No clue.
#16
10-19-2011, 09:05 PM
I'll agree that wheel size does have to do with appearance, but it also has to do with the size of the brakes. As time goes on cars got heavier and there is a need for bigger brakes to stop that weight, so naturally the wheels need to be bigger. Because the safety standards in other parts of the world are much lower cars can be built cheaper and lighter and doesn't require as much stopping power.
There is no way in hell a newer car is any heavier than the 1970's tanks I've driven in the past. I'm pretty sure the old Gran Torino wagon I had weighed more than some of the trucks on the road today
. I'm also pretty sure the brakes on my Gran Fury are larger than those found on most cars nowadays and it runs 15" wheels...Sorry, I just don't get your statement there...
#17
10-19-2011, 10:35 PM
Uhm, what?
There is no way in hell a newer car is any heavier than the 1970's tanks I've driven in the past. I'm pretty sure the old Gran Torino wagon I had weighed more than some of the trucks on the road today. I'm also pretty sure the brakes on my Gran Fury are larger than those found on most cars nowadays and it runs 15" wheels...
Sorry, I just don't get your statement there...
There is no way in hell a newer car is any heavier than the 1970's tanks I've driven in the past. I'm pretty sure the old Gran Torino wagon I had weighed more than some of the trucks on the road today
. I'm also pretty sure the brakes on my Gran Fury are larger than those found on most cars nowadays and it runs 15" wheels...Sorry, I just don't get your statement there...
2010 F-350 curb weight: 6698 lb
2010 F-150 XL Supercrew: Gross weight: 6800 lbs. Curb weight: 5156 lbs.
2002 Sable Curb weight: 3643 lb (FWD)
2005 Crown Vic curb weight: 4,134 lb
1991 Buick Roadmaster: Curb weight 4540 lbs
Doesn't seem cars are significantly lighter. :shrug:
#19
10-20-2011, 08:57 AM
Fleet Mechanic
1972 Ford Torino curb weight: 3,369–4,042 lb
2010 F-350 curb weight: 6698 lb
2010 F-150 XL Supercrew: Gross weight: 6800 lbs. Curb weight: 5156 lbs.
2002 Sable Curb weight: 3643 lb (FWD)
2005 Crown Vic curb weight: 4,134 lb
1991 Buick Roadmaster: Curb weight 4540 lbs
Doesn't seem cars are significantly lighter. :shrug:
2010 F-350 curb weight: 6698 lb
2010 F-150 XL Supercrew: Gross weight: 6800 lbs. Curb weight: 5156 lbs.
2002 Sable Curb weight: 3643 lb (FWD)
2005 Crown Vic curb weight: 4,134 lb
1991 Buick Roadmaster: Curb weight 4540 lbs
Doesn't seem cars are significantly lighter. :shrug:
#20
10-20-2011, 05:02 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Saratoga, NY
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#21
10-20-2011, 05:25 PM
Fleet Mechanic
That is interesting. The focus curb weight of 3k is surprising. You learn something new everyday. Good post!
#22
10-20-2011, 05:35 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle weight
I haven't done the research either, but I would have guessed new cars weigh less. But when working in the automotive aftermarket, I know that Japan and Germany are weight conscious. As I recall, I had to submit weight as part of product submissions to auto manufacturers from these countries. I don't recall about the Scandinavian auto makers, but I think I did for them as well. For the Big 3 - pretty sure I didn't have to do it. This lends to the idea that the focus might be weaker here than elsewhere. It's fair to point out that the vehicles of today are far quieter, so insulation would add up. Yet, there aren't any metal dashboards out there, so....
Kevin
Kevin
#23
10-20-2011, 06:06 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Saratoga, NY
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure you've seen this. I'll take the 2009 in a crash anyday.
Crashtest Chevrolet Malibu 2009 gegen Chevrolet Bel Air 1959 - YouTube
Crashtest Chevrolet Malibu 2009 gegen Chevrolet Bel Air 1959 - YouTube
#24
10-21-2011, 05:46 AM
I am not going to spend any time researching this, but I can not believe that if you took a 2 wheel drive car from the 70's and compared it to a 2wd car made this year that had the same Dimensions that they would be the same curb weight...........the new car is going to weigh less.........
This would probably be the biggest reason that mpg figures are not all that different today than they were back then. If you want great mpg, you've got to go with a light, underpowered car. We Americans don't like those kinds of cars. A Navigator or a F-450 Crew Cab is not going to be getting 50mpg. Ever. Put a 400 hp motor in a 6500 pound vehicle and you're going to have to pay the bill to move it. Power costs money. How much can you afford to move and how fast can you afford to move it?
#25
10-21-2011, 05:47 AM
I'm sure you've seen this. I'll take the 2009 in a crash anyday.
Crashtest Chevrolet Malibu 2009 gegen Chevrolet Bel Air 1959 - YouTube
Crashtest Chevrolet Malibu 2009 gegen Chevrolet Bel Air 1959 - YouTube
#26
10-21-2011, 06:51 AM
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power,
When I started doing the research here on how to squeeze an MPG or two out of a Ranger, I came across information here that spoke on tire size. I also was able to confirm it in a couple locations on the internet with a couple of articles that were published that suggested moving to a smaller tire size. As I'm looking for a set of used aluminum rims to replace my rusty steelies, I'm keying in on keeping the same size (despite my interest in economy, I think the 14" are too small).
I'm in Taiwan at the moment and as I'm looking around, many vehicles here run 12", 13" and 14". One truck I passed had 14" on the front, 12" duals on the back. Fewer vehicles have 15" or larger, but it decends as you might suspect. If I had to guess, I would suggest that the reason we have larger tires these days is because it is a market driven requirement (bigger is better). The mopeds/scooters here, and there are tons of them, run itty-bitty tires.
Off Topic
: Here in Taiwan, our Rangers would be some of the larger vehicles on the road. Even the flatbed truck with duallies I saw looks smaller and lower than the average Ranger.
Regards,
Kevin
When I started doing the research here on how to squeeze an MPG or two out of a Ranger, I came across information here that spoke on tire size. I also was able to confirm it in a couple locations on the internet with a couple of articles that were published that suggested moving to a smaller tire size. As I'm looking for a set of used aluminum rims to replace my rusty steelies, I'm keying in on keeping the same size (despite my interest in economy, I think the 14" are too small).
I'm in Taiwan at the moment and as I'm looking around, many vehicles here run 12", 13" and 14". One truck I passed had 14" on the front, 12" duals on the back. Fewer vehicles have 15" or larger, but it decends as you might suspect. If I had to guess, I would suggest that the reason we have larger tires these days is because it is a market driven requirement (bigger is better). The mopeds/scooters here, and there are tons of them, run itty-bitty tires.
Off Topic
: Here in Taiwan, our Rangers would be some of the larger vehicles on the road. Even the flatbed truck with duallies I saw looks smaller and lower than the average Ranger.Regards,
Kevin
The thread hijacked smilie is awesome! And, I'm not one that minds about a thread being off topic.
#27
10-21-2011, 06:57 AM
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I'm a bit of a jokester. I tend to have an eye for the individual setup by the unsuspecting and take advantage of the situation. Life is short and better to put a smile on someone's face than make them cross (so my mother preached). It sunk in!!
Working on the front end requires various levels of skill and knowledge. There are lots of threads here at FTE that can help you or your husband perform many repairs. The key here in my opinion is to start on smaller fixes and graduate up. SAFETY is a paramount consideration, so keep that in mind. For instance, I am reasonably handy and curious to try many repairs, but I shyed away from doing some of the front end repairs because of the front coil spring. There are ways to minimize the risks, such as clamps to hold the spring to allow you to safely work on your vehicle, but I didn't get that comfort level I needed. Just me I suppose, but if your inner voice sends out a warning, I tend to listen to it. I recommend investing in a Haynes or Chilton's Manual for your Ranger; will pay for itself on the first repair and they note many tips on the repair and safety considerations.
Having a tight front end is imortant for proper performance and safety. I did some of the work on mine myself and the rest done at a reasonably priced repair shop. I only have 97K, but the truck rides like it is new. It gives you improved confidence on the reliability of the vehicle. Good luck on your repairs and come back here for advice. I'm a novice here by most standards, but there are a couple following this thread now that are crack mechanics!
Kevin
Working on the front end requires various levels of skill and knowledge. There are lots of threads here at FTE that can help you or your husband perform many repairs. The key here in my opinion is to start on smaller fixes and graduate up. SAFETY is a paramount consideration, so keep that in mind. For instance, I am reasonably handy and curious to try many repairs, but I shyed away from doing some of the front end repairs because of the front coil spring. There are ways to minimize the risks, such as clamps to hold the spring to allow you to safely work on your vehicle, but I didn't get that comfort level I needed. Just me I suppose, but if your inner voice sends out a warning, I tend to listen to it. I recommend investing in a Haynes or Chilton's Manual for your Ranger; will pay for itself on the first repair and they note many tips on the repair and safety considerations.
Having a tight front end is imortant for proper performance and safety. I did some of the work on mine myself and the rest done at a reasonably priced repair shop. I only have 97K, but the truck rides like it is new. It gives you improved confidence on the reliability of the vehicle. Good luck on your repairs and come back here for advice. I'm a novice here by most standards, but there are a couple following this thread now that are crack mechanics!
Kevin
...however, your advice to get the Chilton's manual is a great idea because at least I can have it on hand when talking to a mechanic. Thanks!!
#28
10-22-2011, 06:50 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Topic
Back when I was a moderator (in a different forum), we would try to keep threads as pure as possible. As you might expect, we got onto tangents quite often. My rule of thumb back then was that as long as we got back onto topic in a post or two and that the new topic didn't overrun the thread topic, all was fine. I haven't seen much in the way of moderation, which is likely testament to the members and guests who keep threads clean and without negative banter. A good group of people!
#29
10-22-2011, 06:59 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lady Mechanics
Oh boy, I would never dream of doing repairs myself...I am not mechanically inclined...my husband is, but he doesn't have the time...and our home owners association will not allow it ...however, your advice to get the Chilton's manual is a great idea because at least I can have it on hand when talking to a mechanic.
Thanks!!
...however, your advice to get the Chilton's manual is a great idea because at least I can have it on hand when talking to a mechanic. Thanks!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
