Nissan and Toyota's New Year's resolutions: LOSE WEIGHT
 

GCC is reporting that Nissan and Toyota are watching their calories and hitting the gym to work off the holiday flab.

OK, not quite...

But they have announced some long-term goals to slim down:

• Nissan is aiming to reduce vehicle weight 15% (from 2005 models) by 2015. They say that will yield a 10% drop in fuel consumption.

• Toyota is aiming for a 10% weight reduction in its mid size lineup.

Interesting, and welcome news.

They join Ford, which has also recently announced weight reduction plans and Mazda, which is already taking action (its new B class car is lighter than its predecessor).

I believe this has been the major response of automakers to the new CAFE standards, which still leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

What will it actually take to get the industry to change the way it works? Instead of smaller engines, taller gear, a little bit less pep or fancy pieces of crap, we're going to see new cars that cost more because of all the aluminum, titanium, and whatnot they're being built with...It'll prolly end up in price inflation the same way gas prices explode when a refinery is shut down disproportionate to the actual change in production capability...

*shrug*

I don't know - I can see that happening at the luxury end of things.

But I bet Mazda2 that they trimmed 200 lbs from doesn't have any carbon fliber in it.

I doubt CF...but I've heard a lot of talk from detroit about how The Only Way to meet the requirements is to lower vehicle weight...bs I say! I'm slightly bitter.

The only way to make the 10% increase is to lose the weight? When they do the test on the dynos does it not take into account drag? Stick a belly pan, movable grill block with the springs, the coolant cantainer like the Prius, decent gearing and your done.

Of course you're right Lazarus. Although one problem with the dynamic grill at least here is that it would have been iced over and frozen in place several times this winter.

Perhaps one reason they flog the weight angle is because they know it allows the safety argument to creep in and generate opposition to the rules. Something like...

Actually, Congress Wants to Kill You!

Hmmmmm. The conspiracy nut in me is now awakened. I know they have a bunch of Nobel Prize winners on staff but where does their private funding come from?

The way I read "The Only Way to meet the requirements is to lower vehicle weight" is that they'll have to do a lot of things to meet the requirements, but they won't be able to exclude reducing the weight.

Heck, I bet they could get the first 10% by sticking a manual tranny back on cars and putting in a mpg readout. How about tire pressure monitors. What I'm saying is there is a lot of low hanging fruit that they could do that neither requires nor precludes fundamental efficiency changes in drive train or the glider.

Re the pressure monitors & FE readouts: they'll likely help the owner of the vehicle to save fuel.

But they're currently not worth anything on the EPA tests. (And... aren't tire pressure alarms being mandated in the US soon?)

Yeah, you're right, I was mixing reality and politics again. My bad.

BTW, if TP monitors are really happening, then aren't we one step closer to putting runflats on all cars? Wouldn't that enable makers to ditch the spare (and maybe the jack)?

All of this talk about "putting cars on a diet" reminds me about the hype being put out by car manufacturers and car magazine writers back in the late 70's when they were downsizing cars.

The FE benefits of weight reduction are most evident in stop and go traffic and when driving up and down hills. I haven't done any weight reduction on my car other than removing the front passenger's seat, mainly because I rarely carry a passenger and makes it easier to load bags of feed into the car onto the resulting low load floor.

SVO, I drive a vehicle that has a fairly efficient engine, okay gearing if you don't mind 50-52 MPH but it's heavy (if only it weighed 1000 pounds less), and you realize just how heavy watching the ScanGauge whenever the road rises or falls and whenever you accelerate.

Just like cycling, what you lose on climbs you never gain as much back on descents, and the heavier you are, the worse the loss to gain ratio gets.

Not saying that I wouldn't mind way more gearing options as well. A 6 x 3 transmission in a vehicle could really help out as well. CVTs are an excellent concept but I have suspicions that they have a lot of friction and I am somewhat doubtful about their lifespans.

I know, I was just whining because I get the feeling that instead of making a serious and much needed lifestyle change we're going to end up paying a bunch more money for some more landboats, :p

So it's the only way huh....

So 27.5 v. 35mpg

27.5 + 1.10 = 30.25 :/ A bit short

Of course, the change is welcomed.. But the "only way" is a clear cop out :/

Gloomy Gus
 

I've got a big "Whatever" for this mandate.

Isn't this very similar to what President Carter implemented in the late 70's and got rolled back anyway? I don't think the requirement will last. Some lobby group will chip away at it until we're back to where we started again.

It's either up to consumer education and awareness, economic impact of fuel costs, or citizen response that will carry the torch. Otherwise, the whole mess is moot.

RH77

Weight reduction is critical to the overall fleet because it will help "typical" drivers much more than it will help the tiny fraction of efficient drivers like ourselves.

We tend to DWL when cruising, and as much as possible avoid throwing away our momentum via the brake pedal/engine braking. Pretty much the opposite of the way a normal driver does things.

Reply
 

Sorry guys, I'll admit that my last post was off-topic a rather worthless. The topic is weight reduction...

My thoughts are that the city cycle mileage should improve with less mass to move from a standing start. But focusing on it?

Weight and size go hand-in-hand -- look at the Altima and Camry over the years -- plumped. But now consumers expect it bigger. Frankly, the latest Camry feels like a big marshmallow without the SE suspension. It could lose a few pounds.

All the rest applies -- powertrain and aero. They're just making a spectacle of the new requirement by announcing a brilliant plan to reduce weight! Forget R&D I suppose...

RH77

It is now 2015. Have the objectives of weight reduction been met?

I lost 10% of my weight in that time frame, by accident and by not exercising. I'm trying to gain it back.

I agree with RH77 saying weight reduction doesn't matter much. It doesn't really, unless the vehicle is going to have a proportional reduction in engine size. If a manufacturer reduces weight, they will keep the same powerful engine so the brochure can boast of faster quarter mile times, because we all run the quarter mile sprint as we take Johnny to daycare. :rolleyes: The consumer tends to demand higher performance over fuel efficiency. Consumers will have to change their priorities for manufacturers to do anything meaningful with weight reduction.

You'll know we're headed in the right direction when you see more commercials touting efficiency or environmentalism than "Zoom, Zoom". I don't watch commercials, so let me know when this happens, please.