Why all the SUV's and Trucks?

[fcorrales80]

To drive...

[Wyoming Darrell]

Originally Posted by collinsl

When my family visited AZ/NM last, my father said that you all needed large engined trucks to reduce wear when travelling long distances, and to increase fuel economy over said long diatances, as the trucks would only be dong 2,000 RPM at 70MPH instead of the 3,500 or 4,000 we would normally have in the UK.

Is this true?

Lloyd Collins
UK

In a word; No. Rpm is governed by gear ratio, not size of the engine. Most trucks come out standard with about 3.55 gearing. this means that for every time the tires turn once, the the engine must turn 3.55 revolutions. From that point the only variable is circumference of the tires. the Bigger the tire, the further you go with each RPM. Cars usually come out with closer to 3.00 gearing. Given the fact that the tires are smaller, you must turn more revolutions to go the same distance. The car will still get the better mileage because of much less air resistance and weight. Think of the difference in effort to push a 4x8 sheet of plywood (the pickup) on its upright edge,along at 70 miles per hour, compared to a sheet that is only about 2x6 (the car). Now factor in the fact that the truck will weigh about 2 1/2 times what the car weighs, you have even more difference.
The only way possible for the bigger engine to get better mileage than a small engine is by figuring ton-miles. The car will only carry a pay-load of about 500 lbs, while a 3/4 ton pickup will actually carry a payload of closer to 3,500 lbs, plus what you can put in a trailer. you factor the weight in and the truck then gets better mileage.
Man, I just read back what I just wrote and it almost confused me. I hope it helps you.

[Wyoming Darrell]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Solar, electic, and Hydrogen are not economically viable alternatives at this time. Look to Toyota and the Hybrids they are building. They can't find the product to produce the batteries needed to make the cars now. On top of that the only way to buy it is because of a government subsidy that brings the price down so that it seems to be economically viable. Still ever priced one of those cars? They are more expensive than a Gasoline powered version and the batteries will need to be replaced at some point. We use a lot of petrolium to produce electicity. If we were to build the 100 atomic plants that John McCain is proposing our need for petrolium would diminish and the current reserves would be extended 10 times what they are now. For example the reserves in the Gulf of Mexico would increase from 30 to 300 years. Another thing is that the cars they produce now are very efficient and very clean running. Yes we do send some smoke up in the air but the amount is limited and very economically viable.

The majority of the existing power plants are coal fired. A small percentage of the others are hydro-electric. Some are even NATURAL gas fired. Atomic power might do a lot for the environment, but they would do VERY little for the oil shortage problem.
Alternative Energy Demystified - Google Books Result

by Stan Gibilisco - 2006 - Science - 322 pages
Oil-Fired Power Plants In the United States, oil is used mainly for heating and propulsion, and is not widely used to generate electricity. ...

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Prinny

'If it looks good or not, shouldn't make any difference. I'd never let it make a difference.

And, that is fantastic to you.

And, that is what makes life so great - everyone has different ideas - if everyone thought the same - if everyone thought like you - it would be a dull and boring world

[Arizona Mike]

Threads like this are kind of fun because of the level of projection about others' motives and class prejudices put out. The market will ultimately decide the popularity of SUVs.

That being said, most of the SUVs I see around Scottsdale are driven by soccer-moms. Most of them will tell you they feel a big car can survive an accident better, and thus will keep their kids safer. I have no idea if that's true. I suspect it may be safer for the person in the SUV than the person in the Accord, if they're in the same accident.

And I like my Ford Explorer because I need something to haul all my stuff, and my TapOut sticker wouldn't look as good in the rear window of a Smart Car. Represent!

[mattpresley]

Originally Posted by JustinH

I see tons of lifted trucks and SUV's in las vegas, driving around the strip.

Maybe they go off-roading on the weekends or whatever.

I would like a 4 cylinder ford ranger to get plywood at home depot, but a huge truck doesn't appeal to me..

A own a four cyl ranger. very very slow but good on gas. Great work truck. occasionally pulled a 6x10 trailer no problems. its a 99 i owned since new. 120000 miles with no issues besides basic maintnence. I am in need of balljoints soon though.

[mattpresley]

Originally Posted by Arizona Mike

Threads like this are kind of fun because of the level of projection about others' motives and class prejudices put out. The market will ultimately decide the popularity of SUVs.

That being said, most of the SUVs I see around Scottsdale are driven by soccer-moms. Most of them will tell you they feel a big car can survive an accident better, and thus will keep their kids safer. I have no idea if that's true. I suspect it may be safer for the person in the SUV than the person in the Accord, if they're in the same accident.

And I like my Ford Explorer because I need something to haul all my stuff, and my TapOut sticker wouldn't look as good in the rear window of a Smart Car. Represent!

Gotta love the exploder. thats what my wife drives. I swear by ranger based vehicles

[QuirkyBound]

Originally Posted by Wyoming Darrell

In a word; No. Rpm is governed by gear ratio, not size of the engine. Most trucks come out standard with about 3.55 gearing. this means that for every time the tires turn once, the the engine must turn 3.55 revolutions. From that point the only variable is circumference of the tires. the Bigger the tire, the further you go with each RPM. Cars usually come out with closer to 3.00 gearing. Given the fact that the tires are smaller, you must turn more revolutions to go the same distance.

Not exactly. There is a whole set of gears within the transmission as well tat you are forgetting about. For instance, the LS1 engine used in the later Camaros get tremendous highway gas mileage (over 30mpg real world mileage) with a manual transmission given the huge overdrive that the torque of the engine is capable of turning at low RPMs.

Additionally, the post you were responding to had to do with reduced engine wear at lower RPMs. Basicly, turning high RPMs for long periods of time does tend towards more wear and tear but this is highly dependent on the specific engine design and related more towards the power band and load on the engine.

Put an underpowered engine turning high rpms in a larger vehicle and the gas mileage will be amazingly poor and the engine life will be very short.

Also, rear end gears vary amazingly from vehicle to vehicle and the 3.55 truck, 3.00 car estimation is not at all accurate. Many imports have much closer to a 4.0 rear end gear actually but vary amazingly model by model.