They needed increases in power and efficiency, because the safety hawks have increased vehicle weight by so much.

It's possible to have everything with smart engineering.

The BRZ, for example. Or -- in another category all together -- the Hyundai Sonata. It's lighter than our car, yet it's a feature-loaded comfortable family sedan.

Honestly, we just had to put up with a lot of bad design in the 90s and early 2000s. That led to more weight than anything else.

"Safety measures" didn't make cars lighter. It made them bulkier, less maneuverable, harder to stop. So then braking and handling had to be upgraded to keep up. Engines needed more power to be considered "fast". Then someone noticed that heavier cars with more powerful engines were brutally inefficient, and so FI became the winning move. Even archaic BMW moved into FI performance models.

I never said they did, but they were hardly the only thing inflating the weight of cars.

In fact, I'd wager they weren't even the largest factor, especially when you consider the shift in building materials used and the birth of the crumple zone.

A BMW isn't heavy because it is safe, for example, it is heavy because it is designed to be comfortable and quiet. Those design choices have way more of an implication on vehicle weight than the inclusion of something like traction control, ABS, or structure rigidity.

But that is irrelevant. My point is that it is possible to have a safe, relatively efficient, fun car. None of these things have to mean major sacrifices -- they just often do because they are the road of least resistance. But in the modern era, people are pretty demanding, and that isn't good enough anymore. We want it all, and considering the cars released in the last year or two (and a few of them in the pipeline), we're going to get 'em.

We could argue about this all day, and I'd lump crumple zones in with safety measures. That's why they exist. BMW's were comfortable and quiet in the early 90's. They were also lighter.

But we're veering way off topic here. Suffice to say, the NHTSA is not my best friend.

They aren't perfect, but after being in a bad accident in a modern car, I'm a lot softer when it comes to safety stuff.

Anyway, back on topic.

Chevy Camaro ZL1 lines up against Ford Shelby GT500 on the dyno

I just love this video. My favorite line in at 1:31.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eepl...e_gdata_player

How do you explain that the 370Z = lighter than 350Z, in lieu of your above statements?

FI is because of the EPA, and has nothing to do with weight. It's a fuel-cheap way to make more power on demand, and would happen regardless of weight fluctuation of the vehicle. It's just an evolution like fuel injection, which is slowly giving way to DI. It's just a "better" way. It can now be integrated with minimal/no lag, and that was what BMW was "waiting" for.

Turbos only make sense. Keep the engine in vacuum and you get great economy and the EPA is happy. Floor it and the car GOES, and the enthusiast is happy.

What's not to like?

Has nothing to do with weight.

Now yes, safety structures DO have weight, but they are more than offset by smarter engineering and advanced materials--harken back to the 350 vs. 370 curb weights even though the 370Z is a LOT more rigid.

Looks like I am going to admit to being totally wrong. Ford's power + launch control = big victory at the drag-strip.

I am still not sure what to think about the track, though. The MRC suspension kicks the crap out of Fords dinosaur. But the power difference....I bet on long tracks the GT500 eats it up in the straights but on shorter tracks--especially one's with elevation changes and chicanes--the ZL1 makes the Shelby look clumsy.

the 370 originally dropped about 200 lbs from the 350 via aluminum parts, shortened chassis, etc. They said 100 lbs got added back due to new safety requirments so it's a bit of both.

The 370z was the lone sports car which did that, and it was one of the reasons I bought it.

And yes, moar weight = less efficient. Safety measures add weight = car less efficient = fix with FI. Yes, the EPA required higher average mileage across manufacturers' model lines (hello, Aston Cygnet). But the cars would be more efficient if they weren't so heavy.

Is that what they said? I could not find that. I found only that larger brakes, and more bracing added the weight back. You can call that safety equipment if you choose, as it's just semantics, but to me, anything that substantially increases torsional and bending rigidity functions first as a performance modification and second as a safety function, simply because a car that is TOO stiff will be more dangerous. The C6 Corvette actually had to be given some failure zones because it was initially too stuff and the force of some collisions transferred without much damping to the occupant. SO to me, that extra weight is pure performance, in the 370Z, regarding the bracing. Of course you can argue extra air-bags weight a bit, but not 120#.

The GT500 continues to do it.
The Corvette seems to be nearly identical (a C5 with some options is heavier than a C6 with some options, and vis-versa).
The Camaro certainly porked up. My 370Z is only slightly slower than the beast from a highway roll...or so I hear. For a 430hp car to barely out-gun a 332bhp car with a catback and drop-in tubes/filters is pretty lame.

I think everyone wants a lighter car. It helps mileage. It helps performance. Etc. etc.

Ford is going to shave the mustang down, and GM is going to trim the camaro down, I think. THey would be stupid not to.

The only people still going heavy is Chrysler, and I think that's only because they can't let go of the 300M chassis that they keep basing all their muscle cars off of. But hey, they do look good, even in 5/4 scale.

As a whole though, 2005-2015 is no-man's land. Cars are way better than the 90s and early 2000's, but REAL innovation and ground-breaking stuff is on the horizon for 2015 YM's, and in the future.

That is part of why I traded NOW for a 370Z. I want + equity in it by the time something actually game-changing hits the ground in the mid 20-teens.

Eyes on the mustang and new Z platform for me, although with Nissan's sales this last YM...I dunno. Their re-fresh was pretty...

"ummm...lets do...something? Yeah, okay, that might do it. Lets use old parts for the front end and adapt them with LED's and make the spokes on the wheels a bit wavy. Can we change out shocks and struts and paint the calipers? Give them a reflector out back? No net cost, you say? Sure. That should shut them up until we can offload this platform"

Back to the debate at hand, I think that FI is a solution to EPA/gov regulations, not the extra or non-existent net-weight gain of safety equipment. However, on a car like the 370Z, it is already efficient enough not to get hit with a gas-guzzler tax like the old GT500 did, and Nissan doesn't make enough of them to even touch fleet-averages. There, FI would only mean happier customers = more sales = will it offset cost of plumbing and cooling?

I remember reading somewhere that Chrysler was looking to introduce a lighter platform for the Challenger.

Yeah I thought they were going to replace it with a smaller car and name it the Barracuda or something.