rai

I was looking at some old videos and got to thinking how much todays cars weigh compared to when I was a kid.

The Navigator now weighs 6333 pounds by the way (or the same as 3 Honda Accords from 1982).

For example the VW Rabbit was once ~ 1700 lbs.

My first new car was a 1988 VW Fox 4MT with 4 doors, roll up windows, no power steering weight 2200 lbs.

The first minivan Dodge Caravan, was quite light and I looked this up (they have classic videos from Motor Week on the internet you can see all this old stuff) Dodge Caravan with one sliding door, you could have bought with a manual transmission, the base weight was said to be 2900 pounds (according to Wiki).

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C0C9&FORM=VIRE

To me, a 2900 pound van seem like crazy light weight, the new Civic Si weighs 2900 pounds and the Civic R weighs 3100 pounds!!

I know we've come a long way with comfort and safety features but holy smokes a Civic weighs more than a minivan, I never thought I'd see the day.

mmarshall

You already have somewhat of a handle on it, but, in general, the pork in today's cars, especially in the American market, comes from three factors. First, Americans, in general, like larger vehicles, although the realities of dense traffic and having to maneuver and park in tight spaces sometimes dictates getting something a little smaller than what they actually want. Second, Big Brother demands an ever-growing list of standard safety features, many of which add weight. Third, what Big Brother doesn't require, consumers do.....every convenience one can think of, so that their vehicle is essentially a rolling extension of their home. So, welcome to Pork City.

Sulu

Here are my thoughts on this subject (and this is just a quick reply so I have not looked at specifications).

Vehicles keep getting bigger. Compare the size of that first 35-year old Chrysler minivan with today's Pacifica (not so mini anymore). How much bigger is the Pacifica? And the photo you posted shows it quite evidently -- that newer red Golf is obviously larger than that old Golf. Larger size (without other factors) gives you heavier weight.

Crashworthiness of vehicles has improved. The crashworthiness of the new Pacifica is probably much better than that original minivan. Improving crashworthiness usually is a result of thicker and larger (and therefore heavier) metal structural components.

Finally, weight very easily and very quickly snowballs. Larger vehicles require more metal, which adds weight. A heavier vehicle requires a larger engine to get it moving and keep it moving (and acceleration times have also come down in the last 30 years). A want for quicker acceleration demands an even larger engine. The larger, heavier vehicle, with the larger, heavier engine that is also more crashworthy demands a stronger, heavier structure. And so on and so on...

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

cars are bigger, safer, with tons more equipment. despite huge efforts to reduce weight through design and materials, the weight is higher, but that's still mainly because the same models are MUCH bigger with MUCH more equipment (safety and features) than in the past.

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.

MattyG

I had one of those original Rabbits and two of the subsequent Golfs and even a Scirocco. I can tell you I felt absolutely safe in them despite no airbags etc. But I can see what the advances in tech have done to improve a lot of things. So really the weight gain is in the right places as opposed to extra flab for the purpose of styling or other factors. Those cars felt so solid, you would be hard pressed to find them any less safer today vs the extra tech of ABS, airbags etc. But given all other factors, today's compacts are still a better vehicle so you have to pay the weight penalty for that.

mmarshall

Did you luck out and get some reliable ones? No offense (and I don't mean to be rude by saying this) but those early FWD VWs spent more time in the shop than out. I remember when I first went to work in my career, my office was located right next to a small VW dealership in Silver Spring, MD. When the Rabbit first came out in 1975, there would be a LONG line of them (I'm not exaggerating) every weekday morning, stretching out the side doors of the service-bay, for several hundred feet, down the side road next to the dealership, with people waiting to check in for service or repairs....not every dealer had the Early-Bird service in those days. Ditto for the Dasher and the other early FWD VWs....though they didn't sell in the numbers that the Rabbit did.

You're correct that the VWs were a lot lighter in those days. But part of that was a lack of insulation....you paid for it in road, wind, and engine noise, though the tires were less-aggressive in those days, too, and didn't always make a lot of noise. And, lack of anti-corrosion materials (which can sometimes also add weight) also made them rust out sooner in those days.

MattyG

Lol, yep. I didn't have the 1975 Rabbit as a new vehicle, my cousin's garage partner pawned it off to me. The reason all that happened as you describe was that darned carburation system. I tried to fix it for a long time but it never worked. But boy, when it ran properly, that car with a three speed auto, ran fantastic. Good gas mileage and solid like a bank vault.

The others were of course fuel injection and I never had a problem with those, ever. So reliable and so solid to drive. Excellent handling but certainly the Accords of the era were just as good too. The Scirocco had some electrical gremlins, but ran like a tank.

I remember some redneck idiot on the highway giving me a hard time and I wound out the motor as I watched him fall back behind me and his pickup truck drive train imploded with a big gigantic puff of smoke, lol. My brother tried to do the same to me in his Chevy Laguna and found out I could wind out a Scirocco's motor with its manual transmission and outdo him too. Of course I eventually ended up with two Chevy Lagunas over the years. Cars, what are you going to do, you want them all.

oldcajun

You may have felt safe, but collision tests back then were not very good. Compared to current small cars they were death traps. Today's cars carry a lot of weight to meet the crash standards. There is a steel beam inside your door for side impact protection. There is also lots of structure beef-up to meet the new offset impact requirements. Today's cars come with air conditioning which adds weight but not many want to delete. The Cadillac CT6 is actually lighter than similar cars "way back when" but required much technology to get there. The market seems unwilling to pay the cost for the advanced tech required for light weight.

rai

rai

Johnhav430

Newer cars are very heavy. Look at my 2007 BMW 335i coupe (late 2006 technology), and my Lexus 2006 LS430 (late 2000 technology).

The BMW has lots of forged aluminum, and the front fenders are composite, to save weight, and attempt the 50/50 distribution. The BMW is Civic sized, and the LS is large. The Lexus uses plenty of heavy stamped steel.

The BMW tips the scales at 419 lbs. less. I would argue that the BMW is structurally much stronger and more solid, despite being entry level, than the Lexus being flagship for the time (6 yr. older design). It's something that can be seen, and felt, when slamming the doors, and lifting the vehicles. Now if you look at the 2007 LS, it shot up to 4,300 lbs., following the trend. If the Lexus IS is put into the mix, the same thing happened, as it got newer.

mmarshall

Sulu

Fine. You get the last word.

mmarshall

There's no such thing as a last word in Car Chat LOL.