Let's talk about weight (he's not heavy he's my brother)
#16
Super Moderator
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.
#17
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.
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.
#18
Lexus Fanatic
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.
#19
Lexus Champion
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post