The demise of small cars...

[Egg Nog]

Personally, I'm currently seeing a contining trend of making cars bigger and bigger. I just pre-production renderings of the Golf V and noticed that it looked at least 30% larger than the current model. It doesn't stop there, either... nearly every manufacturer (including many sports car companies) is beefing up the size and weight of their vehicle lineups.

So here's the question: What do you think? I love small cars, and I don't think I'll ever buy anything bigger than the size of an Altima, and prefferably, a fair bit smaller. I recently saw a new MR2 Spyder (Washington liscence plate, they don't sell them in Canada) which, to my great admiration, was pretty damn tiny :) I'm seriously considering saving up and buying one south of the border as soon as possible.

Anyway, back on track: The roots of true sports cars (size/weight/power) are being lost, and I consider this a bad thing. What do you prefer? Do you guys like the direction that car size and design is heading in?

[Homem de Gelo]

I like my cars light too, without any useless technological gadgets and with a good old stick shift. Not that they have to be as extreme as the Elise, but I don't want to drive around in big fat cars that seem to be made for people twice my age.

[Egg Nog]

Bah... people never post when they're forced to actually think about something :P

[BPx]

The size of the car should really be dependent on what it's purpose should be. Sports cars should strive to remain light and small... It'd be more beneficial to their performance. Family cars should try to offer as much room as possible as to make hauling the kids and groceries easy.
Personally, I would love to own something small like a Speedster/Elise/S2000, but I also wouldn't have a problem driving something like a Z06 around which is heavier, nor do I have a problem driving around my current car.

[Misho]

What is the problem with a big/heavy car that outpowers, outperforms, has better handling and stability, looks better, is cheaper, safer and more technologically advanced than a small/light car ??

[Lagonda]

Originally posted by BPx
The size of the car should really be dependent on what it's purpose should be. Sports cars should strive to remain light and small... It'd be more beneficial to their performance. Family cars should try to offer as much room as possible as to make hauling the kids and groceries easy.
Personally, I would love to own something small like a Speedster/Elise/S2000, but I also wouldn't have a problem driving something like a Z06 around which is heavier, nor do I have a problem driving around my current car.

You really DO NOT want to own a Speedster. When it rains, the water comes in the cockpit. :)

[BPx]

Originally posted by Lagonda
You really DO NOT want to own a Speedster. When it rains, the water comes in the cockpit. :)

It'd be a sacrifice I'm willing to make... I just love the shape of the car... Ah well, probably never see it here in the US. Last I heard, Lotus was still bringing their Elise here... I'll have to check and see how much I'll have to save up to get one of those.

[Lagonda]

Originally posted by BPx
It'd be a sacrifice I'm willing to make... I just love the shape of the car... Ah well, probably never see it here in the US. Last I heard, Lotus was still bringing their Elise here... I'll have to check and see how much I'll have to save up to get one of those.

Well If you DO get one of those cars.. Please oh please buy an Elise it's a million-trillion times better :) .

[Egg Nog]

Originally posted by Misho
What is the problem with a big/heavy car that outpowers, outperforms, has better handling and stability, looks better, is cheaper, safer and more technologically advanced than a small/light car ??

Well, it's all a matter of taste. First off, you can't really compare looks... you can't justify saying that "big cars look better than small cars" because it really depends which ones you're referring to :) And I must say... you simply can't deny that the best of the best handling cars are nearly all small and lightweight. That is, in fact, the main advantage.

Secondly, a small car (when compared to a large car with on par performance) is nearly always cheaper. Technology is a matter of preference. If someone likes technology, then they really will have to go with the heavier car.

I agree with you regarding the safety issue. I could easily go into a long rant about safety and huge "safe" cars posing a huge threat to the people in smaller cars who can't afford them, but I think I'll stop myself for the sake of keeping this on topic ;)

And besides, what better a company car than one such as the Lotus Elise or a Caterham? Huge tax benefits, awesome perfomance that matches that of larger cars for less (waaaay less in the case of the Cat). And you really can't complain about a car that does 0-60 in around 5 seconds and gets milage in the neighbourhood of 50 MPG.

It's nice to see other Canadians on this board :)

-Shawn

[henk4]

Originally posted by Egg Nog

I agree with you regarding the safety issue. I could easily go into a long rant about safety and huge "safe" cars posing a huge threat to the people in smaller cars who can't afford them, but I think I'll stop myself for the sake of keeping this on topic ;)




The safety issue is exactly what makes cars heavy these days. It a selfpropelled mechanism, whereby the more safety gadgets in the car,the heavier it becomes, and the more safety gadgets it will need. (and scoring 5 stars in the crash test is good marketing value). At the end of the day it's the people who cause the accidents, and because in modern quasi armoured cars they feel unvulnerable, the risk of being hit is increasing. Therefore if you want to participate in modern traffic you might as well protect yourself because although you might be driving this nippy Elise, which will allow you to use the road at your discretion and with a minimal use of energy (imagine all the kilo's that don't have to be moved), you stand no chance against a SUV driven by a moron that is probably sitting too high to even notice you.

[crisis]

Originally posted by BPx
The size of the car should really be dependent on what it's purpose should be. Sports cars should strive to remain light and small... It'd be more beneficial to their performance. Family cars should try to offer as much room as possible as to make hauling the kids and groceries easy.
Personally, I would love to own something small like a Speedster/Elise/S2000, but I also wouldn't have a problem driving something like a Z06 around which is heavier, nor do I have a problem driving around my current car.
You win. I really cant see the point of this thread. The answer is personal preference and for what purpose the vehicle is used. I have a large V8 sedan I use as a company vehicle and for driving the family around during the week. I also have a large 4x4 I use for camping and fishing trips. I would love a 200SX Silvia or a 350Z to tool around in as well. I would have a dozen different cars for all sorts of purposes if I could afford them . It comes down to a compromise of what you can afford, what you need the car for and personal preference. For most people who participate in the forums on this site, cars are more than mere transport, so logical thought is always clouded by sentiment. Car makers of course would not have it any other way.

[henk4]

Originally posted by crisis
[B]You win. I really cant see the point of this thread.


I think the point is that to meet the same requirements (performance, space or what ever) you are getting a car that is at least 25% heavier than say 15-20 years ago. A decently sized european middle class car back then would tip the balance at say around 950-1000 kg's. Today you would be lucky if a similar car weighs less than 1300 kg's. As road tax (at least over here) is charged according to the weight of the car governments love these developments.
If you are talking (would be) sports cars just compare the MGB and the BMW Z3. (920 kg vs. something over 1250).

Now where is all this weight coming from? Partly from all the automatic devices that make people forget that they were born with hands, but partly also because doors are fitted with steel reinforcing beams and the roofs are now protected to allow a full roll without loosing your head. Is this a good or bad development? It is matter of what you want to sacrifice, either your life or the pleasure of driving a driver oriented car. If you can afford the comprimise, go for a modern car as your daily driver, and get yourself a decent classic to enjoy pure motoring the way it used to be, on a sunny (partly clouded, because you will have no airco) day, outside the peak hours.

[Batmobile_Turbo]

the best 'sports' cars are definatly built by lotus. sports cars are really supposed to handle extrordinarily and shouldn't be judged according to straight line performance, but have decent straight line performance. all the true sports cars were made before 1965.(jaguar xk 120, lotus europa etc.) because they didn't have the super engines of today so they had to focus on handling more. there are still true sports cars today, but before 1965 was the golden age of sports cars

[mechanixfetch]

Light is the only to go. yeah there are safety issues but if you can't control a sports car or don't know how to drive safely then you shouldn't drive let alone own a fast car. But on with my post, weight kills performance and efficiency (sp?). I'm with Egg Nog on this one, lighter and less gas usage will sell me over more powerful and black hole styled gas comsumption of heavier large engine beasts. Sport means light, quick and nimble. Utility means rugged, reliable, persistant and ponderous. They don't belong in the same phrase. Go light!

[crisis]

Im sure Ferrari and Lamborghini would dispute that. Sport may mean small light an chuckable to you but its not the only criteria. There is a lotof fun to be had from unleashing large amounts of power and torque. Lotus may make great go carts but I cant believe how underpowered they are.

[mechanixfetch]

I'll concede that point. There is plenty of fun to be had throwing tons of power around. But, Ferrari and Lambo are not sports cars. They are dream machines and for an average joe like me with a poor job I'll never afford one. A sports car must be small and built for the joy of a twisting mountain road. Not a $200 000 engine with a fancy frame and leather seats they are in a leauge of their own. So really this post needs to define what a "sports car" really is. Hint Hint Egg Nog :)

[crisis]

Yes this post needs to define what "its" definition of a sports car is. Excluding Lambos and Furries because they dont adhere to your criteria does not mean they are not sports cars. Lets have a definition from an authoratative source. No offence intended.

[mechanixfetch]

None Taken. :)

[sandwich]

i think a sports car should excell in ALL areas of performance. Is that wrong? Something that handles well, has a good amount of power, and at the end of the day is still able to drive home on its own power. I love small sportscars but they seem to be hideously underpowered. There's nothing wrong with sacrificing 100 lbs to gain vast horsepower and more torgue. Therein lies my problem with lotus. Great cars, but not much oomph. I loved the exige but they discontinued it.

Also, have you ever seen a lotus europa? How can you say it's a real sports car? It's made for midgets or something. I swear i could fit it in the back of my CIVIC as an escape pod. And with a whopping 60 hp you better hope there's no one in the passenger side and your golf clubs aren't in the back (assuming they fit), otherwise good luck getting up that hill.

I once heard a qoute that said something like the 1960-70s were a bleak era for cars, your options were either straight line muscle cars or british sportsters that couldn't outrun the family wagon that didn't even know it was racing.

there's nothing wrong with small cars, but a larger car allows for more creature comforts that people want. That elise is nice, but does it have ac? I bet the corvette does. I'll stick to dreaming of the 360 modena before i go for the toyota MR2. I can't afford either, so why not go big?

[crisis]

I have posted this pic many times but it says it all. Too big, too powerful too ugly. Perfect.

[megotmea7]

the scary part is it weighs just 1200lbs... when i look at that car i think motorcycle in car form, its power to weight is probly better than most motorcycles:eek:

[fpv_gtho]

are you sure its that light, i dont think even F1's are 1200lbs

[henk4]

are you sure its that light, i dont think even F1's are 1200lbs


I think he meant 1200 kg's. Time for the Ango Saxon world to go metric isn't it, to avoid further confusion.

[fpv_gtho]

1200kg sounds more like it, but thats still featherweight in supercar territory, i think the SLR tipps the scales at over 1600kg

[henk4]

1200kg sounds more like it, but thats still featherweight in supercar territory, i think the SLR tipps the scales at over 1600kg

but that's equipped with all sorts of comfort oriented devices which the TVR is most likely lacking.

[Suka]

The world of small, fast, light, powerful cars is still around! Its just now you have to build your own! :rolleyes:
The K1 Attack has up to 400 bhp and weights 850kg!
The GTM Libra and Spyder weights 700kg and has up to 210bhp!
The Marlin 5EXI....well i dont actually know the spec for this but i sure does look good (well maybe they are not the greatest colours so you'll have to trust me on this that it can look good.)!

[Matra et Alpine]

and don't forget the fastest of them ....

RADICAL S3.
1300cc bike engine, 510Kg
490kg in race spec.

"a road-legal* SR3 Tracksport has lapped the BBC's Top Gear test circuit in 1 minute 15 seconds, eight seconds faster than it's nearest rival, the Pagani Zonda. The same car lapped EVO magazine's test track in the wet, 11 seconds faster than a Porsche GT3's dry lap time."

I want one for the track :)

http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/gallery_stig/big/PC024334.jpg

[henk4]

see also

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.mv?file=car.mv&num=1669

[NoOne]

I want one for the track :)


I would want one for the track too, but not for the street ... no room for a 500kg car in a world full of 2200kg SUVs. I think the safest place for racecars is on racetracks, at least until they cap the weight of passenger vehicles to level the playing field. ;)

[Matra et Alpine]

I would want one for the track too, but not for the street ... no room for a 500kg car in a world full of 2200kg SUVs. I think the safest place for racecars is on racetracks, at least until they cap the weight of passenger vehicles to level the playing field. ;)
yep, it's starting to get that way over here too.
Plenty of light cars around with smart deformation construction to preotect passengeres and then introduce a few US/Japanese TANKS and they're mass makes intelligent engineering a waste of time :(

[henk4]

I would want one for the track too, but not for the street ... no room for a 500kg car in a world full of 2200kg SUVs. I think the safest place for racecars is on racetracks, at least until they cap the weight of passenger vehicles to level the playing field. ;)

It's the nail on the head and goes back to the first 10 posts of this thread. We (or for me "they", the americans) are imposing once more there way of life on people.

[fpv_gtho]

just be glad for SUV's like the XC90, wheels had this article where volvo crashed an XC90 into the side of an S40 and you wouldve thought it was 2 cars that hit each other, not an SUV and a car

[henk4]

just be glad for SUV's like the XC90, wheels had this article where volvo crashed an XC90 into the side of an S40 and you wouldve thought it was 2 cars that hit each other, not an SUV and a car
Yes and that's why the S40 is 300 KG's heavier than it should be

[Alcomet]

I would want one for the track too, but not for the street ... no room for a 500kg car in a world full of 2200kg SUVs. (...)


I Couldn't agree more with that idea! I think the newer and heavier products are starting to make people have a wrong feeling of security... make it immunity...its starting to spread to a big group of inconsequent drivers.....

I had an accident were a women it my girfriend Citroen AX (small car) from the left side....... the little womem was driving a newly bought Mitsubishi Strada with those chrommed bars in the front bumper......luckly it was at low speed, no personal injuries......well we still don't understand how she managed to it us in a broad turn with 2 lanes... she came from our left and behind and rammed the small car. :( *Scary*

[Egg Nog]

SUVs raise more safety concerns than the dampen. In today's Vancouver Sun newspaper, there was an article that was discussing this, that said the lowest vehicle fatality rates are posted by minivans and compact/midsize cars.

SUV owners who don't go off-roading can suck it. ;)

[jones.dk]

I dont think its a good thing to build those huge cars.... i think that the idael sportscar would be: Aston Martin DB9´s design, the performance of a Aston Martin DB9 and the price of a Lada Niva.... :D :D :D :D :D

[Egg Nog]

I dont think its a good thing to build those huge cars.... i think that the idael sportscar would be: Aston Martin DB9´s design, the performance of a Aston Martin DB9 and the price of a Lada Niva.... :D :D :D :D :D

= more teenage deaths & bankrupcy for Aston Martin ;)

[Falcon500]

Back on the origonal subject i view that smaller cars are a necisity for dayly living...while i much prefer a larger car for many reasonsgood mpg and other such things are a good thing and quite nice to have in a dayly driver.
That said I also totally agree with henk ive got my 71 falcon wich weighs in the vicinty of 1400 kg and ive had people in subarus of a similar weight refer to it as a tank! it may be a heap bigger but its quitelight given its size compared to modern cars. And also compared to a modern falcon the base model wieghs a full 200 kilos more and v8 well thats another 100 to 200 kilos more! (depends on SOHC OR DOHC)
AS for SUVs i more then likely would never own one i view them excecdingly heavy and impractical for dayly driving and also their harder to park i personally dont see what the problem of a station wagon is but i guess thats the current trend with new car byers inst it?
I also view a sports car is unto they eye of the beholder i view the lotus is a sports car and is what i personally define a sports car no luxuaris and good purpose built.

[icezdragonz]

personaly i like small cars but not too small, i like to have a 5 seater and some room in the boot to put some subs in :D but not too roomy thou~!, but i dont realy like smalllllllll cars that only fit 2 people and can barely fit anything in the boot, their not realy my type of car. and i dont like those huge cars that use V8 engines and up, a inline 6 with twin turbos would produce enuf power to make u wet your pants 10 times over :D

[HemiCuda500]

I believe the best handling cars are those with the lowest center of gravity, not those with the lowest weight. As for performance, a low kg:hp ratio is preferrable, wheels pushed out to the corners as much as possible, a 50:50 weight distribution front/rear, grippy tires, and a firm dual double wishbone suspension. Large cars typically have more suspension travel, and more inertia, which make them very cushy, but with tremendous body lean/sway in corners.

Factors that affect center of gravity:
- engine location and type
- drive (front, rear, awd)
- drivetrain (solid axle, live, transfer case, shaft, differential, etc.)
- transmission (manuals weigh less)
- suspension
- general design of the car (lower and wider is better)

[henk4]

partly agreed, but handling is also influenced by the unsprung weight, the heavier the car, the bigger wheels and tyres are required. Furthermore, mass tends to move straight on until you change direction, and the higher the mass the more force is required to make that happen. Finally, mass also needs to be slowed down, so the heavier the car, the heavier the brakes (also part of the unsprung weight, unless built on the dif)

[HemiCuda500]

P.S. I love small cars. They typically are agile, quick, and cheap with good cornering, handling, mileage and are easy to park!

my fav small cars:
Austin Mini
Honda Civic
VW Rabbit

I also love the outright power of some bigger cars

my fav bigger cars:
Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda (it was considered to be a "small" car when it was introduced)
Chevy Corvette
Dodge Coronet 440 Convertible

(you just can't beat the sound of these big-block monsters, when they start up it sounds like a dragon coming to life; whereas when small cars start up, I look around for my fly swatter!)

[henk4]

(you just can't beat the sound of these big-block monsters, when they start up it sounds like a dragon coming to life;


Having been present at various rolling starts of vintage Can-Am races I can only confirm this.

[HemiCuda500]

partly agreed, but handling is also influenced by the unsprung weight, the heavier the car, the bigger wheels and tyres are required. Furthermore, mass tends to move straight on until you change direction, and the higher the mass the more force is required to make that happen. Finally, mass also needs to be slowed down, so the heavier the car, the heavier the brakes (also part of the unsprung weight, unless built on the dif)

also agreed, but performance parts and the car's construction to handle increased performance increases weight as well. A quick-accelerating, excellent handling car will need to have a strong drivetrain, and be constructed with materials and of a design that will limit flex. Because of this quantry of strength vs. weight, all modern supercars are made with the continuing battle of making the fastest, best accelerating, best braking, best cornering, best handling, reasonably safe car but also at the lowest weight possible. The Mclaren F1 has one of the best (if not the best) power to weight ratios in the world at 1:4.17 (hp:pounds)

Theoretically, if a car has a better ratio, (including better aerodynamics) it can beat the McLaren's record of fastest road car in the world

[HemiCuda500]

Having been present at various rolling starts of vintage Can-Am races I can only confirm this.

Ever since my brother took me for a ride in his 1966 Dodge Coronet 440 Convertable and wound it up past 160kph in about 10-15 seconds, I've been addicted to big-blocks. It's not just a sound, it's an experience

[henk4]

Ever since my brother took me for a ride in his 1966 Dodge Coronet 440 Convertable and wound it up past 160kph in about 10-15 seconds, I've been addicted to big-blocks. It's not just a sound, it's an experience

I'm afraid the only V8 I have been in was the Chevrolet Impala of the Calgary Police, and it did not speed up (if only it could). Just remembering now that my grandfather had a pre-war V8 Horch, with about 100 BHP to be followed by a 5 litre inline 8 Horch 853, which had an unbelievable 120 BHP. It didn't rock either.

[henk4]

Because of this quantry of strength vs. weight, all modern supercars are made with the continuing battle of making the fastest, best accelerating, best braking, best cornering, best handling, reasonably safe car but also at the lowest weight possible. The Mclaren F1 has one of the best (if not the best) power to weight ratios in the world at 1:4.17 (hp:pounds)

Theoretically, if a car has a better ratio, (including better aerodynamics) it can beat the McLaren's record of fastest road car in the world

The problem is that these efforts are frustrated by assumed consumer requirements in the shape of airco,electric windows, expensive audio stuff etc, not to mention the ride control devices that are necessary to prevent the average cash heavy moron leaving the road prematurely.

[HemiCuda500]

The problem is that these efforts are frustrated by assumed consumer requirements in the shape of airco,electric windows, expensive audio stuff etc, not to mention the ride control devices that are necessary to prevent the average cash heavy moron leaving the road prematurely.

exactly my point. I was interrested in the Bugatti Veyron because it was supposed to have 1001hp, awd, and a W16 engine with 4 turbos. Now I hear that it's going to be over 4000 lbs because of a tremendous amount of useless luxury crap, and doesn't stand a hope in hell of beating the Mclaren because of the weight/horsepower ratio. Sad.

[Matra et Alpine]

I believe the best handling cars are those with the lowest center of gravity, not those with the lowest weight.
Low CoG helps keep the tyres planted when cornering, but the inertia of the higher mass will always defeat you.
Lowest weight is still a desire.
The big problem with a big engine/transmission in a very small light chassis is that the engine becomes the concentration of the polar momentum - ie the car will pivot AROUND that centre, This makes for generally awful handling and needs either length or weight to counter act it. Both affect the overallperformance of the car - BAD :(
The other thing to remember about using bigger engines to counter the weight is that as the weight of the things you WANT increase you unfortunately have to increase the weight of all the other things to cope - chassis, suspension parts, springs, dampers, driveshafts etc etc.
In part this was the downfall of the Matra U8, everything else on the car needed to be changed and it became a long way away from the concept and expensive. The British specialists have managed to stay true. The fastest accelerating manufacturers road car is a lightweight - achieved by using one of the highest power/litre/weight engines easily available. The same vehicle ( Radical ) and similar lightweights are starting to take track records too.

[HemiCuda500]

I guess that's why manufacturers always try to push the engine towards the middle of the car as much as possible, not just to help with weight distrabution, but to help the focal point. The engine block is the heaviest single part on a car.

I'm guessing that the Dodge Viper has to be one of the worst modern cars for a big engine in a small car. Considering its size, the power from the Viper 8.3L V10 isn't that impressive. I heard Ford is making a 600hp V10 7.3?L to put in their new Cobra. Even that isn't impressive compared to the tiny Honda 2.0L in the S2000. @120hp per L, it is the most powerful normally asperated engine in the world (as far as I know.)

[Suka]

I guess that's why manufacturers always try to push the engine towards the middle of the car as much as possible, not just to help with weight distrabution, but to help the focal point. The engine block is the heaviest single part on a car.

I'm guessing that the Dodge Viper has to be one of the worst modern cars for a big engine in a small car. Considering its size, the power from the Viper 8.3L V10 isn't that impressive. I heard Ford is making a 600hp V10 7.3?L to put in their new Cobra. Even that isn't impressive compared to the tiny Honda 2.0L in the S2000. @120hp per L, it is the most powerful normally asperated engine in the world (as far as I know.)
Yeah very true, my beloved Libra has the engine infront of the rear wheels to give it perfect weight distribution, 40:60.

[fpv_gtho]

i think the Ford V10 is closer to 6.5L, at least thats what it was in the shelby cobra concept. HP/L doesnt really mean much in the real world, its just bragging rights more than anything over engine efficiency

[MikeMcLarenF1]

cars are light and heavy for reasons of design (other than SUV's imo they're just ubber garbage, no offence to anyone)

in sport terms, lightweight USUALLY applies to underpowered cars, handles well and turns on a dime.... whereas heavyweight brutes like the lambos and such, use the weight to promote high-speed stability.

in our everyday normal family sedan terms, light means.... less materials, which means low price, but also low quality. I dont mean fit and finish type of thing, I mean like the sound deadening, and crash safety. now lets remember that in our everyday cars the manufacturers do not make a car light by using expensive materials like carbon fiber, so the only reason why a family car would be light is because it uses less materials. this makes sense then, whey our family cars, even a corolla, is getting bigger after every renovation. our standards of a "comfortable ride" is becoming higher and higher, therefore companies have to make cars heavier by putting more sound deadening or more suspension work, or simply more weight to neutralize the small vibrations from the road.

safety is also an issue. crash safety ratings are going higher all the time. more strenghening bars are added to family cars also. more materials = more weight, and let me remind you guys again that companies will NOT lighten cars by using more exotic materials. so therefore the weight adds on. as for engine size.... well, same ideas. In order to bring the power/weight ratio back up after the car gains weight, engines are made bigger. and since people's standards of speed is always going up, the engine sizes are increased even more. And now that the cars are faster, they wanna increase the safety again. It's a vicious cycle :(

ps. I know i went off-topic a bit, the topic is afterall about sports cars.... but I saw a VW golf somewhere in here so i thot i'd put more ideas in.....

[Matra et Alpine]

Yeah very true, my beloved Libra has the engine infront of the rear wheels to give it perfect weight distribution, 40:60.
erm the rear-nias isn't usually preferred to be that high.
Who told you 40:60 ?
In perfect conditions 50:50 is preferred, in real world a slight shift to the rear gives slightly better predictability in corner with bumps.
Ideally as you lose grip you want to enter a stable 4-wheel drift.
With unbalanced weight, designers then move to tyre sizes to try to make up for the different balance - so more rubber on the rear ( You're tryng to make sure their is enough lateral grip to hold the higher mass )
Another factor in determining balance is the dynamic configuration of the main mass and it's effects during braking and accellaration. A high mid engine tends to LIFT the rear wheel weight on braking as the CoG is above the font wheel axis. So in that configuration you DO want to over-bias the rear weight to try to make it more stable in braking. So I suspect that's the right configuration for the GTM :) It's a reasonable compromise the designer could make.
Not for all cars :) :)

[HemiCuda500]

I wasn't sure about the size of the Ford V10, that's why I put a "?" next to it.

It's funny how each next generation for almost every model keeps getting fatter. (I guess it's not just people that gain weight with age :D ) I guess that's part of the reason manufacturers come out with new models, to mix up people's specific expectations for a particular car. Ex: Chevy is reintroducing a sub compact, I believe called the aveo. There were missing a sub since 2000, I believe.

The Cobalt is changed significantly from the Cavalier. I guess they didn't want people comparing it too closely to the Cavalier since they are very different.

(Also, there isn't much heritage value in "Cavalier") Even though Corvette has been around forever and has undergone tremendous changes through the generations, It's remained Chevy's premier sports/muscle car since the 60s, and it's name is respected. About the only thing Cavaliers could be respected for is for a good budget car, cheap maint, insurance, parts, etc.

[Suka]

erm the rear-nias isn't usually preferred to be that high.
Who told you 40:60 ?
In perfect conditions 50:50 is preferred, in real world a slight shift to the rear gives slightly better predictability in corner with bumps.
Ideally as you lose grip you want to enter a stable 4-wheel drift.
With unbalanced weight, designers then move to tyre sizes to try to make up for the different balance - so more rubber on the rear ( You're tryng to make sure their is enough lateral grip to hold the higher mass )
Another factor in determining balance is the dynamic configuration of the main mass and it's effects during braking and accellaration. A high mid engine tends to LIFT the rear wheel weight on braking as the CoG is above the font wheel axis. So in that configuration you DO want to over-bias the rear weight to try to make it more stable in braking. So I suspect that's the right configuration for the GTM :) It's a reasonable compromise the designer could make.
Not for all cars :) :)
No i'm sure its 40:60, the engine over the rear wheels for traction.

[Matra et Alpine]

No i'm sure its 40:60, the engine over the rear wheels for traction.
For traction yes, but on power-lift off in corner then it attempts to swap ends, unless you've lots of rubber on the rear.
If so, the brake balance becomes difficult to set as more force needs applied to the rear, this in turn doen't impart as much weight trasfer to the front so now you encounter understeer into corners.
It's a finely balanced compromise and each car goes for different options and solutions.

[Suka]

For traction yes, but on power-lift off in corner then it attempts to swap ends, unless you've lots of rubber on the rear.
If so, the brake balance becomes difficult to set as more force needs applied to the rear, this in turn doen't impart as much weight trasfer to the front so now you encounter understeer into corners.
It's a finely balanced compromise and each car goes for different options and solutions.
Yeah well this car has somewhere between 45:55 and 40:60

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

I'd rather be cosseted, than be blown about in crosswinds and risk the chance of getting sucked under a lorry... hey! Best of both worlds! An Audi RS6! Agile, fast, cosseting and powerful. Bullseye.

[Matra et Alpine]

I'd rather be cosseted, than be blown about in crosswinds and risk the chance of getting sucked under a lorry... hey! Best of both worlds! An Audi RS6! Agile, fast, cosseting and powerful. Bullseye.
you do realise by now you're being thought of as another 'fanboy'.

The RS6 is not that great and not all small cars are blown about in crosswinds or sucked in to lorry draughts. In fact Audi's are more likely with their box-shape. Oh wait, no it won't coz they weigh the equivalent of a brick sh!thouse :)

[VtecMini]

Actually, a pallet of clay bricks (more than enough to build an outhouse with) weighs around 700kgs, the mortar needed for that many bricks would weigh around 500kg, so strictly speaking it probably weighs about the same as two brick sh!thouses. :)

[Misho]

yeah, i remember this thread. back in the time we were all still young kids !!

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

The RS6 is not that great

woteva... lol ...... :D

[Olli]

To me you have to have a balance between the two because lots of power and little weight are good things

[Radoman]

I'm with Egg Nog. screw these oversized, bulbous, worthless excuses for "sports car"s. The whole point is to be Nimble, Agile and Quick. sure, it's sometimes fun to unleash ungodly amounts of power, but people keep forgetting that you don't need a huge bloody V8 to go fast! and Lotus, underpowered? any 0-60 time under 6 seconds is NOT "underpowered".

[jcp123]

I like em big, but not in the truck sense necessarily. I like my cars long and low, not really tall though. And while speed is fun sometimes, when it comes down to it, I love to cruise. Yet, I love a bigger engine for that just for its effortless, understressed manner.

Case in point: 1958 Cadillac Fleetwood Series 60S (my dream car).
Wheelbase: 133" (3,38m)
Overall length: 225" (5,72m)
Weight: 4930lbs (2236kg)
Original engine: 365ci (6,0l) OHV Pushrod V8
310 gross hp @ 4800rpm
(about 200net?)
Engine I want: 394ci (6,5l) OHV Pushrod V8
~300 net HP

Don't get me started on the Fleetwood 75's :D

[teatako]

i don´t know....i love cars i really do, but i realise it is absurd to own a 2-ton vehicle if 80% of automobiles carry exactly 1 person per trip. when you talk about car weight, a lot of issues should come up, not the least being the environment and the use of space on the planet. right now,the car is king and cities arent designed for people to live in, but for the people´s cars. look at the US where there arent sidewalks in a lot of areas and cities are all spreaded only connected by highways. how much more space could be saved if we didnt depend on a 4 and a half meter ton and a half monster to move ourselves from point a to point b, however close these points may be? How much safer could passenger cars be if they were lighter, shorter, lower and more responsive? How much safer could our journeys be without any SUV´s and pickups driven by tailgating assholes on the road? for example, what if every car on the planet was a smart? how much safer would the public roads be? the truth is cars are a really bad urban mobility solution.

Then theres the undeniable fact we are running out of oil. does anyone realise how much effort has to be made for their camaros to waste all that fuel? when will we all realise we must change our way of life before people start dropping dead around us while walking on the street because of pollution? ultimately if it were up to me, there wouldnt be any cars at all that werent sports cars! and there would be plenty of publicly available tracks all over where everyone would have tons of fun in a car, which is what cars do best. we would ride buses, trains, bikes, motorcycles...imagine how much less overweight people there would be if we did a lot of travelling by bike, for example. we would see tons of hot chicks in tight shorts pedalling and making themselves hotter...

[QBridge]

And you really can't complain about a car that does 0-60 in around 5 seconds and gets milage in the neighbourhood of 50 MPG.
You said that twice now. I'm not saying you're wrong but the Elise gets 23/27, At least that's what they say. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2005selemodelf.jsp?year=2005&make=Lotus
I like the car too. Small, light, RWD, fast, beautiful and economical. They need to make more cars like that because I'm in the market for one.
Where does it say that it gets 50MPG?

[Forever92]

Wow, old thread... uhh, didn't read all of it but this stuck out to me.


You really DO NOT want to own a Speedster. When it rains, the water comes in the cockpit. :)

Del Sol... MR2... small car, fun, and it's a targa. I miss them days. No problems when it rains either.

[Guest]

You said that twice now. I'm not saying you're wrong but the Elise gets 23/27, At least that's what they say. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2005selemodelf.jsp?year=2005&make=Lotus
I like the car too. Small, light, RWD, fast, beautiful and economical. They need to make more cars like that because I'm in the market for one.
Where does it say that it gets 50MPG?
egg nog owns one i believe...

[QBridge]

If he got 50MPG it has to be highway driving and if he did it's probably wrong. It's impossible to get that even with that small, light car that runs on gasoline. If it was diesel I would believe it.

[Egg Nog]

If he got 50MPG it has to be highway driving and if he did it's probably wrong. It's impossible to get that even with that small, light car that runs on gasoline. If it was diesel I would believe it.

No, I was absolutely wrong. I did say it twice, but it was based on both of my wrong predictions. I definitely wouldn't have said it if it had been more recently, but you must realise that when I posted this the Elise wasn't available in North America yet at all, and thus I didn't have much to go by except for European stats.

My guesses were based on milage figures for the Toyota Celica GTS (same engine) and the weight of the Elise. I was also talking about a completely different gallon, since the rest of us don't live in the US :)

50mpg for us is more like 40mpg for you :)

23/42 (8.8) is reported for the 111R British Version (from RSportscars.com)

I don't own an Elise by the way. I wish :) They won't even be any driving around Vancouver for at least a couple months.

[QBridge]

They won't even be any driving around Vancouver for at least a couple months.
Why not?

[Volvoman]

I think smaller cars are they way to go with the rising petrol prices. Look at it this way. I own a 1985 Volvo 240 sedan that weighs 1800KG just sitting there. With me in it, a passenger, tank of fuel, luggae in the back, your talking somewhere in the vicinity of 2000kg. This cars weighs more than my mothers Toyota Hilux 4WD. I haven't paid less than 121.9cents per litre in over 12 months! I get about 10-12L per 100Km. Not great mileage really. If petrol prices were like this when I bought the car, I probably would have gone for a smaller car lke a Chysler Neon. Smaller 4 cyl that I know is not a powerful but would get better mileage and can run on unleaded petrol. Plus you've got the added benefit of a boot as well. Smaller hatchbacks, as far as I'm concerned, just strike me as being unsafe is any sort of accident really. I'm talking smaller cars like Toyota Starlet and Nissan Micra et all. But this includes your sportcars as well. Like someone mentioned before, your driving along in you Lotus Elise and get hit by a Nissan Patrol for example. He isn't just going to hit you, he is going to run you over. Death for sure. I'd like to know that the smaller car I drive is at least going to get me to my destination safely. But that is just my veiw.

[Matra et Alpine]

Like someone mentioned before, your driving along in you Lotus Elise and get hit by a Nissan Patrol for example. He isn't just going to hit you, he is going to run you over. Death for sure. I'd like to know that the smaller car I drive is at least going to get me to my destination safely. But that is just my veiw.
not entirely true :)
A car with larger mass will MOVE a car with smaller mass.
Cars with equal mass will deform equally.
A car with lighter mass hitting a larger mass car will not move the heavier car very much at all.

As well as deformation zones and passenger cells the force vectors in crashes are important :) BIG hurts small when small can't move. ie crushed up against other vehicle or wall :(
(still awfully simnplistic:))

[MrKipling]

^^ Hence nearly every Enzo (or F1 car) that has been well and truly smashed is split in two pieces. Less mass for hitting stuff for a second time - which you will if you're going that fast!

As for the small car/big car debate, I drove an S65 AMG and, as awesome as it was, it felt ill at ease with the power - barge like. The (only, and brief) drive I had in the Elise was just brilliant, despite the 'lack' of power. Give me the small one any day: Racing Puma, Caterham, Elise, Exige. Any will do.

[jcp123]

Yeah, I like size. Can't lie.

[Nerys]

Hey Ho,
I'm back! Greetz!
I voted "I miss the old days of sports car design. Gimme a Lotus Elise anyday"
It's exactly my opinion. It's a pain in my neck, all that vans on the streets. :(

[kingofthering]

buy a exige, they now sell them in america.

[Nerys]

Oh yeah, I like it. Especially the ass:

[scottie300z]

The lighter cars have more "feel". if i can put it that way and people understand.

[PerfAdv]

"I miss the old days of sports car design. Gimme a Lotus Elise anyday"
For sportscars this is true and what I voted.

But for a family sedan a little heft isn't bad thing. A heavier car cruises better at freeway speeds, less affected by road irregularities and cross winds. Heavier cars usually have a better ride, as they tend to absorb most bumps in their suspensions without upsetting the body. A bigger car is more likely to be seen, even by the worst drivers, making them safer in a sense...

[shadesMC]

idk what you guys are talkin about my '93 cavalier is much sturdier on the roads than your "bmw" and could take a dump on a corvette

[PerfAdv]

idk what you guys are talkin about my '93 cavalier is much sturdier on the roads than your "bmw" and could take a dump on a corvette
Did you forget the smiley?!? :eek:

[jcp123]

"I miss the old days of sports car design. Gimme a Lotus Elise anyday"
For sportscars this is true and what I voted.

But for a family sedan a little heft isn't bad thing. A heavier car cruises better at freeway speeds, less affected by road irregularities and cross winds.

True dat. I hit a 6" deep (ca. 15cm) puddle on the freeway a few weeks back that I didn't see, the heft of my Bronco kept it from hydroplaning, or even from changing direction much. And this was at about 35mph (50-60kph). I loved my old Mustang, but there's no way it would have kept its composure anywhere near as well in that situation.

[Rockefella]

My Bonneville is a freakin' tank. Can't wait to buy a small car, like a Miata or Mr2 in the future.

[Coventrysucks]

the heft of my Bronco kept it from hydroplaning,

Or aquaplaning even.

Cutting across country the other day really showed that big cars don't make any sense here.

Even if it were a fast, big car; you can't use the speed because you've got to worry about oncoming traffic etc.

[jcp123]

True. But it makes a lot of sense where I am. I know a lot of you liberals don't particularly enjoy what I drive now, but too bad. It is extremely practical considering my own and my family's situation now. Besides which, I kind of like it. So live with it, or come down here and make me change.

[henk4]

True. But it makes a lot of sense where I am. I know a lot of you liberals don't particularly enjoy what I drive now, but too bad. It is extremely practical considering my own and my family's situation now. Besides which, I kind of like it. So live with it, or come down here and make me change.

the "liberals" in my country normally drive Range Rovers and X5s and the like..... Liberals are at the right side of the political spectrum here, so be careful when using this adjective. :D

[Coventrysucks]

So live with it, or come down here and make me change.

Was I having a go?

I'm illustrating the point that Britain produces small cars; Caterham, Lotus, TVR, etc, because they can fit with ease down A and B roads, since these are the road's you'd be driving down, because driving on the Motorways is just boring.

[MrKipling]

I hate that expression: 'the liberals' - it's almost (no, not almost, is) implying that unless you agree with everything the government says, you're a wet-bag, unpatriotic, commie 'faggot'.

I'm with coventry, big cars in the UK are all-but pointless - we simply don't have the space. It's so much easier to get round people in an Elise or 7 in England becuse of the size of our roads. Have you been to England JCP? And, just to be clear, I'm not being facetious - it's a genuine question.

[Coventrysucks]

I also think it is rather rude to make derogatory assertions about a person's possible political persuasions without knowing if that person is a "liberal" or not, especially when there is no real relevance to the comment's inclusion.

It is, in fact, a childish insult.

[shadesMC]

Did you forget the smiley?!? :eek:


hahah no way i'm dead serious ;)



yea, don't worry, just kidding :cool: