GM's Ongoing Weight Problem

[BigAls87Z28]

GM's Ongoing Weight Problem
By BigAls87z28
GMInsidenews.com




Weight is something that plagues us Americans as a whole. We are always concerned about our weight, and always coming up with different diets on how to lose weight. Atkins, South Beach, or no eating at all, most everyone in America is or has tried to lose weight in the past. Some do well and can keep the weight off. Others try everything under the sun and the weight is still there. As America looks to other cultures on how to eat better to keep the weight off, places like Europe and Asia show us a different lifestyle of keeping the pounds from every reaching your body. How funny that art can imitate life? Our cars, especially from GM, tend to be overweight. Putting car versus car in every category, GM cars tend to always tip the scale. What is going on here?

GM's cars are no bigger, taller, wider then its competition? Yet some of them are way over the line? This weight problem also hinders one major concern that is now the hot topic with new cars and that is gas mileage. Heavy car = poor mileage, it’s just a fact. And to no surprise, GM cars tend to be on the lower side of EPA rated gas mileage scores as well, when compared to others in its segment. I noticed such a claim when I read into the February issue of Motor Trend when they compared the Malibu to its three Asian competitors: Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima. Big Al decided to investigate how long this has been going on, so I looked through years of magazines and on line articles and here is what I saw.

Looking at the specifications of the Malibu compared to the larger Accord, the Malibu is 100 pounds heavier? Could that be right? I looked back to 2004 when the NEW Malibu came out. Motor Trend also tested the Accord and Camry against two new sedans for that year, the Malibu LT and the Mitsubishi Galant. Then, the larger accord was lighter by a few pounds against the small little Malibu! I could not believe it. I checked out the Camry weight back in 2004 as well as the 2007 and Malibu is even heavier in both cases! What surprised me more was that ALL these cars had gone up 400lbs or more from 2004 to 2008! I do not like to rag or beat up on GM much, but this weight issue is a concern for all of us. I can see if this weight was due to the fact that GM uses more sound-proofing, stronger steel, or more steel parts over aluminum, but that’s not the case. Now since I don’t have the privilege of tearing up of these cars, we can go by what we read by magazine reviews.



The current Malibu is getting great remarks for its silence inside and its great ride when compared to Accord and Camry. We can say that quality of parts and materials are even across the board. So we look to the hard parts, the suspension and frame. Now, I have had first hand access to the Malibu as well as both the old and new Camry. I have also seen under the dress of several Honda Accords. I have yet to peek at the new Accord, so at this point we will leave that alone. Epsilon does use an extensive amount of aluminum for a car like this. Anyone driving behind any Epsilon car can usually make out the two large aluminum control arms that run parallel to the ground. They are pretty cool looking in person, and look to be solid pieces. There is also other extensive use of aluminum in the front lower control arms as well. This to me would make me think that the suspension is light, but when compared to the steel control arms of the Accord and Camry, I wonder where all this additional weight is coming from. In the most recent versions of these cars, they all have DOHC V6's, complex five or six speed automatic transmissions, and none have any other advanced power train additions such as all wheel drive, all wheel steer, or any other advanced suspension. It puzzles me, so I look at other comparisons.



I started at the bottom of the GM scale, right to the subcompact cars. I pitted the Aveo against the Yaris from Toyota. While the Aveo is about a half inch longer, a few inches here and there, the Aveo tips the scale at over 240lbs HEAVIER! How is that possible? Both with small 4 cylinder engines, both with manual transmission, both four-doors, with zero options. In a car like that, where do you hide 240lbs of mass? I did not think it could get worse. Usually when someone says that in their writing, it does. And, boy does it get worse. I kept going up the ladder, and took a look at the Cobalt against the Mazda 3, Honda Civic, and outgoing champ Toyota Corolla. Unlike the Aveo, where it was not the heaviest in its class, the Cobalt takes that title by over 400lbs to its nearest competitor, the Mazda 3. I decided to see if I can find something heavier to at least make the Cobalt look somewhat slim. I pulled up the heaviest car that could possibly take the title away. I grabbed a 2007 VW Rabbit four-door hatchback five-cylinder auto. I plugged in the car, and to my absolute astonishment....IT WAS STILL LIGHTER THEN COBALT! No way. No way did the German tank come in under the Cobalt. Had it beat by 80 pounds or so. The Cobalt's dimensions are no different than of the others. It’s simple strut front end and solid twist beam axle in the back is old compared to the multi-link rears from its competition. The only car I could find in GM stable that was lighter than its competition was the Corvette. From base C6 to ZR1, its hundreds of pounds behind its competition excluding Porsche.

GM has said that it will use more aluminum and other light weight metals, and that is great. Problem is that none of their other cars use THAT much aluminum to be lighter! So what are the imports using that GM is missing? The addition to more light weight materials will drive the cost of producing the car up, as well as the cost of making the car. There seems to be a great concern amongst Camaro fans that the car will tip the scale near two tons. GM has responded that they have "called Jenny Craig" so that they can rest the concerns of the Camaro faithful. But still, with GM's reputation of cars being heavier than its competitors, it can be expected that the car along with other vehicles in GM's line up will continue to be too heavy. If GM focused on how to reduce car weight with what they have, and have such a concentration on weight loss on EVERY vehicle, they could gain up to five miles per gallon easy! Every car person knows that lower weight will equal better performance, but also cutting down on the weight will improve a lot more than zero to sixty times. It will improve ride, NVH, braking, handling, comfort, on top of fuel economy and performance! There is a no lose situation with dropping weight. With a cut down in weight also means a cutting down on reinforcing structure to handle this heavy weight.

I ask GM, as a friend and as someone who wants to see them move forward and make great cars that they start to develop lighter cars. I do not know what makes the Accord lighter then the Malibu, but it is! Shave 100 pounds off every GM car, and you could not only see better gas mileage, but the car overall feels better. Steering response is better, ride is better, performance is better. GM has come a long way from only just 4 years ago, not to mention 10 years ago. With GM making new products that are hits such as the Lambda cars, the CTS, the 900 trucks and SUV's, the new Malibu, and future products like G8, Astra and Camaro, they need to start to work on making cars lighter. Understand what is needed to cut the fat. It is time to drop off some of these cars to Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers and then to the gym. GM will succeed making better cars once they figure out how to lighten them up. As a big guy I know what kind of work it takes just to get a person into shape. I hope that GM engineers know what it takes to lighten up future vehicles, so that they can tackle these tougher and tougher EPA standards as well as the consumer's demand for better gas mileage. A simple 100 pounds from every car could gain a few miles per gallon, all that is needed to stay ahead of the pack. Dropping a few hundred pounds could result in making or breaking these cars for the new EPA/CAFE ratings. GM's best engineers need to be back onto this, getting back to making every car lighter then the last.

[DuSpinnst]

Sometimes weight comes from design, the way the frame is made basically.

[FenwickHockey65]

At least they're not making them lighter by using plastic body panels anymore (coughSaturncough).

[d2000one]

Take a look at the wheelbase on the models you compare. At least in the case of the Malibu, the wheelbase is longer than the competition. Those extra inches of steel could be a large part of the weight difference.

[jkennedy293]

A lot of it is materials and design. With the price premium on the Accord, they can afford to add exotic lighter materials, and still maintain a decent profit.

[bigtime]

I would bet its more a result of computers and there effect on the design process, also it probably has something to do with the way GM does R&D. Its easier to engineer and design a heavier car. Remember the old aurora? They touted how ridgid the frame was, more so than the german competition. It too weighed more than the competition. You would think by now GM could build a car equal to the competition in terms of rigidity AND weight.

This is an interesting topic because its my one big criticism of all the new products from GM. There fat pigs.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by d2000one

Take a look at the wheelbase on the models you compare. At least in the case of the Malibu, the wheelbase is longer than the competition. Those extra inches of steel could be a large part of the weight difference.

Accord is BIGGER in every dimension, yet is a few hundred pounds lighter...

Originally Posted by jkennedy293

A lot of it is materials and design. With the price premium on the Accord, they can afford to add exotic lighter materials, and still maintain a decent profit.

Accord and Malibu are priced the same, and the Malibu has more aluminum in its suspension then Accord.
Explain the weight offset?


If its engineered into chassis design, they need to unengineer it out of all future models. And before someone talks about crash tests, no GM car stands above and beyond its compeditors in crash tests, not enough to offset this huge weight difference.

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

If its engineered into chassis design, they need to unengineer it out of all future models. And before someone talks about crash tests, no GM car stands above and beyond its compeditors in crash tests, not enough to offset this huge weight difference.

The Malibu uses a chassis designed in 2003. The hardpoints can't be moved until the EPII chassis.

The only program that shouldn't be fat but is, is Theta II.

[speedworxs]

i noticed this a while ago, but no one is willing to drop convenience for mileage
ex. power windows / manual windows

cars have so much safety equipment, and compared to years earlier that is where much of the mass comes from.
look at cars in the 80s, a Firefly/Sprint weighed on a scale 1800lbs where the Aveo is quite portly - and the 80s car got over 50mpg

[BigAls87Z28]

IMO, NO Chassis should be fat. That should have been thought off in the past.
Zeta shouldnt be fat, EPII should not be fat, and if I see a Cobalt tipping the scale at OVER 3k lbs...then GM has done nothing.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by speedworxs

i noticed this a while ago, but no one is willing to drop convenience for mileage
ex. power windows / manual windows

cars have so much safety equipment, and compared to years earlier that is where much of the mass comes from.
look at cars in the 80s, a Firefly/Sprint weighed on a scale 1800lbs where the Aveo is quite portly - and the 80s car got over 50mpg

Dont compare older cars to modern. Im talking about new cars vs new GM cars.
These are cars equally equiped, and GM is on the heavy side every time.

[Buick61]

The Vue and CTS are some of the more egregious examples of fat-messness.

[burningsquirrel]

i will cry if the camaro is over 3600 lbs again.

[skepticman]

They will not gain a few miles per gallon by shaving 100 pounds. The EPA says you will save 1-2% per 100 pounds:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml

Weight is only one factor among many, including aerodynamics, rolling resistance, engine design, driving habits, and so on.

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by skepticman

They will not gain a few miles per gallon by shaving 100 pounds. The EPA says you will save 1-2% per 100 pounds:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml

Weight is only one factor among many, including aerodynamics, rolling resistance, engine design, driving habits, and so on.

Ah, that 1-2% would be for an engine of the same size. To overcome the weight issue, GM has to make more powerful and thirstier engines. So the issue is compounded. That's probably why the Cobalt has such a big engine.