RE: Light cars are not the answer: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
kambites said:
Were the sportier 159s running lower? The figure I found for height was 1417.
Anyway, we can both agree that the XE is the bigger car? It'll also carry a weight penalty for being longitudinal engined and RWD and another for all the safety crap cars have to carry these days.
I did think 30cm longer sounded rather unlikely. Hence the "(!)".
The Xe is the slighly bigger car, but as you can see by a very tiny margin. Anyway, we can both agree that the XE is the bigger car? It'll also carry a weight penalty for being longitudinal engined and RWD and another for all the safety crap cars have to carry these days.
I did think 30cm longer sounded rather unlikely. Hence the "(!)".
And in terms of safety; the 159 is still one of the safest cars in it's class, has all the modern safety equipement available (in terms of number of airbags, crash structures etc.) except not the latest nonsense which can be classified under "driver aids", such as blind spot warning, pre-safe etc. But that isn't standard equipement on a Xe either; so not part of the weights mentioned.
So the conclusion is that 65 kg's of extra weight for the "light weight" XE over the "heavy weight" 159 is just far too much....
Jaguar itself, with the previous (all aluminium) XJ (X350/X358), VAG and Mercedes (with the new C class), have already proven that lighter cas are perfectly achievable.
DeltonaS said:
kambites said:
Were the sportier 159s running lower? The figure I found for height was 1417.
Anyway, we can both agree that the XE is the bigger car? It'll also carry a weight penalty for being longitudinal engined and RWD and another for all the safety crap cars have to carry these days.
I did think 30cm longer sounded rather unlikely. Hence the "(!)".
The Xe is the slighly bigger car, but as you can see by a very tiny margin. Anyway, we can both agree that the XE is the bigger car? It'll also carry a weight penalty for being longitudinal engined and RWD and another for all the safety crap cars have to carry these days.
I did think 30cm longer sounded rather unlikely. Hence the "(!)".
And in terms of safety; the 159 is still one of the safest cars in it's class, has all the modern safety equipement available (in terms of number of airbags, crash structures etc.) except not the latest nonsense which can be classified under "driver aids", such as blind spot warning, pre-safe etc. But that isn't standard equipement on a Xe either; so not part of the weights mentioned.
So the conclusion is that 65 kg's of extra weight for the "light weight" XE over the "heavy weight" 159 is just far too much....
Jaguar itself, with the previous (all aluminium) XJ (X350/X358), VAG and Mercedes (with the new C class), have already proven that lighter cas are perfectly achievable.
I had a 159 TBi which is quoted at 1420kg - utter rubbish, it actually weighed 1580kg. Nice car to be in and own, but not much fun
Of course, it will be interesting to see what the Jag XE actually weighs in as...
Some cars are spot on the quoted weight, but most are 5-10% over
I do think cars have generally got too bloated for UK roads.. (for various reasons). Technological developments do allow cars to 'hide' their weight well but you can't defeat the laws of physics.
More weight requires greater stopping power, greater grip to oppose cornering forces and some clever technical know-how to make the car agile when making fast changes of direction.
No doubt there are some pay-offs having a larger, heavier car but ultimately whatever you do is going to be a compromise of one kind or another.
I still believe cost is the biggest reason for the current relative high weight/ high engine output trend. (in regular production cars)
I'd wager it's cheaper to develop a forced induction engine further to create more power along with more advanced electronics to assist in cornering / braking / stability, than it is to use some exotic materials / design techniques to reduce the overall weight of the car..
That's my thoughts..
More weight requires greater stopping power, greater grip to oppose cornering forces and some clever technical know-how to make the car agile when making fast changes of direction.
No doubt there are some pay-offs having a larger, heavier car but ultimately whatever you do is going to be a compromise of one kind or another.
I still believe cost is the biggest reason for the current relative high weight/ high engine output trend. (in regular production cars)
I'd wager it's cheaper to develop a forced induction engine further to create more power along with more advanced electronics to assist in cornering / braking / stability, than it is to use some exotic materials / design techniques to reduce the overall weight of the car..
That's my thoughts..
Debaser said:
When the E46 came out it seemed huge compared to my E30!
I still think it is in comparison. Jumping from one to the other always brings this home to me, especially in how close the passenger door appears to be, and then when driving on narrow roads.DeuxCentCinq said:
I've always wondered why they called it the 3-series if it was the smallest. Were they leaving room so in 25 years time they could introduce a smaller one?
It's the magic number 
Steven_RW said:
Evo 6 TME - drove to the track, used LOADS of fuel, LOADS of tyres (18" x 235) and LOADS of (expensive) brakes to have a good day bashing round as fast as possible.
Lotus Elise - drove to the track, drove fast as I could lap after lap, had no visible wear on the (much smaller cheaper) tyres, or the (cheap small) brakes and only used one tank of fuel.
Weight, whilst possible to engineer around, allowing you to have fun, still requires bigger forces to stop turn and accelerate and as such requires more expensive consumables.
This is a simplified example but it is one on the same track in the same conditions.
Steven_RW
Totally agree; I've never understood why people use heavy cars as the basis of a track car. Why pick an E36 over an MX5 as a cheap track car for example? Weight has advantages in a road car, or at least advantageous things in road cars make them heavy, but for a track car there's just no need.Lotus Elise - drove to the track, drove fast as I could lap after lap, had no visible wear on the (much smaller cheaper) tyres, or the (cheap small) brakes and only used one tank of fuel.
Weight, whilst possible to engineer around, allowing you to have fun, still requires bigger forces to stop turn and accelerate and as such requires more expensive consumables.
This is a simplified example but it is one on the same track in the same conditions.
Steven_RW
underphil said:
The thing that you have to bare in mind regarding the 159 is that the weight quoted by Alfa is pure fantasy
I had a 159 TBi which is quoted at 1420kg - utter rubbish, it actually weighed 1580kg. Nice car to be in and own, but not much fun
I know that real weights are not the quoted weights , most (if not all) manufactures use the same "loopholes" for weight and mileage. For instance look what BMW quotes in terms of weight for their "ultimate driving machine" which they call a 5 series......In reality a 520i (F10) isn't available for less than 1700 kg's, and 1750 kg's is probably more likely..... I had a 159 TBi which is quoted at 1420kg - utter rubbish, it actually weighed 1580kg. Nice car to be in and own, but not much fun
O and besides; the 159 tbi was quoted at 1405 kg's, not 1420 kg's......
kambites said:
I also very much doubt the 159 would fair well on today's Euro NCAP test. It's got a lot stricter since it was tested.
I don't think so; they changed the way they presented the score (numbers instead of stars) and extended the presentation and scoreline. They didn't change the weight or relative weight of the ratings or set the "safety bar" higher.
Edited by DeltonaS on Friday 9th January 20:51
errek72 said:
You're right.
Question now is which car is more fun and if that can be related to weight or not.
I agree this is the question - or rather one of many we should ask when discussing vehicle weight and right quality .Question now is which car is more fun and if that can be related to weight or not.
The article somehow does nou make any distintion in that respect, might as well have included lorries .
As this is supposed to be a car people's forum, I'd have thought fun and involvment are the main criteria, maybe in combination with some usability .
But a stable Autobahn (German here) cruiser will never be an involving car, never be a driver's car .
Noting wrong with that, but noone will ever consider an Audi Q5 Allroad or such inspiring , even though it's extremely capable of cover a lot of ground very quickly and comfortably .
Like every other high quality car larger than a Polo, it is a solid stable ride due to wheelbase and track ratio, tons of driving aids and sophisticated suspension .
Great if that's what you need, but a modern 3+er beemer is not a driver's car by any standard .
bnracing said:
For me as a Automotive and motorsport designer lightweight is the only way.
There are no advantages to heavy cars other than the added comforts inside for a world of lazy drivers. To think that once we had to manually wind down a window seems a very distance memory. Most of us would rather carry around all the extra weight or motors and electrics because it's too much effort to move our arms a little.
Ride comfort has nothing to do with weight. If you have correctly valved dampers and correctly setup suspension with low unsprung weight you will have a fantastically comfortable and rewarding car to drive. Oh and wheels and tyres that are suitable for a light weight car does not mean 19inch wheels with low profile tyres. The lighter the car the smaller the wheel diameter and the bigger the tyre profile required.
It's also down to development, you need to look at how many good 1500kg+ cars are designed and built each year, thousands of them. Compared to the number of mass produced good quality low weight cars under 900kg designed each year which you could count on one hand if any at all.
There has been very little development into lightweight cars and suspension, damping and steering for light weight road cars.
I have seen a post about heavier cars having better steering feel. This is crazy and completely wrong. Weight has nothing to do with this. A lightweight car will always be more responsive and with a good steering systems give far better feedback due to very little if any assistance needed.
Many good points there .There are no advantages to heavy cars other than the added comforts inside for a world of lazy drivers. To think that once we had to manually wind down a window seems a very distance memory. Most of us would rather carry around all the extra weight or motors and electrics because it's too much effort to move our arms a little.
Ride comfort has nothing to do with weight. If you have correctly valved dampers and correctly setup suspension with low unsprung weight you will have a fantastically comfortable and rewarding car to drive. Oh and wheels and tyres that are suitable for a light weight car does not mean 19inch wheels with low profile tyres. The lighter the car the smaller the wheel diameter and the bigger the tyre profile required.
It's also down to development, you need to look at how many good 1500kg+ cars are designed and built each year, thousands of them. Compared to the number of mass produced good quality low weight cars under 900kg designed each year which you could count on one hand if any at all.
There has been very little development into lightweight cars and suspension, damping and steering for light weight road cars.
I have seen a post about heavier cars having better steering feel. This is crazy and completely wrong. Weight has nothing to do with this. A lightweight car will always be more responsive and with a good steering systems give far better feedback due to very little if any assistance needed.
One thing still has not been discussed here a lot, and that is the simplifying part before adding lightness .
But that won't happen , not in a regular afforable car .
I play fast and loose with the theme, and fundamentally think the OP article wrong.
1. Toy #1, 427kg wet and 500 Kg with me in it. c. 165 honest hp.
Sorry, you simply have to try something in this class to find what out what sort of witchraf^^^^ telepathy is possible via the [unservo'd, unmediated, no-nntiroll bars required] control inputs is possible. I didn't believe it, and into my 5th year of ownership (details in profile) in some ways I still don't. 'Half-tonne-laden' is the root-canal of driving pleasure, and I commend it to everyone.
2. In anything larger, weight never helps. Never.
It doesn't matter how you try to hide it, sheer mass smears turn-in, braking, steering, romp out of the apex, finesse. You can try to smother symptoms with lower-profile tyres and stiffer springs, but you cannot defy basic physics (inertia).
So - after 6yrs in a 1750Kg V8 - my present toy#2 is in this class, an Alpina B10 3.3 manual and with its carefully-chosen spring/damping it's much sharper than the vaunted e39 530 Sport; and at 'just' (haha) 1520kg it's so much lighter/tighter/fleeter to drive than the 540 or even the M5 (all of which I have some time in) it's unfunny. Before anyone laughs, that's nigh-on 250KG lighter an M5 with power seats!
ETA: by 'fleet' I mean - more fun, more of the time; all of this sort of subjective pleasure is liminal and has nearly-nothing to do with 'whats faster in a straight line' -about which I couldn't give a fig.
1. Toy #1, 427kg wet and 500 Kg with me in it. c. 165 honest hp.
Sorry, you simply have to try something in this class to find what out what sort of witchraf^^^^ telepathy is possible via the [unservo'd, unmediated, no-nntiroll bars required] control inputs is possible. I didn't believe it, and into my 5th year of ownership (details in profile) in some ways I still don't. 'Half-tonne-laden' is the root-canal of driving pleasure, and I commend it to everyone.
2. In anything larger, weight never helps. Never.
It doesn't matter how you try to hide it, sheer mass smears turn-in, braking, steering, romp out of the apex, finesse. You can try to smother symptoms with lower-profile tyres and stiffer springs, but you cannot defy basic physics (inertia).
So - after 6yrs in a 1750Kg V8 - my present toy#2 is in this class, an Alpina B10 3.3 manual and with its carefully-chosen spring/damping it's much sharper than the vaunted e39 530 Sport; and at 'just' (haha) 1520kg it's so much lighter/tighter/fleeter to drive than the 540 or even the M5 (all of which I have some time in) it's unfunny. Before anyone laughs, that's nigh-on 250KG lighter an M5 with power seats!
ETA: by 'fleet' I mean - more fun, more of the time; all of this sort of subjective pleasure is liminal and has nearly-nothing to do with 'whats faster in a straight line' -about which I couldn't give a fig.
Edited by Huff on Saturday 10th January 01:38
t. Primarily it's a question of suspension tuning. 2CV, hydropneumatic Citroens, Rover P6.... 
DeltonaS said:
kambites said:
I also very much doubt the 159 would fair well on today's Euro NCAP test. It's got a lot stricter since it was tested.
I don't think so; they changed the way they presented the score (numbers instead of stars) and extended the presentation and scoreline. They didn't change the weight or relative weight of the ratings or set the "safety bar" higher.
claypole1360 said:
You are wrong, Peugeot 205, Light and relatively refined, excellent ride. It is possible to be light and have all the things you require from a heavy car without compromise. I have made trips to the south of France in a GTI in perfect comfort.
Clayps
^^^Absolute balls sorry!Clayps
Compare the cabin noise for say my 335d with your 205 at 80mph. Then lets crash them into each other (hint, i REALLY wouldn't want to be in the pug). Modern cars are heavy because they have massive capability, excellent safety, and frankly astonishing NVH. The fact we haven't payed a fuel economy or performance penalty is nice too (modern cars are both much faster than old ones, and much more efficient). What we "loose" in all this is response and feedback, but again, for the average car, that is market/purchasor driven and not a technical issue. (Go drive a 911 GT3 and tell me you still want that old 205.....)
DeltonaS said:
underphil said:
The thing that you have to bare in mind regarding the 159 is that the weight quoted by Alfa is pure fantasy
I had a 159 TBi which is quoted at 1420kg - utter rubbish, it actually weighed 1580kg. Nice car to be in and own, but not much fun
I know that real weights are not the quoted weights , most (if not all) manufactures use the same "loopholes" for weight and mileage. For instance look what BMW quotes in terms of weight for their "ultimate driving machine" which they call a 5 series......In reality a 520i (F10) isn't available for less than 1700 kg's, and 1750 kg's is probably more likely..... I had a 159 TBi which is quoted at 1420kg - utter rubbish, it actually weighed 1580kg. Nice car to be in and own, but not much fun
O and besides; the 159 tbi was quoted at 1405 kg's, not 1420 kg's......
- You do the maths
Check out the GT86's measured weight, spot on the quoted value
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff