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

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, peesumably 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.
I have noticed other drivers seem less likely to cut me off when I drive my full size US made 4x4 crew cab pickup truck vs my non US made mid size car. I can see why some people would prefer to dive a tuck. Most of the time I prefer to drive the car as it is a lot easier to park and I don't need to think as hard about how I will un park it from a typical suburban shopping mall :)
 
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.
40 years ago those guys were in Chevy Monte Carlos and Dodge Chargers with jacked up rear ends and glasspacks with the fiberglass burned out.

Then it was Fox Mustangs and Camaros.

After that it was the import guys with the wheel spacers and fart cans

Some things don't change. The ride changes, but not the dumbass Teen behind the wheel. Always a new crop of them
 
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. . .
. . . Some things don't change. The ride changes, but not the dumbass Teen behind the wheel. Always a new crop of them
I don’t want to criticize and stereotype the drivers, because it just doesn’t get us anywhere.

In fact, I think there’s been studies in psychology that we as human beings tend to over-attribute to inner character and under-attribute to immediate circumstances. With both the actions of others, and our own actions, too.

So, yes, like a sports car, I think the vehicle does tend to draw forth certain behavior. I’m not a parent, but if I were, I think safe driving would be just another one of those things I’d matter-of-factly mention from time to time. And no, I would not buy a teenager daughter or esp. son a sports car or a macho truck.

I might even encourage and offer my teenage son, or daughter, lessons at a reputable track. Maybe for a birthday or something. Once they’ve had the experience of driving, say over 100 mph, with instruction, in a controlled setting, then they’re in a position where they don’t need to prove jack shit to friends or anyone else. Not entirely, for nothing works a hundred percent, but I think it would offer them some protection in this regard.
 
Last edited:
and driving in Houston, Texas, back in the 1980s, you signal for a lane chance, and the person speeds up!

It seemed two-thirds of the time, the person sped up, rather than take the approach, you need to come over, sure, you can go ahead and come on over.

So, sometimes you had to start coming over anyway, and the person would back off [there has to be a better way!]

---------------------

But these days, if the person's in an SUV or large pick-up and you're coming over anyway, there's a whole new dimension of "hey, you're not going to try to bully me when I'm in a small vehicle and you're in a large vehicle."

And the driver of the SUV or large pick-up gets tired of being presumed on and taken for granted in this regard. So, it's a damn bad dynamic.

-----------

These days, I try to take the approach, "hey, you want to be a jack, that's fine, you can go ahead and be a jack."

[and by jack, I mean jack ass!]
 
Last edited:
How much of it was because trucks were exempt from CAFE? Detroit could build lots of 'em & not get nailed & have to build tons more Sprints & Fiestas (which nobody wanted:rolleyes: ) to make up the diff.

Maybe not exactly on-point, but, can you do this by saving the sedan delivery? (Which is:cool::cool: ).
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.
It wasn't all bad. In California, you could register an Olds with OEM diesel, swap in a 454 or 455 (Poncho or Buick), & never have to worry about the smog cops, 'cause it's registered as a diesel...:cool:
 
Last edited:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cg...ir=1&article=3043&context=faculty_scholarship
(page 10)

This article is saying because of a flurry of news coverage on the “SUV loophole,” sales of large SUVs in Jan. 2004 were 151% of what Jan. 2003 sales had been. Yes, a significant enough one-year jump for the big ones to catch your attention.

but . . .

1) Rapid depreciation for income tax purposes is only for those keeping a written log for bona fide business use,

2) customer trends and preferences anyway, and

3) way late in the game!

——————-

I mean, the original CAFE standards were in the 1970s, for crying out loud! So, I’m going to say that was the much bigger factor.
 
Last edited:
I mean, the original CAFE standards were in the 1970s, for crying out loud! So, I’m going to say that was the much bigger factor.
CAFE requirements were not appliede to Light Trucks and what would be SUVs until 1982, and they pretty much were what passenger cars had for 1980, 20.50MPG.
But unlike Cars, the Truck standard really didn't rise till 2005 or so, staying around 21. Cars, however, were above 26 after 1982
 
CAFE requirements were not appliede to Light Trucks and what would be SUVs until 1982, and they pretty much were what passenger cars had for 1980, 20.50MPG.
But unlike Cars, the Truck standard really didn't rise till 2005 or so, staying around 21. Cars, however, were above 26 after 1982
IMO, applying CAFE is bound to hurt SUV sales, because the truck-based vehicles can't meet them.

Candidly, tho, CAFE should never have passed. It's a protection measure for UAW jobs & a recipe for building junk nobody actually wants. If you really want better gas mileage as standard, raise the gas tax. (Which no Congresscritter has the nerve to do. Nor any state legislator.:rolleyes: )

Two other things cross my mind (neither exactly on point, but...;)): would more efficient diesels impact RV sales at all? And would fewer SUVs mean the GMC RV survives?:cool::cool: (AIUI, it was dropped after the '78 model year to build more trucks.) I have a fantasy of a turbodiesel'd GMC RV...:)
 
And would fewer SUVs mean the GMC RV survives?
I miss that FWD wonder on wheels.

But GM was still big on their 'Screamin Jimmy' Detroit Diesels, that would not be a good fit for a motorhome. Yes, they were in busses, but it's not a good fit for that motorhome
 
I miss that FWD wonder on wheels.
Ditto. (Not a fan of the long rear overhang, tho.)
But GM was still big on their 'Screamin Jimmy' Detroit Diesels, that would not be a good fit for a motorhome.
I was hoping for a more civilized deisel development leading to a later diesel RV (rather than a '78-'80 version--tho that would be good, too, if it wasn't insanely noisy, smoky, & odiferous:eek: ).
I might even encourage and offer my teenage son, or daughter, lessons at a reputable track.
Sending 'em through Bob Bondurant's driving school sounds like a good idea, but apparently (AIUI), it actually encourages bad driving.:eek::eek: What seems to happen is, graduates feel they've better skills than everybody else, & they end up driving faster & with less attention to others.

What might work is a mandatory requal every few years.

We are now officially off-topic.;)
 
. . . Candidly, tho, CAFE should never have passed. It's a protection measure for UAW jobs & a recipe for building junk nobody actually wants. If you really want better gas mileage as standard, raise the gas tax. (Which no Congresscritter has the nerve to do. Nor any state legislator.:rolleyes: ) . . .
I can see how this is probably more straightforward (combined maybe with John Anderson’s 1980 plan of refunding 50% of social security payroll tax up to a certain threshold, which was the other half of his 50-50 plan)

But Detroit did poorly enough at trying to seriously market fuel-efficient vehicles (again, big cars equal big profits), I think there is some case for insisting that they need to play ball at least to some extent with their overall fleet.
 
. . . In California, you could register an Olds with OEM diesel, swap in a 454 or 455 (Poncho or Buick), & never have to worry about the smog cops, 'cause it's registered as a diesel...:cool:
I was not aware that diesel provided a workaround to California emission standards.

————

And other issues on my radar. . . .

The more commonly-used diesel engines affects quality of life issues in European and other international cities, namely, the stink of the Diesel engine. And I’d also add, the noise.

And, how is diesel on CO2?
 
6f0521a772c3fe4e2578cd875055ee848fe9a516.jpg


in the U.S., people add “Diesel Blue” to cut down on the pollution.

And in Texas, I’ve occasionally seen people buy a box or two of the product at Walmart.
 
And, how is diesel on CO2?

C12H23 +17.75 O2 –> 12 CO2 + 11.5 H2O
That's for complete combustion, which happens only in the lab.
gasoline is C8H18 +12.5 O2 -> 8 CO2 +9 H2O
This is for IsoOctane, not what you get at the pump.

But Diesel has a lot more Carbon, so it will make more CO2 and CO than Gasoline
 
in the U.S., people add “Diesel Blue” to cut down on the pollution
BioDiesel is better, sometime you get that 'French Fryer'smell.

it's an odor, just not as objectionable.
While the combustion is this
C19H36O2 + 27O2 —> 19CO2 + 18H2O the combustions is generally more complete than with Petrodiesel, so less CO and NOx compounds. Compare to IsoOctane from post above.

BioDiesel isn't the Witch's Brew that you get with pump gasoline, there isn't a lot of additives or other hydrocarbon blends.

Here is more fuels listed
table1b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was not aware that diesel provided a workaround to California emission standards.
That was awhile ago, so it may not be true now. (Reported in Hot Rod, IIRC, but may've been Car Craft or PHR.) It was, IIRC, before clunker laws ( :mad: ) became a Thing.
But Detroit did poorly enough at trying to seriously market fuel-efficient vehicles (again, big cars equal big profits), I think there is some case for insisting that they need to play ball at least to some extent with their overall fleet.
In the late '70s & early '80s, any improvement in mileage would help, & need not be limited to small cars. Things like EFI, Teflon piston coatings, anti-friction gear coatings, 'glass panels, & aero, all useful in NASCAR & drag racing, & turbos & blowers (more for drag racing), benefit even the big cars. Higher fuel costs will tend to drive people to more-efficient products, which is the point. Detroit isn't incapable of building efficient cars, even (relatively) big ones. For all that, it might lead to actual adoption/production of the likes of the Intrepid ESX (which looks like the nearest production-ready of the PNGV program models).

If the biggest cars are guzzlers, they're purchased by people who can afford it, which means a likely premium on them, no? Conversely, is there no benefit to a brand being the tech leader? Or the efficiency leader? (It's not all about, "Mine is bigger"... Not every buyer, or even most, has an envy issue.;))
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Comments on a couple of posts:

1) There are several current websites on the GMC Motorhome. One shop has reportedly been successful in combining a GMC turbodiesel, an Allison transmission, a 4X4 transfer case and axle/front end housing into a GMC Motorhome. If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it. Also, one owner put a twin turbo Caddy into his. Cadillac engines are popular replacement engines for the Oldsmobile V8.

2) Driving schools for street drivers are to improve basic and emergency driving skills. Thus, if you want your child to survive a mistake, by them or someone else on the road, this is a great investment.

3) Many hot rod/racing tricks are good for fuel economy. Better aerodynamics, improved engine efficiency, lightweight bodywork, turbos all can result in higher fuel economy, snappier driving, noise reduction, and easier drivability. Second mechanical lesson I was taught, after learning basic service, was an engine was an air pump. Reduce the resistance to air entering and leaving the engine to improve power, driveability and fuel economy. Harder to do in today's engines, but not impossible.
 
. . . Sending 'em through Bob Bondurant's driving school sounds like a good idea, but apparently (AIUI), it actually encourages bad driving.:eek::eek: What seems to happen is, graduates feel they've better skills than everybody else, & they end up driving faster & with less attention to others. . .
That is very disappointing!

Like so many life areas, people think they’re better than average. I remember an article about this in a poker magazine, which said: We have all the same basic skills, and many of same intermediate skills. However, if I have a particular advanced skill, I’m acutely aware that I have it and you don’t. But if you have an advanced skill I don’t have, I may end up mistakenly viewing it as a leak and flaw in your game.
 
Last edited:
from 2007

https://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/autos/0706/gallery.alf_fuel_basics/2.html

Greenhouse gases: Diesel fuel contains more carbon than gasoline so it releases more C02 per gallon burned. The diesel engine's greater fuel efficiency, however, means considerably less C02 is released per mile driven compared to a similar-sized gasoline engine.
.
.
.
The future: By 2010, diesel cars will be held to exactly the same EPA emissions standards as gasoline-powered vehicles. . .
This 2007 article is saying that, because of greater efficiency, diesel cars produce less greenhouse gas per mile driven.
 
2) Driving schools for street drivers are to improve basic and emergency driving skills. Thus, if you want your child to survive a mistake, by them or someone else on the road, this is a great investment.
I think a lot of safe driving is how good your B game is. Meaning when you’re slightly irritated, slightly tired, slightly pissed off. And when an otherwise friend is subtly or not so subtly pressuring you to open it up on the freeway.

And/or it is how you recover back to your center.

—————-

Another issue is that starting way back in the 1970s, “light trucks” had lower federal safer standards, even though they’re clearly used as passenger vehicles most of the time.
 
Top