast. Love the word choices, such as "repeatedly" and "drastically". You really dress up your FUD.

Link is here: http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/...175.A10807.html

Quote is here:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Sep 18 2006, 03:13 PM) [snapback]321282[/snapback]</div>

Everyone else simply sticks to the facts. You make it personal every chance you get. So I'd hate to disappoint.

As for that announcement, it is the first and only reference I have heard to that effect. It would be great if that did indeed end up happening. But this is the yet another in a very long series of schedule & scope changes. So credit will be given when the product actually becomes available. Until then, it is just a plan.

I wonder what kind of mixed singles consumers will get from having 2 fundamentally different hybrid choices, especially when the cheaper one is priced at $2000.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Sep 18 2006, 04:46 PM) [snapback]321307[/snapback]</div>

Consumers, as they always have, vote with their wallet.

If the 2Mode system doesn't offer enough benefit over the simpler BAS system for the price they ask for it, people wont' buy it. Simple as that.

Like I said, this is going to be a good way to gauge consumer demand to see if people really want economy cheaply or are willing to spend a bit more cash to get a bit more economy.