Alfa Romeo Giulia Forum banner

Shaving weight

29K views 115 replies 28 participants last post by  lockem 
#1 ·
I started this in a new thread to avoid highjacking a paid vendor thread.

Speaking from personal experience modding cars, including full exhaust systems, there's a point where cost per amount of weight saved doesn't return enough value to worry about. If the stock system only weighs approximately 38 lbs, there isn't enough potential weight that can be saved, to be worth the concern. Even if you could cut that in half and save 19 lbs, that's not enough to even feel the difference in the performance of the car. The cost of titanium pipes in my opinion, wouldn't be worth it in this particular case.

I've learned that when it comes to saving weight on a car, not all weight is equal in what it can do for performance. The type of weight you remove, and where you remove it has more of an impact than anything else. You can easily spend thousands on carbon fiber body parts, and maybe save 40-50 lbs, which will make essentially no difference in performance that you can feel. As far as quarter-mile performance, you have to remove 250 lbs of static weight from a car just to gain 1/2 a second at the end of a quarter mile. It's not easy to remove that much weight without gutting the car, and it's not cheap. Not worth it in my opinion; I couldn't tell the difference in 1/2 second anyways.

The best kind of weight to remove, is unsprung rotating weight. That's found in the wheels, brakes, engine flywheel, clutch and driveshaft. Saving 19 lbs in the exhaust system you wouldn't even be able to tell. Saving 19 lbs in unsprung rotating weight you would notice immediately; it makes that much of a difference. Unless you're going for an all-out race build where every pound matters, for a street build, it makes better financial sense to spend your mod money wisely on those areas where you can actually feel the result.

Alfa already gave us a carbon fiber driveshaft, so that's done. Lighter wheels will make a huge difference in performance. Lighter brake rotors just add to that difference. Flywheel and clutch are a different matter, and while they do make a difference, there's more work involved in changing them out, and it can make the stop-and-go performance not as smooth as stock. Where a lighter flywheel and clutch make a difference, is once you're rolling. The throttle response and engine braking are noticeably improved, which you really appreciate in the corners and out on a road course or autocross. Around town... it's more touchy to get the car going, but for those who are more hardcore and want that kind of snap-quick response, there's nothing like it.

For this particular car, my first area of improvement would be lighter wheels. I think that would give you the biggest bang for your buck as far as something where you can feel a difference. Of course you can do chip mods and such, but those void your warranty. Keeping in mind Alfa's past reputation, I'm not in favor of voiding my warranty.

So Joe... as for this cat-back system, I'm curious... why did you choose a 3 inch pipe? Did you try a 2.5 inch pipe system? Was there a performance advantage, or did it just sound better?
Shaving weight is certainly expensive and I agree that the best weight to shave is from the wheels. Weight shaved from wheels improves handling and yields a disproportionate improvement in acceleration. However, for Giulia 2.0T shaving 250 lbs is equivalent to adding about 20HP to the engine while also improving stop-and-go fuel efficiency. It is only possible to improve engine performance so much before major drive line changes are needed and/or the vehicle is no longer street legal (won't smog).

From what I see the upper limit to weight shaving from Giulia 2.0T is around 150lbs without seriously cutting into functionality and getting to that goal involves a lot of money, parts that currently don't exist, and some changes in functionality. Everything is a tradeoff...

(most weights and prices estimated)
CF wheels save 56 pounds at a cost of $12,000 ($214/lb)
Lightweight rotors save 16 pounds at a cost of $1500 ($93/lb-numbers from similar BMW parts)
Titanium lug set saves 2 pounds at a cost of $350 ($175/lb)
OEM CF hood saves 6.4 pounds at a cost of $6000+ ($940/lb; way too much--this would be much less $$ if it were an order able option)
Disable start-stop and install a lighter battery saves 15 pounds at a cost of $200 ($13/lb)
Aluminum battery cables saves 5lbs at a cost of $200 ($40/lb, assumes stock cables are copper and ignores installation labor cost)
Titanium suspension bolts saves 20 lbs at a cost of $2000 ($100/lb, totally made up numbers, some of this is unsprung)
Titanium springs save 20 lbs at a cost of $4000 ($200/lb, totally made up numbers)
Light weight exhaust save 11lbs at a cost of $1600 ($145/lb, 2.5 inch straight through--this is loud)
Light weight speakers save 5lbs at a cost of $400 ($80/lb, assumes Neo-magnet speakers are available in the right size)
Sparco seats save ?? lbs at a cost of $5600, only available in black, no seat heaters and reduced power controls

P-zero Corsa tires save about 20-30 lbs of unsprung rotational mass, but are very expensive because the tires don't last very long and are not usable in a lot of conditions that many people expect to use their car.

Lightweight forged wheels save about 30 pounds but the cost is still around $200/lb. Forged wheels might be more capable of handling road hazards than CF wheels, I do not know.

Lightweight cast wheels save about 30 pounds at a cost of $800-$1200 which looks a lot better than the CF or forged wheels $/lb, but it is not clear to me if that a cast wheel that weighs the same as a forged wheel is really strong enough. After all, wouldn't this put the forged wheel mfgs out of business if the cast wheels are good enough?

I did not include lightweight flywheel or torque converter as I suspect that most folks (including myself) will not like the rougher idle, increased stress on the transmission, or the need to pull the engine to install it.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
@lockem, are you planning on actually racing the car or is this more of a data gathering exercise? Could be cool to see an actual build in progress...

Important to emphasize that this is focused on the Giulia 2.0T

Might also be worth it to see if there are any differences in what's already available in the Giulia QV.
 
#4 ·
How difficult would removing the rear seats and seatbelts be? They can always be reinstalled when needed.
 
#8 ·
QV uses too much fuel and is not available with AWD.
The list is for Giulia 2.0T. It is more difficult and more expensive to shave any significant weight off of Giulia QV, even though it starts out heavier than 2.0T. For example, the Tecnico wheels are forged, so to reduce wheel weight CF is the only choice and the weight reduction is 1/2 of what it would be on the 2.0T. Giulia QV already has light weight rotors (or the optional CCM), there is nothing to be saved with aftermarket parts.

For tracking, pulling the rear seat out is a possibility. In most cars the rear bottom cushion is held in with spring clips and snaps out with a few seconds of effort. The rear seat backs might take a bit more effort. I expect that it would be a big deal to remove the rear seatbelts. For racing the interior of the car has to be stripped and a roll bar installed; that saves significant weight but the car is no longer suitable for driving on the road and of no use to me.

If I just bought what I needed I would have gotten a second Subaru Crosstrek or an Impreza. Nobody needs 280HP much less 505HP to drive a sedan on the road--you want it but you don't need it. For me, this is about making the car more fun and enjoyable. This was intended to be an constructive discussion of what works, what doesn't work as well as what is reasonable cost wise. I tossed up a bunch of ideas not all of which may be sound, with a wide range of costs per pound. For example, do any forum members have any experience with CF wheels, other than the now recalled and no longer produced HRE version? Has anybody tried light weight cast wheels? Why are similar weight but much more expensive forged wheels even made if light weight cast wheels are adequate?

My car is on order and isn't due in until December. I am unlikely to do anything other than mount snow tires on it until the spring thaw.
 
#28 ·
For tracking, pulling the rear seat out is a possibility. In most cars the rear bottom cushion is held in with spring clips and snaps out with a few seconds of effort. The rear seat backs might take a bit more effort. I expect that it would be a big deal to remove the rear seatbelts. For racing the interior of the car has to be stripped and a roll bar installed; that saves significant weight but the car is no longer suitable for driving on the road and of no use to me.

My car is on order and isn't due in until December. I am unlikely to do anything other than mount snow tires on it until the spring thaw.
While the belts themselves are not particularly heavy, the retractors can be. They also fasten to the body with massive bolts.

Does your Mazda see regular duty in the Sierra? How do you expect the Giulia to perform in snow? I suspect ground clearance may be its limitation.
 
#10 ·
Often said, but not meaningful as I see it because driver weight loss is in addition to shaving weight off the vehicle. Carrying less stuff in the vehicle is another way to improve things that typically costs nothing. Avoiding high weight options (i.e. HK audio and sunroof) when ordering the car puts money in the bank while shaving weight.

In my list in the first post, I should have noted "extra benefits" of some items:

Light weight Neo speakers perform better than cheap ceramic magnet speakers.
CF wheels have a serious "bling factor".
Reduced unsprung weight (wheels, tires, rotors, lugs, suspension parts) improves traction by keeping the tire in better contact with the road.

as well as potential downsides:

CF wheels are more likely to fail catastrophically in a pothole and more likely to be irreparably damaged by "curbing".
Light weight rotors reportedly are more likely to squeal.
Light weight battery will run flat faster than the stock battery.
Aluminum battery cables have to be monitored to corrosion and tightness issues.
 
#13 ·
This I definitely don't recommend. I just did my first fill-up on the car, and I filled up at 1/4 tank. The car took 12.997 gallons (essentially 13). The tank holds 15.3, so subtracting 13 from 15.3 means there's only 2.3 gallons in the tank at the 1/4 tank mark. Under high-performance driving you'll go through that quick, and also possibly run into fuel starvation issues under hard cornering. Not worth risking damage to your fuel system over a few pounds of gas.
 
#14 ·
If the point is enjoyment of the vehicle, quit worrying about this stuff and appreciate the car for what it is and can do
There may end up being some cost efficient improvements, but nothing mentioned seems to fall into that category
If you are talking racing, coming from light weight motorcycles where weight actually matters, I humbly suggest that skill matters a whole heck of a lot more anyway,- an observation from a lightweight guy who has seen plenty of fast guys who "compensated" for a seveee weight disadvantage through ability
 
#17 ·
But I am not talking racing and assuming no compromises were taken in the weight reduction other than cost, the driver/rider will be faster in the lighter machine. Not necessarily faster than the other guy, just faster than the same driver in an heavier vehicle. If compromises are taken then all bets are off on the lighter vehicle.

In the case of Giulia an example bad compromise would be to install thin solid disk rotors. These are light, but overheat quickly. When I said light weight rotors I meant aluminum hat type, that have the full thickness of vented metal in the business end. Aluminum hat rotors are also supposedly more resistant to warping that the stock type rotors. The standard rotors on QV are already this type.

I ride a light weight time trial bicycle. It has aerodynamic features that add weight (roughly +3 pounds on an 18 pound bike), in spite of my obsessing about the weight of the machine. It doesn't mean that I ignore the weight of the machine it just means that I recognize the advantages of those heavier parts over lighter parts. I know that for my uses this machine is the most fun for me and the fastest on my routes. Owning such a machine doesn't make me the fastest bicyclist on the road, it just makes me faster than if I was riding a less optimized machine.
 
#15 ·
After looking through Lockem's list, that's about right when it comes to cost if you're going all-out for a weight-reduction build. However the price is more than just the dollar cost; there's also the dramatic change in the sound, comfort and drivability of the car in normal driving situations. A car modded like that is no longer a comfortable around-town car. It's fast and exciting, but you've made a trade-off in other areas.

I have no desire to do that to my Giulia. I have a 2010 SS Camaro I modded more or less like that, and I can drive it for that kind of fun if I want. The Giulia is such a beautiful, refined and sophisticated car, I don't want to ruin that. The only thing I'm considering doing is lighter wheels. Beyond that I'd have to think about it carefully before making any other changes.

As for why cast or flow-formed wheels are less expensive than forged, forged wheels are usually 2 or 3-piece construction which allows for customization on fitment and finish. Cast or flow-formed are only available in whatever size and spec they're made. Forged have to be hand-fit to the customer's spec, which involves a labor cost for assembly and testing of each individual wheel to make sure they're properly sealed and balanced. Cast or flow-formed are mass-produced. There are no assembly labor costs because the specs can't be changed.

When I gave that figure of 250 lbs to gain 1/2 second, I should have qualified that by saying that was based on a vehicle weighing 3,800 lbs. That info came from Al Oppenheiser the chief development engineer for the Chevrolet Camaro, when they were developing the 6th gen Camaro. I think the Giulia Ti AWD is about the same weight if I'm not mistaken. I'll have to take my Giulia to a scale and get it weighed to see what the actual weight is. I have just about every option on it, so I know it will be heavier than the factory stated weight.
 
#16 ·
Other than light weight (loud) exhaust and light weight (uncomfortable? reviews are mixed) seats I don't see anything on my list that would compromise ride quality. If I didn't care about ride quality relatively inexpensive mods like carpeting and sound proofing removal as well as light weight glass would have been on the list.

RacerZ reported that his Q2 (IIRC, no sunroof, no HK) weighs in at just over 3500 pounds with a nearly full gas tank. AR claims Q4 adds only 132 pounds, so I guesstimate the weight of the car I have on order to be 3650 pounds.

Light weight wheels essentially count double in performance (some people say 6x, but I don't see a justification for that high valuation), so the high price of CF wheels doesn't look as bad as it initially sounds.

I did not ask why forged wheels cost more than cast, I asked why they are made at all if cast wheels can yield the same weight and strength. I don't think anybody is going to pay 5 times the price for a set of wheels just to be able to say "I've got forged wheels", although I could be wrong...

Forged wheels are made from stronger metal and the forging process further strengthens the metal. If the wheels are multi-piece (HRE) some weight got added for fasteners and such. However, I was comparing 1 piece forged Fuchs/Tecnico wheels to 1 piece cast wheels.
 
#21 · (Edited)
Would any of these mods be noticeable around town ? For sure on a track with a skilled driver but around town...I doubt it....I think upgrading from 280 HP to 505 HP for the same coin as the weight savings would cost, would create noticeable differences in both street and track....an economist that I know called it the "law of diminishing returns"....and as for AWD...dedicated snow tires and some sand bags and a full tank of gas....
 
#23 ·
Lighter wheels would most certainly be noticeable. The first time you press the gas pedal, you would notice how the car takes off quicker. Your braking distances would be shorter, and for those who enjoy cornering, the transitions from straight - to corner - to straight will improve.

Improving performance through weight reduction (especially the right kind of weight), is a different type of effect than merely adding horsepower. Just adding horsepower without any other modification, will definitely give the car more acceleration, but that doesn't help anywhere else. In fact, depending on your driving skills, it can get you in trouble quick too. There's also the issue of the added heat and strain on engine components and your catalytic convertor.

My Camaro has somewhere over 500 hp, but I can't really use it on the street. It's over-powered for street and city driving. It has a light-weight billet steel flywheel, a dual-disc clutch and a 6-speed manual transmission. It's a blast to drive, but touchy in stop-and-go driving because the lighter flywheel doesn't have the inertia a heavier one does. It's fine once you get going, but when you're in slow city traffic, trying to feather the clutch with 500 hp and not climb all over the guy in front of you while poking along at 15-20 mph is a chore. However, when canyon carving or cornering out on the track, the precise rpm and quick engine response you have is terrific. It's a LOT of fun in the right situation; city and commute driving isn't it.

By making the car more responsive to the stock power, which the car is designed to handle, you gain performance advantages without any heat penalty, or putting additional strain on your engine. A lot of Camaro guys didn't want to be patient; they spent thousands adding quick power without upgrading anything else, because they wanted to go fast right away. Sadly, many of them wound up blowing their engines, or breaking drivetrain components. Eight years later and many track days, my car is still running fine with no issues. I don't have 600-800 horsepower, but then I don't have problems either. You have to think carefully before just adding horsepower. More power means more heat. Pay attention to upgrading your cooling system. Exhaust system including cats need upgrading. Depending on what you did, it may (probably) needs better oil delivery systems to the engine. Are your brakes up to stopping the now faster and heavier vehicle? Are the half-shafts and differential able to handle the increase? Suspension components? Engine mounts? I replaced the engine mounts with stronger mounts to handle the increase in torque. With the hood up when gunning a high-power engine, you can see the engine moving several inches because the factory engine mounts were designed to soften vibration, not hold hundreds of horsepower and torque in place. Mine works great, but when idling, you can definitely feel the increase in vibration transmitted into the car. When moving you can't feel it, and man does the car respond and sound great. I have a custom exhaust with long tube headers and a magnaflow catback system. It's definitely louder than stock, but the car sounds glorious when you get on it.

As you can see, there's more to consider and plan for than just boosting power. On the other hand, by simply focusing on reducing unsprung rotating weight, all those other issues are completely avoided. In fact, you're actually taking strain off your suspension components which is a good thing.

The Giulia is a remarkable car. It feels like it was designed by Ferrari with a few luxury sedan engineers also on the team. I can see a lot of thought was put into it everywhere. The aerodynamics are extremely well-designed. It's so much fun to drive as-is, that I'm loathe to upset that. I know lighter wheels and better tires are a good move. But honestly, beyond that for the additional thousands that would cost... where I live would I be able to use that kind of increased performance? Not unless I go canyon carving, which I would probably take my Camaro since it's completely set-up for that kind of thing. The Giulia is no slouch though, it handles beautifully. It's a wonderful around-town car. It makes my commute to work and back so much more fun. It does everything I actually need and more, just as it is.

Modding can be a lot of fun and very rewarding; it just depends on what your goals are, how much you are willing to spend, and what kind of compromise to the original design you're willing to live with.
 
#22 ·
I know I am a bit late to this party, but I want to make a comment about weight of exhaust systems.

I seriously doubt the weights of the various aftermarket system are going to vary by more than a few pounds. Two or three pounds is pretty inconsequential, especially considering that these systems vary in price by hundreds and sometimes even as much as a thousand bucks.

However, there is a way to reduce the weight and cost of the exhaust system considerably. It's side exit exhaust with no mufflers and no resonators. Now this isn't something that's marketable on a street luxury sports sedan, but for an all out track car, that's what I would go with. So if we are talking about minimum weight, maximum performance and all other factors be damned, that's the way to go.

Greg
 
#27 ·
What is the point of spending so much effort to criticize what someone else wants? This thread was opened to discuss ways to shave weight off of Giulia good, bad, and why it is good or bad. Please try to stay on topic and not proclaim that safe driving habits are unreasonable in an Alfa. Also "stay home" is not an option; if it were I would not need a car at all. A vehicle should be able to get a person from point A to point B over the roads and conditions that are present. I choose a vehicle that appears to be capable and then you tell me that I should have bought a vehicle that is not capable because you don't drive on those roads and conditions? I see no logic in said proclamation.

Burning fuel is causing the weather to get worse and the oceans to rise, fuel economy matters and should be the first thing you consider unless you don't plan to put many miles on the car. If the collective "you" don't see that we will all get regulated into tiny electric box-mobiles and public transport.
 
#30 ·
"Burning fuel is causing the weather to get worse and the oceans to rise".....Clearly, this is where we disagree....
 
#32 · (Edited)
Off topic, but even Exon-Mobil now admits that 80% of their scientists have concluded that burning fossil fuel is the major cause of climate change. I suspect the other 20% are waiting for "solid evidence" like Sacramento being underwater (there is a high probability of this happening in the next few decades) or some such. The stakes are too high to play "wait and see". If you don't want to believe it that's your prerogative, but don't mock people who are being responsible enough to eventually save your bacon.

It should also be noted that the decent fuel economy of Giulia QV and the excellent fuel economy of Giulia 2.0T did not happen by accident. Clearly somebody at AR is worried about fuel efficiency, even if it is only in response to regulations.
 
#35 ·
saving bacon....2 eggs over please....

During Senate debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) introduced an amendment affirming that “climate change is real” and “human activity significantly contributes to climate change.” This was a tough vote for some pipeline supporters. It should not have been.

For too long, supporters of affordable energy have been on the defensive, cowed by a false narrative that climate change is inherently a catastrophe in the making, and therefore policy makers have a moral duty to de-carbonize the U.S. economy as rapidly as possible. Some affordable energy advocates have concluded that to avoid endorsing carbon taxes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan, and a new United Nations climate treaty, they need to cast doubt on the reality of man-made climate change. That is a losing strategy. Greenhouse gases do have a greenhouse (warming) effect, and professing doubt about basic physics invites justified criticism of being “anti-science.”

To win hearts and minds, affordable energy advocates need a scientifically credible alternative to the scary climate narrative of Al Gore, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Obama administration EPA. In future debates on climate science resolutions, they should contest the moral high ground by offering competing versions of their own. The fundamental points to be stressed are:

Climate change is not a planetary emergency;
Affordable, plentiful, and reliable fossil fuels make the climate safer and the environment more livable; and
The national and global campaign to tax, regulate, and mandate mankind “beyond” fossil fuels is bound to be either an expensive exercise in futility or a humanitarian disaster.


A proposed model for such a resolution follows.

Sense of Congress Amendment on Climate Change

It is the sense of Congress that:

1. Climate change is real. Climate is average weather over time. Both regional and global climate change naturally on various time scales. Human activity can influence climate by changing the planet’s surface and atmosphere, altering the balance of incoming shortwave solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation.

2. Although some portion of global warming since 1951 is likely due to greenhouse gas emissions, scientists cannot yet reliably quantify the specific anthropogenic contribution. For example, the IPCC has yet to arrive at a convincing explanation for the warming from 1910 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1975, and plateau from 1997 to present.

3. Climatic warmth in earlier periods coincided with, and likely contributed to, improvements in agriculture, economic development, and human health. The amount of recent warming—about 0.8°C since 1880—is modest and not a cause for alarm. The Northern hemisphere was several degrees Celsius warmer than today’s climate for thousands of years during the Holocene climate optimum (roughly 5,000 to 9,000 years ago), and numerous studies indicate the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were warmer than the present.

4. Humans are adaptable and resilient. Today, people live in a wide range of environments long considered inhospitable, from the equator to the Arctic, from desert to tundra. “We survived ice ages with primitive technologies,” points out Professor Richard Tol, an expert on the economics of climate change. “The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable.”

5. The alleged climate science “consensus” is unraveling. Concerns over global warming are largely based on speculative climate-model impact scenarios. However, climate prediction models endorsed by the IPCC increasingly diverge from observed temperatures. Ninety-five percent of model projections are warmer than observations over the past 36 years. The models are on the verge of statistical failure.

6. Despite relying on climate models that run too hot, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) tacitly rejects the catastrophe narrative popularized by Al Gore and other climate activists. Specifically, the IPCC concludes that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely,” ice sheet collapse is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane from melting permafrost is “very unlikely.”

7. The IPCC’s latest report (AR5) finds no evidence of a link between global warming and the cost of natural disasters:

“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
“[T]here is low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century.”
8. Hurricanes have not increased in frequency and intensity in the United States since 1900, and there has been no trend in global hurricane landfalls since 1970. Since 2006, Northern hemisphere and global accumulated cyclone energy, a measure of hurricane strength, has decreased to its lowest levels since the early 1970s.

9. Lower sensitivity means less warming and smaller climate impacts than predicted by IPCC models. Since 2011, more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies have challenged the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity—how much warming results from a doubling of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) greenhouse gas concentrations.

10. Consistent with those studies, more than 30 percent of all industrial carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions since 1750 occurred after 1996. Yet, during the past 18.5 years there has been no warming trend in the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite record and hardly any in the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) satellite record of global average temperature in the bulk atmosphere (troposphere).

11. Human beings using CO2-emitting energy did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous; they took a dangerous climate and made it vastly safer and more livable. Since the 1920s, aggregate deaths and death rates worldwide related to extreme weather declined by 93 percent and 98 percent, respectively.

12. For most of human history, drought has been the deadliest extreme weather event. In the 1920s, drought killed an estimated 470,000 people worldwide. Since then, deaths and death rates from droughts declined by 99.98 percent and 99.99 percent, respectively. The chief reason is a dramatic increase in global food production and food security. Fossil fuels power farm machinery, are used to produce fertilizers and pesticides, enable food to be transported affordably over long distances, provide electricity for refrigeration, and support economic development, creating the surpluses that enable richer nations or communities to aid poorer nations or communities after a natural disaster strikes.

13. While damage from hurricanes and other extreme weather events increased in absolute terms over the past 60 years, that is due to societal changes rather than any ascertainable changes in climate. Once damage estimates are adjusted for increases in population, wealth, and inflation, the apparent trend in long-term weather-related property damages disappears. Globally, adjusted weather-related losses have not increased. Since 1990, such damages have decreased as a proportion of global GDP by about 25 percent.

14. Thousands of laboratory and field observations confirm that rising CO2 concentrations boost plant photosynthetic activity, yield productivity, water-use efficiency, and resistance to environmental stresses. Climate researcher Craig Idso estimates that rising CO2 concentrations boosted global crop production by $3.2 trillion during 1961-2011, and will increase output by another $9.8 trillion between now and 2050.

15. The usual proposed global warming “solutions”—including carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, renewable energy production quotas, CO2 performance standards for power plants, and moratoria and bans on fossil energy production and trade—are either costly exercises in futility or “cures” worse than the alleged disease.

16. Unilateral reductions in U.S. CO2 emissions will have no discernible impact on global climate change. The United States emits only 16 percent of global CO2 emissions—a percentage that will decline as China, India, and other developing countries industrialize. China alone could add 389 gigawatts of coal generation capacity between now and 2040—an increment larger than current U.S. coal capacity.

17. A carbon tax, or its regulatory equivalent, could cumulatively cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of dollars in lost household purchasing power, and trillions in lost GDP over the next 15 years, for no detectable reduction in global temperatures and sea-level rise by 2100. The hypothetical climate benefits in the policy-relevant future would be even more miniscule.

18. If, alternatively, governments commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 60 percent below 2010 levels by 2050, as urged by the European Union and major environmental groups, climate policy becomes a prescription for humanitarian disaster.

19. Even if industrial countries miraculously reduce their emissions to zero, meeting the 60-by-50 target would still require developing countries to reduce their emissions 35 percent below current levels. If, less unrealistically, as the Obama administration proposes, the U.S. and other industrial countries reduce their emissions by 80 percent below current levels, developing countries would have to cut their current emissions by almost half. Yet billions of people in developing countries still lack access to commercial energy, roughly 87 percent of which comes from fossil fuels.

20. The potential for disaster is obvious. Globally, poverty is the number one cause of preventable illness and premature death. Developing countries require affordable, scalable energy to lift their peoples out of poverty. Thus, as development expert Deepak Lal observes: “The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse gas emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: alfa55 and alfa908
#36 ·
During Senate debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) introduced an amendment affirming that ?climate change is real? and ?human activity significantly contributes to climate change.? This was a tough vote for some pipeline supporters. It should not have been.

For too long, supporters of affordable energy have been on the defensive, cowed by a false narrative that climate change is inherently a catastrophe in the making, and therefore policy makers have a moral duty to de-carbonize the U.S. economy as rapidly as possible. Some affordable energy advocates have concluded that to avoid endorsing carbon taxes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?s (EPA) Clean Power Plan, and a new United Nations climate treaty, they need to cast doubt on the reality of man-made climate change. That is a losing strategy. Greenhouse gases do have a greenhouse (warming) effect, and professing doubt about basic physics invites justified criticism of being ?anti-science.?

To win hearts and minds, affordable energy advocates need a scientifically credible alternative to the scary climate narrative of Al Gore, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Obama administration EPA. In future debates on climate science resolutions, they should contest the moral high ground by offering competing versions of their own. The fundamental points to be stressed are:

Climate change is not a planetary emergency;
Affordable, plentiful, and reliable fossil fuels make the climate safer and the environment more livable; and
The national and global campaign to tax, regulate, and mandate mankind ?beyond? fossil fuels is bound to be either an expensive exercise in futility or a humanitarian disaster.


A proposed model for such a resolution follows.

Sense of Congress Amendment on Climate Change

It is the sense of Congress that:

1. Climate change is real. Climate is average weather over time. Both regional and global climate change naturally on various time scales. Human activity can influence climate by changing the planet?s surface and atmosphere, altering the balance of incoming shortwave solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation.

2. Although some portion of global warming since 1951 is likely due to greenhouse gas emissions, scientists cannot yet reliably quantify the specific anthropogenic contribution. For example, the IPCC has yet to arrive at a convincing explanation for the warming from 1910 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1975, and plateau from 1997 to present.

3. Climatic warmth in earlier periods coincided with, and likely contributed to, improvements in agriculture, economic development, and human health. The amount of recent warming?about 0.8°C since 1880?is modest and not a cause for alarm. The Northern hemisphere was several degrees Celsius warmer than today?s climate for thousands of years during the Holocene climate optimum (roughly 5,000 to 9,000 years ago), and numerous studies indicate the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were warmer than the present.

4. Humans are adaptable and resilient. Today, people live in a wide range of environments long considered inhospitable, from the equator to the Arctic, from desert to tundra. ?We survived ice ages with primitive technologies,? points out Professor Richard Tol, an expert on the economics of climate change. ?The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable.?

5. The alleged climate science ?consensus? is unraveling. Concerns over global warming are largely based on speculative climate-model impact scenarios. However, climate prediction models endorsed by the IPCC increasingly diverge from observed temperatures. Ninety-five percent of model projections are warmer than observations over the past 36 years. The models are on the verge of statistical failure.

6. Despite relying on climate models that run too hot, the IPCC?s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) tacitly rejects the catastrophe narrative popularized by Al Gore and other climate activists. Specifically, the IPCC concludes that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is ?very unlikely,? ice sheet collapse is ?exceptionally unlikely,? and catastrophic release of methane from melting permafrost is ?very unlikely.?

7. The IPCC?s latest report (AR5) finds no evidence of a link between global warming and the cost of natural disasters:

?Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century ? No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.?
?In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.?
?In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.?
?[T]here is low confidence in detection and attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century.?
8. Hurricanes have not increased in frequency and intensity in the United States since 1900, and there has been no trend in global hurricane landfalls since 1970. Since 2006, Northern hemisphere and global accumulated cyclone energy, a measure of hurricane strength, has decreased to its lowest levels since the early 1970s.

9. Lower sensitivity means less warming and smaller climate impacts than predicted by IPCC models. Since 2011, more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies have challenged the IPCC?s estimates of climate sensitivity?how much warming results from a doubling of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) greenhouse gas concentrations.

10. Consistent with those studies, more than 30 percent of all industrial carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions since 1750 occurred after 1996. Yet, during the past 18.5 years there has been no warming trend in the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite record and hardly any in the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) satellite record of global average temperature in the bulk atmosphere (troposphere).

11. Human beings using CO2-emitting energy did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous; they took a dangerous climate and made it vastly safer and more livable. Since the 1920s, aggregate deaths and death rates worldwide related to extreme weather declined by 93 percent and 98 percent, respectively.

12. For most of human history, drought has been the deadliest extreme weather event. In the 1920s, drought killed an estimated 470,000 people worldwide. Since then, deaths and death rates from droughts declined by 99.98 percent and 99.99 percent, respectively. The chief reason is a dramatic increase in global food production and food security. Fossil fuels power farm machinery, are used to produce fertilizers and pesticides, enable food to be transported affordably over long distances, provide electricity for refrigeration, and support economic development, creating the surpluses that enable richer nations or communities to aid poorer nations or communities after a natural disaster strikes.

13. While damage from hurricanes and other extreme weather events increased in absolute terms over the past 60 years, that is due to societal changes rather than any ascertainable changes in climate. Once damage estimates are adjusted for increases in population, wealth, and inflation, the apparent trend in long-term weather-related property damages disappears. Globally, adjusted weather-related losses have not increased. Since 1990, such damages have decreased as a proportion of global GDP by about 25 percent.

14. Thousands of laboratory and field observations confirm that rising CO2 concentrations boost plant photosynthetic activity, yield productivity, water-use efficiency, and resistance to environmental stresses. Climate researcher Craig Idso estimates that rising CO2 concentrations boosted global crop production by $3.2 trillion during 1961-2011, and will increase output by another $9.8 trillion between now and 2050.

15. The usual proposed global warming ?solutions??including carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, renewable energy production quotas, CO2 performance standards for power plants, and moratoria and bans on fossil energy production and trade?are either costly exercises in futility or ?cures? worse than the alleged disease.

16. Unilateral reductions in U.S. CO2 emissions will have no discernible impact on global climate change. The United States emits only 16 percent of global CO2 emissions?a percentage that will decline as China, India, and other developing countries industrialize. China alone could add 389 gigawatts of coal generation capacity between now and 2040?an increment larger than current U.S. coal capacity.

17. A carbon tax, or its regulatory equivalent, could cumulatively cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of dollars in lost household purchasing power, and trillions in lost GDP over the next 15 years, for no detectable reduction in global temperatures and sea-level rise by 2100. The hypothetical climate benefits in the policy-relevant future would be even more miniscule.

18. If, alternatively, governments commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 60 percent below 2010 levels by 2050, as urged by the European Union and major environmental groups, climate policy becomes a prescription for humanitarian disaster.

19. Even if industrial countries miraculously reduce their emissions to zero, meeting the 60-by-50 target would still require developing countries to reduce their emissions 35 percent below current levels. If, less unrealistically, as the Obama administration proposes, the U.S. and other industrial countries reduce their emissions by 80 percent below current levels, developing countries would have to cut their current emissions by almost half. Yet billions of people in developing countries still lack access to commercial energy, roughly 87 percent of which comes from fossil fuels.

20. The potential for disaster is obvious. Globally, poverty is the number one cause of preventable illness and premature death. Developing countries require affordable, scalable energy to lift their peoples out of poverty. Thus, as development expert Deepak Lal observes: ?The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse gas emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels.?
I?m with you....climate change is a new religion. The dogmatic statements made by so many people always exclude the fact that even if all the major emissions reduction proposals are adopted, the models show a minuscule effect on reducing warming.

This doesn?t mean we shouldn?t do responsible research on alternate fuels and energy production, but the overblown scale of the human effect that is proclaimed by the zealots is disingenuous at best.

It?s a bit like saying that a small dent in your Alfa means it is undrivable and irreparable.
 
#38 · (Edited)
I started this in a new thread to avoid highjacking a paid vendor thread.



Shaving weight is certainly expensive and I agree that the best weight to shave is from the wheels. Weight shaved from wheels improves handling and yields a disproportionate improvement in acceleration. However, for Giulia 2.0T shaving 250 lbs is equivalent to adding about 20HP to the engine while also improving stop-and-go fuel efficiency. It is only possible to improve engine performance so much before major drive line changes are needed and/or the vehicle is no longer street legal (won't smog).

From what I see the upper limit to weight shaving from Giulia 2.0T is around 150lbs without seriously cutting into functionality and getting to that goal involves a lot of money, parts that currently don't exist, and some changes in functionality. Everything is a tradeoff...

(most weights and prices estimated)
CF wheels save 56 pounds at a cost of $12,000 ($214/lb)
Lightweight rotors save 16 pounds at a cost of $1500 ($93/lb-numbers from similar BMW parts)
Titanium lug set saves 2 pounds at a cost of $350 ($175/lb)
OEM CF hood saves 6.4 pounds at a cost of $6000+ ($940/lb; way too much--this would be much less $$ if it were an order able option)
Disable start-stop and install a lighter battery saves 15 pounds at a cost of $200 ($13/lb)
Aluminum battery cables saves 5lbs at a cost of $200 ($40/lb, assumes stock cables are copper and ignores installation labor cost)
Titanium suspension bolts saves 20 lbs at a cost of $2000 ($100/lb, totally made up numbers, some of this is unsprung)
Titanium springs save 20 lbs at a cost of $4000 ($200/lb, totally made up numbers)
Light weight exhaust save 11lbs at a cost of $1600 ($145/lb, 2.5 inch straight through--this is loud)
Light weight speakers save 5lbs at a cost of $400 ($80/lb, assumes Neo-magnet speakers are available in the right size)
Sparco seats save ?? lbs at a cost of $5600, only available in black, no seat heaters and reduced power controls

P-zero Corsa tires save about 20-30 lbs of unsprung rotational mass, but are very expensive because the tires don't last very long and are not usable in a lot of conditions that many people expect to use their car.

Lightweight forged wheels save about 30 pounds but the cost is still around $200/lb. Forged wheels might be more capable of handling road hazards than CF wheels, I do not know.

Lightweight cast wheels save about 30 pounds at a cost of $800-$1200 which looks a lot better than the CF or forged wheels $/lb, but it is not clear to me if that a cast wheel that weighs the same as a forged wheel is really strong enough. After all, wouldn't this put the forged wheel mfgs out of business if the cast wheels are good enough?

I did not include lightweight flywheel or torque converter as I suspect that most folks (including myself) will not like the rougher idle, increased stress on the transmission, or the need to pull the engine to install it.
So for $33,650 plus, you can have a lighter weight car. Must I take this any further?>:) Sometimes it's just better to let other people post the obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alfaholico
#41 ·
It sounds like the OP wants a AWD version of the QV -- or a vehicle that is light and capable of snow duty.

The issue is, high performance vehicles and snow generally don't go well together.


Also, drag racers oftentimes quote the 100lbs = 10hp = 0.1s.

so, if you could drop 500lbs off the curb weight of the 2.0T, you effectively have a 330hp car.

But, you'd have to do a lot to get there:
- CF mirrors
- rear seat removal
- front seat replacement (tillet?)
- steering wheel replacement
- AC system removal
- smaller / lighter wheels
- exhaust dump
- trunk lining removal
- sound deadening removal
- door windows replacement with polycarbonite
- e-brake removal
- hood / trunk cf replacement

At that point, you MIGHT drop 500lbs. Might.
 
#42 ·
Your list won't even get you close to dropping 500 lbs. Maybe 150-200 at best. 500 lbs in today's cars is a LOT of weight to lose. You'd pretty much have to gut the car, which for this car would be a crime. If you need to lose that much weight, just buy a body-in-white and build up from there.

The fact that the factory engineers put a carbon-fiber driveshaft in this car, tells me they were very much paying attention to weight reduction. I went to great lengths to reduce weight in my 2010 Camaro, including coilovers, wheels, brake rotors, driveshaft, flywheel, clutch, battery, complete exhaust from the engine on back, etc. After spending over $20,000 on mods, the weight went from about 3,860 lbs stock, to 3,700 lbs. The stock exhaust system from the cats on back weighed over 70 lbs, whereas in the Giulia it weighs about 38 lbs. I just don't see a lot of areas to make improvements in this car as far as reducing weight, unless you want to start getting radical, at which point I would ask what's the point in buying it in the first place?

I totally agree about getting a Quad if you need that kind of performance. You'll have to spend the difference between a Ti and a Quad to get the Ti to that level, and it still won't be as good. The Quad is more than just the extra horsepower. The entire car is engineered and designed around that engine and its performance, which is something you can't do for any kind of reasonable or practical price and effort. The Quad comes with a full warranty; your modded Giulia won't have any warranty. If your mods have a problem, there won't be any software update from a team of factory engineers to fix it.

No, the Giulia isn't a serious modding kind of car. It's too well engineered and designed for that. The more I look at it and drive it, the more impressed I am with what they've done.
 
#48 ·
The only cost effective weight reduction that you will actually feel is lighter wheels/tires.

Easier on the 2.0T - ditch the run flat tires and save 3-5 lbs in rotating mass per wheel (plus much better grip and ride quality).
I have no idea how much various Giulia wheels weigh, probably there are lighter alternatives available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alfaholico
#51 ·
Its temporary, you get used to available power....i used to have audi S6 with a NA V10, it was intoxicating, after 4 years switched to supercharged V6 A6 and was good after a week, missed the growl and punch of V10 but smaller engine had its own torguey character that was satisfying too, had same engine in S4 with more power and it felt again different but satisfying....now this 2 liter T has again completely its own character and car feels so light and jumpy....
 
#53 · (Edited)
QV would be pretty much an overkill for me now, I now live in metro area where even Q4 is too fast (one of these days I am going to end up in jail) and my car is more often than not parked at IAD airport....I was hoping that rumored 360Hp version would be available that would closely match S4's output with less weight but this car is so nimble and fun that I have zero regrets, three years from now who knows what Alfa will have available but I still do not see myself going for QV
 
#54 ·
QV would be pretty much an overkill for me now, I now live in metro area where even Q4 is too fast (one of these days I am going to end up in jail)
I can appreciate that point. I?m in metro NY area and several times I?ve found myself in triple digits without even trying. I?ve been better recently at paying attention to how quickly the speed builds in my Q (particularly after being pulled over three times) but it still happens sometimes.
 
#56 ·
Already discussed, but yes and no. A person can only lose so much weight and may already be the "right weight". A prescribed diet or gym membership is likely to cost as much as the discussed ways to shave weight off of the car, not to mention the substantial amount of time involved to do it and the often temporary nature of the weight reduction. Certainly for bicycles and motorcycles, losing weight off the people should be the first resort since there is very little weight that can be shaved off of either machine.

Shaving weight from the car can be done in addition to shaving weight from the driver.
 
#68 ·
Now I'm really confused....

The Quad is heavier than the 2.0 Giulia ???? How can that be ???? With all the weight savings implemented in the design of the Quad, how can it be heavier ? Carbon Fiber Hood, Roof, etc.....I realize the engine is probably heavier but is that statement correct ??
 
#69 · (Edited)
The Quad is heavier than the 2.0 Giulia ???? How can that be ???? With all the weight savings implemented in the design of the Quad, how can it be heavier ? Carbon Fiber Hood, Roof, etc.....I realize the engine is probably heavier but is that statement correct ??
Well of course, when you have 500 HP just about everything in drivetrain is beefier, transmisson, differential, brakes are so much bigger that even lighter materials still leave them heavier,larger coolers and more of them, et cetera, et cetera, carbon is there to offset some of that but....
 
#71 ·
There are a **** of a lot of passes in Europe between Switzerland and Italy that would make your epic drive in California look like walk in a park...ever wondered why the other Giulia is called Stelvio? Giulia will do just great except for the extreme snow you get.....I used to ride those Alpine passes on my motorcycle growing up in Slovenia...went to buy a carton of cigs on Ljubelj pass and came home a week later via Austria, Italy and Switzerland without any money left, covered probably 50000 feet of elevation lol...intoxicating...kind of envy you your proximity to those great mountain roads
 
#73 ·
It's not a competition, just a statement regarding motivations :wink2:

Due to the way that the mountains have eroded over millions of years, California has a small number of roads over passes in the Sierra Nevada and all of them run east-west. Basically there are (north to south): SR-70, I-80, US-50, SR-88, SR-4, SR-108, and SR-120. I-80, US-50, SR-88 and SR-120 have a lot of traffic, making them difficult for spirited driving and relatively straight. SR-108 was the first to be traversed by "immigrants" (Bartelson-Bidwell) and is the one I take. The infamous Donner party took what is now I-80 several years after Bartelson-Bidwell. I haven't driven SR-70. There is also N-S oriented SR-49, which is very popular with tourists; perhaps better for sight-seeing than aggressive driving. I believe that within the lower 48, Colorado is the state for mountain highway enjoyment; the road to Pikes Peak exceeds 14,000 feet.

The oldest mountain pass "road" in the California Sierra range is literally a donkey trail that runs between Fresno and Mammoth Lakes (natives used this trail for thousands of years). You can rent a mule or horse and/or get a guided tour to take the trail from the lessee of my pasture (Rock Creek Pack Station); nothing like catered meals in the wilderness.

It was my understanding that a lot of the mountain pass roads in the Alps follow Roman era roads and are very curvy but not very steep. An ox drawn wagon with a wood block rubbing an iron tire for a brake can only handle about 6% grade. Like Mt Hamilton Road in Santa Clara that was built with a similar constraint, there are lots of switchbacks in order to limit the grade of the road. That said, I have never had a chance to drive a car or ride a motorcycle in the Alps. In Santa Clara the really curvy road is Calaveras road. This is the alternate when the freeway gets too bad. The speed limit sign says trucks should not exceed 25 MPH (I expect they can't get above 5MPH). The last time I drove it I managed to get my Protege up to 30MPH once or twice, tires squealing just about continuously; hardly any traffic :grin2: There are no straight sections. I'll have to try it out when I get my Giulia.
 
#79 ·
I've taken the cog train to Zermatt. There was a paved road with cars on it on the opposite side of the canyon in at least one place. It appeared to be single lane, two way traffic, with lots of waiting in line for the opposite direction traffic to clear. Not obviously a fun drive.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top