I don't see what their fuel economy complaint is. Sure, if you compare the absolute numbers, it isn't much. But relatively speaking, its nearly a 40% improvement. Thats huge. The overall purpose, I think, was to make these trucks (and the other 2 modes) a minimum sacrafice vehicle. So you have have a big truck that can tow or haul with. And it gets almost the same combined fuel economy as a V6 Camry. A 6000 lb V8 pickup truck getting the same fuel economy as a midsize sedan. And they complained?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
Actually they were making a play at their highest volume lowest mileage entry.
The article is a bit confusing in their criticism. On one hand they are critical of the towing but then they say GM should have used the 4.8L or a V6 which would have been even worse.
It was never intended to be "the highest MPG vehicle" but rather the "highest MPG pickup truck" that you could actually tow and haul with......which you can.
That being said, it's very pricey. And to get a base truck to get equal mileage with equal capapbility would have been very expensive as well. Diesel? Sure, but probably at an even higher cost. Diesel emissions require particulate traps and urea injection. $$$$
But hey, Chrysler paid GM for the technology and so did one other OEM that still hasn't put it into production yet.
|
Daimler, right?