why are newer cars so heavy? i read that a cobalt has a weight of almost 3,000 lbs and the new chevy cruze will weight a little under 2,900. why are new/newer cars so heavy? i looked at the registation of my cars. i have a 1989 camaro RS with a 305 v8. it weights 3,300. only roughly 300 lbs more, and its a much larger car. it also has a much heavier drivetrain(v8 engine, and a RWD 700R4). i also have a 91 cavalier VL with a 2.2L I4(similar in size to a modern cobalt). it weights a little over 2,500 lbs. with all of the technology that could be use to make a car lighter, why are they so much heavier than an older model car. i dont know what gives.

 

Stronger, safer steel bodies and safety cages, airbags everywhere, additional sound deadening, additional power options / luxury goodies, more emissions controls, bigger brakes, wheels, tires, and so on.

Plus, cars are bigger in many cases. The current Civic is as big as the Accord of the early '90s (the Honda Fit has replaced the Civic as the truly small car at Honda). The Cobalt is bigger than a '91 Cavalier. The 2010 Camaro is a bigger car than the 3rd / 4th gen.

 

why has the car grown larger? why does a cobalt need to be larger than my cavalier for example. i thought it was just a newer version of the same car. by the way, my cav is a 4 door. i have had 5 people in it. i regurally pull a small trailer in the summer without issues. i do mowing on the side. i use the cavalier to pull a homebuilt trailer that i use to haul my 1971 john deere garden tractor(heavy tired iron 600+lbs for the tractor itself+ mower deck). what would happen if you attempted to pull the same trailer with a cobalt?

 

Because people want bigger cars. Probably because people keep getting bigger. In addition to getting taller, people are also getting fatter.

If you have an old Cavalier, and you want something the same size, take a look at an Aveo.

 

Crash/safety standards. As the crash standards get more and more strict, the chassis has to be reinforced, which means more steel, thus more weight. Alloys and lighter materials could be used, but the price would be much, much higher. Also, as mentioned above, the safety options, such as side air bags, and other accident avoidance equipment all adds weight.

 

Marketing. They can say "The new Honda Civic now has more interior space". When things get bigger Americans feel like they are getting more for their money. Every auto maker also trying to give the customer more and more and trys to one up the competition.

 

Safety and refinement standards add weight which requires other parts to be beefed up which adds weight which requires other parts to be beefed up which adds weight... it's the never ending circle of weight.

With that said I remember my old 95 Maxima SE weighed 2900 pounds, and while the Maxima of today is almost 1000 pounds heavier, it's also much bigger. If I put my old 95 Maxima up to a Chevy Cruze I suspect they'd be of similar size, even though the Cruze would be safer, more refined, etc.

 

i have no interest in an aveo. they are a crappy little daewoo. i would rather stick to my cavalier, as of right now i have no intention of replacing it(not rusted out). one of the reasons for own an old car is the simplicity and cheapness of repairs. my cavalier has 143K miles on it and it runs great. i doubt an aveo would hold up that well. i also dont think an aveo would do as well pulling the trailer, which is something that the car must be able to do, occasionally. also if i buy a GM product, i want a GM designed and built engine, and GM designed and built transmission. i fell that GM makes superior products. i dont want something a car built with a daewoo sourced drivetrain. i also think that older cavalier were excellent cars, and its too bad that people thought they were inferior to the import competition of the time. i still see quite a few of the older cavaliers still running and on the road, i dont see to many civics,or corollas left from the same era.

 

Actually, this is not exactly true.

The push for safer vehicles evolves around controlling the energy dissipation as the vehicle distorts during the crash. There may be a tiny bit more metal used in the passenger containment areas for rigidity around the occupant, but there is actually LESS steel being used in frontal and rear areas of the vehicle. Thinner sheet metal with precisely-located "wrinkles" and stress risers are used to induce crumpling of the areas to allow for energy cunsumption in the distotion of the steel and plastic, and also to buy a few milliseconds of time for air bags to deploy before the most sudden jerk of the collision is transmitted to the passenger compartment.

As we begin to look at the intricate details behind crumple zones, energy dissipation in the crash, and trying to stretch-out the time of the crash to minimize reactive forces, you can understand the trade-offs that have to take place when making a car more rigid to hold 500-600hp engines and drivelines. You MUST have rigidity to keep from twisting the car's body like a washrag when you slam 500 lb-ft of torque through it, but you want/need a soft front end (engine bay) that will crumple and collapse if you hit a concrete wall running 60mph. Same engine bay... hold a 1000-lb engine and tranny making 500lb-ft of torque, but crumple like tin foil when it hits something hard. That's tough to do!

Some of the other posts are more on the money.
#1 cause of added weight... OPTIONS.
Today's cars are almost all standard-equipped with power windows, power seats, power locks, power remote mirrors, remote trunk release, etc, etc.
Think about it... 4 motors for front seats, 2 motors for side windows (in a 2-door car), 4 motos in the 2 side views, 2 motors in the doors for locks (again if it's a 2-door), and solenoids or motors in the trunk for the latch and another for the fuel door - what would those 14 motors all weigh? Add 4 more if you have a 4-door. Add ALL the wires, couplings, connectors, fuses or breakers, etc. THAT ADDS UP!

#2 cause for added weight - NVH and ride quality.
Modern vehicles must be quiet and smooth. No rattles, no clanking, and no tire/wind noise. There are several pounds of pure insulation that serves no other purpose than sound-deadening in the cabin. There are numerous heat shields and combo shields (heat and noise) that are between your dash and the firewall, between the carpet and floorboard at the pedals, under the seats, etc. There is insulation between the kick panels and the A-pillar bases on every model out there (we call them hush-panels in our industry). Insulation is attached to or located behind every interior panel to prevent drumming and ech resonation of panels inside the car from vibration. There are shields inside and outside the transmission tunnel of almost every vehicle made today. The transmission tunnel - and in particular the hole where the shift linkage goes through - is one of the primary sources of vibration and noise coming into the passenger's cabin, so they have been attacked heavily in recent years to control hat unwanted noise.

Last is the "other" category. Can be bells and whistles, wants, desires, etc. Things like upgraded stereo systems (the Shaker 500, Shaker 1000 and Mach 460 systems in Fords for example). Nav systems. Display consoles that show outside temps, mileage, etc require thermocouples outside and wiring to the central CPU and then to the display panel. DVD systems in the rear seats. Multiple HVAC systems in big suvs. Independent climate controls mean more ductwork, diverters, gates, etc. Heated and cooled seats... well... let's don't even go there. HUDs, backup sensors, cameras, etc, etc, etc. ... it just adds up.

This is quite an interesting topic to me, as I am a staunch supporter of making cars leaner and meaner these days. I - personally - prefer the "2-car" theory to fit my lifestyle. I have the nice, loaded family hauler that has all the bells and whistles but does not get driven every day in a wasteful manner. I also have the economical transportation appliance that has virtually no frills, but gets me to work and home, runs errands, and gets me almost 40mpg average. For family comfort and pleasure, I'm all about "the goodies"... they will be used and appreciated on trips and travel. To drive 7 miles to work, school, and practice 5 days a week - I don't need or want all the "stuff", and I think many folks share my views, but there are fewer and fewer "stripped-down" models even available today. Even the bare-bones entry level cars have power-everything these days.

Quick poll...
For a licensed daily-driver (i.e. not an old classic or show car)... Has anyone on this board driven a vehicle that did NOT have power brakes, power steering, power locks, power windows in the last year? If we could ask this question over the last 15 years and plot a graph, I'm sure you would see a direct correlation between the number of answers and the weight of vehicles going up.

 

i have. 1999 ford escort. no power lock and no power windows. it is for sale now and the vehicle that replaces it has all that (2009 ford escape xlt)

 

I daily drove a 95 Probe GT from late 2004 to late 2008. No power windows, no power locks...

I bought a new car late '08, and I was DARN SURE it had power windows, power locks, keyless entry, sunroof, etc.

Cars are bigger/heavier for a couple very simple and obvious reasons.

1. That's what the overwhelming majority of consumers want - most consumers aren't enthusasts. They want the biggest cargo space, and the most potions possible, for the least amount of cost.
2. That's one of the easier ways to meet increasingly strict safety standards. Yes you can completely engineer a new chassis and use lightweight materials, but you aren't looking at a $15k cobalt anymore, you're looking at a $25-$30k cobalt.

 

as far as not having power steering or power brakes, none of the cars i have ever owned lacked these features. the last car that someone in the family had that did not have power steering was my mom's 1982 chevette. my cavalier has power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, and delay wipers. my wife's cavalier(a 1998 has the same features). my camaro is the only car that i have is "fully loaded". my 1989 camaro has power brakes, power steering, power hatch release, power hatch pull down, cruise control, air conditioning, power locks and windows. i must say that sometimes some of these things are nice. it is the only car that the wife and i take on trips. a long trip without cruise control is unbearable.

 

personally i could do without those.

 

Actually, that Aveo is a much better car (and better made) than your Cavalier.

The standards of quality that cars must meet to compete in today's market is so brutal, that even today's so-called crappy cars are much better than cars made at the start of this decade.

Civic's and Corollas are Japanese, not Korean like Daewoo (which, by the way is part of GM, and has been for years).

Japanese cars have historically been made to provide steallar assembly quality, but have tended to be lacking in longevity because the Japanese have higher taxes on older cars than new ones (to help keep their car industry humming). That's what helped start and continue the illusion of Japanese cars being superior. Being that many people here keep new cars only 4 years or less before getting a new one, they have a different opinion of Japanese cars than those who buy the things 2nd or 3rd hand 10 years later when the cars are falling apart or are due for their 3rd water pump or timing chain.



Going back to your original question, there's 3 reasons why cars are heavier today than they were in the 1980s (you used your Camaro as an example).

1. Safety regulations are tougher.
Rollover standards require thicker, heavier inner structures. Side impact standards require heavier door beams. Head on and offset impact standards require thicker metal and perhaps, more of it. New rear end collision standards... ditto. Personally, I 100% support it. Although a 80s era 5.0 Fox Mustang LX coupe weighed just 3200 pounds, I've seen enough of them wrecked that I feel completely unsafe in them now compared to my 2002 Camaro.

2. More equptment are in cars today than yesterday.
Satallite navigation isn't weightless. Neither are power-everything motors and wiring. Even leather interior typically adds up to 10 pounds. Foglights can add 3-5 pounds. Want a 10 disc, remote CD system with ear-bleed amp & speakers? that adds weight. The weight you quoted for your '89 RS is the base weight for that car for vehicle classification purposes. If you have a loaded RS, or even just T-tops, that car is going to be heavier than the 3300 pounds listed.

3. And finally: Performance, Ride, and Handling.
Today's cars will run circles around the cars made in the 80s off the showroom floor. The chassis have less flex, the brakes are bigger and have antilock systems, the engines are sturdier & put out more power, the cooling systems are bigger, the drivetrains are stronger. Again, none of this are free.


Take the 1989 Camaro vs the 2010 Camaro.

The '89 was designed to handle less than 250 horsepower through a live axle. The new Camaro is designed to handle 500 PLUS horsepower through an independant rear suspension.

Without even going into the reinforcements that today's NVH and safety requirements demand, and sticking with the changes just the power and IRS require:

* A more powerful engine requires more heavy duty components... that means weight.
* That engine making 2X the power is going to generate way more heat meaning a bigger cooling system... more weight.
* More power=heavier duty drivetrain... more weight.
* IRS has more components and is generally heavier than a live axle... more weight.
* IRS needs an subframe to bolt itself to... more weight.
* That heavy subassembly is going to need a tougher place to mount than what a live axle would need... little bit more weight in the mounting points and related structure.
* You're going to need bigger brakes that won't warp to make up for the increased weight, and thicker springs and shocks... more weight.


Then keep in mind the fact that it's cheaper to incorperate as much of this into all Camaros as possible instead of having multiple parts and systems.

Then we can go into NVH (Noise Vibration & Harshness) standards, then finally, safety standards.

You soon have a 3800 pound Camaro where 20 years ago it might have weighed 3300 pounds.

But, when you compare the 2, it's going to be no contest which is the nicer, more capable car.... let alone which car would you rather buy.


That Aveo, I'm willing to bet, is a tougher car than your Cavalier... and can likely take a better hit.... and can likely outrun and outhandle you unless your Cavalier is a Z24.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. While the better assembly quality may have given better quality perception, the actuality was that they delivered in longevity as well, and largely continue to do so. The biggest complaint was that they used cheap steel, which stopped being used some time around the early 90's. Those cars would just keep running and running until the bodies basically rotted away and they were driven to the junk yard.

A lot of those cars had simple, cheap water pumps. Those and the timing belts were often changed as part of scheduled maintenance.