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

[Paulie]

Just imagine how much of their lives have just been spent writing those walls of text.

 

[Famine]

Just imagine how much of their lives have just been spent writing those walls of text.

I've also walked the dogs, spent time with my daughter, started on the car's brake pads and had lunch.

I type quick

 

[Scaff]

I've also walked the dogs, spent time with my daughter, started on the car's brake pads and had lunch.

I type quick

Me too.

Written a project brief, spoken to two customers and marked a good stack of delegates papers.

Now I need to afternoon off.


Scaff

 

[Azuremen]

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.

So, you compare one of the cheapest cars on the market, made in Korea, that was constantly claimed to be the cheapest cars around, to Cavalier? Nevermind the fact that the Cavalier was virtually unchanged from 95-05. Or that the Accent is a SubCompact while the Cavalier is a compact? Perhaps you should compare the Cavalier to, I don't know, something it competed more directly with, like the Corolla or the Civic, which both got better gas mileage, the Civic had a more powerful engine, more reliable, better resale value, and better crash ratings.

So far your experience with cars has been thus limited to the bottom of the barrel. And the fact that you continue to speak of their quality is amazing, given the rest of the (educated?) car world generally recognizes the short-comings of GM build quality, especially with interiors and fit and finish.

And the above argument has mostly been about telling you that the numbers you provided disagree with your initial statement regarding the actual weight of the car. Effectively, you've been arguing with your own statements, they've just been pointed out by others.

Just imagine how much of their lives have just been spent writing those walls of text.

Typing at 80+ WPM and reading very fast makes this rather easy. Speed reading FTW.

 

[boiltheocean]

 

[Jim Prower]

It's threads like these that make me wonder if the Cool Wall should be banned.

 

[JCE]

Wow, I'm glad I left this argument. Except that I put this dude on ignore and you guys keep quoting his posts!

And yes Jim, its time to put these topics to bed. Or make it so we can vote but not post.

 

[TrievelA7X]

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.....



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

The only "insult" I can recall was a return-fire to JCE.
If you'd like to consider caps lock shouting, I can't stop you.

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).

US DOT has not included a 149lb driver weight. I didn't insult you - I pointed the massive gap in your logic when you decided it was reasonable to assume taking 149lbs off a vehicle's weight with an unknown driver was the same as adding 149lbs to a vehicles curb weight.
Now, given the unknown weight of the driver, and the fact that the average American male weighs more than 149 lbs, those two numbers could not possibly coincide could they?

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.

What for? There's already more on the table saying it's less than 2800lbs. The only thing in this whole world we have to say it is 2800 lbs, is a GTPlanet thread posting. With no reference to it's source whatsoever.
We have an previous owners word, a previous owners brothers word, with verifiable proof that at least 2 were in fact owned, various owner website listings and none of them go anywhere near 2800lbs for a curb weight.

That puts the current burden of proof upon those that wish to challenge it is 2800lbs.

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.

Yes they are. Because I've given no less than 2 owners of the car, and neither seem to think that it's curb weight could possibly be 2800lb.
The 2800lb on the first post, has not been verified ain any way, you don't even know where he got it.

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.

Define "verifiable proof" There were 204 made, and I can verify 2 crushed. So there's no more than 202 in the world, of an unpopular car.
I could ask website runners/owners for pictures of the door panel sticker, and that's about it.
But that also is needed to verify the phantom "2800lb curb weight". Which you have not asked for proof of, despite being given reason to doubt.

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.

Famines a moderator, I'm sure he can handle it.

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.

If only Famine used your own advice and had stopped saying I claimed curb weight was 2835 16 posts ago...

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

You read it wrong, or read the wrong part. Check the key parts in bold.

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.

Now, if the difference is the passenger and cargo capacity, logically... that must mean GVW - MAX LOAD (these are typed in all caps, if I am allowed to post as DOT stickers are)
so GVW - MAX LOAD = Curb weight, as the difference between the two is "passenger and cargo load" Not fluid load, no fluid weight included.

...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.

And that's why the GVWR includes fluids. Which means unless Famine has at least some kind of reasoning beyond believing "MAX LOAD" is a figure that includes fluids needed to operate a vehicle, (which could also make not exceeding GVWR much more difficult, as truck drivers sit and try to calculate how much their engine oil weighs) then GVWR - MAX LOAD must equal curb weight.
I have no reason to believe something so silly as to assume I must calculate all my fluid weights into my cargo and passenger weight to know if I am exceeding GVWR.
But Famine does.

Now, it is amusing, in particular, how my recollection (and my brothers) of the exact reading of this sticker was never really called into question, until we got down the line to now, where it would in fact, actually make me right.
Now, is that coincidence? I expected someone would say right away,, "hey buddy, you can't just "say" that's what the sticker said" but nobody did, not JCE, not Famine, not you.
But now as it would actually make me right, and you've realized this, you start demanding proof? when you had and continue to have no proof of the 2800 lb weight?

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.

Famine disagrees - not me. Famine has said twice that the GVWR minus MAX LOAD is dry weight, you and I have said it is curb weight, along with my link.

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.

Believe me, I will if I can get one. But to assume 2800lbs has already been proven foolish, as we know of one with a driver in it that barely reached the 2800lb mark.

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

No idea what that's supposed to mean, unless you're still talking about how you included a drivers weight, when this American car, on this American website, does in fact, have an American curb weight. American curb weights do not include driver weight, I've already given you reason why.
It's much easier to add a persons weight onto American curb weight, than it is to a curb weight with a driver included. I wouldn't call either difficult, but for many people math isn't so easy.
And I'm puzzled how you can insist on "industry standard" when it is not included is such a large portion of the car market.
Oh, and the small fact that a vehicle, for instance, mine, sitting at the curb, doesn't have a driver, because it's not driving. (it's at the curb - slang for parked)

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

Well it's about time you realized that. we could have saved pages if I could have found a way to explain it better sooner.

Ah yes, due to "belief". Gotcha.

And your 2800 lb figure is based on......
Don't say my numbers, we don't use driver weight or nonfactory option weight. unless you're aiming to correct me with a EU curb weight of a car that never saw EU.

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

You're the one that said manufactures never post dry weight. I can;t explain what you think or do for you. Logic lead me to believe you confused the two, once you proclaimed both - "manufactures never quote dry weight" and "the door panel sticker GVWR - MAX LOAD is dry weight".
How if you were talking about the same sticker, you would have said they never post dry weight, only to follow by stating that the sticker listing is dry weight, does not make any sense, so I must look for alternative routes of thinking. First up, maybe you though I was referring to a window sticker? I don't know, feel free to clarify yourself.

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.

They have to quote dry weight? be right back -
Which section shall I look for this "required by law" dry weight?

1. seats and restraint systems
2. features and controls
3. comfort controls and audio systems
4. your driving and the road
5. problems on the road
6. service and appearance care
7. maintenance schedule
8. customer assistance information
9. index

So, where might it be?
Here we go, an explanation of the DOT stickers!

two label on your vehicle show how much weight it may properly carry. The tire-loading information label is inside the trunk lid. The label tells you the proper size, speed rating and recommended inflation pressures for the tires on your vehicle. It also gives you important information about the number of people that can be in your vehicle and the total weight you can carry. This weight is called the vehicle capacity weight and includes the weight of all occupants, cargo and all nonfactory-installed options.

The other label is the certification label, found on the rear edge of the drivers door. It tells you the gross weight capacity of your vehicle, called the GVWR. The GVWR includes the weight of the vehicle, all occupants, fuel and cargo. Never exceed the GVWR for your vehicle or the gross axle weight rating for either the front or rear axle.
If you do have a heavy load, spread it out, don't carry more than 167 lbs in your trunk.

Nope. I checked vehicle dimensions, specifications, the part in quote, nothing says anything about the vehicles weight.
But I gave you a clue, and that piece above tells the tale. Check the part highlighted in bold.

Base Curb Weight (lbs): 3439

From Vehix.com - http://www.vehix.com/used-cars/used-car-specifications/buick/2000/regal/
Now, my sticker -

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./QUOTE]How is this possible you ask? because the GVWR sticker, with the MAX LOAD weight taken out, is the exact curb weight for that vehicle the sticker is inside.
That's how the listed "curb weight" is 3439lbs
And my DOT sticker comes up to 3524lbs.
Because my Buick has options that weigh in at 85 lbs.

Which means, based off that DOT sticker, the Olds' curb weight would be 2565. But I assume you'll be just now asking for proof of that sticker, since you've finally come around to seeing that I've been right this entire time, and my one mistake of not know that fluids were included in curb weight, lead you to believe that this could not possibly the curb weight.
And by the way, there is not one single weight readout in the owners manual of a 1999 Buick Regal LS that I can find, but as you claim it "law" perhaps your knowledge includes where it must be located in the owners manual?

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.

Who argued that? I certainly didn't.
I just didn't know fluids were included in the curb weight.

Ok, seriously, you guys keep talking about me being this, and that, and how I started all this, and I'm so insistent, yada, yada, yada.
let's have a look at exactly how many times in just my last few posts I've had to repeat that to you. Shall we?

I merely didn't know that included fluids

I THOUGHT CURB DID NOT INCLUDE FLUIDS.
THIS DOES NOT ADD WEIGHT TO A CURB WEIGHT READING I HAVE/HAD.

The only thing that changed, is my knowledge of what is included in a curb weight reading.

A CURB WEIGHT READING does NOT change just because I personally learn that the CURB WEIGHT READING includes fluids.

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.

I simply didn't know that fluids were included in curb weight

We've already gotten past my thinking fluids weren't included in curb weight <-- boy was I ever wrong there buddy!

I already said I was wrong about this. 3 times. Now it is 4.

How many times would you like to hear this Famine? I've said at least 15 times now that I was mistaken, and I now realize that Curb Weight does include fluids.
Now if you and Scaff play by the same rules you're asking me to play by, Don't bring up the definition of curb weight or what is included in curb weight again.
It is, without doubt, according to you, Scaff, and myself, the weight of a vehicle with all required fluids to operate, including a full tank of fuel, but since this is an American car, there is no driver weight included.

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?

Nonfactory options and driver weight are not included in curb weight. That's been proven. So me and the owner are right, you were using an incorrect definition of curb weight also, you just won't admit it.
The 2835lb number you've beaten to death, as I originally said, was the vehicle with a driver, and obviously, with all of it's nonfactory options. Which by logic means the curb weight must be drastically less.
But you also used a false definition of "curb weight" for this car, didn't you?
Don't say no, this isn't a European car, nor a European website, there was no reason to lnclude these extra items unless you didn't know there was a continental difference, which there is no shame in, but you can't seem to admit it either.
And hence, the repeated bashings of "I claimed it's curb weight at 2835", because you were using the wrong definition of curb weight also. Period.

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.

Well, you can essentially say it's because you don't care, but clearly it cannot be found with ease, so the actual and only reasons, are these:
You won't take owners words for it
You can't find the information in a method you would like.
Because I know you looked, if only a little.

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 did not. Holy hell. I just can't explain this any clearer.
I quoted what I recalled hearing was the official curb weight (all of which is backed up now) @ 2515. The official curb weight plus some non-factory options could equal 2565 - As we recall the door panel sticker saying.
2565lb plus more nonfactory options and a driver of unspecified weight, could easily equal 2835, could it not?
So no, I have not been arguing against it, you just don't understand the words I am typing. Now I'm sure you'll blame that on me, but the fact here, is that I have said it over a dozen times, I

quoted a curb weight, my not realizing that the curb weight I quoted included fluids does not change the actual curb weight, it changed your understanding of the curb weight.

Where on earth you think I got a dry weight listing, you have yet to say.
So say. Where did I get this dry weight listing? And why did I call it curb weight? Could it possibly be that I saw a curb weight reading? Could it be that I simply didn't know fluids were included in the 2515 curb weight reading I saw?
But like I said, I've repeated myself 15 times and you still haven't understood me yet, I'm not saying anything complicated, it's really quite simple, I've got nothing else left. there is no other way to say it.

I saw a curb weight reading of 2515

And my recollection of 2565 on the door panel sticker backs this up.
And my link to a car with a weight of 2835 with a driver backs this up even further.
I've told you how, and why, what, and where, there's nothing more to give you, you have the information, whether you can make sense of it or not is not up to me.

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?

Pretty close?
Buick - 3529 (with non-factory options + driver weight average american @ 180 lbs - that would equal 3709 lbs.
Curb weight - 3439

Now, you were saying something about close....
So by this cars weight, and options, and since there was an American male in the car, and average American male is 180lbs, we could drop a weight readout from 2835 down to oh my god, look at the irony!
2835lbs minus the weight difference in my Buick with average american male inside and it's nonfactory options equals exactly 2565 lbs.
Now imagine it just had a few more pounds of tools, a jack, a bigger stereo, or more non factory options.... it's curb weight might be - 2515.

Now it was pretty close you were saying... I forget the rest in my triumph.

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

I just showed you what your using EU curb weight definitions did.

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.

Yes, I know you keep insisting that Dry weight is somewhere, but neither myself or scaff or the owners manual or anything other than you has told me this.

Manufacturer-stated vehicle weight is kerb weight. This is what is published.

And that's what said 2515. I've told you that 20times now.

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

Ok, so when someone is an ass to me I'm an ass back. That's life. I've seen you do the same thing.
Are we really going to sidetrack again?

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

I checked your post and this still didn't make a point.

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).

Prove it. Even Scaff disagrees with you. Didn't you call him an industry expert? I could be mistaken, but I do think you did.
I haven't found anything that agrees with you on this either. I've found something that clearly states "on top of fuel" which would also means it's not a dry weight. As you said, a dry weight is useless, so why would they print it?

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.

Wrong again. GVWR does not include towing weights at the very least, on passenger cars. I quoted my owners manual, so you should already know that. My towing capacity is 1,000 LBS.

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

What? Are you still talking about the definition of curb weight? Because the definiton I will use, Americans use, and is used for this car have all been aligned, and you've learned that that number is different from the numbers you came up with.

If you're referring to your definition of GVWR minus MAX LOAD - you're wrong. I've shown evidence that you're wrong, and you've made statements. I can make statements too.
GVWR minus MAX LOAD is curb weight. My owners manual says so.

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.

What it meant was GVWR without MAX LOAD, it seems I forgot to type it.
But if I said what you just said, I'd be hearing "how dare you! and grrrrrr! and subtle threats about "being prepared to "not come back for long".

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

Yes you did. You said the op was correct. Because you didn't know driver weight and nonfactory options are not included in American curb weight industry standard.

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.

Yes it is. I've shown you, whether you choose to accept it or not is beyond my control. A cubr weight readout is a curb weight readout, and just because Famine on GTPlanet says "because you didn't know fluids were included, you must now add fluid weight to every curb weight reading you've ever seen in your life" doesn't make it so.
And yes, essentially, that is what you're saying, you just don't know it because you refuse, I mean flat-out refuse to accept that it was, for the (???25th???35th???100th???) time, A Curb Weight Reading.

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"

.Already showed you how easily that brings it exactly down to 2565, didn't I? But you keep thinking about taking 149lbs "off" when you don't realize that since the average male weighs more, it A: does not take enough weight off, and B: is not the same but in fact is the exact opposite of adding 149lbs to an empty car.
Example: Curb weight 3000lbs + driver weight = 3149lbs
Example: Car with driver, driver weighs 180lbs car weighs in at 3180lbs - 149 lbs = curb weight "guesstimate" 3031lbs.
And that is assuming the driver doesn't weigh any more than 180lbs.

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.

You mean "driving weight"? Well since we don't compare cars with "driving weight" we can't use it can we?
You see, I originally posted it's weight at 2515, just to inform the OP.
Then, JCE came in talking about how it weighed the same as a Mustang GT from 91, at 2800lbs, so it couldn't possibly be faster. So I elaborated with the car's weight on the road with a driver, weighing in at 2835lbs. Now if the GT's curb weight is 2800lbs, as he said, they don't weight the same do they?

So you're general reason you have here (whatever it is) to keep plundering for that 2800lb readout, which you've now officially tried everything to get to as an end result, does not work, because it's not correct.
Yes, it is about what one might weigh driving down the road, depending on options, and driver weight, but we really can't say, the variable leave to much room for anything very accurate.

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.

I understand flexing your "mod muscle" is what you always do at the end of our arguments, but I haven't heard a word about the few double posts I make in a very, very, very looooong time. So consider this your first in years.

Wow, I'm glad I left this argument. Except that I put this dude on ignore and you guys keep quoting his posts!

And this is constructive how? We all saw the first time when you went out of your way to explain what "ignoring" does. We know. I'm not sure if the mods will like this, but hell, you keep continually bragging about it, so - What is it you want? attention? admiration?

Me too.

Written a project brief, spoken to two customers and marked a good stack of delegates papers.

Now I need to afternoon off.


Scaff

I've also walked the dogs, spent time with my daughter, started on the car's brake pads and had lunch.

I type quick

I have to ask - Why defend yourselves? It's your time, it doesn't matter if it took you 12 hours to type it, so why defend yourself?

 

[TheCracker]

Oh. My. God. Just drop it already. Sheesh!

 

[TrievelA7X]

Oh. My. God. Just drop it already. Sheesh!

It takes 2 (in this case 3) to tango, so we can assume that isn't addressed to me, correct?
I actually have to assume it is, because you only posted it after I replied, so I'll inform you that it takes 2 to tango.

 

[Scaff]

TrievelA7X, I have no intention of re-creating a huge wall of text and will simply re-iterate a number of key points that I have made in regard to this.

Number 1.

Famine disagrees - not me. Famine has said twice that the GVWR minus MAX LOAD is dry weight, you and I have said it is curb weight, along with my link.

No. I did not (nor did the links I provided) say that GVWR - Max Load = Curb Weight.

I (and all the links) state that GVWR - passenger and cargo weight = Curb weight.

The maximum load of a vehicle is a different factor entirely, and its why your statement regarding truck drivers not wanting/needing to calculate fluid weights in the GVWR is incorrect. Its for this exact reason that almost every haulage company and contractor that runs cargo that could possibly exceed a vehicle GVWR operates a weighbridge.

Its a totally standard practice in the commercial sector, and as I have also pointed out one that the police commonly stop and check commercial vehicles regarding.

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

No one has disputed that GVWR includes fluids, however as the weight of fluids is a variable it most certainly is part of the maximum load a vehicle can carry.


Number 2.

The reason why no one disputed the figure on the original post is quite simply because it has bugger all to do with how 'cool' the car is. You however have chosen to dispute it, and as such the burden of proof does now quite firmly rest with you.

As to what would be acceptable, I thought I was quite clear on that (but obviously not specific enough). SO yes a picture of the door sticker or drivers handbook that clearly shows the figures required is exactly what I want to so.

Now to be blunt about this, that is from this point on the only thing I want to see from you regarding the vehicles weight. Any further 'nonsense' regarding who said what or who has to prove what will simply result in this thread getting locked (something I am very, very close to doing now).


Number 3.

My warning to you regarding you posting style did most certainly refer to your use of caps lock to try and 'shout' your point across.

Carry on doing it (particularity as you have now been formally asked not to do so twice) and it will result in an infraction.


Number 4.

I have not accepted any figure as accurate at this point, nor do I intend to until I have seen some form of proof regarding it. I have been quite clear about this, so please do not misinterpret my posts in any other way.



Address the above points (in particular the proof of weight) in a clear and concise manner or do not post. Another wall of text to try and lead the discussion around and around in circles is simply not required.


Scaff

 

[Famine]

That puts the current burden of proof upon those that wish to challenge it is 2800lbs.

If you wish to ignore the fact that the original, opening post stat came from somewhere and you're contending it's false (while arguing that it's true), then yes.

Otherwise, in our reality, no. Your claim, you prove it.

No idea what that's supposed to mean

Then utilise a dictionary to find out meanings of the word "standard".

At this point you're looking for "standards and measures" rather than "unmodified". Hope this helps.

Well it's about time you realized that. we could have saved pages if I could have found a way to explain it better sooner.

Go back and read my first post, which says exactly the same thing but with more words.

And your 2800 lb figure is based on......
Don't say my numbers, we don't use driver weight or nonfactory option weight. unless you're aiming to correct me with a EU curb weight of a car that never saw EU.

I've based everything on your numbers and your argument.

You're the one that said manufactures never post dry weight

...

How if you were talking about the same sticker, you would have said they never post dry weight, only to follow by stating that the sticker listing is dry weight, does not make any sense, so I must look for alternative routes of thinking. First up, maybe you though I was referring to a window sticker? I don't know, feel free to clarify yourself.

I've told you multiple times both what I said and what I meant (which are the same thing). In attempting to obfuscate with legally required markings, you've confused yourself.

Once again, pick up a car magazine. Look in the vehicle statistics section. Find the weight column. This is the kerb weight. It isn't the dry weight or GVW or GVWR, because manufacturers do not publicise these. It is the kerb weight - the dry weight of the car with the industry standard amounts of all required consummables for the car to function.

Example out of my Buick.

I'd like to see this sticker. For a laugh, I'll provide you with one from one of my cars from lawless Europe. Tell me how much my car's kerb and dry weight are:

(image altered to obscure engine number, type and all vehicle-identifying VIN details)

And that's what said 2515. I've told you that 20times now.

Yes, you said that at the very beginning. And then you said that number plus all fluids and a driver was 2835lb. But that number plus all fluids is the kerb weight. So that number cannot be the kerb weight. And here you are still insisting that it is.

Prove it. Even Scaff disagrees with you.

His post above this doesn't concur with your assessment.

Wrong again. GVWR does not include towing weights at the very least, on passenger cars.

GVW is Gross Vehicle Weight. GWVR is Gross Vehicle Weight Rating and includes towing limits.

Yes it is. I've shown you, whether you choose to accept it or not is beyond my control. A cubr weight readout is a curb weight readout, and just because Famine on GTPlanet says "because you didn't know fluids were included, you must now add fluid weight to every curb weight reading you've ever seen in your life" doesn't make it so.

You gave a number. You gave a second number with fluids onboard. The first number is thus not a kerb weight.

I understand flexing your "mod muscle" is what you always do at the end of our arguments, but I haven't heard a word about the few double posts I make in a very, very, very looooong time. So consider this your first in years.

You've made four double posts in this thread alone. And if you actually went back and read your own posts once in a while (like when you accused me of "concoting" a number you'd actually posted) you'd see:

Last edited by Famine; Apr 12 2010 at 1:16 PM. Reason: Yet another thoughtless Double Post
Last edited by Famine; Yesterday at 11:51 AM. Reason: Yet another thoughtless double-post

Consider this a separate issue to the fact that, once again, you're arguing and arguing and arguing without actually reading, ending up contradicting yourself.

I have to ask - Why defend yourselves? It's your time, it doesn't matter if it took you 12 hours to type it, so why defend yourself?

There only two claims in this thread being defended - that 2,800lb isn't the kerb weight of this car and that 2,515lb without any fluids on board is the kerb weight of this car. They're your claims and you're defending them.

We're trying to show you why neither are the case.

 

[Azuremen]

Honestly, given that this has just gone in circles with almost nothing new being discussed, and hell, Trievel even said the weight is 2800~ lbs. Its just been over the definition of curb/kerb weight.

So, I think this may be in order.

 

[neanderthal]

^^^^^^^ lol

 

[-Fred-]

If you have to argue about weight for 100+ replies, I guess that shows you exactly how "cool" said car actually is...

 

[TrievelA7X]

I'd like to see this sticker. For a laugh, I'll provide you with one from one of my cars from lawless Europe. Tell me how much my car's kerb and dry weight are:

(image altered to obscure engine number, type and all vehicle-identifying VIN details)

And while different in appearance, it's the same. It's a GVWR, Front GVWR and Rear GVWR.
Now, the 1800 some kg number I don't know, as your sticker doesn't bother to say what any of the numbers are, unlike the ones here in the US. If my computer would load up pictures, you'd already have one.

Yes, you said that at the very beginning. And then you said that number plus all fluids and a driver was 2835lb. But that number plus all fluids is the kerb weight. So that number cannot be the kerb weight. And here you are still insisting that it is.

No it's not. American curb weights have never included a driver. You continually insisting that it does is downright foolish. Because you know better. You want to include driver weight, because you're used to it, and admitting that it is not counted makes you wrong.

Curb weight (US English) or Kerb weight (UK/Commonwealth English) is the total weight of a vehicle with standard equipment, all necessary operating consumables (e.g. motor oil and coolant), a full tank of fuel, while not loaded with either passengers or cargo

many European Union manufacturers include the weight of a 75 kilogram driver to follow European Directive 95/48/EC

Is it a European manufacturer? Is it a European car? Was it sold in Europe? Since the answer is no to all of these, there is no driver weight added.
Not to mention the fact that you continue to ignore the lack of knowledge on the drivers weight.
So you can sit there and claim it's correct, because that's how some parts of the world do it all you want, but you're still wrong.

His post above this doesn't concur with your assessment.

Guess not. Funny how tidbits slip here and there. Of course he's submitted as much evidence of this as you have.

....

So it's word against word, which makes it a stalemate. wait.... I did give you evidence that GVWR minus MAX LOAD is curb weight, you ignored it. Remember the Curb weight reading for my Buick? 3439? And yet the GVWR sticker minus the MAX LOAD comes up to 3524. How is that possible if it does not include fluids?

GVW is Gross Vehicle Weight. GWVR is Gross Vehicle Weight Rating and includes towing limits.

Not in America. I've given you a Buick's GVWR and towing limit. 4406 GVWR minus 1,000 does not equal either GVWR - MAX LOAD nor does it equal the specified curb weight of the car. It is, in fact, lighter than either. So how could you possibly be correct? Could it be that your using "commercial vehicle" law instead of passenger car law? Could it be that US and EU GVWR's are different? Or did Buick just neglect your "laws"?

You gave a number. You gave a second number with fluids onboard. The first number is thus not a kerb weight.

Nope. Fluids and a driver.

There only two claims in this thread being defended - that 2,800lb isn't the kerb weight of this car and that 2,515lb without any fluids on board is the kerb weight of this car. They're your claims and you're defending them.

Nope. You just can't wrap your mind around it. Because I never quoted a weight "without fluids". I quoted a "curb weight" that I did not know does include fluids. All learning the definition did was change my knowledge, but you haven't understood that the first 20 times I told you, why would you now?

No. I did not (nor did the links I provided) say that GVWR - Max Load = Curb Weight.

You should have.

I (and all the links) state that GVWR - passenger and cargo weight = Curb weight.

But we all know that, so meaningless, but ok.

The maximum load of a vehicle is a different factor entirely, and its why your statement regarding truck drivers not wanting/needing to calculate fluid weights in the GVWR is incorrect. Its for this exact reason that almost every haulage company and contractor that runs cargo that could possibly exceed a vehicle GVWR operates a weighbridge.

Nope. It's got nothing to do with fluids, as the company could easily asses the weight of fluids and give a standard number. The operate weighbridges so they don't exceed the GVWR by accidentally overloading. Nothing to do with the measly .00625% or less of a standard trucks GVWR is. (based on 500lbs of fuel and other fluids, 80,000LB GVWR) So no, I won't just believe you that they're worried about that, when they could just start counting load with fluids already added.

No one has disputed that GVWR includes fluids, however as the weight of fluids is a variable it most certainly is part of the maximum load a vehicle can carry.

Yes it is. That doesn't mean it's included in a maximum carrying weight figure.
You might assume or believe that it is. But I've given you evidence it is not. It's in this post already, so read it again, as I also put it in my last post.

The reason why no one disputed the figure on the original post is quite simply because it has bugger all to do with how 'cool' the car is. You however have chosen to dispute it, and as such the burden of proof does now quite firmly rest with you.

Actually, I didn't "choose to dispute it". It wasn't a big deal when I did post it. It wasn't until other people said "nu-uh" that it grew into a bigger deal.
And regardless of whether you want me to "prove" it, you've already said with your own, incorrect math that it is less than 2700 lbs. because with a driver one weighed 2835lbs.
however, non-factory options and driver weight are not included in American curb weights. So between the driver's unknown weight and unknown options, we know that this vehicle clearly does not weigh 2800lbs at the curb. Which as debates go, puts the burden on the original source.

As to what would be acceptable, I thought I was quite clear on that (but obviously not specific enough). SO yes a picture of the door sticker or drivers handbook that clearly shows the figures required is exactly what I want to so.

Well, I'm working on it.

Number 3.

My warning to you regarding you posting style did most certainly refer to your use of caps lock to try and 'shout' your point across.

Carry on doing it (particularity as you have now been formally asked not to do so twice) and it will result in an infraction.

Haven't done it since you said not to. So what's the second warning for?

Number 4.

I have not accepted any figure as accurate at this point, nor do I intend to until I have seen some form of proof regarding it. I have been quite clear about this, so please do not misinterpret my posts in any other way.

Well that's at least sensible.

Address the above points (in particular the proof of weight) in a clear and concise manner or do not post. Another wall of text to try and lead the discussion around and around in circles is simply not required.

To "try"? For 3 pages all I've done is try and get through Famines head one basic statement. And like I said, it takes two to tango, If the moderation staff of this site does not approve of the discussion that's taken place, or the way it's been carried on so long, then the moderation staff shouldn't have been a leading voice involved in it.

So when I do get around to getting a GVWR sticker shot, assuming I can, doesn't this now mean all I'll get is you and Famine claiming it dry weight? I know I've given evidence that it's not, and quite frankly, in a world where we don't just assume everyone's making everything up, it's quite reasonable evidence, and I'm sure any American friends you have could show you the two key focal points: 1. That towing weight is not included in a passenger cars GVWR. 2. That a Curb Weight definition not unlike the one I gave for my Buick off Vehix.com coincides that the GVWR minus MAX LOAD is clearly curb weight + all non-factory installed options.

Now, obviously, we can let this die for the moment, until I get a picture here, but I'll let you guys chew on a 1997 Cavaliers curb weight, being newer, which is slang for heavier, and having nearly identical vehicle dimensions and all - Base Curb Weight (lbs): 2584
http://www.vehix.com/used-cars/used-car-specifications/chevrolet/1997/cavalier/

Now I know you'll say it has no relevance, but the reality is this is a heavier car, whether you realize it or not is out of my hands. That's a 1997 - that means more of everything that adds weight, airbags, OBDII, and whatever else the hell it is car manufactures are using to make cars heavier and heavier everyday.

 

[Famine]

And while different in appearance, it's the same. It's a GVWR, Front GVWR and Rear GVWR.

Nope. It's a GVWR, a front GAW and a rear GAW.

If it were front GVWR and rear GVWR (which wouldn't make sense - because, as I've already stated, GVW and GVWR differ in that GVWR includes towing weights), the two figures ought to add up to the GVWR. 960kg + 870kg does not equal 3,320kg. It equals 1,830kg - 10kg above the first figure.

Nevertheless, if "it's the same", you should be able to tell me my car's GVW and kerb weight or dry weight from that plaque alone, as I asked.

No it's not. American curb weights have never included a driver. You continually insisting that it does is downright foolish. Because you know better. You want to include driver weight, because you're used to it, and admitting that it is not counted makes you wrong.

I'm not used to it because UK manufacturers don't include a driver either. Like I said.

But you miss the point again. If 2515 is "n" and 2835 is "n + fluids and driver", 2515 cannot be the kerb weight. The driver and quantity of fluids is, at this point, irrelevant.

I did give you evidence that GVWR minus MAX LOAD is curb weight, you ignored it. Remember the Curb weight reading for my Buick? 3439? And yet the GVWR sticker minus the MAX LOAD comes up to 3524. How is that possible if it does not include fluids?

And, amusingly, the point of me posting the Honda's plaque is to show you don't actually understand the meanings behind the numbers. Still.

Remember that payload and load are different, for reasons Scaff has already stated.

Could it be that US and EU GVWR's are different?

Nope. SAE standard (there's that word again).

Nope. Fluids and a driver.

Nope. You just can't wrap your mind around it. Because I never quoted a weight "without fluids". I quoted a "curb weight" that I did not know does include fluids. All learning the definition did was change my knowledge, but you haven't understood that the first 20 times I told you, why would you now?

If 2515 is "n" and 2835 is "n + fluids and driver", 2515 cannot be the kerb weight. The driver and quantity of fluids is, at this point, irrelevant.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Nope. It's a GVWR, a front GAW and a rear GAW.

If it were front GVWR and rear GVWR (which wouldn't make sense - because, as I've already stated, GVW and GVWR differ in that GVWR includes towing weights), the two figures ought to add up to the GVWR. 960kg + 870kg does not equal 3,320kg. It equals 1,830kg - 10kg above the first figure.

Two things. 1. I guess I did word it incorrectly, but yes, gross axle weight (GAW) is what I meant, it's just the same as GVW but split between each axle for what it can hold itself. Axle F + Axle R = GVW.
Also, number 2. That's different than the US stickers. We do not have a separate reading for, as you know it - "GVWR" that includes towing capacity. We have Front Axle Weight, Rear Axle Weight, MAX LOAD, and GVWR.And not even all cars have the "MAX LOAD" anymore. Many just have GVWR and the two GAW's.

I'm not used to it because UK manufacturers don't include a driver either. Like I said.

Then why do you continue to count the driver weight? And why did the definitions say something about a law and EU manufactures including driver weight? You're the one that brought driver weight in, it persoanlly means nothing to me, and I've told you why.
the fact that you continue to insist on counting driver weight is beyond me. there's no reason to add the same amount of weight to every car to compare them. It's not that vehicles drive without driver weight, it's just completely unnecessary. It does not help in any way whatsoever. If I want to add my weight to my vehicles curb weight, I'll add 140lbs. Adding another number is senseless.

But you miss the point again. If 2515 is "n" and 2835 is "n + fluids and driver", 2515 cannot be the kerb weight. The driver and quantity of fluids is, at this point, irrelevant.

But that's just the point you're missing.
if 2515 is "n" "n" would equal curb weight.
I stated 2515 + fluids because I didn't know they were included, not because they were not included - because I didn't know that they were.
2835 would be "n" (curb weight) plus nonfactory options and driver. And like I said, we have no idea what the driver weighs. the link to that vehicle was never intended to give us a specific weight, just to inform that the curb weight clearly cannot be 2800lbs. And it did so nicely. It was only your misunderstanding that caused the misinterpretation of those numbers. It was your misunderstanding, because unless you finally get it this time, you still don't realize that 2515 was not labeled a"dry" weight, nor was it labeled a "weight without fluids" it was labeled a "curb" weight. But somehow my misunderstanding of the fact that fluids are in fact included in that quoted curb weight, has lead you on a bulldozer path to "2515 can't be, because you said _ fluids".
Despite my many and repeated efforts to get through to you that only my understanding of a "curb weight" was in question, and not the curb weight reading I quoted.

And, amusingly, the point of me posting the Honda's plaque is to show you don't actually understand the meanings behind the numbers. Still.

Remember that payload and load are different, for reasons Scaff has already stated.

In America, "payload" is used to refer to the weight a truck can fit in it bed. And amusingly, You think by my saying front GVWR, this means I don't understand that this is the maximum weight capacity of the front axle. So we're both amused.
By the way - It's GAWR in the US. That's where I accidentally put in GVWR.

Nope. SAE standard (there's that word again).

Well you're going to have to do better than that.

The GVWR includes the weight of the vehicle, all occupants, fuel, and cargo.

And..

The tongue load of any trailer is an important weight to measure because it affects the total or gross weight of your vehicle. the Gross weight of the vehicle includes the curb weight of the vehicle, any cargo you may carry in it, and the people who will be riding in the vehicle. And if you tow a trailer, you must add the weight of the tongue load to the GVW because your vehicle will be carrying that weight too.

So you see, what this means, is my GVWR is 4406LBs, and I can tow 1,000LBs on top of that. And again, It directly seperates curb weight from "cargo and occupants".
You have yet to give me the slightest reason to believe that GVWR minus the load is anything less than as defined by the manual -

curb weight

Now here's some more to chew on
http://streetspecs.com/specifications-for/1991-oldsmobile-cutlass-calais-s-coupe
2548lbs.
Now, they have a Calais S, SL, and International, with International (what the OP used for weight) being the heaviest.
INTL - 2798
SL - 2691
S - 2548
And being that a 442 is technically an "S" model, it would fit into that catagory, with the only possible exception being it may weigh less, due to not having an "Iron duke" engine, having the Getrag-Muncie transmission, lighter wheels, etc.
But that 2548 is bar none your highest possible curb weight for a 442.


I'll also add, until someone either shows some reasonable evidence that GVWR minus the 'payload" is dry weight, (or accepts it is curb weight) I won't be bothering to look for or get a panel sticker, as I've realized you'll do the same thing with that, and claim fluid weight must be added, despite an American owners manual clearly seperating "curb weight" from "occupants and cargo". So I have no reason to believe you are correct about that, and good reason to believe it is, in fact, curb weight.

 

[Jim Prower]

Famine, Trievel, this discussion on the weight of the car has gone on far enough. by now it's clear that the only point made is that you're both incredibly hard-headed and won't yield to one another. I suggest you both quit hammering each other's heads. It's making a terrible racket and giving everyone else a headache. It's got almost nothing to do with the car at hand, other than a single specification. I don't even remember how it's relevant, as 2800 is extremely lightweight compared to compact cars of today.

Trievel, you're digging the car a grave. I don't care how much you love it, when you go on and on like this, it doesn't help it's image or yours.

Famine...I've been scared to tell this to your face, but EVERY time you get into an argument with someone like this, it starts to ruin the discussion at hand, often going off on an entirely unrelated tangent. They're bull-headed, just like you, someone's gotta be the big man and say enough is enough. You have the moderation power, you can do it. You're extremely intelligent, and don't we know it, but please, isn't knowing you're right enough? MUST you correct EVERYONE? A little self-restraint is all I ask, here.

In other words, please, if you must finish this, I plead, do it over P.M. instead of out here.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Famine, Trievel, this discussion on the weight of the car has gone on far enough. by now it's clear that the only point made is that you're both incredibly hard-headed and won't yield to one another. I suggest you both quit hammering each other's heads. It's making a terrible racket and giving everyone else a headache. It's got almost nothing to do with the car at hand, other than a single specification. I don't even remember how it's relevant, as 2800 is extremely lightweight compared to compact cars of today.

Trievel, you're digging the car a grave. I don't care how much you love it, when you go on and on like this, it doesn't help it's image or yours.

Famine...I've been scared to tell this to your face, but EVERY time you get into an argument with someone like this, it starts to ruin the discussion at hand, often going off on an entirely unrelated tangent. They're bull-headed, just like you, someone's gotta be the big man and say enough is enough. You have the moderation power, you can do it. You're extremely intelligent, and don't we know it, but please, isn't knowing you're right enough? MUST you correct EVERYONE? A little self-restraint is all I ask, here.

In other words, please, if you must finish this, I plead, do it over P.M. instead of out here.

Well isn't this entirely reasonable. Consider it done. Granted, I think it was just about there already, but done.
As per the car's grave? It was already in it. It's been in it since it came out, and I knew my vote for "sub-zero" would be the only one when I placed it.

Weirdly enough, possibly in Famines defense, you can't really get into a debate like this and suddenly pull the plug through "moderation power" without looking like an asshole and wrong to boot. once you get involved, the only thing flexing mod muscle does is makes it look like you're a sore loser.
But ending it now sounds grrrrreeeeat to me.💡

 

[Jim Prower]

Well isn't this entirely reasonable. Consider it done. Granted, I think it was just about there already, but done.
As per the car's grave? It was already in it. It's been in it since it came out, and I knew my vote for "sub-zero" would be the only one when I placed it.

Weirdly enough, possibly in Famines defense, you can't really get into a debate like this and suddenly pull the plug through "moderation power" without looking like an asshole and wrong to boot. once you get involved, the only thing flexing mod muscle does is makes it look like you're a sore loser.
But ending it now sounds grrrrreeeeat to me.💡

Nice way to twist my words around. I simply meant he end it on his own accord, not lock the thread.

For that matter, what I said for him applies to you or anyone. There's no point arguing over a single specification.

 

[Paulie]

Can someone please enlighten me here, did this car have sports or luxury orientated suspension? And by sports and American standards of the era, you know what I mean.
I'd love to see this car racing some Eclipses and stuff in GT5, maybe with the necessary LDP modified suspension gear and brakes if need be.

 

[Famine]

Two things. 1. I guess I did word it incorrectly, but yes, gross axle weight (GAW) is what I meant, it's just the same as GVW but split between each axle for what it can hold itself. Axle F + Axle R = GVW.

Then why do the two GAW not add up to any other number on there?

Also, number 2. That's different than the US stickers. We do not have a separate reading for, as you know it - "GVWR" that includes towing capacity. We have Front Axle Weight, Rear Axle Weight, MAX LOAD, and GVWR.And not even all cars have the "MAX LOAD" anymore. Many just have GVWR and the two GAW's.

It's actually the same standard, hilariously. All the information is the same - so tell me what my car's kerb weight or dry weight is.

Then why do you continue to count the driver weight?

I never have. The point since the start was that 2515 cannot be a kerb weight if fluids and driver are then added onto it. I merely passed on the information that some standards include the driver too - you've latched onto this quite inappropriately, thinking I meant something else.

But that's just the point you're missing.
if 2515 is "n" "n" would equal curb weight.
I stated 2515 + fluids because I didn't know they were included, not because they were not included - because I didn't know that they were.

So the question at this point is "what is the dry weight"?

If we take your earlier 142lb calculation (sans driver) as accurate, you're now looking at a sub-ton, 2,375lb (give or take) as the dry weight of a 15-foot long, 4-seat, hardtop car with A/C and power steering and a 2.3 litre iron block engine. That's about the same as the entry level 13-foot long, 2-seat, manual soft-top Mk3 MX-5, with no toys and a 1.8 litre iron block engine.

Sound fine to you (actual question, by the way)?

In America, "payload" is used to refer to the weight a truck can fit in it bed.

And in the automotive industry (including America's) it's the amount of weight a vehicle can carry above its kerb weight.

Well you're going to have to do better than that.
And..

In quote one, cargo includes towed cargo (though not explicitly stated). In quote two they clearly demarcate GVW and the trailer (the two added together being GVWR).

You have yet to give me the slightest reason to believe

Luckily, belief is not relevant.

Now here's some more to chew on

Heh, I think I've sussed the source of your issue (well... the latest one).

Tell me... Did Oldsmobile have a fully automated production line in 1991, or were cars driven off the line at the end?

Famine...I've been scared to tell this to your face, but EVERY time you get into an argument with someone like this, it starts to ruin the discussion at hand, often going off on an entirely unrelated tangent. They're bull-headed, just like you, someone's gotta be the big man and say enough is enough. You have the moderation power, you can do it. You're extremely intelligent, and don't we know it, but please, isn't knowing you're right enough? MUST you correct EVERYONE? A little self-restraint is all I ask, here.

In other words, please, if you must finish this, I plead, do it over P.M. instead of out here.

Why scared? You're not going to end up in my avatar or signature Hell, if the guy who VMed me just to tell me he didn't like me hasn't yet...

At this time I haven't actually stated something about which I can be definitely right or wrong. I've sought to enlighten a member over a confused definition he had (followed up with several others). At this point, he seems to have grasped this, but, as is his wont over two accounts now, he's bullishly demanding his pet car has some form of exclusion because it's American - which is not the case, as stated by a quite high-level, automotive industry worker (one who is completely au fait with worldwide standards).

As for moderating the thread closed, there is no cause to. I would not welcome a PM discussion, because I never respond to PMs anyway and I'd quite like to not have my Inbox filled with what is effectively spam.

If a discussion thread about this car is not the place for a discussion about this car, where is (though I'll grant you that my part in this discussion doesn't actually pertain to the car in any way)?

 

[Jim Prower]

Can someone please enlighten me here, did this car have sports or luxury orientated suspension? And by sports and American standards of the era, you know what I mean.
I'd love to see this car racing some Eclipses and stuff in GT5, maybe with the necessary LDP modified suspension gear and brakes if need be.

((to take attention away from feud))

It was oriented as the sports model in the lineup, so I take it it had some sort of stronger -sprung and dampened suspension. and, hey, I love tuning anything in GT. :B

 

[TrievelA7X]

Can someone please enlighten me here, did this car have sports or luxury orientated suspension? And by sports and American standards of the era, you know what I mean.
I'd love to see this car racing some Eclipses and stuff in GT5, maybe with the necessary LDP modified suspension gear and brakes if need be.

It came with the FE3 suspension, and the entire car was designed to compete in showroom stock racing. And apparantly, that's also why they produced 200, as this was the number required.
From the MT review, the brakes smoked quite a bit, but the car retained stopping power. I do know the brakes were the weak link to this car, as per handling, it was compliant and obedient, oversteer at will, especially on lift-throttle, plus it came with variable-rate steering assist.
This might help.

Anyone walking into an Oldsmobile dealer looking for a Cutlass may have a difficult time making a decision. There&#8217;s not just one Cutlass model, but four&#8212;ranging from the middle-America favorite Cutlass Ciera to the stylish Cutlass Supreme, and from the two- or four-dour Cutlass Calais to the wagonback Cutlass Cruiser. You&#8217;ll also have to choose from five available engines, and look at enough trim and paint combinations to incite an attack of vertigo.

It&#8217;s no wonder some people are confused over exactly which Cutlass it was in the advertisement. Fortunately for performance lovers, however, it has just become easier to get your hands on the hottest Oldsmobile made.

The car&#8217;s official name is the Cutlass Calais Quad 442 W41, but we&#8217;d recommend you just refer to it by it&#8217;s newly aquired alpha-numeric suffix. As with the &#8220;Z28&#8221; moniker on a Camaro, the &#8220;W41&#8221; emblems on a Cutlass Calais mean performance. But rather than using a thumpin&#8217; V-8 for motivation, Oldsmobile relies on the high-tech talents of an engine less than half the size of the Camaro&#8217;s 5-liter&#8212;the 2.3 liter Quad 4.

The Quad 4 was introduced in 1988 as the first of a new series of multi-cam, four-valve-per-cylinder engines from Oldsmobile. Although criticized by some for its inherent roughness and high-rpm noise, the Quad 4 quickly proved a formidible opponent on the street and racetrack alike. In fact, two of Motor Trend&#8217;s own resident leadfeat attacked the Bonneville Salf Flats in a highly modified Quad 4-powered Cutlass and drove away with a best two-way average of 221.663 mph. They also broke two speed records in the process. Not bad for a four banger.

The latest iteration of a Quad 4 has even more performance tricks up its sleeve. Nearly every component in the W41 package was developed on the racetrack, and include engine, transaxle, brake, and fuel system improvements. In much the same manner that the &#8220;W31&#8221; package of the late &#8216;60s transformed that era&#8217;s Cutlass from a granny&#8217;s special into a true muscle car, the new W41 components should make a strong impression on those who don&#8217;t think much of four-cylinder automobiles.

At the heart of the equation is the 140 cubic-inch, DOHC 16-valve Quad 4 powerplant which is available in several Oldsmobile models. In W41 trim, however, it receives new camshafts, a lower restriction muffler, and an engine oil cooler on non-A/C cars. These improvements only boost output by 10 horsepower to 190 at 6800 rpm (the torque remains at 160 foot-lbs at 5200 rpm), but the motor&#8217;s responsiveness and driveability are greatly enhanced. The redline jumps to a rotary-like 7400 rpm, at which point a fuel-cutoff rev-limiter prevents the over-zealous among us from twisting the needle off the tachometer.

All &#8217;91 Quad 4s benefit from internal refinements to keep their high-decibel growling down to reasonable levels, while the W41 models receive cam covers emblazoned with all the technical buzzwords every sixth grader needs to know. Standard Quad 442s (and Chevy Beretta GTZs) will receive the regular 180-horsepower engine.

Lessons learned on the racetrack convinced Olds&#8217; engineers to improve the Quad 442&#8217;s gearing. A shorter second-gear ratio was installed to better keep the engine in the powerband at lower speeds, while fifth-gear was also shortened for improved top-gear performance. Combined with the new 3.94:1 ratio ring and pinion (replacing the previous 3.76:1 cogs), the sportiest Cutlass responds with a newfound prowess. You still need to be sure the engine is spinning fairly fast to get a big push in the back, but thanks to the new gearing, it does so much more readily. Gone are the days of coming out of a slow corner and having to wait (as with a turbo) for the revs to build and the power to come on. Now, just put your foot down and hang on.

There&#8217;s a mild amount of torque steer in the lower gears, and the car exhibits a darty feel familiar to owners of some other hi-po front drivers. Keep &#8216;er aimed straight, though, and be prepared for a fast ride. Front-drive cars aren&#8217;t the best for drag racing (the rearward weight transfer that takes place unloads the front wheels and results in time wasting wheelspin off the line), but we recorded some downright impressive performance times with the peppy W41. Runs of 7-second 0-60&#8217;s are about 0.5 seconds faster than those of the standard Quad 442, but it was the quarter-mile times that really rocked us back on your respective heels. How does 14.7 seconds at 95.7 mph grab you? That&#8217;s faster than a 5-liter Z28 Camero and close enough to bump fenders with a Corvette.

The W41&#8217;s suspension is unchanged from that of the Quad 442, which means you get the FE3 package&#8217;s MacPherson struts up front and a solid beam axle with trailing arms, gas shocks, and coil springs at the rear. The variable-effort rack-and-pinion steering has been revised for &#8217;91, but is still a bit light for our tastes. Likewise, the standard 14x6.0 inch alimunum wheels and 215/60R14 tires are too small for serious corner-turning tasks, and contributed to more understeer than we would have liked.

The standard power disc/drum brakes receive anti-lock modulation as part of the W41 package, and respond with good feel and a little pedal pulsation. They did begin to smoke rather quickly during our day of track evaluation, but still stopped the car well.

Another of the W41&#8217;s race-bred components will be appreciated during fast attacks on long, banked onramps. That&#8217;s the new, special fuel tank sump that allows use of essentially all the gasoline in the tank without starvation caused by fuel slosh during cornering. This will be a big boon to Oldsmobile&#8217;s showroom-stock racing teams, who have suffered from such fuel tank problems in the past.

On the inside, the W41 is a carbon copy of the convetional Quad 442, with decently supportive buckets up front, a nimble five-speed shifter, and small but complete instrumentation. Interestingly, the tach face has not been changed to reflect the higher redline of the W41 motor, and still shows a 6800-rpm limit. Five people can ride in relative comfort thanks to the car&#8217;s formal roofline and upright rear seating position, although rear leg room is in short supply. The overall effect of the interior is more one of &#8220;family car&#8221; than &#8220;sporty car,&#8221; and lacks the pizzaz that should be a part of anything this flat-out fast.

On the outside, the W41 won&#8217;t be mistaken for a new model of Ferarri, but its conservative styling does gain it points as an undercover commuter, allowing you to pass by the eye of the enforcer with nary a glance. The demure rear deck spoiler is hardly an attention getter. Even the blackout trim does little to change the car&#8217;s visage away from that of an Avis rental. Only subtle side stribing and small W41 emblems on the front fenders identify this Oldsmobile as being something special.

With only 200 W41&#8217;s to be built initially, there won&#8217;t be many to go around. If you have a hunch that particular number may have something to do with homogation numbers for eligibility in certain racing classifications, don&#8217;t look to us to tell you otherwise.

Budget-minded entusiasts will find even more to like about the car, which can be had for less than just about anything else in its performance class. You can start with a Calais S coupe at $11,495, then add $1,701 for the Quad 442 package, and an additional $894 for the W41 equipment. For just a bit over 14 grand you&#8217;ve got a machine capable of embarrasing many high-priced sports cars in straight-line acceleration.

So, the next time you go to the Oldsmobile dealer, don&#8217;t bother asking for a Cutlass, Calais, or even a 442. Just say, &#8220;W41.&#8221; It may help settle the confusion.

But in short, what you speak of is exactly what it was designed for.

Then why do the two GAW not add up to any other number on there?

Because the GVWR on there also includes a towing capacity.

It's actually the same standard, hilariously. All the information is the same - so tell me what my car's kerb weight or dry weight is.

I told you already you can't get the curb weight, and since your's does not include it's maximum capacity, I cannot tell you it's curb weight.
But it's curb weight would be highest number minus towing capacity, minus maximum load. So if you can find it's towing and cargo weight limits, one simple deduction will give your curb weight out.

I never have. The point since the start was that 2515 cannot be a kerb weight if fluids and driver are then added onto it. I merely passed on the information that some standards include the driver too - you've latched onto this quite inappropriately, thinking I meant something else.

But given that you then realized I was mistaken on what is included in curb weight, you then learn that fluids and driver do not need included.
I only believed fluids needed added to that weight because I did not know fluids were included in curb weight.
Of course curb weight cannot be 2515 if fluids need added, but, please do tell, where does one get a "dry weight" reading? You insisted for so long now that I had a "dry weight" despite my repeated telling you I was mistaken (which you pointed out) that fluids are not included.
Like I said, a 99 Buick's curb weight is 3439lbs.
Now if I tell you my Buick's curb weight is 3439 + fluids, what is the cars curb weight? Answer: 3439, because as you pointed out, a curb weight already includes fluids.

So the question at this point is "what is the dry weight"?

OF your car or the Olds? Your car, I don't have the max load for, so I can't know. The 91 Olds, I'd have to "estimate" about 2400lbs or so.
I don't know the exact weight of oil, trans, brake, or steering fluid. the washer fluid, coolant, water, and gas weight can all be reasonably weighed at 8lbs avg gallon. (approx water weight) So my estimated fluid weight is around 140-150lbs.
13.3 gal fuel
2.8 coolant, I believe.
1 gal oil, about .5 for brake, steering fluids.
.75 gallons trans fluid.

If we take your earlier 142lb calculation (sans driver) as accurate, you're now looking at a sub-ton, 2,375lb (give or take) as the dry weight of a 15-foot long, 4-seat, hardtop car with A/C and power steering and a 2.3 litre iron block engine. That's about the same as the entry level 13-foot long, 2-seat, manual soft-top Mk3 MX-5, with no toys and a 1.8 litre iron block engine.

Well, is that the dry or curb weight your using for the Miata? And I'd guess the Miata's chassis weighs much more, the Olds had very flexible (and flimsy) chassis.

the Miata weighed a low 2,116 lbs. (curb weight)

That's my quick search for an '89 Miata. http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=317763
Substantially less than 2500+.
Also, yes the Olds are surprisingly small little cars, consider (maybe you didn't know?) it's identical in dimensions and chassis to an '85 Grand Am.

If we take your earlier 142lb calculation (sans driver) as accurate, you're now looking at a sub-ton, 2,375lb (give or take) as the dry weight of a 15-foot long, 4-seat, hardtop car with A/C and power steering and a 2.3 litre iron block engine. That's about the same as the entry level 13-foot long, 2-seat, manual soft-top Mk3 MX-5, with no toys and a 1.8 litre iron block engine.

A ton in standard system, is 2,000 lbs.
And curb weight does not include non-factory options.
What this means, is if the factory does not install A/C, the A/C weight is not included. And while it is an iron block, it is also an aluminum head, and I've personally lifted the complete long block by myself. It's about 220lbs, if that number helps you decipher differences between it and a Miata.

Sound fine to you (actual question, by the way)?

given the curb weights I've heard in the past, and the one I just found, yes. because your number is much higher. And even if a 91 Miata does weigh that much more, (than an 89) then you'll have to answer "why"?
And in that answer, you'll probably find what makes it weigh almost as much as the Olds. Not to mention, the Miata is RWD, which does weigh more.

And in the automotive industry (including America's) it's the amount of weight a vehicle can carry above its kerb weight.

GVWR? I said that. You said towing weight is included, which, is incorrect.

In quote one, cargo includes towed cargo (though not explicitly stated). In quote two they clearly demarcate GVW and the trailer (the two added together being GVWR).

Maybe a common word in England, never heard it in the US. Just FYI.
But you haven't stated which quotes you refer to.
And all I can tell you is nothing in an owners manual (which you brought up, and also said by law, must tell me dry weight, which it does not) tells me GVWR includes cargo capacity and towing capacity.
Nor does the GVWR coincide with the "official" curb weight of the car, if it in fact does include towing capacity as you say. 4406 - 1000 = less than curb weight of 3439. Not to mention the non-factory options, and any potential cargo, unless to tow 1,000lbs would indicate nobody can get in to drive it. So nothing in your argument makes sense nor adds up here, which is where the line has to be drawn.
How can I believe any reference you state insisting GVWR includes towing weight when I have actual facts and figures that make it impossible?
1. They wouldn't give a towing capacity of 1,000lbs if the vehicle then could not handle driver weight.
2. Towing capacity must be added on to cargo load, because otherwise they would state so, because you would immediately overload your car if towing a boat and the family somewhere.

So you see, because the towing weight is not included, it's quite simply not here.
I can see from your vehicles GVWR that it is included, and I understand that, but not for me, not on my car.
I have to believe that's a continental difference.

Heh, I think I've sussed the source of your issue (well... the latest one).

Tell me... Did Oldsmobile have a fully automated production line in 1991, or were cars driven off the line at the end?

How would I have a clue?
And what does that have to do with my link to a curb weight of 2548 for a potentially heavier Olds of the same year, make, and model?

At this time I haven't actually stated something about which I can be definitely right or wrong. I've sought to enlighten a member over a confused definition he had (followed up with several others). At this point, he seems to have grasped this, but, as is his wont over two accounts now, he's bullishly demanding his pet car has some form of exclusion because it's American - which is not the case, as stated by a quite high-level, automotive industry worker (one who is completely au fait with worldwide standards).

Well mr latin is incorrect if he believes a 99 Buick's GVWR as per the DOT door panel sticker includes towing capacity. Ironic, ain't?
Like I said, and the owners manual you asked me to read agrees, GVWR is the vehicles curb weight with cargo.
Which is exactly what I've been telling you.
Ironic you brought it out though.

As for moderating the thread closed, there is no cause to. I would not welcome a PM discussion, because I never respond to PMs anyway and I'd quite like to not have my Inbox filled with what is effectively spam.

If a discussion thread about this car is not the place for a discussion about this car, where is (though I'll grant you that my part in this discussion doesn't actually pertain to the car in any way)?

I had this all set up for a PM, but since I read you'd like it here, here you go.
If you wish to have everyone see you argue against the owners manual you referenced, so be it.