si-blog

Massive green cars

Posted Dec 04, 2007 in Miscellaneous.

Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid

Following on from my previous entry about massive sedans, I bring news of the 2008 Green Car of the Year. Incredibly, a gigantic gas-guzzling monster called the where to get amoxil Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid has come out on top. This 6-liter behemoth achieves an estimated 21 miles per US gallon (25 miles per gallon imperial) city fuel efficiency rating (the four-wheel drive version manages only 20 miles per gallon).

How is this supposed to be a “green” car, exactly? This thing is 17 feet long and buy discount viagra online weighs 2.7 tons (2.5 metric tonnes)! The Chevy website boasts that the car is as fuel efficient as a 4-cylinder Toyota Camry, but neglects to mention that the Camry Hybrid gets 33 miles per US gallon and costs half as much to buy. America needs to quit fucking around with enormous SUVs and start making mid-size cars powered by fuel cell technologies. Chevrolet have already made steps in the right direction with the Sequel and Ford has been investing in hydrogen filling stations. More needs to be done, because this award is a slap in the face for groups campaigning for better environmental standards.

Comments

  1. Gravatar

    Nice and Dream Car !!

    Posted by PraP on Dec 05, 2007.

  2. Gravatar

    I don't think an adjective exists that could describe that vehicle.

    It is tasteless in the extreme.

    It is a worrying future for us all if this America's idea of an environmentally efficient motor vehicle.

    Making an already oversized massive piece of fda approved cialis shit even heavier with another tonne of batteries does not a green car make does it?

    News of this decision made it onto the UK motoring programme "Top Gear". The ridicule was reasonably cutting.

    Not cutting enough in my view...

    Posted by jamesn on Dec 07, 2007.

  3. Gravatar

    I agree with you, James. What I cannot understand is how the "judges" can give this award and not feel incredibly embarrassed. Apart from the greencar.com judges, the invited panel included:
    Carroll Shelby
    Jay Leno
    Carl Pope
    Christopher Flavin
    Jonathan Lash of the World Resources Institute
    Jean-Michel Cousteau

    Posted by Simon Jessey on Dec 07, 2007.

  4. Gravatar

    I agree with you completely its a joke. However I think they are trying to say if you are going to buy a tank anyway, this one is the soft cialis best of a fuel guzzling bad bunch. Which cant by any means be called green. Interesting that the Emissions data for the Tahoe Hybrid hadn't been published when it picked up the award.

    Posted by used vans girl on Dec 10, 2007.

  5. Gravatar

    I totally agree with you used vans girl. Giving this tank a "Green" award is like giving Anthrax the "Safest Virus Award" because its not as bad as other viruses... it's still a freakin virus and it still kills.

    That being said, this thing is still an SUV. Just because its not as bad as other SUV doesn't mean its a "step in the right direction".

    Just because you strap on a fuel cell onto a car doesnt mean it's green. What about emissions? What about the parts used in the vehicle? Are they environment friendly? I'm sorry but 22mpg's is hardly green.

    I just asked my clsoe friend what he thought won the no prescription diflucan 2008 Green Car of the Year. His guesses? Toyota Prius or Highlander. I quote him, "?????? 22 mpg won the green car of the year? my truck gets 22 mpg wtf."

    Instead of strapping fuel cells onto pre-existing cars, I'd like to see car manufactures move towards designing a green car all around and not just for MPG's.

    Posted by James Henry on Dec 11, 2007.

  6. Gravatar

    The only way this bucket of cialis soft for sale canada bolts could be called a green car is if it was available in lime green and where can i get levitra pills bottle green.

    Posted by Wreck on Dec 13, 2007.

  7. Gravatar

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt fuel cell hydrogen currently produced by a very low efficiency process involving natural gas? Isn't it also expensive, with almost no hope of ever not becoming so?

    What is wrong with electric? http://www.teslamotors.com/

    Nobody seems to realize that coal is by far a more abundant material to burn for fuel right now, and it is possible to drop the emissions of a coal power plant to almost zero via a proper chemical scrubbing system.

    Coal is not a permanent solution because it is non-renewable, but far far far more abundant and far far far cheaper than fuel cells, and as I said with a proper scrubbers on the power plants the pollution is minimal.

    But with electric vehicles, it doesnt matter how we generate the power, if we can generate it, we can store it, and so the electric car makes the car independent of whatever the most popular energy source of choice is at any given moment. Electric power would therefore be the most appealing solution, because whether or not a fully idealistic power generation technique is affordable on a global scale, electric will work with it.

    There are fewer mechanical parts in an electrical car, so the energy required to produce a car is probably much simpler, nevermind the viagra soft tabs canada pharmacy fact that no matter how many changes we make to the power grid, the electric car will still work, meaning no need to 'upgrade' by buying a whole new vehicle in order to the latest eco-friendly-fad-power-source.

    Posted by Mike on Dec 15, 2007.

  8. Gravatar

    Good point Mike. Not to mention performance speaking, there really isnt any limit with eletric (where with combustion engines there is always a limit).

    Posted by James henry on Dec 17, 2007.