 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / December 2005GM go for 1000 pounds car per passenger
You can do it GM. In 1950, you built Chevys that carried 6 adults and weighed in at 3600 pounds, empty. That's 600 pounds per passenger. Not bad for iron and steel. Todays cars average out about 800 pounds per passenger. After 55 years of progress, that's 50% heavier. What are you building these sleds with? Plumbers Lead? Tomorrow, you can do better. Go for 1000. Its easy. Keep stacking sh.t higher and higher. Your cars will be slower, more fuel thirsty, more expensive, and hit harder when crashed. These American cars have their unique character, don't they, and it just keeps getting better and better or should I say, heavier and heavier? I know the excuse for more and more weight. Its the safety equipment. Its the accessories customers demand. Those are the phoney reasons. The real reason is all the smart engineers went over to aerospace and the bottom-of-the-barrel sludge was sucked up by G.M. <SNIP> What's with the trolls today? Oh, and another thing: 2006 Impala Curb Weight: ~3500lbs 1964 Impala Curb Weight: ~3500lbs So what's your point, a.s... Steve > Oh, and another thing: > > 2006 Impala Curb Weight: ~3500lbs Did you do the math yet, a.s. That's 3500lbs / 6 passengers = 583.3lbs/passenger. > > Oh, and another thing: > > > > 2006 Impala Curb Weight: ~3500lbs > > Did you do the math yet, a.s. That's 3500lbs / 6 passengers = > 583.3lbs/passenger. I like his fuzzy math where 800 (his number) versus 600 is a 50% increase. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. I often wonder why current cars are so dam heavy. GM itself has stated that recent technology would allow safety standards to be met with much less mass. It's like the next cure for cancer and diabetes, always just around the corner. > Oh, and another thing: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Steve Darn, you beat me to it. The dummy needs to go bask to basic math school. Only he looks bad with his dumb posts. > Oh, and another thing: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Steve The 1964 Impala was a significantly larger car in comparison though. It would be interesting to know what is weighing down today's smaller car. > > 2006 Impala Curb Weight: ~3500lbs > > 1964 Impala Curb Weight: ~3500lbs > > The 1964 Impala was a significantly larger car in comparison though. It > would be interesting to know what is weighing down today's smaller car. 2006 Impala: Wheel Base - 110.5" Length - 200" Width - 72.9" Height - 58.7" 1964 Impala Wheel Base - 119" Length - 210" Width - 77" Height - 55.5" Larger, yes. More stuff + smaller package + technology = same weight. This isn't the computer industry. ;) Although, think about how heavy the 2006 Impala would be if it had to tow behind it three or four ENIACs as it's PCM. Steve Did you run out of Fruity Pebbles today? H Well, I just have to share with y'all what SUV means to us in the steel industry: Steel Usage Victory. Yeah, ridiculously ovesized chunks of metal. "It suits my lifestyle." Well, how about your own personal locomotive, then? -= Larry A. >You can do it GM. In 1950, you built Chevys that carried 6 adults and >weighed in at 3600 pounds, empty. That's 600 pounds per passenger. Not [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >reason is all the smart engineers went over to aerospace and the >bottom-of-the-barrel sludge was sucked up by G.M. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.