Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Is it time for automakers to get the fat out?
nippononly
Member Posts: 12,555
in General
I was reading an article this morning about a talk Amory Lovins, chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a think-tank located in Snowmass, Colorado, recently made.
His main point was that higher oil prices and more price volatility are here to stay, and in the near future they will make the recent CAFE legislation totally irrelevant, as the consumer will demand fuel economy even higher than the 35 mpg average that legislation calls for.
However what caught my eye was a couple of paragraphs near the end of the article, that said:
"While automakers are investing large sums in exotic powertrains like fuel cells and electric plug-ins with lithium ion batteries, Lovins says automakers could make huge strides simply by making their vehicles lighter.
Moreover, such efforts to downsize do not require automakers to produce boring vehicles. Lovins approvingly noted Tesla's successful effort to eliminate unnecessary weight from its roadster, a vehicle with a top speed of 125 miles per hour.
Weight is the key, Lovins said. He quoted Henry Ford on the subject: "Weight may be desirable in a steam roller but nowhere else Whenever anyone suggests to me that I might increase weight or add a part, I look into decreasing weight and eliminating a part!"
I applauded heartily, as this is just what I have been thinking for a long time now. The American fleet is SERIOUSLY overweight, even given Americans' preference for larger vehicles. How could many of our midsize sedans weigh two tons or more?
If you look at the highest-EPA-rated "normal" gas car on the market today, the Yaris (I am excluding Tesla at $100K+, Lotus in its $50K+ niche, and the ForTwo because it has only two seats), you see that it is also the lightest, at around 2300 pounds. In its class, the next heaviest, the Fit, is about 5% heavier and gets about 5-7% worse fuel economy. The Accent weighs more than the Yaris and has reduced fuel economy also, similar to the Fit. And on it goes. Indeed, the same exercise can be played out across the car classes.
Do the Lambda crossovers have to weigh almost 5000 pounds? Do Auras and Avalons have to weigh most of two tons? And most compact cars more than 3000 pounds?
When I have broached this subject in the past, most of the posters here seem to have had the general response that yes, they do. So I was rather gratified to see that at least one person in the automotive design field didn't.
And it has not gone unnoticed by me that a number of automakers in the last few months, as gas prices shot up and up, have released notices to the press talking about how they were making weight reduction at every redesign a priority from now on. They too know that a lot of gas is wasted hauling around those needless extra pounds. Not to mention it naturally improves handling and reduces the need for expensive chassis improvements and huge rolling stock just to get decent handling out of the pigs we see for sale today.
Call it the purist POV, I dunno, but isn't it time we insisted on cars with reasonable weights again?
Link to the article on Amory Lovins: http://www.autonews.com/article/20080813/ANA02/438916715/1129/emaildetroit01&ref- - - sect=emaildetroit01
His main point was that higher oil prices and more price volatility are here to stay, and in the near future they will make the recent CAFE legislation totally irrelevant, as the consumer will demand fuel economy even higher than the 35 mpg average that legislation calls for.
However what caught my eye was a couple of paragraphs near the end of the article, that said:
"While automakers are investing large sums in exotic powertrains like fuel cells and electric plug-ins with lithium ion batteries, Lovins says automakers could make huge strides simply by making their vehicles lighter.
Moreover, such efforts to downsize do not require automakers to produce boring vehicles. Lovins approvingly noted Tesla's successful effort to eliminate unnecessary weight from its roadster, a vehicle with a top speed of 125 miles per hour.
Weight is the key, Lovins said. He quoted Henry Ford on the subject: "Weight may be desirable in a steam roller but nowhere else Whenever anyone suggests to me that I might increase weight or add a part, I look into decreasing weight and eliminating a part!"
I applauded heartily, as this is just what I have been thinking for a long time now. The American fleet is SERIOUSLY overweight, even given Americans' preference for larger vehicles. How could many of our midsize sedans weigh two tons or more?
If you look at the highest-EPA-rated "normal" gas car on the market today, the Yaris (I am excluding Tesla at $100K+, Lotus in its $50K+ niche, and the ForTwo because it has only two seats), you see that it is also the lightest, at around 2300 pounds. In its class, the next heaviest, the Fit, is about 5% heavier and gets about 5-7% worse fuel economy. The Accent weighs more than the Yaris and has reduced fuel economy also, similar to the Fit. And on it goes. Indeed, the same exercise can be played out across the car classes.
Do the Lambda crossovers have to weigh almost 5000 pounds? Do Auras and Avalons have to weigh most of two tons? And most compact cars more than 3000 pounds?
When I have broached this subject in the past, most of the posters here seem to have had the general response that yes, they do. So I was rather gratified to see that at least one person in the automotive design field didn't.
And it has not gone unnoticed by me that a number of automakers in the last few months, as gas prices shot up and up, have released notices to the press talking about how they were making weight reduction at every redesign a priority from now on. They too know that a lot of gas is wasted hauling around those needless extra pounds. Not to mention it naturally improves handling and reduces the need for expensive chassis improvements and huge rolling stock just to get decent handling out of the pigs we see for sale today.
Call it the purist POV, I dunno, but isn't it time we insisted on cars with reasonable weights again?
Link to the article on Amory Lovins: http://www.autonews.com/article/20080813/ANA02/438916715/1129/emaildetroit01&ref- - - sect=emaildetroit01
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Here's a tie-in:
"According to Forbes Autos, the average weight of "light-duty" vehicles rose from 3,221 pounds in 1997 to 4,144 pounds in 2007. Ironically, part of that weight gain comes from safety equipment that has been added over the past 10 years, some of which was federally mandated."
In the Trade-Off Between Weight and Fuel Economy, Safety Tech Tips the Scale
What is discouraging is that in this article they consider anything below 4000 pounds to be low weight. :sick:
And while they seem to be trying imply that most of the 900 pounds of weight gain in the last ten years has been the result of adding safety gear, in reality the newly standard safety gizmos are a tiny FRACTION of that weight gain.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, that's Forbes for you. :P
I didn't go to the source pages, but I bet Forbes has them spread out one by one so they can sell more ad pages.
My old '82 Tercel 4 door sedan came in around 1950 pounds, and it felt pretty peppy for 62 hp.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Funny thing is, my E55 weighs about the same as my old 1989 S-class!
But I'm not just talking about sports cars here, I'm talking about the everyday dull-as-bathwater sedans that fill the garages of most of suburban America. These cars have hundreds of extra pounds of steel stuffed into them to make them as taut as a drum for ten laps of the Streets of Willow, when in reality they just schlep back and forth to work and the grocery store day after day after day, most of the time sitting in altogether too much traffic along the way....and of course they are often better equipped than the family entertainment room is at home with A/V equipment, and jam-packed with gadgetry many owners never use, and some don't even know HOW to use, or even that said gadgets are THERE.
All of that is weight, needless weight. Which means ever more power is needed, ever more gas is wasted. I wonder if any of these automakers will heed Lovins' words in any serious way...
Which mainstream manufacturer was it that just announced every model redesign would target weight reduction from the existing model? I am tempted to say GM, but my memory isn't working properly. And I believe a couple of the luxury carmakers have said the same - Jaguar was one, I think? And maybe Audi too?
But I wonder if it will amount to anything real, or if it will be just a lot of talk.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Of course the new car has 3Xs the horsepower and would do a lot better in a crash but 1000 pounds? That's a lot of beef.
The trade off is cost of course. To use more lightweight metals and composites will bring the weight down but the cost way up. Most folks faced with the choice of paying $5000 more for a car or $1000 per year more for gas will choose the heaver car.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Something I wonder. I've heard before the reasoning that some, maybe most, of the increased weight is due to added safety equipment and features. I'm no engineer. Does anyone know or have numbers on how much of the increased weight is attributable to this? Even average, ballpark type numbers for the typical car?
There is a flip side relevant to this discussion. I have heard some express concern about smaller, lighter cars regarding safety so long as there are still larger, heavier vehicles sharing the road. I'm not sure how widespread this concern is, but I wonder how much validity there is to this concern (I think the concern is valid BTW). Is this concern reality based or perception based? I don't think anyone conducts safety tests by slamming a Tahoe into a Yaris. Maybe someone does and I am just unaware.
So oddly enough, a Crown Vic might be considered a good example of a car that HASN'T porked up all that much over the ages! Especially when you consider the safety and convenience equipment that's been added, the bigger engine (the 4.6 takes up more space than the old 460 bigblock, so I'm sure it's heavier than a 302!), bigger wheels and tires (a '79 had 14"), etc.
From 1979 to 2008, its weight has only gone up about 13%, if my guesses of 3700 and 4200 lb are correct. I wonder how that would compare to other size classes of car over the years? You really can't compare a 2008 Accord, for example, to a 1979, because one's a midsize and the other's a subcompact. If anything, you'd compare a 2008 Accord to a 1979 Malibu, Granada, Aspen/Volare, etc....similar-sized cars that started around 3000-3200 lb.
I think fin is right that the weight gain can be attributed to a couple of different factors:
1) federally mandated safety equipment (side door beams, air bags, etc.)
2) a desire to make the cars more 'solid' in feel - the doors closing with a 'thunk' and the inevitable reduction in the twisting that happens in the chassis
While I'm not happy that my wife's '08 VUE (V6, AWD) weighs about 600 pounds more than the '04 VUE (V6, AWD) we traded in for it, it is absolutely more noticeable in how it feels and drives.
Another example is the Scion xB - gen 1 came in at 2200 pounds, gen 2 at almost 2800 pounds - a more than 25% increase in weight!
Will this trend reverse? I sure hope so. I really don't want my next car to weigh more than 3500 pounds - even the 128i that currently occupies the top of my 'wish' list weighs about the same as my current Saturn L300 - 3200 pounds. This for a car with 2 fewer doors and way less space for passengers and cargo.
Are you sure? The 302 was a cast-iron block while the 4.6 has an aluminium block. I know that the difference in cast-iron vs. aluminium in my car is 75 pounds.
I get your point though. Maybe a better comparison would be between 302 equipped cars of different years.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I submit that the family midsize sedan or midsize crossover does not NEED to be able to get to 60 mph in 7 seconds, or even 8 or 9. It does not NEED to be able to go 130 mph. Neither does the family commute car, which will be stuck in traffic 80% of the time in middle class America.
Neither one needs to be a rolling living room of driver distractions weighing hundreds of pounds either.
The 128i is a sick little example of this trend, being BMW's new smallest model yet still weighing over 3000 pounds. And the xB you mentioned, well, that has to be the worst single example of this type of bloat we could post here from weight increases this model year anyway. While the xB is still under 3000 pounds, a commendable accomplishment in the age of pork, it still manages to get WORSE fuel economy than the Camry with which it shares its engine. Just imagine if it used the Corolla 1.8 and weighed 400 pounds less instead.
I have made myself a new goal, but I'm not sure if I can make it stick: I will not buy another new vehicle over 3000 pounds. 2500 pounds will be the target weight for now. Since I never buy vehicles bigger than compact cars or crossovers, this goal is not totally delusional (!!), but my choices are still very limited. One of the cars I keep near the top of my wish list, the Subaru Impreza, is permanently out of contention if I stick to this goal. And it's a compact car! :-(
Just. Too. Heavy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Welcome to the club. My own personal limits are 2500 pounds for FWD and 2900 for RWD, with 150 pounds allowance for diesel and another 150 pounds for AWD.
Well, you are in luck, the Prius is 2920 lbs. However the new one will be larger and presumably heavier...
My other rule, longer-standing than the new one regarding weight, is that it must offer a stick shift.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
In contrast, the GVWR of my '76 LeMans is 5622 lb. My old car book lists the weight of a '76 Grand LeMans coupe at 3834 lb, but as equipped (a/c, power windows, locks, seat, etc) I guess it's conceivable that it weighs 4,000. So there's a spread of 1600 lb.
I think the GVWR of a 70's Dart slant six, which only weighs about 3200 lb, is still around 4800 lb. So you had cheap compacts back in the 70's that could carry heavier passengers and trunk loads than some of the biggest cars today!
Of course part of the reason for that is back then, a car was more of a jack-of-all trades. Most of them had to be able to carry 6 passengers plus their cargo, and many of them were used to haul trailers. Today we have pickups, SUVs, and minivans for all that.
I wonder though, if part of the reduction in load capacity might be because of the lower-profile tires and bigger rims they use these days?
Darn right it does! :-)
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=131096#2
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'd be really curious to know, exactly, what areas they were able to cut weight in and how they were able to do it? That kind of stuff fascinates me.
They can also make the car physically smaller, something we are just seeing the beginnings of in the industry, although not in the case of this Fiesta.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Sad social commentary.
We're fatter so our cars must be as well. :sick:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20080826/ANE02/113256
Swiss to vote on SUV ban
Swiss campaigners launched a bid on Monday to ban gas-guzzling SUVs and luxury sports cars, winning enough support for a referendum.
The Young Green party said on Monday in a statement, it had turned in 120,000 verified signatures gathered in support of a referendum, to be held within 18 months.
"Our initiative slows global warming, protects cyclists, pedestrians and children, stops the arms race on the streets..., reduces pollution and is still reasonable," the initiators said on their Web site.
Furthermore, new cars should weigh less than 2.2 tons and have a safer front in order to protect pedestrians.
I would advocate a 2-ton limit for vans and SUVs, 1.5 tons for passenger sedans. So the Swiss aren't quite as strict as I want to be. ;-)
And I would rather that consumers demand this of automakers than that regulators get involved.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I suspect that has more to do with a Euro-Commie anti-American at all costs attitude than anything else. :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
They are just worried because over-heavy and overly high vehicles are a danger to everyone - bikers, pedestrians, you name it.
Over-heavy vehicles also happen to handle poorly and waste gas.......which is bad in an era of $4 gas.......
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Oh, I don't know. The Germans and English also make large SUVs.
And as far as wasting gas goes, waste is a very subjective term. What is waste to someone, is use and need to someone else. If your definition of waste is to move a person using the least amount of fossil-fuel energy from Pt A to Pt B, then we shouldn't even consider a motorized vehicle. An older Honda CRX HF could be considered wasteful if that's the goal. We all decide what is reasonable mpg, or what temperature it is reasonable to heat or AC our house to ...
The weight creep in the last 20 years fleetwide is absurd. People are looking for the magic powertrain pill that is suddenly going to save them lots of fuel now that gas prices are high, but there are lots of aspects of the modern cars sold in North America that contribute to the amount of gas they use, and weight is a significant and problematic one. My feeling is that problem is also a needless one.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
When you consider safety equipment, the demand for stronger structures, features and conveniences demanded by customers, and customer demand for improved control of noise, vibration and harshness (or what we refer to as "refinement"), it's easy to see why vehicles weigh more.
Maybe some people only drive their vehicles around town, and aren't concerned about noise control, and don't need to cruise silently and comfortably at 75-90 mph, but lots of us do. Perhaps there should be more "city cars" that are will be used in urban areas, but that won't work for most of us, who aren't about to buy a car just for use in one area.
1993 Accord LX sedan: 2866 lb
1997 Accord LX sedan: 2899 lb
2002 Accord LX sedan: 3031 lb
2007 Accord LX sedan: 3197 lb
2008 Accord LX sedan: 3289 lb
I picked the automatic transmission model, where it gave you a choice to pick. For 1993 and 1997 it didn't though, so I'm presuming those weights are for the stick shift, so this may not be a totally fair comparison.
None of those have really been huge weight jumps IMO. The biggest jump is from '02-07, at 166 lb. Interestingly, the '03-07 generation is also the first Accord that I'd consider a comfortable midsized car. The '98-02, while a nice car, just felt too small for my tastes.
So basically, from the 1990-93 generation, to the 2008+ generation, we've seen weight go up about 15%. We also have a car that fills a totally different market today. Years ago it was a compact, and today it's a midsize (the EPA actually classifies it as full-size if you don't get the sunroof!) It's about 9-10" longer, about 5-6" wider, much roomier inside (although oddly, published trunk volume is no larger).
The 2008 also gets better fuel economy. The 1993 4-cyl/automatic is rated at 19/26, using those new, downrated numbers. The 2008 4-cyl/automatic is rated at 21/31. I'm sure some of that improvement, especially on the highway, is due to one extra gear in the transmission, but even if it weren't for that I'm sure it would still be improved.
I'm sure that if they stripped some weight off the Accord, it might improve fuel economy a bit. But at what ultimate cost? I mean, you couldn't just jettison 15% of that car's weight and automatically pick up 15% improved fuel economy. And you'd probably lose a lot of the car's rigidity, safety, silence, and comfort.
One car from 1993 that I can think of that's about the same size as a 2008 Accord is, believe it or not, a Buick LeSabre, Olds 88, or Pontiac Bonneville. They were a bit bigger inside and in trunk volume, but the 2008 Accord has about the same external dimensions. But in this case, the Accord is actually LIGHTER than the similar sized car from 1993! Those GM cars were about 3500 lb I think. And still, more fuel efficient. The 3.8 is rated 17/26 in those cars, using the newer, downrated numbers.
I don't think we're really going to see cars lose a lot of weight unless we want to go back to the way things were in the late 70's, when they started rolling sheetmetal thinner, using under-sized transmissions, and eliminating little details like roll-down rear door windows. And then they downsized the engines at the same time they were shaving the weight off the cars, so in many cases, performance still sucked!
I was reading a very encouraging article yesterday that cited Toyota, Nissan, and GM among the automakers that saw a need for weight reduction, and were making it a priority from now on. So maybe the question I posed already has an answer from the manufacturers themselves!
As for all the considerations grbeck mentioned, you have to remember that any car design is merely a balance of many factors, the most important of which is usually cost. One of the things I am hoping the industry will now explore is whether a few hundred dollars extra per unit in costs will translate to notable weight reductions accomplished by the use of better materials.
I would imagine the move away from larger engines towards smaller ones, and the same trend in transmissions (especially automatics), could also contribute to weight reductions. We have just barely seen the start of these trends in the last few years (lots more turbos on the market, smaller engine displacements with more specific power output, automatics gaining numbers of gears even as they get physically smaller and lighter) - my hope is that they could now accelerate.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My guess is that you'd end up with better economy than the current Accord, but still not as good as the Civic, which is still lighter and has a smaller engine. It would probably perform better than either of the two, though.
I guess one reason that I question how much weight really comes into play stems from when I took a trip down to Florida 3 years ago. We took my 2000 Intrepid, and had three people on board, the trunk stuffed to the gills, and some luggage spilling into the back seat. I imagine those two extra passengers, plus all the luggage, easily added 500-600 lb to that car. As for fuel economy? I averaged 27-28 mpg on that trip. Mostly highway, but stuck in some traffic jams,and running 70-80 mph as much as possible, a/c running the whole time.
However, 27-28 mpg is about what I'd get with that car if it was just me on board, a/c cranked up, running 70-80 mph. So in this case, that extra 500-600 lb had a negligible effect on economy. Now I'm sure if I did more local, stop and go driving, it would've been felt.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It is a shame that no-one ever touts the advantages of lower weight in marketing. If they did, we might have people clamoring for lighter cars, giving automakers financial incentive to do something about the pork.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, you could say that they had lots of room to improve, what with the earlier Vette's heavy frame, etc. They really went after improving the chassis through better design, rather than more metal. Don't they use some kind of balsa composite in the floor for stiffness? And aren't the springs now fiberglass?
Still, I'm sure just about everybody has saved weight in their engines compared to 20 years ago yet the cars themselves are often heavier, so evidently the Corvette has been toning down the excess in other areas, as well.
I think you're right, what with the current aluminum block, heads, etc. Another weight-saver (well, weight gain avoider) is the continued use of the OHV design. Gotta be saving a lot of weight compared to having 4 OHCs, had they gone that route.
And either way, as Lovins points out, the percentage of a car's curb weight that it can carry as passengers and cargo is much too low.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I do feel strongly that all vehicles should be much lighter, even (especially?) the really big ones that can carry 7-8 passengers.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That way you could have your Smart-car like vehicle, and have the option of the versatility. I could see the price of the Base section at $15K - $20K, with the optional add-on section being another $7500?
The base section would have 4-wheels, an engine and the controls. The base section would have a rear panel that drops down, and a mating-surface for the add-on section. The add-on section could be a pick-up bed or a rear-seat/trunk section. It would have 2 wheels for balance; so the vehicle has 6-wheels total, with only the base-section driven (either 2 or 4 WD there). You could also install electric motors and batteries in the wheel-wells of the add-on section if further drive was needed.
Another problem is picking the correct-sized engine. Pick an engine that's adequate for just the main component, then once you hook up the secondary part it's going to be too much weight for it. In contrast, pick an engine that can move the whole contraption, and when you're just using the main component, you have an oversized engine that's wasting fuel.
Not really; think of the rear add-on section as a trailer which doesn't move on its own. The drive section and the add-on could interlock similar to a trailer on a trailer hitch, but with 2 balls so it would stay linear.
Pick an engine that's adequate for just the main component, then once you hook up the secondary part it's going to be too much weight for it.
Trains and those double tractor-trailers can be designed to carry vary loads, so this isn't rocket science. So you would oversize the engine a little for the drive section making it sporty, so it is adequate with the add-on. Or as I said you could have electric motor drive recharging from the engine in the rear wheels.