Michigan State Police Tests 2004 Patrol Vehicles, Bulletin

• NCJ Number: 201824
• Date Published: January 2004
• Length: 8 pages
• Grant Number(s): 96-MU-MU-K011
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)

Annotation

This report contains a synopsis of the Michigan State Police evaluation of the performance capabilities of its 2004 model year patrol vehicles.

Abstract

Patrol vehicles are among the most critical purchases that a law enforcement agency makes and represent the second largest expenditure in their annual operating budgets. For many years, the Michigan State Police (MSP) has conducted extensive evaluations of the performance capabilities of each new model year's police vehicles under its annual vehicle procurement process. This report presents the results of the MSP evaluation of its 2004 model year patrol vehicles conducted in 2003 and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center. Each vehicle is subjected to six major tests and evaluations which are weighted to reflect the relative importance of each attribute as related to MSP operational requirements. Four police-package vehicles and four special-service vehicles were submitted for evaluation. Vehicle makes tested consisted of Chevrolet, Ford, and DaimlerChryler. Testing results are presented in five areas. To determine high-speed pursuit handling characteristics, a vehicle dynamics test was performed with the evaluation measuring each vehicle's blending of suspension components, acceleration capabilities, and braking characteristics. To determine the time required for each test vehicle to accelerate from a standing start to 60 miles-per-hour (mph), 80 mph, and 100 mph, an acceleration and top speed test was conducted. A braking test was performed to determine the deceleration rate attained by each test vehicle on 12, 60-to-0 mph impending skid (threshold) stops, with ABS in operation. To rate the vehicle's ability to provide a suitable environment for patrol officers to perform their job, to accommodate the required communications and emergency warning equipment, and to assess the relative difficulty of installing the equipment an ergonomics and communications test was performed. Lastly, a fuel economy test was performed to determine fuel economy potential. Exhibits