Replies

The 1972 Ford Maverick was a terrible vehicle, but it was better in every respect than a 1949 Ford Sedan. Vehicle technology improves with every generation. Because a 2005 Ford Escape is superior to a 1972 Ford Maverick does not mean a much better car would not be available in a deregulated environment.

The problem with CAFE is it exempted light trucks from the standard. The definition of a light truck mandated that the load floor for the SUV class must be flat from the tailgate to the back of the driver's seat. This requires the load floor to be placed entirely above the rear axle.

Normally, the decision on where to place this floor would be made by the designer, and would be lowered as much as possible to lower center of gravity and improve stability and aerodynamics. But this design decision has been removed from the designer, and been mandated by legislation.

The resulting vehicle is taller and more unstable that it otherwise would need to be. This makes them more inefficient that they would otherwise need to be.

Hey, if you need to go off road or carry 4x8s around, a large SUV might be the very thing. Some were sold even before the CAFE dodge came along, and some would be sold today. But most people who buy SUVs only do so because conventional vehicles with comparable power and room are no longer available, because they are not exempt and have been all but made illegal under CAFE.

If CAFE were eliminated, and the decisions were placed back into the hands of the designers, they would come up with a better solution to this problem.

The problem with CAFE is it exempted light trucks from the standard.

The problem with CAFE is that it exists.

The resulting vehicle is taller and more unstable that it otherwise would need to be.

Much because it became the thing to sit higher than other drivers. The Expedition driver sat higher than the Suburban driver so the Suburban had to be raised in height.

Sure glad you didn't pick on the '73 Maverick, I'd have taken issue. (While admitting mine's a bit altered).

A note to the "mine gets what EPA says it gets" crowd, I had the misfortune of renting a Lexus something or other last month and it got the same mileage on the highway as our Explorer - and well below what I got from a '67 Falcon V-8.

I see your points. I'll grant you that rules drove design.

Now about this ... "The resulting vehicle is taller and more unstable that it otherwise would need to be. This makes them more inefficient that they would otherwise need to be."

A taller/higher vehicle with a higher center of gravity AND a higher roll center will always be a vehicle that cannot generate lateral acceleration equal to a vehicle with a lower CG and lower roll center. That's the physics. So indeed SUVs built on a truck chassis are generally less maneuverable than comparably sized 'car' chassis. I still can;t grant you the 'unstable' label because the SUVs are entirely predictable and controllable within design limits. "Unstable" as a label implies a deficiency that isn't really there. They are entirely stable enough for their purpose. A Honda Accord is far less stable/maneuverable/controllable in violent or sudden maneuvering than a Porsche 963, but that doesn't make the Accord unstable.

to wit, dictionary.com defines stable as --

1. Resistant to change of position or condition; not easily moved or disturbed: a house built on stable ground; a stable platform.
2. Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation: a stable economy; a stable currency.
3. Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring: a stable aircraft.

An SUV can be labeled as less-stable than _________ (pick your sedan), but not unstable.

Also being less stable does not make them inefficient. Can't locate any cause and effect there ;-) A Testarossa is far more stable than my niece's Honda, but grossly more (fuel)-inefficient.

REM: I agree that a fully unregulated environment would produce different and better vehicles.