My Death Trap

[Frank Lee]

Certainly major advances in drivetrain efficiency have been made! Why saddle them with excess bulk? Why manufacture built-in excess bulk? Those materials have to be extracted, refined, processed, bought, shipped, then driven all over creation on the vehicle, then disposed of.

As far as undesireable, come on over, I'll give you a ride.

I've test driven several new cars since getting my Tempos... nothing stands out in any of them that makes me exclaim "Ooo, that's better!" In fact I really despise the new F-Series as giving the impression of huge ponderous user-unfriendly unmaneuverable bulkiness vs my '94.

[autoteach]

I would agree on the trucks. I am not a big fan of bigger is better, especially in this area. I had a 1989 toyota. The things that were good about it are wrecked in the current, as-big-as-a-dakota, model by its size. FE has gone down, and size up in that case. As for going for a ride, I do have my fair share of exposure to vehicles and dont need to come over.

[Frank Lee]

Then why all the drama about how undesireable it is? By what criteria? Eh, no need to answer, it's pointless.

[cfguy2000]

I can't even count how many times having a smaller car has enabled me to avoid accidents. In general, larger vehicles are less agile and take longer to stop.

[autoteach]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Then why all the drama about how undesireable it is? By what criteria? Eh, no need to answer, it's pointless.

I think you misunderstood what I am saying about the Taco, it is much bigger than a ranger or colorado. I wish it were small, and safe. I dont want my small truck to be a big one, I would just buy a big one in that case.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by autoteach

I do think the solution is simple, take a new car that could be quite a bit more efficient then the tempo, strip out all the insulation and replace seats with 35 lb race seats. Strip out all insulation and covers under the hood. Pull out any other unnecessary devices or supplies. It will demo the tempo on mpg (think cruze, which is already pounding it), it will be almost as light, and surely as loud going down the road. Just an idea, then you can say screw the nanny society, I drive a vehicle that is as undesirable to drive as a mid nineties (fill in the blank) but gets considerably better FE.

I meant this.^^^

Lighter cars aren't necessarily noisier and I find mine so comfy (even over 7 hour trips) that I don't understand how that could be classified "undesireable".

[autoteach]

Well, considering there is as much as 50 or more pounds of sound deadening in the floor of the trunks of newer cars, and the rest of the car is built and insulated in the same manner. My toyota got colder in the winter the faster I drove. It literally had no insulation, it was loud, and it was not the type of vehicle that you would want to do high miles in. I had a 1994 probe. I survived much of the disaster that was the mating of mazda/ford on this car. New dizzy, $380. New one for my Blazer, $122. Luckily I owned it during a fairly reliable portion of its life. The great thing about the car was that it was so aerodynamic that it wasnt loud, got good FE. Down side, pretty tiny, though. If it had been less aero, it would have been loud like the TOY. Was it safe? EEEEHHHHH, not going to look back to find out, guessing not very. Overall, fun car to just drive.

As for the Blazer, undesirable altogether. I hate it. So much. In every way. That is another story, though.

[Thymeclock]

This thing was started by GM bragging about some piddling "weight reduction" on the Cruze- a small car that weighs half a Ton more than mine. Then I said my old 5 passenger car does have good safety features, including air bag- more than adequate in my book- so it is odd to think that if we want better performance including fe performance, we are saddled with an extra 1,000 It was 3500 lbs or so right? Oh- it was 32xx then the engineering miracles took about 200 out. The point wasn't primarily about Tempos, it's primarily about new cars being excessively heavy. Regardless, just about everything sub-compact and up weighs 3000 or more these days.

There is something to this: it's the size to weight to interior space ratio. As the car makers submit to mandated safety standards they need to add more equipment - and that adds extra weight. Weight is the enemy of fuel economy.

Case in point: My '09 Aveo weighs about the same as as my '89 Mitsu Galant. The Galant has a bigger engine, (2 liter vs. 1.6), has much better acceleration, is a much larger vehicle and gets the same MPG in local driving as the much smaller Aveo. The old Galant has no airbags. The Aveo has very little storage space in the driver and passenger seating area. If I could have bought a brand new '89 Galant in 2009 I would have, rather than the Aveo.

Mandated safety items make a vehicle heavier and interior room is sacrificed. In the process the trend is often to make the vehicle itself much larger (usually wider and taller) to compensate for the loss of space inside it. (Most SUV's are huge, but you can't put much cargo in them.) The result is having more big, bulky vehicles on the road that are less maneuverable. And of course we will need even more safety equipment on the newer, smaller cars to protect us from the bigger, bulkier cars... etc., etc. in a vicious cycle.

[SentraSE-R]

Modern cars don't have to be heavy or cramped. My xB has plenty of room inside. Nearly everyone who's looked inside mine has commented how roomy it is. It beats Frank's car in EVERY interior space dimension. I have 46.1" of front headroom v. Frank's 37.5", and 45.7" of rear headroom v. Franks' 36;8". I have 46.8" of front shoulder room, and 50" of rear shoulder room. Is that roomy, or what? I have 45.3" of front legroom and 38" of rear legroom v. Frank's 41.5" and 36.8". What's more, my car is more than a foot shorter than my brother's 2003 Honda Civic, has 90 cu. ft of interior volume, and it's one of Frank's "half ton"s lighter than a Civic.

So, I'm driving a car that's a hundred pounds lighter, and 21" shorter than Frank's. It has ABS, traction control, and electronic stability control (which I can, of course, turn off). I'm averaging nearly 20 mpg better than Frank's Tempo. So tell me again how the nanny society's cars are burdened by excess weight, and needless safety features?

[SentraSE-R]

Whassamatta, Frank? Cat never got your tongue before .