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

Without going off onto too many tangents about GMC Motorhomes (interesting idea that somehow worked) and defensive driving schools (everyone should go to one of those at sometime in their lives if you ask me), the central topic of this thread is still blunting the growth of SUVs and large trucks as daily drivers. The point about CAFE not applying to them is a good one (and I vehemently disagree on CAFE bring bad law - without it Detroit would never have even attempted to improve their cars' fuel efficiency standards, and probably would have held on to old-school carbureted V8s for quite a while longer), but let's also remember what was being replaced.

Until the 1980s, the most common family haulers were full-size station wagons, GM's big G-body wagons (Chevrolet Caprice, Buick Roadmaster, Pontiac Parisienne, Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser) and the Ford LTD. Big Vans had a period of popularity in the 1970s (particularly once they got easier to drive and better-equipped) buy their size made them rather inefficient and they were harder to drive than cars, even boats like the aforementioned station wagons. And if I'm perfectly honest, besides being able to carry seven people and all of their stuff, said wagons didn't have a lot of redeeming qualities. They handled badly and stopped worse, weren't that easy to drive (Detroit hadn't figured out how tauter steering could make a driver's life easier yet) and weren't equipped well at all, plus of course who fondly remembers fake wood paneling?

The minivan was originally created by a combination of CAFE, Chrysler being unable to make a real rival to the family wagons from GM and Ford and a desire to create family haulers easier to handle than a big wagon. (And probably a little bit of Lee Iacocca and Hal Sperlich wanting to rub Henry Ford II's face in own hubris.) The Minivan scored and scored big (even if the Ford Aerostar and Chevrolet Astro/GMC Safari twins were more truck-like, they were still better than the full-size vans), but they quickly got an uncool reputation as well, and (particularly the early Chrysler minivans) some were horrendously underpowered. By the 1990s, this led to a desire for family haulers with less of the stigma - hence the Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Chevrolet S10 Blazer, and when these proved their flaws, it was on to the crossover era....

But remember the first crossover actually pre-dated the minivan - the original AMC Eagle. What if wagons had followed that development? The Eagle was effectively a four-wheel-drive medium-sized wagon, and could it have been a template for what was to come? It wouldn't have stopped the minivan of course, but what if Renault had brought the Espace to North America and paired it with the Eagle? Could that have been the template for wagons and minivans to come? Hell, could it have kept Renault operating in North America and saved AMC?
 
But remember the first crossover actually pre-dated the minivan - the original AMC Eagle. What if wagons had followed that development? ...Could that have been the template for wagons and minivans to come?
My recollection (which may be faulty) is, the Eagle had higher ground clearance than really needed.

That said, it could well have led to a "utility wagon" of sorts.

It also occurs to me AMC (following Ford & Chevy) could have produced a 4wd Eagle *Ranchero, like a larger Subaru Brat. (I'd also put in a vote for a Gremlin *Ranchero, which was prototyped but never built, with optional 401, in line with the Randall 401-XR, also with 4wd--which would be scary quick-accelerating.:eek: And :cool::cool::cool: {Dubiously legal for drag racing, tho... :teary::teary: } )
 
AMC knew how to get a lot of life out of a platform
And unlike GM, didn't have a lot of "clone" options to share the cost across.

I was thinking about this before, & forgot to mention it. If the Ranchero/El Camino survive, & especially if they proliferate (such as the *Eagle Mescalero & *Gremlin Diablo), does that undermine pickup sales? Does it hurt them enough to impact SUV sales? Or am I being a Camino fanboy?
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
My recollection (which may be faulty) is, the Eagle had higher ground clearance than really needed.

That said, it could well have led to a "utility wagon" of sorts.

It also occurs to me AMC (following Ford & Chevy) could have produced a 4wd Eagle *Ranchero, like a larger Subaru Brat. (I'd also put in a vote for a Gremlin *Ranchero, which was prototyped but never built, with optional 401, in line with the Randall 401-XR, also with 4wd--which would be scary quick-accelerating.:eek: And :cool::cool::cool: {Dubiously legal for drag racing, tho... :teary::teary: } )

Take a look at the AMC Cowboy https://jalopnik.com/the-amc-cowboy-concept-is-as-american-as-an-eagle-eatin-1599859480

Add 4 wheel drive. Also AMC had designed a mini-van https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/10/rare-rides-a-one-off-amc-concept/

Although a hard sell, maybe the Federal Government mandate a Frontal Area Maximum. Base this upon existing sedans/vans/light trucks. Use a baseline of 7 foot/84 inch width and 4.5 foot/54 inch height. Thus, 31.5 square feet/4536 square inches. Also, strictly enfocre the bumper height rules, linking these to Federal Highway funding. A manufacturer could build wide vehicles or tall vehicles, not both. Provide a penalty for each square inch outside th
 
s-l300.jpg

And when I was 15 in 1978, the family of one of my friends had this.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The Suburban, as with the Willys Wagon, have been around for decades before our timeline. The best we could see is keeping tnese vehicles as truck-like as possible. Once they become luxury barge replacements, we are back to present day.
 
The Suburban, as with the Willys Wagon, have been around for decades before our timeline. The best we could see is keeping tnese vehicles as truck-like as possible. Once they become luxury barge replacements, we are back to present day.

I offended a co-worker once by calling the Suburban a raised up station wagon. I seriously thought he wanted to fight me.
 
Last edited:
I've come across that before. Thx for reminding me. (I can't explain not recalling...:oops::oops: ) I'd build it, 2- & 4wd, & 2- & 4-dr, if I could get away with it. (I'd still add the Gremlin version, 401 & all, because it's just too cool. {I read a magazine piece once on the construction of the prototype, with pictures. I've wanted one ever since.})
I've come across that before, too. Thx (again) for reminding me. (I can't explain not recalling...:oops::oops::oops: ) I'd build it, for sure. Question is, do they have the sense to make it FWD? (Fixing the headlights would be good. Bringing the windshield down a couple of inches, too.)
Although a hard sell, maybe the Federal Government mandate a Frontal Area Maximum. Base this upon existing sedans/vans/light trucks. Use a baseline of 7 foot/84 inch width and 4.5 foot/54 inch height. Thus, 31.5 square feet/4536 square inches. Also, strictly enfocre the bumper height rules, linking these to Federal Highway funding. A manufacturer could build wide vehicles or tall vehicles, not both. Provide a penalty for each square inch outside that
Sounds good. IDK if you can actually achieve it.

On bumper height, I'd change one thing: maximum height, not a set height. A set height prevents lowering, & may prevent sectioning. I'm no fan of pavement-scraping lowering jobs, but I wouldn't make them illegal. (Giving cops another way to harass customizers isn't something I'd endorse.)
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Yes, I occasionally suffer from CRS, Can't Remember.....Stuff. We have seen these two AMC prototypes in several threads over the last several years.
Bumper height should be a range to match the side impact zones.
The "Box Rule" suggested is approximately those of land barges. I would suggest a steady reduction starting in the late 70's. Thus, you can go wide, or high, not both.
 
Yes, I occasionally suffer from CRS, Can't Remember.....Stuff. We have seen these two AMC prototypes in several threads over the last several years.
I find it's my getting older. Stuff doesn't stick in my memory like it used to. (Funny, using keyboard is a part of it; handwritten, I'd recall it.)
Bumper height should be a range to match the side impact zones.
I don't think you'd ever see a bumper dropped below the lower framerail, but that still is problematic to set in law--unless you set your lower limit to, say, 4"/10cm, which is likely to include 90% or so OEM cars. The upper limit being, IDK, 24-25", keeps the bumper below the bottom of the door window, & effectively makes the faux-Bigfoot 4x4s lillegal for the street. (It might make radical lowering illegal, too, since now, they're unsafe for side-impact reasons...:oops: ) Maybe 20"?

That leaves semis, shool buses, & such in a special class...& that might want other laws, which I'm not qualified to suggest. (I do like the European energy-absorbing underride protector rule, but that won't help with bus bumpers.)
The "Box Rule" suggested is approximately those of land barges. I would suggest a steady reduction starting in the late 70's. Thus, you can go wide, or high, not both.
I caught that.:) I don't disagree with the premise, or the goal, just question the implementation. (Should maybe have said that?;) )
 
A slight tangent that may or may not help.

What is the attraction of the very large pickup trucks? Most countries max out at 1 ton Landcruiser size. Any bigger you get a genuine truck.

A friend of mine has suggested it is because pickup trucks see a lot of service as prime movers for farm work. I know that overseas they are mostly used for mid weight stuff like horse floats and caravans.

Is there something unique about rural USA that allows these not quite trucks to exist?
 
A friend of mine has suggested it is because pickup trucks see a lot of service as prime movers for farm work. I know that overseas they are mostly used for mid weight stuff like horse floats and caravans.

Is there something unique about rural USA that allows these not quite trucks to exist?
Got to be able to move your stuff around to have fun
3291-Jayco2017_Eagle295BHOK_34RearTowing_1800x900.jpg
 
Top