In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I didn't suggest a smaller engine. I suggested a number of other things,
like programming ***SOME*** models of SUVs to shift like a car instead
of
a
truck. Let me know if you don't understand this.

What I don't understand is why you think that changing the drive train
from
RWD/4WD to FWD - while keeping the *same* engine - is going to have some
mystical enormous effect on fuel mileage. It just doesn't work that way.

Who said "mystical"? I believe it's you that's been focused on what a
small
difference it would make. But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a
vehicle, and together they added, say, 20% more gas mileage?

Changing the drive train from RWD to FWD is very, very far from being a
"simple change".

Zzzzzzzzzz.........

90% of SUV owners would be better off with FWD. Making the change for
millions of vehicles is very cost effective.

There you go again, trying to tell other people what's best for them. Tell you
what: you buy what you want, let other people buy what they want, and
everybody's happy. Except you, because they're not buying what you want them
to buy.

And... there you go again, making claims about cost-effectiveness without
having the first shred of evidence or knowledge on which to base them.
Reengineering, say, the Suburban, from RWD/4WD to FWD would be *enormously*
costly. That change would be "cost-effective" only if GM could recover the
costs of doing so; how do you propose they do that?



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

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