Nissan to cut weight by 15-percent by 2015
As enthusiasts, it's easy to get caught up in horsepower and torque figures, but weight remains the ultimate buzz kill for performance. The last twenty years has brought huge advances in technological and safety features, but the downside is that we've been tacking on the pounds in the process. Nissan has recognized this and is setting a course to rectify matters by attempting to lower the average weight of its vehicles by 15-percent in the next seven years when compared to its 2005 lineup.
Nissan's goal is to make use of more lightweight materials, rethink its vehicle design and get suppliers in on the action by setting efficiency targets for the parts they produce.
Considering the 350Z tips the scales at just over 3,200 pounds, which means Nissan is looking to shave about 500 pounds from the coupe's curb weight. That's going to make for an impressive power-to-weight ratio and even more compelling driving dynamics. Hopefully, the cost of lightweight materials will decrease as their popularity grows and it won't be too long before carbon fiber begins to find its way into more mainstream automobiles.
[Source: DowJones]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Gungosa 9:48AM (1/03/2008)
What a coincidence, i intend to gain 15% by 2015.
Reply
Tony C 9:50AM (1/03/2008)
Most of today's vehicle's weight gains are attributed to safer construction and safety devices. I doubt that means Nissan will skimp on safety but it's still something to think about. Auto manufacturers have been busy for years de-contenting vehicles for both fewer parts and reducing cost.
Lighter materials like aluminum, magnesium, titanium, carbon fiber and nanotubes and processes like honeycomb and space frame construction simply cost too much to replace steel in manufacturing. Guess that means they'll just have get more creative with their engineering?
Reply
MemphisNET 10:03AM (1/03/2008)
I saw something on the Weather Network of all things about how one farmer is taking his used plastics and turning them into plastic-lumber. Weighs nothing and has the strength of stronger materials. Maybe something similar can be done through recycling... weigh the cost of recycling against exotic materials.
Calebe 9:56AM (1/03/2008)
Come into the light, all are welcome...
Reply
jim 9:58AM (1/03/2008)
Hmm, a diet to start the new year. Less weight = more driving fun. Less weight = better gas mileage. Less weight = higher performance.
I hope this starts a trend.
Reply
philipg55 11:55AM (1/03/2008)
i dont think it will... Mazda has already cut down on weights in many of its newest generation cars. doesnt seem like any other car company cares.
sw 12:52PM (1/03/2008)
Mazda has also sold many more cars in their newer generations than before. If you build it, they WILL come.
mike 9:59AM (1/03/2008)
Yet another concequence of CAFE..lower weight. Why oh why are we burdened by this CAFE (sarcasm)
Reply
meshies 10:05AM (1/03/2008)
I hope the rest of the industry follows suit. This isnt going to make Lutz happy at all!
BILL 1:41PM (1/03/2008)
Mike, we are burdened by CAFE because our Politicians are idiots and suffer from a lack of guts. Let me see if I have this right. Cars will average 35 MPG utilizing a fuel supplement that is amazingly inefficient, incorporate all of the legislated safety standards and equipment, and we will not drill for oil anywhere in or around the United States to help offset the sky rocketing crude oil prices we are getting stuck with by foreign countries run by thug dictators who hate our guts.
Leaf 10:01AM (1/03/2008)
mmmmm... 350Z...
Reply
EJ25RUN 10:04AM (1/03/2008)
wow a 2700 pound z in 2015, that'll be impressive and fast....wonder if the VQ will be around then?
Reply
AZMike 10:16AM (1/03/2008)
it's about time!
it's truly scary to look back thru the past twenty years or so, and see curb weights from the early 80's.
a subcompact like a Chevette or Honda Civic MIGHT max out at around 2,100 pounds. even full-frame, RWD mid-size cars would barely reach 3,000 pounds.
now, it's not uncommon to have subcompacts pushing the 3,000 pound barrier. porky indeed.
in all the efforts to create the tanks we drive today, we've drastically cut efficiency.
I have to laugh now to see folks get all excited over some little teeny, death-defying car like a Honda Fit, and get all excited about 35 MPG highway.
I've saved the window stickers from all of the new cars I've owned since 1974. here are some of the EPA ratings:
-1978 Renault LeCar: 38-49
-1980 Plymouth Champ: 34-46
-1981 Pontiac Phoenix: 41-51
-1987 Isuzu I-Mark: 37-41
-1998 Dodge Neon: 29-41
I obviously bought all of them for economy, and each one achieved or exceeded the EPA numbers.
weight is indeed the enemy.
AZMike
Reply
Menice 11:05AM (1/03/2008)
thats a cool comparison. and amazing, wish i saved all my window stickers.
(also happy to say i never owned one of those cars, but it is obvious you were buying for efficency)
Dan 12:17PM (1/03/2008)
You can't compare window stickers from the early 80s. The scoring procedure was changed in 1984 to reduce scores by 10 and 22% respectively.
That "41/51" Pontiac Phoenix would be a 37/39 from 1985-2007.
Weight is indeed the enemy of mileage, but it is the friend of safety and feature content. Both of which are much more important to me than mileage.
AZMike 12:42PM (1/03/2008)
Dan,
you might want to read my post again; I did indeed achieve the MPG numbers on every car. most of the time, I exceeded them. I drive like an old lady with an egg between my foot and the gas pedal.
I have several large GM cars presently with the 3800 V-6 engine. I regularly achieve just under 35 MPG (34.1) on the highway, with average speeds around 75 MPH.
when I lived in Los Angeles in the 70s-80s, I can remember consumer reporter David Horowitz (KNBC) taking a then-new Plymouth Champ with the smaller 1.4L/twin stick transmission (mine was a 1.6L/twin stick) on an economy run from Los Angeles to Las vegas at 55 MPH. his average MPG was over 56.
the Champ was far from the only car that achieved numbers like this. Honda made the Civic and CRX, both in "HF" models. even later, the Metro XFI was available.
AZMike
why not the LS2/LS7? 1:17PM (1/03/2008)
The ratings were changed again this year, so the 35 of the Fit is better than it might seem from this chart.
Also, the Fit just sucks on the highway. The Civic does better on the highway than the Fit.
Dan 2:33PM (1/03/2008)
Driving as you say like 'an old lady', the Fit would probably get close to 40 mpg highway as well. And a more aerodynamic small car like the Civic will get 45.
Compare apples to apples. Most cars sold today are a large and comfortable 3500lb with power to spare and consequent poor mileage, but eco boxes still exist if you want one and the mileage difference is not to get excited about.
If 6 more gallons a month (12000 miles at 35mpg instead of 45) is the price of everything a 2008 Civic has over the 1988 model, that's a bargain.
Aetius 10:17AM (1/03/2008)
There something so fantastic about driving a light car. My Mazda3 (Hatch) with the 2.3L is 2700lbs approx and with the 160HP and trademark Mazda handling, its as much to drive as sports cars.
Reply
Will 10:39AM (1/03/2008)
Agreed. I have a 2001 Impreza 2.5RS weighing about 2800 lbs. That's not particularly light by old car standards, but the feel of the car is completely different from a newer WRX. It feels tactile and tossable, if not as powerful or quiet as the newer cars.
Nothing against the huge advances in safety, sound isolation, etc., but light weight really is a cure-all when it comes to performance and economy. It's just a shame Airbus is buying up all the carbon in the world to keep weight down on the A380 and thus causing prices for carbon fiber to spike.