Chevy Fuel Solutions: the Silverado Hybrid

We get asked often about why we’re making hybrid versions of big trucks and SUVs.

A better question is: Why *aren't* you making dual-mode hybrid versions of compact and midsize cars? I'd be extremely interested in a dual-mode hybrid Astra. It might meet my primary requirement for a new vehicle, which is that it's rated for over 40 mpg in city or highway driving.

When are we going to see dual-mode hybrid versions of your compact and mid-size cars, and when are you going to drop the mild hybrids from your lineup?

Ed,

Many have criticized the strategy, but I applaud GM and Chevy in particular for making massive improvements in the fuel economy of gas hogs that are driven by a great number of people rather than eeking out a couple extra mpgs out of a small car that fewer people can practically use. Sure getting a compact or midsize from 30 to 35 or 40 miles per gallon is good, but bumping a massive truck getting miles per gallon in the low teens up to the low twenties is even better. There are plenty of people who need to tow, or haul heavy supplies, or go off road, but want better fuel economy. Thanks to GM, now they can have both.

I applaud the Hybrid trucks. It sounds like some good thought has gone into them. Now when that 4.5L diesel comes out will it be available as a hybrid with AFM? Imagine a diesel truck that competes with the millage of the new Malibu (ouch).

I suspect the reason for trucks before cars in the hybrids is because of all that extra room under the hood and the body for the motor, batteries and control modules.

I'm still waiting on the hybrid cars. I hardly consider the new GM hybrids to be that great, BUT a recent article I read about them makes it quite clear that they make sense from a dollar and sense standpoint. The 5-10 HP system they use (correct me if my numbers aren't right) is cheap to implement and provides enough millage savings that it'll pay for itself with Gov't tax credits. Certainly better then its competition. So on affordability it makes sense to bad its not as good environmentally.

Keep up the good work GM, I'm impressed with this.

Well I have to agree with the first guy . When shall we see this in CTS or GTO . Yeah I know these vehicles may not be the norm . But there are mid sized and small cars that can use these systems as well . Just think an Aveo or something on the other side of the spectrum Solstice or Sky anything and everything in GM's line up should get systems that increase there gas mileage . Cause GM is and should be the leader in this field . This is one of the BIGGEST American company's and this Giant that is now been awaken needs to not only bring better gas mileage but better looking vehicle to the market . Cause Toyota's brands are giving some people what they think they need . Lexus to Scion . And you got up starts like Nissan trying to take Corvettes moniker of the fastest build production car from us . I guess what I am saying is that we need to show them who runs this . And why we are The General of all Motors .

paul,

One reason why is the large cost is easier to absorb in a large truck/SUV with a $45k-$50k price tag. Lets be honest, Toyota isn't making any money on the Prius but they can afford that. GM needs to make some money these days and putting expensive hybrid systems into sub $25k cars and taking a loss on each vehicle isnt going to work. If you notice, Toyota bundles other luxury features with its hybrid versions of gas vehicles. My guess is this is done because the profits on the extras help offset the expense of the hybrid system. This no different from what GM is doing with its loaded hybrid SUVs.

Well with the Silverado sales dropping it is good for business .I don't think the saving will be too much on a truck that big. It more like hey look how green I am I own a hybrid, even though not that a good of one.
GM has a knack of starting on the cheap, remember the 350 diesel.

Ed,
I am glad to see GM putting hybrids in the Silverado - for those who use a truck like a car. Those of us out here that want a truck to be a truck, whether for work or for towing a trailer/5th wheel are mighty upset that you discontinued the 8.1 in your HD pickups, leaving us to go diesel (yuk) or continuing with a gas engine and going to Ford or Dodge (double yuk). PLEASE put this muscle engine back into the 2500HD and 3500HD. Please.

We get asked often about why we’re making hybrid versions of big trucks and SUVs.

Paul,

The reason they are doing this on the Silverado and Tahoe instead of compact and midsize cars, is that GM has a huge profit margin on those large, heavy trucks and SUVs.

Making those large, heavy vehicles hybrids also helps assuage the guilt someone might feel buying one. Even though they still get lousy mileage, prospective buyers can rationalize their purchase and make their consciences feel better by saying, "Hey, I'm really not such a bad guy buying this heavy fuel-consuming truck. After all, it's a hybrid."

It's kind of like Al Gore buying those carbon offsets (indulgences) that no doubt ease his conscience, even though the carbon from his private jet still ends up in the stratosphere.

GM knows very well what they are doing -- the Tahoe and Silverado hybrids are primarily a marketing ploy. GM knows the pendulum is swinging away from their most profitable large trucks and heavy SUVs. Anything they can do to hang on to some of that market share a bit longer by making people believe those vehicles are still socially acceptable no doubt makes sense to them.

Best,

Gary Dikkers

But like usual perception is what perception is . Yeah you are right in the respect that sub 25k vehicles AT this time not get the system as the hybrid. But like Intel AMD IBM make processors that get faster in some cases cheaper to make . So does GM need to make and or invest in Companies Tech or otherwise that can produce hybrid system in cars that can be 15k. The best example I see that relates to what we are talking about are laptops. Do you remember how BIG they were . Literally how cumbersome . Epiphany is what you are having now. Cause I see hybrid systems the same way . One can not hinder hybrid systems in smaller or LESS expensive vehicles because right now the most cost effective way is to put hybrid systems in something that cost 60k or more just to make a profit . In the long run what will keep any company going in this new emerging segment is that the one who can incorporate this in to their cheapest vehicle will find them selves at the TOP . You don't have to agree . But one thing for sure some one will do it and that will give them an advantage over all for a time . perception perception perception .

"GM knows very well what they are doing -- the Tahoe and Silverado hybrids are primarily a marketing ploy."

Not really.

Consider this:

Roughly a million GMT-900s are built a year. If I save 1 MPG on those, it's worth (in terms of actual fuel net savings - i.e. less burnt gasoline) 2.5 gallons saved on a car like the Accord or Impala at 400,000 vehicles a year (on the assumption that the number of miles driven per car per year is equivalent - I would submit that trucks, on average actually drive MORE miles over their lifetimes than most cars do).

IF the mission is to reduce total fuel consumption, then the smart way to do it is to target the highest volume vehicles driving the most miles - in other words, trucks.

Like many, I am truly impressed with the about-face that GM has taken in the last few years. Innovation, build quality and corporate leadership with courage have improved markedly. The 2-mode hybrid system is just one example. I am proud to drive GM vehicles.

HOWEVER, as much as it pains me, I have to say that ridding ourselves of petroleum slavery and peak oil is paramount on people’s minds these days.

Unlike ethanol or hydrogen, I can make electricity and even biodiesel from waste vegetable oil at home.

In fact, GSPI States: Some Biofuels Add Significant Food to Your Table:

“For each bushel (60 pounds) of soybeans produced only 10 pounds of extracted oil is used in making biodiesel. The other 50 pounds (the soy meal) is used to feed the hungry of the world as one of the best high protein foods available. “
For the complete article:

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/?epi_menuItemID=989a6827590d7dda9cdf6023a0908a0c&epi_menuID=c791260db682611740b28e347a808a0c&epi_baseMenuID=384979e8cc48c441ef0130f5c6908a0c&ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&div=428291328&newsId=20071109005204

Therefore, the only economical and convenient way to rid ourselves of petroleum is with vehicle electrification. In larger vehicles B-100, PHEV-20 would go a long way toward that goal.

I will hold on to my old 2001 Chevy Silverado and my 1998 Buick Park Avenue until I can replace them with vehicles which use electricity as the primary drive.

I demand personal energy independence!

No plug? NO SALE.

Look at the big picture.

GM is on pace to sell somewhere around 2.5 million trucks and suvs this year. Converting even 10% of those sales to hybrids would be huge. And I'm sure GM would love to see around 25% hybrid sales in the first year or two. The gas and polution savings have the potential to be massive. It all comes down to what people want and need. I'm in Texas, we have lots of trucks. This will be the first hybrid that I can buy. I haul a trailer several times a year. Sometimes as much as 500 miles each way.

Good job GM.
But I think and I'm sure you will agree with me, it's more than time that the Two-mode hybrid system be applied in compact and midsize cars. We want this now and I think for numerous reasons, we are not wrong.

"No plug? NO SALE."

Bro, we make most of our electricity in the US by burning coal.

Furthermore, there aren't enough soybeans in all of Christendom to supply the energy needs for the US vehicle fleet...

As in...

"It ain't even close."

Is GM planning to offer diesel engines on smaller cars. Right now, most (if not all) models available in diesel are trucks...

Thanks.

This reply is going to be long, my appologies, but I'm going to comment as I read the new posts.

Emmanuel,

Just because GM is the biggest car maker doesnt' mean they need to be #1, thats a bad buisness myth. They need to be profitable. No one but the big shots care who is number one. Its bragging rights, not something as an Auto consumer I care about.

Secondly GM is a Giant, they move slow and will fall hard if they ever fall. There are a lot of smaller more nimble companies that are doing better then GM. The reason is they can move where they need to much more easily. GM probably has to much overhead. As you mentioned there is NO good reason why GM shouldn't be leading the pack... except the fact that they aren't, they haven't in a while and they probably aren't interested. Leading means taking risks and investing money, having brilliant people and leaders with vision to steer things in the right way. I'm not convinced GM has what they need to meet those requirements. They certainly have talent but they continually aire on the side of caution in their designs and products. The latest GMs show a small trend toward the side of innovation. But innovation on the scale GM needs to re-establish itself is difficult to pull off since a mistake or bad product could be extremely expensive. But thats the idea of R&D and innovation. Not everyone will like innovation, some will others won't. This is also why small companies do it better, they usually pick one or two areas and are very good in those. GM is large and doing that is more difficult. However not impossible (ref: Toyota, Honda)

Who cares if Nissan's new car beats the Corvette. The Corvette is up against some pretty fierce technology limits. They can add more HP, but what to do with it (besides burn the tires off). Cornering Gs are at a limit, there is small room for improvement but its going to cost a lot. About all that I can see that GM can work on is styling, interior, fit and finish, economy, and most of all Chassis dynamics (I doubt the Corvette's chassis is up to par with vehicles in the super car range). The Corvette is as much a compromised car as it is an uncompromised car. Cost is all that holds GM back from becoming the real super car. And if GM were smart they'd release a small quantity of hand built Vettes that are marketed toward exclusive customers (with deep pockets), same goes for Caddy. There are a lot of cars that build fast production cars. I don't think Corvette has anything to worry about except CAFE, but then again everyone else has the same problem. A little competition won't be a bad thing for the Corvette team (right now I don't think they really have much of that).

Paul,

Actually last I read the Prius price is actually spread accross their other models. I have heard that they raised the price on Camry while lowering the Price on the Prius. Additionally the Gov't tax incentive is minimal these days. Additionally on a cost basis the Prius isn't really that great (hence the reason GM wenth with a more mild hybrid). Manufacturing costs, energy consumption (sources) and materials manufacture make Hybrids difficult to do. And the US Sytem wide gain is tough to gauge. Everytime you have an option that appears more efficient, I'd be willing to bet that somewhere in the system (from raw materials to final product) energy is used that offests this new gain. So unless that energy isn't fossil fuel based, it still costs the US in CO2, fossil fuel usage etc...

GM also needs to reduce its number of redundant products to bring costs down, though if they sell enough families of vehicles the gain is probably justified to keep doing what they are. Its just to bad that money being used to develop new body panels and interiors isn't being put into better drive systems.

Ed,
As someone who has driven Duramax powered cars, I don't see the downside to Diesel. Especially the new clean deisels. Better fuel millage, better towing performance, a turbocharger, a very small amount of noise, and a reduced redline. Sorry I must have missed the 8.1 boat. I'd take a Duramax over an 8.1 any day.

What does a gas engine offer besides the ability to use gasoline instead of diesel (and for me thats not even worth discussing).

Gary,
Not only that but since GM sells so many SUVs, putting a Hybrid in them means they can develop the technology, make owners feel good, and better meet CAFE laws. Its a win win for them. I'll be once their teams are done with the truck hybrids they'll move that knowledge over to smaller cars. it DOES make a lot of sense, since trucks are way more expensive then most cars are, so often owners pick trucks rather then cars (most people I know can't afford to own both). I'm still waitinf for trucks that have the millage of cars, but last time I consulted the Physics books I heard it'll be a long weight.

I'm still waiting for a diesel hybrid verson of the Colorado. That'd be a nice truck to have.

Emmanuel,

I follow your anaolgy (barely). GM does need to move hybrids to smaller vehicles, but its about more then cost. When their engineers determine if a hyrbid makes sense they try no doubt to factor in every aspect of it (thing you and I probalby never even think about). From the manufacturing cost, added weight, the fuel requires to move that added weight (and its offset by the hybrid drive), the payback term for the added cost etc.. I think an article discussed this in one of the auto magazines. And it makes perfect sense to me. They explained that after tax deductions, initial purchase cost and fuel saved, that the Toyota and Honda hybrid numbers dont' look as good. This is why the GM system in the Aura only has 5 or 10 HP (double check tht number for me GM). But to add that 5 or 10 HP the tradeoffs and benefits are reasonable. One thing I read about the honda (I think) is that the rear seat doesn't have a pass through because the majority of its trunk has batteries in it.

To get back to your anaolgy with computers, I remember when a fast laptop was 20 Mhz witha 68030 Motorola in it (or a 286 I beleive at the time). Back then batteries were Nickel Cadmium, die size was measured in microns, today we meaure in nanometers. The 286 had 1.5 micron chips, todays processors use 45nm chips. Back then they had 134K transistors, today we have 840 million transistors in the current 45nm processors (desktop processor not laptop). Today we have advanced lithium ion and lithium polymer batteries that not only power faster, more efficient devices but last long and deliver more watts. In fact I'd be much of this technology will find its way into cars (batteries I mean).

Even GM engine computers have evolved, OBD I systems had memory cal packs, today one ECU/ECM can control many engines just by flashing its memory.

In any case the main problem today with hybrids is cost and weight. Its hard to add functionality without adding weight and cost (ref; MS Vista). GM trucks on the other hand have plenty of space, payload capacity and that makes it easier to develop on them. In fact all they have to do is keep their highway numbers the same and make sure their city numbers go up and they are set. The extra mass if offset in the energy storage system and truck chassis are naturally able to handle a few undred pounds more with minimal problems. Try that with a car. Try adding 200 Lbs to a Cobalt and see how things work out.

PacerX,

I agree trucks do driver more miles per model, however cars probably outnumber cars on the road. But for GM trucks are far eaiser to save fuel with since they consume more then cars. And I'm not even considering all the commercial customers (who lease) trucks that could justify the added cost for millage savings over the life time of the vehicle.

I say not only target the high volume vehicles (cars) but also target the biggest offenders (trucks) that burn the most fuel per occupant.

Tim,

I don't think Ethanol is the current way to go until some other kinks are worked out of the farming process, mainly the use of fossil fueled equipment and more importantly the use of petroleum derived fertalizers. I think though corn is the best way to make bio fuels, since the kernel can be used for oil, the bio mass for ethanol and the leftovers... well I'm not sure what they do with them. But 2 fuels from one crop sounds good ot me, its just a shame that fertalizers are even needed but thats the reality of it or so I've been told. I am skeptical though of some figures that I commonly hear tossesd around, as they are what I call the "box" costs, rather then the system costs of such technologies. The new word in the auto world is Cradle to Cradle, and thats what I think is missing from ethanol and some of ther bio fuels.

By far electricity is the best option for production, however transmission, storage and use is a different story.

I'll agree tht electricity is a good idea since Nuclear fuels produce no CO emissions, and with new technology (if it is ever legalized) allows them to essentially recycle the fuels (some of which is being stored). Additionally the energy density per ton of fuel is well exponentially higher. It would be far easier to derive hydrogren and then ethane or methane from water electrolysis then I think from bio fuels. The problem is system cost and payback time (always a problem).

Petroleum slavery? I'm not sure I agree with you, petroleum has done just the opposite for the US and other parts fo the world. I agree we need to find a new source of fuel, but I don't think WVO is the best option. WVO is great for DIYs but for right now its probably barely profitable. Additionally dealing with the contaminants in the WVO is a problem. As it is the US switched to a new cleaner diesel formula. I hardly think using WVO with all the salts, oils and other things left over from the frying process is going to help a vehicle pass emissions, though I could be wrong.

That said, I'd like to see diesel hyrbids in the immediate future with natural gas powered (hydrogen) hyrbids after that. I think its doable eventually. I think for obvious reasons that we aren't ready for plug in cars (mainly the energy grid can't handle it, AND energy costs for electricity aren't much better then for gasoline, though obviously its a much more efficient process).

James N.

I agree, though I think if GM used a different payback strategy they could offer all their consumer grade trucks with hyrbid and minimal sticker price change and could get this whole year's fleet out there. After a few years they could probably easily pay back the sytem (assuming they are able to design a system that needs minimum refinement every year).

Sorry about the long post. I'm curious to see where GM goes next and of course to hear from GM blogg staff on some of these issues.

One reason why is the large cost is easier to absorb in a large truck/SUV with a $45k-$50k price tag. Lets be honest, Toyota isn't making any money on the Prius but they can afford that. GM needs to make some money these days and putting expensive hybrid systems into sub $25k cars and taking a loss on each vehicle isnt going to work. If you notice, Toyota bundles other luxury features with its hybrid versions of gas vehicles. My guess is this is done because the profits on the extras help offset the expense of the hybrid system. This no different from what GM is doing with its loaded hybrid SUVs. - sheth

Let me put it this way: GM isn't going to be getting *any* of my money until they release a dual-mode hybrid that's not some gigantic truck or SUV. I'm simply not in the market for any vehicle GM is selling. Period. (Yes, this does also include almost every other car manufacturer, but this isn't their blog, now is it.)

I could have posted that the hybrid Silverado was symbolic of GM's ignorance of the small car market, or that it wasn't nearly the gasoline improvement that is necessary to really get us off of foreign oil. But I didn't. All I did was ask, rather nicely as a matter of fact, when is GM going to produce a car that I will consider?

If they made a hybrid Astra, I'd gladly pay more than $25,000 for it. It's quite literally the perfect car for me. It's got a hatchback and is roomy enough in the back for a car seat and a dog while still being nimble enough to navigate around the city. With the right options, I'd easily pay $30,000 for such a vehicle, especially considering Saturn's reputation for customer service and GM's new 100,000 mile warranty.

But with oil prices over $100 a barrel, gas prices in the low $3 range in my area, and anthropogenic climate change all but proven, it would be irresponsible of me to consider buying a new vehicle, which I expect to keep at least ten years, that gets less than 40 miles per gallon.

By the way, in late 2001 Toyota announced the were making a profit on the Prius. If they weren't making a profit, how could they have started offering incentives?

Making those large, heavy vehicles hybrids also helps assuage the guilt someone might feel buying one. Even though they still get lousy mileage, prospective buyers can rationalize their purchase and make their consciences feel better by saying, "Hey, I'm really not such a bad guy buying this heavy fuel-consuming truck. After all, it's a hybrid." -

Gary Dikkers

I doubt this. There are still people who need trucks. My brother in law is a carpenter and actually uses the capabilities of his '94 Silverado. Improving fuel economy is definitely something that needs to happen across the board.

However, I can't justify buying a massive truck or SUV just to haul me and my family around. We could do that perfectly well in something the size of a Prius.

GM is on a roll ! Keep it going !

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/15/autos/green_car/index.htm?cnn=yes

paul,

I am very familiar with your commentary as it is very repetitive and unhelpful. Your desire for a 40mpg car has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The silverado hybrid is a good idea whether you are interested in it or not. Sorry that GM doesn't make any 60mpg cars for you. Perhaps the Volt will change that. YOu say GM has no commitment to small cars but the Vibe is coming out in Feb., the Astra is coming out in January, the HHR and Cobalt are here now and are getting a new 260hp DI engine with better fuel economy, etc. Furthermore GM makes the G5 coupe and Kappa RWD cars. The cobalt will be redesigned in a few years and the next Astra will likely be built here for Saturn's use. Then of course we have the VOlt. Sorry, this doesn't add up to no interest in small cars.

Gary,

We have been here long enough to know you have nothing but ill will towards GM and their products. You state that the tahoe hybrid gets "lousy" mileage but it gets better City mileage than the Accord or Camry 4 cylinder. In a city like Philly where I live about 90% of your driving is stop and go. City mileage is the most important for many Americans and thus 21mpg in the City for a 5700lb truck is very impressive. IN summary, they do NOT get lousy mileage and a person driving a Tahoe hybrid in the city is burning less fuel than someone driving a midsize sedan with a four cylinder.

Ed
Good work on the hybrid. Where consumers need this type of technology is in the new crossover segment like the Acadia/Enclave/Outlook. The competition here is Toyota/Lexus Highlander/RX and the 2008 Audi Q7 hybrid. I want to buy a hybrid but most models are squeezed for 7 passengers. From the link provided it appears the Traverse will be the first model in Hybrid. If you search on "Enclave Hybrid" there are a number of consumers that would love a hybrid high mileage 7 seater, but have little choice. Bring the dual mode Hybrid to the Lambda platform and I'll get in line today for a preorder.

I'm in a quandy about what to buy Dec 2008 when my G6 GTP lease is up. I'm looking for something sporty and fun to drive with higher MPG, since gas will soon be $4.00 a gallon. At the rate things are going, the Volt won't be out in time, and the Aveo is just not very exciting to drive. I've always liked GM's, but I'm leaning towards a Mini Cooper. GM has nothing that gets into the 30MPG CITY (Highway is meaningless) has good acceleration,and is fun to drive ! You've got 12 months yet, please build the Volt before I have to change brands !

One thing that's very interesting about GM and their pursuit of alternative drivetrains is that they are doing so in a highly appropriate, modern business fashion.

I just read the article in the economist that Eric Planey on the previous forum suggested. It discussed some of the issues that Toyota seems to be having these days-primarily a few reliability issues in the Camry and Tundra.

It goes on to discuss Toyota's delay of their new Prius because they were not satisfied with the Lithium Ion approach. The interesting thing is that their reasoning isn't because they can't find a battery that will work, but rather that they want to engineer the battery in house. That's a fairly inefficient use of resources.

I just read a book awhile back called " Wikinomics". It discussed how that many companies involved in manufacturing such as Boeing, BMW, and even GM are relying on outsourcing engineering and even manufacturing to other companies with concentrated expertise in certain areas. It would seem to me that with GM's approach of outsourcing their battery research to corporations that specialize in battery development would be a far more intelligent choice.

I think GM is probably going to steal the show come time for the introduction of the Volt. That said- that's one huge chance to redeem the image of GM.The Volt is perhaps the most important vehicle GM has planned for. Make it perfect. Make it work. People will come back.

Edvard,

I'm not sure I agree with you. For Toyota (and GM for that matter) it makes a lot of sense to keep battery development in house. Batteries are a key part to any hybrid. I something were to happen to that battery manufacturer, or if another customer out bids you for those batteries then what do you do? By keeping things in house it also give Toyota the profit. And thats a key issue. If Toyota buys their batteries from an outside supplier that supplier has the right within contractual obligations to change the price of those batteries. Additionally working with outside manufacturers can be a slow, time consuming and money intensive process. By keeping them in house it eliminates these problems. The key to Toyota (and GM) is to buy the knowledge base of these companies. This moves profit on the inside.

One key thing I don't hear much of on these forums is the discussion of Toyota's Lean Engineering and Manufacturing approach. My guess is by keeping thingslean on the assembly line Toyota is able to offer slightly more technologically advanced cars then other companies. This alone is enough of a reason to keep things in house. Though if it were me I'd never keep them in house and not sell a product, but rather outsource until the internal technology is up to spec.

Just my thoughts.

Gary Dikkers said:

Making those large, heavy vehicles hybrids also helps assuage the guilt someone might feel buying one. Even though they still get lousy mileage, prospective buyers can rationalize their purchase and make their consciences feel better by saying, "Hey, I'm really not such a bad guy buying this heavy fuel-consuming truck. After all, it's a hybrid."

Interesting. Is that like where you drive around your diesel VW knowing full well that its emissions of carcinogens so exceeds the level of every gasoline-powered vehicle that California and every state with their emissions laws banned it from sale within their borders? Do you say to yourself, “Hey, I’m not such a bad guy even though my output of carcinogens is considered unacceptable by several states at least I’m saving gas.” Is that how you assuage your conscience?

Edvard,

Unless the volt is dirt cheap, I don't see it being a huge sucess. The range on electric is to low for most people. I'm not saying the actual range is to low, but what I am saying is that people will perceive it to be to low. I think people are looking for upward of 200 miles on electric alone. Not to mention the cost of electricity isn't much better then the cost of gas per KWatt/hour. Jut my thoughts. It will be interesting to see how it looks.

Ted said: "I'm in a quandy about what to buy Dec 2008 when my G6 GTP lease is up. I'm looking for something sporty and fun to drive with higher MPG, since gas will soon be $4.00 a gallon."

Ted,

You sound like a candidate for one of the new 50-state turbodiesels soon to be available in the States. Daimler, BMW, Audi, VW, and Honda will soon have options for you to select from.

Get one with a 5 or 6-speed manual, and you will have a high-torque, fast-cruising, fuel-sipping machine. (Of course you always have to put up with the higher price of diesel fuel during the fall harvest season.)

Best,

Gary Dikkers

Congratulations on producing a more responsible vehicle. Will you have in sufficient quantities so dealers will not put their customary additional dealer markup over sticker price? I found that to be true when you introduced the latest Corvette. I am a firm believer in full hybrid technology. I constantly average 54.5 MPG with mine. From the article it appears to be an honest attempt but I will remain skeptical because of what I have seen before. For example having one or two fuel injectors and calling it something exotic as "Crossfire Injection". I hope my complements are not too optimistic.

Paul said: "I doubt this. There are still people who need trucks. My brother in law is a carpenter and actually uses the capabilities of his '94 Silverado."

Paul,

True, there will always be a core of professionals that will need heavy trucks and SUVs.

GM will always have that market segment, whether those trucks burn gasoline, diesel fuel, turpentine, or are hybrids.

GM's reason for marketing Silverado and Tahoe hybrids is not to go after the professionals that must have trucks and SUVs. Their motivation is to retain the "fence-sitters" -- those wealthy surburban people who really don't need an SUV, and are now leaning away from them because of their heightened sense of environmental awareness and the growing cost of operating an SUV.

By making hybrids for their heavy SUVs, GM is hoping to keep the profitable (for GM) "fence sitters" in the fold a bit longer. Afterall, those heavy trucks and SUVs have huge profit margins that just don't exist for an Aveo or Cobalt. For every 1,000 of those "fence sitters they can convince to buy an SUV, GM can add as much as $10,000,000 to their bottom line. (I've heard GM's out-the-door profit on an SUV can be $10,000 or higher.)

The professionals such as your brother-in-law will always be there. GM's reason for SUV hybrids is to go after the people who don't really need an SUV, but who might buy one if they can rationalize it as a hybrid.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

Sheth said: "We have been here long enough to know you have nothing but ill will towards GM and their products."

Sheth,

That's not really true. I have a GMC Sonoma light truck that I'm very happy with. My first two cars were a 1953 and 1955 Chevy, both three-speed manuals with the shift lever on the steering column. ("Three-on-the-tree" as we used to say.)

I do hope GM does well -- they are an essential part of the American economy as are Ford and Chrysler.

But I do think GM needs a kick in the pants once in a while, and that they don't need a bunch of "Yes men" on this blog to keep nodding their heads saying, "Please Sir, may I have another."

Sometimes Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz are too close to the situation to even see there is a problem, and they need the perspective of someone who is standing back and can see the whole picture.

For better or worse, this blog is sort of an electronic Board of Directors. Wagoner and Lutz certainly don't have to listen, or even pay any attention to us, but someone does need to speak truth to power, and this is a good forum for that.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

I meant to say the Tahoe gets better mileage than the Camry or Accord V6, not four cylinder models.

ted,

there are very few vehicles that get 30mpg city with the 2008 standards. The Corolla and civic do not get 30mpg in the city. I don't believe the Mini cooper does either. If you want something that small perhaps you should consider the Cobalt SS coming out next year. I suspect it will get 23 or 24mpg in the city.

"GM's reason for SUV hybrids is to go after the people who don't really need an SUV, but who might buy one if they can rationalize it as a hybrid." -- Gary Dikkers

Gary,

Interesting to me is how you "know" the motivation behind GM's product choices. I am not sure I enjoy the sound of you bashing GM over their (intelligent) decision to make their large SUV's available with hybrid. GM makes and sells a lot of large, heavy SUVs - they essentially own the segment - what is your issue with GM making these (significantly) more fuel efficient ?

IMHO is is a great way to (a) reduce our dependance on foreign governments that do not have our best interests in mind (how's that for tact and diplomacy?) (b) reduce harmful emmissions and (c) reduce consumption of non-renewable resources. Again, your issue is ... ???

Chris (Toronto)

Chevrolet has improved the gas mileage of its top selling vehicle by 40%.

There will be no compromise in performance and everything one expects to be able to do in their work truck they can continue to do while saving 40% on fuel costs.

When the vehicle is going under 30mph it will use electric power alone. That is significant as I have learned that some big trucks from other manufacturers tend to run out of gas at idle while sitting in traffic.

GM has now become equal in hybrid technology with the Prius (although Toyota still has a leg up on unique hybrid styling, understand the automobile market is still just a high priced fashion show rendered in steel.)

GM has leap frogged Toyota when it comes to hybrid technology for large vehicles and it appears it will continue to hold this lead for some time.

Rick Wagoner has said he will introduce 16 hybrids over the next four years, one every three months. A noble and admirable goal to be sure.

The Chevy Tahoe has been awarded green vehicle of the year.

Those environmentalists were out protesting in California, not against GM.

Now add all this to Chevrolet's promising Volt,

Hay tired of high gas prices?

Re-Volt.

Tired of stopping at the gas station every week?

Re-Volt.

Chevrolet, says revolt and let's begin the American Revolution.

How about that add campaign? You like it, use it- it's GM's forum.

Seems like GM is taking back the technological edge over Toyota.

Also seems like GM is making strides to counter the hype and image that it is "anti-green".

Chevrolet is solidifying it's brand by taking the lead among the brands and is taking over the drive train technology.

That is super, now Cadillac has the lead in technology like onstar. Pontiac with Holden is responsible for everything under the car as pertains to RWD platform prowess. Hummer, the off road king. And Buick is the target brand for the beauty side of the industry. With the most exquisite styling of the interior and exterior showcased in the Enclave, Buick definitely pushes the design envelope for all brands. And Saab will continue its expertise with front and all wheel drive for us snow bound folk. Saturn is the European brand with it's focus on performance.

Anyway, I really can't understand what exactly the argument is about. I am dumbfounded. All these positives and without fail somebody finds a negative.

It seems that unlike any other company in the world GM is struggling to save itself, America from the oil albatross and save the world at the same time. And when it makes progress on all three of these fronts with a vehicle like the Silverado hybrid somebody will complain.

Fastlane short?

You are going in the right direction GM and the pessimists and detractors will be along for the ride enjoying our road to energy independence, a strong economic engine, strong farm economy while riding in our spacious vehicles while they complain in the back seat all the way.

Just think of them as back seat drivers, they are not riding shotgun like they think saying...

"We there yet? We there yet? What do you mean we ain't there yet?.....We there yet? We there yet?"

BWright

Can you please site your source about diesels being carcinogenic? I thought the problem was the soot which was to my knowledge cleaned up by the new 2008 emissions laws and the filters now in place. Please elaborate on what you are discussing.

Gary,

Well put. I grew up a GM guy, and there's still a part of me that trusts GMs because they are familiar. But thats not enough. GM needs a swift kick in the.... they have their head well... never mind. The problem is that they aren't forward looking enough. The two high ups at GM are from an older generation of car guy. And new buyers don't think the way older people do. We dont' buy American because its American (at least not the people I know). We buy based on features, and a slew of other things. GM needs to get in tune with this. Stop qualifying and validating themselves and start looking at what they could be if they tried to think outside the box more. GM seems to look around and say well we aren't that bad we have the best price here or there or we offer this.. or "Chrome is an expensive option, it cost us a lot". I don't know about you but I could care less if chrome cost them a lot, when I hear that I wonder ok what else did you guys skimp on to give me the chrome. Which brings up another thing, cost isn't everything. Quality matters, and it should be, above all, their focus at GM. They are also sooo worried about being #1 in sales... Who really cares, target quality, innovation, efficiency, looks and then price. I've never met a peson who didn't see the benefits of a quality product. The question is how to sell it. Some of us out there like quality, others don't care and just worry about price. So sell to both, just don't forget about people who want REAL quality not peceived quality.

So yeah I agree we are the voice telling GM what most people think, but are to busy to communicate. Someone has to. Personally I think GM needs a reboot, flush all that overhead and make them competitive with everyone else. Maybe they could deliver a greatly improved product at the same cost, rather then having to pay for the overhead that other companies don't have.

If GM listens maybe my next car will be a GM (again).

Nate,

See if this helps you understand why there has never been a 50-state legal diesel passenger car in the U.S. to date:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm

Yes, for 2008 it seems there will finally be a diesel clean enough to be sold in states with CA emissions laws. However, I find it disingenuous in the extreme when posters here criticize the fuel choices of both manufacturers and buyers but don't bother to tell people that the fuel economy choices they made were banned in some states and for what reasons.

Nice to see that the usual suspects are hard at work here.

I agree with Paul. If it doesn't get 40 mpg city, I'm not buying it.

Dave, 11/14, 6:03 PM:

Thanks. I thought I was the last living person with an 8.1. The mileage ain't much, but it sure drags that big trailer over the Ridge Route in style. We use it only to tow our trailers, but it sure is nice to have when you need it. As to the diesel, Yuk is why we didn't get one, along with the fierce cost of the option.

Paul, 11/15, 4:16 PM:

I agree on the profitability of the Prius.

The idea that Toyota doesn't make money on the Prius is urban legend and cover for business as usual. People need to get over it.

nate,

you are about 5 years too late with your advice to GM/. The evidence that they are making better products is all around you if you chose to pay attention. You are talking to GM of the 80s but the problem is that we are in 2007. It's time to catch up with the new reality. GM's products are getting better reviews than ever and winning awards left and right and you post here constantly telling them they dont get it. I'm starting to think you don't get it. I would love you you to provide some evidence that GM believes you should only consider their product because it's American. This is one of the most ridiculous sentiments you have expressed on this blog. GM (and the media) have clearly stated that their recent products can stand up against competitors regardless of where they are produced.

noel.

A quick look at the Prius' price and its equipment list lets you know there is little profit in that car. The car is cheaper than a similarly equipped gas only camry and you want us to believe they are making money on the car. That is a farce and one only has to look at the higher pricing of the camry hybrid to know that.

If you only want 40mpg cars than there are two cars for you since there are two models that meet that criteria. Neither is made by GM so I see no reason to post here knowing that.

sheth:

I only buy Chevrolet cars. I take care of them, so they last a long time. The ones I have are running just fine, thank you very much.

I would like to make a statement about using less gas. If and when they build a car that gets over 40 mpg, I will buy it. I would buy it tomorrow. Until then, I will keep driving what I have.

If that's the Volt in 2010 or 2011, OK.

If that's a good business model for GM, fine.

Sheth:

By the way, our family owns 7 Chevrolet vehicles, from 1917 to 2006. Who are you to tell me where not to post?

Printable words fail me to adequately express how little I care whether you "... see no reason to post here knowing that."

If you only want 40mpg cars than there are two cars for you since there are two models that meet that criteria. Neither is made by GM so I see no reason to post here knowing that - sheth

If GM doesn't know what I want, how can I expect them to make it?

BWright,

I'm in the process of reading the information you provided. I haven't read the detailed reports yet, but will soon review them. One thing I'd like to point out, is that by my current knowledge of diesels the PM (particulate matter) is a problem mainly due to its extremely fine particle size. At present I'm not fully aware of its average composition or chemical interactions with the human body (again going to read up on them). However I will say, with extreme caution I might add, that I consider California a liberal state, and as such I take some of their environmental policy and informaiton with a grain of salt. I can not think of how many items I have seen or used that have a warning that claims the substance has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals in the state of California.

So while we are on that subject, consider all the other products that you and other auto buyers use on a daily basis. Certainly we (collectively as a country) or at least as individuals have said that its not really that important. Since we choose many other things in life that are equally as health degrading. Gasoline is one of them, the vapors and emissions of gasoline also cause problems. Specifically benzene which is a common additive in

How about modern house hold cleaning chemicals? I have seen the same warnings on them about causing cancer.

The number of dangerous substances people encounter on a daily basis is probalby stagering.

These things are the Hallmark of modern civilization and the conveniences we all enjoy. And unless people on the whole are willing to give up these things, I think to a degree, being exposed to cancer causing agents is inevitable. Heck the sun causes cancer and we need it to even exist at all.

How about the stray background radiation in the air from all the radio devices. How about all the foods we eat that are known to cause health problems. I could go on, but it makes no direct difference. People for some reason decide these things are acceptable risks. I don't think diesel are any different then anything else out there right now. Modern society has an interesting set of parameters which the Auto industry is trying to meet, its not an easy thing to do. I think Diesels are worth it since their economy is quite good compared to other cars. Even Bio Diesel has some serious flaws, though I'd be willing to bet its safer from a cancer perspective.

Their CO emissions are less, though their NOx are greater. If we had the perfect answer, I would not be writing this right now. If you are worried about the diesel emissions wear filters to avoid breathing the exhaust products. I've seen many bikers in large citys do just this. I don't like the idea either, but until someone suggests a technology that is agreeable to the masses and meets all the current critereon that people want, wel will continue to use compromise technologies.

BTW I've never heard that Diesel cars were banned in the State of California. I have however heard they can not meet emissions, I guess practically its the same thing, but technically quite different.

Might I ask what you drive? What kind of engine does it have? What is your Carbon footprint? What is your total environmental footprint? How many carcinagins are you exposed to on a daily basis?

Noel,
I agree with your 40 MPG idea, however do you have any idea how difficult it its to hit this without a sub 1500 lb car?

As to the diesel, I have seen the newer generation diesels and am very impressed. I have had the opportunity to see a new Dodge Cummins with the Urea system on it. I must say that at first I thought it was powered by natural gas or propane. It was literally that clean. SO maybe when you bought your truck they smelled like diesels but certaily not now. They may be a bit noiser, but the 2500 HD Duramax I've been in is pretty quiet inside when driving. As to the cost of the option, I guess its really a matter of how much you drive it, and what getting better millage is worth to you.

I'm not sure what initially gave you the YUK reaction, but I get that reaction when I see a large gas engine lugign up a hill with a wonderful rich mixture smell in its exhaust. I guess to each his own. But I strongly recommend looking into a diesel next time you are vehicle shopping.

I'd challenge you to look at the system wide cost of a Prius, its quite interesting. Toyota has to be making some money from them, or are they? I don't really see the prius the end all of cars. They could easily up the millage by putting a small turbo diesel in it, but apperently people aren't concerned just with millage. Additionally the Prius system may or may not meet the expectations of customers in the long run. For now its a cool car. But what about after 100K miles?

GMs approach isn't the greatest but their logic certainly makes sense.

Sheth,

There's no disputing that GM is making better products. What I'm trying to say is that their products while better aren't as good as they are trying to make you think. I look around the industry and can find cars that are of interest to me that are better then GM cars. I may end up buying one who knows. The point is GM is doing well to be better, but it would be like climbing Everest, you get half way there and stop and say wow look how far we are, without ever mentioning or realizing how far you have to go. To me until GM is the company that is coming out with the innovative technologies accross the board, I won't see them as being to the top of the mountain yet. And they should never quite get there. However, they should always be thinking about the top. Trying to get there. Asking their customers what else can we do to make our cars better. Which I don't really see happening. What I see most of the time is GM telling us how great their newest car is, and then not really asking for much feedback.

GM might be winning award, but what does that really mean?

To me its like the age old advertising slogan "best in class" or "In a class of its own" Well if its best in class or if its the only one in its class of course its best in its class. Winning awards requires some rating system, and GM may be doing a great job, but somehow I see shortcomings. And more importantly their sales see shortcomings. I don't think GM needs to be number one in volume. But I think they need to be number one in quality. To me thats important. But why are their sales not what they should be? We (bloggers) I would hope are trying to help GM to figure out why people aren't buying their cars when they are making a decent product. I don't think GM gets it yet. I don't even know if they are able ot get it. My criteria for a car may be so far off that maybe I'm a minority. But I dont' think that is the case.

GM doesn't care why you buy their product, as long as you buy it. In the past people did actually buy cars out of pure American pride. And during that time GM and others seem to have abused the privalage and offer cars that apperently people weren't happy with. But for some reason these people kept them or kept buying American. To neglect the fact that there is a certain degree of American pride with auto purchases would be foolish. While the observations seem to tell me that this is les and less the case, there are still buyers that beleive this. GM has to keep these buyers AND win back people who have not bought GM again for various reasons. This is an interesting mix of goals.

I'm not sure about you, but I don't beleive eveything I hear in the media or in advertising. The media is often biased and seldom totally objective.

So yes I do agree that GM is making better cars, but I dont' agree that most of them are up to a specification that would convince me to buy a GM over its competition. Which in itself is a rather interesting thing, since I am interested enough in GM to post to this blog site, despite some of my comments that would seem to be contrary.

In all honesty I'd love to see something from GM that would totally sell me on a GM purchase. But what would that take?

I see GM as a step behind the likes of Acura, Infinit, Lexus and a few other brands. Not just with any single car but all accross the board. And this I think is what needs to be fixed. Sometimes its big things, sometimes its small things that GM doesn't do. The points I try to make is that they need to be aware of these things. And fortunatly for me this is a way I can express them, If not at least dicuss the with other people.

If everyone was praising GM, then they could produce the same model car for the next 50 years and all would be well and good. But since this isn't the case, I think at least pointing out what GM COULD improve is only polite.

I'm glad to hear that you think GM is doing really well, I even agree with you that they have come a long way. But I'm looking past the media, the hype and the press and looking at what they actually deliver, and then one step further at how they could be better.

On a seperate note how can you say that a look at the prius's equipment list tells there is little profit in the car? So the car is cheaper then a gas model with similar equipment. Do we know the real profit numbers on the gas model? If we dont' then we can only conclude that either the prius isn't profitable or perhaps the gas model is more profitable then the Prius, but does this allow us to quantify that profit?

You bring up an interesting point. Why is someone posting about 40 MPG on a GM blog site when another company makes a car that does just that? My conclusion whether right or wrong is that the person has a vested emotional interest in GM. Which is probably the same reason all of us post on this site. After all if we had no interest in GM we wouldn't care whos car we bought, all we'd care about is whether it meets whatever arbitrary specifications we set. Some how I doubt this is the real case.

So I'll ask the question of how you think GM could improve 4 of its most highly praised models to better suit your buying interests.

Gentlemen, do we ever expect in our lifetimes to see GM making a line of tiny, uber-efficient 2-seater vehicles? I have a Honda Insight and I get a kick out of taking it to dealerships everywhere and asking them what they've got in the way of efficient road cars. So far, all I get is that deer-caught-in-train-headlights look as people begin to ask themselves why anyone would want something that gets nice fuel mileage. (What happens after that? Bambi either moves fast or gets run over.)

Hey, did anyone notice how fewer monster RVs were on the road this year? Mmm hmm, yes, that's fuel mileage concerns making themselves felt in the marketplace. I happen to believe that the market will straighten things out on its own just fine. Our friends at Honda and Toyota have figured this out too. Are there any major automakers who haven't?

Nate:

If you begin to search out the health impacts of diesel particulates, you will be terrified.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District estimates that 70% of the cancers caused by toxic air pollution in Southern California are caused by diesel particulates. The California Air Resources Board estimates that 2400 people a year die prematurely in the state as a result of the diesel pollution of the "goods movement' industry.

This is only the beginning.
Peer reviewed medical research links diesel exhaust o heart attacks, strokes, hardening of the arteries, asthma, emphysema, low birth weight, increased incidence of still birth, and many others too numerous to mention.

As I understand it, diesel powered cars in California have to meet the same emissions standards as gas powered ones. Nobody has been able to do this yet, although Mercedes, Honda and Volkswagen say that they will soon. Light trucks get a break, so the Duramax does emit a certain amount of the deadly particles.

As much as I would prefer a diesel, for obvious reasons, I am not about to contribute to this problem in Los Angeles, which medical doctors and researchers have proclaimed as a public health crisis. One MD friend of ours has labelled the area around the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach "The Diesel Death Zone."

Noel,

Respectfully I'm glad that I don't live in the city. My air is pretty clean yet. While I do beleive you have some valid points, I dont' like to see the words estimate and research used in the same sentence or even paragraph. We're talking science right now. There is really no simple solution to te problem, so we can all comlain about fuel price, MPG, emissions, health problems, but until people collectively decide to drive less, nothing will become of it. Most people that I talk to haven't a clue what NOx stands for and only recently did people get clued in on CO. I'm in a technical field so to me this is just normal conversation. But the average consumer hasn't a clue (well maybe some of them today do). As I had stated in my previous post, i think there are far more things to worry about then just diesel emissions. I've read medical reports that claim that foods are good for certain organs then those same foods in different studies are found to harm other ones. Heck I'd love to see the impact of coffee, caffine and chocolate alone on the body.

Its an interesting thing to ballance the rights and responsibilities of the individual with those of the collective. It sure seem tough to do in practice.

I'd like to see the studies on the new diesels and bio diesel. E85, Gasoline etc... There's always something, pick your poison.

I think the best environmental and poltical choice would be to switch to hydrogen derived from nuclear power and then use methane derived from that hydrogen. But lets see how long that takes to have happen. The consumer base using the amount of energy they do and never even realizing. Oh well, won't stop me from enjoying a high HP 30-40 MPG vehicle in 2 years. BTW what ever happened to the fuel cells and electric cars? I'm still waiting to see that come to fruition.

Noel,

I just read an article about the new BMW diesels using Mercedes Bluetec technology, and according to the claims, they meet all 50 state's emission requirements. So I think i this case diesels are viable.

The article mentioned they use scrubbers and some special emissions devices as well as urea injection to limit NOx emissions. In any case, I hoep GM catches up soon in the US. A 38 MPG 3 series doesn't sound so bad. If only the CTS had a US diesel that made nearly 300 HP.

BWright asked: "Is that like where you drive around your diesel VW knowing full well that its emissions of carcinogens so exceeds the level of every gasoline-powered vehicle that California and every state with their emissions laws banned it from sale within their borders?"

BWright,

Failure to meet the CARB standards doesn't mean diesels are dangerous. In fact, the real world statistics don't back up what the CARB thinks.

If diesels actually emitted a dangerously high level of carcinogens, the European Union (EU) would have much stricter standards than they do.

Compare the cancer rate between North America and Western Europe. Our cancer rate is higher than the cancer rate in Europe. If diesels were as dangerous as you suggest, shouldn't their cancer rate be higher than ours?

Instead diesels are now the predominant automobile powerplant in Europe. (Last year, over 70% of the new vehicles registered in France were diesels. Over 50% of the new vehicles in Germany were diesels.)

The EU has a reputation for being more green and more concerned about pollution than the U.S. If diesel emissions were as dangerous as you suggest, the EU would have much stricter diesel standards, and diesels would not have gained such strong acceptance in Europe.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

Nate:

I can only agree. If they control the toxic emissions, diesel becomes a very attractive option.

I understand that Opel has a diesel small car (Astra?) in Europe which gets 50+ mpg. I would buy one in a heartbeat (no pun intended) if it met the emissions standards. Better mileage than a Prius and much simpler mechanically.

I understand that it is much easier to clean up the smaller diesels, and that the upcoming Honda diesel will not have to use the urea injection. Come on Saturn, let's do it.

Still, the Duratech as it now stands is not an option for me, alas. In our polluted region, I need to try my best not to exacerbate the problem any more than I have to. Bluetec Duratech? Maybe that works.

Gary,

Well spoken. These types of issues are a bit frustrating to discuss in my opinion. The facts and proof of such thing as cancer is extremely hard to nail down. While I can't say that diesels don't cause cancer or that they aren't a big contributor. I will question both sides.

Personally if diesel offers fuel economy improvements and we can figure out a way to get plenty of diesel fuel, I'm all for it. We need to deal with the growing energy demmands of the US (and world) somehow, or else change how we drive, live and work. I'm not sure that will happen anytime soon, though its a nice thought. On the other hand maybe thats not even required. Who gets to decide that one?

Noel,

I'm not sure if you've read about the new diesel after treatments, but they have reduced the CO, CO2 and NOx emissions quite a bit. To the point that I can't even tell that they are burning diesel, to me it smells like propane or natural gas. If you dont' beleive me take a trip to the local dodge dealer and have them start up a Diesel pickup.

I think GM is extremely foolish for not persuing diesels on their smaller cars. ie Aveo, Cobalt, Malibu etc.. I think if they started offering them they would sell like hot cakes. AND if they sold a Saturn Aura hyrbrid they'd really sell. I suspect GM has some political obligations since there no doubt is an aim to keep the ratio of gasoline to diesel cars at such a level that we use all our fuel petroleum. As I understand the refining process the fraction of gasoline and diesel obtained from one barrell of crude is somewhat fixed. So that if the country uses to much gasoline there is a surplus of diesel, and vice versa. SO I wonder how much THAT effects things.

But I encourage anyone reading to do some research on the new diesel filtration systems. Its encouraging.

The medical research is there for anyone who cares to read it. You could start with the work of the Southern California Particle Center, a joint venture of the UCLA and USC medical schools, sponsored by, believe it or not, the US EPA.

Dr. John Froines, Dr. Edward Avol, and Dr. Thomas Mack have done outstanding work on this issue.

The State of California declared that diesel exhaust is a known cause of cancer and a toxic air contaminant in 1998.

The bulk of the risk in our region is from the so-called "goods movement" industry. Ships and railroad locomotives are essentially uncontrolled and emit TONS of diesel particulate each day. Container yard equipment and old junky diesel trucks aren't much better. I am just unwilling to add one gram of diesel pollution to this disaster.

Dr. Froines did an experiment measuring particulate levels on the freeways. He drove an electric vehicle on an open freeway, and then behind a diesel truck. Behind the truck, the cancer risk increased by a factor of 17.

One potential feature of this system I haven't seen discussed - what if it's modular, to the extent that the battery could be replaced by the dealership with each successive generation of battery technology?

Imagine this: you're shopping for a used truck or SUV in a few years, in a world of $5.00 per gallon gasoline. Your local Chevy dealer has a few of these two mode hybrids, and for a few thousand more plus battery exchange, you can upgrade to a new battery with extended range, or even plug in capability. Wow!

And, what would this do for resale value? I'd think it would help!

Of course this assumes that the cost of the system upgrade would be offset by fuel savings over the length of ownership or the lifetime of the vehicle.

And if a scaled-up Volt type system is released for full size trucks and SUV's in the next decade, well, that's another game entirely.

Interesting Idea, I'm sure you aren't the first person to think of this.

A better idea in my opinion is to make the whole energy system modular. So for now you could run a hybrid with fuel tank and batteries, and in the future replace it with fuel cell and batteries etc... IF someone were smart enough you could have a modular car. This way when you trade in you keep your power modules and only trade in the body. Then when is time to replace power modules you can replace them independant of the vehicle. It would be similar to how computers are upgraded thse days.