My Death Trap

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

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.

That's true, but so are Rolling resistance, drag area, and engine/driveline efficiency. The most fuel efficient car currently sold and the second most fuel efficient car ever tested here clocks in at ~3k lbs, which implies that ~500lbs or so doesn't make or break fuel economy.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

Whassamatta, Frank? Cat never got your tongue before .

Believe it or not, sometimes there's a stretch of time where I manage to peel myself away from the computer.

Now: you do have a lighter car vs Tempo. Yay. I never claimed the Tempo was the lightest car on the road. Look most cars specs. In fact, look at that nice paper I found and linked. Thank you.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

That's true, but so are Rolling resistance, drag area, and engine/driveline efficiency. The most fuel efficient car currently sold and the second most fuel efficient car ever tested here clocks in at ~3k lbs, which implies that ~500lbs or so doesn't make or break fuel economy.

Now please tell us the cars you cited and their stats. And I assume you are citing stock production cars - not highly modified ones as featured in this forum, or comparing current hybrid technology vehicles to those made 20+ years ago. If so, it is not a valid comparison. Without actual data we have no way to compare or dispute your assessment.

BTW, in the grand scheme of things when comparing vehicles similar in nature, factors like rolling resistance and drag area are nowhere near as influential as gross vehicle weight.

[SentraSE-R]

??? There's only one candidate for most fuel efficient car currently sold, and the same car is the second most fuel-efficient car ever sold. The link shows it weighs in at 3000 lbs, just like roflwaffle said. This is common knowledge in the hypermiling community.

Since you've made the claim, cite some support for your claim that weight is so much more important than RR, drag area, etc.

[SentraSE-R]

Frank, I go back to the 18' long, two ton gunboats that graced American roads in the late 50s and early 60s. You've taken a slice of time in the early 90s, when cars were porking up from the really light tin boxes of the late 80s, and used that to make your point that modern cars are needlessly heavy because of safety mandates. It's not a representative example.

I can take another slice in time, use a 1959 Chevrolet Impala as my base example, and "prove" that modern cars are lighter, smaller, and safer than cars of old, because of safety mandates. It's just as representative as your example, and "proves" the opposite trend.

[Frank Lee]

We can take any slice of time can't we. How about the '03 Curved Dash Olds @650 lbs, or the Model T @ 1200? The way I see it, the mid '80s to early '90s cars offer comparable performance- crash, creature comfort, and otherwise- while weighing less.

I just don't like that, as I alluded to before, GM or Suzuki couldn't throw the dies back in the presses and crank out new Metros even if they wanted to, as they'd have to add a bunch of junk that has been mandated since the '90s, and that stuff I don't want on my car, like tire pressure monitors, side air bags, etc.. I think the late '90s Metros, for example, are wholly adequate in every way the way they were, and now they or their equivalent are not made. That's my deal. See it?

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Now please tell us the cars you cited and their stats. And I assume you are citing stock production cars - not highly modified ones as featured in this forum, or comparing current hybrid technology vehicles to those made 20+ years ago. If so, it is not a valid comparison. Without actual data we have no way to compare or dispute your assessment.

The top two in the U.S. are both hybrids and anyone can compare cars that are up 23 years old or so because the EPA has used the same basic tests for that time period. What they have changed is how they scale those tests to account for more aggressive driving, climate control, colder/warmer weather, and so on, but the actual HWFET/FTP test results are pretty consistent.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

BTW, in the grand scheme of things when comparing vehicles similar in nature, factors like rolling resistance and drag area are nowhere near as influential as gross vehicle weight.

Prove it!

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

The top two in the U.S. are both hybrids and anyone can compare cars that are up 23 years old or so because the EPA has used the same basic tests for that time period.

It is not a valid comparison because the power source is different. Compare models that run exclusively on gasoline to others that also do. Otherwise this discussion is pointless.

If you don't acknowledge that weight is a major factor is fuel economy, nothing I say will convince you. I don't need to prove anything. Denial is 'more than a river in Egypt'.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

We can take any slice of time can't we. How about the '03 Curved Dash Olds @650 lbs, or the Model T @ 1200? The way I see it, the mid '80s to early '90s cars offer comparable performance- crash, creature comfort, and otherwise- while weighing less.

I just don't like that, as I alluded to before, GM or Suzuki couldn't throw the dies back in the presses and crank out new Metros even if they wanted to, as they'd have to add a bunch of junk that has been mandated since the '90s, and that stuff I don't want on my car, like tire pressure monitors, side air bags, etc.. I think the late '90s Metros, for example, are wholly adequate in every way the way they were, and now they or their equivalent are not made. That's my deal. See it?

Frank, I couldn't agree more. Those who are 'progressives' will never see it - nor will they be able to distinguish between actual progress and the illusion of progress. Maybe we should call it 'the emperor's new car'?

The progressive mentality in a nutshell: This thing is old, therefore it must be BAD; this thing is new, therefore it must be BETTER.

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

The way I see it, the mid '80s to early '90s cars offer comparable performance- crash, creature comfort, and otherwise- while weighing less.

Thirteen thousand (~28%) fewer deaths/year in the past 23 years, despite a 62 million (~25%) population increase shoots your theory completely out of the water. Unless you think people have improved their driving skills 50% in 23 years, you're going to have to accept that today's cars are a lot safer than you give them credit for being. Those 20 year old dinosaurs would also be gross polluters (think NOx emissions from a 1987 lean burn engine) under today's emissions standards. When I was growing up, the air was so polluted, I couldn't play touch football without gasping from the tickling caused by the pollution. Trust me, we don't want to go back to those days.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I just don't like that, as I alluded to before, GM or Suzuki couldn't throw the dies back in the presses and crank out new Metros even if they wanted to, as they'd have to add a bunch of junk that has been mandated since the '90s, and that stuff I don't want on my car, like tire pressure monitors, side air bags, etc.. I think the late '90s Metros, for example, are wholly adequate in every way the way they were, and now they or their equivalent are not made. That's my deal. See it?

You can't go back, Frank. Learn to live with it. You can't smoke at the workplace, women won't wait on you hand and foot, and Vince Lombardi isn't coming back to lead the Packers to next year's championship. I've got a friend who wouldn't wear seat belts because she felt safer without them, despite the obvious facts. At the same time, she hated to fly, because it felt unsafe to her, despite the statistics proving the opposite. Like you, she didn't like the nanny society forcing her in a direction she didn't want to go. She's learned to live with it.