"With stop-start system"

"Mrcheerful" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

It's no coincidence that an A40 Farina weighed about half of a modern Golf.

[...]

And also much better equipped, and more importantly infinitely safer, of course. All of which means much more weight; the A40 was 761Kg, a Focus (similar segment?) is 1,229Kg!

BTW, I learnt to drive in Dad's A40 Farina. It was a Mk1, with the semi- mechanical brake system from the A30. It wouldn't be safe in today's traffic!

Chris

So what about all these light weight steels for the body, plastic for wings and boot/bonnet, light tyres/wheels without tubes, alloy/plastic engines and gearboxes, plastic headlights and plastics all over the place instead of wood and metal and all the other areas they can save weight on, how come a modern small car is double the weight, it really should not be, and it should do at least 100 to the gallon.

Well you can choose to buy a polo bluemotion2, but given it's not that popular I imagine the manufacturers presume no one would buy it.

My BMW 525i for one. Started it and moved it so I could get the garage door open. and switched off. 30 minutes later it wouldn't start. Even with the accelerator flat on the floor it took minutes of starter churning before it eventually fired up. Mike.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Adrian saying something like:

Somebody did it in the 70s as a response to the fuel crises of the times. Might even have been VW.

Stop it within a few seconds of a cold start... I know, I had one. If doing that simply leave it running for a couple of minutes before switching off. It isn't something that impinges on normal use in the way that carb failings did.

Strictly, it is not possible to make "lightweight" steel. The Young's modulus (elasticity) cannot be changed so in order to keep rigidity it is not possible to use less material. It is possible to make it "stronger" in the sense of extending the elastic limit and/or improving its breaking strength.

Can you name one current mass produced car like this? (Even the BX used metal wings.)

They're bigger & heavier to cope with the extra weight on top. (And incidentally, tyres appear to be getting wider only because of weight - tyre width/vehicle weight hasn't actually changed over time.)

Ally castings were in use 40 years ago.

A Citroen C1 is 800kg, which compares to a Mk 1 Golf of 775kg. That's not defending modern cars because it is exceptional, but shows it can still be done if there is a will.

honda civic and laguna 2 (Ihave no idea if they count as current models, but they are out there. my point was more that plastic bits should be lighter than steel. alloy engines and gearboxes were certainly not on ordinary cars of the 60s (hillman limp excepted) that I remember. yet the cars were lighter and only a bit less economical.

if things had really progressed then ordinary cars would be lighter than in the sixties and twice as economical. yet they have doubled in weight, got much faster and just a little bit more economical, and of course they are cheaper to buy now.

I wonder what could be done if there were incentives such as no vat on vehicles that would exceed 100 to the gallon and weighed less than a tonne, or would have free road tax or just add a massive tax on to ordinary cars and discount the more economic ones.

Just put a A40, Imp or even a BX though a NCAP test. It would be like QI as they could well get a negative score.

All the gains made made in the last 50 years in move from crude carbs, sidevalves and brick like areodynamics have been eaten by crash safety and emissions kit. All the power and efficiency from engines that are technically better than F1 engines from not that far back is being used to push taller, wider and heavier cars around.

1 step forwards 30 sideways means the target is always missed.

"DavidR" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Plenty. Renault have used plastic front wings on Clios for years, for a start.

True, but plastic inlet manifolds have caught on big time.

But a 2cv was

"Mrcheerful" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Bollocks.

The 2cv had alloy crankcase, heads and gearbox from the late '40s onwards. The GS had alloy crankcase, heads and gearbox from '70. I'm sure other manufacturers did, too.

Oooh, how about free road tax for all cars that emit less than 100g/km CO2 (free in the first for all new cars that emit less than 130g/km) and free congestion charge for all new cars that emit less than 120g/km?

Nah, it'll never happen...

"Adrian" wrote

That is surprising.

Back in 1974 decent technical data could be obtained about cars, rather than guff about how the amazing patterns in the seat material will enhance your 'lifestyle' (I've got things like gear ratios and tyre pressures too). Starting from A:- Alfasud 830kg All Agro 827kg GS 855kg Datsun Cherry 655kg etc.

So it seems 800kg is a "proper" weight for a small car. Pity the C1 is the only one that has kept in check.

"DavidR" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

You miss my point. You are not comparing market segments. Yes, 800kg was representative for a mid-size family saloon in the '70s. Yes, it's possible for an entry-level tiddler now.

An entry-level tiddler then was considerably lighter, and a mid-size now is considerably heavier.

FFS, even the Elise is the thick end of a ton these days.

It wasn't clear.

It is quite a shock to see how tiny an Alfasud appears amongst modern traffic (aside from the fact that any still exist). It's quite difficult to class a C1 as a "tiddler" in any traditional sense.

"DavidR" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Try fitting a half-decent size bag in the boot... Or, even, four largeish adults inside.

C107ygos are great fun to drive. But there's considerably less interior space than a 2cv.

Granted.

Thanks for prodding this. I think it was a flyer from the Council or something, that I cannot find anymore. However, I found this (but who knows what's accurate these days, with all the lobbies and the agendas...):

"Considering all factors, if you're going to be stopped for more than

60 seconds - except in traffic - turn the engine off."

I think the "except in traffic" bit is in line with what Mr Cheerful wrote about the aggro if it does not start. Maybe the sub-conscious pressure gets me to rev it more after the restart.

What I was hoping to get from this group is more information about the wear-and-tear side of things. I got the energy-management part with the advanced starters. Do the stop-start cars lubricate the engine in a different fashion? Have they re-designed crucial engine parts to cope with the frequent re-starting?

Cheers!

Don't think so, cold starts increase wear, but that's as much to do with bore wash as anything else.