Chevrolet Malibu wins Car of the Year

[ellives]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/13/autos/car_of_the_year/index.htm?postversion=2008011310

Truck of the Year

January 13 2008: 10:05 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors' Chevrolet Malibu mid-size sedan, radically redesigned for the 2008 model year, won the North American Car of the Year Award Sunday at the first media preview day for the Detroit Auto Show.

The Mazda CX-9, a sporty crossover SUV, was named Truck of the Year.

The Malibu and CX-9 were selected by a jury of 47 automotive journalists from the United States and Canada representing a range of media outlets including Fortune magazine, Edmunds.com, Road & Track and the Chicago Tribune.

To be eligible, vehicles must be "all new" or "substantially redesigned" from the previous model year. The journalists selected the Malibu and CX-9 from a field of 13 cars and 15 trucks.

With the redesigned Chevrolet Malibu, GM (GM, Fortune 500) hopes to finally take on the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord which have long been the top-selling cars in America.

The mid-size sedan has been well-reviewed by the media, including CNNMoney.com. The Malibu's interior has a twin-cockpit design that mimics classic Chevrolet Corvettes. Its exterior shape, with smooth sides, wide rear window pillars and side turn signals, is intended to resemble European luxury sedans.

This marks the second year in a row that a GM vehicle won Car of the Year. Last year, the Saturn Aura, a sedan that shares most of its engineering with the Malibu, won Car of the Year.

GM also won Truck of the Year last year with the Chevrolet Silverado and stood a good chance of winning again this year since two of three finalists were GM products.

But Mazda took the award with the CX-9 winning against the Buick Enclave SUV and Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid SUV. Ford Motor Co. (F, Fortune 500) owns a controlling interest in Mazda.

The Mazda CX-9, a so-called crossover SUV, has already been named SUV of the year by Motor Trend magazine. The curvaceous CX-9 gets kudos for its ride and handling characteristics, which are especially good for an SUV with three rows of seats.

Shortly after its introduction, Mazda upgraded the CX-9's engine to a new V6 engine capable of producing 273 horsepower, 10 more than the engine with which it was originally introduced.

[CARBIZ]

[Drew Dowdell]

woot!

[ellives]

To be eligible, vehicles must be "all new" or "substantially redesigned" from the previous model year. The journalists selected the Malibu and CX-9 from a field of 13 cars and 15 trucks.

Seems like they ought to rethink this approach (along with our "on again - off again" friends at Motor Trend) after watching those dirtbags at Toyota get "Truck of the Year" for a product that seems not quite up-to-par and a recall magnet too. Would seem to make sense to consider all products in a segment every year and give the award to the best product in the segment, whether it's new for the model year or not.

[Satty]

C&D invites new or substantially upgraded cars (and trucks for its 5-best trucks) as well as previous year's winners. Thats why the C5 was on their 10-best list every year. MT's TotY is interesting because there are only 5 real trucks out there (Silvy/Sierra/HDs/Avalanche, F-Series,Ram,Titan,Tundra) plus the midsizers (Colorado/Canyon, Ranger, Tacoma, Dakota, Frontier) plus the Accordvalanche, which hardly seems to count. Any given year only a couple of those are going to be all-new or significantly changed, so they have slim pickings.

[K.C.]

This is good news. I figured the Malibu or the CTS would win. I was really hoping for the Enclave or the Hybrid Tahoe to win, but apparently they were well back in the standings. One win is good though. Sure would have been nice for GM to sweep this two years in a row though. Oh well.

[I hope GMRULES again]

Awesome news!!!!!!!!

[Drew Dowdell]

I bet the Enclave ends up selling better than the CX-9 though.

[K.C.]

I think you might be right Oldsboi

[regfootball]

tahoe hybrid should have won truck of the year but i think the negative backlash from such a huge truck winning factored in the voting. cx-9 was the safe choice.

now let's see if the bu win helps sales. it didn't for the aura.

Edited January 13, 2008 by regfootball

[jcgable]

You will always be my bu!

[ocnblu]

Congratulations to Chevrolet on a fine product!

[Paolino]

Bring it.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I really hope the CX-9 won because it is that remarkable...

I just HATE to see the Tahoe hybrid be written off like it literally has in so many publications. GM's hybrid system is way better than that of TMC, and a full size SUV that gets the mileage of a Camry is astounding. Yet the truck has either been given begrudging praise or the same anti-SUV, anti-american that it gets from douchbag journalists anyway.

Anyway... Kudos to both GM and Ford for YET AGAIN showing the world that the Detroit companies build the best cars and trucks in the world.

Edited January 14, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Satty]

22/31 for a Camry V6

21/22 for a RWD Tahoe

Not exactly the same there.

[caddycruiser]

I bet the Enclave ends up selling better than the CX-9 though.

Ends up? It already has, and continues to.

The Mazda is very nice for what it is, but there's honestly nothing overly "wow" about it. Just well composed, refined, and trim/sporty.

It hasn't set interest and sales on absolute fire like the Enclave, and isn't as complete of a package...well, at least as far as having real 7/8 passenger room, towing capability, etc. Maybe the Enclave was more a victim of just being very large and maybe #2 or so on the crossover fuel economy list?

But the Malibu? YES...and SO expected! The CTS is a fabulous car, but not being mass market, it's greatness can't be had by as large a segment of people as with the Malibu...you can get that same incredible car in anything from a $20k model without extra goodies or around $28k with everything possible.

We're on day 4 with our new Malibu 2LT...and can't stop looking at it, let alone the drive...

[Cory Wolfe]

Anyone doubting the CX-9 is either oblivious or stupid. Take your pick. It deserved this just as much as the Malibu. The Enclave is great, but...

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

22/31 for a Camry V6

21/22 for a RWD Tahoe

Not exactly the same there.

Looks pretty much the same to me.

Besides, I'm just quoting what every major source has said.

Now go waste your time somewhere else picking a fight you can actually win.

[Satty]

One is highway, one is city, not the same thing at all. If you had said the Tahoe Hybrid gets the same mileage as anMB E350 (actually the Tahoe does better) or something that it does get similar mileage to, thats fine, but taking the low rating on one and the high on another is bunk.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

One is highway, one is city, not the same thing at all. If you had said the Tahoe Hybrid gets the same mileage as anMB E350 (actually the Tahoe does better) or something that it does get similar mileage to, thats fine, but taking the low rating on one and the high on another is bunk.

I said the very same thing stated in both the press release and the rags.

BTW, personal grudges aren't healthy for the site or the well-being of it's members. (That goes for everyone here who seems to have a problem with me)

Edited January 14, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Satty]

Who is holding a grudge, I'm just pointing out that you made a statement that isn't factual.

[knightfan26917]

WOW ... this is GREAT news for GM!

I saw it earlier tonight on a couple different newscasts, and each time, they talked about the GM Ch#$r%*et malibu MORE than the Mazda CX-9, which would seem to be great publicity for GM. Now, they just need to get the word out ... and toot their own horn a bit.

Cort:34swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve&pacemaker

WRMNshowcase.legos.HO.models.MCs.RTs.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"Gonna do my very best" ... ABBA ... 'Take A Chance On Me'

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Who is holding a grudge, I'm just pointing out that you made a statement that isn't factual.

5 Minute search:

to a V-6 Toyota Camry–shaming 20 mpg city rating

SOURCE: http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/14282...4wd.html?al=120

For example, the 2WD Tahoe and Yukon match the four-cylinder Toyota Camry's 21 mpg city rating and beat the V-6 Camry's city rating by 2 mpg.

SOURCE: (Automotive News) http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...hl=tahoe+hybrid

Once again; I'm just reiterating what we've heard from day one.

Edited January 15, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[siegen]

a full size SUV that gets the mileage of a Camry is astounding.

That would be astounding.

22/31 for a Camry V6

21/22 for a RWD Tahoe

Not exactly the same there.

Just a correction. The Camry V6 is 19/28, while the I4 is 21/31. The 22/31 rating you have is the '07 EPA rating on the V6.

The Tahoe Hybrid gets a combined rating that is only 10% shy of the V6 combined rating of a sedan. That is a nice thing to see, but then I really don't see why everyone compares the two. Why not compare Apples to Apples? The Camry hybrid is rated to 33/34.

Looks pretty much the same to me.

Besides, I'm just quoting what every major source has said.

There is no logic in this statement. 21/22 does not look the same as 22/31.

Will you blindly follow what a source says (an automotive journal or magazine) even though the result contradicts itself?

[siegen]

Let us further analyze the Tahoe hybrid.

It costs roughly $10,000 more than its equivalent gas-only model. Comparing features I found the LT3 to be most comparable with standard equipment, if that is incorrect please correct me.

For $10,000 you certainly get increased mileage. 14/20 for the 5.3L versus 21/22 for the 6.0L hybrid. Let us also assume that while the Tahoe has a larger engine, the extra weight of the hybrid system negates it, as the hauling and max trailer weight are both lower in the hybrid (in the hybrid's defense, it is reported to be quieter while towing, and is likely quieter around town).

Essentially you get the same usability as the non-hybrid, but with considerably better mileage and a $10k price increase.

Is $10,000 worth what you get?

5.3L = 7,142 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $22,854 @ $3.20 per gallon

6.0L = 4,761 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $15,235 @ $3.20 per gallon

Assuming you drive in the city 100% of the time, you're saving $7,619 per 100,000 miles traveled if you purchase the hybrid. If you spend some time on the highway, the cost difference will be less. If you spend 100% of the time on the highway, the cost difference goes down to $1,455. Obviously the Tahoe hybrid should be considered only if the buyer spends most of the time in the city. We all know this. But the results show that even if the buyer does spend all the time in the city, it will still take somewhere around 131,250 miles to recover your costs.

The Tahoe hybrid does and doesn't seem to make its case, depending on usage and having the vehicle for a while. The giant percentage increase does seem good at first, but the real numbers show that it is more marketing.

Now to give some perspective to this, let's compare the Civic EX (25/36) versus Civic Hybrid (40/45).

LX/EX = 4000 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $12,800 @ $3.20 per gallon

Hybrid = 2500 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $8,000 @ $3.20 per gallon

That's $4,800 saved per 100,000 miles traveled in the city if you purchase the hybrid.

The Civic hybrid costs $3,890 more than the Civic EX, which would take around 81,000 city miles to recoup the costs. That is considerably fewer miles than the Tahoe hybrid. And the advantage to the Civic hybrid is that if you take it on the highway, you also get considerably better mileage than the gas-only model, although I am not going to do that calculation right now. So while a small sedan hybrid may not have as big of a percentage increase, the real-world numbers do favor it.

In GM's defense, being the first to do this is certainly a feat. And if they incorporate an equally advanced hybrid system into their small sedans, they are sure to do well. I still have a feeling a clean and quite diesel (when they come) would be a better option for larger vehicles like the Tahoe.

Again, if I made any mistakes in my calculations, please correct me. As I did do this in haste.

Edit: And before anyone says it, I am not comparing the Tahoe to the Civic. I am comparing the Tahoe to the Tahoe hybrid, and then separately comparing the Civic to the Civic Hybrid. Then I am putting the Tahoe comparison into perspective by showing that the Civic Hybrid does indeed make sense for someone looking for a compact sedan, while the Tahoe Hybrid doesn't make quite as much sense for someone looking for an 8-seater SUV.

Edited January 15, 2008 by siegen

[balthazar]

I see what you're saying, and keeping in mind that this is merely comparing hybrid vs. non-hybrids of the same vehicle.... I assume the Tahoe Hybrid buyer is doing much the same thing that the prius buyer is- merely burning less gas, period. What it ultimately costs is valid, but another matter that doesn't often seem to be taken into consideration.

If one needs/wants a Tahoe and 'being green' is important to that consumer, there's a hybrid version that saves up to $7600 in fuel costs over 100K. For most people, that's as far as they bother to take it. Given that, the Tahoe hybrid makes more sense than the non-hybrid.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

That would be astounding.

Just a correction. The Camry V6 is 19/28, while the I4 is 21/31. The 22/31 rating you have is the '07 EPA rating on the V6.

The Tahoe Hybrid gets a combined rating that is only 10% shy of the V6 combined rating of a sedan. That is a nice thing to see, but then I really don't see why everyone compares the two. Why not compare Apples to Apples? The Camry hybrid is rated to 33/34.

There is no logic in this statement. 21/22 does not look the same as 22/31.

Will you blindly follow what a source says (an automotive journal or magazine) even though the result contradicts itself?

I'm not blindly following anything. I'm being a General Motors fan and expelling the knowledge that the media (You know, those people that everyone here whines about me calling out) has passed on.

If someone has issues with the facts, then they should take it to the source instead of wasting my time. My point is not whether the quote is valid. It's more that certain members will try to use things (such as this) to make me look bad just because they don't agree with me. FWIW, my original post congratulated Ford (Mazda) for their win, but that was overlooked in favor of some pissing match that I've won countless times in the past. (And will continue to win until I'm banned)

[2QuickZ's]

Two things:

Based on the price of a Tahoe hybrid alone, I would assume most people buying one aren't necessarily concerned they will recoup the added investment. With the Civic or Prius, both much cheaper vehicles and more within the reach of the average consumer, recouping ones investment is likely more important to the average buyer than it ever would be on the Tahoe.

Secondly, I would assume the Tahoe hybrid will qualify for a nice, big, fat tax deduction since it is a full hybrid. It may have already been posted and if it has, I apologize for being redundant but does anybody know what that deduction will be?

[Cory Wolfe]

I'm not blindly following anything. I'm being a General Motors fan and expelling the knowledge that the media (You know, those people that everyone here whines about me calling out) has passed on.

If someone has issues with the facts, then they should take it to the source instead of wasting my time. My point is not whether the quote is valid. It's more that certain members will try to use things (such as this) to make me look bad just because they don't agree with me. FWIW, my original post congratulated Ford (Mazda) for their win, but that was overlooked in favor of some pissing match that I've won countless times in the past. (And will continue to win until I'm banned)

FOG, step off your pedestal. No one here is trying to make you look bad by correcting a false statement. You're creating problems for yourself that don't exist.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Let us further analyze the Tahoe hybrid.

It costs roughly $10,000 more than its equivalent gas-only model. Comparing features I found the LT3 to be most comparable with standard equipment, if that is incorrect please correct me.

For $10,000 you certainly get increased mileage. 14/20 for the 5.3L versus 21/22 for the 6.0L hybrid. Let us also assume that while the Tahoe has a larger engine, the extra weight of the hybrid system negates it, as the hauling and max trailer weight are both lower in the hybrid (in the hybrid's defense, it is reported to be quieter while towing, and is likely quieter around town).

Essentially you get the same usability as the non-hybrid, but with considerably better mileage and a $10k price increase.

Is $10,000 worth what you get?

5.3L = 7,142 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $22,854 @ $3.20 per gallon

6.0L = 4,761 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $15,235 @ $3.20 per gallon

Assuming you drive in the city 100% of the time, you're saving $7,619 per 100,000 miles traveled if you purchase the hybrid. If you spend some time on the highway, the cost difference will be less. If you spend 100% of the time on the highway, the cost difference goes down to $1,455. Obviously the Tahoe hybrid should be considered only if the buyer spends most of the time in the city. We all know this. But the results show that even if the buyer does spend all the time in the city, it will still take somewhere around 131,250 miles to recover your costs.

The Tahoe hybrid does and doesn't seem to make its case, depending on usage and having the vehicle for a while. The giant percentage increase does seem good at first, but the real numbers show that it is more marketing.

Now to give some perspective to this, let's compare the Civic EX (25/36) versus Civic Hybrid (40/45).

LX/EX = 4000 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $12,800 @ $3.20 per gallon

Hybrid = 2500 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $8,000 @ $3.20 per gallon

That's $4,800 saved per 100,000 miles traveled in the city if you purchase the hybrid.

The Civic hybrid costs $3,890 more than the Civic EX, which would take around 81,000 city miles to recoup the costs. That is considerably fewer miles than the Tahoe hybrid. And the advantage to the Civic hybrid is that if you take it on the highway, you also get considerably better mileage than the gas-only model, although I am not going to do that calculation right now. So while a small sedan hybrid may not have as big of a percentage increase, the real-world numbers do favor it.

In GM's defense, being the first to do this is certainly a feat. And if they incorporate an equally advanced hybrid system into their small sedans, they are sure to do well. I still have a feeling a clean and quite diesel (when they come) would be a better option for larger vehicles like the Tahoe.

Again, if I made any mistakes in my calculations, please correct me. As I did do this in haste.

Edit: And before anyone says it, I am not comparing the Tahoe to the Civic. I am comparing the Tahoe to the Tahoe hybrid, and then separately comparing the Civic to the Civic Hybrid. Then I am putting the Tahoe comparison into perspective by showing that the Civic Hybrid does indeed make sense for someone looking for a compact sedan, while the Tahoe Hybrid doesn't make quite as much sense for someone looking for an 8-seater SUV.

Good points. But what if we compare it to the Armada or Expedition which get 12 miles per gallon? Over 100k city miles you will save about $11,000 between them and the Tahoe.

[caddycruiser]

Anyone doubting the CX-9 is either oblivious or stupid. Take your pick. It deserved this just as much as the Malibu. The Enclave is great, but...

It is GREAT, but the market speaks and so do reviews...and as a lot of reviews just don't gush over the Mazda as the Buick still garners, it also can't match the "hard to get" status of the Enclave that continues to fly out of dealers to this day. But, I guess, maybe, smaller and trimmer won out in the end, compared to what actually has taken the market by a bigger storm and reviewers. Fantastic crossover, just a hair here and a hair there, and I think the smaller/trimmer won out, even if the people/cargo space and other details aren't that great.

[CARBIZ]

I would take the $3.20 a gallon out of the equation real fast. We are paying $4.12, which would increase the savings you guys are batting around by another 25%.

Anyone here NOT think you will be paying $4 by year's end? Or haven't you been reading about the crashing of Citigroup, CIBC (our bank) and others: the mortgage meltdown is now anticipated to cost upwards of $700 Billion.

If GM wants to sell ANY Tahoes in a year's time, it will very much need the hybrid.

[siegen]

I see what you're saying, and keeping in mind that this is merely comparing hybrid vs. non-hybrids of the same vehicle.... I assume the Tahoe Hybrid buyer is doing much the same thing that the prius buyer is- merely burning less gas, period. What it ultimately costs is valid, but another matter that doesn't often seem to be taken into consideration.

If one needs/wants a Tahoe and 'being green' is important to that consumer, there's a hybrid version that saves up to $7600 in fuel costs over 100K. For most people, that's as far as they bother to take it. Given that, the Tahoe hybrid makes more sense than the non-hybrid.

Another point that I meant to cover but forgot. For the environment's sake, burning less gas is advantageous regardless. A Tahoe hybrid will always be better than a regular Tahoe in that respect.

Based on the price of a Tahoe hybrid alone, I would assume most people buying one aren't necessarily concerned they will recoup the added investment. With the Civic or Prius, both much cheaper vehicles and more within the reach of the average consumer, recouping ones investment is likely more important to the average buyer than it ever would be on the Tahoe.

Another good point, and you are probably correct. The Tahoe Hybrid buyer is likely to care more about the Hybrid image, given the $50K+ price of the Tahoe Hybrid.

The tax write off or incentive would also factor into the cost of the vehicle. You also have to consider that my calculations did not take into account sales tax or maintenance costs. The Tahoe Hybrid may garner some special tax breaks that would be difficult to calculate.

I would take the $3.20 a gallon out of the equation real fast. We are paying $4.12, which would increase the savings you guys are batting around by another 25%.

Anyone here NOT think you will be paying $4 by year's end? Or haven't you been reading about the crashing of Citigroup, CIBC (our bank) and others: the mortgage meltdown is now anticipated to cost upwards of $700 Billion.

If GM wants to sell ANY Tahoes in a year's time, it will very much need the hybrid.

It probably will reach $4.00, if anything by inflation, before too long. In my area, as of last week, it was $3.20. It has fluctuated as high as $3.40 to as low as $2.90~ in the last few years. If, by the 100,000 miles have past, the price of gas continues up (let's say it takes 7 years to travel 100,000 miles - we are doing mostly city driving) to $4.00 or even $5.00, then the average cost difference over the course of that time between the hybrid and non-hybrid would be greater.

[turbo200]

Two things:

Based on the price of a Tahoe hybrid alone, I would assume most people buying one aren't necessarily concerned they will recoup the added investment. With the Civic or Prius, both much cheaper vehicles and more within the reach of the average consumer, recouping ones investment is likely more important to the average buyer than it ever would be on the Tahoe.

Secondly, I would assume the Tahoe hybrid will qualify for a nice, big, fat tax deduction since it is a full hybrid. It may have already been posted and if it has, I apologize for being redundant but does anybody know what that deduction will be?

going from my experience selling civic hybrids and owning one myself, I would say you are completely correct. the point of the hybrid is not to recoup ones investment.

on a broader note, looking at the competitive landscape today, we are truly spoiled in our car selection, and we owe it to the imports really for turning it upside down. going on that note, a prius or civic hybrid are comparable in features, size, price, power to what midsize cars were just 7 years ago....this is to me what makes these cars so compelling. the prius hybrid and civic hybrid really are upscale enough, roomy enough, and powerful enough to be considered camry and accord replacements, even though camry and accord of today are much more substantial and powerful cars. taking that into account and that prius can get close to and in some cases above 50 mpg.....well you've got a winning recipe that shows in its sales reports. in LA, the prius isn't just common, it's everywhere, it is the ubiquitous family car, and the civic hybrid is plentiful. take that winning recipe and inject style and passion, well we've yet to see that done from the likes of GM yet. and what the hell is taking so long.

but back to the point, is that hybrid owners aren't really thinking in numbers and investments. the cars are fine to drive, really, and going more than 500 miles on a tank does one thing, encourage you to drive more. additionally, they are comfortable knowing they help save oil for the world, and release less pollutants. the argument also will be correct of the tahoe.

[Drew Dowdell]

Let us further analyze the Tahoe hybrid.

It costs roughly $10,000 more than its equivalent gas-only model. Comparing features I found the LT3 to be most comparable with standard equipment, if that is incorrect please correct me.

For $10,000 you certainly get increased mileage. 14/20 for the 5.3L versus 21/22 for the 6.0L hybrid. Let us also assume that while the Tahoe has a larger engine, the extra weight of the hybrid system negates it, as the hauling and max trailer weight are both lower in the hybrid (in the hybrid's defense, it is reported to be quieter while towing, and is likely quieter around town).

Essentially you get the same usability as the non-hybrid, but with considerably better mileage and a $10k price increase.

Is $10,000 worth what you get?

5.3L = 7,142 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $22,854 @ $3.20 per gallon

6.0L = 4,761 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $15,235 @ $3.20 per gallon

Assuming you drive in the city 100% of the time, you're saving $7,619 per 100,000 miles traveled if you purchase the hybrid. If you spend some time on the highway, the cost difference will be less. If you spend 100% of the time on the highway, the cost difference goes down to $1,455. Obviously the Tahoe hybrid should be considered only if the buyer spends most of the time in the city. We all know this. But the results show that even if the buyer does spend all the time in the city, it will still take somewhere around 131,250 miles to recover your costs.

The Tahoe hybrid does and doesn't seem to make its case, depending on usage and having the vehicle for a while. The giant percentage increase does seem good at first, but the real numbers show that it is more marketing.

Now to give some perspective to this, let's compare the Civic EX (25/36) versus Civic Hybrid (40/45).

LX/EX = 4000 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $12,800 @ $3.20 per gallon

Hybrid = 2500 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $8,000 @ $3.20 per gallon

That's $4,800 saved per 100,000 miles traveled in the city if you purchase the hybrid.

The Civic hybrid costs $3,890 more than the Civic EX, which would take around 81,000 city miles to recoup the costs. That is considerably fewer miles than the Tahoe hybrid. And the advantage to the Civic hybrid is that if you take it on the highway, you also get considerably better mileage than the gas-only model, although I am not going to do that calculation right now. So while a small sedan hybrid may not have as big of a percentage increase, the real-world numbers do favor it.

In GM's defense, being the first to do this is certainly a feat. And if they incorporate an equally advanced hybrid system into their small sedans, they are sure to do well. I still have a feeling a clean and quite diesel (when they come) would be a better option for larger vehicles like the Tahoe.

Again, if I made any mistakes in my calculations, please correct me. As I did do this in haste.

Edit: And before anyone says it, I am not comparing the Tahoe to the Civic. I am comparing the Tahoe to the Tahoe hybrid, and then separately comparing the Civic to the Civic Hybrid. Then I am putting the Tahoe comparison into perspective by showing that the Civic Hybrid does indeed make sense for someone looking for a compact sedan, while the Tahoe Hybrid doesn't make quite as much sense for someone looking for an 8-seater SUV.

Sometime... just sometimes... people buy hybrids for something other than saving money.

The Tahoe is the vehicle for the person who wants to be as green as possible while towing his sailboat.

I consciously make the choice to conserve energy even if it might cost a few more dollars to do so.

[Drew Dowdell]

going from my experience selling civic hybrids and owning one myself, I would say you are completely correct. the point of the hybrid is not to recoup ones investment.

on a broader note, looking at the competitive landscape today, we are truly spoiled in our car selection, and we owe it to the imports really for turning it upside down. going on that note, a prius or civic hybrid are comparable in features, size, price, power to what midsize cars were just 7 years ago....this is to me what makes these cars so compelling. the prius hybrid and civic hybrid really are upscale enough, roomy enough, and powerful enough to be considered camry and accord replacements, even though camry and accord of today are much more substantial and powerful cars. taking that into account and that prius can get close to and in some cases above 50 mpg.....well you've got a winning recipe that shows in its sales reports.

The thing I like best about the Civic Hybrid that I drive with my Flexcar account is that the hybrid part makes up for the pathetic low end torque of the typical Honda 4-banger. It makes it a very pleasant drive around town and I don't feel like I have to flog the car to get moving.

To me, it's simply a better performing powertrain that happens to get really great mileage.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Just an FYI,

The breakdown of votes:

Chevrolet, Mazda. The Chevrolet Malibu is the 2008 North American Car of the Year and the Mazda CX-9 the 2008 North American Truck of the Year. In case you're wondering, the vote tally broke down like this: Malibu (190 votes), Cadillac CTS (165) and Honda Accord (95). And for truck, Mazda CX-9 (201), Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid (140) and Buick Enclave (109).

SOURCE: www.autoextremist.com

*** I thought it was cool that the CTS beat the Accord as well and interesting that the Tahoe Hybrid beat the Enclave.