When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
We need to get used to lighter weight materials being used throughout new vehicles.
yup.
Originally Posted by mmarshall
I'm not opposed to that, if and when it makes sense....
whether you're opposed to it or not isn't really relevant because it can and is happening and will continue to happen. the new ct6 is under 3700lbs, a remarkable achievement. i doubt buyers will consider it a tin can and because it's not as heavy as brougham land barge doesn't mean it has bad handling or isn't comfortable. no it's not a land yacht with crushed velour or leather 'sofas' in the front, but those days are long (decades) over.
But there is also a down side to that. All else equal (which, of course, it rarely is LOL), lighter vehicles tend to ride more stiffly over bumps, have less crash-resistence in a collision with a heavier vehicle, and, in some cases, feel like tin cans. Again all else equal, the more weight you have on top of the suspension, and the less weight you have underneath the suspension and in the suspension itself (in engineering terms, that is called "unsprung weight")....the smoother the vehicle will ride, since the suspension, because of the weight resistance, will not be able to transfer as much shock to the car's frame and inside the cabin. That's one reason why big, heavy, softly-spring American luxury cars used to have such a nice ride.....and lousy handling.
i think that's nonsense. the suspension itself is a factor, so if you have a very light vehicle, it can have soft springs and still be very comfortable. my old 2200lb miata was very comfortable despite the light weight and short wheelbase because the suspension is targeted for comfort more than outright performance.
I'm not opposed to that, if and when it makes sense....like with gas mileage and vehicle performance. But there is also a down side to that. All else equal (which, of course, it rarely is LOL), ...
Originally Posted by mmarshall
lighter vehicles tend to ride more stiffly over bumps,
Modern vehicles have much more sophisticated suspensions, and the suspensions are designed for their size, weight and class (luxury, sporty, GT, mass market). No manufacturer redesigns -- and lightens -- their new cars without also redesigning the suspension.
Originally Posted by mmarshall
have less crash-resistence in a collision with a heavier vehicle, and,
Any vehicle, regardless of age and era, will be less crash resistant in a crash against a heavier vehicle. This was always the case and will always be the case.
But all vehicles are having lightness added, yet modern vehicles are amazingly crash resistant because they are designed to survive crash forces. In fact, the IIHS proved that a modern, lighter 2009 Chevy Malibu would survive a crash with its 1959 Bel Air ancestor in much better shape.
Originally Posted by mmarshall
in some cases, feel like tin cans.
Door skins may be getting thinner because they can be made thinner. Door skins, like bolt-on front fenders, are not load-bearing; they do not support any of the weight of the vehicle (other than their own weight) and play no part in the crash-worthiness of the vehicle. Their only functions are cosmetic and to protect the internals behind it from the outside elements, like rain and light road debris. They can be made as thin -- and as light -- as their limited functionality requires, including holding up their own weight.
Originally Posted by mmarshall
Again all else equal, the more weight you have on top of the suspension, and the less weight you have underneath the suspension and in the suspension itself (in engineering terms, that is called "unsprung weight")....the smoother the vehicle will ride, since the suspension, because of the weight resistance, will not be able to transfer as much shock to the car's frame and inside the cabin. That's one reason why big, heavy, softly-spring American luxury cars used to have such a nice ride.....and lousy handling.
There is nothing new here. Again, as vehicles are redesigned to "add lightness" (thank you, Colin Chapman), all parts of vehicle will be redesigned, not just one part. No auto manufacturer is going to redesign and lighten the body of a new car without also redesigning and lightening the suspension.
Adding lightness (to the whole car) makes the car more agile, as there is less weight to toss around, and it is self-perpetuating: As you lighten the body of the car, the suspension and the undercarriage can be lightened, which makes the car even lighter still; the engine can be reduced in size due to the reduced weight, which makes the car even lighter still...
To achieve maximum ride, we must have:
1) Maximum sprung/unsprung weight ratio, ie the sprung body must be as heavy as possible, while the unsprung mass of the tires/wheels/suspension arms, and drive shafts must be as light as possible, and that's why many cars like Lexus GS etc, use aluminium alloy suspension arms.
The greater the weight of the unsprung components like tires, wheels, suspension arms, and drive shafts, the greater the force and momentum will be thrown at the vehicle on hitting bumps.
The ratio between the sprung to unsprung weight will determine the ride quality.
2) The minimum height to wheelbase and height to track ratio.
Thus, the height must be as low as possible relative to the wheelbase length and track width.
The higher this ratio, the greater the pitching longitudinally, and rolling laterally.
In both cases, it is NOT the actual weight NOR the actual length that determines comfort, but the RATIO.
At the end of the day, it's all horse for courses, and each to their own:
1) Low sports coupe, has least wind resistance, and quickest in straight line and around corners, but suffers with compromised interior space, and compromised seating height and visibility.
2) Intermediate sedan/hatch/liftback/wagon - is the intermediate, with the very best in ride comfort and refinement.
3) Tall SUV has the tallest most spacious cabin height, and a higher seating position, but compromises with the most wind resistance, the heaviest weight, the highest height to wheelbase and height to track ratio, the highest ground clearance, the lowest sprung to unsprung mass ratio due to the heavier weight of the tire/wheel combo, suspension arms and drive shafts.
All different sizes and formats of motor vehicles MUST learn to co-exist!
It's not Mercedes is better than BMW, or that BMW is better than Benz, but both are good in different ways.
Nor is gasoline better than diesel, nor diesel better than gasoline, but both are good in different ways; gasoline is better for power, while diesel is better for torque.
Nor are crossovers/SUV's better than sedan, or vice versa, but both are good in different ways.
Sedans are certainly more popular than coupes, but it is totally wrong to imply that coupes are inferior to sedans!
Eg, back in 2013, a friend of mine loaned me his brand new RX350 for the weekend.
The RX was louder in all engine, tire and wind noise.
The RX's big heavy tire/wheel unsprung mass combo kept causing the RX to bob up and down in an unsettled ride.
The ride and refinement is NO match for the ES sedan!
However, the RX had far more cabin space than the ES sedan.
Horses for courses, and each to their own...
whether you're opposed to it or not isn't really relevant because it can and is happening and will continue to happen. the new ct6 is under 3700lbs, a remarkable achievement. i doubt buyers will consider it a tin can and because it's not as heavy as brougham land barge doesn't mean it has bad handling or isn't comfortable. no it's not a land yacht with crushed velour or leather 'sofas' in the front, but those days are long (decades) over.
Our discussion about it is relevant. Obviously, neither you or I are going to change automotive history by ourselves, so, yes, that's a given. Yes, the CT6 is under 3700 lbs. (and drives like it). But let's see how the new Continental stacks up to it. The Continental already has one advantage......no turbo-4.
i think that's nonsense. the suspension itself is a factor, so if you have a very light vehicle, it can have soft springs and still be very comfortable. my old 2200lb miata was very comfortable despite the light weight and short wheelbase because the suspension is targeted for comfort more than outright performance.
No offense, but IMO it's really stretching it to call the Miata's suspension soft and comfortable......that's like calling Hillary honest LOL. Of course, if you find it comfortable, then, that's your call...I'm not in a position to judge that. But I certainly can't agree. However, the Miata's stiff underpinnings do pay off in superb handling.
Now, I grant you it's not the absolute stiffest-riding car I've sampled (that crown would probably go to the early/mid-2000s Mitsubishi Evo). But the Miata ranks well up there in chassis/suspension stiffness, especially by convertible standards, where cowl-flex can often be an issue.
There is nothing new here. Again, as vehicles are redesigned to "add lightness" (thank you, Colin Chapman), all parts of vehicle will be redesigned, not just one part. No auto manufacturer is going to redesign and lighten the body of a new car without also redesigning and lightening the suspension.
Adding lightness (to the whole car) makes the car more agile, as there is less weight to toss around, and it is self-perpetuating: As you lighten the body of the car, the suspension and the undercarriage can be lightened, which makes the car even lighter still; the engine can be reduced in size due to the reduced weight, which makes the car even lighter still...
I've driven a Lotus Elise (though it was almost impossible for me to get in and out of LOL). I know what Chapman's basic philosophy was.......his products made great advances in racing in the 1960s. The Elise does have excellent, quick handling (and good road-feel from its non-power steering, something that few cars still have nowadays)...but I didn't think its handling, while excellent, was that much better than the Miata, especially for a car that sold for roughly twice a Miata's price.
Just because sedans outsell coupes, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with coupes.
Likewise, just because sedans/hatches/wagons outsell crossovers, or vice versa, it doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with either coupe, sedan nor crossover designs.
All coupe, sedan & crossover formats are good, and each in their own different ways.
There is no one size or one design, that fits all.
This is just the normal ebb and flow of the car industry. Wagons used to be big sellers, then mini vans came on the scene, then big SUV's and now CUV's. Before long something else will be the big trend, there always is.
This is just the normal ebb and flow of the car industry. Wagons used to be big sellers, then mini vans came on the scene, then big SUV's and now CUV's. Before long something else will be the big trend, there always is.
I think one of the reasons why SUVs became such good sellers is that not many minivan manufacturers have offered AWD. Currently, the Toyota Sienna is the only minivan in the U.S. market with that option....Chrysler minivans offered it at one time, but it was dropped. The auto press (foolishly, IMO) has tended to stigmatize and stereotype minivan ownership, but smart shoppers will ignore that nonsense and get the best vehicle for their families. Minivans are still probably the best and most practical vehicles for many families, but, unfortunately, the lack of the AWD option (besides peer-pressure and stereotypes) often diverts shoppers into SUVs instead. Of course, once the kids are grown and leave, there are fewer reasons for empty-nesters to have a minivan....but, today, a lot of kids are living at home longer due to economic and other conditions. And fewer kids are getting drivers' licenses and vehicles of their own.
I think one of the reasons why SUVs became such good sellers is that not many minivan manufacturers have offered AWD. Currently, the Toyota Sienna is the only minivan in the U.S. market with that option....Chrysler minivans offered it at one time, but it was dropped. The auto press (foolishly, IMO) has tended to stigmatize and stereotype minivan ownership, but smart shoppers will ignore that nonsense and get the best vehicle for their families. Minivans are still probably the best and most practical vehicles for many families, but, unfortunately, the lack of the AWD option (besides peer-pressure and stereotypes) often diverts shoppers into SUVs instead. Of course, once the kids are grown and leave, there are fewer reasons for empty-nesters to have a minivan....but, today, a lot of kids are living at home longer due to economic and other conditions. And fewer kids are getting drivers' licenses and vehicles of their own.
.
The low cost of the Rav4 and other vehicle among its class is why they are selling. The starting price of the Sienna is just too much money for most buyers who are in the Rav4 segment. Most people in the sub $50K price range of cars do not go into a dealer with $40K to spend buy come out with just spending $22K, they usually have enough to get approved for a financing or a lease and the majority of people buy what they can afford. The Rav4 is an OK car, its not super great and its not super bad. I test drove one, it was alright at best. But at the price they want for one, its a tough pill to swallow for a well optioned $30K Rav4 with a 4 cylinder engine. Most Rav4 buyers would never of been able to afford a 4Runner, Highlander or an AWD Minivan. These buyers settle for an entry level Toyota and are willing to pay a hefty mark-up for it.
Look at the Buick Encore, a Yaris hatchback type SUV with a 1.4 four-banger. Add in an astonishing sad 20% discount and you can see why people are buying the Encore.....What else could they get from the Buick brand at that price point? Would these same buyers opt for a much more expensive AWD Buick minivan, I am not convinced.
The low cost of the Rav4 and other vehicle among its class is why they are selling. The starting price of the Sienna is just too much money for most buyers who are in the Rav4 segment. Most people in the sub $50K price range of cars do not go into a dealer with $40K to spend buy come out with just spending $22K, they usually have enough to get approved for a financing or a lease and the majority of people buy what they can afford. The Rav4 is an OK car, its not super great and its not super bad. I test drove one, it was alright at best. But at the price they want for one, its a tough pill to swallow for a well optioned $30K Rav4 with a 4 cylinder engine. Most Rav4 buyers would never of been able to afford a 4Runner, Highlander or an AWD Minivan. These buyers settle for an entry level Toyota and are willing to pay a hefty mark-up for it.
RAV-4s are OK in a family with one or two small kids, but generally won't cut it with a larger family. Earlier versions offered an extended-wheelbase version with a V6 and a third-row seat, but that was dropped on the present model. (Toyota, IMO, has not come up with a good explanation for that)
Look at the Buick Encore, a Yaris hatchback type SUV with a 1.4 four-banger. Add in an astonishing sad 20% discount and you can see why people are buying the Encore.....What else could they get from the Buick brand at that price point? Would these same buyers opt for a much more expensive AWD Buick minivan, I am not convinced.
What sells the Encore is its plush interior (for the class), solid Opel-construction, and Buick sound insulation. But it is underpowered, stubby, and, IMO, awkward-looking. It is done on a Chevy Sonic/Opel platform, BTW, not from a Yaris. And, as far as Buick minivans go, all of GM, not just Buick, got out of the minivan business completely, a least in the American market. IMO, they are missing out on sales.....look how many people buy Siennas and Odysseys because of the few competitors still available (Kia Sedona and Chrysler Pacifica).
RAV-4s are OK in a family with one or two small kids, but generally won't cut it with a larger family. Earlier versions offered an extended-wheelbase version with a V6 and a third-row seat, but that was dropped on the present model. (Toyota, IMO, has not come up with a good explanation for that).
The last-generation RAV4 was offered in short- and long-wheelbase models; the short-wheelbase model was not available in North America. The 3rd-row, fold-back-into-well option was originally offered on the top-trim version but was later moved to the base-trim version (at least in Canada). The top-trim with 3rd-row option was quite expensive and not selling; I believe the base-trim with 3rd-row did not sell either. That is Toyota's philosophy: If it does not sell (or only sells in very low numbers), do not offer it.
The spare tire was mounted on the rear barn door to allow for the rear well for that 3rd-row seat option.
The current-generation RAV4 is only offered in one length, equivalent to the last-generation's long-wheelbase model. Offering a 3rd-row on the current-generation model would mean re-engineering the rear cargo area with a higher load floor and spare tire suspended from the bottom, outside the vehicle, rather than sitting in a well, as it does now. I particularly like the lower-than-normal rear load floor on the current RAV4 (compare it with the NX, which has quite a high load floor, probably to offer a (close to) flat load floor when the rear seat is folded down).
The first-generation Highlander was originally not offered with a 3rd-row option but it was later offered, after they re-engineered the rear cargo area floor to hang the spare tire outside.
The last-generation RAV4 was offered in short- and long-wheelbase models; the short-wheelbase model was not available in North America. The 3rd-row, fold-back-into-well option was originally offered on the top-trim version but was later moved to the base-trim version (at least in Canada). The top-trim with 3rd-row option was quite expensive and not selling; I believe the base-trim with 3rd-row did not sell either. That is Toyota's philosophy: If it does not sell (or only sells in very low numbers), do not offer it.
The spare tire was mounted on the rear barn door to allow for the rear well for that 3rd-row seat option.
The current-generation RAV4 is only offered in one length, equivalent to the last-generation's long-wheelbase model. Offering a 3rd-row on the current-generation model would mean re-engineering the rear cargo area with a higher load floor and spare tire suspended from the bottom, outside the vehicle, rather than sitting in a well, as it does now. I particularly like the lower-than-normal rear load floor on the current RAV4 (compare it with the NX, which has quite a high load floor, probably to offer a (close to) flat load floor when the rear seat is folded down).
The first-generation Highlander was originally not offered with a 3rd-row option but it was later offered, after they re-engineered the rear cargo area floor to hang the spare tire outside.
Rav4 could just offer run flats no need for rear mounted tire.
The last-generation RAV4 was offered in short- and long-wheelbase models; the short-wheelbase model was not available in North America. The 3rd-row, fold-back-into-well option was originally offered on the top-trim version but was later moved to the base-trim version (at least in Canada). The top-trim with 3rd-row option was quite expensive and not selling; I believe the base-trim with 3rd-row did not sell either. That is Toyota's philosophy: If it does not sell (or only sells in very low numbers), do not offer it.
What's ironic, though, is that the extended-wheelbase/3rd-row version was offered here in the first place because of consumer demand and requests for it....and now they tell us that it didn't sell?
09-09-16, 04:41 PM
discount and you can see why people are buying the Encore.....What else could they get from the Buick brand at that price point? Would these same buyers opt for a much more expensive AWD Buick minivan, I am not convinced.
