Top (Bottom?) Ten Green Car Failures


Jalopnik readers believe hybrid SUVs represent the no. 4 biggest “Green” car failure … and I don’t think they’re wrong.

I’m a big fan of the gearhead guys at Jalopnik. They coined the phrase “robogasm“, introduced the world to everyman rally-hero Bill Caswell, and called me a genius advertising folk a few years back.

Flatter me, in other words, and you have my attention.

As a fan and regular reader, then, it was interesting to see what my fellow Jalopnik readers thought were the biggest “green technology” failures of the last few decades in this past Thursday’s “Answers of the Day” feature.

You can see from the photo above that Cadillac’s Escalade was chosen as the best worst example of the hybrid SUV bunch by Jalopnik’s readers. Can you guess what some of the other 9 most dismal green tech failures might be?

CLICK HERE to check out the results, and let us know how you fared in the comments.

Source: Jalopnik.

About the Author

I’ve been in the auto industry 1997, and write for a number of blogs in the IM network. You can also find me on Twitter, at my Volvo fansite, or chasing my kids around Oak Park, IL.

  • Tim Cleland

    I wouldn’t call them a failure. If you need (or simply want the comfort/looks of) a full-size 4WD SUV, GM’s hybrids are an option that will get you 20/23 mpg city/highway. Everything else on the market gets you 15/18 city/highway or less. That 20/23 mpg comes with the power of a 6.0L engine to boot. (For comparison, the best mileage a Toyota Sequoia can muster is 15/18 and that’s with the smaller 4.6L …the Sequoia 5.7L is rated 14/17). Particularly if you do a lot of stop-and-go driving, the 20 mpg is at least a 33% improvement over the competition. This is not to mention the hybrid’s built-in idle-stop which saves a lot of gas in congested driving.

    Americans love their SUVs and as long as these things are selling and making GM a profit, then they’re not a failure.

    • I think the idea is that calling a full-size SUV a “green car” is a total pile of steaming bullsh(oo)t! No one NEEDS a full size SUV like this, and the supposed “power of a 6.0L engine” doesn’t amount to a hill of pseudo-libertarian jingo-ism when there are SUVs like Subaru’s Forester that are faster and minivans (that can match/exceed the passenger occupancy of the SUV) that are as fast and get significantly better mpg.

      I mean, whatever helps you sleep at night, you know? The rest of us? We know you’re full of crap.

      • Tim Cleland

        Very professional, Jo…Very professional. Who the hell are you to say no one NEEDS a full-size SUV? Are you such a typical snooty liberal elitist that you can’t imagine that someone might want to tow a camper, a boat, a race car, motorcycles, etc. (or are those things people don’t NEED according to self-appointed liberal overlords too?). I can tell you, this is no way to promote green technology. I’m actually interested in green technology and very open to hybrids, EVs, new engine designs, etc. (as long as they’re not gov’t subsidized) , but I will oppose you and your kind with every fiber of my being…and I have a majority behind me, buddy! You are a very angry liberal and I suggest you see a psychologist about it.

        • Aw … I like being called a liberal by closed-minded people. My voter card still says GOP, baby. The fact that no one NEEDS a full-size SUV is pretty objective, actually, and evidenced by the billions of people who live and thrive without one every day, and have for thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of years.


          • Tim Cleland

            The GOP, with the exception of Ron Paul and a few others, is just “the other big government party” so that’s no defense.

            Let’s see, you’re the one declaring that no one needs a full-sized SUV and I’m the one that’s closed minded? (You’re reasoning, BTW, is the flimsiest argument I’ve read in a long time. By that logic, no one should have a car, a TV, a computer, a cell phone, …I could go on and on and on…).

            Look at my original post. There was nothing in it that was the least bit derogatory to you or this site. It was just constructive disagreement pointing out the positives about GM’s hybrid SUVS relative to the competition. Admit it, you just couldn’t stand that someone disagreed with you, so you took a fit.

        • :: yawn ::

          So, now Tim is saying “should have” instead of “need”, in a bid to paint himself as a reasonable person and justifying his WANT of things like boats, RVs, racecars, etc. because no should be able to tell him what he “should have”.

          Someone wake me when an intelligent comment gets posted.