Business Week: Is GM's Green Tech Better Than Toyota's?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Nov 15 2007, 08:16 AM) [snapback]539905[/snapback]</div>

That's probably the most accurate response so far

Honestly though, if GM makes (and releases to the public, hello Volt?!) a better product than Toyota, I'd be in line to buy it and support further development. One of the problems that I think GM still faces is that even IF they have better "green tech" than Toyota, Toyota still has a reputation for reliability that GM would have to work pretty hard to overcome. And that's one area where marketing dollars are not as effective as a quality product.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Nov 15 2007, 06:56 AM) [snapback]539903[/snapback]</div>

Some of us look forward to reading your spin.

The underlying issue still remains... How long until mainstream volume?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Nov 15 2007, 09:34 AM) [snapback]539937[/snapback]</div>

Well, as I've said before, I don't work for GM, so I can't answer. How long until Toyota starts putting HSD into cars that aren't barges?

 

there is no doubt that a need for large pickups with good towing capacity does exist. i know close personal family members that simply could not do without them.

but the post that describes someone cruising along at 75 mph is what gets me. people STILL WANT a truck that will haul 10,000 lbs 75 mph UPHILL.

well that aint needed in anyway whatsoever. years ago, my dad had a surburban (yes a GMC...) we had a camper we hauled and we struggled to do highway speeds with that thing (back then it was only 55 mph) it had no passing speed to speak of and any uphill jaunt pretty much required stopping to top off the radiator, etc...

but when not hauling the trailer, he got 14 mph... that was 30 years ago in a 9 passenger behemoth...

so i dont see what the big deal is... have we gone so far backwards in fuel economy that we are now expected to go ga-ga over a 20 mpg pickup??

**edit**

now i know this will cause a MAJOR furor... but i think we need to go to a lower national speed limit ASAP... use the speeding ticket money to invest in mass transit...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Nov 14 2007, 11:42 PM) [snapback]539809[/snapback]</div>

It seems there is a limitation with the 2-Mode design.

"Because, Lutz told me, the dual mode hybrid powertrain just isn't scalable to vehicles that size, and it really wasn't ever meant for a small vehicle."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(usbseawolf2000 @ Nov 15 2007, 12:26 PM) [snapback]539953[/snapback]</div>

Yep, that is it. The 2 mode Hybrid design was intended for city buses originaly.Which vary in weight dramatically from loaded to un-loaded. 60 people at 200 lbs max average (including their carry on stuff 10 to 40 lbs) is 12000 lbs. Then stop every mile for the busstop, and you can see where a hybrid system could really pay off in brake service, and dealing with partial power engine efficiency.

There is a similarity to a pickup trucks used for commuting and towing. But not for pickup trucks used for work (which are always heavily loaded.

Is the GM SUV/Truck 2 mode hybrid better green? I do not think so. Because it seems to be aimed at the pickup truck for commuting. When many could rent something for towing, and drive a Prius and do allot better money and green-wise. Home Depot et al have these light duty trucks available for rental all over now.

This is a way for GM to push vehicles to civilians (non work users) which are too large to be safe. Too large to be economic (except for the UAW and GM). Too large to handle well. Too large to be aerodyanmic (they have to be squared off to be not be long to fit in parking sponts). Too large to be sophisticated (the cost of large sophistcation is just out-of-question for Joe six-pack). Too large to be maintained and raise kids at the same time (half these things I see have bald tires).

One thing I read was that one of the new GM hybrid SUV's has a 6.0 liter engine, rather than the standard smaller 5.x (cannot remember what it was) engine. Does this make sense? Yes the 6.0 liter engine has cylinder deactivation, but why not provide an engine that is smaller than the 5.x ? That is the engineering concept of hybrid cars. One has to ask is this a vehicle designed by engineers or salesmen? Kinda like the Honda Accord hybrid appears to have been. And we know how well that did.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Nov 15 2007, 07:06 AM) [snapback]539947[/snapback]</div>

I think I can help you reword better.... How long is Toyota going to stop introducing gas guzzling barges?... When they could concentrate on HSD to make their barges with better fuel economy.

At least GM/Dodge has a barge fuel economy option. Not saying it is the right thing to do, but at least they are offering one. And this time, it is not a fake attempt.

But dang, when is the 2mode going into their cars?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ Nov 15 2007, 06:29 PM) [snapback]540255[/snapback]</div>

Standard is 5.3L and the hybrid uses 6.0L. It looks like 2-Mode loves big engine with huge torque like in the buses.

2-Mode has limitation when the electric motors can assit and it is the reason the ICE power and electric power does not meet and peak. Electric power gets peak usage at low speed while mechanical power usage gets the peaks at 30mph and 70mph.

This limitation might be the reason it is not suitable for 4 cylinder engine when peak power can be demanded at all times especially at 30-70 mph range. Of course HSD rulez at those speed ranges.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Nov 15 2007, 06:39 PM) [snapback]540261[/snapback]</div>

It's supposed to be in some Saabs and Cadillacs in 2009... and a 9-3 TwoMode would just be fantastic... is there a need to even look at any other car?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Nov 15 2007, 05:39 PM) [snapback]540261[/snapback]</div>

FORD is just about ready to reveal their "full" hybrid family sedan.

GM hasn't provided even a hint that they'll offer a competing vehicle.

So people can spew whatever proganda they want. It won't make any difference if a choice for the majority market is never offered.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Nov 15 2007, 04:09 PM) [snapback]540273[/snapback]</div>

I agree with that.

That is what I say when Toyota claims to "eventually" put their HSD into every product line.

In another word.... SHOW ME THE GOODS!!!!! As an Engineer, I see too many viporware to believe Marketing.

 

Moving large vehicles to a hybrid drivetrain might be more "green" than moving small vehicles to a hybrid drivetrain. Consider the sheer amount of gas you are saving on a vehicle that travels 20K miles per year:

15MPG = 1333 Gallons
20MPG = 1000 Gallons
Savings= 333 Gallons

30mpg = 667 Gallons
45mpg = 444 Gallons
Savings = 223 Gallons

The savings of fuel by moving an Urban Assault Vehicle driver into a hybrid UAV is 110 gallons per year (33%) more than moving a car driver into a hybrid. Now, if you could move truck driver to a hybrid car we would be doing a real service to our planet.

With that being said, if an American Manufacturer could produce vehicles of comparable quality and cost to their Japanese counterparts my Toyota fanboyism would disappear in a heartbeat!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 15 2007, 06:24 PM) [snapback]540280[/snapback]</div>

One automaker is showing little concern for emissions & cost, focusing almost entirely on efficiency alone.

The other is seeking improvement of all 3 criteria, but not getting acknowledgement of that harder challenge.

Praise for technical marvel should still be given when achieved. But to actually make a difference, the majority must be served. That is not the market for monster-size hybrids. The streets are dominated by not-so-sexy practical-size cars. Knowing that there are over 60,000,000 new vehicles produced worldwide each year, why wouldn't we get upset?

Think about how many times we've had to endure the "gallons saved" argument. The greater savings is revealed by looking at the entire picture. 10 Prius will be purchased for every 1 Tahoe-Hybrid. Those Prius will end up saving more overall.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Greenkeeper @ Nov 15 2007, 06:38 PM) [snapback]540285[/snapback]</div>

Since you provided numbers, I'll take them the next step further...

15,000 Tahoe-Hybrid = 4,995,000 gallons saved

150,000 Prius = 33,450,000 gallons saved

...to show that the Prius end up providing a greater savings, by a very large margin.

$50,000 hybrids are not going to be produced or sold in large volumes. $21,000 hybrids will.


Isn't it amazing how different the story is if you step back and consider the entire picture?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Nov 15 2007, 08:38 PM) [snapback]540305[/snapback]</div>

On this John and I totally agree.

It's SHAMEFUL that Toyota doesn't offer as many PZEV models as GM does. Period. There's no spinning that.

John, for once, we do agree. Shame on Toyota.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Nov 15 2007, 08:23 PM) [snapback]540324[/snapback]</div>

It's called omission.

The rest of the story is vehicle count offered nationwide and actual purchases.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 14 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]539589[/snapback]</div>

Way too little... way too late. The big three will merge in the next few years, subsidized by the government and big-oil... Just another sad chapter in what is becoming a consumer nation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Nov 15 2007, 09:33 PM) [snapback]540330[/snapback]</div>

I agree... Toyota needs to step it up!