Is weight no longer an issue in sports cars?

[JIM THEO]

Many BRZ/GT86 owners complain about the poor infotainment, when you have such large screens on sport cars how can you lower the weight ah?

[new2subaru]

Originally Posted by Adam_L

Does anyone know the answer to this question: If you reduce a cars weight by 100 lbs, would that be like adding xx (fill in the number) more HP / torque to the stock vehicle weight ?

I'm just wondering if there is an equation, by which you can use to say "hey, I reduced my FRS weight by 100 lbs , so that's like me adding say 10 more HP to the car" ?

This is the simplest one I've come across. It should be fairly accurate. Feel free to correct.

Original weight divided by HP = 2750/200 = 13.75
Remove 200 lbs 2550/200 = 12.75

Then you divide the original weight by the new Power to Weight Ratio 2800/12.75 = 219.60

It gets interesting if you add a header/tune and bump the HP up to 230 crank.

2550/230 = 11.08
2800/11.08 = 252.70


BTW I have removed 220lbs from my car and it makes a noticeable difference. I'm working on removing another 100 this winter.

[why?]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

2,280 to be precise
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42284

And that's without carbon fiber panels.

Originally Posted by rennlistuser3

But how about the MX-5 though? that's very small and passes crash standards.

I guess my real question is: if the ND MX-5 can be a modern car that passes crash tests and everything, can Mazda or any other manufacturer make a more powerful version of the MX-5 without ending up weighing at 1600 kg (apprx. 3500 lbs)?

The mx5 is not that small. Think on it this way, the Toyota Yaris weighs about 2200 pounds, you can easily get it to weigh under 2000 pounds, but a 1989 Mazda 626 weighed 1800 pounds stock and is actually a little smaller. Cars are just much larger now than they used to be.

People just want large vehicles, even look at the new Camry, the thing is a boat.

When I was a child we used a MK2 Toyota Supra as a family car and we fit just fine. Now people mock the BRZ and its rear seats as absurdly tiny.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by why?

And that's without carbon fiber panels.



The mx5 is not that small. Think on it this way, the Toyota Yaris weighs about 2200 pounds, you can easily get it to weigh under 2000 pounds, but a 1989 Mazda 626 weighed 1800 pounds stock and is actually a little smaller. Cars are just much larger now than they used to be.

People just want large vehicles, even look at the new Camry, the thing is a boat.

When I was a child we used a MK2 Toyota Supra as a family car and we fit just fine. Now people mock the BRZ and its rear seats as absurdly tiny.

Even if they didn't the vehicles would have got larger. The North American crash requirements are massive.
A great example is the one for Head Protection alone. Just give it a quick read and see how it could change the size of vehicles while keeping in mind that it is one very, very small subset of the overall requirements.
https://one.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/12162.mlv.html

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by JIM THEO

Many BRZ/GT86 owners complain about the poor infotainment, when you have such large screens on sport cars how can you lower the weight ah?

Actually, if those large screens are the entire device (in other words, they are doing all the work) its very possible they are lighter than their predecessors. A screen the size shown in your photo is pretty light.

As an example, I have a MS Surface Book Pro with an I7 processor. The detached screen (which is fully functional on its own) weighs 1.6lbs and is larger than the screen in your photo, plus has batteries built into it. Remove the batteries and it would be closer to 1lb.

[mazeroni]

Weight is still an issue but as we move away from simple springs, rollbars, etc., I don't think we'll be talking about how weight is as much of a penalty. Adaptive suspension tech, and active rear steer, differentials and braking seem to be good at masking the weight and size of the vehicle while keeping the experience fun. In time, I think many of those systems will get cheap enough to make available in more entry level sports cars.

Granted, for heavy vehicles that don't have that tech, like the Mustangs and Camaros of the world, you have to compensate by stiffening the suspension and adding 305 section tires to balance it all out. But that comes with its share of problems.

Of course, adding those things creates a buffer that might change the feel of driving, and it's unlikely that the 86 will see those systems anytime soon. So keeping the weight low and the suspension simple is the right formula to making the car feel good.

The only way I see them finding more weight savings in the 86, while keeping costs low, is to ditch the 2+2 design and take 6+ inches out of the wheel base. That might net 2~300 pounds, but obviously a lot of customers want the rear seats so I don't see the 86 getting much lighter in future generations.

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The physical dimensions are a direct result of the crash standards. You have the cause and effect reversed. In order to meet all the North American standards the car has to be bloated a bit.

They're bloating the cars for increased interior volume and the more comfortable ride of a longer wheelbase. The example I cited (2001 M3 vs. 2018 M2) clearly contradicts your claim that a modern car can't have similar physical dimensions to an older one because crash standards force bloat. The 2018 M2 is roughly the size (exterior and interior) of the 2001 M3, it weighs roughly the same, and it meets modern crash standards. It's a clear example that modern crash standards can be met with some of the older car exterior dimensions.

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by rennlistuser3

I feel like this is a very strong point here. I have the same intuitive thinking about this as well. Cars are just getting unnecessarily gigantic. It's OK for an SUV but why does a sports car need to be a behemoth?

Unfortunately the M3 is tied to base 3-series development, so there's little influence to be had over the growth in some dimensions. I noticed that Porsche kept the wheelbase the same on the 992 as on the 991. It seems they are catching on that chassis growth each gen isn't sustainable indefinitely.

[Leonardo]

Originally Posted by why?

When I was a child we used a MK2 Toyota Supra as a family car and we fit just fine. Now people mock the BRZ and its rear seats as absurdly tiny.

I hear you. My buddy's parents had a CRX; both of us fit in the back seat.


via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Tokay444]

My 10 and 15 year olds ride in the back of the 86.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

They're bloating the cars for increased interior volume and the more comfortable ride of a longer wheelbase. The example I cited (2001 M3 vs. 2018 M2) clearly contradicts your claim that a modern car can't have similar physical dimensions to an older one because crash standards force bloat. The 2018 M2 is roughly the size (exterior and interior) of the 2001 M3, it weighs roughly the same, and it meets modern crash standards. It's a clear example that modern crash standards can be met with some of the older car exterior dimensions.

You are crossing model lines there so the comparison is meaningless. Of course you can make whatever size you want when designing a new car. The M2 has only been around for a few years so was designed from the start with current crash requirements.
Nobody is saying that they can't build them smaller and meet requirements if people are willing to pay for those features. The discussion was about how existing models have grown. No doubt the desire for more room plays a small part but the major factor is what they have to do to have that room AND make them safer.

[Sapphireho]

Sport Coupe.

[rennlistuser3]

Originally Posted by gtengr

Unfortunately the M3 is tied to base 3-series development, so there's little influence to be had over the growth in some dimensions. I noticed that Porsche kept the wheelbase the same on the 992 as on the 991. It seems they are catching on that chassis growth each gen isn't sustainable indefinitely.

From what I'm finding on the internet, it seems the main reason for the 992 weight gain is the gearbox. They seem to have included componentry in it this time around to account for an upcoming hybrid system to improve emissions and efficiency.

I guess Porsche really is trying their best to keep the weight down but this is as good as it gets. Sad but as Tcoat and others are saying here, industry demands dictate matters.

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

You are crossing model lines there so the comparison is meaningless.

Ignore the naming conventions. You say crash standards drive dimensional growth and I showed you a clear example of why that isn't necessarily true. That you think it matters that the current car is labeled a 2-series while the old one is a 3-series is irrelevant when we're only looking at the weight of similarly-sized cars of different time periods built by the same manufacturer.