10 lightest new cars available in 2010 (North America), 2009 (Europe)
 

Updated list:

• 10 lightest cars in Canada for 2014 vs. Nissan Micra

• 12 lightest cars in the U.S. 2014 vs. Mitsubishi Mirage

---

Tim and I got into a conversation about this today, and I thought I'd do a bit of research and put together a list.

Fortunately someone already did it for me!

1. Smart Fortwo Coupe / Cabrio
   Weight: 820 kg — 840 kg ( 1,807—1,851 lbs.)
   .
2. Lotus Elise
   Weight: 899 kg (1,984 lbs)
   .
3. Lotus Exige
   Weight: 942 kg (2,077 lbs)
   .
4. Mazda2
   Weight: 1,045 kg (2,306 lbs)
   .
5. Toyota Yaris Hatch / Sedan
   Weight: 1,049 kg (2,313 lbs)
   .
6. Hyundai Accent Sedan
   Weight: 1,072 kg (2,365 lbs)
   .
7. Mazda MX-5
   Weight: 1,115 kg (2,458 lbs)
   .
8. Honda Fit
   Weight: 1,119 kg (2,466 lbs)
   .
9. Hyundai Accent Hatchback
   Weight: 1,119 kg (2,467 lbs)
   .
10. Nissan Versa Sedan
    Weight: 1,150 kg (2,535 lbs)

Honourable mention:

Chevrolet Aveo / Suzuki Swift+ hatchback 1,155 kg (2,546 lbs)
Kia Rio Sedan 1,160 kg (2,557 lbs)
MINI Cooper 1,165 kg (2,568 lbs)
Civic Coupe 1,179 kg (2,599 lbs)
Tesla Roadster 1,238 kg (2,729 lbs)

Now these are Canadian specs, so they may not perfectly match the USA figures. Also, I didn't double check them against manufacturer's info.

More details & pics of all the cars on this list can be found at: 10 Lightest cars on-sale in Canada - Sympatico.ca Autos

Thaks for posting the list. Makes interesting reading, coming from Europe where the list would be significantly more expansive.

I'm impressed how far up the Mazda 2 is on the list - they've been one of the first manufacturers to recently make a conscious effort to reduce the weight of their cars - I think the previous 2/Demio was a good 100kg heavier.

Here's a list for the Europe by the way (source, as of March 2009). First number is kg, second (in brackets) is pounds:

• 1. smart fortwo cabrio 1.0 mhd
  Weight: 825 (1818)
• 2. Daihatsu Cuore 1.0
  Weight: 840 (1851)
• 3. Toyota iQ 1.0
  Weight: 845 (1863)
• 4. Chevrolet Matiz 0.8 S
  Weight: 850 (1874)
• 5. smart fortwo cabrio 1.0 mhd pure
  Weight: 855 (1885)
• 6. Lotus Elise S
  Weight: 860 (1895)
• 7. Daihatsu Trevis 1.0 Junior
  Weight: 865 (1907)
• 8. Peugeot 107 70 Petit Filou
  Weight: 865 (1907)
• 9. Morgan 4/4 1.8 16V Lowline
  Weight: 868 (1913)
• 10+11. Citroën C1 1.0 Advance/ Toyota Aygo 1.0 3-door
  Weight: 875 (1929)
• 12. Suzuki Alto 1.0 Club Auto
  Weight: 880 (1941)
• 13. Fiat Panda 1.1 8V Active
  Weight: 915 (2017)
• 14. Daihatsu Copen
  Weight: 925 (2039)
• 15. Fiat 500 1.2 8V Pop
  Weight: 940 (2072)

Interesting to note how the heaviest in that list is lighter than the 3rd lightest in the US list! Three sports cars in the top 15, the Elise, the Morgan and the Daihatsu Copen. Some British small-volume manufacturers shame these though - Ginetta's G40, for example, weighs in at 850kg in road spec. The benefits of a fibreglass body right there...

The Elise is a comparative heavyweight too compared to the 720kg the very first model started off at. Likewise the Mazda on the US list - my own MX5/Miata weighs in at under 950kg.

Smart should be happy for topping both lists though! The heavier model there is a more powerful (bigger engined) variant - 71bhp as opposed to 51.

I recall reading that too... and yet, they're only beating the Yaris by 4 kg!

I like that the Diahatsu Cuore is 2nd on your list - and the first 4 passenger vehicle, yet not much heavier than the Smart.

http://bin.staticlocal.ch/c4y/74/740...d/fullsize.jpg


That car has won fuel economy honours before in competition (gasoline class). Judging by the numbers posted, it's probably fairly conventional driving.

The Seat Ibiza Ecomotive wins the Eco Tour 2008 — Autoblog Green

Much of a car's weight comes from components that have to be sized according to the car's weight. This includes the engine, drivetrain, exhaust, unibody, tires, etc. Weight savings at the design level have a ripple effect of weight reduction.

I ran across this article in the Times' blog, which suggests cutting 400lbs from the unibody of a 3500lb car saves an additional 125lbs elsewhere in the car.

A Gas Mileage Bonus From Aluminum - Green Blog - NYTimes.com

If the 400lb weight reduction came from outside the unibody, you could reduce the weight of the body as well, so the impact would be much greater.


High curb weight means more than just higher rolling resistance and inertial loads. It also means you have an even larger mismatch between your power requirements during a hill climb vs during cruising. This reduces your BSFC during cruising. Or if you're going hybrid, curb weight means a heavier and MUCH more expensive electric motor.

Good points, Mr Smalls.

The other great thing about lighter weight is most auto journalists like the way the lighter cars drive, particularly if they're tuned to feel responsive/sporty. The older ones probably remember what light cars felt like, but for the greenhorns, it may be a pleasant surprise (and they'll hopefully pass that on to their readers).

I hope that in North America, we're near (past) a peak of vehicle weight for a given class and will see improvements from here.

Let's hear it for deathtraps! ;-) (Thought I'd pre-empt that one.)

Drove a 59 Healey Sprite (bug eye) when I was a senior in high school in 1968.

Now that was a lightweight crate!

33 MPG and gas was 32 cents per gal.

regards
Mech

I gotta respond to that last line

There is a huge misconception that everyone from consumers to manufacturers to insurance companies have totally bought into.
The mass of a heavy vehicle can absorb some of the impact inertia in a head on collision.

On the other hand, weight increases momentum exponentially, so that (given the same brakes and speed) a vehicle that weighs twice as much has FOUR times the braking distance.
Which means that, all other things being equal, a heavier car is more likely to get into a collision in the first place.

Think about it - which is safer, the car that survives a crash, or the car that avoids the crash all together?

Just as important, in a rear-end crash or a side-impact, extra mass in a vehicle does not increase survivability.
In crashes involving a car and a semi-truck, the truck hitting the car is by far the more common crash (braking the distance) and yet at the same time, more fatalities occur from cars hitting trucks than the other way around (being hit from the rear, even by something as massive as a semi, doesn't tend to cause fatalities)

Rear-end Large Truck Crashes - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

The lesson is: if you really care about safety, instead of buying a heavy car, slow down, pay attention, and don't drive into the back of a truck or into oncoming traffic.

Darin, you troll. Look what you've started.

:p

Yeah, if a vehicle doesn't have a couple inches of armor, it's not worth driving: M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now if you want lighter cars from the '60s/'70s, how about the Lotus Europa, 1,320 to 1,570 pounds (600 to 710 kg), Elan at 1500 lb (680 kg), or the Seven at about 1100 lbs?

The now discontinued Daewoo Tico (Fina) weighed 690kg. So did the Fiat Cinquecento, but its successor, the Seicento, weighed about 50kg more.

The 3L version of the VW Lupo was an attempt at weight reduction, using light metals and other tricks to reduce the weight from 890-980kg to 830kg.

There is a B1 class of driver's license here, which allows 16 year olds to drive vehicles (:eek:) weighing less than 550kg. This pretty much narrows it down to atv's, but I've seen ads for companies that reduce the weight of any car weighing less than 950kg, down to 550kg. The price is around 2000PLN (~US$650) to get a car registered as a 2-seater, more for a 4-seater, weighing less than 550kg. Makes me wonder... I haven't found what exactly is done, no first hand accounts on any forums, but the guesses are:

• Rear seat and seatbelt removal,
• Carpet removal,
• Spare tire removal,
• Composit hood.

The price is too low for aluminum wheels or more drastic changes.
From the discussions I've seen, that list may barely be enough to lighten a Tico, but won't get a 900kg car to lose 350kg.

(If this is too far off topic please let me know.)

The original 1964 Ford Mustang, at 2,570 lbs, would almost make that list if sold today; it has a body made out of heavy steel with a cast iron engine.

My Triumph GT6 is lighter than any of the cars on that list, also made of heavy steel with a cast iron engine block. Stock, they are 1,783 lbs dry weight, with a 403 lb engine block!

It is quite sad that today, cars with ABS plastic and fiberglass body pieces end up weighing MORE than the steel-bodied cars of 40+ years ago...

It figures as much; I've seen cars that lost more than 400 lbs or more by stripping out all of that useless dead weight in the interior and replacing the seats with aftermarket. A lot of the weight in cars today is unnecessary and non-functional.

Thankfully, there are kitcars like the Fisher Fury, when outfitted with a Hayabusa motorcycle engine, end up weighing less than 900 lbs...

I'm pretty sure that, at least in the US, the Aveo is a Dawoo car, I took one for a test drive and looked at the label on the door.

I wonder how much a reconstructed Mustang of Aluminum and plastic would weigh?

Also, the Mazda2 is on the list, but not the Fiesta?

I figure if Honda were to add 100lbs of safety equipment to an Insight, it would weigh 150lbs more, for 2000lbs. Then switch the unibody from aluminium to steel, and it would weigh about 2370lbs. So what is the CR-Z doing at 2664lbs?

I remember the original Insight going down quite well in road tests - the light weight (and the shape, obviously) were very good for economy, but the weight also contributed to a car that felt very sprightly and easy to throw around - although far from a performance car it still maintained the element of "fun" that's so hard to quantify in any other way than experiencing it yourself.

The Cinquecento was very light, but then there was very little car there so you can see where the savings were made! I still think the Smart is impressive, given how much modern technology is packed into one and how good quality the interior feels despite being at the lowest end of the market. The Elise is better still, though again it's easy to see how it's so light, given how little car you actually get! A friend used to own an original Elise S1 and you can totally understand how it only weighed 720kg...

The Audi A2 is another lightweight favourite of mine. Clever engineering - (aerodynamic) aluminium body and light weight allowed smaller engines. 1.4 petrol weighs less than 900kg (brilliant for the usually podgy Audi brand) and still under 1000kg for the 1.4 diesel with a heavier block and more ancilliaries. I expect the "3L" version of the A2 with the 1.2 turbodiesel was pretty light too...

No idea, but having sat in one I can see how it weighs as much as it does. It's a quality product, there's a lot of interior around you, comfy seats, and when you pop the bonnet there's a lot of stuff under there. Certainly doesn't look as spacious as the original Insight's engine bay. Not to mention, the whole thing is steel rather than aluminium. I guess we should be thankful that it's still on par for the class, and that it's affordable enough.

In the UK, the base CR-Z costs the same as the 1st gen Insight did when it was new - £17,000 or thereabouts. Not bad for ten years more technology.

Me? I'd happily have either Insight or CR-Z. Both, preferably.

But 10 years more technology that yields a car with half the mpg?

My Sport Coupe would have made the U.S. list!

BTW I have my doubts about a GT6 engine block weighing 400+ lbs. MAYBE the entire engine assy... not the block though... I had a Spitfire 4, that engine block would barely have made a good paperweight.

This is partly due to the fact that the EPA changed the test:

Regulatory Announcement: EPA Issues New Test Methods for Fuel Economy Window Stickers | Fuel Economy | US EPA

Under EPA’s new methods, the new fuel economy estimates for most vehicles will be lower. This is not because auto makers have designed the same vehicles to be less fuel efficient – it is because our new test methods take into account factors that have been missing or not fully accounted for in the current tests. Because some vehicles are more sensitive to these factors than others, the impact of the changes will vary from vehicle to vehicle.

I had an old Civic, a '78 that was really very lightweight, a mere 1600lbs or so, so it felt really quite nimble in spite of its low power. The low weight made it so much more responsive than anything I'd ever driven before, and to be completely honest, since.

I'd like another flyweight commuter. That thing was fun, and really very thrifty.

Yeah. My old Sprite had modified front bodywork: the hood & fenders were one piece that hinged at the front, so I could pull two pins and a couple of electric plugs, and lift it all off. Then I could just undo a few bolts, reach in, and lift the engine out by hand.

I brought up the Tempo because I had to defend the old-school cast iron pushrod engine from attack before. Cast iron and pushrods are not the devil! And the vehicle can be competitively light with them.

I'm actually amazed at how much some of those cars weigh.

My 99 Nissan Frontier has a curb weight of 2800-3100 lbs, with a box frame, and designed to cary an extra 1200-1400lbs of cargo.
My 84 CJ without top or doors comes in at 3000 lbs with a 600+lb engine, 80lb transfer case an extra 100lbs in the front axle and no thought to saving weight anyplace on the whole thing.

I can get an aluminum body tub that saves about 500lbs, that is stronger than the stock body.

The fiberglass top and steel doors adds about 350lbs.

Considering how small some of these cars are they should be lighter.

Nonsense. It can be light despite them, but imagine how light the same engine would be with aluminium castings.

And if you had variable valve timing instead of a simple valvetrain, you could have economy down low AND power up high. You could match the Tempo's power output with half the displacement. I guess that's the difference between a Tempo and a Civic.

Nonsense.

It has torque down low and doesn't need hp on high.

OHV = more compact. No timing belt to service either.

Cast iron cyls = the best wear characteristics.

Monoblock i.e. no separate cylinder sleeves = the most reliable. And inexpensive.

KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Civics pretty much aren't getting any better fe than the Coupe. :thumbup:

Anyone know what the upcoming Scion iQ is supposed to weigh? It's got four seats. (Sort of.)

I'll go dig around...

curb weight: 1963 lbs.

Source: 2011 Scion iQ Features and Specs

...but did you notice the MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHT of 2646 lbs?

...with four seats that's less than 171 lbs per seat...passenger & luggage!

I doubt you would be able to fit full grown adults into the back seats. If you consider 2 60lb children in the back that leaves more than enough for 2 adults and some luggage.

I love the Tempo myself, but mine was lucky to get over 30 mpg (3 speed auto; I ran 60 @3000 rpms)

The OHV may be more compact, but more simple it isn't. The pushrods only add to the weight and complexity while reducing its power and maximum rpms.

I would say though the weight of the block isn't the problem with a pushrod engine (and timing chains are a PAIN to get to compared to a belt, although the change intervals are longer) but rather the design. Having the cams lifting the tappets directly is much simpler than the cam pushing the lifter which pushes the pushrod which lifts the tappet.

AFAIK, the aluminum block/cast iron sleeve method is straight forward and reliable. My Max has an aluminum block and DOHC run by 4 timing chains, yet there is no recommended interval on changing the chains and this engine is known to last over 500k miles without problems.

When the Explorer did away with the pushrod and went with an OHV, the mileage went up. I know of a guy managing to eek out 30 mpg from a 2wd Explorer with the OHV engine. With a lot of hypermiling and even shutting off half the cylinders on my pushrod Explorer, I managed to get 19 once.

Cars like this one horrify me. There is no crush zone in case of a rear end collision, except the heads and bodies of whoever may be in the back, which would have to be children. Put an adult in the back and the back glass acts as a headrest.

If I had a car like this, the back seats would come out and be disposed of. My minvan has a sturdier frame and more room in the back than these things, and even it scares me a bit.

...car = (TANK + tin can)/2



...mathematically, speaking...approximately.

Tempos need to be 4 or 5 speed to get good fe.

Pushrods don't add much weight and as far as higher rpms... who cares?

I have 5 Tempos- two are 26 years old, one with nearly 300,000 miles- and I've never touched a timing chain on any.

Explorer... pushrod IS OHV.

You shut off half the cylinders and that improved fe? :confused:

One neat little pushrod engine was the Toyota Corolla 1.5 liter of the mid 70s.

The RWD SR5s were little screamers.

Like a Mini Hemi.

regards
Mech

Don't forget the Subaru 360 sedan at 920lbs or so. The older you go the lighter you will find, old bugs were light also. Especially the reallly old bugs, little tinker toys compared to a Super Beetle.

I've read about rear head airbags on one of these cars... I think it was the Toyota iQ. You have a few inches of airbag between you and the glass. The other guy's bumper is supposed to connect with something solid in your car, and you'll go 0-20 in zero seconds, which will hurt, but it's not going to crumple like a tin can and kill everyone. At least not in a 20mph collision. Also, the bumper is probably six inches behind the rear glass, which doesn't count for as much in America as it does in Europe and Japan.

Your minivan is not inherently safer, because your van weighs twice as much. Your frame needs to be twice as stiff to endure the same acceleration without buckling.

All that said, I like to have a foot or two of crumple zones behind my rearmost passengers, which would make a rear end collision less jarring for everyone. I also like to have as much crumple zone up front as possible. There are small cars, including the Smart, that do amazingly well in crash tests considering their size, but that's qualified praise.

Have you seen this video? It's a good illustration of the effects of mass (or lack thereof).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he6TL...eature=related

...it also says alot about LONG hoods!

OK. Hooray! :thumbup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It_-sgoEQJE

While you guys are busy crashing into stuff, I'll see and avoid. :rolleyes: