More Power vs. Lighter Weight ...

[LateNightCable]

In performance car's, I'm a big proponant of light weight over huge power, in most cases. All out power can overcome excessive weight in many instances, such is the case in such cars as Bentley - which are beyond heavy, but really pack a whollop under the hood ( or bonnet ), and enables them to reach impressive speeds in equally impressive times.

Light weight on the other and, can make up for a lot of power that isn't there. Like the little Lotus Elise for example, which is world renowned for delivering performance that belies it's unremarkable power. Thanks in large part to ultra light weight.

If I were to choose one over the other, I tend to go with light weight providing the most benefits. Not only in the form of acceleration numbers, but also handling response, and often fuel economy. A car with weight however can sometimes provide a more stable and planted feel. But as far as performance driving goes, I'd like to know which quality everyone here values the most.

More Power! - or - Lighter Weight?

* Remember, the Bentley Arnage and Lotus Elise were merely examples of their breed for this comparison, this is not a Bentley vs. Lotus poll.

- LateNight

Other examples of more power, and light ( or lighter ) weight ...

___ More Power ______ Light Weight

Mercedes-Benz S600 ... BMW M3 CSL

Bugatti Veyron 16/4 ..... Ferrari F360 Modena

Lambo Murcielago ........ Lambo Gallardo

[Anzeige eBay]

Hallo LateNightCable,

 

kennst du schon More Power vs. Lighter Weight ... (Anzeige)? Dort ist vieles zu finden.

 

Sportwagen Kaufberatung Ersatzteile (Anzeige) | Sportwagen Kaufberatung Zubehör (Anzeige)

[bleh]

If I were to choose one over the other, I tend to go with light weight providing the most benefits. Not only in the form of acceleration numbers, but also handling response, and often fuel economy

booyakasha! civic cx hatch represent! 1.5l 8 valve weighin in at 2100lbs w/ a full tank and a/c! mad fast non vtak y0!(yup i got a new toy for $1000 ) i love my cars light as a feather. much cheaper that way.

[Thunf]

More power, heavy weight:

BMW E39 M5, E55 amg, E60 M5.

Light Weight:

Lotus Elise, Porche 935 dp, Honda Civic type-R, and more...

I voted for light weight. A Lotus Elice and a Mercedes S600 or S65 amg is not comparable or there is no need to sell you S600 and go for an Elise after seen the result. What would you gain using the Mercedes on the track? The Mercedes is for road purposes. I'd like to know if it is even possible to make a car with current materials, safety, ride comfort, equipment, rear space, luggage, sound isolation to weight much much less... The current M5 is heavier than first claimed. It does basically weight as much as the old (latest from a Swedish mag). And people want it, it's heavy - it can't certainly be compared with an Elise. Putting 5 peoples in an Elise is like trying to get 4 people on a Hayabusa motocycle. Does the Elise have 4 or 5 stars in EURO NCap? It certainly doesn't have. And I know there are people complaining about Mercedes can't engineer cars, I tell them that you don't achieve nowadays 5 stars in EURO NCap with a 1100 kg car.

I prefer reasonable power with a reasonable heavy and luxury car like a E60 530i. If I want to go fast on a track I'd buy myself a powerful gocart, that is fast around a track. If you need a car to go fast, get an Evo 8 chipped or something. The CLS and the DTM would be cool, and I would prefer them but are limited production models.

Have you heard LateNight about a truck racer beating a Porche on track? The truck had 5000 NM of torgue, 1500 hp(!)

Latenight is right that dumb cars is heavyweight and powerful. I'm saving for the VWs 2 liter car, certainly it will be fast enough with the right engine around a track too...

[LateNightCable]

Of course there are always safety benefits to a heavier car, that a light weight could never have, and yes, an S600 or AMG car holds more people, and is much more road oriented than an Elise or some ultra light. And we could easily solve the issue by having a car for every mood. But the point of the discussion is basically which quality do we value over the other in a performance car - generally speaking. You voted light weight.

I don't think that all heavy and powerful cars are dumb. I'm a big fan of the Bentley Arnage. But it just makes more sense that weight is a much more crucial factor to flexible performance than power. Plus, a light weight car with slick moves is just so addicting, even if you aren't driving fast.

I've never heard about the race truck beating a Porsche. I have heard of Volvo semi-truck racing though, was that what the truck was like?

[thepolarfoxqx]

light weight boosts acceleration, handling, braking, fuel economy, lifespan of parts (like bearings), and generally makes everything better. Safety isn't that great of an argument. A Cesna 172, a small aircraft with over 3ft of wingspan, over 20 ft long, with a big iron motor still weighs in around 2,000lbs can stop from 90mph in 5ft space without the cabin losing structural integrity. The cabin of that plane can't weight more than a few hundred pounds, it seats 4, it's made of aluminum, and can go 90-0 in 5ft without giving. If it can be done with aluminium in a plane, why not with a car? If it's engineered well, it's just as safe. The new Jaguar XJ is perfect example of this, it is longer than a BMW 745i, is of equal space in nearly every dimension, but weighs 700lbs less. It has been engineered more efficiently. It gets better gas mileage, accelerates just as fast on less power, rides softer, and handles with equal tact. It was engineered smarter. It is a large, powerful, and very fast luxury sedan that gets 28mpg on the highway. That's amazing to me. In terms of braking, you simply can't make a big car brake as well as a small car. It doesn't matter what brakes you use, a 4,700lb S65 will not ever have stopping power like a lotus elise. The way brakes work is to turn motion into heat. More weight, more heat. Even if you have big enough brakes to stop the bigger car proportionally as quickly, the heat dynamics are much different. The big car will fade when the small car will not. The laws of physics make it so an S65 will never outhandle a honda S2000 (which is way too heavy for its size anyway). It's just not possible, despite what anyone might say.

Light weight is better in every way. less expensive, faster, more efficient, better handling, more stopping power, and when used right, just as safe. Plus, accidents are less likely due to the power to stop and handle better.

Hey, my 2,500lb 318i holds 4 people, is respectably fast, handles nice, and will pull 34mpg on the highway. Why isn't bimmer making cars like that anymore?

[reggid]

Light weight is better in every way. less expensive, faster, more efficient, better handling, more stopping power, and when used right, just as safe. Plus, accidents are less likely due to the power to stop and handle better.

If it was cheaper all manufacturers would be doing it, they all are trying to save money where they can and lightweight is not where its at. Maybe if everyone one used lightweight materials the price of them would come down making it a more viable solution for manufacturers to incorporate them.

Light weight is no good in the rain unless you like aqua planing.

Lightweight cars are not just as safe in a crash especially if there are still large heavy cars, trucks and buses driving around. Unless we design very large cars with small cabins and use very large amounts of energy absorbing materials to protect the occupants all cars will be difficult to keep safe.

The better handling and stopping characteristics will go out the window once people know about them, people will just reduce their margins of safety becasue of overconfidence similar to the ABS effect.

[thepolarfoxqx]

a 6,000lb bentley cannot stop from 90-0 in 5ft and maintain structural integrity. Weight is not the answer. Bigger is safer is like saying more cubic inches is more power. Better engineering is safter. You won't find a safer car than a volvo, and volvo doesn't do it by being heavy, they do it be being smarter. As for being cheaper, less material costs less money than more material. It's all efficient. It's about development of methods and materials. They don't want to make the investment in development. It's a large capital expense.

As for safety again, crumple zones are huge, you want less weight pressing on the crumple zone, the less weight you have to absorb, you can engineer it in order to better distribute the force. It's like saying your car is safer if you have a ton of sandbags in the trunk. More weight requires a stronger structure, it's proportional.

[LateNightCable]

No full production Bentley has reached the 6,000 pound mark quite yet, not even the Arnage RL.

As for cost in relation to amount of material, the weight of a vehicle is not always a good representation of how much material is comprised in it's construction, since steel for example is cheaper, but still heavier than an equal amount of aluminum.

On the subject of aluminum, the average new car contains nearly 300lbs. of it, a nearly 17% increase from five years ago. Less than 200 lbs. was the average almost fifteen years ago. Engine and suspension componants account for most of the increase, in the form of blocks, cylinder heads, and control arms. So, progress in using lighter materials is slow but sure, the industry could really use a good dose of imagination though. Lot's of other parts that could be lighter are still made of the same old stuff.

Some if it is politics, and some of it is preconception. Aluminum still carries the image of being lesser than steel, but it's actually stronger, and only half as much is neaded to achieve the same results. A little engineering creativity helps.

[reggid]

a 6,000lb bentley cannot stop from 90-0 in 5ft and maintain structural integrity. Weight is not the answer. Bigger is safer is like saying more cubic inches is more power. Better engineering is safter. You won't find a safer car than a volvo, and volvo doesn't do it by being heavy, they do it be being smarter. As for being cheaper, less material costs less money than more material. It's all efficient. It's about development of methods and materials. They don't want to make the investment in development. It's a large capital expense.

As for safety again, crumple zones are huge, you want less weight pressing on the crumple zone, the less weight you have to absorb, you can engineer it in order to better distribute the force. It's like saying your car is safer if you have a ton of sandbags in the trunk. More weight requires a stronger structure, it's proportional.

i never once said that heavy cars are safer i was merely implying that its not black and white.

As for light weight cars and their crumple zones absorbing less energy this is true in a single vehicle accident or an accident with similar vehicle where the car essentially only dissipates its own KE but what about a 5t truck hitting you.

If you want to reduce KE your better off limiting vehicle speed becasue KE is proportional to Velocity squared now thats smart engineering and much esaier to achieve.

If you use less material but utilise it better the design is inherently going to be more complicated to mass produce look at aeroplanes, how many of them could be made in the thousands per day. Achieving this would require more r&d which costs money.

My argument is that its not black and white, i was not saying that heavy cars are safer.

[LateNightCable]

This discussion is veering off into the territory of safety, a whole new ball game, and something that involves many many factors. However interesting and lively that may be, I intended this topic to relate more to driving dynamics.

Some may favor extra thrust, over more flingable handling and vice versa. While ample thrust is awesome, overall I personally like the handling to do the talking - and lighter weight lends itself to lighter handling.

A Cesna 172, a small aircraft with over 3ft of wingspan, over 20 ft long, with a big iron motor still weighs in around 2,000lbs

I'm sure that part about the wingspan was was just a typo, but just for the record, a Cessna 172 has a wingspan of closer to 36ft. a length of around 26ft. and an empty weight of 1,500-1,600 lbs. depending on the vintage.

And Reggid, on the subject of airplanes, most are loaded to the gills with aluminum. Light aircraft, like the 172 are light in large part to being very simple in construction. Like many small aircraft, the basic technology of the 172 dates back to the 1950's or before. And aircraft are quite capable of being produced in very great quantities, and under conditions that are not ideal. Just look at World War II plane production.

Jet liners on the other hand are also loaded with lightweight materials, but even cutting edge planes such as the Boeing 777 weigh well over 300,000 pounds, and can take off weighing over twice that.

So, while some things can only be made so light, and still remain structurally sound, the structure of a light plane tends to be reletively simple, and therefore light. No crumple zones in a plane. But the build tolerances are pretty strict.

[Anzeige eBay]

Hallo LateNightCable,

 

schau doch mal hier zum Thema Zubehör für Sportwagen Kaufberatung (Anzeige)? Eventuell gibt es dort etwas Passendes.

[bleh]

Light weight is no good in the rain unless you like aqua planing.

Lightweight cars are not just as safe in a crash especially if there are still large heavy cars, trucks and buses driving around. Unless we design very large cars with small cabins and use very large amounts of energy absorbing materials to protect the occupants all cars will be difficult to keep safe.

everybody should drive an suv all the time! especially for daily commuting to the office!

[Thunf]

I've never heard about the race truck beating a Porsche. I have heard of Volvo semi-truck racing though, was that what the truck was like?

Look at this link: http://www.mbtr.de/

Exactly those is what I meant! I remember that my dad told me about the truck beating a Porche, it must have been almost 10 years ago... At 160 the porche past by as those trucks are limited to that speed.

I guess allot of the extra weight from luxury performance cars come from the engine and the gearbox. I compared the E55 with 1835 kg (4045 lb) own weight and the E240 with 1570 kg (3461 lb). The difference is 265 kg (584 lb). That is allot I think.

I also compared the E60 525i and the M5. 525i was 1545 kg (3406 lb) and the M5 1830 kg (4034 lb). The difference there is 285 kg (628 lb). That's also allot.

Where does the weight come from? because we all know lightweight is the way to perform! My guess is that strengthening the chassis and a bigger engine does allot to the weight. An Audi A2 with sportschassis beats the M3 in a slalom because of the weight.

[LateNightCable]

I guess allot of the extra weight from luxury performance cars come from the engine and the gearbox. I compared the E60 525i and the M5. 525i was 1545 kg (3406 lb) and the M5 1830 kg (4034 lb). The difference there is 285 kg (628 lb). That's also allot.

This is true, the E46 M3 for example is equipped with the same differential as the larger E39 M5. Although, on the subject of the 525i and M5, one is a six-cylinder, the other a V10. So that would change the equation a bit.

[thepolarfoxqx]

the 540 and e55 have lots more odds and ends and random shit in them than their base level counterparts, heavier motors, trannies, chasis bolsters, it adds up. Cars are getting lighter. The 5 got lighter, the XJ, the E didn't get any heavier. The automakers recognize that weight is huge.