Obesity is rampant in America. Between the Center for Disease Control’s dire reports, documentaries like “Honey We’re Killing the Kids” and endless infomercials for every diet and exercise program imaginable, it’s obvious we’re becoming a nation of Fat Bastards and Sherman Klumps. Now the Environmental Protection Agency is sounding the alarm about our cars. The EPA recently announced that America’s vehicle fleet is the heaviest it’s been since Ford touted the Pinto’s “road hugging weight” as a safety feature. Our cars and trucks, like their drivers, are piling on the pounds.
Let's face it: most vehicles sold in America are obese. Today’s average car is portlier than a binge-eating sumo, while your standard issue full-size SUV weighs as much as a fully-grown hippopotamus. In 1987, the U.S. fleet average was 3220 lbs. In 2006, the average US vehicle tips the scales at a scarcely credible 4142 lbs. In a time of high gas prices, when we should be building cars that eke out the last mpg, this makes no sense at all. Or does it?
In the intervening years, federally mandated safety equipment and the commercial importance of crash test ratings have added weight to America’s fleet. But, in 2001 (the last year where I could find applicable data), safety equipment accounted for only 125 lbs. of an average vehicle’s total weight. It’s risen since then, but even if you double this figure it’s still a far cry from the over 900 lbs. increase over the past 19 years.
Clearly, manufacturers have met passive safety requirements without resorting to simple fortification. In fact, the weight gain comes in spite of an upsurge in lighter-weight automotive materials. Cars were once built almost entirely out of ferrous materials; today’s vehicles are constructed with less than 65% steel. The remainder consists of materials like plastic, aluminum, magnesium, titanium and balsa wood. Yet vehicles keep adding poundage.
Of course, it takes energy to move all this mass around. While most manufacturers meet federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (save fine-paying miscreants like BMW), almost every single carmaker has shown a lamentable decrease in overall fuel economy during the past three years. As weight goes up, so does fuel consumption. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out, so why can’t carmakers cut the crap? Why aren’t they doing more to decrease the weight of their products across the board?
The bottom line is the bottom line. The auto companies are in business to make money (Ford’s and GM’s recent performances notwithstanding). Large SUV’s and pickups are far more profitable than passenger cars. Automakers have been doing everything they can to push as many of these money-makers into the hands of the consumer as possible. Until recently, the car-buying public rushed to them like bomb shelters in Baghdad, oblivious to their appetite for Jurassic juice. As car makers sold entire flotillas of big-ass behemoths, they’ve driven the average weight stats higher and the fuel economy averages lower.
Consumers who wouldn’t even think of buying an SUV or pickup truck are also contributing to the trend toward excess automotive avoirdupois. Once upon a time, electric windows, remote alarms and power door locks were a luxury. Just ten years ago, sunroofs, automatic climate control and sat nav systems were restricted to luxury cars. Today, all these toys are available in the most basic econobox, and a “necessity” in any car with upmarket pretensions. Extra goodies, extra weight. No wonder the two-door Honda Civic has porked-up nearly 400 pounds over the past 10 years.
So what’s the solution to this weighty problem? U.S. car makers must get serious about slimming down. Earlier this summer, several automakers established weight targets for parts and asked suppliers to redesign them accordingly. That’s an excellent step in the right direction, but they need to go further. Every manufacturer redesigning their products– from economy cars to mid-size sedans to full-size SUV’s– needs to make weight loss a top priority. They should trim vehicle weight by at least 20% while maintaining utility. And why not? In 1977, GM downsized their entire full-sized passenger car lineup and watched sales go up. It’s time for an encore.
The American Plastics Council estimates every 10 percent reduction in weight delivers a seven percent increase in fuel efficiency. If the 5342 lbs. Chevrolet Tahoe lost 20% of its fat, urban mpg would rise from 16 to 18.24 mpg. But fuel economy isn’t the only benefit. Can you image thrashing a Pontiac Solstice that weighed 500 lbs. less? Or how much more tossable a Honda Civic hatchback would be with today’s power at ‘96’s weight? For pistonheads, “road hugging weight” is as undesirable today as it was in the 70’s. No matter how you look at it, it’s time for all U.S. vehicles to go on a diet.
95 Comments on “Worth the Weight?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
First: Which weight are you talking about in the article? Curb weight? Gross weight?
I agree completely as far as vehicle weight. I wish there were more sub 1 ton sports cars.
The size of todays vehicles scare me. I can’t imagine getting hit by an escalade in my neon when the gross weight of my neon wit me + gas is sub 3k pounds and the escalade could be 7k pounds.
At this rate, people will be driving semi trailers eventually at 60k pounds.
Of my 3 vehicles, here are the weights:
2005 WRX STi (weekend car…or I use when the wife goes to work in the other car):
Curb weight: 3298 (http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/06/23/134049.html)
2000 plymouth neon: 2567
(http://www.nctd.com/review-final.cfm?Vehicle=2000_Plymouth_Neon&ReviewID=702)
2005 gsx-r 600 354.9
(http://www.uship.com/shipment/2005-Suzuki-GSX-R-600/690113335/)
Average weight: 2073.3…slightly more than a lotus elise
Similarly, my mpg (mixed) is:
sti: 20.5
gsx-r: 38
neon: 28 if I light it up, 34-35 a tank (I do 80% hw driving) if I keep it at 55.
If I weight these according to use (neon 60%, bike 10%, sti 30%) my average mpg is about 27.
What really amazes me that people have single vehicles that weigh almost as much as all of my 3 vehicles combined!
I think the weight problem with cars is pretty much tied to america’s obesity problem. Pull into any random Denny’s parking lot on any given morning and you’ll notice why pickups and SUV’s sell so well…. many people just can’t fit into midsize cars, let alone compacts.
All cars in general have been getting bigger and heavier, even the compacts and subcompacts are putting on weight. I think part of the reason is the cars have to be a lot more sturdier to improve crashworthiness, especially when lineup up against an SUV. The other part of the equation is more sound deadening, electronic goodies, etc.
Now that it seems fuel prices have started to dictate the market, i’m betting the average vehicle weight will slowly drop as many people leave their full-sized SUV’s for the “crossover” and so on.
The biggest obstacle in automotive weight loss has to be cost. Aluminum body panels are much lighter, but add expense in both the manufacture and in any service/replacement of those parts.
While I agree with your point here, there was not a whole lotta love shown to Jaguar for lightening its body structure in the market. Furthermore, if this was an achievement to be lauded, why has there been so little made of the MX5 (this was a MAJOR design objective they acheived)
Speaking of 1977 that was when the pinnacle of craptacular traction performace was achieved by GM with the Chev Monza offering (makes a camaro’s traction abilities seem like a CJ7 by comparison). Point here is judicious weight loss in the right areas.
One other area of heft gain is the interior itself….it wasnt too long ago that the interior door panels were backed with cardboard and or hardboard. To some degree a few of these weight gains are appreciated. However, achieve fuel efficiencies first, then add a margin of the weight back if needed to achieve a superior product.
After reading the Mustang droptop review, I did a quick check: turns out the Mustang weighs about 150lbs less than my Lincoln Mark VIII. That’s nuts, this is supposed to be a Pony car, not a land-yacht!
Our cars need a diet plan more than we need alternative fuels or hybrid technology.
Okay, good points all around but I have to wonder what the average fleet weight would be if you removed all the body-on-frame SUVs from the mix. 1987 was right at the beginning of the current SUV craze, so I can’t help but think that’s what’s skewing the data. As gas prices rise and people dump their SUVs, we can expect the average weight to go down considerably.
However, there are trade-offs here, too. Take a look at the average mid-sized compact from 1987 (whether Toyota, Chevy, Mazda, etc) and look at the one from today. Todays cars are physically bigger in nearly every dimension. I’d guess that accounts for much of the weight.
The change has been even more marked in so-called “compact trucks.” I don’t know what the weight on my 84 Mazda B2000 or my 85 Toyota 4×4 pickup were, but both managed to get along just fine with relatively small (and extremely economical) 2.0l 4 cyl engines (carbureted, even!) Now take a look at todays Mazda (i.e. Ford Ranger) and Toyota Tacoma and you see a vehicle that, to my untrained eye, looks at least 1/3 larger in all dimensions and needs a 3.5l V-6 to move it around.
So, the question then becomes, are we willing to get cars that are physically smaller to haul our increasingly fat asses around? Or are we willing to pay more so that our super-sized compacts can be made lighter by using more expensive lightweight material? It’s gotta be one or the other.
Of course, what happened in the intervening 19 years is that gas prices, relative to income, dropped dramatically. By the mid-90’s gas was cheaper, relatively speaking, than it had been in 1960, which is whey there was no down-side to getting a gas hog. As gas prices continue to rise, I think this will work itself out without external interference.
This time, I think you’re blaiming the wrong guy: While the car manufacturers would be perfectly able to build lighter cars, they don’t do it simply because they wouldn’t sell. Lighter cars get built if consumers demand it, and till now they don’t.
The reason being the tradeoffs involved: while everybody would favor a lighter car, reducing weight means either reducing amenities like sound proofing, power locks/steering etc, or raising the price (lightweight materials like magnesium or carbon fiber are a lot more expensive than simple steel).
Would you like a lighter car? Definitely yes.
Would you like a car that is 200 pounds lighter but costs 5000 bucks more? Most likely not.
Would you like a car that weights 400 pounds less, but has not sound insulation, no radio, no electronic extras, no AC and no airbags? Hell no!
renegade211: you’re forgetting that cars are getting bigger. Its the 1970s all over again.
Shrink the wheelbases, lower those beltlines, deflate the puffy posteriors, and you’ll save a couple hundred pounds. Cheap and easy.
i saw a sky recently and was astounded at how huge it was. i was expecting it to be a bit bigger that an mx5, but it looks like it ate an mx5. all that size and no trunk space? crazy! although i’m not sure the knock on the new civic is true. the new si is supposed to be the most tossable civic ever and still gets good mileage.
Sajeev is correct; look at some of the long running models, and see how they have porked up over the years. Back in the early 80s, we had a Toyota Corolla 2 door and that was a tiny car. I obtained some quick numbers from the MSN auto site for a 1988 (the earliest model there) and a 2006 Corolla.
The 2006 model ranges in weight from 2530 to 2670 pounds, has a 102.4″ wheelbase, is 178.3″ long and just under 67″ wide. The ‘88 Corolla weighed in the range of 2190 to 2372 pounds, had a 95.7″ wb, 170.3″ length and was 65.6″ wide.
I’ve thought that the new Corollas were close to the size of our ‘87 Camry, and taking the numbers from an ‘88 model I was not far off: the Camry of yore ranged from 2690 to 3086 pounds with a 102.4″ wb, 182.1″ long and 67.4″ wide; it’s bang on the same wheelbase! By comparison, the 2007 Camry has blown up to 3285 pounds at its lightest to 3495 pounds in the top of the line model. It’s got a 109″ wb, is 189.2″ long and 71.7″ wide. Wow.
I’m not singling Toyota out because they are bad, but because my spouse has owned a variety of them over the years so it was easy to compare in my head. The whole industry has been playing this game for a while.
Some had to. The biggest knocks against the Accord back in the day compared to the sales leader Taurus was its smaller size and lack of a v6 (even though the 4cyl’s could whip a v6 Taurus). The Accord had to grow to compete. The models we watch growing are moving into larger classes, and new vehicles are filling the gaps left behind. The civic is the same size as an old Accord. Now we have a Fit, and Yaris to sit where Civic and Corolla used to. Funny thing is, my 01 accord weighs what an 85 300zx did, so somethign was done right.
I usually love your articles, Frank, but this one is farly pointless.
Lightweight vechicles are the realm of the bargain-basement econobox and the sports/racing car. In everything else, weight takes a back seat to other considerations. How about all that sound-deadening material that provides the quiet ride consumers demand? That stuff is pretty dense.
Using “fleet average” weight doesn’t really tell us much. Trucks are a *much* higher proportion of the “fleet” nowadays. It takes a full-size car such as the Crown Victoria to weigh in at over 4100 pounds (my 1995 Impala SS, the “real” RWD one, weighed in at 4210)! A pletora of 4500~5500 lb. SUVs are going to slant the average. I wonder what the average is for just cars.
Even back then, cars weren’t necessarily featherweights. Ye olde 1981 Chrysler K-car weighed in at 3300 pounds. The 1981 Ford Escort was about 2300, not far off from Robstar’s Neon. Simlilarly-equipped cars aren’t significantly heavier than they were 2 decades ago, safety reinforcement notwithstanding.
The thing that has really changed is the market conditions. Your example of the Honda Civic fails to account for the fact that the model’s mission has changed since 1987. 80s Civics were entry-level cars. Today’s Civics are upmarket, with Honda having ceded the lower rung to Kia and Hyundai. Thus the current Civic is bigger, more plush, and as a result, heavier. But it’s a different car for a different purpose. Want a 1-ton set of wheels? Hello, Aveo!
That’s not to say that there isn’t room for some weight reduction here and there, but it isn’t the magic bullet.
Hang on here folks, Renegade is not wrong at all. The manufacturers dont make the public buy cars, the market DECIDES which cars they buy. Nobody forced UnclePete’s wife to buy another camry that was larger than the previous and you cannot rightly say that the current camry would be as successful WITHOUT growing in proportion (we just dont know that to be true). The market simply rewards growth in size, and subsequently weight, so the automakers respond accordingly. The auto industry, as powerful and as hosed up as it is simply cannot trump the entire market system. Many, MANY of the successful models are selling well precisely because they are bigger (think third row!).
Now to be clear, I dont have a necessarily have a problem with this added weight as long as efficiencies can account for or overcome the weight added. I dont miss the cardboard door panels of yesteryear, and I certainly dont miss the thirteen inch donut wheels of the Geo era. My current car has AWD and 18 inch wheels as the major cause of its heft, not too much else…both are welcome changes to the previous, and lighter, vehicle. Incidentally, the MPG jumped from 25 to 29 in spite of the added weight.
Why blame the manufacturer for making what people want? Big, cheap and powerful is what is in demand.
Each new model is bigger than the last so the new 3 series is the size of the old 5 series and the new Honda Civics don’t look much smaller than early 90s Accords. For some reason consumers love to have cars with 7 seating capacity even if they only have two kids or just drive it to work.
Cost is the other – weight saving materials are more expensive than steel so heavier is cheaper. While the Dodge Charger at 4000 pounds+ could really do with more aluminum, nobody wants to pay for it.
In the end, however, rising gas prices will take care of most of this as consumer pressure will force a change in product focus once gas hits $5 a gallon. It only a matter of time.
What I can’t figure out is that cars keep getting bigger and heavier, yet being a 6′4″ tall person, with a 34″ inseam, I cannot fit comfortably behind the driver wheel of 90% of the cars I drive. And forget small, lightweight cars!
Now, as I look around at the teenagers in my neighborhood, this is going to be a growing issue for many boys. And guess what vehicles are sized to fit me best? That’s right — full sized trucks and SUV’s. I own an MDX (seat all the way back, and tipped so my head clear the sunroof) and a 1994 MX-5 (they changed after ‘97, and I no longer fit with the top up.) I would love to have a small lightweight commuter car that was sized so I could be comfortable, not head cocked to one side and knees around the wheel. And I have yet to find a vehicle from ANY manufacturer I can heel toe in (wrong leg angle, and my feet hit the bottom of the dash in many smaller cars).
I am just lucky I fit in the older MX-5’s with a bearable amount of discomfort. Otherwise I am stuck driving full size SUV’s or mid 70’s 280Z’s (for some inexplicable reason those have leg room of the gods!). And neither of those are light.
I would seriously consider paying a premium for a cool car (say a Mustang) with a couple hundred pounds lopped off.
Let’s look at 1960, when Americans decided to down-size and many, many people bought “compacts” which were usually about 15′ long and could still seat six. “Full sized” big-3 cars were nearly 18′ long and weighed in at about 3600 pounds, up (mostly, up). Let’s look at 4 door sedans.
Ford Falcon. 144 cubic inches (2.3 liters), 6 cylinder. Gutless wonder (my dad had one). 85 horsepower (gross, not net). 0-60 in about 17-20 sec.
Weighed 2288 pounds. Unit body.
Valiant (by Plymouth). 170 cubic inches (2.8 liters), 6 cylinder. 101 horsepower. Weighed 2635 pounds. Unit body. Could be had with an optional aluminum block reducing weight by about 100 pounds.
Chevrolet Corvair. 140 cubic inches (2.3 liters) opposed 6 cylinder, air cooled, rear engine. 80 horsepower. Weighed 2305 pouds. Unit body.
Studebaker Lark. 170 cubic inches (2.8 liters), 6 cylinder, flathead. 90 horsepower. Weighed 2592 pounds (less than the Valiant) despite having a full frame and body construction. 0-60 in about 17 seconds.
Rambler American. 196.6 cubic inches (3.2 liters), 6 cylinder, flathead. 90 horsepower. 2474 pounds. Unit body.
Rambler Six. 196.6 cubic inches (3.2 liters), 6 cylinder (OHV). 127 horsepower. 2912 pounds. Unit body. Could be had with an optional alloy block reducing weight by about 100 pounds. It cost $38 extra, or thereabouts, but hardly anyone bothered – even though it negated the “need” for optional power steering which cost a lot more. (This was more equivalent to the size of the other compacts, thus included).
Then, of course, there was the most popular (very) compact “import” of all time. The VW Beetle. It weighed about 1700 pounds, had 40 horsepower, and was very very slow – plus had a nearly non-existant heater and defroster.
My point? We Americans keep downsizing and upsizing our cars and repeating the process.
We do not “need” cars to weigh more than 2900 pounds. My 2005 Prius proves the point. It has nearly the same room inside as a Ford Crown Vic (I was as surprised to find that out as anyone), and weighs in at a full 900 pounds less.
I just filled the tank and it got me 47.8 mpg over the past tankful, despite the temps being in the 90’s and near 100 (with full use of AC being imperative due to health requirements as well as comfort). This is not to forget that the Prius includes 135 pounds of hybrid batteries. The engine is an alloy block (steel cylinder liners) and head, the hood is aluminum. The cost is $22,000 up for 2007 cars, about the same as many mid-sized cars (which is what it is classed as).
What is exactly is the purpose of these rants anyway? Yep, cars evolve to meet the current demand… really? WOW imagine that!
Market demand + Safety / Desired Power/Economy = Average weight.
It’s true the manufacturers make what the people want, based on market demand. And I’m not necessarily talking about decontenting current models. However, the manufacturers spend billions worldwide on research and development. Why aren’t they focusing a good part of these efforts on engineering out excess weight, and giving us lighter, trimmer, more economical vehicles that offer the same functionality as the ones they currently sell? (Or as I stated, “trim vehicle weight by at least 20% while maintaining utility.”) GM did it in the 70s with their full- and mid-sized cars. They can do it again.
I just sat in a new BMW 328i the other day, and it feels just as roomy as my 2003 E39 M5. Also, the new E60 M5 feels like a 7 series, and gets 12 city/18 hwy, versus my 2003’s already laughable 13/21.
Scary….but as a card carrying member of the heavy, powerful gas guzzlers appreciation society, I know I’m in the majority of US buyers that will continue to reward automakers efforts with buying big, powerful cars, as long as fossil fuels are plentiful, if not necessarily cheap. As others have noted….the demand is going to shift somewhat as oil prices continue their inevitable climb.
On another note, we have to give props to the Corvette team, though, for bringing us a 3130 lb, 26 mpg aluminum/magnesium/carbon fiber/titanium intensive Z06 that gives up no creature comforts in this age of excessive poundage….all at at a reasonable price.
there was no motivation to do more than necessary. now that fuel is an issue again, the motivation will be there. in 99, I was in my senior year at WVU engineering. The school participated in the ‘future car challenge’ between other engineering programs making hybrid cars out of domestic cars. ford sent an aluminum taurus or sable for our car. it weighed a lot less. i don’t remember how it did, we never take 1st there. but ford wanted it back a couple years later with its other mules to see how they held up. So i know the companies look at this stuff…but decide against it. with the laws of supply and demand, and scales of economy, if many cars were made out of aluminum, the price of aluminum would go down. it would take a major shift for that to happen.
Frank…
This is a good article. But I somehow can’t place it in 2006. To me, it sounds like something that would have been written 5 years ago…I don’t know how to explain it, but it feels like I’ve read it before.
And Glenn… GOOD FOR YOU! Thumbs up! But your Prius provides a driving experience as exciting as dental exams.
Sorry, but its rubbish to say that a person 6′4″ needs a big vehicle. My buddy is 6′7″ (2.0m) and while not obese, he does carry a considerable amount of weight, but in his 2002 Honda Civic, he has loads of space. In fact, we drove down the US east coast, through to Texas, and straight up through the center of the country, sometimes even sleeping in the car, and we never had space issues.
Frank
Plain and simple, they would not survive a crash with a SUV. Reminiscing about the 80’s when cars where overall lighter is not fair because the crash standards and content was really low.
My mustang has a 5 star frontal impact rating… try the same test on the original pony car… see how that works out.
My 1989 Volvo 240 Estate with an Automatic transmission weighs in at 3,091lbs. My car was once considered,(and still is, actually) one of the safest cars out there.
Safety is in the engineering. Not the features.
The fact that the new Mustang GT500 weighs in at close to 4,000 lbs. scares me. The new Challenger will weigh more than that even.
Gearhead, that’s an unfair comparison. That’s well over 40 years apart. Obviously a ‘65 Mustang wouldn’t be as safe as a brand new one. I’m sure a Fox body Mustang would do much better. As good as yours? Probably not.
I don’t buy that, gearhead. In 1974, piled a 1973 Pinto station wagon into the side of a semi cab that had made an illegal turn into my path. The investigating officer estimated my impact speed at approximately 55 MPH. The car was destroyed but I walked away from it. The “I need something bigger for safety’s sake” arguement is a copout and one thing that got us into this mess. Someone decided they had to have something big, then someone else decided they needed something bigger to go head-to-head with the big ones, and we got into this spiral where everyone feels they have to be bigger than anyone else to feel safe. That’s why I’m advocating across the board downsizing and didn’t say anything about relaxing the safety standards to achieve weight reduction.
Why is it fair to place blame car manufactures for creating heavier, larger cars by comparing them to lighter vehicles with lower crash standards?
Protecting the passengers comes at a price in weight and cost.
“across the board downsizing”
Right on, Frank. Now that oil prices are going crazy, it makes a lot of sense. Consumers are gonna want it real soon, and whoever does it first gets the advantage.
That’s why I’m advocating across the board downsizing and didn’t say anything about relaxing the safety standards to achieve weight reduction.
Yes, but this is not the manufacturers responsibility. Only the consumer or a communist goverment can drive such action.
Personal experience hardly qualifies as definitive avocation of crash worthiness.
I’m 6′3″ and manage to fit myself into a ‘06 civic each day. If you’re 6′4″ it should work as long as you have reasonably short hair or don’t sit perfectly upright.
hybrids are fine, but adding batteries isn’t generally a good way to shed weight.
Size does not equal safety. I am sick of hearing people with no understanding of engineering talk about a heavy object vs. a light object. This is not the physics of perfect solids, it is the physics of deformable solids. My background is structural engineering, and I would be so happy if I never heard this pseudoscience ever again. One of the reasons SUVs are so cheap for manufacturers to make is because they don’t put nearly as much engineering into them, and that includes the structure. In fact, weight is often inversely proportional to the amount of engineering performed.
I cannot stand the “I need my 6,000lbs. road-going tank to protect the children” argument!
Killing the other guy’s family is the new good parenting.
Pathetic.
The Steering Column: Motorcycles have gotten lighter. Why haven’t cars?
BY CSABA CSERE, October 2005
Engineers who deal with vehicles are usually obsessed with weight. That’s because whether a machine rolls on wheels, flies through the air, or floats in the water, every extra ounce makes it more difficult to accelerate, stop, or change direction. Extraneous ounces also require more energy to maintain any desired speed. That’s why, whether the conveyance is an F-22 jet fighter, an America’s Cup yacht, or a Formula 1 car, designers and engineers put enormous effort into reducing weight.
If less weight equals better performance, then why are cars getting steadily heavier—a lot heavier? When I’ve suggested to industry engineers that every modern car and truck should lose between 500 and 1000 pounds, I’ve heard no argument.
The usual excuse for this vehicular corpulence is increased customer demand for stiffness and rigidity. These expectations are compounded by modern tires, which are much wider and stickier than ’70s rubber, and vastly more powerful modern engines. Both of these improvements tend to bend and twist vehicle structure to a greater degree, while the customers want their cars to feel more solid and stable. The engineers lament that the only solution is more heavy metal. But does it need to be this way?
Motorcycles have undergone a similar transformation in the past 25 years. But rather than pork up, they’ve become much lighter, as I was reminded recently during a day spent riding Yamaha YZF1000-R1 sport bikes at a track.
* * *
So why have bikes slimmed down while cars have swollen? The difference is materials and structural design. The CBX frame is simply a collection of welded steel tubes. The R1 uses large-section cast-aluminum beams that are stiffer and lighter. The CBX has a chrome-plated-steel exhaust system. The R1 uses titanium everywhere, except for the catalyst—yes, this more than 150-hp-per-liter engine has emissions controls. Throughout the bike, where the CBX has steel, the R1 uses aluminum or plastic.
Meanwhile, cars are still built pretty much the same as they’ve been for a half-century, made from spot-welded steel stampings. Some of the steel is a little stronger and the parts are more optimized using computer-aided modeling, but the technique remains largely unchanged.
The handful of cars that haven’t gained much weight over the past quarter-century have broken with this traditional construction. The Ferrari 360 Modena has adopted an aluminum structure. The Chevrolet Corvette also uses a lot of aluminum as well as magnesium and composite materials in an innovative structure.
Until other cars and trucks take advantage of the latest materials and more imaginative construction techniques, they will continue to pork out.
Like several others have said, the weight isn’t just “trucks”, it’s the increase in size, to hold fatter people, and the piling on of toys. A 2007 VW Rabbit has a curb weight of 3,000lbs, a 1977 VW has a curb weight of 2,000lbs.
On the other hand the 2007 has power windows, power locks, power steering, and air conditioning standard, and most of them will have automatic transmissions. Plus the 07 has a 2.5 liter engine instead of a 1.6 liter to haul all that lard around. Today everybody makes a big deal about how light a Lotus Elise is at ~2000lbs, 30 years ago that was what any small car weighed.
While I appreciate the convenience factor of all these power toys, I can live without them in any vehicle small enough to reach across. So the question is who is going to make a simple basic lightweight car, and will anybody buy it?
Whoa, whoa, whao — how much do power window motors weigh?
8, maybe 9 ounces?
Also, use lighter materials.
There is always a way — this content issue is just an excuse.
Actually, motors can be quite heavy due to their magnets and steel cases, and cars are packing on quite a few of them (I have read as many as 60 in a luxury car). They are everywhere, windows, seats, trunks, multiple wipers, etc. They also require a heavier electrical system, such as a heavier alternator, larger batteries, 100’s of metres of cable…
Various people have said that the market is giving us what people want. But there’s no way I’d buy a Challenger or Mustang. Too heavy! And if I were in the market for a small, relatively inexpensive roadster, I wouldn’t consider the Solstice or the Sky because of weight. Even though I hate the Pokemon look of the new MX-5, that would be my choice. 400 lbs less makes a big difference. The weights of the GM siblings are a giveaway for mediocrity. As Lizthevw says, weight is often inversely related to the amount of engineering.
GReat article, by the way, although I would have also liked to see how today’s cars (as opposed to light trucks) stack up against the cars of a couple of decades ago.
David — the current 7-Series has 88 Motors I believe.
Or, “servos” as the PR materials explain.
Anyhow, make the motors lighter — make everything lighter. Do what Jaguar did, only hire a designer.
Actually, motors can be quite heavy due to their magnets and steel cases, and cars are packing on quite a few of them (I have read as many as 60 in a luxury car).
The last window motor I installed (on my “lightweight” Lincoln) had a case made of phenolic resin. (at least that’s what it looked like) Good stuff right there.
Unsprung weight from big-ass wheels has gotta stop. That’s probably the first solution to this problem.
Love the pic – looks like some serious food allergies.
Are people today willing to put up with road and cabin noise that increased insulation and improvisations like ‘quiet steel’ prevent? Doors that go clang? (like my friend’s 70 Chally).
All that sound deadening stuff contributes to curb weight, but it’s doubtful that today’s consumer would put up the level of sound and vibration found in earlier, lighter cars.
New cars are like sensory deprivation chambers they’re so eerily immune to any outside noise or road disturbance. After extended periods spent in any of the more upscale stepford sedans – I usually go for good run in my MX-3, a light, primitive little go-kart that registers every rut and pebble.
Leslie, I almost hate to say it, but Edwin Wurm built that sculpture around a Porsche.
On the subject of power assisted goodies, power windows can be lighter than manual ones.
Electric motors, as well as the wiring harnesses to drive them will shrink in size and weight as cars migrate to the new 48V standard.
Further, as the costs continue to drop for electronic controls, wiring ‘harnesses’ will eventually disappear. There won’t be direct connections between the swithes and the switched.
Your power windows for instance will simply be hooked to a common positive bus circuit that runs throughout the vehicle and chassis negative grounded. The ’switch’ will send a signal addressed to the component it wishes to operate via the power grid, and voila.
PerfectZero: I’m 6′4″ and felt seriously uncomfortable sitting in an ‘06 Civic. It all comes down to body type. I’m relatively long-legged and a little on the overweight side. I could not find a seating position where there was enough clearance between the wheel and my legs, the wheel did not block the weirdo speedometer or tach, and I had decent visibility. Now, maybe I didn’t try hard enough, but it wasn’t that hard in a Mazda3. Of course in the Mazda3 there was no room for anyone to sit behind me, either.
I think “car creep” has a lot to do with this. It used to be that there was a model for every paycheck, but nowadays you can just by the same model every five years and get a larger, heavier, more luxurious car. Rather than resisting creep the manufacturers have embraced it by filling in the bottom of their lineup with new cars to replace the small cars they used to sell ten years ago. I wonder if we’ll see today’s large sedans like the Avalon discontinued in a generation or two as the midsizers move into their slot.
One more thing — Heavy (may be) passively safer, but is actively more dangerous.
Avoiding accidents is always best.
Back in 1978 I bought a VW Scirocco that weighed all of 1850 lbs, had a 1578cc 76 hp engine, a 4 speed manual and Recaro-knock-off seats.
It lacked airbags, power windows, air conditioning, ABS, turbochargers, intercoolers, power locks, 2 more cylinders, 12 stero speakers, nav system, OnStar, power steering, power sunroof, computers, seating for 7, and all the other “essentials” of modern cars. It probably wouldn’t get past 3 stars in the crash tests today. But it handled great, was a blast to drive and I ran that little bucket for 8 years and nearly 150K before selling it to some kid who put another 50K on it.
Would I go back to such a “bare bones” ride? Not as my daily driver, but the ‘rocco was a sports coupe. Wouldn’t quite work for a family. But our 3 Saabs all come in at between 3200-3400 pounds, hold everyone in the household comfortably and while I think that’s about 200-400 pounds too fat, it works OK. But most of the newest stuff is all pushing 2 tons, and I find there little real reason for a car to be much over 3000 lbs.
lizthevw makes some excellent points….but all else being equal (not that it necessarily is), the same technology applied to a heavier vehicle makes it inherently safer in a crash.
Offsetting that is JL’s point about the improved manueverability/accident avoidance of lighter cars….a quality that the IIHS has no metric for….and probably never will.
We as a society have to start with the low lying fruit of improved safety…improved driver training, vehicle maintenance, and stricter DUI laws. I suspect there are more lives to be saved there than by adding 10 more airbags to every car on the road.
It comes down to engineering effort.
Mazda had a two-page MX-5 ad (I know, heresy, according to TTAC thinking) that showed how its engineers fretted over how to extract every last ounce possible. It’s not the first time, either, that Mazda went to extremes (remember the last RX-7, the one with a hollow oil dipstick–to save an ounce?).
OTOH, GM’s Kappa platform seems to be just an exercise in low-cost engineering, merely raiding the corporate parts bin and seeingwhat would work, never mind that the resulting product would weigh 400 pounds more. Perhaps trying to cut those 400 pounds would have made this a high-cost platform? Doubtful, but it’s a pity the Corvette people didn’t take a look at Kappa.
“Magic” materials like aluminum and composites are no salvation, either: just look at the Audi A8 or Aston Martin DB9. Lots of exotic materials, but still two very heavy cars.
When “aluminum” was first uttered in the late 1980s/early 1990s the steel industry took the threat seriously and responded with a lightweight all-steel chassis, representing the latest thinking in alloys and assembly techniques. Did Big Oil buy it and bury it???
I would never drive a small car but I do care about weight as long as it does not affect room or luxury. I was disappointed that my car’s HEMI is an iron block as opposed to an aluminum one.
gbh is right about electronics weighing a lot less these days. Where multiple wires feed a single part with individual relays, grounds, etc used to be are replaced by integrated control modules with built-in relays and single grounding points.
I-drive aside, weight reducing tactics are in place for modern toys, but their intended “homes” are much too big.
In order to get repeat customers, manufacturers will always have to ‘up’ the vehicle content; faster, stiffer, more bell & whistles. When the vehicle has moved on so far there becomes room underneath for a new model, and new customers. I bet the BWM 1-series (if it ever comes to the US) has similar specs to the original 3-series. The new Honda Fit looks, content wise, very much like an old Honda Civic, and the Corrolla & Camry have moved up so much that Toyota can not only fit the Yaris underneath, but a whole new brand (Scion).