REPORT: Mazda to slash weight by over 200 pounds in 2011
2009 Mazda MX-5 Miata – Click above for high-res image gallery
When the original fuel crisis hit the States in the 1970s, automakers scrambled to make smaller, more efficient transportation. The result was a lot of ill-packaged front-wheel drive suck better left in the deepest recesses of our collective consciousness. Since the mid '80s though, vehicles (and people) began growing at a steady rate to the point that the typical C-segment sedan is bigger and heavier than the run of the mill '90s midsize sedan.
Mazda is no different than the competition when it comes to added tonnage, as product development chief Robert Davis tells Autoweek/Automotive News that each product cycle results in weight gain of about 80 pounds. That stops beginning in 2011, though, as the Japanese automaker begins dropping the weight of a typical Mazda by 220 pounds or more. Davis says the automaker will attack the problem from several angles, including using more aluminum and high strength steel, cutting the overall length of vehicles by three inches or more and utilizing smaller and more efficient powertrains. Mazda engineers are also being charged with finding innovative solutions to solve problems like how best to bond aluminum to steel. The automotive Weight Watchers plan will result in fuel economy gains of three to five percent without sacrificing safety.
The weight loss isn't likely to happen throughout Mazda's entire lineup all at once, though, instead opting to drop pounds as vehicles come up for redesign. Mazda will also work to lose the weight without sacrificing the brand's Zoom Zoom roots. One of the first Mazda models expected to benefit from the companies weight loss goals is the MX-5 Miata. Rumors have been flying for months that the next Miata will be lighter than the already feathery roadster we have today. We'd say lighter is almost always better as long as the weight subtraction doesn't come at the expense of structural rigidity.
We're all for Mazda cutting weight from all of its models, and we're hoping that other automakers follow suit. We're pretty sure we've had enough of 5,000 pounds SUVs and two-ton sedans, and we're guessing you have, too.
Gallery: Review: 2009 Mazda MX-5 Miata
Photos copyright ©2009 Chris Paukert / Weblogs, Inc.
[Source: AutoWeek]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Mike7 3:41PM (11/12/2009)
A Miata and a (also upcoming) 5.0 Mustang in a garage, what more do you need?
Reply
2001 altima aka Jessica 3:46PM (11/12/2009)
a Ducati 1198s... or any kind of a motorcycle. (I actually dont know anything about bikes but i really would like to won one soon)
Chris 4:40PM (11/12/2009)
2008 Miata SE (the sky blue with chocolate top/leather)
2009 Mirattz (sp?) Blue BMW R1200RT
makes choosing each morning a bit difficult. Though when the dealer asked me why I didn't have a lot of miles on my Miata I said I only drive it when I know it will rain
Redline 5:33PM (11/12/2009)
RSV4 Factory... droooool
adrenalnjunky 10:39PM (11/12/2009)
A Miata with a built 5.0 under the hood. Local guy has one - runs high 10's in the quarter and looks perfectly stock from the exterior, except for aftermarket rolling stock.
dscottr 5:09PM (11/14/2009)
Q: A Miata and a (also upcoming) 5.0 Mustang in a garage, what more do you need?
A: Headroom.
Bobcat 1:51PM (11/16/2009)
@Kitko
200 kilos, shucks!!!
EU cars:
Mazda2 1.6 MCD GTA (90 PS) 5-door 1105 kg
Ford Fiesta 1.6 Duratorq TDCi ECOnetic (90 PS) 5-door 1118 kg
The 1.6 MCD same engine from Ford (renamed 1.6 Duratorq TDCi).
13 kg it is insignificant and poor difference!
2001 altima aka Jessica 3:42PM (11/12/2009)
is this car even safe to be in??? it does not look like a very safe car to be driving. BUt i bet its really fun to drive!
Reply
James Sonne 4:40PM (11/12/2009)
Check crash test ratings. Miatas typically perform in the top tier. How many times do you hear of a Miata roll-over? The window frame and seat bar are highly reinforced, an Expedition could land on a Miata and not crush the cabin.
If you want to be ignorant, could you at least not do it in public. If you're just being inflammatory, no one really cares enough to bother with you, hence me being the only reply thus far. I only replied because I didn't want someone else that doesn't know to be fooled by your comment.
elpepe 6:17PM (11/12/2009)
Jessica isn't being ignorant at all. There isn't many 2500lbs cars on the road these days, and when it get's into an accident with a tipical 4000 pounder, it will lose. Simple laws of physics. So yes, all by itself on the road or with others featherweights, it is quite safe... but realistically on our current roads, not so much. The small size and relatively small crash zones do not help.
I can't imagine them going down even further to 2300lbs! Pretty impressive if they achieve it! And must be a blast to drive if you fit in one. But as safe as larger, heavier cars? Never.
Sanders 6:55PM (11/12/2009)
As time progresses, those 'heavy' cars will be about as common as, dinosaurs. No worries, the automotive landscape is merely returning to how it was in the late 80's and early 90's. It may take a few years of attrition, but all of those people who thought it would be trendy to climb into a 'truck' for a daily driver will be going back to real cars.
airchompers 7:04PM (11/12/2009)
@elpepe,
Can you please cite these laws of physics that guarantee that any 2500 lb car will lose against any given 4000 lb car?
Olivier Parent 7:17PM (11/12/2009)
That physics law would be Newton's 3rd law. But it isn't as simple as that, since cars are not rigid bodies. A Smart car is a quite safe car to be in when it crashes with a Mercedes S-class , since the latter is designed to absorb the bulk of the impact and the former has a safety cell that will not deform. If you would substitute the S-class with a pickup truck of the same mass with a stiff ladder chassis, the lack of adequate crumple zones on the truck will transfer most of the energy to the smaller car and thus the passengers.
elpepe 11:39PM (11/12/2009)
Actually the law I was more refering to was the 2nd one... the force that a car imparts onto another one in a crash is directly proportional to its mass. It's just common sense; Hurl two bowling balls with equal speed into each other, one twice as heavy as the other one, and what will happen? The heavier one will slow down but continue its course. The lighter one will bounce back. Who won that fight? If those were two cars, the g-forces will make your internal organs turn to mush a lot quicker in the lighter car, given sufficient speeds.
Yes, of course we're ignoring the crash zones here, but it's safe to do. Since both cars are using both of their crash zones together, I believe in this scenario they help both cars equally. It's just one big crash zone relative to any one of the cars.
Here, I searched around a bit and found that others too have common sense.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10220037-48.html
Alex 9:00AM (11/13/2009)
If you are really that concerned with safety fit yourself and your family with nomex race suits, bell helmets and HANS devices; outfit your car with a full roll cage, fuel shut off and fire suppression system. Otherwise just realize that driving is, in and of itself, a dangerous activity. Might as well have fun.
elpepe 1:55PM (11/13/2009)
don't be a d!ckhead alex... question was asked, I answered it. And it's clear, based even on this blog that people need reminding of the basics. A small car with a 5 star rating is NOT the same or safe as a large car with a 5 star rating... capiche?
And no it does not mean I like or drive large cars... But it's something people need to be aware of.
Kitko 3:41PM (11/13/2009)
Mazda2 is lighter than any other car in its class yet it earned top 5 star in the Euro crash tests competing against cars that are 200 kilos heavier.
elpepe 5:03PM (11/13/2009)
*sigh*... kitko, you are exactly the type of person why this must be REPEATED over and over.
Yes, maybe mazda is 200kg lighter than other cars in it's class, and got a 5 star rating. That means when it strikes A STATIC structure at the tested speed it will do a similar job of protecting you as other cars that get 5 star ratings in that same test, no matter the class. In that kind of test its low mass might be an advantage, because it is the mass of the car and its speed that determines the kinetic energy that has to be dissipated during the crush... so the lighter it is, the less it will collapse on itself as long as strength stays constant.
What WE ARE talking about here is a real life scenario when a lighter car strikes a heavier car. Just because a light car gets a 5 star rating, does not mean it will do good against a large, heavy car that got a 3 star rating for example. In this case the heavy car will impart a substantially larger force onto the mazda2, than the mazda2 will onto the heavy car.
Read the above posts again... and watch the video...
Bobcat 1:56PM (11/16/2009)
@Kitko
200 kilos, shucks!!!
EU cars:
Mazda2 1.6 MCD GTA (90 PS) 5-door 1105 kg
Ford Fiesta 1.6 Duratorq TDCi ECOnetic (90 PS) 5-door 1118 kg
The 1.6 MCD same engine from Ford (renamed 1.6 Duratorq TDCi).
13 kg it is insignificant and poor difference!
Ross 3:44PM (11/12/2009)
I'm a Mazda fan - drove one until recently. But the only reason they have to take weight out of their cars is that they have been putting so much in. Example: when they redesigned the Mazda6 for '09, the car gained anywhere from 220 to 330 lbs, depending on equipment.
Want a lighter and better (and sportier) Mazda6? Stop selling the North America-spec model, and give us the version that Mazda offers in the rest of the world . . . *that* car actually lost weight, about 75 lbs, after the most recent redesign.
Reply