Keith wrote:
mad_machine wrote:
Keith wrote:
jrg77 wrote:
Physics says large heavy cars are safer. It also says small light weight cars are more fun.
Physics also says that small cars can change directions and stop more quickly, making them less likely to be in an accident.
yes.. but the insurance institute says that driver training has nothing to do with accident avoidance
Yes...but if I'm facing an accident, I'm not asking the insurance institute to do the driving for me. And I'd rather be in something nimble than a tank. That's just me. I've always found the best way to survive an accident is to not be in it.
Most of my coworkers have a pretty good idea of what cars weigh, but when I mentioned the 7700 lb curb weight for my Dodge pickup there was a long pause.
what the hell kind of a pickup do you have that it weighs 7700 pounds? you sure that isn't the Gross Vehicle Weight- which is how much it can weigh fully loaded? my 87 GMC body on a 79 Chevy 3/4 ton 4X4 weighs 5300 pounds with half a tank of gas, a few extra tools, and 245 pounds of me in it according to the scale at the scrap yard..
In reply to novaderrik:
According to the Ram truck website a RAM 3500 LARAMIE LONGHORN CREW CAB 4X4 8' BOX weighs 7,956 lbs.
It also has a 19,100 lb. towing capacity.
The newer trucks are a bit heavier than the older ones. My 79 Dually longbed weighs 5400 lbs without me (2WD, single fuel tank, standard cab, fiberglass hood, a/c & hydroboost, 350 engine). Newer trucks have so much more in options, sound deadening and other stuff, no surprise they weigh as much as they do.
Yup, 2010 Dodge 2500 crew cab 4x4 with a short bed and a Cummins, and that's curb weight. Kinda took my breath away when I first saw that spec. Apparently the engine is around 1200 lbs, and of course the rest of the drivetrain has to be built to deal with the level of torque.
Yeah, My 97 F350 was above the 7500 lbs mark wet.
1st gen neons are listed at 2400
81cpcamaro wrote:
The newer trucks are a bit heavier than the older ones. My 79 Dually longbed weighs 5400 lbs without me (2WD, single fuel tank, standard cab, fiberglass hood, a/c & hydroboost, 350 engine). Newer trucks have so much more in options, sound deadening and other stuff, no surprise they weigh as much as they do.
Most newer trucks are not used as trucks. My Boss at Harrahs has a newish Dodge Ram that has only ever seen Little leage gear thrown into the back
I calculated that mine has had a one or two-car trailer attached for roughly 80% of its mileage. It's towed clear across the continent, visiting Laguna Seca, Newfoundland and Road Atlanta. And a significant portion of that "surplus" non-towing mileage has been with a bed completely stuffed with a load and four people on board. So don't make too many assumptions about "newer trucks".
mad_machine wrote:
81cpcamaro wrote:
The newer trucks are a bit heavier than the older ones. My 79 Dually longbed weighs 5400 lbs without me (2WD, single fuel tank, standard cab, fiberglass hood, a/c & hydroboost, 350 engine). Newer trucks have so much more in options, sound deadening and other stuff, no surprise they weigh as much as they do.
Most newer trucks are not used as trucks. My Boss at Harrahs has a newish Dodge Ram that has only ever seen Little leage gear thrown into the back
I wonder if there is any empirical data about this. I would guess you are right, I feel like I see more 1-ton trucks driven by guys in suits than not. I bet survey data would be unreliable because guys like your boss would not own up to their actual usage in the survey.
You guys don't live around here. Very high proportion of farm trucks and oilfield trucks. Mine's one of the pretty ones, because I've never banged it up - just made it pull 
So if you saw it on one of the rare occasions when it wasn't pulling (and didn't obviously have an engine in the back or something similar), you'd assume it was a pretty-boy pretend truck. But you'd be wrong, and you might be wrong about a lot of other people too.
ShadowSix wrote:
mad_machine wrote:
81cpcamaro wrote:
The newer trucks are a bit heavier than the older ones. My 79 Dually longbed weighs 5400 lbs without me (2WD, single fuel tank, standard cab, fiberglass hood, a/c & hydroboost, 350 engine). Newer trucks have so much more in options, sound deadening and other stuff, no surprise they weigh as much as they do.
Most newer trucks are not used as trucks. My Boss at Harrahs has a newish Dodge Ram that has only ever seen Little leage gear thrown into the back
I wonder if there is any empirical data about this. I would guess you are right, I feel like I see more 1-ton trucks driven by guys in suits than not. I bet survey data would be unreliable because guys like your boss would not own up to their actual usage in the survey.
In the late '90s/early 2000s Ford found that only 2% of SUVs ever touch dirt.
I see a correlation here between government mandates and performance.
In the 1970's the government mandated emissions levels and car performance, among other things, suffered. Eventually the car industry figured out how to meet emissions standards and build a car with sufficient power.
In the 1980's the same thing happened with mpg. Mpg levels were mandated and performance factors suffered. Now we have performance and mpg in some models.
In the 1990's/2000's crash standards were mandated at greater levels than before. Cars were built like tanks to meet these standards and, again, performance suffered. Now it would seem the auto industry has over come that hurdle so we now have cars that are light weight and safe.
YEAH U.S. AUTO INDUSTRY!
In reply to Xceler8x:
What is your metric of performance?
Based on my casual observations most cars have steadily gotten faster since the late '70's.
You're also not putting things in the correct decades, The Federal Emissions Standards Act passed in 1965, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Act passed in 1975, but yes, crash standards have been evolving for decades, so they are higher than they were in earlier decades.
The Fed's mandated that new cars run on unleaded gas in 1972 or '73, but If you go look at the "what constitutes a muscle car" thread that popped up a few days ago there is no consensus on this board that the lead-free mandate did anything to performance 
EDIT: The more I think about it, I'm not sure there would be a good metric. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times would be tainted by the massive improvement in tire technology, right? On the other side, the switch from mostly RWD to mostly FWD would also damage the validity of those tests.
