|
Post by Big Blue on May 4, 2020 9:22:07 GMT
Autocar is reprinting the odd road test to fill out pages whilst testing is restricted. I see that the Mondeo from 2007, in humble 2.0 TDCi form, was claimed at 1481kgs, but actually weighed 1635. The practice of lying is not new, then... It was a Ford. The one the factory weighed did weigh 1,481kgs but that's not to say it was made the same as the one the magazine tested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 10:01:17 GMT
You think it had the optional 'lead weight' pack?
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 4, 2020 11:41:04 GMT
It probably had a number of options that added a fair amount of weight.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 4, 2020 12:29:56 GMT
Is this not just down to the difference between the dry weight of a standard, option free model and the DIN weight, which EVO quotes, actual as tested weight with all fluids and a 90% full fuel tank?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 12:35:50 GMT
If so, it illustrates the pointlessness of a dry weight - I thought that was a more recently introduced fib. Like Blarno says, it's like quoting how much a person weighs without their blood.
|
|
|
Post by Blarno on May 4, 2020 12:50:32 GMT
Dry weight is purely stated to create a lower figure*, you're never going to use a car that is dry. It's merely a headline to help sell the car, like the weight distribution that is often quoted. Weight distribution only counts when the car is static, with no load on it and no fuel. It may well be 50/50 whilst it's sat on your drive, but that changes the minute you sit in it, or put fuel in, or put shopping bags in the boot. It's little more than a pub bore fact.
*The same reason torque figures are given in NM nowadays: Psychologically, the larger number is better.
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 4, 2020 13:12:18 GMT
The other way of looking at dry weights is that if every adopted that approach you would at least have a consistent measure to compare. It doesn't make sense to compare wet weights in like-for-like cars if one had a larger fuel tank or even water reservoir for example.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on May 4, 2020 13:26:02 GMT
The other way of looking at dry weights is that if every adopted that approach you would at least have a consistent measure to compare. It doesn't make sense to compare wet weights in like-for-like cars if one had a larger fuel tank or even water reservoir for example. I don't get that. It's surely irrelevant what the cause of the weight is, assuming it's an integral part of the machine and the fluids it needs to operate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 13:37:21 GMT
Anyone else remember the VW ad, I think it was for the Passat, where it highlighted the car's 'fan-shaped' windscreen washers jets, allowing a smaller, lighter tank to feed it? The conceit obviously being that if they'd gone to that length to reduce weight, no stone would have been left unturned.
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 4, 2020 13:38:47 GMT
As others have said, no car weight is the same as soon as you start to put your own stuff in it, you in it and an amount of fuel in it. A consistent approach to measuring weight allows you to set a benchmark and taking fluids out the equation is a sensible part of that.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 4, 2020 13:42:26 GMT
I believe the quoting of dry weight originally goes back to the times of race teams shipping vehicles by air or sea and needing to quote a figure to the shipping company/airline.
It also makes your power to weight ratio look better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 13:46:37 GMT
(Reply to Michael, not Bob!)
By that logic you exclude shopping, driver etc, but on what conceivable basis would you exclude oil? The car will chew itself to bits if not filled, and the amount doesn't vary if the car is maintained. So if we have to include oil, a rigid dry weight is of no use. Fuel is less clear, but you can't legitimately weigh one with none to my way of thinking as it would be equally unusable. So maybe half a tank, as that's the most likely state condition for many? I'd prefer fully-fuelled, as I don't think cars from the same class tend to have massively differing tank sizes.
It clearly doesn't bother some, but I think car manufacturers are used to telling pork pies. Weight is clearly one (read the preceding page of this thread if you disagree with that statement), acceleration is often overplayed, and even WLTP legitimises fuel consumption figures that still seem optimistic for real world use - I have no doubt the manufacturers have twigged this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 13:51:09 GMT
I believe the quoting of dry weight originally goes back to the times of race teams shipping vehicles by air or sea and needing to quote a figure to the shipping company/airline. It also makes your power to weight ratio look better. I believe that planes tend to quote for dry weight, but have no idea which started first. Now as a plane's fuel load is a much, much greater percentage of fully-fuelled weight I can see some sort of logic here, but with cars a big discrepancy in tank size, say 10l, only amounts to what, 8 or 9 kgs? An irrelevance if it gets us genuine weights. I think it bothers me so much because manufacturers often say how much weight they've shaved off the next generation of a given car - and I suspect that's often because they have simply changed how they have chosen to weigh them.
|
|
|
Post by Blarno on May 4, 2020 13:52:03 GMT
Getting a dry weight, in our case at least, is very difficult, because by the time the car has hit the ground and is on the setup patch, it has already done a full run-up test which requires all fluids to be in the car, including a full tank of fuel for calibration purposes. For us to quote a genuine dry weight, we would have to build a car out of sequence, weigh it, then remove all the bodywork to allow a functional run-up. So we just make an educated guess based on fuel, oil and coolant being lighter than water.
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 4, 2020 13:55:29 GMT
The weight is just for benchmarking so a consistent measure makes sense. Oil, fair enough, but you mention yourself that fuel is different, the washer bottle itself could be a difference of a couple of kilos. Fully laden with all fluids maxed isn't a realistic scenario so you might as well have dry. It's simply a means to compare and I think most people don't care. I've never looked at the weight of a car as a buying decision especially as playing around with options will make it irrelevant anyway.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on May 4, 2020 15:23:15 GMT
I've never looked at the weight of a car as a buying decision especially as playing around with options will make it irrelevant anyway. Best not, as a Discovery owner! I think they weigh almost as much as a house. But I agree. The weight of a car is not something I've ever taken into consideration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 15:30:27 GMT
I see no reason why fully-laden isn't realistic. And maybe most people don't care (it's never influenced my choice either), but I think expecting the truth from companies we deal with matters. Especially when discrepancies of 150-200kg are not unheard of (see previous page). If it is just me, probably best to let me vent here and ignore me!
This week's is the C63 AMG Black from 2012. It claimed to weigh 1710 but actually weighed 1775. Now that sounds like a difference between wet and dry.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 4, 2020 15:31:03 GMT
The weight is just for benchmarking so a consistent measure makes sense. Oil, fair enough, but you mention yourself that fuel is different, the washer bottle itself could be a difference of a couple of kilos. Fully laden with all fluids maxed isn't a realistic scenario so you might as well have dry. It's simply a means to compare and I think most people don't care. I've never looked at the weight of a car as a buying decision especially as playing around with options will make it irrelevant anyway. I was surprised to find the adblue tank for the Qumquat is 16 litres so there’s 16kg, the washer bottle is 5 litres so that’s 21kg in just those two items alone. It also has a full panoramic sunroof which is quite a bit heavier than the standard model’s steel roof. And 4 mud flaps.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on May 4, 2020 15:44:00 GMT
On paper weight doesn't bother me either, it's how a car feels to drive that's important, but agree that the principle around telling the truth is annoying. I think manufacturers used to put the weight of options into the price list as it was easy to tip into another company tax bracket with a few options? If that's true it was a long time ago, as I think it was when I ordered a B7 A4, which was 20 years ago!
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 4, 2020 17:22:00 GMT
I see no reason why fully-laden isn't realistic. And maybe most people don't care (it's never influenced my choice either), but I think expecting the truth from companies we deal with matters. Especially when discrepancies of 150-200kg are not unheard of (see previous page). If it is just me, probably best to let me vent here and ignore me! This week's is the C63 AMG Black from 2012. It claimed to weigh 1710 but actually weighed 1775. Now that sounds like a difference between wet and dry. If a manufacturer said it’s weight was one thing and it turned out to be substantially different then that’s wrong. Whether I could care as a consumer is a different matter. But If they are up front about it being a dry weight I don’t think that’s underhand. I also think that entire mass isn’t as relevant as the weight of certain components. I remember when I was at O.Z I tried persuading them to create an award for lightness to recognise those in the industry who strive to reduce weight and to get the brand recognised as a leader in lightweight technology. The last Mazda MX5 had just been launched and they’d shaved 7gm from the weight of the rear view mirror housing which played to the every gram matters world view but also helped lower the centre of gravity. That more strategic weight saving is more interesting to me and for O.Z the lower unsprung mass was significant. Corporate politics killed the idea when it became obvious the winner of such an award couldn’t be decided on merit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 6:46:49 GMT
I guess that's the thing - you can't tell from tests what weight is being quoted. This makes me think that some manufacturers are quoting dry without specifying, which I think is a little underhand. But looking at some of the differences, I can't see how fluids and options could bridge the gap. I think the magazines should just weigh what's delivered and quote that, which is what Autocar does.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 5, 2020 11:02:07 GMT
On the subject of weight there's a letter in last weeks Autocar about taxing cars by weight due to the apparently considerable level of pollution caused by tyre wear, braking and roads falling to pieces. The letter is targeted at SUVs but actually can equally apply to electric cars. For example, isn't Porsche's M5 competitor the Taycan guilty of weighing over 2,500kgs?
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 5, 2020 11:06:05 GMT
I'd love them to tax concrete, bottled water, excess packaging, obese people and so on and so on rather than keep mining the apparently bottomless pockets of the motorist.
|
|