Green Car of the Year 2008, allegedly

So let's take a few bets on which vehicle was just named Green Car of the Year 2008 at the Los Angeles Auto Show. The fabulous new Honda FCX Clarity fuel-cell vehicle, whose only emission is water? The 35-mpg, super-clean Mercedes-Benz E340 Bluetec, the first California-compliant diesel in years? The sensible, space-conscious Smart Fortwo? Maybe just the good old Toyota Prius? Or something that guzzles gas at the rate of 21 mpg?

Prepare to slap palm against forehead while experiencing a brand-new hybrid of tearful sadness and nauseous incredulity. Ladeeez and genullmen, the Chevrolet Tahoe hybrid.

Oh, sure, it has a 6.0-liter V-8 engine and can seat as many as eight. It can carry as much as 1,400 pounds of cargo and tow 6,200 pounds. It's 50% more frugal than a standard 5.3-liter V-8-powered Tahoe. But is 50% better than profligate really worth such an accolade?

Who could make this mistake -- sorry, award? Try Green Car Journal, Jay Leno, Carroll Shelby and the executive director of the Sierra Club, among others. To render the sight even more surreal, Arnold Schwarzenegger arrived to check out all the more eco-friendly cars on display. For those who might've looked closely, they could probably see a palm print on the Gov.'s forehead too.

-- Colin Ryan

Comments

[Dan Porcaro]

Haha the media bias against domestic manufacturers never ceases to amaze me. The old argument was how much fuel SUVs consumed, specifically the big American SUVs. Aside from the fact that foreign manufactureres followed by producing bigger SUVs and not much was said, now GM is making every possible effort to reduce emissions and you are still bashing!? You are a joke sir. How about give credit where credit is due, a Tahoe hybrid will save thousands more gallons than taking an already fuel efficient vehicle and giving it another 10mpg. And Prius green car of the year? How about you do some research and find out the overall environmental impact producing nickel batteries has on the planet. Look up Sudbury, Canada.

[Pat]

It's self-defeating counter-productive stupid corruption like this that makes me not care if all American automakers go out of business.

[Sal B]

Most SUVs I see have either a single driver, or a driver and only one passenger, cruising on streets and freeways. Not one driver in 10 actually uses an SUV off-road. $4, $5 or more per gallon gasoline will make more impact that a [rated, not necessarily actual] 30% increase in gas mileage in one giant SUV. When you macho SUV drivers are putting in $100 or $125 at every fill up, those of us who buy more fuel-efficient vehicles will be laughing at you.

[KAG]

All important change in the United States has been realized by the people--not the government or industry or the media.

The almost free market economy we all enjoy is predicated upon business delivering the goods that will generate the highest number of sales with the most attractive profit margins.

They will only build that which holds out the greatest promise for investment return and increase in shareholder value.

When Americans demonstrate, with their pocketbooks, that green vehicles are their prefernce then the pace at which these vehicles is produced will accelerate.

Perhaps there will some day be an environmental Boston Tea Party. As os yet, I don't see it.

[charlie]

Car of the year 1993, maybe.

And spare us more ridiculous counter arguments: "..designed to annoy thinking people into buying a Hummer.."

"Oh gee, you envirowhackos make me wanna buy a tank", etc... If you "thinking people" who get so upset by environmentalists actually saw the US from the perspective of other nations, you might get away from the "us vs. them" arguments long enough to realise that there is a real global problem.

Calling a 21mpg vehicle "car of the year" is only possible in a nation that has lost its perspective.

And "now GM is making every possible effort to reduce emissions"..?Considering GM/Detroit rejected hybrid technology initiatives as far back as 1993 as "fiscally unworkable" , its a bit late for them to start patting themselves on the back now that they are going out of business.

Call it "bashing", call it what you like, just quit the partizan politics and look the problem in the eye like a grown up.

[Alex]

Well, it depends how it is used actually. If it is used to haul commercial equipment or as a fully-laden commuter vehicle, then it is green. Of course if it is a single-passenger commuter vehicle, it isn't. For those bashing the domestic automakers, how absolutely naive. In the future, if US companies go down the tubes, prepare for step two then when the US reverts back to a developing country. It will be just like living in Vietnam or the Philippines. Guess what will happen to your own jobs then? Now that is something to laugh at! HAH!

[George Bishopric]

It's actually not being an "environmental wacko" to think that mailing buckets of money to Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and the Saudis is perhaps not good for the future of the US.

It isn't "Detroit's Fault," either, it is ours, we who are so obsessed with driving a big truck that we can't realize that we are putting our nation in danger with our wasterful habits.

[Joe]

To the Eco-extreme - your much beloved Toyota's version of an 8 pass vehicle gets 15MPG, so get off your high horse.

[KDRAPERLA]

If Toyota came out with a Hybrid 4Runner, there wouldnt be this blog about it per se, but maybe another blog on how foreign competition is better the the Big 3 in every facet, how America is losing it's edge, etc etc etc...

It's a step, a small step but still a step. Congrats GM, I hope you make it! One blogger said he hoped all American car makers would go out of business. How many people does Ford and GM employ in North America and how much tax revenue does it generate? Think of all the smaller companies that supply GM with parts as well.

I am a field sales rep. in LA, so while I work out of my home I do a lot of time driving to clients all over LA and Ventura counties. When gas gets to be about $4 a gallon I totally notice a reduction in traffic, meaning people might actually only drive when needed and/or consolidate their trips. So, I say make it $5 a gallon. Then all these people with their Tahoes can complain about that as they drive to Starbucks (a block down the street) to pay $5 for a latte.

Also agree to moving closer to work. Also agree that maybe open a window when it's 62 out rather than leave your air conditioning on. So many things we can do that would make such a bigger difference than this "green" debate...

[Brigham]

I agree with the majority of respondents here that this award is a complete JOKE. The American consumer driven economy (sustained by perpetual debt) is completely and utterly irresponsible to the environment, and honestly my friends, PEAK OIL will render SUVs, and most cars in general, OBSOLETE. Yes, PEAK OIL. If you haven't heard about it before, you better know what its implications are.

What we should be doing in society (globally) is spending our money on research and development of renewable and clean energy while we still have time. We need to ELECTRIFY our technology based on renewable energy sources. That means hydrogen created by PV-electricity (from the sun) to power the future (hopefully more advanced) fuel-cell vehicles. It also means overhauling our disgusting-energy-squandering American suburbs (dependent on automobiles) to a built-environment conducive to mass transit usage (subways in particular in larger cities).

The American Dream has become a full on nightmare. The United States is less than 5% of the world population, yet it uses more than 25%? You gotta ask yourself "Why that's the case?!" It's because of the way we live people! Our lifestyle, our culture that promotes WASTE - not reuse, not reduce, not recycle, not mass transit. And as with all "great" empires, we will eventually collapse because we have been so stupid and complacent.

[Fred Williams]

Great mileage for such a large vehicle. My 1993 full sized Blazer averages 12.7 mpg, the new Tahoe almost doubles that.

[Andy]

Brigham above is pretty much on the mark. The problem here is more the way corporations and their marketing campaigns whose only goal is to sell you something have steered the complacent and oblivious American consumer into thinking they need one of these stupid barges. People who're more concerned about reality tv or what some celeb wore to lunch today aren't thinking what they're setting their kids and grandkids up for down the road. This pathetic 'me-me-me' economy makes one want to see $5-$10 /gallon gas as the hardship it'll create seems to be the only way people will actually make a change and not consume/waste so much. Think about the result of your action beforehand.

[DanK.]

The only finalist that could've possibly deserved the 'green' award would have been the Nissan Altima hybrid. The Tahoe Hybrid is marginally better than the non-hybrid version, but still not what I--or any sane person-could possibly call a 'green' vehicle.

Instead of meaningless awards and hype-filled auto shows, we need consumer-oriented incentives for people to choose cleaner, more environmentally efficient cars when they purchase their next new motor vehicle.

The idea that comes to mind is the proposed Feebate program in California, aka Clean Car Discount. This would provide a significant rebate to new car buyers when they purchase a new vehicle that is relatively clean and efficient in terms of global warming emissions--the surcharges would be funded by one-time surcharges on the purchase of new vehicles that are the worst in terms of environmental efficiency and global warming. The proposed legislation is lengthy with all sorts of implementation details, etc., but the core idea is sound and long overdue.

[Brigham]

I posted a few days ago on this forum, and after attending the Auto Show this past weekend, I must say I was pretty disappointed with most of the cars on the exhibit floors. Mainly, I was searching for any "wake-up" signs from the auto companies manifested through increased fuel efficiency in their cars. However, I was NOT impressed by 98% of the cars and their flashy-look-at-me designs. Most of them still did poorly for MPG fuel efficiency. The Nissan Altima Hybrid was NO EXCEPTION (contrary to the post above) It still didn't get much over 25MPG! What a joke. The only THREE cars I would recommend from what I saw include: The Prius Hybrid, Honda Civic Hybrid, and the Smart Car (which gets 36 miles on the city streets and 40 on the highway!).

Anyway, after being distracted by all the auto-glitz-and-bling, anyone aware of the reality of our current global resource perils, sees through all the smoke and mirrors and understands that civilian mobility supported mainly by automobiles will continue to encourage urban sprawl, which in turn, taxes heavily on our planet's resources by being wasteful and carrying a larger eco-footprint. The solution is building cities that are conducive to walking and mass transit/subways/light-rails as the MAIN means of transport, not secondary.

Perhaps Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas will be the only way to force society to reconsider its wasteful habits and turn to environmentally-sustainable public policy: reject sprawl, require compact/walkable cities, require mass transit, tax heavily on private automoiles, switch to renewable resources/energy.

[GreenCar.com]

As I read these posts and all the controversy surrounding our magazine’s 2008 Green Car of the Year winner, it strikes me that many here are missing something important: You can wish SUVs off the road but that won't make it happen. There's a diverse array of vehicle models available because consumers want choices. Increasingly, recent years have found new car buyers overwhelmingly choosing SUVs. Short of legislating SUVs off the road -- and I don't think that will happen anytime soon -- these vehicles will be sharing the road with you for some time. So, isn’t it crucial that they be made much more fuel efficient than the norm today?

While it's true that many don't drive large SUVs for the right reasons (the two-passenger soccer mom in a giant SUV is a popular example), there are many others who choose a larger vehicle because they meet specific needs. Large families that need more seating than that provided by an average sedan is one example. Some people need to tow heavy loads like boats or horse trailers. Others regularly carry a lot of cargo but don't want things left out in an open pickup box for security reasons, so a large SUV with substantial cargo carrying capacity is a good fit.

Is it your right to tell people they can't have vehicles that fit their needs? Some think so. But this is America and we don't have our mobility choices dictated to us. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't encourage better, more practical, and more environmentally positive vehicle choices. It just means you're not in charge of someone else's new car buying choice.

There are multiple ways to effect the change we're all seeking. An important one is encouraging auto manufacturers to change their advertising to promote fuel-efficient vehicle choices rather than just performance, safety, or luxury. This will ultimately have a long-term effect on buying patterns.

Another is to recognize the reality that not everyone wants a small car. The Prius and Civic hybrids are great vehicles and should sell in increasingly larger numbers over time. The standard (non-hybrid) Civic, which is already quite fuel efficient, is one of the market's most popular cars in its segment. More people are likely to buy cars like these in response to sustained high gasoline prices. In all likelihood, many buyers will downsize from full-size SUVs to more compact SUVs or crossover vehicles over time because of the cost of gas.

The goal should not be to focus only on making super high efficiency small cars, but rather to vastly increase the efficiency of all vehicles in all classes, from small to large. We've been on this soapbox since we started publishing in 1992. We recognize that this is not an easy challenge. It's much more straightforward to engineer small vehicles with four-cylinder engines to meet near-zero emissions levels and achieve much higher fuel efficiency than it is to do so in larger vehicles that require the power of a V-6 or V-8.

That is why the Tahoe Hybrid's two-mode hybrid system, and its 50 percent increase in city fuel efficiency, is so important. It takes quite a bit for auto manufacturers to eke out just a half-mile-per-gallon increase in a vehicle model of any size, and it’s rarely cheap. To gain a 50 percent fuel efficiency improvement in a large vehicle is nothing short of amazing.

The two-mode hybrid will be applied in a full range of GM vehicles large and small using both V-8 and V-6 engines. Since development of the two-mode hybrid system was done jointly with BMW and Daimler(Chrysler), variations of this system will additionally find their way into BMW, Chrysler, Dodge, and Mercedes-Benz models that will use their own two-mode hybrid configurations to achieve important efficiency increases. Achieving this kind of fuel savings in a large number of vehicles will ultimately save untold millions of barrels of oil and greenhouse gas emissions over time.

From this perspective, the goal is clear. Making high efficiency sedans like the Prius and Civic Hybrid is a good start...but it's only a start. Breakthrough vehicles like the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid -- which earned its distinction as Green Car Journal's 2008 Green Car of the Year -- are just as important to moving motor vehicles in the right direction.

[Bruce Grove]

With reference to the comment by the guy from the Green Car Journal. I'm sorry, but why does anyone need an SUV in the city? For large families, wouldn't a more frugal minivan do the trick?

Mr. GCJ makes a decent point about a large SUV being the only option for some people. That would be the niche market of large families living in the middle of nowhere. Boy, is the Tahoe Hybrid really going to make a difference. GCJ guy then goes on about large families downsizing in the near future. To which vehicles? And if they can then, they can do so now.

It's this kind of muddled thinking which awarded the GCotY to the Tahoe Hybrid in the first place. Cancel my subscription to GCJ. Wait a minute, I don't have one. Thank goodness.

[GreenCar.com]

Well, Bruce...you're still getting it wrong. Your comment asking why anyone would need an SUV in the city is also pretty telling. It's not your call to pick another person's vehicle for them. They will pick a vehicle based on their needs and desires. So, that's why it's important to increase fuel economy in all vehicle classes to cover these choices.

Those who will likely downsize to smaller SUVs do have choices: the Ford Escape Hybrid, Mercury Mariner Hybrid, Mazda Tribute Hybrid, and Toyota Highlander Hybrid, for example. There will be others coming soon, including advanced diesel models that get higher fuel efficiency.Those who need a larger SUV have a great new option in the Tahoe Hybrid.

"Boy, is the Tahoe Hybrid really going to make a difference." Well, there's another one of those comments that calls for some education. Here it is: Over 15,000 miles of driving, the Tahoe Hybrid will use 223 fewer gallons of gas than a conventional Tahoe. For comparison, driving a Honda Civic Hybrid instead of a conventional Civic saves 160 gallons. There...you don't even have to do the math. More gas is saved by increasing efficiencies in a larger vehicle than a smaller one. We're not recommending larger vehicles, but rather pointing out there are solid reasons to also focus important fuel efficieincy gains in large vehicles. Learn more in the Fuel Economy Fundamentals article at GreenCar.com.

A more frugal minivan? The 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid -- Green Car Journal's 2008 Green Car of the Year -- gets 3 mpg better EPA combined fuel economy than a Honda Odyssey and 2 mpg better combined fuel economy than the Toyota Sienna and Dodge Caravan.

Oh, but you'd know all this if you did have a subscription to Green Car Journal or regularly read the free content at GreenCar.com.

[JM]

And American wonder's why the rest of the world laughs at them and why they have a reperution as being dump. Bad enough electing an idiot for President and doing it twice.

The enviroment means nothing to americans. Get serious!

[Matt]

A lot of you guys just don't get it. For some buyers, the size of this vehicle is a necessity. Consider this:

Two cars drive 12000 miles per year. One is a 30mpg Civic, the other a 45mpg Prius. The Civic burns 400 gallons of fuel, the Prius 267 gallons saving 133 gallons over the Civic. Yay for economy!

Now consider two trucks driving 12000 miles per year. One is a 15mpg Excursion, the other this 21mpg Tahoe. The Excursion burns about 230 more gallons than the Tahoe.

So if you need a truck that big, guess what? You just SAVED 100 MORE GALLONS of fuel per year than every self-righteous, smug Prius driver on the road.

And yes, I realize the Tahoe still burns more overall fuel than the Prius. That's not the point. Those 12000 miles per year will be driven regardless of fuel economy so the Tahoe really does save more than the Prius.

Hopefully now you get why the Tahoe was the obvious choice for this award.

[Cliff]

I cannot believe the Sierra Club did this. If true, I will seriously consider dropping membership. We have to change our way of thinking and not dream that the current style of life can be slightly adjusted to meet future resource limits and global warming concerns.

[CFL-CTA]

Ugh!

We rented a Prius to drive up to Canada for a wedding, and are happy to say that we got 51 hwy/60 city--much higher than the 45 hwy/48 city advertised! What's more, it's a roomy car and a smooth ride. I am also on the FCX Clarity e-mail list and anxiously awaiting its release in Illinois.

But the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid?

I guess 22 mpg is pretty good for a enormous SUV, but puh-lease! DO WE REALLY NEED TO DRIVE SUVS?

[RG]

Sorry - You have failed math 101
Try again dump ass

Response to:
A lot of you guys just don't get it. For some buyers, the size of this vehicle is a necessity. Consider this:

Two cars drive 12000 miles per year. One is a 30mpg Civic, the other a 45mpg Prius. The Civic burns 400 gallons of fuel, the Prius 267 gallons saving 133 gallons over the Civic. Yay for economy!

Now consider two trucks driving 12000 miles per year. One is a 15mpg Excursion, the other this 21mpg Tahoe. The Excursion burns about 230 more gallons than the Tahoe.

So if you need a truck that big, guess what? You just SAVED 100 MORE GALLONS of fuel per year than every self-righteous, smug Prius driver on the road.

And yes, I realize the Tahoe still burns more overall fuel than the Prius. That's not the point. Those 12000 miles per year will be driven regardless of fuel economy so the Tahoe really does save more than the Prius.

Hopefully now you get why the Tahoe was the obvious choice for this award.