In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

Assume I'm right about the first paragraph below, for the sake of arguement,
and because I really *am* right about it:

The vast majority of SUV owners have absolutely no need for the mechanical
design features of those cars. No towing, no off-road, and as any cop, tow
truck driver or keen observer of drivers in the snow belt will tell you, 4WD
is of no advantage to most drivers, and may actually be a hindrance. The
only possible advantage to SUVs (and I won't touch this debate) is that they
may be safer in collisions.

"may be" ????? _Of_course_ they're safer in collisions: they're bigger and
heavier. No argument with the rest of what you've stated.

With me so far?

Yep.

Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly, and the
car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should find an
incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car makers to offer the
same SUVs, but with power trains which more closely approach "normal". "Not
like a truck", in other words. The power train design is the PRIMARY reason
these vehicles get such bad mileage.

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape and high weight. Put
a smaller, weaker engine in one, and it might get *worse* mileage - or it
might not move at all.

Give customers the same physical, boxy
shape they want, same choice of motors, but with front wheel drive.

Impractical. And it won't make much difference in fuel mileage, either.

The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since most
customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd vehicle.
And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for them. I don't
think many will.

Even more impractical.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.