NewtonianAlch said:
I don't think he's trying to say the coefficient of friction is enough to stop it rolling. I think rather that the car is driving downwards intentionally and the coefficient of friction between the road and tyres is 0.3.
No, let me try again.
If the coefficient of friction between tyre and road is only 0.3 then the car will slide, accelerating down the hill, rather than travel at a steady speed.
Friction between tyre and road does not slow a car down - it's what is required for a car to get traction. If the tyres are rolling without slipping then there's no work done against friction; there's no relative motion of the surfaces in contact, so there's no movement in direction of the force.
For both of these reasons, I suggest that the author means rolling resistance, not friction.
The work that is done (on a level road) is against rolling resistance. As mentioned, this is mainly the work done in changing the shape of the tyre as it rolls along.
If the car is traveling downhill at a steady speed, despite some work being done by the engine, then the rolling resistance must be so great that without the engine power it would not move. But this is not the case here: a slope of 30 degrees would be enough to overcome a rolling resistance coefficient of 0.5, let alone 0.3.
So I cannot make any sense of the question if the car is supposed to be going downhill. Let's try the uphill hypothesis.
On that presumption, there are two possibilities for the "0.3 coefficient of friction".
a) It should be rolling resistance. In this case, the work done by the engine is in overcoming rolling resistance and ascending the hill.
b) The coefficient should have been stated as rather more, enough to ensure rolling without slipping. In this case, the work done by the engine is only in ascending the hill.