That's why a 4WD truck will get about 25% less fuel mileage than the identical 2Wd model.

I actually just went through all the SUVs on cars.yahoo.com trying to get data to refute biscuitjam's assertion that SUVs get about 21mpg (it's a little high, but not a lot), and I found that that wasn't the case. Usually, the mpg rating only dropped 1-3 mpg when going from 2WD to 4WD. That certainly used to be the case, though, I think, but advancements in 4WD technology has helped in that the two axles don't fight each other nearly as much as they used to, and SUVs seem to have, mostly, picked that technology up from smaller AWD cars. (It's not as if these powertrains are usually designed for off-roading anymore.)

21 miles per gallon is the federally mandated minimum for SUVs versus 28 mpg for cars. I believe these measurements are done in best case situations. Some vehicles are much higher than these standards in best-case, but city mileage is almost always going to be lower.

-Biscuits

Suburbans, for example, get quite a lot less than 21. They get 14/18 for the 1500 models. I cannot find data for the 2500 models anywhere, including on Chevy's web site, and while it couldn't possibly be better, I infer from the fact that it's unavailable that it's quite a bit worse.

I also can't find any data on the Ford Excursion.

Contrary to popular belief, cars get the best gas mileage in the 45 mph range. Highway speeds are greater than that. It is possible that the Suburban gets 18 mpg at highway speeds and still gets 21 under bestcase scenarios. It is also possible that because it is such a heavy bulky vehicle that it is exempt from all regulation.

-Biscuits

*cough* data *cough* Actually it's 55mph..

Depends on the vehicle. I'd have to look it up again to be sure. That website only says that you get better gas mileage at 55 than 70, not that it is the ideal speed.

True.. But please go look it up though.. Something about "contrary to popular belief" and a lack of source...

This might be relevant:
From howstuffworks:
"So, for most cars, the "sweet spot" on the speedometer is in the range of 40-60 mph. Cars with a higher road load will reach the sweet spot at a lower speed.

"In general, smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic cars will get their best mileage at higher speeds. Bigger, heavier, less aerodynamic vehicles will get their best mileage at lower speeds."
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

Other statistics from How Gas Prices Work on howstuffworks.com:
"The United States consumed an average of 19.5 million barrels of oil per day (bbl/d) in 2000, according to the Department of Energy. Of that, 43 percent was used for motor gasoline.

"1950 - $1.91 per gallon
1955 - $1.85
1960 - $1.79
1965 - $1.68
1970 - $1.59
1975 - $1.80
1980 - $2.59
1985 - $1.90
1990 - $1.51
1995 - $1.28
2001 - $1.66

"Where your costs go:
Distributing and Marketing Costs and Profits: 5%
Taxes: 27%
Refining Costs and Profits: 32%
Crude Oil: 37%

"In California, the state government has set its own reformulated gasoline rules that are stricter than the federally mandated clean-gas laws. This is why Californians pay a higher price for cleaner fuels -- this, plus a local sales-and-use tax of 7.25 percent, an 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal excise tax and an 18-cent-per-gallon state excise tax. California's distance from the refineries located near the Gulf of Mexico can also add to the cost of gasoline if it chooses to obtain gas supplies from those refineries.

"The other area where prices can far exceed the U.S. national average is the Midwest. In 1999, the Midwest region became subject to new reformulated gasoline rules. The Midwest uses a special gasoline that is produced using ethanol instead of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Ethanol is used in the Midwest because of the region's abundance of corn, which is the main raw material used to make ethanol. Few refineries outside the region produce this type of reformulated gasoline, which means there may often be a limited supply of the product. "

I'd recommend reading the whole thing at:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm

Note: MTBE reduces air pollution while poisoning the water.

And another statistic:

"In January 2001 alone, the United States produced an estimated 181 million barrels of crude oil."
http://www.howstuffworks.com/gas-price4.htm

That means we produce about 1/3 of our oil domestically. This is compared to the 17% we get from the entire Middle East.

-Biscuits

While it may cost $3000 more per vehicle, Ford has a solution:

From This Article you linked to.

In reply to:

---

Ford suggests that Uncle Sam pick up part of the bill. Tax credits will "need to be big and long term to drive this market," said GM President Rick Wagoner, as quoted by Dow Jones News Service. "A significant pump priming by the government needs to take place."

Pump away, Uncle Sam. With the federal deficit skyrocketing, Washington needs to get stingy with spending. But promoting hybrids can save us money in years to come.

The government should encourage this. If automakers can sell enough hybrids, the technology will improve and the costs will drop. Then subsidies can be phased out. Hybrids can help boot the imported oil monkey off our back.

---

Given that large tax breaks already exist for buying SUVs, another tax break for buying a more fuel efficient one sounds like a good idea to me, especially as the saving in gas from better mileage will probably return a large chunk of the extra purchase cost over time as well so you actually end up being paid to drive the thing - relative to old model SUVs.

In reply to:

---

In reply to:

---

None of these things you mention are mutually exclusive with better MPG and lower emissions per mile from any vehicle

---

Bigger = heavier.

Taller = more wind drag (and on the highway that's where at least 80% of your fuel goes!)

4WD = more mechanical drive. That's why a 4WD truck will get about 25% less fuel mileage than the identical 2Wd model.

Power = tanstaafl. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

---

You have shown perfectly why SUVs are such gas guzzlers - its like trying to make a brick to fly sideways to get a SUV to move through air at high speed and thats going to take a lot of energy to do it no matter what you try.

The 4WD thng has been proven to be less of a problem now since they use more "car" like 4WD mechanisms, not designed for so much off road work.

And of course with anything, tanstaafl applies, so you can only get out what you put in so to a certain exten you need a decent power plant to make it go.

But it does *not* have to be a honking great 300+-cubic-inch-V8-gas-guzzling-solid-cast-iron-engine-block power plant to do so - the Japs [and Europeans] are doing it now, so Detroit could too if it really wanted - and thats the rub, they don't because they make too much money from selling the old technology crap to be bothered with the new technology crap that they make less money on.

In reply to:

---

Regenerative braking is a nice idea in theory, but it's not ready for prime time yet.

Or maybe it is? Doesn't the Honda Insight use it? Don't recall now
... But regenerative braking is only advantageous in a stop and go situation.

---

Yes, but isn't that *exactly* the sort of environment where 80% of SUVs end up now - stop and go traffic in a urban area and hardly getting over 35 or whatever MPH most of the time?

And stop go urban traffic is where the already abysmal MPG figures really take a hammering and where things like regenerative braking really come into play to help that out.

Yeah maybe RB is not ready for the prime-time yet, but will be by the time Detroit gets around to releasing a Hybrid SUV.

In reply to:

---

Get that hybrid SUV out on the interestate pushing that "sleek" .65 cd body through the air at 75 MPH and spinning all those axles, constant velocity joints, drive shafts, differentials and transfer cases merrily along -- I don't care if it's a diesel, a hybrid, a gasoline-only, or any combination thereof -- it is going to burn a lot more fuel than an "automobile" (mini-van or station wagon) of comparable capacity.

---

Don't disagree, but *when* was the last time you actually saw a SUV doing 75 MPH?

And more to the point, if you did see one doing that speed, I say keep well clear of it, because they must be finding it pretty hard to control at that speed - and if anything goes wrong, rollover or worse here we come.

*when* was the last time you actually saw a SUV doing 75 MPH?"

The speed of traffic in Atlanta is quite often that fast. Not only that, but most SUVs have a top speed of 100+ mph. It isn't like they CAN'T drive that fast.

My Ford Explorer starts to feel a little uncomfortable at around 75 mph, mainly because the wind wants to jerk it around the road.

-Biscuits

Don't disagree, but *when* was the last time you actually saw a SUV doing 75 MPH?

To chime in, I can say that I see SUVs doing 75+ pretty routinely -- in a straight line. They are probably pretty bitchin' at that -- so long as they don't have to execute any sudden avoidance manuevers! Rollovers? I've seen two in the past 6 months inside the city limits. OK, FAIK, they were dead drunk, but they were most definitely TU.

In reply to:

---

The speed of traffic in Atlanta is quite often that fast. Not only that, but most SUVs have a top speed of 100+ mph. It isn't like they CAN'T drive that fast.

My Ford Explorer starts to feel a little uncomfortable at around 75 mph, mainly because the wind wants to jerk it around the road.

---

Hey, I thought you guys had a 55 MPH speed limit - whats this 75+MPH or even 100 MPH stuff?

Yeah, I know some states have unlimited speeds, but I thought it was back country states like Utah that had unlimited speeds, not GA.

Doesn't sound like off-roading kind of activities SUVs are supposed to be used for, unless it on the Salt Flats in Utah for a land speed record attempt.

Yeah, I know, gotta be able to get to the offroad place real quick so we have more time to do the off-roading bit our SUV is designed for right?

In any case, as commonsense will tell you, the faster you go in any vehicle, the more drag you have, so much so that at speeds above 70+ MPH, you spend most (90% or so) of the energy in the fuel just overcoming wind resistance - and the drag goes up exponentially so as you go faster the drag goes up by a higher factor.

And driving any SUV over the "speed limit" they were "tested" to travel at makes a mockery of the minimalist MPG figures (21MPG) that they have to meet in the first place.

At those speeds for long periods of time the MPG figures must be in the low teens or even single digit.

In reply to:

---

Not only that, but most SUVs have a top speed of 100+ mph. It isn't like they CAN'T drive that fast.

My Ford Explorer starts to feel a little uncomfortable at around 75 mph, mainly because the wind wants to jerk it around the road.

---

Doesn't sound to me like SUVs are actually designed to travel at those speeds regardless of what the salesman told you, or the speedo says.

Or the wind buffeting would not be a problem, either that or the vehicle control mechanisms are not really as good as the engine is - and that wouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

A F1 race car or even a top end sports car can go over 200MPH+ consistently and not be "buffeted by wind" - because its designed that way.

In any case, no matter how good a vehicle you think you have, if you hit anything in a vehicle at 60+ MPH, even with airbags and normal seat belts your survivability chances go down dramatically.

And imagine two SUVs hitting head-on at 75+ MPH each - doesn't bear thinking about really. No airbags or seatbelts or truck chassis will save you from that.

They don't test vehicle crash resistance at those sorts of speeds, its much lower - and probably lower than 55MPH even, so who knows what your SUV will do when crashed at those speeds.


To show you what happens at high speeds when wind gets under a vehicle heres a true story...


[and no, *NO* JATO rockets were involved - honest :-) - and its documented - and it really happened]

There was a case over here about 8 years ago where some local top notch racing driver used his racing Porsche to try and set an official landspeed record on a normal road -

- no ones tried since for good reason:

They closed the road and did all the proper & legal things, the ambulance and fire crews were standing by in case anything happened, they even had a helicopter ready to take the injured to hospital as this was out in the country away from the nearest hospitals, in case of a major incident...

...The first pass went well - over 300+kph on the first pass, a bit bumpy in a couple of places but they set the speed record.

But they needed a second pass to make it official:

While they got the car ready for its second run, the wind got up a little bit - not much, just a bit more than on the first run, and this time it was into (or more across the wind) than the previous run - but time was a ticking down and the wind was still there so they had to go again to make it official...

On the second pass to get the record the car was doing over 300+kph again when the wind got under it as it went over a the crest of a small dip in the road and turned it slightly side on to the road - the resulting accident caused the car to rollover about 6 times along/on top of a strong wire fence beside the road - it made a real mess of about 100+ yards of the fence - with solid wooden uprights and massive wooden fenceposts, it demolished the fence completely, and most of the car.

What was left of the car (which was more the central passenger compartment - or whats left of it - came to rest about 150 metres from road in the middle of a field.

- the driver survived - just and after about 9 months or rehab was able to sort of walk again, his left arm was pretty badly damaged (it was a left hand drive Porsche) and his arm got rolled over and crished more than once during the accident - and he was wearing full racing seatbelts with proper roll bars inside the vehicle to protect himself in the event of a rollover/crash.

There is some TV footage of this around - I've seen it a couple of times and wondered how the guy survived - I'm sure he does too.

And this was in a car designed to crash at high speeds and survive - it had all the right crumple zones and proper rollcage and stuff - and yet the guy got very, very badly injured.

The speed limit within city limits of Atlanta is 55 mph. The speed that traffic moves (excluding rush hour) ranges from 70 to 80 mph. At one time, the average traffic flow was close to 90 mph, but it has come down a little since then. If you are going 65, you are a severe traffic hazard. Don't even think about driving the speed limit! People who are not used to 8 extremely narrow lanes of heavy traffic going 70-80 mph can become extremely agitated. I don't drive in Atlanta unless I have to.

-Biscuits

Given that large tax breaks already exist for buying SUVs, another tax break for buying a more fuel efficient one sounds like a good idea to me, especially as the saving in gas from better mileage will probably return a large chunk of the extra purchase cost over time as well so you actually end up being paid to drive the thing - relative to old model SUVs.

Not only that but I think it would give the car manufacturers more incentive to try new technologies. Once a new "breed" of SUV hits the market there will be a fairly rapid evolution resulting in better & better designs. One danger is public backlash from poor designs that come with many major problems (unreliable trucks/cars that turn people off).

In reply to:

---

Not only that but I think it would give the car manufacturers more incentive to try new technologies.

---

Hey, I thought that was the job of competition in a free marketplace - not the US government.

Obviously I'm in the wrong universe as obviously the big protector of the "free market" everywhere concept has trouble making the playing field level for all comers, and the incumbants expect tax breaks to beat their competition.

Wait, yep just checked my gauges, we are in the wrong universe - this is the one where they still make SUVs that only get 21MPG.



Detroit should be innovating as the "right" way to beat the competition, and not just only when they can put their hand out to Congress for some more tax payer dollars money to make it so.

The universe I'm talking about is the universe of reality. Car manufacturers are racking in big bucks in SUV purchases and are not going to suddenly have an epiphany, drop the production of current SUVs, return all of their year-end bonuses after realizing their failure in advancing future technologies. Something is better than nothing IMO. I can fantasize about the world I'd like to live in but wake up everday in the world I do live in. Like everything else it's going to take time to deliver better vehicles and will also take time for the public to truely accept them.

In reply to:

---

Car manufacturers are racking in big bucks in SUV purchases and are not going to suddenly have an epiphany, drop the production of current SUVs, return all of their year-end bonuses after realizing their failure in advancing future technologies

---

Yeah, not unless your government has an epiphany of sorts and makes them do it.

The only epiphany I can see that will cause that right now is an election - and thats the end of next year, or maybe the election after that in 2008.

Tax breaks are not bad IMHO - and in any case you will be the one paying for them out of your own taxes.

But it still wrankles - and tax breaks and special cases have a bad habit in the US of becoming "the norm" from then on.
[witness how come the SUV thing came about in the first place - special rules (or no rules) for light trucks].

The current lack of emission and similar rules on SUVs should be changed to make the current SUVs design have a definite "phase out time period" in the next 4-5 years, so that Detroit has to innovate.

Heck, you put a man on the moon in 10 years from practically nothing, how long would you think it would take Detroit to really sort the SUV problem out if they were given the mandate - and maybe some government funds to do so.

The benefits to all mankind could be enormous - and probably of more day to day use than putting men on the moon.
[but maybe not as inspiring I'd admit].

In reply to:

---

I can fantasize about the world I'd like to live in but wake up everday in the world I do live in

---

To quote your president JFK - From a speech delivered by John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United Sates of America to the joint sitting of the Dáil and Seanad on June 28th 1963.

In reply to:

---

George Bernard Shaw, speaking as an Irishman, summed up an approach to life: “Other people”, he said, “see things and . . . say: ‘Why?’ . . . But I dream things that never were—and I say: ‘Why not?’”

---

I think that's a good quote and do believe the true pioneers are those who have asked the question why not? But I think that philosophy goes against the auto manufacturers main focus: immediate bottom line profit. Your right though, govermental regulations could force them to change quicker, but after witnessing the last election I don't think the new powers that be are very interested in regulations protecting the environment or public safety (IMO). As sad as it sounds, I think monetary incentives are the only realistic way of pushing things in that direction.

In reply to:

---

And if Detroit gets some idea of the anti-SUV feeling out there, they might modify their behaviour a little.

---

I doubt it. As long as %25 of Americans are buying these types of cars, they are unlikely to change. What incentive do they have? BTW, %25 if a pretty damn large voting block. I sincerely doubt it is %25 would vote against controlling SUV's and %75 for, since many independants or conservatives would view this a the Govt invading our lives and telling us what we can and cannot due.

21 miles per gallon is the federally mandated minimum for SUVs versus 28 mpg for cars. I believe these measurements are done in best case situations

Actually, I'm pretty sure that they take the average mpg of all of a manufacturer's line of SUV's and that has to be over the minimum. So one model could get 1 mpg as long as another model gets 41 mpg.

Hey, I thought you guys had a 55 MPH speed limit - whats this 75+MPH or even 100 MPH stuff?

The 55MPH speed limit was a federally mandated speed limit in effect from 1974 until 1995. It was determined that it wasn't constitutional for the federal government to mandate speed limits, so they told states that they wouldn't get federal roadway funding unless they made their speed limits a maximum of 55MPH.

Nowadays, most big highways are 65MPH. Some are more, some less: Maximum Posted Speed Limits

However, few people drive at these speeds. They are much too low for almost anyone. Even police cruisers regularly drive 10MPH faster than the speed limit on highways. But you could technically have your driver license revoked for going more than 15MPH over the limit, so we all walk the fine line of not getting too close to a cop who's in a bad mood that day.

Yeah, I know some states have unlimited speeds, but I thought it was back country states like Utah that had unlimited speeds, not GA.

You're thinking of Montana. It's rule was that you could drive at a reasonable speed on interstates (interstates being federally funded highways ultimately intended for military transport and aircraft runways in case of invasion, but the rest of us get to use them for automobile roads until that happens). However, in 1999, that was found to be an illegal law because it was too unclear. It's now 75 in most areas, IIRC.

In reply to:

---

I doubt it. As long as %25 of Americans are buying these types of cars, they are unlikely to change

---

Well that 25% is 25% of US car buyers, not 25% of voting age Americans.

And thats at worst case 12.5 million SUV buyers compared to what, 200+ million registered voters?

About 6% of voters I'd say.

And of course, some SUV buyers would buy more than one SUV so the voters to SUV buyers %age goes down further - yeah and maybe they are a influential lot with the lawmakers.

But in any case and regardless of how influential SUV buyers are with politicians and lawmakers, the best way for Detroit to get a message is through sales (especially declining ones).

If say half (or even 20%) of these SUV buyers switched to buying a model of SUV with better MPG and/or lower emissions (or demonstrably safer for all road users) then Detroit would get the message through sales as most of the SUV sales would either be of non-Detroit SUVs, or of other types of vehicles (non-SUVs).

Thats the best way for the average consumer to force Detroit to do something, especially in the current climate where the politicians are unwilling to change.

And next year you get the chance to make a bigger/longer term difference at the ballot box.

In reply to:

---

...govermental regulations could force them to change quicker, but after witnessing the last election I don't think the new powers that be are very interested in regulations protecting the environment or public safety (IMO)

---

Your fears/concerns are quite justified, and the rest of world agrees with you that the current US administration is paying lots of lip service only to these areas.

A real case of Nero filddling while Rome burns...

For those non-USians who have never been to the States here is an illustration of just how big the SUVs we are talking about can be:



Yes, that is a large Volvo on the left hand side.

Not to mention that in a few months you'll be able to get a V70R and have a sports (estate) sedan on top of it.

Yeah the Excursion is big. Though if I'm not mistaken, I think Ford discontinued them.

Yes, that is a large Volvo on the left hand side.

Andy, interested to know where you found that picture. Is it from Volvo?

A little off-topic (but that's the name of the forum!)... but what about that marijuana comercial with a couple of guys smoking joints in their car while repeatedly going through the drive-thru. After a few rounds, they speed off and run into a little girl on a tricycle.

Okay, that's fine... but what about alcohol? Alcohol slows your reaction time down WAY more than marijuana does. I guess since marijuana is the "enemy" though, it must be worse...

Typical.

And no, I don't smoke pot. I just think it's pretty lame that money has such an influence on how stuff is portrayed on TV, just like the comercials you guys have been talking about.