Is weight no longer an issue in sports cars?

[imped4now]

Originally Posted by rennlistuser3

1990 Porsche 911 2 (3020 lb)

This is surprising. My dad's '04 911 also weighs 3020 lb. With 345 HP, it's quite enjoyable.

[rennlistuser3]

Originally Posted by imped4now

This is surprising. My dad's '04 911 also weighs 3020 lb. With 345 HP, it's quite enjoyable.

Here's one source at least that quotes (3,031 lb/1,375 kg) for the C2 which is the closes to the Carrera S today.

Variations will always make it tricky to get an exact number but I think this number is believable for such a high performance vehicle.

You can make small cars light but once you add performance it's very hard to make them light. Just bigger beefier components all over.


That's the argument against modern day econo boxes (say Fiesta ST). Yeah they're light but they can't compete against say a Porsche in terms of performance and once they do they will gain weight.

I'm very biased here obviously but I think the Mazda MX-5/FT86 are the sweet spots of performance and weight.

[rennlistuser3]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Now the future:
The manufacturers are going to have to meet an average 54mpg target by 2025. If you take all the electric or hybrid cars out of the mix this is going to be a very difficult task. New engine tech may help but the only way they are likely to meet this requirement is to go back to making all cars smaller (the public is going to scream) or make them the same size and lighter. As I have said many times now the lighter is very possible but will cost everybody. So expect smaller and/or lighter cars in the next few years but don't be surprised when you see the price tag.

Thanks for the great history lesson. Makes a lot of sense now.

I raise you this:
I attended a lecture once held by a Professor working in the transport sector and he envisioned the future where cars are no more than 800 kg (1700lb) with very small engines and the safety requirements are augmented by using auto pilot safety intrusions into the vehicle (much the same as what Tesla is doing today but back when he gave the lecture even Tesla I believe did not exist)

[ermax]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

See you are being realistic though. For that car 3,250 is a great number. So many guys would say it should be 2,500lbs and $5,000 cheaper with all that.

Well it's a luxury sports sedan not a sports car. I tend to agree that sports cars should at least be below 3000lbs. As others have pointed out, everything is a GT these days. By definition the Miata and 86 aren't sports car either. But they are closer to a sports car than most cars that sort of claim to be a sports cars these days.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by ermax

Splitting hairs I know but the ND2 is 2339lbs. So 9% over 29 years. Percentage wise I am curious how that compares to a 964 vs 992.

But if you want to compare apples to apples then you'd be closer comparing the NA against the ND 1.5 liter (which isn't sold in the US). Those two weights are almost exactly the same.

As an aside, I wish the ND was sold without power steering. Such a small and light car - it doesn't need it.

Originally Posted by ermax

I responded to you thinking it was the last post in the thread. I see the comparison was already made.

I own a 1st gen IS300 and what I always find odd is how Toyota managed to get it down to 3250lbs considering it has that monster iron block 2JZ in it. It doesn't lack sound deadening, it has airbags all over the place, it has a nice interior, RWD, minimal use of aluminium, ect, ect. Where did they manage to compensate for that 750lbs engine? Oh and it wasn't a high priced tag car either. Even in it's day it was light considering the engine.

It's because the car has a tiny, tiny rear seat (by sedan standards). Which I'm okay with. It's the entry level sedan - that's how it's supposed to be.

[rennlistuser3]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

But if you want to compare apples to apples then you'd be closer comparing the NA against the ND 1.5 liter (which isn't sold in the US). Those two weights are almost exactly the same.

As an aside, I wish the ND was sold without power steering. Such a small and light car - it doesn't need it.



It's because the car has a tiny, tiny rear seat (by sedan standards). Which I'm okay with. It's the entry level sedan - that's how it's supposed to be.

No to jump in on someone else's point but just wanna say this

I also thought about the ND 1.5L and know it's much closer in weight to the NA but than again, if you think about modern day market demands, even the ND 2.0L somewhat falls short on what you can get for your money. A Mustang GT V8 can give you crazy performance and for possibly as low as 35k US. This gives a very hard competition for Mazda trying to sell people a 1.5L engine. As mentioned here previously, not enough people will put their money where their mouth is at.

I have to admit myself, I was also looking at the Mustang GT before I bought the BRZ. They weren't far off in cost. I got the BRZ because I appreciate light weight and shorter gearing and I know I will never get to use the horsepower of the Mustang in public roads so it was a deal breaker for me.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

Then you would need to get a tommy gun, start talking out the side of your mouth, and end all of your sentences with "see?"

Goes without saying, see....

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

Dadhawk

Needs a beard, but I'm good with the hat.

[ermax]

Short gearing goes a long ways. It trips me out when I’m in 5th gear doing 30mph in my neighborhood. I drove a Ford GT on a very short technical track and never got past 2nd gear. I guess with all that power you could do a lot of short shifting but running gears all the way out is where the fun is.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ermax

I tend to agree that sports cars should at least be below 3000lbs.....

But why 3000lbs? Why not 1000lbs or 3500lbs? Its still an arbitrary number.

As long as the whole package can handle the mass appropriately for the scenario it was designed for, isn't that all that matters in the end?

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Dude! This is what I do for a living. It isn't a theory or such that I have come up with it is cold hard fact. I live this every day at work.

It's certainly not a fact across all brands. I clearly demonstrated that using an example.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I think factoring in inflation is rather important when comparing prices over a 17 year period.

It is. I was just pointing out that I don't even have to run those numbers for it to be clear that BMW didn't have to ramp up the MSRP in order to build a car with similar dimensions and weight as similar model from 17 years ago.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by rennlistuser3

No but my point about referencing the Alpine A110 is that it's the only recent sports car release that bucks the trend and goes down in weight. The Mazda MX-5 is also in this very very small category.

Of course the FT86 is a very good example but it's not a recent car (Released I think 2012) but this stage it's actually sadly considered an old car. I just bought one last year but have to admit I won't say no to a newer release of the FT86, doubtful as I am that it would happen.

Cars have a very long history with more than 130 years of development. A 5-6 year car cannot be very old technologically. There was last year a joint interview of the designers of 86/BRZ and the MX-5 saying that sports cars should not be changed very often. I mean with new revised models. You can guess the reason why manufacturers are focusing nowadays on mobile connectivity or on autonomous driving. There isn't much you can do anymore with the existing technology (engine technology, suspension technology, transmission technology and so on). Even the electric car is a very old idea and it is just pushed now for other reasons. Of course, very few manufacturers will admit this in public. They have to sell!

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

It's certainly not a fact across all brands. I clearly demonstrated that using an example.



It is. I was just pointing out that I don't even have to run those numbers for it to be clear that BMW didn't have to ramp up the MSRP in order to build a car with similar dimensions and weight as similar model from 17 years ago.

You have demonstrated nothing expect a new car with a new design can be built in the same size as another model was. This was never in dispute.

Cool the car costs the same as a different model did 17 years ago. You understand the meaning of inflation right? What would it have cost if it existed 17 years ago? The same as it does today?

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

You have demonstrated nothing expect a new car with a new design can be built in the same size as another model was. This was never in dispute.

You claimed that crash safety standards force bloat and that increases the price for matching older car size/weights. The M2 meets crash standards, is a similar size and weight as a comparable car from 17 years ago, and costs less. It disproves what you've claimed is fact.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Cool the car costs the same as a different model did 17 years ago. You understand the meaning of inflation right?

You having trouble understanding the last sentence in the post you quoted? Read it again for your answer.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

You claimed that crash safety standards force bloat and that increases the price for matching older car size/weights. The M2 meets crash standards, is a similar size and weight as a comparable car from 17 years ago, and costs less. It disproves what you've claimed is fact.


You having trouble understanding the last sentence in the post you quoted? Read it again for your answer.

You continue to compare a newly developed coup to an M3 which has ballooned to the dimensions of every other car. So what that it was the same size then?

An M3 now costs Around $70K. If you reverse the inflation that means that the M2 (had it existed it would have been cheaper than the M3) should have cost around $32K in 2001.
This is why comparing different models across almost 20 years is a meaningless exercise.

Even if I were too concede your point (which I don't) all you have managed to do is support my statement that they can build anything for a price. I doubt there would be much of a market for a $50,000 86 even if it was 200 pounds lighter.