Measured Weight Distributions

Bruce

Bruce

Member
Mirage77 dropped me a PM about making a new data thread and he suggested torisonal rigidty, while very interesting I honestly did not have enough data to create a thread, so I offered this as an alternative. Here it is!

None of these are claimed they are all measured with the car fully loaded, including a 68kg driver. The numbers are based off my official kerbweight thread here.

Comments

*There are many more figures which can be added, but i've got to do some searching

*Magazines used: Autobild, Auto Motor und Sport & Sport Auto

*Figure have be rouned up for less confusion

*Figures alphabetically listed

*I'm sure i've got a few of the numbers backwards .. haven't look it over yet

"*" Indicating Ceramic brake option


AC Schnitzer:

52.0/48.0 % - V8 Topster
52.8/47.2 % - 6er Tension

Alpina:

51.0/49.0 % - Roadster S
53.0/47.0 % - B5

Alfa Romeo:

60.0/40.0 % - Brera V6 Q4
65.0/35.0 % – 156 GTA, 2001

Audi:

58.0/42.0 % - B7 RS4 Avant *
58.0/42.0 % - B7 S4 Avant, 2003
59.0/41.0 % - S3 MK1, 1999
59.0/41.0 % - RS6
60.0/40.0 % - B7 RS4 *
60.0/40.0 % - S6 V10
60.0/40.0 % - B5 RS4 Avant
60.0/40.0 % - 3.2 TT Quattro, 2006
61.0/39.0 % - TT 1.8, 2001
61.0/39.0 % - Audi S3, 2006

Aston Martin:

50.0/50.0 % – DB9 Coupe
49.0/51.0 % - V8 Vantage
52.0/48.0 % – Vanquish
54.0/46.0 % – DB7 Vantage
54.0/46.0 %– DB7 GT

BMW:

50.0/50.0 % - Z4 3.0 CSi
50.0/50.0 % - Z8
49.0/51.0 % - 645Ci Cabriolet
49.0/51.0 % - 650Ci Cabriolet
49.0/51.0 % - E46 M3
51.0/49.0 % - E46 M3 CSL
51.0/49.0 % - Z4M Coupe
51.0/49.0 % - Z4 3.0 SMG
51.0/49.0 % - Z3 3.0I Coupe
51.1/49.0 % - E60 545i
51.0/49.0 % - 130i M Sport
52.0/48.0 % - E39 M5
52.0/48.0 % - 335I Coupe
52.0/48.0 % - E60 M5
52.0/48.0 % - E60 535d
54.0/47.0 % - E63 M6

Callaway:

51.0/49.0 % - C12

Cargraphic:

39.0/61.0 % - 996 GT3 RSC


Chevrolet:

51.0/49.0 % - Corvette C6 Z06
52.0/48.0 % - Corvette C6
52.0/48.0 % - Corvette C5 CE


Chrysler:

53.0/47.0 % - 300C SRT-8 Touring

Dodge:

48.0/52.0 % - SRT-10

Donkervoort:

49.0/51.0 % - D8 RS06
46.0/54.0 % - D8 180R

Gemballa:

39.0/61.0 % - GT550
38.0/62.0 % - GTR 750 EVO

Ferrari:

48.0/52.0 % - 599 GTB Fiorano
52.0/48.0 % - 575M Maranello
43.0/57.0 % - 360 Modena
42.0/ 58.0 % - 360 Challenge Stradale
42.0/58.0 % - F430 Berlinetta
39.0/61.0 % - F40


Ford:

44.0/56.0 % - GT

Honda:

49.0/51.0 % – S2000 MK1
40.0/60.0 % - NSX-R
62.0/38.0 % - Civic Type –R

Jaguar:

52.0/48.0 % - XK8 Cabriolet, 2006
55.0/45.0 % - XKR Coupe, 2006
41.0/59.0 % - XJ220

Koenigsegg:

40.0/60.0 % - CCR

Lamborghini:

44.0/56.0 % - Gallardo MK1
44.0/56.0 % - Gallardo SE
42.0/58.0 % - Murcielago LP640 *
43.0/57.0 % - Gallardo Spyder
43.0/57.0 % - Murcielago 6.2
43.5/56.5 % - Gallardo Superleggera
41.0/59.0 % - Diablo GT

Lotus:

42.0/58.0 % - Esprit 350-R
37.0/63.0 % - Exige S2
36.0/64.0 % - Europa S
40.0/60.0 % - Exige Sport S1

Manthey:

38.7/61.3 % - M700

Maserati:

53.0/47.0 % - GranSport
53.0/47.0 % - 4200GT CC
55.0/45.0 % - 3200 GT
42.0/59.0 % - MC12

Mazda:
64.0/36.0 % - 3 MPS

Mercedes-Benz:

50.0/50.0 % - SLR McLaren
50.0/50.0 % - SL500, 2001
51.0/49.0 % - SL55 AMG, 2006 (517PS)
51.0/49.0 % - SL500, 2006 (388PS)
51.0/49.0 % - SL65 AMG
52.0/48.0 % - E55 AMG
53.0/47.0 % - CLS55 AMG
54.0/46.0 % - CLK DTM
54.0/46.0 % - C32 AMG
54.0/46.0 % - SLK32 AMG
55.0/45.0 % - SLK55 AMG Black Series (made by SA)
55.0/45.0 % - CLK55 AMG, 2001
55.0/45.0 % - C55 AMG
56.0/44.0 % - CLK63 AMG
59.0/40.0 % - SLK55 AMG

Mitsubishi:

60.0/40.0 – Carisma GT EVO VII
60.0/40.0 – Carisma GT EVO VI


Mini:

62.0/38.0 % - Cooper S Works GP Kit

MTM

63.0/47.0 % - VW Golf V GTI

Nissan:

54.0/46.0 % - 350Z Coupe

Opel:

39.0/61.0 – Speedster Turbo

Pagani:

42.0/58.0 - Zonda F *
41.0/59.0 – Zonda C12S 7.3

Porsche:

47.0/53.0 % - Cayman S *
47.0/53.0 % - 986 Boxster
46.0/54.0 % - 987 Boxster S
46.0/54.0 % - 986 Boxster S
38.0/63.0 % - 996 GT2, 2004 (483PS)
38.0/62.0 % - 996 GT3 RS *
39.0/61.0 % - 997 GT3 *
38.0/62.0 % - 997 Carrera S Cabriolet
38.9/62.0 % - 996 Carrera 2, 2001
38.0/62.0 % - 996 GT3 MK2, 2003
38.0/62.0 % - 997 Carrera S *
39.0/61.0 % - 997 Turbo *
40.0/60.0 % - Carrera GT
40.0/60.0 % - 996 Carrera 4, 2001

Renault:

40.0/60.0 % - Clio V6 24V, 2001
63.0/37.0 % - ClioSport 197
64.0/36.0 % - Megane Sport Auto Trophy Edition

Steinmetz

61.0/39.0 % - Opel Astra GTC

Subaru:

59.0/41.0 % - Impreza WRX STi, 2004
59.0/41.0 % - GT Turbo, 2001

TechArt:

45.0/55.0 % – GT Cayman Sport
38.0/62.0 % - GT Street

TVR:

52.0/48.0 % - Tuscan MK2

Volkswagen:

59.0/41.0 % - R32, 2006
62.0/38.0 % - R32, 2003
62.0/38.0 % - GTI, 2002
64.0/36.0 % - GTI DSG, 2005
60.0/40.0% - Gold V6 4Motion, 2000
 
Mr. M

Mr. M

Member
Thank you. :usa7uh:

Does anyone have any concrete knowledge on how to make sense of these figures? Is 50/50 the best, or does it depend on whether the car is mid-engined, front or rear engined?
 
V

vabboud

Member
well i believe there is a conscensus aboutnose heavy being not good
anything close to 50-50 aids handling, but rear biased aids in acceleration if i am not mistaken
anybody can shed some light?
(haven't reached that course yet ;) )
 
Bruce

Bruce

Member
Original Poster
Mirage77 said:
Thank you. :usa7uh:

Does anyone have any concrete knowledge on how to make sense of these figures? Is 50/50 the best, or does it depend on whether the car is mid-engined, front or rear engined?
Click to expand...

50/50 is the best in every sense but your little likely to see such a figure in a mid engine sports car. As we can see BMW puts the most work into acheiveing near perfect weight distributions for their front engine vehicles. Most of the mid engine exotics are 40/60, with the two best on this list being the Pagani Zonda F and the Lamborghini Murcielago LP640. For the more road worthy, practical mid engine vehicles the Boxster and Cayman do the best.

vabboud said:
well i believe there is a conscensus aboutnose heavy being not good
anything close to 50-50 aids handling, but rear biased aids in acceleration if i am not mistaken
anybody can shed some light?
(haven't reached that course yet ;) )
Click to expand...

Correct, in fact that was one of the common complaints with Aud vehicle. Their extreme nose heavy cornering; now, as we can see the B7 RS4 still has a heavy nose but both EVO magazine andTop Gear said the RS4 didn't suffer from this heavy nose handling which previous Audi's had.

The rear biased weight, especially for Porsche does is in fact increase traction at the rear, it does make for a slingy rear end though ;)

Thanks for the comments you guys and you too Osnabrueck

:t-cheers:
 
Bruce

Bruce

Member
Original Poster
I was just looking over my list and in all honesty, both the Europa and Exige have terrible weight distributions.. :confused:

Lotus claims them as ultimate sports car...
 
Bruce

Bruce

Member
Original Poster
Zonda said:
Great!

I thought Koenigsegg would've been better than that... Thanks again for the list:)
Click to expand...

You're welcome :usa7uh:

I just checked, Koenigsegg claims the weight distribution is 43/57, but he doesn't say if that's fully loaded or empty.
 
Centurion

Centurion

Member
Supporter
Most audis are 60/40 with is becasue they have their engines at the nose of the car, while BMW have theirs just on top of in front of the front wheel axel. Can someone explain to me why audi build nose heavy cars, what are the benefits?
 
Bruce

Bruce

Member
Original Poster
Luwalira said:
Most audis are 60/40 with is becasue they have their engines at the nose of the car, while BMW have theirs just on top of in front of the front wheel axel. Can someone explain to me why audi build nose heavy cars, what are the benefits?
Click to expand...

I don't know if there are any benefits, but perhaps Audi's typically have a 60/40 weight distribution because most of them employ AWD, maybe the AWD system means Audi has to push the engine forward? I can't say for sure though, I'm no technical expert..

:t-cheers:
 
Zonda

Zonda

Member
Luwalira said:
Most audis are 60/40 with is becasue they have their engines at the nose of the car, while BMW have theirs just on top of in front of the front wheel axel. Can someone explain to me why audi build nose heavy cars, what are the benefits?
Click to expand...

More interior space. That layout is better for family cars where performance is not a factor. While BMW try to add a touch of sportyness to all their cars.
 
Centurion

Centurion

Member
Supporter
Zonda said:
More interior space. That layout is better for family cars where performance is not a factor. While BMW try to add a touch of sportyness to all their cars.
Click to expand...

Very logical theory. Porsche Ferdinard constructed the Beetle with the engine in the rear for more interior space.
 
Zonda

Zonda

Member
Interior space is also the reason why John Cooper mounted the engine in the Mini sidewise(can't fint the correct word right now)

Clarkson gives a brief explenation here( at 2:54):
[GV]7012996039848919542&q=top+gear+rs4[/GV]
 
Yperion

Yperion

Member
Audis are front heavy cause the torsen differentials take a lot of space and the engine has to be mounted over the front axis.
Now that new models (A5 beeing the first of them) are designed to use Torsen C , the engine will be moved to the rear of the car thus improving the distribution.
BTW Audi Q7 has 52/48 front/rear cause the differential can be placed furter to the rear (lots of space cause it's a very big vehicle).

49a5f44f36c7bcf8e4676e25dc4f936d.jpg
 

Top