Ford Taurus
10-06-2009, 09:30 AM
#81
Originally Posted by Spec_Ops2087,Oct 6 2009, 09:15 AM
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.
Again, it is a MYTH that lighter weight cars must cost more to produce. The OPPOSITE is true, lighter-weight cars are CHEAPER in general. Less material, less powerful engines, smaller wheels/tires/brakes, etc.
It *is* true that if you try to ADD light weight to an existing design, you can spend a LOT of money for only a very modest weight reduction.
You have to design lightweight in from the start!
10-06-2009, 09:36 AM
#82
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZDan,Oct 6 2009, 09:27 AM
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.
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.
Ford makes smaller cars..
ie- Fusion, Focus, and Fiesta.
if you don't like the heavy cars, buy a smaller, lighter car..
For many Americans (way more than the few enthusiasts that want to save weight), how porky the Taurus is....is just irrelevant.
10-06-2009, 10:31 AM
#84
Former Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by ZDan,Oct 6 2009, 09:18 AM
I bet than an '80's M3 on modern rubber might just outpull a modern M3 in skidpad g's.
And that most modern M3s will never set foot on a track or be driven in a manner that consistently exploits the limit of lateral grip.
10-06-2009, 11:26 AM
#85
Originally Posted by ZDan,Oct 6 2009, 09:30 AM
Building cars bigger/heavier than they need to be costs money as well!
Again, it is a MYTH that lighter weight cars must cost more to produce. The OPPOSITE is true, lighter-weight cars are CHEAPER in general. Less material, less powerful engines, smaller wheels/tires/brakes, etc.
It *is* true that if you try to ADD light weight to an existing design, you can spend a LOT of money for only a very modest weight reduction.
You have to design lightweight in from the start!
Again, it is a MYTH that lighter weight cars must cost more to produce. The OPPOSITE is true, lighter-weight cars are CHEAPER in general. Less material, less powerful engines, smaller wheels/tires/brakes, etc.
It *is* true that if you try to ADD light weight to an existing design, you can spend a LOT of money for only a very modest weight reduction.
You have to design lightweight in from the start!
Again, I agree that cars should be smaller, but I'm 5'7" 140 lbs and have no kids. My co worker is 6'4" probably weighs 250 and has a baby. He could not get by in my Civic, Miata, or Scion. (We went to go meet a client in my Scion, which I consider to be a decent sized car, and he had to open the sunroof to give him headroom).
If you want his BMW X5 to weigh as little as my Miata, or hell, even my Scion, it is going to increase the cost of the BMW. For a given vehicle size, heavy is cheap.
10-06-2009, 02:01 PM
#86
Originally Posted by Mr.E.G.,Oct 6 2009, 11:26 AM
I agree with much of what you are saying in principle, but you are not really thinking this all of the way through. Lighter materials that are comparable to structural steel cost more money than the steel. Of course using less materials would make for a lighter car, but it would also make for a smaller car.
If you want his BMW X5 to weigh as little as my Miata, or hell, even my Scion, it is going to increase the cost of the BMW. For a given vehicle size, heavy is cheap.
I do think that 4100-4400 lb. for a midrange full-size sedan is EXCESSIVE, bordering on obscenely so.
I also think that "heavy is cheap" is a myth. Design it from the get-go with efficient use of materials and with minimum weight/maximum space efficiency as primary design drivers, and you can SAVE money. Again, less material used, smaller/less-powerful engine required, smaller wheels/tires/brakes required, etc.
Here's to doing MORE with LESS. THAT would be real PROGRESS.
This Taurus is looking BACKWARD.
10-06-2009, 02:07 PM
#87
Originally Posted by CKit,Oct 6 2009, 10:31 AM
And I'll bet that the vast majority of trophy wives could care less.
And that most modern M3s will never set foot on a track or be driven in a manner that consistently exploits the limit of lateral grip.
And that most modern M3s will never set foot on a track or be driven in a manner that consistently exploits the limit of lateral grip.
FWIW, at COMSCC time trials at Watkins Glen this year, V8 M3 vs. E30 M3, both with excellent drivers:
V8 M3: 2:17.000
E30 M3: 2:17.587
The 4cyl was barely more than half a second slower, around a longish HORSEPOWER track!
I did a 2:15.406 in my 240Z. With no 3rd gear!
10-06-2009, 03:40 PM
#88
Originally Posted by ZDan,Oct 6 2009, 02:01 PM
I'm not proposing the use of more expensive materials or construction techniques. I'm suggesting that extra money had to be spent supporting the MASS of a car like this (more raw material, more powerful engine required, bigger wheels/tires/brakes, etc.). Why not instead use that money in development of a platform optimizing the design for lighter weight. Same materials, same construction methods, but with space-efficiency and light weight being the design drivers. Externally SMALLER, yes, but while still providing similar useful interior and cargo space.
I've never said or suggested that a big car or SUV should weigh as little as a Miata!
I do think that 4100-4400 lb. for a midrange full-size sedan is EXCESSIVE, bordering on obscenely so.
I also think that "heavy is cheap" is a myth. Design it from the get-go with efficient use of materials and with minimum weight/maximum space efficiency as primary design drivers, and you can SAVE money. Again, less material used, smaller/less-powerful engine required, smaller wheels/tires/brakes required, etc.
Here's to doing MORE with LESS. THAT would be real PROGRESS.
This Taurus is looking BACKWARD.
I've never said or suggested that a big car or SUV should weigh as little as a Miata!
I do think that 4100-4400 lb. for a midrange full-size sedan is EXCESSIVE, bordering on obscenely so.
I also think that "heavy is cheap" is a myth. Design it from the get-go with efficient use of materials and with minimum weight/maximum space efficiency as primary design drivers, and you can SAVE money. Again, less material used, smaller/less-powerful engine required, smaller wheels/tires/brakes required, etc.
Here's to doing MORE with LESS. THAT would be real PROGRESS.
This Taurus is looking BACKWARD.
Also, I didn't intend to imply that you were saying that the X5 should weigh as little as the Miata. I was just using that as an analogy. Sorry if it came across that way/ I freaking hate it when people put words in my mouth and I didn't intend it to come across that way.
10-06-2009, 03:48 PM
#89
Originally Posted by Mr.E.G.,Oct 6 2009, 03:40 PM
Ok, I agree with what you are saying. I think I may have used my jump to conclusions mat too liberally.
Also, I didn't intend to imply that you were saying that the X5 should weigh as little as the Miata. I was just using that as an analogy. Sorry if it came across that way/ I freaking hate it when people put words in my mouth and I didn't intend it to come across that way.
Also, I didn't intend to imply that you were saying that the X5 should weigh as little as the Miata. I was just using that as an analogy. Sorry if it came across that way/ I freaking hate it when people put words in my mouth and I didn't intend it to come across that way.
Certainly I also resort to hyperbole at times to make or emphasize a point
