Reader: In 4xForward (Oct. '06), Rick Pw wrote about "Our new crawlability test," saying, "We've decided to eliminate any 4x4 that can't be crawled under." He then says that even with traction control or full lockers it's a simple fact that many of these rigs can't even get over the minor obstacles at the start of the trail, and that is where I disagree with him. I own a '94 Jeep Cherokee (completely stock) and I have taken it over the whole Naches Trail. Just because they don't have the clearance just means they have to use more smarts on the approach and what not.
I have gone where Jeeps and trucks running taller than 35-inch tires could not go just because of experience and knowing what and where to drive and go. (By the way I am only 15 years old.)
Alex Smith, Issaquah, WA
Editor: Actually Alex, you answered your own question/statement. I'll bet you can easily crawl under a stock XJ, as I know I can. We've been on the Naches Trail ourselves and agree that it can be very tough. However, our statement was that many (not all) vehicles can't even get to the trail because of ground clearance, such as air dams and the like. Lockers are not the savior of the wheeling world, and if you can't even reach the dirt, no locker is going to make up for that. Keep on wheeling open, we're proud of you learning to wheel the right way!
Reader: I just wanted to give kudos and thanks for your suspension shootout ("Chevy Runaround," Jan. '07). As a 55-year-old owner of a landscaping company and a '93 heavy-duty-suspension F-250 4x4, I subscribe to and read virtually every top automotive and "truckomotive" publication there is. I also own an '84 500SEC rocketship, a Cadillac SDV DeElegance with NorthStar, and a '68 GTO convertible. I won the 1983 (or was it '84? Guess I'll have to check the jacket I won) Super Chevy Sunday Nationals in my '80 'Vette that I drove to Indy from Chicago and beat more than 1,000 trailer queens in the street-tire class and drove home. Not braggin', but I wanted to establish some creds as someone who knows vehicularnacular. Your article on suspension/lift kits was the most comprehensive, useful, and informative (not to mention interesting and enjoyable) article I may have ever read in an automotive/truck (scratch that: any) magazine. Thank you so very much for actually providing an article that must have taken you and your team an awful lot of work and expense to put together. An article like that helps me to remember to renew my subscription.
Ted Ostrem
Charleston, IL
Editor: Thanks. We appreciate that. We plan to do more of these types of shootouts, so stay tuned and see what we come up with.
Reader: I just want to let you guys know that my 10 dollar a year subscription money needs to go to Jerrod Jones. He had a great idea for the Suspension Supertest in the January issue ("Chevy Runaround") and I'm sure this isn't the only letter you will receive about it. Now you need to continue on with other trucks, like the '99-'03 Super Duty (I own one of course), and other popular trucks. There are so many choices it's hard to know which one to buy. I have looked at Donahoe Racing kits and wondered if they are worth the extra money. I'm sure they would participate just to prove how good they are. I own a '73 CJ-5 but it seems like my truck gets just as much wheeling because of the heater, leather seats, full cab, and six-disc CD player; the turbodiesel also comes in handy at times. I look forward to seeing "Super Duty Suspension Shootout" on the cover of a future issue.
Keith Balleck
Craig, CO
Editor: Just wait, we'd like to see that as well!
Reader: In Drivelines (Dec. '06) you guys say that you don't buy the fact that hydrogen motors are more efficient than a normal gasoline engine. You guys are totally out to lunch. Thermal efficiency has nothing to do with a motor's displacement. The efficiency of a motor is the energy output divided by the energy input. It's that simple. Gasoline motors have an efficiency of about 20 percent, and diesel motors are about 38 to 43 percent. Now since diesel has a higher energy content than gasoline and hydrogen has a higher energy content than any other substance, it should be fairly evident that a hydrogen motor is more efficient. So, just to clarify: Comparing two motors that use different fuels based on the motors' individual displacements is fundamentally flawed, and totally moronic.
James Henson EIT
Calgary, AB, Canada
Editor: Freelancer (and former 4WOR editor) Drew Hardin responds:
Gee, I love starting my day by being called a moron. It gets the creative juices flowing. I will stand corrected on one point: Hydrogen does inherently have a higher energy content than gasoline. However, its ultra-lean burn, which is good for emissions, has a corresponding negative effect on the power that the engine ultimately produces. This is why Ford requires a hydrogen-powered engine with 415 cubic inches, plus forced induction, to equal the horsepower output of a 281-inch gasoline engine. For the same reason, BMW had to dial down the output of its hydrogen-powered 7-series V-12 engine from in excess of 400 hp in the gas version to 260 hp in the gas/hydrogen model. Now, I'm obviously no engineer, but having to pull back power or go up in engine size to achieve similar power levels doesn't sound "efficient" to me.