Want a hybrid Tahoe/Yukon? GM will help you buy one
by Jonathon Ramsey on Jul 10th 2007 at 5:33PM 
Bob Lutz has apparently climbed down from the parapet of passing all costs onto the consumer... that is, when it comes to green tech. In fact, GM appears to be considering subsidizing the cost of its hybrids for consumers. The world's number two automaker has three hybrid transmissions in the works: a simple bolt-on starter/alternator combo called BAS, a BAS+ system that uses li-ion batteries instead of nickel metal hydride, and a dual-mode system with two electric motors that will debut later this year in the Tahoe and Yukon. The dual-mode is the priciest of the bunch, carrying a $10,000 premium per vehicle for a 25% fuel economy savings. Even though GM has licensed the technology to BMW and DaimlerChrysler to keep the costs down, Lutz declares that "if we price it at full cost recovery, I'd say we probably would sell -- not very many." Lutz didn't give any indication of what kind of subsidy might be offered to entice buyers, saying the question is "How much do you want to do and how much financial pain can you endure?"
Lutz also said that "nearly every Cadillac product could feature a hybrid variant as early as the next two years," but none of the hybrids detailed are meant for the Volt. That car is an electric car with range assist, not a hybrid.
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
zamafir 5:37PM (7/10/2007)
"nearly every Cadillac product could feature a hybrid variant as early as the next two years," (and they'll need to if we're going to be taken seriously in regards to Lexus and their hybrid aspirations)
Reply
Judy 10:40PM (7/13/2007)
You are all full of CRAP!!! They are making money hand over fist and at our ECO-EXPENCE!!!! There has been carburators that get 200+ miles per gallon of gasoline since the 1920's!!! Thanks to money hungry oil mongers, both our planet and our pockets are damaged!!! Charles Pooge! 1 example!!! Also, that is the reason that our children are Dying in Iraq,...OIL !!!! Not terrorists!! The TRUE Terrorists are our own government!!!
bmoredlj 5:46PM (7/10/2007)
"if we price it at full cost recovery, I'd say we probably would sell -- not very many."
No DUH, Yutz.
You think the Prius made a profit when it first came out...what seems like twenty years ago now?
Reply
zamafir 6:11PM (7/10/2007)
Shhhh! No one's told him all the great jumps in market-share et-al have been achieved recently by selling a remarkable product at a loss (ie the A8, or Prius or any other successful profit making automaker who's hit up a new segment)...
I think you've hit the key problem on the head, so concerned with cutting corners to keep cost down, They're missing the point entirely. Does anyone think VAG is making money on the Veyron? That's not the point when trying to establish a brand in a segment which will provide dividends years down the road. Or am I the only one that thinks GM looks about three to five years out max.
why not the LS2/LS7? 9:26PM (7/10/2007)
The A8 isn't new, and despite Audi selling it highly discounted, it continues to sell very poorly.
What a poor argument.
why not the LS2/LS7? 10:29PM (7/10/2007)
Oh, and yes, I think VAG is making LOADS of money on the Veyron.
It sells for $1.6M, there's plenty of room to make a profit on that car at that rate. Additionally, they wouldn't be preparing new versions (new rims, etc) to sell if they didn't make money selling it.
Bugatti is not a brand that needs establishment. It's been around for 60+ years.
The FedEx Man 11:22AM (7/11/2007)
"I think VAG is making LOADS of money on the Veyron."
You forget it cost millions to develop. Each Veyron cost VAG $10 million if you take that into account.
Joe 6:02PM (7/10/2007)
Whats sad is a lot of American's will drink GM's koolaid and believe anything they say. Toyota is actually making very good money on the prius now not to mention the added green publicity.
Lithium Ion batteries are inherently unreliable. They will lose 20% of their charginf capacity every year no matter what. Its like half life. In 8 years a lithium battery holds no charge.
Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion
Im not shocked that Toyota has abandoned this battery yet GM is embracing it. toyota cant afford to get a bad rep while GM wants to give hybrids a bad rep and destroy this movement and send it to pasture.
Reply
Dave 6:06PM (7/10/2007)
Wow Joe you stole my thunder. I said the same thing 2 days ago. Here is the link:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/07/06/chevy-malibu-hybrid-making-debut-at-mlb-all-star-game/#comments
Not doing Hybrids properly makes all the sense.
GM is known for destroying other people good ideas if it cant compete itself.
In the 1980's it took the gasoline engine 4.3 V6 and 5.7 V8 and turned them into diesels knowing fullwell they would not be reliable. And it worked! It made people hate diesels in general and not just GM. Diesels were sent packing for 30 years.
In the late 1980's it took poorly made pushrod crap engines and put turbos on them knowing fullwell they would have reliability issues. It worked! People mistrusted turbos for 20 years until the last few years.
Now it is the second time it is bringing out a mild hybrid, first on the silverado 3 years ago. Whats the reason? to get tax credits one the one hand and throw people off of hybrids for another 30 years.
but this time it will not work! toyota will have none of it! This time only GM and its reputation and money will lose.
why not the LS2/LS7? 6:32PM (7/10/2007)
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
I've done a lot of work with Lions, and they don't have any inherent death process from time. The thing that kills them is charging them. Charging them while hot is FAR worse, but basically each time you charge a Lion, you are killing it.
If you let your LIon fall to about 50% full and then put it in a box and never charge it, it'll still have nearly 100% capacity in 5 years.
I think using LIons isn't a good idea in cars anyway, because they cannot provide or accept a charge well below about 10 degrees C. And they can't be charged really at all over about 40C.
I don't know where this idea GM put the kibosh on turbos came from. GM didn't sell enough turbo cars in the 80s to put people off turbos. I'd put that on Volvo (and to a lesser extent Ford) with their oil-cooled turbos which coked up and died quickly.
GM made the Grand National in the 80s too, but it DIDN'T suck and didn't scare people off turbos. They're still sought after today.
The GM 5.7 Diesels were not great, but as pointed out on jalopnik, the idea that they were not reinforced from their gas versions is a myth, and the biggest problem was very low fuel quality. Diesel fuel back then was like bunker fuel is today, very low quality. Those older GMs run pretty well on modern Diesel fuel.
bioman 1:47AM (7/14/2007)
here's what sad you sat there on your computer writing this bullshit to make your self feel a little bit better about yourself!!! what are you going to do about it, see back in the 80's we did thing different we made change's from the big 3 crappy cars we took what they made and modify the shit out of them they were fast and got good gas mile there guy's right now running 426 hemi's with dual carbs still getting better gas mile than the shit there putting out
Don 6:04PM (7/10/2007)
$10,000 bucks for a couple of miles per gallon?
Reply
Olaf 6:10PM (7/10/2007)
Nobody will pay 10 grand for 2 mpg.
At least when Lexus charges you 10 grand more, you also end up getting 7 grand more in luxuries along with it as a freebie. Here 10 grand is the hybrid component.
motorman 8:16PM (7/10/2007)
part of the $10K extra cost is for covering warranty work costs for parts and labor that fail while under the 100,000 miles 5 year warranty
Johnny Rocket 6:16PM (7/10/2007)
The Tahoe will average around 17 mpg in conservative driving. A 25% jump will come to 21 mpg. That is not a bad number at all for a full-size SUV. Considering the fact that the Tahoe starts around $34,000, it'll be a tough pill to swallow spending a $10,000 premium
for a gas-electric model. Good to see GM going Earth-friendly (finally).
Reply
bioman 1:24AM (7/14/2007)
one thing i would like to point out the big three are pushing these friendly green cars with the oil mongers by there side they know they can run these cars on recycled corn,peanut oil from fast food joints but that would be to easy it would solve two thing at one time so yuk it up about the 25% increase on mile when when by far those trucks can be getting 50-70 mile to a gallon considering the american indains don't pay taxes this would be a good time for them to invest in biogas we have the technology for this but our government and automakers keep pushing bull$&#% be we keep buying it
spencer 6:31PM (7/10/2007)
Is GM going to make a Tahoe SS? Not saying they should make one, but at least they could use the lightweight parts from the hybrid. It might be a different twist on the "sport" suv segment...
Reply
Tony 7:07PM (7/10/2007)
Jonathon Ramsey: "...Even though GM has licensed the technology to BMW and DaimlerChrysler..."
That is not a correct statement. This was joint venture. GM might have spare headed it, but the development of this hybrid system was a collaboration financially and otherwise. You make it sound like GM developed it, and then licensed it to the other parties. ---Not Correct.
Please state Facts!
Reply
1337 11:00PM (7/10/2007)
It's no secret that body-on-frame trucks and SUVs are extremely profitable, especially when loaded with options. So, although it sounds like GM is "subsidizing" the costs, they may actually just be reducing their profit margin a bit on hybrid versions (compared with profits on non-hybrid models) in the hope of looking "green."
Reply
Dave 12:38AM (7/11/2007)
Well said.
I figure GM will sell the hybrid for $6500 over the standard model.
A $3000 tax credit will reduce the consumer cost to $3500.
GM can still make a profit. GM looks green. And the consumer may actually benefit financially.