|
I suspect that, in addition to increased weight via better crash protection, that a major contribution is via all the extra non-safety tech as well, including better soundproofing and padding.
|
|
I think a good example are 2 cars I have owned and currently own.
1996 Golf TDi 90 PS and 2018 Fabia SE-L 110 PS.
Many people would consider them to be form a different class but size wise they are near identical.
Golf 4020 long, Fabia 3992 long, Fabia just over an inch shorter but from memory the Golf had a longer bonnet to accommodate the physically larger engines so probably little difference to the internal space. A draw.
Golf 1695 wide, Fabia 1732 wide, Fabia about 1 1/2 inches wider but that will be down to crash protection ind=side the doors probably, I suspect little difference internally. A draw.
Golf 330 litre boot, Fabia 330 litre boot. Pretty close but in reality there is quite a difference, Golf came with a space saver, order a full size option and it protruded into the boot and was covered by a carpet with a hump in it to cover the spare. In the Fabia a full size spare fits under the floor. Win for the Fabia.
Equipment, the Fabia has loads more than the Golf. Multiple airbags, ABS and other safety kit, climate control, 6 speed box etc etc.
Performance, Golf seemed good at the time but the 0-62 of 12 seconds is way slower than the Fabias 9.8 seconds. No idea of the in gear times but since both have exactly the same torques (148 lbs) they should be similar. From memory the revs at 70 mph in 5th in the Golf was about 2400, in the Fabia its 2300 in 6th which possibly means the Fabia may just win.
As for the mpg the Fabia is averaging about 49 mpg, over a year including a couple of long holiday runs the Golf would average the high 40's. On the same run on the same day at the same speeds I suspect the Fabia would win.
So the 2 cars are virtually identically sized, do a very similar mpg but the Fabia is far better equipped and probably quicker, its certainly has a more flexible engine, in the 1.9 TDI the power came in a big lump and quickly disappeared, the Fabia pulls stongly form 2000 to 6000 rpm.
But the weight has surprised me. The quoted kerb weight was 1195 kg for the Golf, its 1035 kg for the Fabia but that is with no driver. Add in 80 kg for an average sized drive an it closes to 80 kg. A large amount of that will be for the iron 1.9 boat anchor in the Golf, the 1.0 all alloy engine in the Fabia will weigh much less.
If I did the same comparison using a new Golf it would be much heavier than its 1996 ancestor but it would also be much bigger and much more powerful.
Based on this the 2018 Fabia is a better comparison than using a new Golf.
But if I compared a 1996 Felicia to the 2018 Fabia it would be a different story. That old Skoda would be way lighter, smaller, slower and far more dangerous to be in.
|
|
As i have been looking at prospective new cars over the last few months, it has become apparent that getting an accurate kerbweight is not actually that easy. Fair enough if you can get one from the maker (they don't always provide), and of course this assumes they are telling the truth!. I mention that last point because a couple of years ago, reading a long term test of a Peugeot 308 (lauded as being particularly light compared to its predeccessor), they put the car on a weighbridge and found it was over 100kg heavier than Peugeot said!. But even when the maker does give a kerbweight (assuming it is accurate), they use different means. For example, after downloading the Fiesta brochure and looking through the figures, i noticed a little mark. Zooming in, i realised it was a 'hashtag' symbol, so moving down to the bottom of the page, i discovered that the figure quoted 'included a 75kg driver, full fluid levels and 90% fuel levels'. So even ignoring the fluid levels, that is just under 113kg!. But on all the other brochures i looked at, the only other which mentioned something like this was Mazda, who's stated kerb weight for the 2 included a 75kg driver (no mention of fuel level).
Similarly, through using a van for my work (window cleaner), i have found that the issue of van payloads is very much a 'grey area'. I used to have a Ford Transit Connect LWB, which was quoted as having a 900kg payload. An ex customer (who had a large farm) had a weighbridge on site. One time i went over it before i started and was shocked to find the figure on the digital display showed me to be only 20kg under GVW (2320kg). Yet in my van, as well as myself (85kg), i had a full tank of water (500kg), the tank itself (25kg), the tank frame (30kg) leisure battery (25kg), pump (>10kg). On top of that, i reckoned maybe another 50kg, at the absolute max, with all the other bits and pieces i carry. All in, about 730kg out of that 900kg payload. Now my current van, a VW Caddy 2.0SDI has a quoted payload of around 740kg, but suspiciously its GVW is only around 30kg less than the Connect. This led me to suspect that Ford simply took away the 'dry weight' of the van (no fluids, petrol, allowance for driver, etc) from the GVW and gave the resultant figure as a payload. This is very misleading for an owner/operator and could easily result in him/her inadvertently breaking the law (as i would have been if i had an employee). So i am also very sceptical when i read 'quoted' payloads for vans!.
Edited by badbusdriver on 09/03/2020 at 18:21
|
|
Inspired by this thread I also compared my first and present cars.
1970 Ford Cortina Mk II (4 door 1.6 L Petrol manual)
length: 4267 mm
width: 1648 mm
base curb weight: 910 kg
2019 Mazda 3 (5 door 2.0 L Petrol M-hybrid manual)
length: 4460 mm
width: 1795 mm
base curb weight: 1274 kg
At first glance they seem to prove the OP's point. Same class (mid-range, medium family cars), same size give or take a bit, 30% increase in weight.
However, over the space of 50 years such family cars have changed beyond all recognition in terms of performance, comfort, safety, emissions control, automation and gadgets. I have not tried to check but I suspect that even the most luxurious cars of 1970 would have a hard time rivaling my current family car as an all round package. About the only nod at comfort in my Cortina was a heater and a radio. The heater didn't do much and you couldn't listen to the radio at 70 mph because of the wind, road and engine noise.
Once you take that into account you realise that far from being lazy today's manufacturers have actually come a long way in reducing weight on a like for like basis. That means considering only what was actually present in a 1970's car - essentially the body, engine, transmission, wheels and seats. Of course they could reduce weight further today with materials like aluminium and carbon fibre but that would presently price family cars out of the market.
Edited by misar on 09/03/2020 at 20:04
|
|
|
|
|
<< But the weight has surprised me. The quoted kerb weight was 1195 kg for the Golf, its 1035 kg for the Fabia but that is with no driver. >>
Surely a 'kerb weight' doesn't include a driver? What standard weight of driver has been included in the Golf? I don't believe that for a moment ... All the handbooks I have consulted give a kerb weight which I understood was for an empty car but with all fluids and a certain quantity of fuel.
|
Surely a 'kerb weight' doesn't include a driver? What standard weight of driver has been included in the Golf? I don't believe that for a moment ... All the handbooks I have consulted give a kerb weight which I understood was for an empty car but with all fluids and a certain quantity of fuel.
You started an interesting debate which is impossible to address accurately without much research. In my post above comparing my first and present cars I took the weights from www.automobile-catalog.com/ which provides curb weight without a driver. That should be consistent but I have no idea how reliable those numbers are.
To illustrate the problem, for my current Mazda 3 I gave the weight as 1274 kg. Looking at Mazda's brochure they quote its maximum kerb weight incl. driver (75kg) as 1439 kg.
Looking at a Ford Focus brochure that says kerb weight "Represents the lightest kerbweight assuming driver at 75kg, full fluid levels and 90% fuel levels, subject to manufacturing tolerances and options, etc., fitted."
Don't take precise weight comparisons in this thread too seriously!
Edited by misar on 10/03/2020 at 07:04
|
|
<< Don't take precise weight comparisons in this thread too seriously! >>
No, quite. I was doing my best to compare like with like - bog-standard model of each series, same source of info. I find it very strange that any source would try to include the weight of anything so variable as a driver ....
|
kg with no driver but no mention << But the weight has surprised me. The quoted kerb weight was 1195 kg for the Golf, its 1035 kg for the Fabia but that is with no driver. >>
Surely a 'kerb weight' doesn't include a driver? What standard weight of driver has been included in the Golf? I don't believe that for a moment ... All the handbooks I have consulted give a kerb weight which I understood was for an empty car but with all fluids and a certain quantity of fuel.
Carried out a bit more research and discovered the following.
Mk 3 Golf TDi kerb weight is quoted as 1089kg with no driver but no mention is made regarding fluids.
Mk 3 Fabia 110TSi form the Skoda brochure is quoted as 1055kg with no driver and yet again no mention is made of fluids.
I guess you have to presume (something you should never do) that VAG weighed both cars with water and oil for the engine and enough petrol to actually drive the car. If this is the case the Mk 2 Golf and Mk 3 Fabia are pretty much identically sized but take away the boat anchor 1.9 diesel and fit a modern 1.0 TSi petrol and the Mk 3 Golf would be lighter. Add in all the safety kit and Golf would then obviously gain weight making these 2 cars more or less identical.
Looked for some weights for the Mk7 Golf TDi which as we all know is longer, wider and higher than the Mk 3 but it seems that VW are keeping the info to themselves. Is it possible they are embarrassed about how porky their baby has become despite promises at every new version release that weight saving measures have resulted in the new model being lighter. I smell a rat.
|
|
|
|
|
<< Surely a 'kerb weight' doesn't include a driver? >>
"The kerb weight that we like to quote here at evo is the the DIN figure – that’s the weight of the car with all the fluids necessary for operation, including a 90 per cent full tank of fuel."
Wikipedia comes up with several definitions, some including a 75kg driver, which seems pretty pointless to me, so I shall stick with the one above from the EVO website which makes more sense. I'm sure it is what was used before the millennium ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was the Maxi really less than 4 metres long? Sadly I haven't had a British car since.
I'm pretty sure it was, Avant, I seem to remember asking whether a tow-hitch would be included, as it would go over the ferry limit. Interestingly my current 306 is also just under 4 metres, and it feels like the same size. I haven't had a British car since about 1985 either.
|
|
If you look under the bonnet of a typical 70's car you will notice how small many of the components are. Pretty much every part in a modern car is more substantial.
Wheels, battery, alternator, drive shafts, suspension, exhaust. Plus heavier crash protection.
|
If you look under the bonnet of a typical 70's car you will notice how small many of the components are. Pretty much every part in a modern car is more substantial......
.....Apart from the engine. Many have only three cylinders the size of small jam jars - not much bigger than a motor bike engine.
|
If you look under the bonnet of a typical 70's car you will notice how small many of the components are. Pretty much every part in a modern car is more substantial......
.....Apart from the engine. Many have only three cylinders the size of small jam jars - not much bigger than a motor bike engine.
I've looked under the bonnet of modern cars but I couldn't see anything, Too full.
|
|
|
|
Was the Maxi really less than 4 metres long? Sadly I haven't had a British car since.
I'm pretty sure it was, Avant, I seem to remember asking whether a tow-hitch would be included, as it would go over the ferry limit. Interestingly my current 306 is also just under 4 metres, and it feels like the same size. I haven't had a British car since about 1985 either.
I've had a look at Wikipedia, which says the Maxi was 4.039 metres. Another long article ends with the following:
The Maxi is actually shorter and lighter than the 1998 Ford Focus, but manages to have considerably more room inside – which demonstrates that BMC certainly knew how to obtain the most interior room for any given package. That the Maxi manages to beat the Focus – state of the art in 1998 – for packaging speaks volumes for the concept. The ultimate shame for BL was that, although the concept of the Maxi was fundamentally good, its execution (especially at the start of its life) was quite simply rubbish.
|
|
BMC, at the time, was quite revolutionary with their use of front wheel drive. They, well Issigonis anyway, certainly made full use of the packaging advantages afforded by this, particularly by making the wheelbase as long as possible. The original Mini, the 1100/1300, the Landcrab and the Maxi gave a huge amount of interior space, for their size, and compared to their rivals. If you compare the dimensions of the Maxi to the MK2 Cortina, the differences in this (relatively) new way of thinking are startling. The Cortina is almost 23cm longer overall, but its wheelbase is just over 17cm (almost 7 inches) shorter than the Maxi's!.
The MK1 Focus had an entirely different purpose, i mean obviously they wanted a 'competitive' amount of interior space (which they did achieve, even though it's wheelbase was shorter than a Maxi's!), but that wasn't the main priority. How it drove was!.
Sadly, the art of clever packaging has been pretty much lost through the ongoing SUV obsession, a type of vehicle which, for (by far) the majority, is the polar opposite of intelligent space utilisation!.
|
|
I have changed from a 1.7TDI Hyundai Tucson DCT (2017) to a 2016 1.2 Nissan Note (wife's car whilst I procrastinate on a replacement). It's a fraction of the weight of the Hyundai and it's a revelation. Much more visibility, easier to park by miles - with no parking sensors, far more economical, I am getting 52mpg (brim to brim) for a petrol compared to 44MPG (brim to brim) on the Hyundai.
Gear changes are smooth (though I prefer autos). It is spritely but could do with a turbo (this one isn't) and will hardly accelerate in 5th (top) gear.
TBH it's not too bad on a long journey - I have done a few 100+ miles and some 250+ miles in it and feel fine afterwards and I don't think that I was as tired as I was in the Hyundai.
We got both cars new, the Hyundai cost £28k (though leased), the Nissan cost £10k!
Edited by Zippy123 on 11/03/2020 at 19:27
|
I have changed from a 1.7TDI Hyundai Tucson DCT (2017) to a 2016 1.2 Nissan Note (wife's car whilst I procrastinate on a replacement). It's a fraction of the weight of the Hyundai and it's a revelation. Much more visibility, easier to park by miles - with no parking sensors, far more economical, I am getting 52mpg (brim to brim) for a petrol compared to 44MPG (brim to brim) on the Hyundai.
Gear changes are smooth (though I prefer autos). It is spritely but could do with a turbo (this one isn't) and will hardly accelerate in 5th (top) gear.
The Note auto (CVT) is actually supercharged(!), that is what the S stands for in Dig-S. And while it may not have the torque of a turbo, it certainly has more than a naturally aspirated (n/a) engine. To show the differences, here are three cars with around 100bhp, one supercharged, one n/a, and one turbo.
(your wifes) Nissan Note, (98bhp) 147nm @ 4400 rpm
(our) Honda Jazz 1.3, (102bhp) 123nm @ 5000rpm
Ford Fiesta Ecoboost, (100bhp) 170nm from 1500-4000rpm
The Note is just under half a tonne (479kg according to the figures on this website) lighter than the Tuscon, which is a fair chunk!.
|
The Note is just under half a tonne (479kg according to the figures on this website) lighter than the Tuscon, which is a fair chunk!.
This was the base engine non-Dig-S model and it makes progress but won't set the world alight! It's also manual.
Edited by Zippy123 on 11/03/2020 at 20:24
|
|
Sorry, I misread what you said. I thought the car was an auto.
|
Sorry, I misread what you said. I thought the car was an auto.
The Tucson was the Note isn't.
Surprisingly easy to get back in to a manual car after 3 years in an auto. Stop / start traffic is a bit of a pain though.
|
|
|
|
BMC, at the time, was quite revolutionary with their use of front wheel drive. They certainly made full use of the packaging advantages afforded by this, particularly by making the wheelbase as long as possible. !.
They certainly were. The other advantage of FWD was that the tunnel didn't have to accommodate a propshaft and differential, only an exhaust and some smaller pipework. The main function of a smaller tunnel was to stiffen the floor pan.
|
This was the base engine non-Dig-S model and it makes progress but won't set the world alight! It's also manual.
Being the manual, non-supercharged version does make a bit of a difference in weight though. It means the Note, at a scant 1038kg, is actually a whopping 585kg lighter than the Tuscon!.
Going through the back catalogue of cars my wife has had since we have been together (she gets a Motability car, so 'our' cars are actually 'hers'!), i am glad to see that for the most part, they have been no bigger (or more powerful) than neccessary (as it really irritates me how ((a)) cars are getting so big, and ((b)) most folk seem to want a car far bigger than they actually need). They are;
1999 VW Polo 1.9D, 3715x1655mm, 1035kg, 64bhp
2002 Peugeot Partner Combi 1.4, 4108x1698mm, 1125kg, 75bhp
2005 Ford Fusion 1.4, 4020x1708mm, 1075kg, 80bhp
2008 Daihatsu Sirion 1.0, 3600x1655mm, 890kg, 68bhp
2011 Vauxhall Meriva 1.7CDTI, 4288x1812mm, 1547kg, 128bhp
2014 Hyundai i30 1.6CRDI (T/C auto), 4300x1780mm, 1440kg, 110bhp
2017 Honda Jazz 1.3 (CVT auto), 3995x1694mm, 1098kg, 102bhp
Yes the Meriva was pretty porky and the i30 wasn't much better, but (in my defence) they were choices which my wife took an interest in and had the final say. Had it been down to me, we would have probably ended up with a Note both times. Most of the time, she can't be bothered with it and leaves the choice to me!.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
