i've noticed a trend, other than style, makes no sense to me. my dad had an 89 ranger, my 94 ranger was more aerodynamic, and has slowly gotten more boxy. same for the fullsize, 90's fseries-boxy, 97-03 more streamlined, 04-08 back to boxy, and the 09's look even boxier. what gives? why do the car companies start making boxier vehicles when gas prices start doing what they are doing? every day a record breaker for the cost of a barrel. it's doubled in the last year. this seems to prove my conspiracy theory that the oil companies and car makers are in each other's pockets.

any thought, or is somehow boxy easier to push through the air.?

 

Its just style. Form over function. There was an article recently about big rigs that highlighted this. An owner-operator traded in his boxy, chrome-laden Peterbuilt for a more aerodynamic Volvo. He hates the look, but has to make a profit. Its a business after all.

Personally, I hated the 97-03 F-150 style, but I know what you mean. It is not a conspiracy, just Ford missing the boat, since products are planned three years in advance so they are stuck with the 2009. I understand they are working to get a smaller, lighter, F-100 on the market. Since it will be based on the existing F-150 frame, Im not sure how much weight they will be able to save, but maybe a much more aero body, if it will sell.

Jim

 

Aerodynamics won't save the day where trucks are concerned since the size and weight are still problems. Note that even 18-wheelers aren't very streamlined, and fuel costs are a severe burden in that market.

"it's doubled in the last year. this seems to prove my conspiracy theory that the oil companies and car makers are in each other's pockets."

Logic takes a steaming dump on that theory, because profits may be tracked and the car companies that weren't prepared are getting hammered. Car companies need CHEAP fuel so they can sell feature-bloated pigmobiles for high profits, which worked just fine until recently.

Here's a more logically supportable theory:
The vast majority of customers are drooling idiots who don't think more the "me want shiny object" and buy accordingly. The average person knows NOTHING about what they drive or think they want to.

 

noticed this the other day. my dad paid around 13000 in october 2006 for a 2007 reg cab stick 4.2v6. i think the bigger ones are down to 12 grand or less, a new barebone single cab 4cyl stick ranger is 15 grand. funny how the more economical vehicles are becoming more expensive.

 

But going from, say, 20 mpg to 25 or 30 mpg would still be a significant improvement at the current gas prices.

In any case, I think the next generation of cars, and to a lesser extent, trucks, are going to be more aerodynamic than the current generation.

And US car companies are hammered partly because they didn't have the foresight to start developing hybrids in time. OK, the Honda Insight was a flop (albeit if it were on the market, it would probably be selling like hotcakes right now ), but the Prius was a runaway success. Because of their weight and RWD, trucks and SUVs would be ideal for a hybrid option: it should be relatively easy to add 2 small electric motors to the front wheels that can do regenerative braking, propel the vehicle at low speed, make it to a 4WD, or help during heavy acceleration.

 

So far about the only advantage a fullsixe hybrid SUV has over a normal gas SUV is increased city mpg. If you look at the specs for the hybrid Chevy Tahoe and compare them to the gas Tahoe the hybrid is heavier but it gets something like 21mpg in the city as opposed to the gas only which gets 15mpg, and they both get the same mpg on the highway.
What it comes down to is it takes a lot of energy to move a 5000 pond brick down the road at 65mph, if you want better mpg shed about 2000lbs and shape the vehicle like a teardrop.

 

I tried to look it up 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe Specs and Features - MSN Autos
but it's not there, and the manufacturer's website says limited availability, some marketing verbiage, and not much else.

For weight, the comparison should be made to similar 4WD versions, and the lack of T-case, front drive shaft, heavier axle should negate at least some of the extra weight added by the hybrid system. Furthermore, because of the few extra HP from the electric motors, a smaller engine can be used that would translate to some additional saving.

 

Ok here are a couple of links.



2008 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid 1HY 4WD — Yahoo! Autos

2008 Chevrolet Tahoe LTZ 4WD — Yahoo! Autos

Basically it is 20Hwy/20city for the Hybrid and 20hwy/14city for the gas only. So if you do a lot of city driving the hybrid is better, but then again if you have to do a lot of city driving it does not make much sense to buy a Tahoe.

 

The hybrid has a 6.0L V8 while the other has a 5.3L V8.....
Need I say anything more?
Yes I guess, a 50k pricetag...

 

The hybrid Tahoe still does not make any sense to me, and its only purpose is to cater to the small niche market of hypocritical environmentalists. What do people think when purchasing one of these things? If they are comfortable forking over 50 grand for an SUV then they obviously have the extra cash flow to pay $100 to fill the gas tank and anyway you cut it buying a 20mpg vehicle for a daily driver is not lowering the nations dependent on oil.