Hybrid technology is being further refined and is now spreading. The 2-mode hybrid is a fine technical advance. And it's use is spreading, driving down the cost of componentry as mass manufacturing volume builds.

It is inevitable that body-on-frame for light trucks is yesterday's technology. I wonder what the XT weighs in comparison to a body-on-frame equivalent. It is also nice to see the all advanced engine technology migrate down into the sub-300 cubic inch engines. The specific output is pretty high too. Obtaining 326 HP from 298 cubic engines is indicative of superior design.

Multifuel capability, Direct Injection, Atkinson cycle, cylinder deactivation, all electric subsystems including HVAC and electric power steering, thermal mangement(?), and advanced axle technology(?), have been incorporated. The number of advanced technologies not yet present is small, essentially only HCCI, turbocharging, and PHEV, but it appears that these will come too, amid more downsizing.

Progress isn't it wonderful? Doesn't it feel better to appreciate true progress, than just cynically criticizing everybody.,and insist the World is going to hell in a handbasket.

I would still like to see an apology from the cynics that say the automakers would never actually deliver any of these improvments.

You have to understand Rafael that when GM comes to the global design competition.....they arrive in a short yellow bus.

With proper gearing there is no reason a pickup truck needs more than 100 hp.

Certainly not a hybrid.

It only goes up to 30 mph in electric mode. Aside from the fact the it is a big heavy impractical truck, I would want something like 45+ mph in electric mode. GM will either get with the program or lose more money. The first Sierra was not at all a hybrid, just start/stop. The BAS in not really a hybrid either, in my view.

This seems to be the proverbial horse by committee. They have dual mode from the Tahoe, so why not try selling it to the towing crowd. Some market research must have told them this would sell well enough, but not in large numbers. Someone once asked me how they could call the first Sierra a hybrid and my quick response was that there was no consumer product standard for the word hybrid.

The Toyota Abat is a much better concept that this one.

I am still yearning for a vehicle that can haul 4x8 building materials and get over 30mpg. The hybrid highlander comes close. It would not be hard to make a tall wagon out of the Camry or the mechanics of the Escape hybrid. Something with 4 cyl and full hybrid should be able to get closer to 35mpg with good acceleration (unloaded).

Maybe someone will make it by 2012?

Treehugger: One thing to keep in mind is that not all trucks on US roads are there simply because the owners like them. There are some people, like my brother-in-law who runs a construction firm, who simply must use large, relatively fuel inefficient vehicles. There's no other way to run his business and do things like build businesses and churches, renovate schools, etc.

This is one of my main gripes with how we all talk about transportation: There's almost no effort, from US gov't statistics to sales figures to online discussions, to distinguish between trucks that could very easily be replaced with cars (and often small ones, at that), and those which could not.

Lou

in less than a second, I can make the distinction between a pick that is used by professional (like you, and whom I undersand the concern) and and a pick up that is just owned fo the fun of it (which I fail to understand. I can tell you that most of pick up have never seen anything in their rear platform. I understand that for professionnal like you such a truck is a working tool, but the buying of such tool should only be allowed for such purpose. When I see people like my brother in law buying pick up to carry their dog, I think that just irresponsible behavior, and wasteful habit, period.

I only wonder how long it takes GM to make a properly sized 2-Mode Transmission, which can fit a normal car, instead of these behemoths who' s time has already run out.

Regarding the unibody design - there are SUVs around for at least 25 years; It actually surprised me that GM would still use such a design for SUVs. It might have some benefits for real off-road / military applications, but for cars used mostly to commute (in the us)???

Regarding the decent sized 2-Mode: I have a strong feeling, that GM doesn't want to end up getting compared with a HSD setup, after they boasted upfront about the 2mode getting that much better fuel economy, but now there is no vehicle (same class, weight, aerodynamics, engine power) to really compete with any of the 10+ year old toyota design...

thank you angelo that is refreshing
btw most colorado's will struggle to get 19mpg combined. mine did before being tuned and it is the small 4cyl regular cab. now i get 21 and that is on the very high end of what i've seen for these trucks.
honestly i wonder what the gm engineers are doing so poorly designing their engines. they could get away with downsizing if they were more effective.

We should be able to agree that those that have a NEED for a large pickup truck should be able to buy one. Those that do not have a NEED should not be able to buy one.

If we can not agree on that, then there is not all that much to talk about. No one has the right to be wasteful and harm others. When people buy large pickup trucks and have no need for them, they are using more fuel than they should, polluting the air more, congesting the roads and parking lots and just plain being wasteful and selfish. No one has that right when it harms others.

SJC - Actually, they do have the right to be selfish and wasteful. If they didn't, laws would be passed to proibit it. The fact is, I can walk into a dealer and purchase the truck I want, and there is nothing to stop me. At what point do you consider it waste? I am pretty sure that I wouldn't need to approve my use of the truck with you if I perceived the need to purchase it.

Well said sjc.

- I think extremely strict fuel economy standards for trucks which drives up the price (eg. necessitates diesel or a simple parallel hybrid) would be a good idea.
- For the business users in construction a diesel or parallel hybrid would be robust enough, with the diesel excelling in highway driving and towing and the parallel hybrid boosting city economy, providing low speed electric drive and power to run tools.
- The economics would be favourable to a commercial user putting on high mileage, and the buyers who get the trucks for personal use would have to pay the premium for efficiency without the economic benefit unless they drive a lot (how many casual truck buyers would still get that Silverado if they had no choice but hybrid or diesel, given a $3000+ price premium?)
- This only leaves out lower annual mileage business users, but often in these cases they are wasteful in a different way buying non-commercial trucks to be in throwaway condition in 3-5 years when a similar weight commercial truck with a higher GVW should've been doing the work, and would've lasted 7-9 years easily.
- Often these are the buyers using eg. a gas powered 3/4 ton to do the job a Class 4-5 cabover of equal curb weight should've been doing. This will help reduce the sacrificial usage of inefficient light pickup trucks for far too much work. Other landscaping businesses in my area are terrible for this.

I'd like some critical commentary on this line of thinking or examples of a commercial niche needing a pickup truck's specific capabilities yet annual driving low enough for a more expensive yet more efficient engine to be punitive.

Soon I believe fuel prices will make more efficient trucks favourable for businesses anyways, and I'd like to see the "casual" truck buyers at minimum have to suck it up and pay for a truck nearly as efficient as a car.

I could see Ford's SuperDuty advancing in this way to circumvent the need for the Navistar diesel (would they really build a 6-7L turbodiesel in house?), coupling the new 4.4L turbodiesel with a parallel hybrid ala Eaton. The combined power/torque output of a smaller diesel + electric motor would be similar to existing larger displacement diesel drivetrains while limiting the stress on the smaller engine.

We should be able to agree that those that have a NEED for a large pickup truck should be able to buy one. Those that do not have a NEED should not be able to buy one.

In America, no, we cannot agree on that. We can perhaps agree that those who do harm should be required to pay the costs of that harm, but that's about it.