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

[jamesqf]

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.

Did I say otherwise? If there was derision in my comment, it was aimed at a) GM, for building a 3800 lb lump of lard and calling it a sports car; and b) the people who buy oversized pickups to prop up their egos. How many of those do you think will reject the aluminum-bodied Ford 'cause it's not manly enough?

As for the hedonic adaptation thing, it works in multiple directions. As for instance, I've hedonically adapted to the light weight, small size, and other consequent pleasures of my Insight, to the point where I hate the thought of driving something larger.

[CFECO]

If there was derision in my comment, it was aimed at a) GM, for building a 3800 lb lump of lard and calling it a sports car;

It's important to note that while the 911 and Stingray are right on top of each other on efficiency, the 911 generates 400 horsepower, while the Stingray outputs 455 horsepower--on essentially the same amount of fuel. Manufacturer performance estimates reflect the power differential: Porsche puts the manual-equipped 911 Carrera S's 0-60 mph time at 4.3 seconds; the Stingray's is 3.8 seconds (with the Z51 performance package). Both the 911 and the Stingray offer a seven-speed manual transmission
This is while the Corvette gets 30MPG highway, HA, some "Lump", I'd say...NOT!

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by euromodder

It's one of the reasons old cars can get such good fuel economy: they weigh far less than the current overweight crop...

Once out on the highway at a constant speed, the effect is minimal.
But then ... going at a constant speed isn't the most efficient way to drive

Loosing weight alone may be slightly more efficient, but the main reason to loose weight is to downsize the engine. Old cars get good fuel economy not because they weigh less, but because their engines are small and consume less fuel.

As far as pulse and glide strategy goes, having a denser (heavier) vehicle can be a benefit for maintaining momentum and extending the glide.

Originally Posted by CFECO

Motorcycle suspensions and wheels are not designed for side loads, be careful.

They are designed for a side load. When a bike is at maximum lean and a bump in the road is encountered, the damper is not able to absorb the impact as readily as when the bike is upright. Instead, the swingarm is designed to flex and absorb the sideways force.

This doesn't necessarily mean the suspension can handle the side forces of a heavier trike in corners though. You bring up an important consideration.

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

BST, that builds the Ducati CF wheels, told me that my 800lb. RT will not stress the wheels.
I considered using them on a Vintage Spyder and found that 1,200lbs. will not stress them.

[PaleMelanesian]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Did I say otherwise? If there was derision in my comment, it was aimed at a) GM, for building a 3800 lb lump of lard and calling it a sports car; and b) the people who buy oversized pickups to prop up their egos. How many of those do you think will reject the aluminum-bodied Ford 'cause it's not manly enough?

As for the hedonic adaptation thing, it works in multiple directions. As for instance, I've hedonically adapted to the light weight, small size, and other consequent pleasures of my Insight, to the point where I hate the thought of driving something larger.

Originally Posted by CFECO

If there was derision in my comment, it was aimed at a) GM, for building a 3800 lb lump of lard and calling it a sports car;

It's important to note that while the 911 and Stingray are right on top of each other on efficiency, the 911 generates 400 horsepower, while the Stingray outputs 455 horsepower--on essentially the same amount of fuel. Manufacturer performance estimates reflect the power differential: Porsche puts the manual-equipped 911 Carrera S's 0-60 mph time at 4.3 seconds; the Stingray's is 3.8 seconds (with the Z51 performance package). Both the 911 and the Stingray offer a seven-speed manual transmission
This is while the Corvette gets 30MPG highway, HA, some "Lump", I'd say...NOT!

Camaro is the one that's a Lump at 3800 lb. The Corvette is a much better 3300 lb. And smaller. And more aerodynamic.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

Camaro is the one that's a Lump at 3800 lb. The Corvette is a much better 3300 lb. And smaller. And more aerodynamic.

Yes, the Camaro was the 'lump' I meant. Just for curiousity, 2013 Camaro mpg figures run from 19/22/30 to 12/14/18, depending on model, Corvette is 16/19/26 to 14/17/21. Have to go back to 2010 to find Lotus numbers: 21/23/27.

[Frank Lee]

I'd be more enthusiastic if a full-size 2015 1/2T pickup weighed less than it's 40- or 50- year-old "low tech" predecessor.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'd be more enthusiastic if a full-size 2015 1/2T pickup weighed less than it's 40- or 50- year-old "low tech" predecessor.

We can have the truck weigh as little as it did 40 years ago, but it would have to haul a lot less and have a smaller motor.

As with most things American, the 1/2T pickup grew in size. It used to be called a 1/2 ton because it was rated to only haul 1000 lbs in the bed. Nowadays it's rated to haul 3120 lbs.

Nearly every other car model has porked up as well. The Camry used to be smaller than the current Corolla, the Accord used to be smaller than the current Civic, etc. Rarely does an auto manufacturer announce that the next generation of a vehicle model will be smaller and have less interior space.

I'm less concerned with how fuel efficient a working truck is because it's purpose designed to haul a lot of weight. If it were a commuter vehicle, then I would be more concerned with fuel economy. That said, reducing weight is a great thing because it increases the available payload.

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

If every other household had a lightweight single place EV in its garage, it would save a tremendous amount of oil. We wouldn't need to import a drop of oil. Everyone in America thinks that we must long haul an entire family around, everywhere we go.

[user removed]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'd be more enthusiastic if a full-size 2015 1/2T pickup weighed less than it's 40- or 50- year-old "low tech" predecessor.

I'll just hang on to my 17 year old Ranger which hauls a half ton and weighs under 3k pounds. 28 miles on this tank filled on 1/8/2014. The plug wires are dated 1997.

regards
Mech