backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by tjr508.. on Jan 8 at 2:37 PM


2009 Saturn Vue Green Line 2 Mode Hybrid  (Source: General Motors)

  (Source: General Motors)
GM gives the Vue a swankier hybrid system

General Motors is truly moving forward with hybrid technology and it's not afraid to put its latest products on display. DailyTech has already detailed the two-mode hybrid Silverado/Sierra and Tahoe/Yukon. GM is now dropping its two-mode hybrid system into the compact Saturn Vue crossover utility vehicle.

The two-mode hybrid powertrain couples two actively-cooled 55 kW electric motors and a 1.8 kWh 300V NiMH battery with the existing 3.6 liter V6 engine. The system is currently available only in a front-wheel drive (FWD) layout, but the system is still good for a 50 percent increase over the non-hybrid Vue in city traffic -- overall fuel economy is increased by 30 percent and the maximum cruising range balloons to over 500 miles.

If GM's percentage estimates hold true, the Vue Green Line 2 Mode will deliver EPA ratings of 24 MPG in the city compared to 16 MPG for the standard 3.6 liter Vue with FWD. For comparison, a Toyota RAV4 with FWD and a 3.5 liter V6 is rated at 19 MPG in the city.

For those keeping score, the current “mild” hybrid Vue Green Line already achieves EPA ratings of 25/32 with its four cylinder engine. It's quite possible that the Vue Green Line 2 Mode could surpass those figures once the final EPA ratings are handed down, but not likely by much. One must also take into consideration that the Vue Green Line 2 Mode has a much more powerful V6 engine – which allows 0-60 sprints in 7.3 seconds – and can tow 3,500 pounds. So while the two vehicles will likely receive similar EPA ratings, the Vue Green Line 2 Mode is the more accomplished performer.

"The Saturn Vue Green Line 2 Mode challenges the notion that a compact SUV can't be both powerful and efficient," said Saturn general manager Jill Lajdziak. "Customers tell us they want a compact SUV that will respect the environment and save money at the gas pump, but they don't want to give up performance and utility. We've responded with the Vue Green Line 2 Mode."

GM will start production of the Saturn Vue Green Line 2 Mode hybrid in the latter half of 2008.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: looks nice
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 9:18:58 AM , Rating: 1
A Honda Civic Si isn't fast either.


RE: looks nice
By michal1980 on 1/7/2008 10:34:26 AM , Rating: 1
but its not 'slow'

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Compar...

0-60 times
malibu 6.6
accord ex 7.0
altima 6.8
camery 6.6.

i wouldn't call these 'fast' but its not like these are slow numbers.

whats your idea of 'fast'?

if you want cheap and fast get a mazdaspeed 3. 0-6 in about 5.9 seconds. But now you are getting small, relativilty light with alot of power.

the next evo might be in the 5.0 seconds. similar to the sti. but you are really getting into small high performance cars.

what kind of power are you really looking for? a vetter that does it in 4.8 seconds?

these cars are 'fast' sorry to burst your bubble.


RE: looks nice
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 12:11:08 PM , Rating: 1
lol - those cars are not "fast". They are average times for a car with a 175hp-225hp 4cyl/v6 depending on size and weight. There is nothing "fast" about them at all.


RE: looks nice
By michal1980 on 1/7/2008 12:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
but that average is not slow.

they are less then 2 seconds behind sports cars costing double.

they are withing a second of cars that are targeted to be 'fast'.

I want to know what your defination of 'fast' is these days?

a 0-60 under 7 seconds, and close to 6 in some cases is fast for cars in this class.

But these cars are boosting 0-60 times that some of the top 'fast' cars 20 years are pulling.

ferrari's and prosches in the 80's were pulling 0-60's at under 7 seconds.

to those people saying these aren't fast
i'd like to know what the defination of fast is? esspically afford able 'fast'

are we talking nissian gt-r super car fast? (~ 3.5 seconds 0-60?) bmw m3 fast (under 5 seconds?)

these cars are closing in on fast.


RE: looks nice
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 12:54:31 PM , Rating: 1
You obviously don't realize just how long 2 seconds is in the world of racing. In 2 seconds a top fuel dragster is nearly done with its 1/4 mile run. 2 seconds for average cars on the 1/4 mile is probably about equivalent to the length of a semi truck.


RE: looks nice
By Chris Peredun on 1/7/2008 1:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Judging by the fact that he's only looking at 0-60, and not the quarter-mile time or trap speed, I'd wager he's never even been to a drag strip - much less driven down one. ;)


RE: looks nice
By FITCamaro on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: looks nice
By michal1980 on 1/7/2008 1:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
lol, thanks for comparing drag racers to regular cars for the average person.

your perspective on these cars is so wrong. these are stock non-modified cars you get go and pick up.

I only used 0-60 because its the easyest number to find

heck, its slow compared to the electric dragester that can finish the quater mile in about what these cars take to get to 60.

why not compare them to f1 cars. you guys are nutty.


RE: looks nice
By michal1980 on 1/7/2008 1:43:34 PM , Rating: 1
in fact, look at the very nice collection of 0-60 and 1/4 times.

http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=10251

if you want i can find the 08 camery, accord, malibu numbers for you too.

But cars running under 7 seconds compare rather favorable in the eyes of history. Some of your fav. 'muscle' cars back in the day would be blown away by these family crusiers.


RE: looks nice
By Chris Peredun on 1/7/2008 2:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But cars running under 7 seconds compare rather favorable in the eyes of history. Some of your fav. 'muscle' cars back in the day would be blown away by these family crusiers.


Yes, they compare quite nicely in the eyes of history. But the muscle and sports cars of the world haven't just been sitting idle for thirty years.

Less than seven seconds to sixty was fast - just as 200hp was an enormous amount of power.

It just isn't anymore.


RE: looks nice
By Nfarce on 1/7/2008 2:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But cars running under 7 seconds compare rather favorable in the eyes of history. Some of your fav. 'muscle' cars back in the day would be blown away by these family crusiers.


That's a legitimate argument, but you are forgetting one major point: history indeed. Yes, a 1980 Ferrari 308 GTS could barely break 7 seconds in 0-60. Yet, what were comparable American and Japanese "sport" sedans doing 0-60 in 1980? 10-14 seconds? Further, what is a typical Ferrari doing 0-60 today? 4.5 seconds? <-- that is "fast" to me to answer your earlier question.

My 2006 Infinity G35 is a sub-6 second car, but I don't consider it "fast." I had a 1994 LT1 Firebird Formula. The Infinity's numbers match the LT1's numbers (when it was bone stock) almost spot on through top end, which makes sense as both cars produce(d) around 280hp. 12 years ago, I considered that LT1 car fast. In any event, today, just about every V6 in a sedan has mid to high 200's or more in horsepower ratings.

These days, sub-7 and even sub-6 seconds are becoming more common, just as sub-5 seconds for real performance cars. A few like the new 2008 ZR1 are even cracking sub-4 seconds 0-60, a number unheard of 25 years ago out of a showroom car. So, again, you have to keep everything relative when making comparisons from cars of different eras and performance numbers.

You have to keep everything relative when making comparisons. Of course, there are the rare breeds like the '87 Buick Regal GNX doing 0-60 in 4.7 seconds and a 13.5 second 1/4 mile. I know many a 'Vette owner who hated those cars :p .


RE: looks nice
By eye smite on 1/7/2008 2:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's more a usage of words. If you said these cars had good quickness to them for what they are, I really don't think any of them would have debated with you at all.


RE: looks nice
By michal1980 on 1/8/2008 9:09:47 AM , Rating: 1
you are still missing the point.

the family car of today is able to perform nearly as well as the near super car of yesterday.

I dont think drivers got much better over the years. But now have the power/acceleration, and close to the amount of steering control, on their groccery getter.

If you want to tell yourself thats not fast because todays super cars got even faster, do that.

But that does not take away from the 'fastness' of these every day, daily driver family mover cars.


RE: looks nice
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 1:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Actually its probably a lot more than a semi truck.


RE: looks nice
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 1:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "but that average is not slow. they are less then 2 seconds behind sports cars costing double."

Rosie O'Donnell and Gisele Bundchen share 99.99% of the same DNA also. Does that mean they're both equally hot?


RE: looks nice
By jbzx86 on 1/7/2008 1:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
Considering just 10 years ago a car much lighter would sprint 0-60 in double the time; yes, they are fast. 7 seconds is the amount of time it takes to perform a left-hand turn at an intersection. It is also the amount of time it takes some driver to cross from one side of the street to the other. 7 seconds, is, fast.


RE: looks nice
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 2:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "7 seconds is the amount of time it takes to perform a left-hand turn at an intersection."

Your intersections must be a lot wider than mine. :p


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki