ZDan

Totally disagree with the idea that "weight is great" for a sedan.
Sedans don't HAVE to be lumbering tanks to be great cars.
I *loved* my old '85 535i. It weighed ~3200 lb. "Sedan" doesn't have to equate to "luxo-barge", there is PLENTY of space in the market for lighter-weight, more minimalist "sport sedans", which is what the *original* SHO was trying to be.

The original Taurus wasn't a full-size sedan btw, it was midsized. Ford have resurrected the name but applied it to a different segment of the market. Would have been more appropriate to call this car "Galaxie 500" (might be where it's original "500" name came from).

Automakers should be advancing suspension and noise-damping (or canceling) technologies in order to make lighter-weight cars smoother-riding and quieter, rather than just piling on the size/mass/horsepower.

Lighter weight gives direct benefits to accelerationg/braking/handling and fuel economy.

For a LOT of us, heavier cars are LESS of a pleasure to drive every day (I dd my S). Personally, I like to have a more immediate feel as to what the car's doing, and I think a LOT of people who have gotten used to numb-feeling overweight vehicles would also appreciate that smaller/lighter-weight cars are just more FUN to drive (not saying they all want an Ariel Atom experience).

It remains my impression that this car is yet another step in exactly the wrong direction.

Saki GT

Saki GT

[QUOTE=ZDan,Oct 6 2009, 07:43 AM] I *loved* my old '85 535i.

ZDan

I guess it bears repeating since it appears the point was missed:
(from my post above):
"Automakers should be advancing suspension and noise-damping (or canceling) technologies in order to make lighter-weight cars smoother-riding and quieter, rather than just piling on the size/mass/horsepower."

"Lighter weight gives direct benefits to accelerationg/braking/handling and fuel economy."

Regarding the BMW 5-series, yeah, I think it's too heavy.
But the 535i is still under 3700 lb. 550i and M5 are just under and just over 4000, so yes, they are indeed pigs!

Here's to a future with better, more fun, more efficient, LIGHTER-WEIGHT cars!

Saki GT

I have driven and sat in 80s sedans, and compared to modern sedans, yes they are lighter, but they don't necessarily handle as well and they are certainly smaller. With increased mass we also have superior handling and power.

This reminds me of the TG drag races where an old car was compared with a new one - light weight kept the older car close to the new one in the race, but in the end, you get more performance and safety with newer cars.

Engine tech has advanced to the point where performance is typically better, emissions are almost 100% better, suspension, chassis, and tires are better, safety features save lives, and there's more room, so the increased weight is not that big a deal.

For all its added weight and heft, a new 5 is faster, but I haven't found any track times to compare.
1986 BMW 535i, 0-60: 7.9, quarter mile: 16.1
2009 BMW 535i, 0-60: 5.5, quarter mile: 14.0

Fwiw, I'm all for lighter cars, but it is not like we have barges to drive, cars today can handle and drive better than their lighter-weight fore barers.

CKit

Europeans = less obesity, higher gas costs, lighter cars.

Americans = obesity epidemic, still cheap gas, heavy sedans.

You can't say that carmakers are taking steps in the "wrong direction" when they're forced to follow market trends. It doesn't matter what your specific preferences are, big Americans like cushy sedans. The culture is what it is. I would be happy to see less waste and less excess. But I do enjoy road trips in the 4000 pound sedan. There's no "driver enjoyment" in driving 4 hours in a straight line. What do I care if the car is heavy?

Spec_Ops2087

advancing technology costs money. Let alone the fact that the taurus is not and never was supposed to be a small light weight rwd vehicle, if it was to loose weight then people would start complaining about price of the car due to high tech low weight material.

Spec_Ops2087

Becuase don't you know, everyone on this forum is required to bring their taurus to the race track 23 hours of each day. No one is allowed to not drive the car as a true "enthuiest" would. durrrrrrrrr

ZDan

Imagine how well modern sedans would perform given all the suspension/tire/improvements, and enough additional power to match moder cars' power/weight, but without all the weight gain.

I bet than an '80's M3 on modern rubber might just outpull a modern M3 in skidpad g's.

For sure the power increase has outpaced weight gain by quite a lot over the past ~20 years.

In many instances, fuel economy is DOWN and CO2 emissions are UP despite advances, due to all the weight gain.

Well, it is to some of us. Obviously not to the masses, but they may change their tune if/when gas prices rise again and fuel economy becomes a bigger priority.

Again, power has increased at a faster rate than weight has.

I've never had any issues being on the order of five seconds/lap faster than modern 350Z's with my street/track 240Z. That's with a lot more hp than stock, but still less than a 350Z, and without coilovers (just stiffer springs/struts/sways). I admit I'm half a second off GT-R pace at my last time trial, though! But of course I *am* on tires from 2002...

ZDan

Automakers *should* be looking somewhat into the future, but they have not done this (witness the bankruptcy of GM).
They have to start looking further down the road than the end of their noses. The future will have Americans spending relatively LESS on cars (a sustainable economy DEMANDS that we quit spending more than we earn), and increasing importance of fuel economy (global demand up, global supply flat).

I guess I'm just used to the S2000, but 4hr plus trips in the wife's ~2900 lb. Mazda3 are PLENTY luxurious enough for me!
Again, my point is that instead of piling weight onto an old platform, automakers should be focusing on making lighter-weight platforms that still meet ride comfort demands.