Chrysler Hybrid Cars To Have Hemis - Wait WHAT?

<snip>

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chrysler Group announced Monday that the gas/electric hybrid Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen SUVs to be released in 2008 will be powered by the company's 5.7-liter Hemi V8 engine.

The SUVs will use a "two-mode" hybrid system developed by Chrysler in conjunction with General Motors (Charts, Fortune 500) and Germany's BMW. The first vehicle to be sold using the system will be GM's GMC Yukon Hybrid slated to go on sale this fall.

Chrysler, the U.S. arm of DaimlerChrysler (Charts), calls the 5.7 liter Hemi, also used in the company's Chrysler 300C and Dodge Charger R/T sedans, its most fuel-efficient V8 engine. The Hemi engine shuts off four of its eight cylinders during highway cruising when their extra power is not needed.

In the hybrid SUVs, that engine will be coupled with electric motors to provide additional power, allowing the gasoline engine to work more efficiently and to shut off altogether whenever the vehicle is stopped. Batteries for the electric motors are charged using power from the gasoline engine.

Chrysler promises a 40 percent improvement in fuel economy in city driving and a 25 percent improvement in overall economy compared to the non-hybrid Hemi-powered SUVS.

The closely related Hemi-powered Durango and Aspen are estimated to get about 15 miles per gallon in combined city and highway driving, according to the EPA. That would increase to just under 19 miles per gallon overall in the hybrid versions, according to Chrysler's estimates.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/30/autos/hemi_hybrid/index.htm?postversion=2007043016

Hemi. All it means is that the top of the cylinder is dome (or hemispherical) shaped. It allows for a little more gas to be ignited. It only slightly improves the displacement of the engine. A 454 cubic inch Chevy engine displaced 454 cubic inches in the cylinders. If this were a hemi, it might displace an aditional 8-16 cubic inches and provide a tad more horsepower.

We had a Durango for about a year a while back. It drove like a truck, guzzled gas and was incredibly inefficient for car pooling.

It also had no storage room whatsoever. I don't get it.

It's the 'good car' when they want something nice to drive. Most times they take the old beater wagon

Not that I need a big honking SUV, but a small fuel efficient car needs to pretty much stay on smooth pavement. Rough dirt (rock) roads destroy little cars like that. I agree the vast majority of people who drive things like that don't need them, but there is a need in some rural areas for a bigger, tougher vehicle.

I've lived all my life in out-of-the-way places on very rough dirt roads, some of which were closed off to all but residents for parts of the year. I've been able to get almost anywhere in a small, front wheel drive vehicle with good gas mileage. The only exception is when you need extra clearance but even in a lot of clearance situations, careful driving has gotten me where I needed to be.

My cars have all lasted just fine. I've driving most of them off road, as a matter of fact. Over the years, I've driven a Datsun 210 wagon, a Honda CVCC, a 4 wheel drive Subaru wagon, a VW Golf, a Mazda, a Ford Escort wagon and now a Chevy Aveo. Every single one of them has driven some gnarly roads and not one of them was ruined or even damaged by it.

In fact, I've never owned an SUV or anthing like it with the exception of a pickup truck to haul the horse trailer.

I drove a small front wheel car (Merc. Tracer) around for a year or two - it was great and yes you can manuever over a lot of the clearance problems, but yeah - it lasted about two years (granted it was already used and high mileage) but things just start shaking loose and falling off after a while, some of them important, others ...eh who needs a muffler? :rofl:

That pick up is good for hauling hay too and all sorts of other things that may or may not fit in your small vehicle, especially the heavy stuff. Just saying, sure you could get buy without a bigger vehicle - obviously we got by for a while as humans without ANY vehicles, but reality in a rough non-urban environment is that you pretty much need something heavier-duty than a compact passenger car.

A pile of fence posts in the hatchback, saddles, a bale of hay now and then. All my cars until the present one were used so some lasted longer than others but my reasons for moving on from them had nothing to do with any damage from the roads (or lack of same).

I drove my Escort when I worked on a road construction job and used it like a work truck, all my tools and a bundle of grade stakes in the back. I drove all over that site, on tracks that had been recently blasted out with dynamite - very rough. Scraped bottom more than once but never lost any parts or even jarred 'em loose.

And I'm not really trying to argue with you - I realize it's not sensible to try to move manure with a Volkswagon :rofl: but for the most part, I've used my little cars for most of my needs and had no real issues with them. Plus they fit in some places a truck will never go. :P

little "trucks". (the tracer I mentioned above is just the overpriced version) too bad Ford discontinued them, although I can see why - they were too good.

And I totally relate to "inappropriate" cargo and destinations. Done all of it.

I traded in my 4WD Durango for an AWD Subaru Forester a couple of years ago, and haven't regretted it a moment. It'll carry my family (me, wife, 3 kiddos), my dog in the cargo area, and the roof pods can carry even more cargo if needed. I own rural land in the Sierra's, and my family owns a lot of land in the Oregon woods, so I have it off the paved roads on a halfway regular basis. Aside from the installation of an aluminum skid plate and some knobbier tires, my bone stock Forester has been down quite a few mountain trails that are rated "4x4 only" on the maps, and bangs down rutted, eroded fire trails without hesitation or damage. It's never going to run the Rubicon, but that's not what I bought it for.

Oh, and it gets 30MPG. It's no hybrid, but for those who need to drive the rough roads and still want to be practical and ecologically friendly, it can't be beat.

Is this some kind of JOKE?

Seriously, it sounds like Chrysler and GM are more concerned with reviving their sagging SUV sales than with developing more fuel efficient vehicles.

What's wrong with trying to make SUV's more fuel efficient?

:eyes:

let me guess. the price of the Hemi increases the price tag by 40% too?

still crap

under ideal conditions, so realistically, if you're presently getting 15 mpg in overall conditions, you'll now get 18-19.

my concern is with the part about how, even with 40% better fuel mileage, these wheezing behemoths will still only get around 19 mpg. That's pathetic.

I am absolutely in favor of producing more fuel efficient vehicles... even better if they use renewable fuel sources that produce little or no pollution. And while baby steps are necessary at first, this just smacks of marketing disguised as concern for the environment.

Bottom line, there's not a hell of a lot of difference between an SUV that spews pollution at 15 mpg and an SUV that spews pollution at 19 mpg.

Some folks really do need vehicles that large - I don't begrudge them, or the carmakers that cater to them. And I welcome any effort to make those large vehicles as efficient as possible.

probably allow 5 passengers (my current family size) to get in and out of our rough unpaved road to the house.

And ride the city bus whenever I can.

an environmental improvement.

The SUV will consume more fuel over it's lifetime than a Prius.

A standard Durango would burn 10,000 Gallons over it's "life"
The Hybrid version would save over 2000 gallons over that "life"

For a Prius sized car to save 2000 Gallons you would need to increase mileage from 30 to 50MPG.

Why do they have to weight 6000 lbs?

:shrug: