Car Chat General discussion about Lexus, other auto manufacturers and automotive news.

Let's talk about weight (he's not heavy he's my brother)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-16-18, 10:53 PM
  #16  
geko29
Super Moderator

 
geko29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 7,478
Received 211 Likes on 161 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mmarshall
Not sure that's the case. Today's N/A fours essentially make the power of yesterday's N/A sixes, and today's N/A Sixes make the same power as yesterday's smaller N/A V8s. Add turbocharging or supercharging, of course, and that raises the power factor even more. Some 2.0Ts today, for instance, have more response than some of the V8s I grew up with in the 60s, before the big power-downgrade of the 1970s from the de-tuned engines and lower-octane unleaded fuel.
But turbo motors are also heavier (in general) than NA motors, which offsets the savings to a degree. Take for example the VW 2.0T, which weighs 152kg (335 lbs). This engine has effectively replaced the 2.8/2.9/3.2L VR6, which weighs 169kg (372 lbs). So a 30-40% drop in displacement and the loss of two cylinders is only accompanied by a 10% reduction in weight.
geko29 is offline  
Old 03-17-18, 01:23 AM
  #17  
Aron9000
Lexus Champion
 
Aron9000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: TN
Posts: 4,592
Received 28 Likes on 27 Posts
Default

Good example of cars creeping up in weight, my old 1999 Z28 Camaro. LS1 V8, t-top, hatchback, weight was about 3300 to 3400lbs, depending on options, I couldn't get an exact spec, but I'm thinking it would weigh less/maybe about the same as the six cylinder due to aluminum block/heads vs cast iron block/heads for the V6 cars. Then you go look at the reintroduced 2010 Camaro and its about 3800lbs with the V8. 400lbs heavier for no reason, my old car was A LOT longer and wider, it shaded a lot more pavement. I'm thinking crash standards are the big reason for the weight gain, especially rollover standards. The 2010 car, it has HUGE A, B, and C pillars, makes the car feel like you're looking out of a tank. I don't know if this was just to make it look cool like the concept car or done out of a need to make the car pass a crash test, probably a combination of both.

Still though, I feel like GM does some lazy engineering in terms of crash performance/rollover standards and makes all the pilllars on their cars excessively thick. Or maybe its cheaper to stamp thick pillars out of regular steel than to use some higher strength steel. Go drive the newer/latest gen Tahoe/Suburban/Denali/Escalade. They all have stupidly huge pillars, A, B, C and D pillars are huge, the glass area in these trucks is horribly small, especially if you have ever driven the last gen or previous 1999-2005 gen SUV's, they are a lot easier to see out of.
Aron9000 is offline  
Old 03-17-18, 05:16 AM
  #18  
mmarshall
Lexus Fanatic
 
mmarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
Posts: 90,585
Received 83 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Aron9000
Still though, I feel like GM does some lazy engineering in terms of crash performance/rollover standards and makes all the pilllars on their cars excessively thick. Or maybe its cheaper to stamp thick pillars out of regular steel than to use some higher strength steel. Go drive the newer/latest gen Tahoe/Suburban/Denali/Escalade. They all have stupidly huge pillars, A, B, C and D pillars are huge, the glass area in these trucks is horribly small, especially if you have ever driven the last gen or previous 1999-2005 gen SUV's, they are a lot easier to see out of.
Using regular-strength steel for the pillars is not necessarily cheaper if you have to use more of it to compensate. And when you consider what a typical full-size SUV weighs, it's not surprising that thick pillars have to be used for rollover protection, regardless of what type of steel goes into them.
mmarshall is offline  
Old 03-17-18, 06:48 AM
  #19  
Sulu
Lexus Champion
 
Sulu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,309
Likes: 0
Received 30 Likes on 23 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Aron9000
Still though, I feel like GM does some lazy engineering in terms of crash performance/rollover standards and makes all the pilllars on their cars excessively thick. Or maybe its cheaper to stamp thick pillars out of regular steel than to use some higher strength steel. Go drive the newer/latest gen Tahoe/Suburban/Denali/Escalade. They all have stupidly huge pillars, A, B, C and D pillars are huge, the glass area in these trucks is horribly small, especially if you have ever driven the last gen or previous 1999-2005 gen SUV's, they are a lot easier to see out of.
I find the A-pillars on GM's cars to be dangerously thick. They are so thick that they block view of traffic and pedestrians approaching from the front side of the car. I find that to be very dangerous not being able to see what in approaching you in intersections.
Sulu is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
4TehNguyen
Car Chat
59
05-28-15 06:13 AM
mmarshall
Car Chat
11
09-05-10 10:58 PM
I8ABMR
Car Chat
9
02-16-09 09:46 PM
Dr.G
Car Chat
1
05-08-06 03:40 AM
Faraaz23
Car Chat
5
09-22-05 08:52 PM



Quick Reply: Let's talk about weight (he's not heavy he's my brother)



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 AM.