GTP Cool Wall: 1991 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais Quad 442 W-41

[JCE]

Am I the first?

No, someone else is. Putting someone on ignore is great, their posts don't even show when your browsing the topic. I didn't see (or care) what his response to my last post was.

You and I just bicker back and forth, no dig deal. You're not even close to being ignored. This guy is complete a brick wall. Nothing gets through, and thus nothing meaningful gets out as well.

I digress. Funny how a topic about an Oldsmobile is causing so much emotion.

 

[Lucas]

I respectfully disagreed about not seeing their posts. I can see they posted, and just the thought of what those people could have written annoys me.

 

[neanderthal]

Oh you're one of THOSE people.👎

Wow, don't notice smileys much..........

The only one of those you name I like at all is the 190E, and that annoys me because of it becoming a huge fanboy car because of GT4.
My fav. thing about them, ironically, is that their engine is essentially a beefed up Quad-4.

I take exception to you calling a Mercedes engine a General motors engine. If we were talking about a small block vs Mercedes V8 it would be the other way, but GM has only recently begun to put serious thought into their small(er) engines. They always treated them like an after thought and they were loud, course and rough as a result. Yet today the engine in the Chevy Cruze has come under criticism for being noisy and rough around the edges.

The Buick GNX wasn't some magical "diamond in the rough" as you imply here. Not only did it have sister cars, the Monte Carlo and for a while the Grand Prix, but there are plenty of other American cars with the same or near same level of "Quality".

Did those clone cars have the same performance? Coz the quality was abysmal in all of them, but the Buick at least had straight line performance.

But on your own criteria, you shouldn't like any cars from that generation because of the lack of "quality" compared to newer cars. You're not going to find an 83 Civic with quality that bests an 05 Cobalt either.
And on the opposite side, of all the foreign older cars I've been in or even seen, I don't like the "quality interior" everyone in these forums praises. I downright hate them, hard sticky buttons that feel like they'll shatter, hard dashboards that resemble steel in terms of feel and look, terrible radios, and if for sale, either broken, or terribly overpriced.

Losing the plot again.....
I don't compare the performance of yesteryears cars against todays. By the same token I don't compare the interiors of those cars against todays. Same for quality. Keep up here...

I compare them against their peers. And the American ones are the lousiest ones. Engineering. Interiors. Performance (other than a straight line) Pretty much on every metric.

And it's not at all when you're talking about people acting as though an 83 Corolla offers some kind of "sporting" performance. Or when people talk of old Skylines, Supra's, and 300ZX's as though they'll rock the current car world with their stock performance in a straight line either.
The point isn't that they suck, the point is the fanboy's behind them suck, and cause one to develop a general distaste for the cars they talk about so foolishly.
See JCE's defense for specifically, a 1991 Mustang GT for example. Sitting there typing away defending it's honor against a car he can't even find specs for, and knows nothing about.

Fanboys suck. Period. This is why I typically ignore them. Your strident defense, in light of what I thought was a pretty straightforward post, leads me to think you might just be one.

Re read the part above after I said "Losing the plot again!!!!" I compare a mid eighties Japanese piece of poop to a contemporary American and European piece of poop. Your typical VW Golf/ GTi of 1984 is better than whatever comparable GM (A body) Cavalier/ Ford Escort/ Chrysler or AMC Turd from the domestics as far as I am concerned.

Given a choice of showroom quality delivery milage versions of those I would take the VW followed by the bus. Every day. Throw in the Corolla or Civic and I would take those before the GTi.

Compare them today with typical milage and the domestic fare is more likely to look abandoned if its parked. There's a guy who I know has a meticulously maintained Taurus from 86. It still looks cheap!!!!!!! My friend had a stripped 83 Golf parked next to it. It looked more substantially designed and put together. Stripped.

But that's just opinion.

 

[Paulie]

Wow, don't notice smileys much..........

Who, me don't notice smilies much? Or you? As far as I could tell you hate practically all American cars and consider my opinion to be wrong no matter what. Did I mis-read something here? I don't like haters. You're coming across as a hater of perfectly reasonable and admirable vehicles.

 

[TrievelA7X]

And do you have any response to make to this?

Absolutely.
Door sticker weight = GVW (gross vehicle weight)
GVW = Vehicle with max load (882 LB)
GVW (3447) - 893LB = Curb Weight. 2565 for the specific one he owned.
Now maybe that's with fluid, maybe not. Judging by others who have weighed theirs with themselves in it, I'd say it's with fluids, but without a full tank, really it's anyones guess. As the fluids themselves should carry about 250-300lbs, my educated guess is it's with fluids but without gas, or at least, a very small amount of gas.
It actually makes me want to stop in a weigh station and see if they'll weigh my current Buick to see how it adds up.
It really doesn't matter, much, the method assuming it is with fluids actually benefits the cars weight even more in favor of the car.
I do agree that it should be with completely filled fluids, up to the tippy-top, including gas, I just don't believe that it is.

I take exception to you calling a Mercedes engine a General motors engine. If we were talking about a small block vs Mercedes V8 it would be the other way, but GM has only recently begun to put serious thought into their small(er) engines. They always treated them like an after thought and they were loud, course and rough as a result. Yet today the engine in the Chevy Cruze has come under criticism for being noisy and rough around the edges.

Ever heard of the Oldsmobile Aerotech?

It was powered by a turbo-charged version of the 2-litre Oldsmobile Quad 4 engine.

http://wiki.gmnext.com/wiki/index.php/Oldsmobile_Aerotech
I'm sure there's more sources, if you really want to look.

Did those clone cars have the same performance? Coz the quality was abysmal in all of them, but the Buick at least had straight line performance.

Yes. And I've yet to see a any car from, to pick a year, 1985 in the same price range have any marginally better "quality". Or whatever year you choose, Buick's have always had nice interiors for their time. As did Oldsmobiles, before they got knifed for being to much like Buick.

Losing the plot again.....
I don't compare the performance of yesteryears cars against todays. By the same token I don't compare the interiors of those cars against todays. Same for quality. Keep up here...

I do keep up, but like you said, it's all opinion, I'll go into more detail next...

I compare them against their peers. And the American ones are the lousiest ones. Engineering. Interiors. Performance (other than a straight line) Pretty much on every metric.

You're entitled to your opinion. As am I. We disagree.

Fanboys suck. Period. This is why I typically ignore them. Your strident defense, in light of what I thought was a pretty straightforward post, leads me to think you might just be one.

Nope, just tired of hearing the mantra "American cars suck". GM wasn't the biggest car company in the world for decades and possibly be returning back to number 1 just because every American buys them because "it's their patriotic duty". People buy them because they like them, on many various levels. I actually don't know anyone that buys American cars for the sole reason they're American.

Re read the part above after I said "Losing the plot again!!!!" I compare a mid eighties Japanese piece of poop to a contemporary American and European piece of poop. Your typical VW Golf/ GTi of 1984 is better than whatever comparable GM (A body) Cavalier/ Ford Escort/ Chrysler or AMC Turd from the domestics as far as I am concerned.

Again, I disagree. My Brother owned an 84 Golf, and I owned a 92 Jetta. The interior completely sucked, and the cars, if anything were less reliable than any of the comparable year American cars I or anyone I've known owned.
83 cavalier
84 sunbird
84 sunbird
85 sunbird
88 grand am
88 buick skylark
88 dodge daytona turbo (ok that was pure crap, but it was already beat to hell when it was bought for me)
89 olds calais
89 olds calais
90 olds calais
91 old calais
91 olds calais
93 olds achieva
93 cavalier
94 sunbird

And other than the 400$ beat-to-hell daytona, not a single one of these had any significant problems. None. between all those cars, the biggest problem I can recall is an alternator. Oh, the Achieva had a bad timing chain when it was bought, we fixed it for 120$ and about 2 hours.
Now there were the 2 VW's, which had:
AC compressor
Shift linkage
pressure plate
massive wiring problems
CV joint
rusted hole in back shock tower so big, the right rearend of the car was being held on by about 3-4 inches of metal.
.... I guess that's enough for 2 cars ain't?
93 Saturn, with it's Toyota engine, well that died, between the ticking lifters, bad timing chain, broken oil guage, that engine didn't see the north side of 130K.

So yes, I have reason to not have faith in all these cars people on internet forums talk so highly about. Quality? Quality is first and foremost, a car that works.

Given a choice of showroom quality delivery milage versions of those I would take the VW followed by the bus. Every day. Throw in the Corolla or Civic and I would take those before the GTi.

Compare them today with typical milage and the domestic fare is more likely to look abandoned if its parked. There's a guy who I know has a meticulously maintained Taurus from 86. It still looks cheap!!!!!!! My friend had a stripped 83 Golf parked next to it. It looked more substantially designed and put together. Stripped.

But that's just opinion.

I never said Ford's were good in any way. I could make another list of newer Ford's I know of and every single one has had some kind of substantial problem, at a low mileage.
But opinion is opinion, and you are entitled to yours.

But I know I can say mine is based on plenty of real world experience.

 

[Famine]

Absolutely.
Door sticker weight = GVW (gross vehicle weight)
GVW = Vehicle with max load (882 LB)
GVW (3447) - 893LB = Curb Weight. 2565 for the specific one he owned.
Now maybe that's with fluid, maybe not. Judging by others who have weighed theirs with themselves in it, I'd say it's with fluids, but without a full tank, really it's anyones guess. As the fluids themselves should carry about 250-300lbs, my educated guess is it's with fluids but without gas, or at least, a very small amount of gas.
It actually makes me want to stop in a weigh station and see if they'll weigh my current Buick to see how it adds up.
It really doesn't matter, much, the method assuming it is with fluids actually benefits the cars weight even more in favor of the car.
I do agree that it should be with completely filled fluids, up to the tippy-top, including gas, I just don't believe that it is.

That doesn't answer the question - or the point.

Dry weight - which is what you insisted kerb/curb weight is - is the car dry. Literally, it is what it sounds - the weight of the car when dry. Kerb/curb weight includes at least everything the car needs to actually work, which is at least the minimum amount of oil and fuel for the engine to turn and the car to move. Again, literally, it is what it sounds - the weight of an example of the car as you'd find it at a kerb/curb.

There isn't an industry standard for kerb/curb weight, but typically it's average amounts of all fluids. Sometimes it's minimum amounts, sometimes it's fully brimmed as it'd drop off a forecourt, sometimes it's with a driver (after all, a car needs a driver to work), sometimes without. But it's always the weight rating of the car given by the manufacturer and it's not dry weight.

So in your example:

Curb weight + gas + oil + transmission fluid + coolant + PS fluid + brake fluid + windshield washer fluid + driver = 2835
By the way, curb weight is 2515.

The word "curb" should be "dry" in both instances, and 2835 is the curb/kerb weight (maybe less the driver). So the manufacturer quoted weight - curb/kerb weight - is the number you quote in the first line, 2,835lb (maybe less the driver).

 

[TrievelA7X]

That doesn't answer the question - or the point.

Dry weight - which is what you insisted kerb/curb weight is - is the car dry. Literally, it is what it sounds - the weight of the car when dry. Kerb/curb weight includes at least everything the car needs to actually work, which is at least the minimum amount of oil and fuel for the engine to turn and the car to move. Again, literally, it is what it sounds - the weight of an example of the car as you'd find it at a kerb/curb.

Well I can guarantee you no standard at the least should include a driver, as it's unlikey to get a driver of whatever weight you choose. And fuel, is the main weight, so even in your example, the weight added would be minimal, around 50 lbs, or 22 kg's.

There isn't an industry standard for kerb/curb weight, but typically it's average amounts of all fluids. Sometimes it's minimum amounts, sometimes it's fully brimmed as it'd drop off a forecourt, sometimes it's with a driver (after all, a car needs a driver to work), sometimes without. But it's always the weight rating of the car given by the manufacturer and it's not dry weight.

Ok, assuming this is all spot on, it still doesn't answer your own question, nor does it answer what's any cars weight actually is.

So in your example:

The word "curb" should be "dry" in both instances, and 2835 is the curb/kerb weight (maybe less the driver). So the manufacturer quoted weight - curb/kerb weight - is the number you quote in the first line, 2,835lb (maybe less the driver).

I can't recall quoting 2835.
And if you can recall, I did post a link to a website where one posted their 442's weight with themselves in it at 2800 lbs.
BUT - you're still missing the point. To compare the weight to another car, for instance, the 91 GT's "curb weight" of 2775 that I found, one must have both cars weighed the same.
Since I know the inside door panel's weight reading, and that's the most accurate, feel free to find a 1991 Mustang GT's inside door panel reading, or ask around.
But whether you'd like to play games around words and try to make it sound as though it's 2800lbs, the door sticker adds up to 2565 lbs. Not 2835. Not 2800. Not another number you concoct with assumptions. The Number is 2565.
And until there's a number the same or lower inside a 1991 Mustang GT's door, JCE will still be dead wrong about the weight difference between the cars, as will anyone claiming the cars curb weight to be 2800lbs.

We can debate all day what is included in that 2565 number, I guess.
But good luck finding information 91 442 (w41), it was hard enough for us to find 5-10 years ago, with only 204 being produced.

OH, ok, I see where you got 2835 from... You decided to skip the part where it clearly states "with driver" and took the weight and said, possibly with a driver, possibly not.
Either be more thorough, or cut the crap, shall we? Don't know which it is, don't care.

2835, as you say, "maybe less the driver", with a driver of 290 lbs, would be dead on 2565.
Or, 2835 could be a driver of 170 lbs, and a whole bunch more fuel...or 200 lb driver......... Wow, this is starting to sound like the car's "curb" (by your own definition) weight is shockingly in the 2,500 lb range.....

And yet, despite being wrong on so many angles, Famine, I'm sure you're end argument will be "aha! I'm right! Curb weight is with fluids!"
Instead of the proper, "ok, you're right about the cars weight". Because you still can't determine what the cars dry weight is, or it's curb weight, since my answers are clearly not good enough for you, you'd rather speculate at what it could possibly be.
It's a shame there's nobody you can ask that's owned one, or at least been of close relation to someone that's owned one....

But alas, you jumped in, and caught a technicality, I said "curb weight" and meant dry weight.
However, the weight I quoted is still correct it seems. 2515 dry. (which I originally called curb) 2565 "curb" with low fluids, and 2835 with an unknown portion of fluids, and driver.

 

[Famine]

Well I can guarantee you no standard at the least should include a driver, as it's unlikey to get a driver of whatever weight you choose.

And yet I already told you that most European manufacturers do in fact include a driver at 75kg in the kerb weight figure.

And fuel, is the main weight, so even in your example, the weight added would be minimal, around 50 lbs, or 22 kg's.

It's your example.

I can't recall quoting 2835.

Curb weight + gas + oil + transmission fluid + coolant + PS fluid + brake fluid + windshield washer fluid + driver = 2835

And if you can recall, I did post a link to a website where one posted their 442's weight with themselves in it at 2800 lbs.
BUT - you're still missing the point. To compare the weight to another car, for instance, the 91 GT's "curb weight" of 2775 that I found, one must have both cars weighed the same.

To the same standard, yes. Kerb weight - the vehicle's dry weight with all additional requirements for operation.

But whether you'd like to play games around words and try to make it sound as though it's 2800lbs, the door sticker adds up to 2565 lbs. Not 2835. Not 2800. Not another number you concoct with assumptions. The Number is 2565.

Don't you dare try to accuse me of making things up. All numbers I have quoted as said by you were numbers as said by you. Can't remember the numbers you've stated? Look up your old posts.

You stated that kerb/curb weight is 2515lb and that, with all added fluids required for legal operation, it weighs 2835lb. Kerb/curb weight is the weight with all added fluids required for legal operation, so, in your example, it is 2835lb and the dry weight is 2515lb. Your example, your numbers, your confusion of dry and curb/kerb weight standards.

And until there's a number the same or lower inside a 1991 Mustang GT's door, JCE will still be dead wrong about the weight difference between the cars, as will anyone claiming the cars curb weight to be 2800lbs.

You gave that number in your example - 2835lb kerb/curb weight. Are we to assume that your claim is wrong?

OH, ok, I see where you got 2835 from... You decided to skip the part where it clearly states "with driver" and took the weight and said, possibly with a driver, possibly not.
Either be more thorough, or cut the crap, shall we? Don't know which it is, don't care.

2835, as you say, "maybe less the driver", with a driver of 290 lbs, would be dead on 2565.
Or, 2835 could be a driver of 170 lbs, and a whole bunch more fuel...or 200 lb driverWow, this is starting to sound like the car's "curb" (by your own definition) weight is shockingly in the 2,500 lb range.....

How about you do yourself a favour and read all the posts before you make a new one (let alone two)? You're not only confusing yourself with your own figures - and accuse anyone of making it up again when you're the one that stated them and you are out of here - but you're completely failing to read what industry standards are measured to. I've already stated what kerb/curb weight is, what dry weight is and where you confused them.

Your example confused dry and kerb weight. You gave 2,835lb as the kerb/curb weight, in your example. You stated dry weight as kerb/curb weight, which is not true.

Manufacturers state kerb/curb weight, not dry weight or gross vehicle weight. Your example gave 2,835lb as a kerb/curb weight. The opening post gives 2,800lb as a kerb/curb weight. By continuing to insist 2,5xx lb as a kerb/curb weight when you've already stated it's a dry weight, you're not only contradicting all available data and evidence but your own statements.

 

[TrievelA7X]

And yet I already told you that most European manufacturers do in fact include a driver at 75kg in the kerb weight figure.

Great. We're talking about an American car not even shipped to Europe.

To the same standard, yes. Kerb weight - the vehicle's dry weight with all additional requirements for operation.

I know.

Don't you dare try to accuse me of making things up. All numbers I have quoted as said by you were numbers as said by you. Can't remember the numbers you've stated? Look up your old posts.

I did.

You stated that kerb/curb weight is 2515lb and that, with all added fluids required for legal operation, it weighs 2835lb. Kerb/curb weight is the weight with all added fluids required for legal operation, so, in your example, it is 2835lb and the dry weight is 2515lb. Your example, your numbers, your confusion of dry and curb/kerb weight standards.

It specifically says With Driver. And you turned it into "possibly less driver" It one weighed 2835 with a driver of unknown weight with an unknown amount of fluid.

You gave that number in your example - 2835lb kerb/curb weight. Are we to assume that your claim is wrong?

I never said that was curb weight. How dare I accuse you of twisting?
YOU said that was curb weight. I said it was the weight of one with fluids and a driver.
And like I said I did confuse "curb" and "dry" weight.
However, the numbers are still 2515 "dry", and 2565 "curb" Maybe, according to your opinions on how curb weight is defined.
Of course, the curb weight of 2565 could be with full fluids, and just a fatassed driver in the 2835 reading. Or maybe he had something extra inside when he weighed it, I really don't know.
the entire reasoning of posting that, was to show it's curb weight is clearly NOT 2800 lbs. And it did so VERY successfully.
It's an American car, only sold in America, European standards of curb weight don't matter in the slightest. But leave it to Famine to interject with alternate meanings that don't apply here.

Now, if you'd like to contribute, feel free to find an actual "curb weight" listing, that says it's curb weight, (not for an international, for a 442 W41) and what is included in that curb weight. Can't find it? didn't think so. Otherwise, you're making meaningless posts, and adding confusion to a topic.
All you've done, at this point:
Confused American and European "curb weight" definitions.
In doing so gotten/given false "curb weight" readouts for the car.
In doing so taken my post of "with fluids and driver" to become "curb weight", despite it not being true, because that's not the standard of measurement here.
And pointed out a technicality that (possibly) made a 50lb difference, in a 300lb argument.

Manufacturers state kerb/curb weight, not dry weight or gross vehicle weight. Your example gave 2,835lb as a kerb/curb weight. The opening post gives 2,800lb as a kerb/curb weight. By continuing to insist 2,5xx lb as a kerb/curb weight when you've already stated it's a dry weight, you're not only contradicting all available data and evidence but your own statements.

I'd like to see that. Feel free to show what exact weight manufactures must put inside the door panel in America.

By continuing to insist 2,5xx lb as a kerb/curb weight when you've already stated it's a dry weight

How would I know the dry weight if:

Manufacturers state kerb/curb weight, not dry weight or gross vehicle weight.

And the readout is 2565? And YES, OH GOD YES do they EVER POST GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT.
The ONLY way to figure out a cars weight off the door sticker is to DEDUCT the MAX LOAD off of the GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT.
Go ahead, Famine, push the issue. I'll LOVE IT.

But even more so, Please tell me how I know the dry weight if, as YOU say, manufactures DO NOT POST IT?
Hot DAMN! That makes the CURB WEIGHT....... You Guessed it big guy!

I'll be back tomm. morning, ready for amusement as to how you backtread all that BS.

 

[Famine]

Great. We're talking about an American car not even shipped to Europe.

And?

Curb/Kerb weight is still not what you said it is.

It specifically says With Driver. And you turned it into "possibly less driver" It one weighed 2835 with a driver of unknown weight with an unknown amount of fluid.

And?

Curb/Kerb weight is still not what you said it is.

I never said that was curb weight. How dare I accuse you of twisting?
YOU said that was curb weight. I said it was the weight of one with fluids and a driver.

That's what curb/kerb weight is.

However, the numbers are still 2515 "dry", and 2565 "curb" Maybe, according to your opinions on how curb weight is defined.

No. The numbers you gave were 2,515lb dry and 2,835lb curb.

Dry weight with all fluids required for operation is curb/kerb weight. Remember what you said (no doubt you don't, again)?

Curb weight + gas + oil + transmission fluid + coolant + PS fluid + brake fluid + windshield washer fluid + driver = 2835
By the way, curb weight is 2515.

This demonstrates that you don't know the difference and that you're quoted a dry weight of 2,515lb and a curb weight of 2,835lb.

Of course, the curb weight of 2565 could be with full fluids, and just a fatassed driver in the 2835 reading. Or maybe he had something extra inside when he weighed it, I really don't know.

No, it can't. There's a reason why these ratings are called industry standards.

the entire reasoning of posting that, was to show it's curb weight is clearly NOT 2800 lbs. And it did so VERY successfully.

Except you showed the exact opposite. Your own post:

Curb weight + gas + oil + transmission fluid + coolant + PS fluid + brake fluid + windshield washer fluid + driver = 2835

showed you don't know what "curb weight" is defined as, and that the curb weight is 2,835lb.

It's an American car, only sold in America, European standards of curb weight don't matter in the slightest. But leave it to Famine to interject with alternate meanings that don't apply here.

Industry standards of curb weight do, however, apply.

There is no industry definition of "curb weight" which is "car with no fluids". That's the industry definition of "dry weight" and this is never quoted by car manufacturers. This is what I've been trying to point out to you, but you're so busily wrapped up in proving the car isn't a 2,800lb car that you can't see it.

Your 2,835lb number included, before it, the definition of curb weight - dry weight (which you have confused for curb weight) plus all fluids required for operation. This is, thus, your number for curb weight.

Confused American and European "curb weight" definitions.

No, I've stated quite clearly what they are.

In doing so gotten/given false "curb weight" readouts for the car.

Your numbers.

In doing so taken my post of "with fluids and driver" to become "curb weight", despite it not being true, because that's not the standard of measurement here.

No, I've pointed out that what YOU thought was curb weight was dry weight, that your number for curb weight plus consummables actually is curb weight and that curb weight is what manufacturers actually quote for vehicle weight.

Your value of 2515lb for curb weight - which is 2835lb less driver and all fluids - is the dry weight, not the curb weight and thus not what the manufacturer quotes as the vehicle weight.

And pointed out a technicality that (possibly) made a 50lb difference, in a 300lb argument.

There is no argument. All available literature says curb weight is 2,800lb. Your quoted number that you thought was curb weight plus consummables is actually a curb weight and you quoted it as 2,835lb.

The only argument is one that you have made up and proceeded to quote numbers that contradict yourself.

And YES, OH GOD YES do they EVER POST GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT.
The ONLY way to figure out a cars weight off the door sticker is to DEDUCT the MAX LOAD off of the GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT.

They post the GVW on the VIN plate - along with maximum axle load. Doesn't appear in "vehicle weight" in literature though. I've never seen a GVW quoted in a brochure.

Of course, you're running into a mathematical problem also. Deduct maximum load off GVW and you arrive at dry weight. Why? Because everything you put into the car - including fluids - on top of the dry weight is load.

GVW - load = Dry weight
Dry weight + consummables required for operation = Curb weight

Curb weight is quoted in all figures provided by the manufacturer in brochures and press. Dry weight and gross vehicle weight are not. The Cool Wall figure - taken from literature - is 2800lb. You're arguing that it's 2515lb (which is dry weight, by your own argument, evidence and statistics) while providing evidence of a curb weight figure of 2835lb (by your own argument, evidence and statistics).

Go ahead, Famine, push the issue. I'll LOVE IT.

But even more so, Please tell me how I know the dry weight if, as YOU say, manufactures DO NOT POST IT?
Hot DAMN! That makes the CURB WEIGHT....... You Guessed it big guy!

I didn't say they "DO NOT POST IT". I said that they state curb weight.

Pick up a car magazine. Have a look at some car stats. See the weight column? That's curb weight - not dry weight or gross vehicle weight.

Dry weight = Car weight with no fluids.
Curb/kerb weight = Car weight as required for operation.
Gross vehicle weight = Car weight fully loaded.
Gross vehicle weight - maximum load = Dry weight.
Gross vehicle weight - payload = curb/kerb weight

GVW is required to be stated on a plate by law (and this applies across the industry). How do you know it? Well, I'd guess you can read, even if you can't comprehend.

I'll be back tomm. morning, ready for amusement as to how you backtread all that BS.

You've been contradicting yourself since the beginning, based on two complete misunderstandings (that curb weight is dry weight; that GVW minus load is curb weight) and some desperate need to prove that this car isn't as heavy as everyone but you says (for some reason). I've been trying to point out the differences to you, but you refuse to listen because I'm not American.

You've also been abusive on top of this. If you do come back tomorrow morning and continue, be prepared not to come back for long.

 

[Scaff]

Allow me to interject here.

The Society of Automotive Engineers standard definition of Curb Weight is as follows...

The weight of a vehicle in a drive-away condition, filled with at least
90% capacity by weight with fuel, lubricants, coolants, and all standard
equipment, but without luggage or passengers.

Source - http://www.sae.org/servlets/booksto...oadMyItem&prodCd=R-344&pubType=apub&fm=0&bm=1


The NHTSA define Curb weight as...

"Curb weight" means the weight of a motor vehicle with standard equipment including the maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant, and, if so equipped, air conditioning and additional weight optional engine.

Source -http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/TireReserve/specialordervehicle.html


The only common difference between the US and the EU is the inclusion of the drivers weight (at a standard 75kgs) and a nominal cargo weight (7kgs) in the EU.

Please feel free to try and argue this TrievelA7X, but this is the standard definition used by automotive engineers and as such the one used by the industry itself (an industry I have work for decades in).

Bite the bullet on this one, regardless of being in the EU or US (or any damn place in the world), Famine has as near as damn it (7 kgs cargo weight is the only bit he missed) nailed the definition out the gate. You however have quite clearly got it mixed up and done little to further yourself here in any way.


Edited - Just checked and the 75 kgs for the driver includes the 7 kgs cargo (its 68kgs for the driver + 7 kgs cargo to be 100% accurate).
Source - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0048:EN:HTML (EU Commission Directive 95/48/EC of 20 September 1995 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 92/21/EEC relating to the masses and dimensions of motor vehicles of category M1 )

So given that Famine was 100% accurate in regard to weights, both in the US and EU.

I've now shown you links to the industry standard worldwide (the SAE), and the regulatory bodies in the US and EU.

None of them back you up, so to be honest an apology and a little humble pie is needed here from you.



Scaff

 

[Azuremen]

And it's not at all when you're talking about people acting as though an 83 Corolla offers some kind of "sporting" performance. Or when people talk of old Skylines, Supra's, and 300ZX's as though they'll rock the current car world with their stock performance in a straight line either.
The point isn't that they suck, the point is the fanboy's behind them suck, and cause one to develop a general distaste for the cars they talk about so foolishly.

Should I find irony in this then?

83 cavalier
84 sunbird
84 sunbird
85 sunbird
88 grand am
88 buick skylark
88 dodge daytona turbo (ok that was pure crap, but it was already beat to hell when it was bought for me)
89 olds calais
89 olds calais
90 olds calais
91 old calais
91 olds calais
93 olds achieva
93 cavalier
94 sunbird

So you complain about fanboys, and yet basically everything you've owned has been a GM product, including several Pontiacs, which have been regarded as having terrible interiors by everyone with opinion since the dawn of time. The American cars were outclassed by their overseas rivals in just about every way, from weighing less to better engines and transmissions to better interior quality and exterior. I've yet to see an older GM product that still has all its paint on it, or an interior that isn't cracking. My AW11 MR2 blew every GM product out of the water for interior quality, even when comparing GM models that were 10 years newer. And the MR2 wasn't anything compared to my '95 M3.

But I know I can say mine is based on plenty of real world experience.

Just with a heavy bias towards one brand. Clearly well rounded.

And stop telling us dry weight is the curb weight, because its not.

 

[TrievelA7X]

I'll finish with more tomm. morning, as I said, but anyone feel free to quote me calling "dry" weigth "curb" weight since Famine interjected correcting me.
I'm sure I can quote me saying he was right, several times, but that in fact did not affect the curb weight of the car.

Although, by Scaff's posted definition, it STILL doesn't include drivers weight, as Famine DID include, which also makes Famines quotes all wrong.

So in short, there you have it, I was wrong, and so was Famine, when he took his mis-information about American curb weights, and took 2835 to be the curb weight.
He was also wrong telling me manufactures dont post GVW, and dry weights, according to his last post, but he's apparantly changing the game yet again. And now reffering to "brochures" which ahem.. have not been mentioned one single time until his last post.
I've been quoting a door sticker, this entire time to get the weight without fluids, and that weight in general, hasn't changed, the only thing that's changed, as I've repeatedly said, is that as Famine so graciously pointed out, is not curb weight, is dry weight. But also, by my definition is still correct, as I did post without fluids.

The ONLY things Famine has been right about, is the name of the weight I quoted.
Sadly though, 13.3 gallons of fuel, 1 gal of oil, 1 gal of washer fluid, .3 gallon of steering fluid, .5 of brake fluid, .2 of clutch fluid, and .75 gal of transmission fluid, and finally, .80 gal of coolant, all add up to 142 lbs maximum weight.
2565 + 142 = 2707
2515 + 142 = 2657

So assuming, without any source other than Famine's word, that the weight listed in the vehicles DOT sticker is in fact dry weight, the curb weight is STILL not what anyone has quoted.
One could easily figure this out by simply deducting that 2835 with a driver is less than 2800 without a driver. unless a 2 year old is behind the wheel.

 

[Famine]

Although, by Scaff's posted definition, it STILL doesn't include drivers weight, as Famine DID include, which also makes Famines quotes all wrong.

Try again - YOUR quote.

So in short, there you have it, I was wrong, and so was Famine, when he took his mis-information about American curb weights, and took 2835 to be the curb weight.
He was also wrong telling me manufactures dont post GVW, and dry weights, according to his last post, but he's apparantly changing the game yet again. And now reffering to "brochures" which ahem.. have not been mentioned one single time until his last post.

Try again. I stated from the outset that the weight quoted in literature is kerb weight.

I've been quoting a door sticker, this entire time to get the weight without fluids, and that weight in general, hasn't changed, the only thing that's changed, as I've repeatedly said, is that as Famine so graciously pointed out, is not curb weight, is dry weight. But also, by my definition is still correct, as I did post without fluids.

Your definition is both incorrect and irrelevant. Industry standard is to include fluids.

The ONLY things Famine has been right about, is the name of the weight I quoted.
Sadly though, 13.3 gallons of fuel, 1 gal of oil, 1 gal of washer fluid, .3 gallon of steering fluid, .5 of brake fluid, .2 of clutch fluid, and .75 gal of transmission fluid, and finally, .80 gal of coolant, all add up to 142 lbs maximum weight.
2565 + 142 = 2707
2515 + 142 = 2657

So assuming, without any source other than Famine's word, that the weight listed in the vehicles DOT sticker is in fact dry weight, the curb weight is STILL not what anyone has quoted.

And my initial post was to tell you that you'd mixed up dry and kerb weight, and that the figure you'd given as kerb weight plus fluids and driver is actually what kerb weight is. All the numbers were - and remain - your own.

Why you're still arguing this after a motor industry insider has pointed out your error escapes me. Though I suspect Azuremen has the answer.

You might also like to know that Dry Weight, typically, doesn't include additional vehicle factory options. I suspect this will fall upon deaf, abusive ears also.

 

[Azuremen]

Although, by Scaff's posted definition, it STILL doesn't include drivers weight, as Famine DID include, which also makes Famines quotes all wrong.

So basically, you arguing that Famine's mentioned of the driver's weight being included somehow invalidates everything else that has been posted, including the key point of dry versus curb weights. The main point is that your initial statement of 2500-ish pounds was the curb weight of the car, which you in turn invalidated by stating that with fluids and such, the car is more around 2700-2800 pound range. Given that those figures match with the reported in the initial post, it more or less makes your whole argument invalid.

The car in the real world weighs 2750 pounds or so. Which is pretty typical for a later 90's import. Hell, my friend 99 M3 was put on scales at nearly 3000 even, completely stock.

I have no clue how Famine has been this patient thus far, but I am just going to tell you this - you were mistaken, just accept that like a man. Stop trying to find some trivially, esoteric detail that you can attack, as everyone but you seems to have got the point here.

The logic of your argument has come down to something like this, by example: Someone says the tallest building in the world is 850 meters tall, and you claiming their point is invalid because it is really 828 meters tall. The number may be a bit different but the key point is still the same - it is the tallest building.

 

[buickgnx88]

The logic of your argument has come down to something like this, by example: Someone says the tallest building in the world is 850 meters tall, and you claiming their point is invalid because it is really 828 meters tall. The number may be a bit different but the key point is still the same - it is the tallest building.

Your case would make more sense if they were arguing about whether the antennas/lightning rods count as part of the height.

 

[Lucas]

 

[Worst_Driver]

^^



All that to defend an oldsmobile, I repeat an Oldsmobile ????


HAHAHAHAHA Good one!!!

 

[Eric.]

Fu.....wait, this isn't 4chan.


Freakin' saved*

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

After this argument...I think I'll go with a seriously uncool.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Try again - YOUR quote.

I never quoted anything with a driver as curb weight. You took a quote I posted from a website with a weight including a driver as curb weight, that is the only place you got your 2835 number.

Try again. I stated from the outset that the weight quoted in literature is kerb weight.

You never used the word "literature" and the only "literature" that's been referred to specifically, is the door panel sticker.

Your definition is both incorrect and irrelevant. Industry standard is to include fluids.

I already said I was wrong about this. 3 times. Now it is 4.
The one thing it did not do, is change the curb weight of the car, nor did it make my claims of 25xx lbs incorrect.

And my initial post was to tell you that you'd mixed up dry and kerb weight, and that the figure you'd given as kerb weight plus fluids and driver is actually what kerb weight is. All the numbers were - and remain - your own.

But your reliance on them to make your own figures is your own decision. you chose to question everything else I said about it, yet you never questioned that because I thought curb meant dry, it wouldn't change the curb weight? I had a number, it was curb weight. That number still stands relatively unchallenged. I mistakenly thought curb meant without fluids, this does not change the actual curb weight, it changes my definition, and nothing else.
If a cars curb weight is 2565lbs, and I believe that is without fluids, does the cars suddenly gain fluid weight? No it does not.
But you assumed that because I referred to curb as "without" fluids, that meant I actually had a dry weight, and never considered that I just was mistaken on what was included in curb weight?
I gotta say, given the two possible options, you chose the less likely of the two, and stuck with it like hell so far. - More detail at the end.

Why you're still arguing this after a motor industry insider has pointed out your error escapes me. Though I suspect Azuremen has the answer.

I have not. I have repeatedly accepted that curb weight includes fluids. You have chosen to ignore this, so here you go:

I was wrong

To the same standard, yes. Kerb weight - the vehicle's dry weight with all additional requirements for operation.

I know.

And like I said I did confuse "curb" and "dry" weight.

Now to refute the curb weight as 2565, one must conclude positively that the door sticker does in fact, not include fluids, which would thereby make it a dry weight.
So you see, I posted what I believe, and has not been refuted as a curb weight, and simply had an incorrect definition of what is included in curb weight. That doesn't mean I "meant" dry, it means I "meant" curb, and didn't know fluids were included.

You might also like to know that Dry Weight, typically, doesn't include additional vehicle factory options. I suspect this will fall upon deaf, abusive ears also.

It may not, I don't know. Most everything came standard in these cars, with very little room (if any other than CD) for options.
And I haven't been abusive, you took a simple statement what seemed like you twisting words - where I specifically stated I did not know if it was intentional, and blew it out of proportion.
You're original failure to indicate that you included drivers weight into curb weight, caused the confusion. Had you directly said "curb weight includes drivers weight, so the curb weight is 2835" Then I could have simply informed you that on this side of the world, we don't include drivers weight, as drivers weight is a variable, and Americans like solid numbers, with as little variables as possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating

The difference between gross weight and curb weight is the total passenger and cargo weight capacity of the vehicle.

Now, given the nature and serious attitude DOT has for GVWR's, I would find it VERY hard to believe that the DOT GVWR stickers have a "dry" weight listing, and I also find it very hard to believe that Fluids would be included into a "max load" weight allowance, as nobody in their right mins would sit and calculate how much all their fluids in their vehicle would weight to hope they didn't overload their vehicle.
This definition, the only one I've found, along with anyone else, backs that up.

And all of this, also says: 1991 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais 442 W41 Curb Weight: 2565.
And since you've proven to "miss" everytime I say I was wrong about the definition, this means: I said curb weight, I meant curb weight, I was correct about the curb weight. However, I was misinformed about what is included in curb weight readings - that is all.

Now that I've posted more than 5 times that I was incorrect about what is included in a curb weight reading, feel free to admit you were also incorrect at what is included in this and all American cars sold in Americas curb weight.
I typically wouldn't ask, but you've never admitted to being wrong that I've seen, and been so belligerent to the multiple times I've said I was wrong.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Should I find irony in this then?



So you complain about fanboys, and yet basically everything you've owned has been a GM product, including several Pontiacs, which have been regarded as having terrible interiors by everyone with opinion since the dawn of time. The American cars were outclassed by their overseas rivals in just about every way, from weighing less to better engines and transmissions to better interior quality and exterior. I've yet to see an older GM product that still has all its paint on it, or an interior that isn't cracking. My AW11 MR2 blew every GM product out of the water for interior quality, even when comparing GM models that were 10 years newer. And the MR2 wasn't anything compared to my '95 M3.

Those aren't all cars I've owned. Nor are they all the cars "I've had experience with". Those are all the GM cars I've had experience with. The point was that not a one of them had serious problems of any kind, and despite your findings, most had all their paint. But seriously? Are we going to compare what cars have how much paint on them? Do you really think I'll have trouble finding imports missing paint? Or with peeling or cracking paint?

Do you really want a list of all the cars I've had some kind of experience with?
Whether it's owned, driven, known someone that had one for a long time?
My Fiancee's Mother has a 99 Hyundai, the engine is noisy as hell, ticks, the steering clunks, the wind noise while driving is unbelievable, the am/fm stereo doesn't work, the paint's peeling, the car's revving at 3500RPM at a mere 65mph and sounds like it's going to explode, which fyi also means the gearing is way to quick, you have to shift every 2 seconds, you can use 5th at 20mph, all of which mean it doesn't get the fuel economy it could, it won't last as long as it could, it's noisier than it has to be, even with it's obnoxiously loud engine.... Did I mention it's a 99? it's only 11 years old and everything in it is crap. 3 days after she bought it I rolled down the back left passenger window, (who need power, right?) and surprise! The roller broke off. 2 weeks after she bought it, open the driver door... Surprise! outside door handle cable snapped out/off. I've never had either of these problems in any GM car, and that includes everyone I know that's owned any. Oh, and it's most likely the slowest car I've ever driven, and to boot, cars of it's like, (other 99 Hyundai Accents) are overpriced.
Yes sir, for the same price, I'll take a 99 Cavalier over one of them every day of the year.
But It seems like something that really has no place in this thread, at least the curb weight crises Famine created affected the car in question's weight, but what I've owned, driven, had experience working on, and simply known people that owned them with or without what problems they may have/have had or all had, seems like a whole other discussion.

Just with a heavy bias towards one brand. Clearly well rounded.

Nope. You assumed those are all the cars I've owned. They are in fact not, I've owned just 4 of them.

And stop telling us dry weight is the curb weight, because its not.

Another one that can't find all the quotes where I admit I was confused at what was included in curb weight? nah, I won't bother quoting them all again, I'll see if you can find them in my last post.

 

[Famine]

I never quoted anything with a driver as curb weight. You took a quote I posted from a website with a weight including a driver as curb weight, that is the only place you got your 2835 number.

Your number, Quaid.

You never used the word "literature" and the only "literature" that's been referred to specifically, is the door panel sticker.

And Curb/Kerb weight is how every car on sale is measured

And how are those measurements publicised? Literature. You're the one talking about door stickers! Come on, McFly, think!

I already said I was wrong about this. 3 times. Now it is 4.
The one thing it did not do, is change the curb weight of the car, nor did it make my claims of 25xx lbs incorrect.

You may have said you were wrong, but you're still insisting the veracity of your original false assumptions.

The dry weight of the car is still, literally, the weight of it dry. The kerb weight of the car is still, literally, the weight one would find an example at the kerb. If your numbers say the former is "n" and the latter is "n+x", then that is what they are. Your numbers said they were 2515 and 2835 respectively.

But your reliance on them to make your own figures is your own decision.

They're still your figures.

you chose to question everything else I said about it, yet you never questioned that because I thought curb meant dry, it wouldn't change the curb weight? I had a number, it was curb weight. That number still stands relatively unchallenged. I mistakenly thought curb meant without fluids, this does not change the actual curb weight, it changes my definition, and nothing else.

Yes. And? The numbers you posted were a 2500lb range for dry weight and 2800lb range for kerb weight. You didn't think that's what they were through assumption, and you were in error. The numbers don't change because you say they do.

If a cars curb weight is 2565lbs, and I believe that is without fluids, does the cars suddenly gain fluid weight? No it does not.
But you assumed that because I referred to curb as "without" fluids, that meant I actually had a dry weight, and never considered that I just was mistaken on what was included in curb weight?

Given that you posted this:

Curb weight + gas + oil + transmission fluid + coolant + PS fluid + brake fluid + windshield washer fluid + driver = 2835
By the way, curb weight is 2515.

No assumption is necessary. You might have forgotten you posted this, but no-one else has. Dig up.

Now to refute the curb weight as 2565, one must conclude positively that the door sticker does in fact, not include fluids, which would thereby make it a dry weight.
So you see, I posted what I believe, and has not been refuted as a curb weight, and simply had an incorrect definition of what is included in curb weight. That doesn't mean I "meant" dry, it means I "meant" curb, and didn't know fluids were included.

Curb weight + gas + oil + transmission fluid + coolant + PS fluid + brake fluid + windshield washer fluid + driver = 2835
By the way, curb weight is 2515.

No. Up.

And I haven't been abusive, you took a simple statement what seemed like you twisting words - where I specifically stated I did not know if it was intentional, and blew it out of proportion.

And let's skip back in time to before you even noticed my original post:

And then you realized you were owned and felt like the ass that you were being.

Just to add insult to your ignorance,

Yep. You've not been abusive and it's my fault even though you never saw the post. Got it.

You're original failure to indicate that you included drivers weight into curb weight, caused the confusion. Had you directly said "curb weight includes drivers weight, so the curb weight is 2835" Then I could have simply informed you that on this side of the world, we don't include drivers weight, as drivers weight is a variable, and Americans like solid numbers, with as little variables as possible.

I didn't include anything. Your numbers (you know, the ones you forgot you'd posted).

On this side of the world we don't include drivers' weight either. In Europe they include it as 75kg - which you'll note is not a variable, but a solid number. We do include a full gas tank though, whereas in Europe it's a 90% full one.

Now, given the nature and serious attitude DOT has for GVWR's, I would find it VERY hard to believe that the DOT GVWR stickers have a "dry" weight listing, and I also find it very hard to believe that Fluids would be included into a "max load" weight allowance, as nobody in their right mins would sit and calculate how much all their fluids in their vehicle would weight to hope they didn't overload their vehicle.

You can believe or disbelieve whatever you like. We've dealt solidly in facts and industry standards, and you've dealt in abusiveness and vagueness and "but the door sticker on a car I once drove says".

GVW - payload = Kerb weight
GVW - max load = Dry weight

And all of this, also says: 1991 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais 442 W41 Curb Weight: 2565.
And since you've proven to "miss" everytime I say I was wrong about the definition, this means: I said curb weight, I meant curb weight, I was correct about the curb weight. However, I was misinformed about what is included in curb weight readings - that is all.

That's the dry weight. Still.

Now that I've posted more than 5 times that I was incorrect about what is included in a curb weight reading, feel free to admit you were also incorrect at what is included in this and all American cars sold in Americas curb weight.

Well I would, had I been incorrect. But I haven't been.

I typically wouldn't ask, but you've never admitted to being wrong that I've seen, and been so belligerent to the multiple times I've said I was wrong.

It's because you're so wrapped up in defending the car with numbers you don't even understand to read. Just read the posts of people who have no vested interest in the discussion to see how wrong you are. You've even forgotten your own posts and accused me of fabricating the numbers you'd posted!

The jig is up.

 

[Scaff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating

Now, given the nature and serious attitude DOT has for GVWR's, I would find it VERY hard to believe that the DOT GVWR stickers have a "dry" weight listing, and I also find it very hard to believe that Fluids would be included into a "max load" weight allowance, as nobody in their right mins would sit and calculate how much all their fluids in their vehicle would weight to hope they didn't overload their vehicle.
This definition, the only one I've found, along with anyone else, backs that up.

What the hell does the above have to do with a definition of Curb weight (which I have now clearly posted the exact definitions of) to this discussion?

What is more interesting is that the link you provided....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating

...clearly defines Curb weight (again) as....

The difference between gross weight and curb weight is the total passenger and cargo weight capacity of the vehicle.

...once again showing that US Curb weight is the dry weight of a vehicle with all fluids topped. Only passengers and cargo are removed from it.

And all of this, also says: 1991 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais 442 W41 Curb Weight: 2565.
And since you've proven to "miss" everytime I say I was wrong about the definition, this means: I said curb weight, I meant curb weight, I was correct about the curb weight.

No, by your own figures that makes it the dry weight.

However, I was misinformed about what is included in curb weight readings - that is all.

Now that I've posted more than 5 times that I was incorrect about what is included in a curb weight reading, feel free to admit you were also incorrect at what is included in this and all American cars sold in Americas curb weight.
I typically wouldn't ask, but you've never admitted to being wrong that I've seen, and been so belligerent to the multiple times I've said I was wrong.

Yes you were wrong about how Curb weight is calculated, which makes your original claim of a curb weight also incorrect and the 'correct' curb weight close to 2,800 lbs.

Lets take a look at your figures again shall we....

Curb weight + gas + oil + transmission fluid + coolant + PS fluid + brake fluid + windshield washer fluid + driver = 2835
By the way, curb weight is 2515.

.... so to get the US curb weight all we need to do is remove the drivers weight. Now contrary to your claim that the NHTSA/DOT don't define a drivers weight, they actually do (they simply don't currently use it for Curb weight). They use 68kgs / 149 lbs, the same as the EU, (the EU figure of 75kgs includes a 7kgs cargo allowance), funny how these exact same numbers keep cropping up isn't it.
Source - http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/TireReserve/specialordervehicle.html

So if we take 149lbs (driver) from 2835lbs (your figure for the car + all fluids + driver), we get 2,686lbs.

A figure which is still closer to the 2,800lbs quoted on the first post in this thread (remember the one you took issue with).....

By the way, the weights wrong, they weigh in at 25xx lbs.

....than the dry weight you are using.


Now before you start to try and argue this with me, keep in mind that I have used your figures here and the official definitions of the terms being questioned.



Scaff

 

[TrievelA7X]

Your number, Quaid.

That was my number with a driver. But you always forget that, at least you don't mention it.
You counted it as curb weight, because you counted a driver into curb weight. But we don't know what the driver weighs, do we?
YOU assumed.
You can't blame me for you choosing to use my numbers, and putting them into your own definitions. try all you like, but it'll never fly with me, maybe someone else will side with you on it, but you took a number, and decided what it meant, not me. I told you what it was the weight of a particular vehicle with everything and a driver of unspecified weight.
YOU and only you, turned that into curb weight, how you can continue to even try to blame me for that, is nothing less than completely illogical.

And how are those measurements publicised? Literature. You're the one talking about door stickers! Come on, McFly, think!

INSIDE door PANEL sticker I.e. DOT GVWR sticker.
It seems your confused, thinking about "window stickers", which I never mentioned.
But again, this goes back to:

Manufactures NEVER quote dry weight

YOU quoted dry weight.

Now if you KNEW I was reading a piece of "literature" from the manufacture, how in the hell did you think I got a dry weight reading?
You're not getting it, are you? You flat out INSIST that I quoted a dry weight reading of 2565, yet you knew I got it from the door panel sticker, and you insist Manufactures don't post dry weight!
This all stems from you not realizing I simply didn't know that fluids were included in curb weight, and you continue to insist the I magically got a dry weight reading, and we must add the weight of fluids. You are wrong.
Curb weight is still 2565. - I didn't know that included fluids - YOU pointed out, (without realizing, mind you) that it does.

You may have said you were wrong, but you're still insisting the veracity of your original false assumptions.

No, you're still not comprehending that is IS the curb weight. You're STILL adding fluid to the curb weight I gave you of 2565. You said it yourself - Manufactures DON"T post dry weight.

The dry weight of the car is still, literally, the weight of it dry. The kerb weight of the car is still, literally, the weight one would find an example at the kerb. If your numbers say the former is "n" and the latter is "n+x", then that is what they are. Your numbers said they were 2515 and 2835 respectively.

The 2515 is what I heard somewhere a long time ago, we've moved past it.
the 2835 is a number (and you KNOW this already) WITH a driver of unspecified weight, and unspecified options.
So you KNOW 2835 is NOT the curb weight, you have for a while, but you won't drop it will you?
I never said 2835 was curb weight
Now, if you want to bring up 2835 as a quoted curb weight, QUOTE ME. QUOTE ME saying "the curb weight is 2835lb" Because I - NEVER - SAID - IT.
This is exactly why I accuse you of twisting words.
YOU called it curb weight, YOU continue to do so. YOU know it is false.

They're still your figures.

That you continue to use however you like. I gave you numbers, that is all.
I am not responsible for what you do with them, or what conclusions you draw with them, you are.
Now accept responsibility for yourself like a man.

We've already gotten past my thinking fluids weren't included in curb weight, and we've also realized it didn't change the curb weight, which is 2565.
Now all it is is you hanging on to your own miscalculation based on accurate numbers you were given.
Yes they were accurate, I was correct when I gave the 2565 number, I was only incorrect in what it included, but as you yourself said, manufacture don't post dry weight. So you must have know I didn't have a dry weight reading.
Logic demands it. Common sense demands it.

Yes. And? The numbers you posted were a 2500lb range for dry weight and 2800lb range for kerb weight. You didn't think that's what they were through assumption, and you were in error. The numbers don't change because you say they do.

So what are they? What is the 2565 reading? You said manufactures DO NOT give dry readings. I presented a piece stating the GVWR sticker INCLUDES FLUIDS. So what's the curb weight?
You still don't get it? What do I have to do?



I
posted
curb
weight
I
was
posting
the
correct
number.
I
did
not
know
that
curb
weight
included
fluids

now how does that make the curb weight more than the curb weight I gave you? How does that make the curb weight more than the 2565lb reading off the door panel GVWR sticker?

Given that you posted this:

And? The only thing that changes from that is the weight of the driver and as you said, options.
And the curb isn't 2515, as I've corrected myself before, it's 2565.
But I still didn't say 2835 was curb weight. You did.
You're correction of my misinformation on what's included in curb weight did cause me to second guess the curb weight, but as I've repeatedly shown you, (and you've repeatedly ignored) I was correct when I got the curb weight reading of 2565, I just never knew that included fluids.

No assumption is necessary. You might have forgotten you posted this, but no-one else has. Dig up.

Yes, I see you've taken a post I just made with the knowledge that curb weight includes fluids, and you've cleverly (and shamelessly shadily) combined it with a post from when I did not know curb weight included fluids.
Congrats.

TrievelA7X
Now to refute the curb weight as 2565, one must conclude positively that the door sticker does in fact, not include fluids, which would thereby make it a dry weight.
So you see, I posted what I believe, and has not been refuted as a curb weight, and simply had an incorrect definition of what is included in curb weight. That doesn't mean I "meant" dry, it means I "meant" curb, and didn't know fluids were included.

And this point still stands. just because at one point I thought it didn't include fluids - because I thought CURB weight didn't include fluids, does not dictate we must still add the weight of fluids. It means THIS:

TrievelA7X
Curb weight + gas + oil + transmission fluid + coolant + PS fluid + brake fluid + windshield washer fluid + driver = 2835
By the way, curb weight is 2515.

Was wrong. As I've repeatedly said.
You wanna bring it up again?

And let's skip back in time to before you even noticed my original post:

Yep. You've not been abusive and it's my fault even though you never saw the post. Got it.

So why don't you post his post claiming me in a... what was it? "drug induced space trip"? Or something like that?
I've forgotten, premium members and moderators can insult as they see fit, it's only returning fire that draws attention.
And you also forgot to post just how he couldn't back up his little insult he slung without provocation. All his retort consisted of is, "There's no was a (insert specs for an international here) could beat a (insert potential specs for 90-93 Mustang GT here).

I didn't include anything. Your numbers (you know, the ones you forgot you'd posted).

I never forgot I posted them. You turned it into curb weight, you have yet to quote me claiming 2835 as curb weight. So either put up or shut up, yes, it's that time. You won't stop bringing up 2835 as though I claimed it curb weight, and I never once did. So either stop being intentionally misleading, or quote it.
Quite frankly, at this point, even if I had said it was curb weight, you not quoting it by now would render it useless. You been called out on it, and yet refuse to acknowledge it.

On this side of the world we don't include drivers' weight either. In Europe they include it as 75kg - which you'll note is not a variable, but a solid number. We do include a full gas tank though, whereas in Europe it's a 90% full one.

So why did you count a weight with a driver as curb weight? You're the only one that did. 'Ironyyyy"

You can believe or disbelieve whatever you like. We've dealt solidly in facts and industry standards, and you've dealt in abusiveness and vagueness and "but the door sticker on a car I once drove says".

GVW - payload = Kerb weight
GVW - max load = Dry weight

Wrong again Famine. I'm surprised, you're usually more well-researched than this. Example out of my Buick: GVWR 4406LBS MAX LOAD: 882LBS
Along with the weight in KGS and seperate for front and rear GVWR's.
What that means, is the CURB weight of MY 1999 Buick Regal LS is 3524LBS.

The base curb weight (minus options) is listed at 3440lbs here:
http://www.vehix.com/used-cars/used-car-specifications/buick/1999/regal/

Now you can sit there and so "no it's not" all you like, but you clearly don't know what these particular stickers read. So you certainly can't be trusted what they mean, can you?

That's the dry weight. Still.

Says you. And you have absolutely no idea of anything about these stickers, you've proved that nicely for me.

Well I would, had I been incorrect. But I haven't been.

You were incorrect when you said 2835 is curb weight.
You were incorrect when you interpreted my saying + + + with driver equals 2835 to mean 2835 is curb weight.
You were incorrect when you posted what's on the DOT GVWR label.
You HAD to be incorrect with one of these:

You've been contradicting yourself since the beginning, based on two complete misunderstandings (that curb weight is dry weight; that GVW minus load is curb weight)

So you believe the sticker gives dry weight.

Manufacturers state kerb/curb weight, not dry weight or gross vehicle weight.

But they don't state it, when we had never discussed any manufacture listing other than the DOT sticker.

while providing evidence of a curb weight figure of 2835lb (by your own argument, evidence and statistics).

But you know as you just said - Driver weight is not included in curb weight.
Therefore you're continued assumption that 2835 is a curb weight if foolish and wrong. That is YOUR number. It doesn't matter how many pots you ignore, YOu claim it as "my" curb weight. I never said it was curb weight. You did. You, JCE, and the OP all claimed it.
I simply tried to correct you, and you correcting my wording has confused you.
Even IF - Even IF: You are right that the DOT weight is dry, the curb weight still can not be 2800lbs. because the car does not hold enough fluid to weight that much.
But yet, I'll hear you post my weight with a driver from you again, won't I? And you'll post it as though I claimed it curb weight, again, won't you?
And it still won't make it the curb weight, will it? no matter how hard you try, whether you use my definition from any point in time of this discussion, or any definition you've used that coincides with American curb standard that Scaff posted, it's:
still not 2800 lbs And yet you continue to argue that it is.

It's because you're so wrapped up in defending the car with numbers you don't even understand to read. Just read the posts of people who have no vested interest in the discussion to see how wrong you are. You've even forgotten your own posts and accused me of fabricating the numbers you'd posted!

No, you mistook my meaning, some of which is your own fault, as you continue to ignore it, (2835 ring a bell) Which I never claimed as a curb weight, and my mistaking the definition of curb weight - NOT the curb weight of the car, but my definition of what is included in the curb weight reading.

The jig is up.

If that means you get it through your head that you called 2835 curb weight, and not I, and you stop with the "GVWR is dry weight because I said so" then I sure as hell hope so.
I've long since admitted the portion I was wrong about.

The only things left that can happen:
You can post something that backs up your argument that GVWR does not include fluids in America.
You can admit the curb weight is not 2835, and that that was your own definition because you included driver weight.

Because, at the very least, since you're just now starting on the 'proof" tread towards the GVWR sticker reading 2565 afer max load deducted, and I obviously don't have it, we still have a vehicle with a driver in it weighing in at 2835, which means deduct a driver, and the curb weight is STILL not 2800LBS.

 

[TheCracker]

Can i also change my vote to Seriously Uncool please.

 

[TrievelA7X]

What the hell does the above have to do with a definition of Curb weight (which I have now clearly posted the exact definitions of) to this discussion?

To get the Curb weight through Famine's head. the 2565 I quoted off the door sticker is the curb weight, as I said. I merely didn't know that included fluids, which lead Famine to believe the car weighed more.

What is more interesting is that the link you provided....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating

...clearly defines Curb weight (again) as....



...once again showing that US Curb weight is the dry weight of a vehicle with all fluids topped. Only passengers and cargo are removed from it.

Yes. I haven't argued that in about 6 posts. I've agreed since before you came in, I believe.

No, by your own figures that makes it the dry weight.

You just can;t grasp this can you? I THOUGHT CURB DID NOT INCLUDE FLUIDS.
THIS DOES NOT ADD WEIGHT TO A CURB WEIGHT READING I HAVE/HAD.

I had a curb weight reading - please elaborate how my not knowing what's included in the curb weight reading changes the CURB WEIGHT READING?
The only thing that changed, is my knowledge of what is included in a curb weight reading.
the curb weight reading I had? Is still a curb weight reading. because it's a curb weight reading. Not a weight reading without fluids, that I thought made it "curb", it's a curb weight reading.
So you see, I don't actually have to know what's included in a curb weight reading to know a car's curb weight, do I? all I need is - A Curb Weight Reading.

Yes you were wrong about how Curb weight is calculated, which makes your original claim of a curb weight also incorrect and the 'correct' curb weight close to 2,800 lbs.

I said I was, 10 times now.
By God, it doesn't change the CURB WEIGHT READING.
How in the hell would my brain change a curb weight reading?
I cannot say this any clearer:
A CURB WEIGHT READING does NOT change just because I personally learn that the CURB WEIGHT READING includes fluids.
If you still can't understand it, I can;t help you. It's a frickin curb weight reading, I just didn't know that it already included fluid weight, I MISTAKENLY though it needed fluid weight added.
AS YOU SAID - It does not.

.... so to get the US curb weight all we need to do is remove the drivers weight. Now contrary to your claim that the NHTSA/DOT don't define a drivers weight, they actually do (they simply don't currently use it for Curb weight). They use 68kgs / 149 lbs, the same as the EU, (the EU figure of 75kgs includes a 7kgs cargo allowance), funny how these exact same numbers keep cropping up isn't it.
Source - http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/TireReserve/specialordervehicle.html

Who cares? It isn't used in the US. and 149 lbs? the average American male weighs 180, last I heard, so how useless is that number, really?
But again, - who cares? IT IS NOT USED HERE.

So if we take 149lbs (driver) from 2835lbs (your figure for the car + all fluids + driver), we get 2,686lbs.

But that's a figure from a random GUY that you don't know how much weighs that owns one!!!!!
How can you simply deduct 149lbs from a car weight readout that had a driver in it of unspecified weight and actually believe you have the curb weight? that's the downright WORST math I've ever heard.

Well, a car had a male driver in it, it weighed 2835 lbs, so, by logic, since the average American male weighs 180lbs, we should deduct a European industry standard weight of 149 lbs, and claim it curb weight, the hell with the possibility that he might weigh 160lbs, or 350. Who cares about that? Yeah, we must have gotten it right.

Is that your best math?

A figure which is still closer to the 2,800lbs quoted on the first post in this thread (remember the one you took issue with).....

But it's wrong. We can actually safely assume the driver that WAS in it did NOT weigh 149 lbs. for 2 reasons: 1: The average American man weighs 180lbs. 2: with all the possible weights for a grown man, the precise number of 149 is very unlikely.

No sir, the way to use a "driver" weight, (which is still a bad idea, as drivers will always weigh different amount, so why make if MORE difficult)
But the proper way - curb weight + 149lbs. Not weight with driver of unknown weight minus 149 lbs. Frankly, that's assanine.
P.S. 75kgs does not equal 149lbs. it's more like 166. Unless that's what you meant by 7kg cargo.

....than the dry weight you are using.


Now before you start to try and argue this with me, keep in mind that I have used your figures here and the official definitions of the terms being questioned.

And you both have yet to provide any reference that indicates the DOT GVWR sticker indicates a dry weight, and I have no rational to assume so foolishly with you. I do have a very nice definition I provided you that you couldn't figure out, which states that GVWR is curb weight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_v..._weight_rating

So we can bicker back and forth with "yes it is" and "no it's not" arguments, or you can find something that beats my argument that GVWR is a curb weight when the "max load" is subtracted.

Can i also change my vote to Seriously Uncool please.

I hope I'm not supposed to care.
If these two guys can't follow me,and JCE can't, I wouldn't expect most forum goers to, as this site tends to nurture a specific train of thought.

This isn't all in the "defense" of the Olds, this is all in the "get it through minds that won't allow it" spirit. Ironically, it is for them as well.

Anyways, I'll be back to check if you guys have figured this out or not, but unless you come up with a source or something indicating GVWR is dry, other than saying "yea-huh", or if you simply grasp that I used a curb weight and it was a curb weight, despite my unknowingness of it's particular exact specificatios, there's not much point left here.
Quite frankly, I'd like to know the OP's source, which oddly has not been mentioned, as it matched JCE's International weight, but acknowledged the 10 hp from the W41 cams, unlike JCE's source, which did not even include a 442 of either kind.

 

[Scaff]

To get the Curb weight through Famine's head. the 2565 I quoted off the door sticker is the curb weight, as I said. I merely didn't know that included fluids, which lead Famine to believe the car weighed more.

Yes. I haven't argued that in about 6 posts. I've agreed since before you came in, I believe.





You just can;t grasp this can you? I THOUGHT CURB DID NOT INCLUDE FLUIDS.
THIS DOES NOT ADD WEIGHT TO A CURB WEIGHT READING I HAVE/HAD.

I had a curb weight reading - please elaborate how my not knowing what's included in the curb weight reading changes the CURB WEIGHT READING?
The only thing that changed, is my knowledge of what is included in a curb weight reading.
the curb weight reading I had? Is still a curb weight reading. because it's a curb weight reading. Not a weight reading without fluids, that I thought made it "curb", it's a curb weight reading.
So you see, I don't actually have to know what's included in a curb weight reading to know a car's curb weight, do I? all I need is - A Curb Weight Reading.

I said I was, 10 times now.
By God, it doesn't change the CURB WEIGHT READING.
How in the hell would my brain change a curb weight reading?
I cannot say this any clearer:
A CURB WEIGHT READING does NOT change just because I personally learn that the CURB WEIGHT READING includes fluids.
If you still can't understand it, I can;t help you. It's a frickin curb weight reading, I just didn't know that it already included fluid weight, I MISTAKENLY though it needed fluid weight added.
AS YOU SAID - It does not.



Who cares? It isn't used in the US. and 149 lbs? the average American male weighs 180, last I heard, so how useless is that number, really?
But again, - who cares? IT IS NOT USED HERE.
But that's a figure from a random GUY that owns one!!!!!
How can you simply deduct 149lbs from a car weight readout that had a driver in it of unspecified weight and actually believe you have the curb weight? that's the downright WORST math I've ever heard.

Is that your best math?

But it's wrong. We can actually safely assume the driver that WAS in it did NOT weigh 149 lbs. for 2 reasons: 1: The average American man weighs 180lbs. 2: with all the possible weights for a grown man, the precise number of 149 is very unlikely.

No sir, the way to use a "driver" weight, (which is still a bad idea, as drivers will always weigh different amount, so why make if MORE difficult)
But the proper way - curb weight + 149lbs. Not weight with driver of unknown weight minus 149 lbs. Frankly, that's assanine.
P.S. 75kgs does not equal 149lbs. it's more like 166. Unless that's what you meant by 7kg cargo.

OK - First things first, you will cut the attitude and the CAPS LOCK shouting. I have been reasonable in tone so far and have used only figures that you have provided so its neither required nor beneficial to this discussion.

I've avoided the AUP so far, but will remind you of this section of it.....

You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harrass, threaten, nor attack anyone or any group. There will be no racially, sexually or physically abusive or inciteful language tolerated. Any abusive comments made by members will be removed by the Moderating staff and the user issued with a warning or banned, as deemed appropriate by the Moderating staff. No personal attacks on other members will be tolerated. If you question someone, it must be done in a reasonable and semi-friendly manner. Violating this rule will be grounds for suspension and/or permanent removal from the board.

...take it on board, because insults are not going to get you any further.

Now in regard to a few points here, all I have done is clarify the exact definitions of the standards being used here. If you wish to take issue with any of these then you beef is with the official bodies in question, not me. I didn't set the 149lbs / 68kgs weight for a driver, in this case the US DOT did, so to insult me off the back of I will take issue with (and that I can assure you is a very bad idea).


You want this settled, its quite simple, find a link to an official site or a copy of the drivers handbook / door sticker, etc that provides an officially defined weight.

Only that will settle this in a reasonable manner. Given that the figures you have provided so far are no more or less verifiable than the 2,800lbs on the first post, from this point on I will treat them all as completely un-trustworthy.

You started the chain of events that lead to this point, now its time to back them up, post verifiable proof of a weight for this car.

I would remind you to keep in mind that I have no interest in this now apart from ending this discussion one way or another. Its simply a moderating function to me now. So either provide the information in a manner than can be validated or the discussion ends.

And you both have yet to provide any reference that indicates the DOT GVWR sticker indicates a dry weight, and I have no rational to assume so foolishly with you. I do have a very nice definition I provided you that you couldn't figure out, which states that GVWR is curb weight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_v..._weight_rating

Couple of things here.

First I have not claimed that DOT GVWR indicates a dry weight at all, quote me or don't make that claim again.

Secondly I have already addressed that link, and it does not "state that GVWR is curb weight".

It clearly says....

A gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is the maximum allowable total mass of a road vehicle or trailer when loaded - i.e including the weight of the vehicle itself plus fuel, passengers, cargo, and trailer tongue weight.

The difference between gross weight and curb weight is the total passenger and cargo weight capacity of the vehicle. For example, a pickup truck with a curb weight of 4,500 pounds (2,041 kg) might have a cargo capacity of 2,000 pounds (907 kg), meaning it can have a gross weight of 6,500 pounds (2,948 kg) when fully loaded.

...indicating that GVWR is the total maximum permissible weight of the vehicle. In the US to get Curb weight you would need to remove all cargo and passengers from the vehicle, that link and quote clearly show that GVWR does not equal curb weight. To try and claim so is very, very misleading.

The DOT themselves make the same definition....

"Gross vehicle weight rating" or "GVWR" means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

Source - http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/TireReserve/specialordervehicle.html

...the GVWR figures primary use is quite simple. If you get stopped and taken to a weighbridge (more likely with a commercial vehicle - but not unheard of with a passenger car), it is the figure the vehicle must not exceed if it is to be operated within its limits.

So we can bicker back and forth with "yes it is" and "no it's not" arguments, or you can find something that beats my argument that GVWR is a curb weight when the "max load" is subtracted.

No GVWR is GVWR, when you (in the US) remove the passengers and cargo you get the Curb weight. They are two different definitions that you seem to be using interchangeably.

So as I said above, give me a source for a weight that can be verified and we can settle this, using the established definitions.





Scaff

 

[Famine]

That was my number with a driver. But you always forget that, at least you don't mention it.
You counted it as curb weight, because you counted a driver into curb weight. But we don't know what the driver weighs, do we?

Read Scaff's post. Comprehend the concept of "industry standard".

You can't blame me for you choosing to use my numbers, and putting them into your own definitions.

You used the correct numbers, but mislabelled them. Still.

try all you like, but it'll never fly with me

Ah yes, due to "belief". Gotcha.

INSIDE door PANEL sticker I.e. DOT GVWR sticker.
It seems your confused, thinking about "window stickers", which I never mentioned.

Did I say "window"? No, I pretty clearly said "door".

Now if you KNEW I was reading a piece of "literature" from the manufacture, how in the hell did you think I got a dry weight reading?
You're not getting it, are you? You flat out INSIST that I quoted a dry weight reading of 2565, yet you knew I got it from the door panel sticker, and you insist Manufactures don't post dry weight!

Lordy.

Manufacturers do not use "dry weight" as the weight of the vehicle when published in their documentation, the press, their websites, anything. They'll mention it in the owner's manual (they have to, it's the law everywhere) but it is not the weight of the vehicle.

Pick up a magazine - any magazine - and check the vehicle weight column on their stats pages. That number there is the kerb weight. Nothing to do with stickers or payload. That is the kerb weight. It is how all manufacturers communicate vehicle weight.

This all stems from you not realizing I simply didn't know that fluids were included in curb weight, and you continue to insist the I magically got a dry weight reading, and we must add the weight of fluids. You are wrong.
Curb weight is still 2565. - I didn't know that included fluids - YOU pointed out, (without realizing, mind you) that it does.

And yet the weight reading you gave as evidence, from an owner, including fluids was much more than that.

Who is right? You or the owner?

So you KNOW 2835 is NOT the curb weight, you have for a while, but you won't drop it will you?

I have no idea what the kerb weight of a 19 year old Oldsmobile is. Amongst the myriad reasons for this is that I don't care.

But when you say that weight without fluids is 2515 and weight with fluids and driver is 2835, using an owner's own numbers as an example, I take you at face value. And since then, you've been arguing against this evidence that you brought (and then accused me of fabricating).

I never said 2835 was curb weight
Now, if you want to bring up 2835 as a quoted curb weight, QUOTE ME. QUOTE ME saying "the curb weight is 2835lb" Because I - NEVER - SAID - IT.
This is exactly why I accuse you of twisting words.
YOU called it curb weight, YOU continue to do so. YOU know it is false.

You said it was the weight plus fluids and driver. Well, that is curb weight in most places, and pretty close to it in others. Next?

Now all it is is you hanging on to your own miscalculation based on accurate numbers you were given.

Your calculation. Your numbers. I haven't treated them in any way.

as you yourself said, manufacture don't post dry weight. So you must have know I didn't have a dry weight reading.
Logic demands it. Common sense demands it.

No, I didn't say you don't have a dry weight reading. In fact, I quite clearly said the opposite - and still you're confusing what vehicle weight actually is. Manufacturer-stated vehicle weight is kerb weight. This is what is published.

So why don't you post his post claiming me in a... what was it? "drug induced space trip"? Or something like that?
I've forgotten, premium members and moderators can insult as they see fit, it's only returning fire that draws attention.
And you also forgot to post just how he couldn't back up his little insult he slung without provocation. All his retort consisted of is, "There's no was a (insert specs for an international here) could beat a (insert potential specs for 90-93 Mustang GT here).

Did I say no-one else was abusive? No. I said you were. This stands.

I never forgot I posted them.

But whether you'd like to play games around words and try to make it sound as though it's 2800lbs, the door sticker adds up to 2565 lbs. Not 2835. Not 2800. Not another number you concoct with assumptions.

Bam. Your numbers, yet you accused me of making them up.

Wrong again Famine. I'm surprised, you're usually more well-researched than this. Example out of my Buick: GVWR 4406LBS MAX LOAD: 882LBS
Along with the weight in KGS and seperate for front and rear GVWR's.
What that means, is the CURB weight of MY 1999 Buick Regal LS is 3524LBS.

The base curb weight (minus options) is listed at 3440lbs here:
http://www.vehix.com/used-cars/used-car-specifications/buick/1999/regal/

882 is your payload, yes. Not your load. Remember, GVW - payload is kerb weight and GVW - load = dry weight (because things on top of the dry weight are load).

You might also like to know that GVWR includes towing weights, and the front and rear axle numbers are axle loading and not directly connect to any one aspect of vehicle weight.

Now you can sit there and so "no it's not" all you like, but you clearly don't know what these particular stickers read. So you certainly can't be trusted what they mean, can you?

Who said what now?

Says you. And you have absolutely no idea of anything about these stickers, you've proved that nicely for me.

Says you also.

You're still arguing numbers you don't understand with terms of which you have no concept of the definitions.

You can post something that backs up your argument that GVWR does not include fluids in America.

See? At no point have I said or indicated that. At best you've made this up though your lack of knowledge - at worst it's just a plain old lie.

You can admit the curb weight is not 2835, and that that was your own definition because you included driver weight.

Nope. I've never said what the curb weight of a 19 year old Oldsmobile is, because I neither know nor care.

Because, at the very least, since you're just now starting on the 'proof" tread towards the GVWR sticker reading 2565 afer max load deducted, and I obviously don't have it, we still have a vehicle with a driver in it weighing in at 2835, which means deduct a driver, and the curb weight is STILL not 2800LBS.

And it's still not 2515lb. Yet both of these were numbers you provided as evidence for your argument with JCE, despite no knowledge of what the numbers actually meant.

So we're still at a stage where your only possible evidence is a guy who has one who weighed it with some fluids and himself in it, at 2,835lb. This is pretty close to the definition of "kerb weight" (the only data missing is how much of what fluids he had on-board. If he was at a strip, a full (EU) or 90% full (UK) fuel tank is unlikely. If he was just out at a weighbridge, all bets are off). This is the standard all manufacturers publicise as "vehicle weight".

Still, your own data, evidence and argument says "vehicle weight" is nearer 28xx lb than 25xx lb which, curiously, is the exact opposite of your argument.


Also, for reference, I won't be merging your next double-post. You've been warned enough times now and you've been here long enough to know better.

 

[TheCracker]

I hope I'm not supposed to care.
If these two guys can't follow me,and JCE can't, I wouldn't expect most forum goers to, as this site tends to nurture a specific train of thought.

This isn't all in the "defense" of the Olds, this is all in the "get it through minds that won't allow it" spirit. Ironically, it is for them as well.

Please, just drop it.