http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/ Autoblog Comments for http://www.autoblog.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.autoblog.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 9:48AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/
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?]]>Jan 3rd 2008 9:50AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 10:03AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 9:56AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/
I hope this starts a trend.]]>Jan 3rd 2008 9:58AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 11:55AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 12:52PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 9:59AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 10:05AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 1:41PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 10:01AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 10:04AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/
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
]]>Jan 3rd 2008 10:16AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/
(also happy to say i never owned one of those cars, but it is obvious you were buying for efficency)]]>Jan 3rd 2008 11:05AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/
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.]]>Jan 3rd 2008 12:17PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/
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]]>Jan 3rd 2008 12:42PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/
Also, the Fit just sucks on the highway. The Civic does better on the highway than the Fit.]]>Jan 3rd 2008 1:17PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/
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.
]]>Jan 3rd 2008 2:33PMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/Jan 3rd 2008 10:17AMhttp://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/03/nissan-to-cut-weight-by-15-percent-by-2015/
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.]]>Jan 3rd 2008 10:39AM