On the same day, GM announces that buyers of gas guzzlers get $1.99/gal gas for a year if they live in FL or CA.

One step forward, two steps back. Way to go GM.

Saturn VUE Green Line 27 32 $22,995
(estimated not EPA tested yet)

Ford Escape Hybrid 36 31 $27,515
Highlander Hybrid 33 28 $33,030
Lexus Rx 400h 33 28 $48,535

rav 4 (now bigger!) 24 30 $20,300 MSRP
(4 cylinder 2wd base) (www.toyota.com)
rav 4 4cy 4wd base 23 28 $21,700 MSRP
rav 4 v6 2wd 22 29 $22,335 MSRP
rav 4 v6 4wd base/sport 21 28 $23,735/$25,190

Rav 4 numbers taken from www.toyota.com do not include delivery charge.

The saturn gets the best highway mpg of any of them.

5kw = 6.7 hp
60Nm = 13.488 lb-ft

The BAS gets rid of the starter and teeth on the flywheel, a belt and an alternator are much easier to change than a flywheel and a starter.

From saturns website they say that the hybrid battery runs the accessories, electric ac? Gm is already using electric power steering. Is it electric AC or do they keep the engine turning with the BAS and shutoff the fuel?

4kw of generating power ~ 280 amp range, my alternator is only rated at 100 amps. I'd love to be have such a powerful alternator and get rid of that 10 lbs of metal called a starter I'm not using %99.99 of the time.

This is going in a saturn so money says it will be an auto but think about this the torque smoothing abillity of the BAS could be used with a manual to help prevent stalling when you release the clutch.

"The vehicle’s 2.4-liter hybrid powertrain provides approximately 170 hp (127 kW)—27 more horsepower than the 2.2 liter engine that powers the conventional VUE."

Anybody noticed that the "green vue"'s engine is bigger than the non "green"?

"rav 4 (now bigger!) 24 30 $20,300 MSRP
(4 cylinder 2wd base) (www.toyota.com)"
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

Open your local news paper! You'll see plenty of new 7 seat RAV4s for $18k. I'm sure GM won't be discounting the VUE Hybrid one penny since its "GREEN" hubrids are in high de mand.

Earlier people said that Escape-Hybrid will be dusted.

In YTD sales, Escape-Hybrid has dusted Accord-Hybrid, Vue-Hybrid is going to do the same.

There is not difference between OPEC which more than doubled the price of Oil and Honda which is charging 7K more for Civic-Hybrid and 10K more for Accord-Hybrid.

Why not they put their IMA system in Civic-LX and sell for 18K.

Consumers taught Honda a lesson.

When Prius-III gen comes with plugin version, those owners will call the Prius-II & Prius-I a non-hybrid.

So lets not define what is hybrid.

Would you come to the defence of General Motors with a line like, "Their cars can dust everyone else's" or would it sound more like, "Another example of GM's excessive consumption catering to the NASCAR fuel hog horsepower crowd."? Just think what the Japanese could do if they didn't insist on all that power.

Hello, JRod.

You must have not read the prior thread about GM's fuel subsidies. Max had first brought up the price of the Vue relative to the Civic Hybrid, emphasizing how it wasn't much more expensive but had much more cargo space. I responded that if cargo space was the criterion most important for a car buyer, then the xB and Fit both have excellent cargo space and better fuel efficiency than the Vue, for $8,000 less. Max then replied that some people believe they need a substantial amount of cargo space afforded by a vehicle such as a Vue (in excess of that available in the xB or Fit) and that for people looking for that specific type of vehicle, the Vue is a good choice. I concur.

So that's the context of the conversation he and I are having on this thread, and which you are obviously unaware of.

On this thread, he then compared the price of the Vue to the hybrid versions of the Camry and Accord. My comment was simply to point out the different qualities that some might favor (like performance and amenities) that would lead one to perhaps choose a faster family sedan over a relatively slow SUV with FWD. I also pointed out that the Camry and Accord hybrids both get (much) better mileage than the Vue Green Line.

So, what you jumped in to was a civil conversation about relative merits of disparate vehicles, and simply an affirmation that it's hard to compare disparate things (ie SUVs to family sedans or SUVs to economy cars).

Surely you understand that fuel economy is not the sole criterion that people use when purchasing a vehicle. If that were the case, almost all of us would drive the Honda Insight - a vehicle which is being discontinued and has never had large sales volume. The reality of the world is that the Camry and Accord are the two of the best selling automobiles in the United States. And many of those sales will always be for the more powerful versions of those vehicles. In fact, my next door neighbor has both a V6 Accord and a V6 Camry.

So, I'm of the opinion that it's pretty astounding that one can have vehicles like that (with around 250 hp) and yet get the fuel mileage similar to an auto-tranny Toyota Corolla with them. Toyota took a slightly different approach with the Camry Hybrid by suping up its 4 cylinder and getting the 4th highest mileage gasoline vehicle for sale today -- averaging 39 mpg with almost 200 hp.

As for what "the Japanese could do" about fuel efficiency, let's review the highest fuel efficiency vehicles for sale in the United States today (30 mpg combined or more). I've excluded transmission variations and rebadges. Vehicles with the same rounded fuel economy numbers are sorted by EPA's raw numbers.

1) Honda Insight - 63 mpg - Japanese
2) Toyota Prius - 55 mpg - Japanese
3) Honda Civic Hybrid - 50 mpg - Japanese
4) Volkswagen New Beetle - 40 mpg - German
5) Volkswagen Golf - 40 mpg - German
6) Toyota Camry Hybrid - 39 mpg - Japanese
7) Volkswagen Jetta - 38 mpg - German
8) Toyota Yaris - 37 mpg - Japanese
9) Toyota Corolla - 36 mpg - Japanese
10) Honda Fit - 35 mpg - Japanese
11) Scion xA - 34 mpg - Japanese
12) Honda Civic - 34 mpg - Japanese
13) Ford Escape Hybrid - 34 mpg - American
14) Hyundai Accent - 33 mpg - Korean
15) Toyota Corolla - 33 mpg - Japanese
16) Kia Rio - 33 mpg - Korean
17) Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe - 33 mpg - Japanese
18) Scion xB - 31 mpg - Japanese
19) MINI Cooper - 31 mpg - British/German
20) Ford Focus - 31 mpg - American
21) Lexus RX 400h/Toyota Highlander Hybrid - 30 mpg - Japanese
22) Mazda 3 - 31 mpg - Japanese
23) Nissan Sentra - 31 mpg - Japanese
24) MINI Cooper Convertible - 30 mpg - British/German
25) Mercedes-Benz E320 Cdi - 30 mpg - German
26) Acura RSX - 30 mpg - Japanese
27) Saturn Ion - 30 mpg - American
28) Mitsubishi Lancer - 30 mpg - Japanese
29) Hyundai Elantra - 30 mpg - Korean

So, I'm seeing 17 of those 29 made by Japanese manufacturers, including the Top 3, 7 out of the Top 10, and the Top 9 gasoline-fueled vehicles. The highest-rated American vehicle is at #13 and the highest-rated GM vehicle (not made by Toyota) is at #27.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy numbers for the two main Japanese manufacturers are also substantially higher across all vehicle types compared to their American counterparts.

Perhaps you should be turning your "critical" eye towards GM, the company that can only muster the 27th most fuel efficient vehicle. Just a suggestion.

I think this is a positive thing - I'd rather have GM selling this car than not.

But it is important to remember that originally this was going to be a full parallel hybrid Saturn VUE and GM execs canceled that and went cheap several years ago (just before the hybrid market took off).

Thanks Joe

Camry-Hybrid being V4 and 3rd gen tech gives 39 MPG city, how about Accord-Hybrid.

Honda made a wrong decision going with V6 and no wonder the hybrid buyers ditched it.

Toyota is sprinting ahead, no doubt about it.

But Ford & GM could jump ahead of Honda if they keep wavering.

GM has been making gas-guzzlers for so many decades, but now they are turning towards right direction by selling hybrids, cylinder deactivation, 6-speed tranny, etc.

We cannot expect them to stop selling SUV's, but definitely the SUV sales are coming down (2 % in 2004 and 13 % in 2005). 1st casualty this year is Hummer-H1.

I could see this being immensely beneficial to GM, who obviously is very heavily dependent on sales of SUVs.

If GM were to take this technology and really refine it to a point where it boosts the mileage of SUVs to 30+ MPG, they'd make a fortune. The same is true for Ford; an Explorer with great mileage would be a massive source of revenue as well as a valuable boost to the fuel economy of the US fleet.

A Chevy Suburbam or Yukon Denali that gets 30 MPG city would be a mint for GM; a large segment of the US car market wants big vehicles, but the price of filling them is one of the reasons why they are not buying large SUVs. Resolving the issue of low mileage would enable buyers to "have their cake and eat it too" and produce huge profits for GM.

Aaron, there will be more GM hybrid SUVs. The Chevy Tahoe, GMC Yukon, and Cadillac Escalade are going hybrid.

JW-

My only point is I wish Toyota would go for even more mileage. Just because they have the most efficient cars doesn't mean they should substitute unnecessay power for more efficiency. Why let the other guys even be close? I don't critize GM because everyone else does that for me.

Cheers,

JRod.

My only point is I wish Toyota would go for even more mileage.

They sell 5 of the Top 10 highest efficiency gas-powered vehicles and you're critical of them?

Just because they have the most efficient cars doesn't mean they should substitute unnecessay power for more efficiency.

Which of those cars has unnecessary power?

Why let the other guys even be close?

They don't appear to be - especially your beloved, the world's largest automaker.

I don't critize GM because everyone else does that for me.

Right - your role is to be the noble defender of poor, helpless General Motors and their product line, whose most efficient vehicle is the 27th most efficient vehicle for sale on the US market at a paltry 30 mpg.

I know it upsets you that people have the temerity to be critical of your beloved, but they really do work doubly hard to make themselves a pariah and a joke. The latest incentive program (giving buyers of their biggest gas hogs fuel subsidies) is a perfect example of this.

I commend them on their baby steps with vehicles like the Vue, but they have a long, long road ahead of them. Let me know when their best-selling vehicle has a 39 mpg, 192 hp version.

JW-

I'm not sure why you think I am in love with GM. I just think Toyota/Honda gets a free pass on alot of stuff, while GM gets every move scrutinized. I don't drive GM. And I don't think I defended them here. I don't mind you making fun of them either, I just wish you would spread the fun around.

JRod.

I don't mind you making fun of them either, I just wish you would spread the fun around.

Fair enough.

Let's see - most Toyotas bore the heck out of me and their monster SUVs are an abomination. They've killed the only three interesting sports cars they had - the Supra, the MR2, and the Celica GT-S. I commend them for the engine on the last one, as it's the one being used in the Lotus Elise.

As for Honda, they are really dropping the ball on hybrids, IMO. They under-promote the Insight and the Accord Hybrid, and I'm disappointed with the fuel economy and weight of the Fit. I wish they would go back to producing 1 ton vehicles that aren't dogs like the Insight. The new Civic drives nicely, but it's nothing like the older Civics - far too big and heavy. And it was dumb of them to stop producing hatchback and wagon versions of it. Their light truck options need fuel economy improvements - especially the Element. It's underpowered and its fuel efficiency is bad compared to the much larger Benz (I mean, Dodge) Sprinter. It'd be nice to see Honda work harder to fill the void left by the Eurovan. And they also need to do something about the abysmal fuel economy of the S2000. A four-banger with 240 hp shouldn't be getting the same mileage as a 400 hp V8 (the one in the Corvette).

GM has some interesting vehicles, but they need to get off their obsession with light trucks and stop greenwashing their products. More Corvette, Cadillac sedans, and some of the Buicks. Less Pontiacs, oversized Saturns, and monster SUVs. They also have a huge cultural problem at the dealer level (ie, dissing fuel efficiency), and their follow-through with the Solstice was horrendous. I hope they work out the problems with that with the new Saturn Sky.

How's that?

All very true. I'd like to see them turn up the heat with a diesel accord.

Cheers,

JRod.

Pay a $5000 premium for a 2mpg advantage with legendary GM reliability? Ehhh... NO! I'll take the Toyota any day.

I thought the Vue Green Line sounded like a nice, cheaper alternative to other fuel efficient SUVs I'd been investigating, such as the Liberty CRD and the Escape hybrid...until I saw that it will be FWD only. The whole 2-wheel drive SUV thing bewilders me. Why buy an SUV in the first place if you can't have all 4 wheels pulling you through snow, or mud, or standing water after a thunderstorm? And that doesn't even begin to cover my main reason I'd like an SUV...trail riding on the weekends. The Liberty diesel would be my pick in this category because I love the idea of a small turbodiesel for which I could at some point brew my own biodiesel, and still get all the rugged truckiness and towing capacity that makes it a Jeep. The Escape hybrid offers a nice "green" package, but it costs too much and is a tad too urbane for my taste. The Saturn Vue Green Line would be a viable contender if it had 4WD but the extra drivetrain drag and weight would probably mitigate the fuel savings to the point that it would be hard to market the extra expense.

Frankly, I'm a Ford Bronco guy at heart and I'm still waiting for FoMoCo to give me a new Bronco similar in execution to the concept a couple years ago including the diesel engine. I even wrote Ford and told them so. In the mean time the whole SUV market leaves me cold. The only respectable SUVs (IMHO)are most of the trail-rated Jeep, Hummer and Land Rover lines, the Nissan Xterra, the Toyota FJ Cruiser, the Mercedes-Benz G-Wagen and...well, that's all I can think of at the moment. I've heard the VW Toureg is good off-road, but I can hardly fathom ever taking one there. Most of those are too pricey for me except for a Wrangler or Liberty, and none of those (save the Liberty) inspire me with their fuel economy, but I guess to get a "serious" SUV without a diesel engine means to sacrifice economy, since all the hybrid SUVs are a bit pansy when it comes to combining work and fun.

The technology is there to get more mileage, even incrementally, as shown by the Vue, from just about any vehicle type, so I'd like to see it applied more widely, so that not just people who are willing to buy green-mobiles will start to see the benefits. If the technology is leveraged across the entire line, then costs should come down.

i need to know the bio waste used for car fuel.

Sivacumaar,

Biodiesel fuel can be made from used cooking oils, such as from the deep fryers at McDonald's. Ethanol can be brewed as a substitute for or additive to gasoline from grain, in much the same way that beer or moonshine is made. Methanol can be distilled from woody biomass...mulchy type of stuff from what I understand. Probably the easiest for home manufacture would be the biodiesel, as I think you would need to get a federal exemption from the moonshining laws in order to produce ethanol, and methanol distillation seems to be a more complex process. I haven't done any home fuel manufacturing, but that's why I want to get a diesel powered car...so I can try my hand at biodiesel. You can do an internet or book search for more info on manufacturing techniques for each type of fuel.

Has anyone been following the Volkswagen Lupo, a clean non-hybrid diesel? Supposedly gets 90+mpg but the VW folks won't sell it in the US because they don't feel there's a market. I saw one in Mexico in March. I would test drive if it were available. My point is this: Green high MPG cars exist in many places in the world but there seem to be forces holding them back.

Sunday, whatsisname won the big racecar race. He went round and round fast, faster than anybody else, in his fast race car and won. Go racecar man! yeaa!

The other big racecar race on Sunday, the other guy won in another fast racecar that went fast, so fast around and around and around that he beat the other fast racecar racers and won the other big racecar race. Go other racecar man! yeaa!

General Motors is the devil, my mom and dad said so.

I'm one of the few people who really needs a 4 wheel drive high clearance vehicle -- in my copious spare time I do field botany and restoration stuff on forest fire sites, and am starting to do some field sampling for insect labs.

Everyone benefits from a useful hobby (grin) and it gets us outdoors a lot.

That means I drive maybe 2,000 miles a year, half of it on steep forest dirt/gravel roads, some 10% grades. City? Bicycle, walk, take public transportation.

But try to find a 4wd-road truly capable vehicle these days! I'm (shudder) looking at Toyota's new land cruiser model, at a horrible 15 miles per gallon, if I have to buy a new vehicle. And I might. Damn!

(Anyone want to sell me your SUV/4wd vehicle still in good shape? It's stupid to buy new for driving only a few thousand miles a year, but tough to find good used)

I'm wearing out the 1988 4wd low-range gearbox Subaru wagon, 250k miles; kids stole and destroyed my 1983 Tercel 4wd wagon (lost all our camping/ photography/ surveying gear. Good thing I had backed up all the maps and photos and notebooks....)

So it's an odd use -- but once you get ten or twenty miles off the paved roads, all you see is big hulking Dodge, Chevy, Nissan, Mercedes, Ford, Toyota trucks and SUVs. Monsters in the woods!

Hank,

How would a diesel retrofitted classic Land Rover suit you? If you do an eBay search with the key words of "diesel" and "Land Rover", you should get a few hits on a dealer in North Carolina that fits small displacement diesels into Defender 110s and 90s and other rugged old Rovers. Most of the auction listings describe economy in the low to mid 20 mpgs. As I recall they even offer to arrange transportation to their dealership from a local airport. I can imagine few vehicles that would have the off-road moxie of a diesel Rover.

84- 2001 jeep cherokee. (not grand)

light weight ~ 3000 - 3400 lbs

Older models can be had with a diesel.

The 4L I6 produces almost 200 ftlbs of torque @ idle

4 cylinder also availabe

I'm biased I have 2

an 88 with only 146,000 mi
4.0L auto
17.5 mpg last tank
That is with 31" tires and taller springs.
Passed emissions test, produced no measured CO.
HC emissions were also low, 8 ppm (220 allowed)

2001 117,000 mi
4.0L auto
curent tank 19.7 mpg
mpg even with the power robbing mpg sucking california emissions package. (but im not bitter)

Cheap, reliable, clean, good off road, good mpg what more could you want?

Boy, you guys are missing a lot in this discussion. You compare the 170 hp Vue to the 2.2 liter 4 cylinder Vue. These are different engines. The 170 hp Vue is much better (Variable Valve Timing, other enhancements) as well as delivering 25+ additional horsepower over the 2.2 liter in the non-greenline Vue. That is a huge difference. I drive an '04 with that same 2.2 liter engine, and I don't like it. The gas mileage is very good, but that engine is weak. This 2.4 liter 170hp is a great combination for comfortable, spirited driving that also delivers decent performance gains over the 2.2 liter in the standard vue. I think that everyone needs to factor this into the equation, especially when people are praising the 2006 Accord hybrid, with its paltry 25 mpg highway see http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=109182