TangoRed

Saying the Escalade uses a part-time system isn't entirely accurate. It has a auto-4WD mode that imperceptibly feeds power to the front wheels as needed.

The Escalade will hit its highway numbers all day long...on the highway. But yeah the combined mpg is definitely down in the 14-16mpg range.

SW17LS

Then why sell the cars here? If people don't care about economy at all at these price points why bother? They aren't discounting the prices of these cars because they don't have V8 power.

The answer is people do care about efficiency. I'm a consumer of these vehicles, and I'm surrounded by them. People do in fact care.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

i would venture to say more people tries to pose to have the best (by having the cheapest possible config) than getting the smaller engines to save on few bucks on gas. i see plenty of poseurs around trying to claim they can afford flagships.

i guess in a way you can say most people care about fuel economy. if today gas goes up to 15 bucks a gallon i am sure a lot of lx owners would dump their cars. but relatively speaking among owners of different cars at a certain point in time, i have to say spending 100k on a car and i wouldn't worry too much more about few hundred bucks "extra" on gas ever year

SW17LS

I know plenty of people who aren't pretending to be able to afford flagships, let's just put it that way.

I'm not saying it's the most important thing, but to say that people who have significant means don't care about value and don't care about efficiency at all isn't accurate. Fuel economy absolutely could drive someone to say an escalade over an LX.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

yes SW15LS, some luxury vehicle buyers/owners 'care' a lot about fuel economy, but frankly it's just irrational because if they cared that much they'd just get a vehicle with better fuel economy. it's all just a rationalization...

i'm 'glad' my jeep grand cherokee gets 22mpg vs. the 17mpg that my explorer before got. and i'll admit that yes, it was a factor (not the only one) in me not springing for the v8 (the other factor being i simply didn't need or want the extra power or the added purchase cost), so yes it matters and yes i 'care' to some extent. but if the jeep did get 17mpg also but had some other feature i really wanted, then the lower economy wouldn't have mattered (enough) to me. turned out there wasn't so for me at least the additional fuel economy was a small but nice benefit.

coincidentally, the jeep grand cherokee has the same size fuel tank as the lx570

but at 22mpg, i guess i have a range in the neighborhood of 541 miles!

SW17LS

that's exactly my point. If the V8 had the same economy, you'd have the V8. Economy does matter to you...

As for purchase cost, Jeep Rebates the cost of the V8 away all the time in a power credit. People still don't buy it...because of the fuel economy.

The Jeep does have good range.

Quadro

On-demand 4WD is still a part-time system. Not sure what's not accurate about it.

SW17LS

Personally I would prefer it revert to 100% rear drive until slippage is detected or I direct it to do otherwise.

Toys4RJill

Why would you want that? To save MPG on a $100k luxu SUV?

SW17LS

I prefer the way a vehicle drives in RWD vs AWD. It also allows it to be more efficient, less drag on the drivetrain, better throttle response, etc.

Again...just because someone buys a $100,000 SUV does not mean they don't care about efficiency.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

just hypothetically i did some math this morning

assume 12k miles a year and say between 17mpg and 20mpg (i wouldn't imagine much more coming from this heavy car). that's 706 gallons vs 600 gallons, so 106 gallons difference. CA has some of the most expensive gas price in the nation now, $4 a gallon on premium? so that's around 400 bucks extra per year.

that vs 100k, which is about 0.4%. just to put it in perspective. i am sure no one would go and hope the car gets even worse gas mileage, but i just find it a bit hard to believe if someone wants the LX but say no because he/she has to pay 400 bucks more every year on gas compared to what he/she'd hoped for. again i am not saying they don't care, but probably not caring enough to break the deal

spwolf

that is pointless on SUV like this... LX will never have on-demand system, it is mostly sold in middle east and asia where people actually need AWD.

Now on RX and Rav4, sure.

TangoRed

Because traditionally part-time 4wd (like on a Jeep Wrangler) locks the axles together and forces power to be distributed equally, which is why you're not supposed to use it on dry roads. That's not the case with the Auto 4WD on the Escalade. It can vary power distribution as needed.

ydooby

"As needed" 4WD systems suck because they only react to a slippage, which in most cases would not have occurred if the vehicle had full-time AWD traction in the first place.

Toys4RJill

Careful with the words suck, I would not say suck. Some people do not want full time four wheel drive, the part time system does have its strengths and weakness. But overall, for maximum effect you want full time 4WD, but the LX and LC now have electronic transfer cases for the lo range which is not ideal for super maximum off road reliability. The 80 and 100 series models had a mechanical lever that was directly connected to the transfer case.

FWIW, the 4Runner can be had with the mechanical shifter which is ideal.