Are today's cars fat?

[Demon-Xanth]

A couple examples:

Honda Civic:
1979: 1800LBs
1981: 2000LBs
1988: 2300LBs
2001: 2500LBs
2006: 2700LBs

Mitsubishi Eclipse:
1990: 2600Lbs
1995: 3000LBs
2000: 3100LBs
2006: 3600LBs

Pontiac Grand Prix:
1988: 3300LBs
1997: 3400LBs
2006: 3500LBs

Dodge Dakota:
1988: 2800LBs (regular cab)
1990: 3500LBs (extended cab)
1998: 4000LBs
2006: 4600LBs

Cars which used to be small, light cars really aren't light at all anymore. I mean, a 1968 Chevelle is considered a "big heavy" car and weighs in at about 3500LBs. But even compacts have grown so fat that thier old engines couldn't even get the cars out of the way of themselves.

 

[Juno]

yeah, we are americans and cars need to carry sh!tload of heavyweights.

 

[Submit]

Seems like it...my two seater is around 3100lbs...

 

[loic2003]

They're heavier because of extra comfort features, but mainly safety features. European and jap cars hve become increasingly more efficient over the years which more than balances out the extra weight, wheres the majority of US cars just have bigger, inefficient engines to drive the extra weight.

Look at the golf GTi for example. Twice the weight, but twice the number of horses. IIRC similar or less emissions.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Yes but its a little deceptive. Because a large portion of the increased weight is in the engine compartment. Our constant desire for more power even in economy cars has driven all cars to have larger more powerful engings. Even though the total vehicle weight contiues to go up, the power to weight ratio has also continually risen.

And increased safety equipment also has added to the weight, as well as larger tires and rims. How many cars have 13" rims anymore?

 

[chambersc]

i personally like fatter cars. personal preference, though.

 

[imported_Phil]

Side-impact bars and suchlike are heavy.

/thread

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: loic2003
They're heavier because of extra comfort features, but mainly safety features. European and jap cars hve become increasingly more efficient over the years which more than balances out the extra weight, wheres the majority of US cars just have bigger, inefficient engines to drive the extra weight.

Look at the golf GTi for example. Twice the weight, but twice the number of horses. IIRC similar or less emissions.

1988 Pontiac Grand Prix:
19/28MPG, 145HP 2.8L V6
2006 Pontiac Grand Prix:
19/28MPG, 260HP supercharged 3.8L V6
18/27MPG, 303HP 5.3L V8

Not buying that part of it.

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse:
22/30MPG, 1.8L I4
2006:
22/30MPG, 162HP 2.4L I4
18/27MPG, 263HP 3.8L V6

 

[radioouman]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: loic2003
They're heavier because of extra comfort features, but mainly safety features. European and jap cars hve become increasingly more efficient over the years which more than balances out the extra weight, wheres the majority of US cars just have bigger, inefficient engines to drive the extra weight.

Look at the golf GTi for example. Twice the weight, but twice the number of horses. IIRC similar or less emissions.

1988 Pontiac Grand Prix:
19/28MPG, 145HP 2.8L V6
2006 Pontiac Grand Prix:
19/28MPG, 260HP supercharged 3.8L V6
18/27MPG, 303HP 5.3L V8

Not buying that part of it.

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse:
22/30MPG, 1.8L I4
2006:
22/30MPG, 162HP 2.4L I4
18/27MPG, 263HP 3.8L V6

The higher horsepower numbers are just from higher redlines for these engines.. (many of them anyway)

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: radioouman

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: loic2003
They're heavier because of extra comfort features, but mainly safety features. European and jap cars hve become increasingly more efficient over the years which more than balances out the extra weight, wheres the majority of US cars just have bigger, inefficient engines to drive the extra weight.

Look at the golf GTi for example. Twice the weight, but twice the number of horses. IIRC similar or less emissions.

1988 Pontiac Grand Prix:
19/28MPG, 145HP 2.8L V6
2006 Pontiac Grand Prix:
19/28MPG, 260HP supercharged 3.8L V6
18/27MPG, 303HP 5.3L V8

Not buying that part of it.

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse:
22/30MPG, 1.8L I4
2006:
22/30MPG, 162HP 2.4L I4
18/27MPG, 263HP 3.8L V6

The higher horsepower numbers are just from higher redlines for these engines.. (many of them anyway)

 

[AdamK47]

The weight will be higher if you want a car with a perceived quality interior, tons of safety features, electronics galore, and yet be affordable. Weight reduction through the use of light weight higher quality materials can raise the price of a vehicle significantly. Just look at Chrysler/Dodge. Heavy bloated vehicles that use cheaper and heavier materials, but they do it in a way where the perceived overall quality to the buyer seems greater.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: radioouman

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: loic2003
They're heavier because of extra comfort features, but mainly safety features. European and jap cars hve become increasingly more efficient over the years which more than balances out the extra weight, wheres the majority of US cars just have bigger, inefficient engines to drive the extra weight.

Look at the golf GTi for example. Twice the weight, but twice the number of horses. IIRC similar or less emissions.

1988 Pontiac Grand Prix:
19/28MPG, 145HP 2.8L V6
2006 Pontiac Grand Prix:
19/28MPG, 260HP supercharged 3.8L V6
18/27MPG, 303HP 5.3L V8

Not buying that part of it.

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse:
22/30MPG, 1.8L I4
2006:
22/30MPG, 162HP 2.4L I4
18/27MPG, 263HP 3.8L V6

The higher horsepower numbers are just from higher redlines for these engines.. (many of them anyway)

LOL

I'm not going to refute this statement, just sit back and laugh...

 

[Zenmervolt]

From this write-up in Road & Track:

"Calling out thousands of component weights is beyond the scope of this column, but suffice to say the powertrain is the heaviest single item, with remaining vehicle weight fairly evenly distributed. We'll also note weight is the enemy of almost every automotive aspect, whether it is acceleration, braking, cornering, fuel economy or emissions, so manufacturers work feverishly to reduce it.

There are two strategies to reducing weight: eliminate parts and reduce the weight of the remaining parts. For decades the industry has done a fair job of reducing weight of the parts, mainly through the substitution of plastics for metal. Unfortunately, those savings have been overwhelmed by the addition of new parts. Many such parts are mandated, such as side-impact bars, airbags and emissions equipment; others appear due to customer demand. Air conditioning, a more rigid, better handling chassis, powerful sound systems, even cup-holders, are examples of the latter. This is why vehicle weights have risen in spite of thinner fenders and windshields, more accurately placed sound deadening, the ubiquity of plastic and on and on.

While composite construction offers immense weight savings, its material and labor costs are indeed stratospheric. The Porsche Carrera GT's carbon-fiber chassis, for example, takes a week to hand assemble via 1000 steps, one reason the car costs $440,000. Even after years of effort, substituting aluminum for steel has proven challenging enough in mainstream production and is still not viable except for non-structural panels such as hoods and decklids."

ZV

 

[sciencewhiz]

The 2001 civic also has a wheelbase about a foot longer then a 1979 civic.

 

[zephyrprime]

I think the biggest reasons for the incerased weight are bigger cars and more structural safety features. For example, the current civic and corolla look bigger than the 1980 accord and camry.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: radioouman

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: loic2003
They're heavier because of extra comfort features, but mainly safety features. European and jap cars hve become increasingly more efficient over the years which more than balances out the extra weight, wheres the majority of US cars just have bigger, inefficient engines to drive the extra weight.

Look at the golf GTi for example. Twice the weight, but twice the number of horses. IIRC similar or less emissions.

1988 Pontiac Grand Prix:
19/28MPG, 145HP 2.8L V6
2006 Pontiac Grand Prix:
19/28MPG, 260HP supercharged 3.8L V6
18/27MPG, 303HP 5.3L V8

Not buying that part of it.

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse:
22/30MPG, 1.8L I4
2006:
22/30MPG, 162HP 2.4L I4
18/27MPG, 263HP 3.8L V6

The higher horsepower numbers are just from higher redlines for these engines.. (many of them anyway)

LOL

I'm not going to refute this statement, just sit back and laugh...

*snigger*
So if my Focus revved to, say, 14000rpm, would it make double the power? Triple? Quadruple? How high would it need to rev to match a Ford GT?

:laugh:

 

[Trikat]

I guess people want heavier cars as they don't care much about gas milage...
Plus a majority of Americans are idiots and just want to cruise around in their land barges... Ditch the fat and then you can actually fit well in a car. (If you can)

But also with the addons and safety that will increase weight.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

^^ 4'-2" and drive a Pinto

 

[dug777]

Meh, my '89 323 hatch is a total fatty compared to my gf's excel...

it's a damn sight easier to throw around tho, much more predictable as to when it will let go of the road

 

[acemcmac]

Absolutley!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ONLY thing I really HATE about the new mustang and the 300C is the weight!!!

My next car will be a miata b/c I'm tired of driving these 3200lb+ tanks!

the new charger/300 platform has several vehicles with curbs over 4000lbs!!!!

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
Absolutley!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ONLY thing I really HATE about the new mustang and the 300C is the weight!!!

My next car will be a miata b/c I'm tired of driving these 3200lb+ tanks!

the utter butt uglyness of the 300C doesn't worry you?

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: acemcmac
Absolutley!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ONLY thing I really HATE about the new mustang and the 300C is the weight!!!

My next car will be a miata b/c I'm tired of driving these 3200lb+ tanks!

the utter butt uglyness of the 300C doesn't worry you?

I actually kinda like it

I like the CTS more though

 

[Doggiedog]

I read this week the average vehicle weight is 4,100lbs. Not sure if that includes trucks.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: acemcmac
Absolutley!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ONLY thing I really HATE about the new mustang and the 300C is the weight!!!

My next car will be a miata b/c I'm tired of driving these 3200lb+ tanks!

the utter butt uglyness of the 300C doesn't worry you?

I actually kinda like it

I like the CTS more though

i guess we prefer our cars with curves...Monaro style. Different car cultures...

 

[Rubycon]

Yes it's outrageous that people use a 1900kg vehicle to transport their 60kg bodies around in.