2015 Ford F150 goes on a diet, loses 700 lbs. (Aluminum)

[user removed]

Originally Posted by wdb

Carp about modern vehicle weights all you like; they weigh what they weigh, and trimming 700 lbs. (seven hundred pounds!) is a significant accomplishment. Ford deserves praise for this move, not derision because the F150 is not a Lotus Elise.

Look at it this way. By shedding 700 lbs. from the best selling vehicle in the US -- not to mention offering 2 (two!) engines specifically targeting fuel economy -- Ford will be causing millions of gallons less fuel to be burned. That's a good thing no matter how you cut it.

Wise words. Funnny how we rave about gen 1 Insights but heap it on Ford (both AL bodies).

I drove my Fiesta today. 50 miles on a gallon of gas, 50 degrees outside 60 MPH average. I used to hate Ford with a passion, now I think, after 4 decades, they are the only US manufacturer who saw it coming and prepared themselves to avoid govt money. I think their cars are world class, the Fiesta was #1 in England.

They have my support.

regards
Mech

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

Ford did request bailout money and did receive money from the Feds.

Ford, BMW, Toyota Took Secret Government Money

[Cobb]

Well, that settles it for me.

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

Ford did request bailout money and did receive money from the Feds.

Ford, BMW, Toyota Took Secret Government Money

[Xist]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Regarding dents or any other minor damage, we can expect some redneck-engineering to fix it with Coke cans and Araldite

You mention that like there is some other way.

[user removed]

And how much did they loose in the GM bailout, was it 10 billion? And how many billions did Fiat walk away with?

Proping up credit markets by buying paper isn't the same as screwing bond holders and giving the corp to a union with a 10 billion tip, paid for by taxpayers, but at least with interest paid.

No one will know how bad it could have been without the bailouts, mostly in the real estate and insurance businesses.

regards
Mech

[user removed]

The Feds COULD have paid out 100s of billions in FDIC insurance payments to deposit holders had they done nothing, and it could have taken the rest of a lot of peoples lives for the economy to recover as it required WW2 to pull out of the recession of 1929. Look at Fords production numbers from 1925 to 1940.

regards
Mech

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by wdb

No fair. That was 44 years ago; 44 years of bureaucrats running amok adds up to a lot of weight.

Not sure if you're just making a funny, or actually blaming government for imposing safety standards as the reason for the vehicle bloat epidemic. Safety equipment/engineering is responsible for only a small fraction of the huge increases we've seen.

Marketing and lifestyle inflation (a.k.a. hedonic adaptation) is the real culprit.

However, it's likely that bureaucrats are responsible for the impending reversal of said bloat. (U.S. C.A.F.E. rules)

Not defending anyone, just stating a fact.

[PaleMelanesian]

Well, I did have to choose the Camaro SS with V8 engine, and not Ford's own Mustang which weights several hundred less. I purposely stacked that comparison. But still, a full-size truck weighing the same as a 2-door sports car? Impressive to me. It'll weigh less than my family car Odyssey, with a smaller engine and higher epa rating, and more payload capacity.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Not sure if you're just making a funny, or actually blaming government for imposing safety standards as the reason for the vehicle bloat epidemic. Safety equipment/engineering is responsible for only a small fraction of the huge increases we've seen.

I was being funny - bureacrats running amok are a pet peeve of mine. When it comes to bureaucracies, I'm a firm believer in full application of the Peter Principle. But now that you mention it...

I don't know about the fraction from federal and state safey and emissions standards being all that small, but I do agree that most of the weight gain has been due to increasing vehicle sizes, plus convenience and luxury features. For example, I'm willing to wager that the electric windows in my Fit weigh more than manual winders would.

On the other hand, sticking with the Fit for the moment: it has trash (read: lightweight) carpeting, minimal sound insulation, paper thin sheet metal, and is in general a pretty minimalist vehicle. And yet it weighs 2500 lbs. That is light by today's standards, but not by 44 year old vehicle weights. I attribute the extra weight in a basic vehicle such as a Fit to safety equipment. In other words, a Fit built in 1975 would weigh closer to 2100-2200 lbs., and the most of the difference is due to the weight added higher passenger safety and emissions standards.

hedonic adaptation

Hehe.

However, it's likely that bureaucrats are responsible for the impending reversal of said bloat. (U.S. C.A.F.E. rules)

Yes, and to be fair I've credited CAFE standards myself in other posts. But those same bureaucrats will also be responsible for the additional costs and loss of aerodynamics imposed by their latest fad, pedestrian safety. Bureaucrats giveth, and they taketh away.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by wdb

On the other hand, sticking with the Fit for the moment: it has trash (read: lightweight) carpeting, minimal sound insulation, paper thin sheet metal, and is in general a pretty minimalist vehicle. And yet it weighs 2500 lbs. That is light by today's standards, but not by 44 year old vehicle weights. I attribute the extra weight in a basic vehicle such as a Fit to safety equipment. In other words, a Fit built in 1975 would weigh closer to 2100-2200 lbs., and the most of the difference is due to the weight added higher passenger safety and emissions standards.

Your Fit is not nearly as light as it could be! And if you think it has minimal sound insulation, go drive a 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage (1973 lbs) for comparison and get back to me. It will make you marvel at the excessive coddling of your Fit! (And the Mirage got *additional* insulation for the U.S. market... and still weighs ~300 lbs less than the smaller Chevy Spark.)

Honda pulled 57 lbs out of the body structure of the 2015 Fit, while increasing volume (and likely crash protection). What will Honda do with that structural weight savings? "Probably fill [it] up with added features."

Your "1975 Fit" would have had:

- 12 or 13 inch wheels, skinny bicycle tires
- smaller brakes
- a smaller engine, cooling system, exhaust system
- a 1 or 2-speaker radio (if it even had a factory radio)
- less sound insulation
- no A/C
- no power accessories
- exposed (painted) body metal inside, instead of plastic panels everywhere
- in addition to worse crashworthiness & emissions as you mentioned, of course