Aluminium bodies for Australian made cars.

[RASER]

Originally Posted by blueluvr

just wait a few years, the rust will have taken away a couple hundred kilos!

no, no!!

Aussie cars dont rust, only 70's Fiats made with contra-deal supplied Russian steel! :-)

NOT

My 98' Falcon had so much rust FoA should have been ashamed, it was even in the ashtray!

Anyway, FoA Falcon....Game Over, Commodore wins!

[RASER]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

What post 2016 Falcon?? OK I'm done trolling.

I believe Holden has plans to use lots of aluminium, they have been saying it for a while. I guess we will know in ~6 months when VEII specs are released.

Indeed it will have, i know one of the guys supplying the special ALU. welding machinery, i think for now its just panels, ie doors, boot, bonnet etc, complete body in ALU. is a long time off, if ever

[madmelon]

Crash worthiness is a whole different story. The more mass you have, the more energy you need to absorb in the same distance (crumple zone) to give the same deceleration to the occupants and avoid injury. A car that is heavier ultimately requires a a crumple zone with more mass to absorb the energy of the crash- and around and around we go. Heavier cars beget heavier cars.

I have long though that the key to improving higher speed accident performance is a lighter vehicle and that aluminium is an integral part of this for every day cars.

[mik]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Oh where do I start...?

Aluminium bodies are wonderful...but they make crash worthiness a nightmare. Not only that, but the bodies are very expensive to make, hard to repair, the Carbon Tax would hammer the costs even worse than it will with steel bodies, etc.

Wonderful idea...but as long as you are prepared to pay maybe a third more for your family car, go for it...

I look at our FG G6E and wonder where the 1800+kg has gone...especially when our XC Fairmont GXL six cylinder weighed about 1400kg and was weighed down with steel bumpers thick steel panels...

yeah but the old xc was`nt weighed down with................................. heavy airbags, seat belt pre tensioners, heavy abs module, cruise control, miles of wiring and computers, electronic door locks, multiple speaker stereo system, 5 star crash worthiness , catalytic convertor/s, the list is endless.
Edit: i forgot also much higher torque/power engines with heavier beefier 5/6 speed transmissions, bigger brakes.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by RASER

no, no!!

Aussie cars dont rust, only 70's Fiats made with contra-deal supplied Russian steel! :-)

NOT

My 98' Falcon had so much rust FoA should have been ashamed, it was even in the ashtray!

Anyway, FoA Falcon....Game Over, Commodore wins!

Nice story bro.

[gcmc2]

The weight gain came in with the BA and it was astounding. In these days of chasing fuel economy it seemed just crazy.

My AU Fairmont weighs about 1475 or something. That makes it 220 kg or so lighter then a bog standard BA.

My AU II futura weighs I think about 1445 or so - so a standard AU Falcon with five people in it weighs less than a BA.

That's crazy - where was the gain that justified that weight gain ? Was there even any improvement in safety ? ( save extra air bars )

An earlier poster compared Falcon weight to BMW 528 weight. If the BMW weighs 1620 they are gaining weight too - my 2000 model E39 528i weighs 1500kg and it's a fully optioned car with sunroof and so on.

Another said to imagine a 3.5 litre car created from a widened Mondeo using < 8 litres per 100 klms.

I don't have to imagine it - my series II AU can do 100 klms on about 6.8 litres on open road.

The last thing you'd expect these days it that cars would be gaining weight.

It makes no sense to me at all, but there must be some aspects I'm unaware of. All things considered, the BA looks like it was a backward step on the face of it.

Incidentally, I bought both of my AUs damaged. In both cases the seller had replaced their damaged AU with a BA and in both cases they said they thought the AU a nicer car to drive.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Oh where do I start...?

Aluminium bodies are wonderful...but they make crash worthiness a nightmare. Not only that, but the bodies are very expensive to make, hard to repair, the Carbon Tax would hammer the costs even worse than it will with steel bodies, etc.

Wonderful idea...but as long as you are prepared to pay maybe a third more for your family car, go for it...

I look at our FG G6E and wonder where the 1800+kg has gone...especially when our XC Fairmont GXL six cylinder weighed about 1400kg and was weighed down with steel bumpers thick steel panels...

Aluminium doesn't make crash-worthiness a "Nightmare"...actually improves it...


Thats why Manufacturers are using it in sub-frame, and parts of the chassis. The start up cost of repair will be high, as (like all technology) shops need the equipment to cater for it. Our shop had to splurge out on BMW approved pop-riviter (something like 30K worth) so we can replace aluminum chassis sections.

Thus, aluminum can guarantee safer repairs dude to the fact there is a set guideline for the repair. These sections are all but throw-away (recyclable, so that's a big plus to off set carbon emissions!) replaced by new sections.

Today's practice is with most steels is to pull frames/chassis back into shape, and in the case of some structures (boron and High tensile steels) these components have to be replaced anyway (some shops will do the naughty though) and follow strict guidelines on where joins and welding takes shape.

With Aluminium sections, you don't have the danger of welding processes destroying the properties of these metals, and the new parts are fitted as per OEM spec. This guarantees a safe repair.

Sure it's mainly a high end thing, but it will filter down. Subaru have been using it for years now...and even Ford are planing a all aluminium F-150 Source.

You could assume that vehicles like the Mustang will receive Aluminium parts, like bonnets, frames etc. (gets interesting that Ford have invested in Carbon fiber aswell...)

The reason why your G6 weighs more then a All steel XC is because of all the stuff packed in it, if the FG was built with the same materials as a XC, it would weigh over 2000kg easy...



An for interest sake. this is a Mercedes SLS... no steel in its structure or panels...

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by gcmc2

The weight gain came in with the BA and it was astounding. In these days of chasing fuel economy it seemed just crazy.

My AU Fairmont weighs about 1475 or something. That makes it 220 kg or so lighter then a bog standard BA.

My AU II futura weighs I think about 1445 or so - so a standard AU Falcon with five people in it weighs less than a BA.

That's crazy - where was the gain that justified that weight gain ? Was there even any improvement in safety ? ( save extra air bars )

An earlier poster compared Falcon weight to BMW 528 weight. If the BMW weighs 1620 they are gaining weight too - my 2000 model E39 528i weighs 1500kg and it's a fully optioned car with sunroof and so on.

Another said to imagine a 3.5 litre car created from a widened Mondeo using < 8 litres per 100 klms.

I don't have to imagine it - my series II AU can do 100 klms on about 6.8 litres on open road.

The last thing you'd expect these days it that cars would be gaining weight.

It makes no sense to me at all, but there must be some aspects I'm unaware of. All things considered, the BA looks like it was a backward step on the face of it.

Incidentally, I bought both of my AUs damaged. In both cases the seller had replaced their damaged AU with a BA and in both cases they said they thought the AU a nicer car to drive.

AU's were about 1550 kg for live axled versions. IRS equipped models were around 1600kg.

The reason BA gained so much weight was standard IRS, and the rest of the weight went into the frontal crash structure, to make it safer. The difference was actually only about 50-100kg depending on model though.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Cars have become very obese over the years. I think my Diesel Focus weighs more than a XF Falcon... easily.

But I guess thats what you get when the car is full of 'goodies'. I still remember a mate offering me his front electric seats from an X series for free, I was going to put them into my dads XF... could hardly pick up 1 seat the motors were that heavy....

The only way to cheaply add aluminium or any other composite to a car is to just make basic hanging panels out of the stuff (bonet, boot, door skins, gaurds) where the structure below / behind is where most of the strength lies... Perhaps even the roof.

[gcmc2]

A lot of current Alloy bodied cars do not have any welds either. They are largely bonded.

I think the Aston Martin frame has two welds in the whole structure.

The repair of most high end cars has largely been taken out of ordinary panel shops.

Ron Goodman for instance is the only repairer in Australia authorized to repair Astons.

He also repairs every contemporary Rolls Royce that is damaged anywhere in the southern hemisphere.

Lambo's , porsches and many other high end cars are also shipped to him from overseas.

He was appointed official repairer for the original and the new Mclaren.

As another poster mentioned, there are even mass produced cars that require special equipment and welding techniques.

Glad I got out of the trade years ago.

[Bossxr8]

Ford trialled alloy bonnets on some BA mules years ago. They needed a lot of work structurally because they flopped around a fair bit. Never went any further than that though.

Holden will only be using alloy for the bonnet and bootlid, supposedly saving 14kg?

Is it really worth the extra cost just for 14 kg?

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Is it really worth the extra cost just for 14 kg?

Gotta start somewhere...i think its great Holden have committed to it.


If we took that attitude, we would still have carbs and bias ply tires etc...

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Ford trialled alloy bonnets on some BA mules years ago. They needed a lot of work structurally because they flopped around a fair bit. Never went any further than that though.

Holden will only be using alloy for the bonnet and bootlid, supposedly saving 14kg?

Is it really worth the extra cost just for 14 kg?

I guess the better way to look at it is if they shave 14kg, then they can add more goodies to the car to maintain weight and appeal???

14kg doesn't sound like much, but if that became 100kg with more panels then you couldn't help but take those reductions seriously. As usual, comes down to cost. Dropping 100kg would mean a lot of R&D, testing, tooling, and then re-engineering to get the whole package to work.

Would be cheaper to introduce light weight materials at the time of a new model one would think????

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

The only way to cheaply add aluminium or any other composite to a car is to just make basic hanging panels out of the stuff (bonet, boot, door skins, gaurds) where the structure below / behind is where most of the strength lies... Perhaps even the roof.

I think that's where it will hang around for the next decade or so. Nissan X-trails used to have Plastic front fenders...oddly don't anymore.


-Most Audis have Aluminium Bonnets and fenders.
-BMWS tend to have aluminium Bonnets, and plastic fenders. The are liking carbon fiber roofs aswell.
-Peugeot's have plastic fenders.
-Land Rovers are largely Aluminium...with 1/4 panels rivet/glued on...
-Just about every new car (excluding large utes/pick-ups) have bolt on plastic Radiator supports.

Aluminum tends to find its way into brackets, bumper reinforcements etc...

[gcmc2]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

AU's were about 1550 kg for live axled versions. IRS equipped models were around 1600kg.

The reason BA gained so much weight was standard IRS, and the rest of the weight went into the frontal crash structure, to make it safer. The difference was actually only about 50-100kg depending on model though.

You've been misinformed on that. The base 6 cylinder AU Falcon weighs 1437 kg

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

But Falcon is the world's oldest continuous running nameplate. if ford give that up, it goes to the 911 (porsche).
i'd keep the falcon name, even if it's on a taurus.

As to the topic of car weight, my BF ute xr8 is 2000 kg.

Chevy Suburban is longer running , and so is Corvette,

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by gcmc2

You've been misinformed on that. The base 6 cylinder AU Falcon weighs 1437 kg

Nope. Check a different source. Falcons haven't been that light since EA.

Don't bother looking at Wiki, its wrong.

Base weight from other websites say Forte was 1515kg.

[gcmc2]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Nope. Check a different source. Falcons haven't been that light since EA.

Don't bother looking at Wiki, its wrong.

Base weight from other websites say Forte was 1515kg.

Hey - you just reduced by 40 kg ! that's a start ! LOL

Actually, I see where you're going wrong - you're quoting kerb weight - not car weight.

I don't quote from Wiki - it's notoriously unreliable, but if that's what they say is the weight they're right in this case. That is the specified weight of the base car.

If the weights people are quoting here for the BA are kerb weights then you can probably knock 60 or70 kg from them as well.

Even if that's the case we're still looking at at least 170 or 180 kg extra for a car the same size. That's a lot.

[nstg8a]

Why wouldn't you quote kerb weights?

Last time I checked a car with no fluids etc (ie dry weight) is about as useful as tits on a bull...

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Why wouldn't you quote kerb weights?

Last time I checked a car with no fluids etc (ie dry weight) is about as useful as tits on a bull...

Does 'Tare' mean dry or just empty, and how does that compare to kerb weight / base weight?

Au is around 1450 for one of them and around 1600 even for the other...

[gcmc2]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Why wouldn't you quote kerb weights?

Last time I checked a car with no fluids etc (ie dry weight) is about as useful as tits on a bull...

Because the weight of a car is the weight of the car and the kerb weight is the kerb weight.

You can't accurately compare the weight of two cars by the kerb weight unless you know the capacity of coolant, engine oil, gearbox oil, rear axle oil, fuel tank etc are exactly the same for each.

You pay registration based on the weight of a car, not its kerb weight so correct weight per model is important.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by gcmc2

Because the weight of a car is the weight of the car and the kerb weight is the kerb weight.

You can't accurately compare the weight of two cars by the kerb weight unless you know the capacity of coolant, engine oil, gearbox oil, rear axle oil, fuel tank etc are exactly the same for each.

You pay registration based on the weight of a car, not its kerb weight so correct weight per model is important.

Oil weights etc are irrelevant. Total kerb weight is the only way to compare them, otherwise it just makes it look like your plucking figures to suit an argument. And we couldn't do that....

And here, Rego is done on cylinder count.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Does 'Tare' mean dry or just empty, and how does that compare to kerb weight / base weight?

Au is around 1450 for one of them and around 1600 even for the other...

That's been a huge argument for many years now..."dry weight"...especially of motorbikes. What's the point? You need to know the weight with fuel, oils, fluids, and a driver on board.
They used to do a similar thing with horsepower figures...they'd quote the engine power of a motor bolted to an engine dyno with no water pump, no air cleaner, no exhaust, and no alternator or other pumps...you know, just the way you run your car on the street... That's why the last 351 V8 was only making about 140kw...people howled when they started measuring it that way (some still do), but that was as measured in "street trim", the way the customer actually got the engine in their Falcon.

[RASER]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Ford trialled alloy bonnets on some BA mules years ago. They needed a lot of work structurally because they flopped around a fair bit. Never went any further than that though.

Holden will only be using alloy for the bonnet and bootlid, supposedly saving 14kg?

Is it really worth the extra cost just for 14 kg?

It would want to be more than that, hell, you can save that by ditching the spare wheel

My target [not just with ALU. panels] but a complete holistic approach would be a target of - 100kg at least

As per std. American line of thought, it MUST NOT cost anymore to build, in fact "save us a few pennys please" [bean counters memo to engineering dept.]

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by JG34JA

there was a (for the time) radical use of plastics,.

FOA won an award for that. i remember scoffing at the 'innovative use of plastics' at the time.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

One of the biggest problems with the Falcon is the kerb weight. My FG gets great economy crusing on the open road but is penalised in traffic when the engine needs to constantly accelerate 1,800+kg (car + driver + tank of fuel). Why haven't Ford and Holden introduced more aluminium into their bodies? Audi have been doing this for more than a decade so it is not new. I understand there is a cost penalty but it can it be that significant? If the Falcon could lose 200kg (and introduce stop-start technology), it would greatly improve the economy of this car in city traffic. Australian has a lot of aluminium so sourcing the raw material should not be a problem.

B-series to F-Series only gained 14kg. For a car that became a 5 star ANCAP rated car, with more tech that was a good achievement. Ford worked very hard to keep the weight down. But they did it in parts that people wouldn't actually see.

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Just swapping the cast head for an alloy one is nearly 30kg from memory.

I guess just swapping the head over is all you need to do. No real testing is required as she'll be fine....

[zilo]

Originally Posted by RASER

It would want to be more than that, hell, you can save that by ditching the spare wheel

My target [not just with ALU. panels] but a complete holistic approach would be a target of - 100kg at least

.]

I weighed an 18 inch alloy wheel and tyre on the home scales just for a laugh.

24 kg.....!

Easy way to save weight...leave it at home and put a can of "tyre goo" in the boot?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by gcmc2

Hey - you just reduced by 40 kg ! that's a start ! LOL

Actually, I see where you're going wrong - you're quoting kerb weight - not car weight.

I don't quote from Wiki - it's notoriously unreliable, but if that's what they say is the weight they're right in this case. That is the specified weight of the base car.

If the weights people are quoting here for the BA are kerb weights then you can probably knock 60 or70 kg from them as well.

Even if that's the case we're still looking at at least 170 or 180 kg extra for a car the same size. That's a lot.

I go on the figures Ford use ie the ones they use in media releases and what they print in the handbooks and brochures.

Why quote figures that are irrelevant in the real world.

If Ford say the FG XT is 1704 kg then thats all I need to know, not what it would be if for some obscure reason I drained all the fluids out.

[Nikked]

Cars need fluids anyway...dry wieght is useless for measument.

[The Snout]

Come 2017 Falcon is going to get a huge weight loss.