After patiently waiting... IT ARRIVED! ZL1 inside!!

The fact is, heavier means it's harder on tires, brakes, requires larger springs & dampers, etc...but again, new-er vehicles are achieving performance levels never imagined out of what was once consider a 'tank'.

Properly removing weight will require a lot of development time and money...and likely increased cost to the customer. Weight reduction studies are done all the time at the OEM level. I worked on that exact thing at Chrysler 10 years ago with things like aluminum frames and body panels for trucks & SUVs. You don't want to know what some of those components cost just to see what happens...never to see the light of day. Mostly because they weren't cost effective or met all the vehicle performance targets...like durability or impact. The fact is...there is a constant balancing act that takes place through the development cycle and all targets must be met.

One generic comment I can make is how much bigger and heavier some of the newer cars feel. I've driven many S197 Mustangs & new Challengers and all of them just feel BIG compared to my foxbody. But when you look at their performance numbers, it's hard to deny that they do really perform...despite their weight disadvantage (on paper).

And unless I'm mistaken, I believe the new 911 increased it's wheelbase by 4" and supposedly the handling is quite a bit better. So I guess everyone better look out.
 
I agree with you, and I realize that large vehicles are the way of the future. I also realize that they're making giant cars go fast, and that's great. I just find it extremely disappointing. I drove a new V6 Camaro, and I don't understand the vehicle whatsoever. Looks aside, I don't think it offers really anything. But for the sake of getting my point across, I'm the guy that will buy a Miata before a Corvette. I used to drive a little old BMW that was lowered. I'll never forget the first time a new Taurus pulled up next to me. The side mirror was above my head. I could not believe how massive it was. :lol:

I will still continue to believe that the weight is a disadvantage. I believe the reason for the performance has much to do with chassis technology in new cars. Having owned a '97 civc, and now a 2002 Si (the hatchback one), the '02 feels much, much bigger. I don't like that part, however, it feels as though it handles MUCH better than the previous generations. According to Wikipedia, it has
an increase in torsional rigidity by 95 percent and a bending rigidity increase of 22 percent.
Click to expand...
Which is great and all, however it also added an additional 150lbs, which is VERY noticeable considering it still has 160hp.

I think the key is to just make the damn things smaller. :lol: Continue developing new chassis/suspension technology, but just reduce the size. Take the new Viper for example. It's nearly 200lb lighter than the previous model, as well as having more power. The current Camaro is nearly 350lb heavier than the previous generation. So some of the increased power over the last generation gets cancelled out.

My issue is not that any of these cars have poor performance. But my question is this - why put in all the time and effort making a large car perform when you don't have to? Why not start with something that will guarantee success with less effort? Perhaps I just see things much differently than most. :/

And for the record, I'm not trying to start a fight. :lol: I am sincere when I say that I just don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of HUGE cars, here's a new SHO from the vantage point of a '95 M3


16ee65bf.jpg



Nick
 
lucky7 said:
I agree with you, and I realize that large vehicles are the way of the future. I also realize that they're making giant cars go fast, and that's great. I just find it extremely disappointing. I drove a new V6 Camaro, and I don't understand the vehicle whatsoever. Looks aside, I don't think it offers really anything. But for the sake of getting my point across, I'm the guy that will buy a Miata before a Corvette. I used to drive a little old BMW that was lowered. I'll never forget the first time a new Taurus pulled up next to me. The side mirror was above my head. I could not believe how massive it was. :lol:

I will still continue to believe that the weight is a disadvantage. I believe the reason for the performance has much to do with chassis technology in new cars. Having owned a '97 civc, and now a 2002 Si (the hatchback one), the '02 feels much, much bigger. I don't like that part, however, it feels as though it handles MUCH better than the previous generations. According to Wikipedia, it has Which is great and all, however it also added an additional 150lbs, which is VERY noticeable considering it still has 160hp.

I think the key is to just make the damn things smaller. :lol: Continue developing new chassis/suspension technology, but just reduce the size. Take the new Viper for example. It's nearly 200lb lighter than the previous model, as well as having more power. The current Camaro is nearly 350lb heavier than the previous generation. So some of the increased power over the last generation gets cancelled out.

My issue is not that any of these cars have poor performance. But my question is this - why put in all the time and effort making a large car perform when you don't have to? Why not start with something that will guarantee success with less effort? Perhaps I just see things much differently than most. :/

And for the record, I'm not trying to start a fight. :lol: I am sincere when I say that I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

I think your perspective is one many of us share, but the problem is that the general population/average consumer wants every option on the planet...traction control, active handling, anti-lock brakes, power windows, power locks, rear window defrost, powerpoints all over the place, touch screen radios, stereos with external amps, subwoofers, 7+ speaker sound systems, an "information center" in the dash, etc. and all those pile on the weight and add complexity. Then toss in sound deadener, all wheel drive, airbags everywhere, a glass roof/power moonroof and it gets even bigger/heavier. Every car MUST have air conditioning right? You see where I'm going here I'm sure.

The related problem is that now you have to package all those things...wiring, control modules, etc...and we are our own worst enemy...because we want it all. I spent a fair amount of time in the Chrysler Design Studio listening to the artists talk about all these things they wanted in these vehicles (then show the group a sketch or a model) and all I could do was shake my head and ask, "so where do you plan to put all that?"...but of course it's not their problem. Then a Chief Engineer sees it, thinks it's a great idea and tells Engineering to "make it happen" because surely the competition will offer those same things. So what happens...the vehicle gets bigger/heavier.

And I find it funny now that if a car has no stereo, crank windows, etc. it's considered stripped down and only comes in a limited production vehicle. But the problem is that vehicles in that configuration are now the exception...and do in fact cost the manufacturer more money because they are 'unique'. Funny how the automobile has evolved when you think about it.

As performance enthusiasts, we can have our cake and eat it too...it just costs more than most of us can afford
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top