AHC: much lower trajectory for SUVs ("Sport Utility Vehicles") in the United States.

Big cars mean Big profits, couple of oil crises be damned!
raw material and labor costs are very close between subcompact and land yacht

However, buying public won't spend the same amount of $$$ at the dealership for the two dissimilar sized vehicles, even if equipped the same.

The buyer sees smaller as cheaper, and when not priced that way, the buyer drive to the dealer on the other side of the street to see their offerings.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, having said trucks be powered by modern turbodiesel engines starting in the 1980s would probably do a lot of good for their fuel consumption, but you are correct about the bigger car = bigger profit correlation.

What should have happened, was the entry of decent Diesel engines, and not the low powered slugs put in the subcompacts, or the rolling grenade that was the Olds 350V8

Too bad the Cummins BT series wasn't ready 6 years sooner
 
raw material and labor costs are very close between subcompact and land yacht

However, buying public won't spend the same amount of $$$ at the dealership for the two dissimilar sized vehicles, even if equipped the same. . .
Reminds me of restaurants which serve huge, bloated meals, because it justifies a higher price! And this seems to include most restaurants in the United States.

With both this and cars, we the buying public haven’t been insistent enough. And we haven’t really continued the conversation to find multiple sweet spots between what we want right now and what we want longer term. Something like this.
 
Reminds me of restaurants which serve huge, bloated meals, because it justifies a higher price! And this seems to include most restaurants in the United States.

With both this and cars, we the buying public haven’t been insistent enough. And we haven’t really continued the conversation to find multiple sweet spots between what we want right now and what we want longer term. Something like this.

The difference being that those restaurants still have a benefit in that I take home enough left overs for at least one more meal and sometimes two.
 
I agree with a lot of what's been said and I also have a personal hunch about something else. See, before the transition to smaller, more economical modern cars around the early 80s, most American cars were large, heavy, body-on-frame cars with big engines. Some people were glad to be rid of these and considered them dinosaurs but others had a more nostalgic "don't build em like they used to" attitude. I've never driven a classic car but I would imagine that in many ways, the early SUVs, (and more recently, pickup trucks) with their body on frame design, big v6 and v8s, rear wheel drive layouts, live axles, leaf springs, and heavy steering (sometimes reciprocating ball) might have seemed more like the big cars many Americans had grown up with than did modern vehicles. This is just speculation.
 
Before 'Longer, Lower and Wider'
1938 Ford Fordor Sedan
Wheelbase: 112 inches
Seats 5
Length: 179.5 inches
Height: 68.6 inches
Ground clearance: 8 inches
Wheels: 16-inch
Weight : 2750 lbs
Engine: 221cu.in V8 (3.6L) 80HP
Transmission:3 speed manual, rear live axle
Drum brakes, mechanical link, non-hydraulic
All Steel Body on Frame construction
MPG 18
$685-$900($12,350-$16,230, adjusted for inflation) Early tube radios cost over$100 to add in, oh, and heaters were still optional, too


2018 Ford Escape
Wheelbase: 105.9 inches
Seats 5
Length: 178 inches
Height: 66.3 inches
Ground clearance: 7.9 inches
Wheels: 18-inch
Weight: 3542 lbs
Engine: 152.6 cu.in. I4 (2.5 L) 168-245HP
Transmission: 6 speed automatic, FWD or AWD, independent.
Disk brakes, power ABS/Traction control
Unibody construction
MPG 24
$16,500 to $26,600
Replying to my own post, to add the Zenith, (or Nadir) of the Great American Land Yacht

1970 Ford LTD


Wheelbase: 121 inches
Seats 6 and 18 cubic feet of Trunk
Length: 216 inches
Height: 53.6 inches
Ground clearance: 5.1 inches
Wheels: 15-inch
Weight : 3953 lbs
Engine: 429cu.in V8 (7.0L) 280-375HP
Transmission:3 speed Auto, RWD live axle
Disk Front rear Drum brakes, hydraulic Power assist
All Steel Body on Frame construction
MPG 7, 11 Highway
$3356-$5025, that's $21,947 to $32,861 in today's money

I had it's close kin, the Mercury Marquis with the Police Interceptor 429, and most of the possible options, real leather sorta-bucket seats, power everything.

Best way to describe the ride, was your living sofa flying over the road, suspended from a cloud, with zero road noise to interfere with your AM/FM Stereo, with 8 track if you didn't like the Radio.

With the Trac-lock diff and that V8 on 102 octane Sunoco Ethyl, that beast of a car was pretty good at street racing too.

Of all the cars I owned, that's the one I miss the most
 
Last edited:
1970 Ford LTD

Wheelbase: 121 inches
Seats 6 and 18 cubic feet of Trunk
Length: 216 inches
Height: 53.6 inches
Ground clearance: 5.1 inches
Wheels: 15-inch
Weight : 3953 lbs
Engine: 429cu.in V8 (7.0L) 280-375HP
Transmission:3 speed Auto, RWD live axle
Disk Front rear Drum brakes, hydraulic Power assist
All Steel Body on Frame construction
MPG 7, 11 Highway
$3356-$5025, that's $21,947 to $32,861 in today's money
Minor nitpick: their actual length was 224 inches (for sedans and coupes) and 225 inches (for station wagons).
 
What should have happened, was the entry of decent Diesel engines, and not the low powered slugs put in the subcompacts, or the rolling grenade that was the Olds 350V8

Too bad the Cummins BT series wasn't ready 6 years sooner
I don't regret that though. In my personal experience, American cities have relatively clean air thanks to our lack of diesel cars and the particulates and NOx they generate (with the exception of very modern vehicles). Actually, I think that most foreign cities have a very noticable acrid, nitrous smell absent in the USA but which is very obvious in Europe, Africa, Latin America, Australia etc... Anybody else notice this? I think this smell is derived from the large fleets of small diesel automobiles with imperfect or aged pollution controls.

And yes, the Olds diesel was also indeed a "rolling grenade". Its general awfulness was so legendary that it may have saved the USA's air quality from the air pollution fiasco that has enveloped European cities in the past 25 years and has led to the proposed banning of diesel cars in some cities.
 
Last edited:
I don't regret that though. In my personal experience, American cities have relatively clean air thanks to our lack of diesel cars and the nitrous fumes they spew.
Much of the Euro problem was gasoline engines.
ffig615.jpg
Catalytic Converters fitted, and Leaded fuel sales as late as 1998.
Converters were required in the US for the 1975 Model Year, and with that, the phaseout of TEL. US was ahead on emission controls
 
Much of the Euro problem was gasoline engines.
ffig615.jpg
Catalytic Converters fitted, and Leaded fuel sales as late as 1998.
Converters were required in the US for the 1975 Model Year, and with that, the phaseout of TEL. US was ahead on emission controls
Yes, that is true and the USA still seems, in my anecdotal experience to have cleaned up its urban air much better than most countries and I think diesel passenger cars have much to do with this. After all, diesel engines require substantial additional exhaust treatments to control nitrogen emissions. And how many such vehicles did receive the necessary remediation technology, in addition to properly desulfurated fuel to permit this catalysis? I am under the impression that Europe and most other places have had rather inadewuate regulations with regards to this, at least, until recently. I certainly have noticed a difference in streetside air quality.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is true and the USA still seems, in my anecdotal experience to have fouled its urban air much less than most countries. I think diesel passenger cars have much to do with this. After all, don't diesel engines require substantial additional exhaust treatments to control nitrogen emissions? And how many such vehicles did receive the necessary remediation technology, in addition to properly desulfurated fuel to permit this catalysis? I am under the impression that Europe and most other places have rather weak regulations with regards to this. I certainly have noticed a difference in streetside air quality.


The biggest diesel pollutant had been soot, but as became more efficient, did more NOx compounds, but similar in amounts to what pre converter gasoline engines put out, high sulfur fuels was a separate class of pollution. With the Ammonia injection, they are almost as clean as modern gas engines.

Direct injection gas engines with the modern computer controls have picked up a lot of efficiency , getting close to diesels.

But in the late '70s, better diesels would have dovetailed nicely, since the large gas engine in trucks were terribly inefficient.

Today, diesels aren't as needed for applications under 300HP
 
I think you hit with one of your previous posts - their is for a variety of reasons a cool factor with SUVs that does not exist with things like station wagons and mini-vans, particularly for men. I've never owned a SUV, years ago (back when Saturn still existed) we almost bought a Saturn SUV (I know, not a very high end one) but we bought the wagon instead because it was cheaper, the insurance was cheaper, it got better mileage, and it could HAUL MORE STUFF. In other words I could not really see much of a reason to buy the SUV other than the fact that nothing says middle aged, domesticated, hen pecked, suburban dad quite like a station wagon or a mini-van. Kind of a stupid reason to spend money IMWO but I am sure it is enough of a reason for many.
Yep...

Plus in my experience features such as low and high range four wheel drive tend to be easier to find in SUV's vs mini vans. In addition to occassional off pavement use in the back country, low range 4 wheel drive has come in handy when dealing with a foot of snow on un plowed side streets :)
 
The biggest diesel pollutant had been soot, but as became more efficient, did more NOx compounds, but similar in amounts to what pre converter gasoline engines put out, high sulfur fuels was a separate class of pollution. With the Ammonia injection, they are almost as clean as modern gas engines.

Direct injection gas engines with the modern computer controls have picked up a lot of efficiency , getting close to diesels.

But in the late '70s, better diesels would have dovetailed nicely, since the large gas engine in trucks were terribly inefficient.

Today, diesels aren't as needed for applications under 300HP
I wasn't even thinking of those really old diesels. But the modern ones have only been similarly clean to gasoline cars with the application of these new technologies very recently. For example, the newer much lower sulfur fuel was needed to permit the use of the necessary emissions controls for the NOx and diesel particulate filters have finally solved the major particulate issues. However, these are complicated and therefore, emissions are not satsifactory on even moderately older cars, many of which are still around and which have not exactly grown cleaner with age. Had Americans embraced diesels on their SUVS the way most of the rest of the world did and done so in the 1990s, when the SUV craze started, we'd have ended up with a lot more air pollution in cities.
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
I think we are missing some of the issues with governmental controls over pollution and fuel economy controls versus technology development. The development of direct injection, stratified charge combustion/lean burn, as well as exhaust additives and catalytic technology took time not allowed by the governmental and industrial forces. This is partially veering off target. However, an earlier development of turbocharged, direct injection diesels in trucks and SUV's would have the effect of improving overall industry fuel economy in the USA. Increasing the timeline for NOx allowance for lean burn technology would also have allowed improved fuel economy in smaller passenger cars. Add on higher road and fuel taxes. Now US drivers will move toward better fuel economy. Require low sulfur diesel pricing remain within 1-2 cents of 87 octane regular gas. Now we have stronger, not dominant, incentive for better fuel economy. Increase licensing fees and requirements upon larger vehicles, starting at 4000 pounds. Require drivers of vehicles over 6000 pounds to have CDL licensing. These push additional incentives for smaller vehicles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_a_New_Generation_of_Vehicles

Have the US Government require these vehicles reach production within 10 years of issuance of grant with a fuel economy within 75% of the 80 MPG goal. Require a minimum of 10 % of production meet a 50 MPG overall fuel economy. Link this program to a requirement for all manufacturers to take part in order to market their products within the US.

Yes, most of this is ASB. But even a part of this could help.

Edit: The 1978 Oldsmobile diesel V8 was defective. The V6 wasn't, just under powered. Oldsmobile had experience with the Jetfire Turbo V8 from 1962. Mercedes Benz used a turbo on the 300TD from 1978. The Olds V6 would have benefited from a turbo.
 
Last edited:
Had Americans embraced diesels on their SUVS the way most of the rest of the world did and done so in the 1990s, when the SUV craze started, we'd have ended up with a lot more air pollution in cities.
As long as the Bosch mechanical injectors and pump were left stock, the Cummins was a fairly clean motor.
Also not hard for the backyard tweaker to change that for far more HP output, that also does a lot more soot.

The current inline has electronic injection and more valves and has been increased in displacement, plus the pumps and injectors can handle the loss of sulfur without wear, and the DOC, DEF fluid and DPF can, most all of that could have been done sooner, once electronics matured in the late 80s, but the basic motor design, not much different.

Someone just needed to start with a decent motor, and the GM/Isuzu Duramax or Ford and their IH/Navistar offering, just were not those decent Motors people were looking for in a diesel.
 
It's a fairly clean engine but the government would still have to mandate the same or similar emissions controls for diesel light trucks as for gasoline cars. A few SUVs sold with the option wouldn't be so bad but this idea that mass adoption of diesels in the late 20th century in SUVs with anything less than the most advanced emissions control systems would have no consequences totally flies in the face of the actual European experience with them. But mandating really clean emissions technology in the late 80s and early 90s wouldn't be all that easy, or at least, cheap. It'd take some time and add a lot to the cost premium for the diesel option so by this time, diesels might not catch on all that well in the US anyway unless they were already significantly more popular to begin with and that means a lot more old cars on the road.
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
Although the discussion of diesels is illuminating, the introduction of diesels in light trucks/SUV's is opposed to the idea of reducing the impact of SUV's in that it would improve their fuel economy, and thus undermine arguments against them. I was thinking of diesels in sedans/station wagons. A 4.3 Olds V6 diesel with turbo would work in a mid-80's to late 90's GM rear wheel drive sedan.
 
. . Require drivers of vehicles over 6000 pounds to have CDL licensing. . .
Not a bar, but certainly a discouragement!

I think people sometimes buy an SUV because they don’t like being bullied on the road, but then end up being the bully. Or, the motorist in the small car presumes on their good nature, and that wears thin.

The small motorist signals for a lane change. The SUV speeds up, essentially saying, I really don’t want you to get over. The small car starts to get over anyway, basically saying, you certainly aren’t going to be a bully with a big car, now are you?

and that wears thin

And like so many things, the fact that it sometimes happens, you then tend to overperceive it happening.

Requiring a commercial driver’s license (CDL) . . it would happen more often, but it would bother you less, if I can take the words of one truck driver. He talked about how cars kept trying to get under his front wheels. Seemingly, people had no idea how much space he really needed to stop. He was trying to leave enough space, and they wouldn’t have it.
 
Last edited:
Not a bar, but certainly a discouragement!

I think people sometimes buy an SUV because they don’t like being bullied on the road, but then end up being the bully. Or, the motorist in the small car presumes on their good nature, and that wears thin.

The small motorist signals for a lane change. The SUV speeds up, essentially saying, I really don’t want you to get over. The small car starts to get over anyway, basically saying, you certainly aren’t going to be a bully with a big car, now are you?

and that wears thin

And like so many things, the fact that it sometimes happens, you then tend to overperceive it happening.

Requiring a commercial driver’s license (CDL) . . it would happen more often, but it would bother you less, if I can take the words of one truck driver. He talked about how cars kept trying to get under his front wheels. Seemingly, people had no idea how much space he really needed to stop. He was trying to leave enough space, and they wouldn’t have it.
I tend to agree and think that the bullying has become worse since people started buying 4 door full sized pickups as their daily driver, presumably because it's even more cool and macho than an SUV. There are also the so called "bro trucks" which are lifted and fitted with big loud exhaust and other stuff like that. Those guys are almost always aggressive jerks on the road.
 
Last edited:
Top