Content provided in partnership with

Automotive Industry

The 40 mpg SUV debate continues - Letters - Letter to the Editor

Automotive Industries, Jan, 2004

My reply to Chris Pollard's letter in the Oct 2003 issue of AI:

It takes power to move vehicles and fuel to make power. It is no secret how to get much better fuel economy:

Cut weight: This means it will take less power to accelerate/move a vehicle. Unfortunately, when you have to make the occupants survive a head on collision and/or to pull the loads that many SUV's have to be able to pull. It also takes structural integrity and the mass associated there with to accomplish the fact.

Improve aerodynamics: No argument here but airplanes have vastly superior aerodynamics. Sadly, they really come up much shorter than cars, tracks or SUV's when/if they run into one another and/or a stationary device.

Most Popular Articles in Autos: Service Slants; 2007 utility vehicle buyer's guide: Side-By-Sides are popular; here's who ...; Transmission considerations: beyond the manual gearbox; Buell Motorcycle engineering, innovation, & dedication: in an industry ...; 100 + 10: America's oldest automotive magazine celebrates its 110th year ...; More »

Cut back on power and/or power requirements: This means eliminating neat "necessities" such as A/C, stereos, power everything's, MPG players and/or cutting back on acceleration capabiliy and hauling/payload potential. Trouble is, the OEM's can't do that because customers want/need those features.

The 10,000 mpg record holding vehicle he mentioned in his letter would not even come close to making a satisfactory, or saleable SUV--ditto that for the 81mph record holding PPV he mentions.

Moreover, I'd like to see how good occupant surviveablility in these vehicles would be at the front and pending side collision speeds mandated by NHTSA. I'd also like to have someone demonstrate the ability these research vehicles had with regard to complying with the legislatively mandated emissions degradation specs. I'd also like to see them keep up with freeway traffic for miles on end and/or pull a trailer.

Electric steering: It takes power to drive electric steering and fuel to make that power (745 watts per H/P or at a BSFC of 0.5, about 8 ounces of gas to supply this much power for 1 hour of use).

Simple fix: dump the power steering (hydraulic or electic) and you'd easily increase fuel efficiency. Too bad however that customers all but DEMAND power steering anymore. In fact, you can't even delete the option anymore if you wanted to!

Do customers need the conveniences/options? No. Do they want and have to have them? Yes.

Common rail diesels: No argument that diesels can increase fuel efficiency by 35 percent compared to gas powered engines.

However, existing and proposed EPA emission laws pretty much preclude their use in the USA due to NOX and particulate problems that many, folks are feverishly working on trying to solve.

If Mr. Pollard has some sort of magic, affordable, durable fix for these isses, he could become a very wealthy engineer simply by presenting the design to any number of diesel engine designers and developers who are working on solving the issue globally.

If he can't do this, I feel he can hardly cite the OEM's as being negligent in not using common rail diesels.

Reason: they simply are not yet a viable solution--at least with the legislation and tecnology progress as they exist now.

It is easy to make all kinds of criticisms of car and track people for not doing the impossine and/or at least the very difficult. However, many of Mr Pollard's "alternatives" are not viable and/or they are simply unacceptable on the part of the consumer.

Name and address withheld

Automotive Industry

The 40 mpg SUV debate continues - Letters - Letter to the Editor

Automotive Industries, Jan, 2004

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Autos

Most Popular Articles in Autos

Most Popular Publications in Autos