Ever stopped at a dealer to confim how great your current car is?

[Jyden]

Originally Posted by RH77

Just a curious question...

Where exactly have vehicles weight increased over time?

First issue: model comparison.

The size of a new Civic would have to be compared to an older Accord (or new Focus vs. Tempo instead of Escort, etc). So, the first variable is the vehicle size has obviously increased, adding weight.

The rest? What about a line-item comparison of old component vs. new component...

Aside from the additional weight from add-on safety features (ABS, airbags) and engine displacement, where is it really coming from? Components are lighter these days.

Convince me that it isn't because we have been tricked into buying bigger, with fewer alternatives.

RH77

The added wheight comes from:
Aircon system, electric windows motors, added insulation, alloy wheels, bigger wheels / tires, roof rails, adjustable seats, seat heating, stereo and speakers, multiple airbags, more interior trim panels, thikker carpets, fogh lights, big heavy heddlight houses in glass, etc. etc. etc.
And all this calls for extra hp to haul it all => heavyer engine.

So in terms of effeciency in FE, lightweith cars etc. we have gone back the past 30 years from my first car a Citroen ID 19, followd by a Citroen GS with a 1000 cc aircoled engine.

Both of those cars was far more effecient with regards to arodynamics, weight and FE than new cars.

Think about that...

Citroën DS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1270 Kg, and a Cd around 0.30

Citroën GS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 900 kg. Low Cd

[SentraSE-R]

RH77,

My B14 (1996) SE-R v. my B15 (2002) SE-R shows a 140 lb weight difference - 2600 v. 2743 lbs. Both were similarly equipped, with AC, powered sunroof, MT, power door locks, etc. The main differences were the larger and heavier QR25DE engine v. the SR20DE, the 2 door B14 v. the 4 door body style of the B15, and 7" more length in the newer car. In fact, the '02 is only 3" shorter than the 1996 Nissan Altima was.

Most of the added weight likely came from the larger engine and larger body size. There were lots of other weight-adding changes in the newer version , from two extra power door locks and the 300 W Fosgate audio amp and speakers, to the 17" wheels and 6 speed transmission.

The big weight differences came before the mid 90s. My previous car was a 1987 Renault (AMC) GTA. It didn't have airbags or A/C, had a manual sunroof, and its 2 liter engine only made 95 hp. But it only weighed 2000 lbs, was 6" shorter than the '96 Nissan, and cornered on rails compared to the SE-Rs. Renault kept the weight down with extremely thin metal. I could push in the roof's sheet metal with my pinkie finger, it was so thin.

[Clev]

Here's a 1990 Honda Accord LX and its similarly-sized and optioned equivalent today: the 2010 Honda Civic DX-VP.

1990 Honda Accord LX vs. 2010 Honda Civic DX-VP

                     Accord         Civic
Length (in)           185.2         177.3
Width (in)             67.1          69.0
Height (in)            54.7          56.5
Curb weight (lbs)      2733          2687
Cargo volume (cu. ft)  14.4          12.0
Front headroom (in)    38.9          39.4
Front legroom (in)     42.6          42.2
Rear headroom (in)     37.5          37.4
Rear legroom (in)      34.3          34.6
Horsepower/torque   125/137       140/128
EPA city/hwy          21/27         26/34

The Civic and Accord are pretty much a dead heat in terms of legroom, headroom and power. (The Accord has a slight edge on trunk space.) The Civic has the following safety equipment not found in the older Accord: dual front airbags, front side airbags, side curtain airbags, active head restraints, ABS (optional on the Accord), TPMS and side door beams. Yet it manages to come in at about 50 pounds lighter than the Accord and gets about 25% better mileage.

BTW, the MSRP for the '90 Accord LX, $14,895, is about $24k in 2008 dollars, so the cars are better and cheaper than they used to be. (The 2010 Civic DX-VP's MSRP is $16,405.)

[jamesqf]

Suppose, though, that that 2010 Civic was the same size as say a 1985 Civic. How much of the added weight is safety equipment, and how much is just bloat?

[shovel]

I think what some of us are lamenting, is that while it is perfectly legal for a company to make and sell 250cc motorcycles that we the public are allowed to choose to drive on the same public streets and freeways.. it appears impossible for a company to make and sell a basic, simple transportation car with yesteryear's simplicity on today's engineering & the promise of reliability that only a new machine can really offer.

So we're stuck either paying far more than we're comfortable paying for a compromise of features not all of us prioritizes the same way, or owning questionably maintained old steel that many of us can't trust to take us across town reliably, or riding a brand new, nimble and reliable motorcycle that offers us no protection whatsoever from simple hazards like the weather and gravity.

If not saddled with the imposed-through-litigation obligation to make cars idiot proof and keep every model in their lineup layered with luxury upon luxury to keep up with each others' Joneses, I'd wager it would be easy for a company like Honda to cook up a 1500lb motor vehicle that's inherently an order of magnitude safer than any motorcycle, laughs past 60mpg on a wicked simple gas engine and costs.. well, what a tata nano costs.

So why is it again that we have no problem with motorcycles but then squabble over how much more safe one car is than the other?

[almightybmw]

Originally Posted by Dave's Civic Duty

Almighty,

You put a QSB3.3 in your Sonoma? What trans is behind that? Coolio!

Dave

Sorry to get off topic here guys!

Haha, off topic. After the first page, nothing was on topic save my post. Just banter about weight and safety factors.

I have not put a QSB3.3 in my Sonoma, YET. My biggest limitation is finding one that isn't brand new and $6500. That's a bit steep to put in a sub-par chassis. The stock 5 speed NV3500 could handle the torque, assuming I didn't abuse it. I could make a NV4500 fit, and never worry again. More money. I have actually found a few OM617 Benz motors for reasonable. Assuming I could swap an OM617 in for under $2000, and get at least 29mpg yearly average, it would pay for itself within 3 years, maybe more (assuming tradeoff miles driven by car instead of truck). Plus it'd be far more fun for expedition travel. If only the wife would approve a few grand...the last car project of that magnitude didn't turn out as well. May take lots of butter....

[Johnny Mullet]

When I get into a car, I AM IN CONTROL.

I don't want a car TELLING ME WHAT TO DO and TAKING CONTROL.

Newer vehicles are all too damn heavy since they have been equipped with a lot of safety and warning devices improvised to protect negligent Dumbasses. If we keep catering to Dumbasses we will all be driving 100 MPH Bradley tanks minus the weapons.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Suppose, though, that that 2010 Civic was the same size as say a 1985 Civic. How much of the added weight is safety equipment, and how much is just bloat?

It's not; it's a much larger car. But if you actually scaled it down so it matched the interior dimensions, you'd find it awfully close to the weight, and probably with better mileage (the '85 Civic has a 4-speed, and the current Civic already matches the '85 Civic 1.5L for mileage, even though it's bigger than the '85 Accord.)

[shovel]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mullet

I don't want a car TELLING ME WHAT TO DO and TAKING CONTROL.

Indeed, if the car wants to drive it should be paying my insurance premiums.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by shovel

I think what some of us are lamenting, is that while it is perfectly legal for a company to make and sell 250cc motorcycles that we the public are allowed to choose to drive on the same public streets and freeways.. it appears impossible for a company to make and sell a basic, simple transportation car with yesteryear's simplicity on today's engineering & the promise of reliability that only a new machine can really offer.

So we're stuck either paying far more than we're comfortable paying for a compromise of features not all of us prioritizes the same way, or owning questionably maintained old steel that many of us can't trust to take us across town reliably, or riding a brand new, nimble and reliable motorcycle that offers us no protection whatsoever from simple hazards like the weather and gravity.

If not saddled with the imposed-through-litigation obligation to make cars idiot proof and keep every model in their lineup layered with luxury upon luxury to keep up with each others' Joneses, I'd wager it would be easy for a company like Honda to cook up a 1500lb motor vehicle that's inherently an order of magnitude safer than any motorcycle, laughs past 60mpg on a wicked simple gas engine and costs.. well, what a tata nano costs.

So why is it again that we have no problem with motorcycles but then squabble over how much more safe one car is than the other?

The Yugo in 1986 cost $3,990, which was a pretty revolutionary price at the time. That's $8,165 in 2008 dollars. For pretty darn close to that ($9,990 asking), you can get a Versa or Yaris that will be quieter, more comfortable, faster, safer, more efficient and still have that lack of features you want.