Cars are berkeleying huge.

cars are definitely safer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Does it make them better?

They are expensive and not available with manual transmissions either.

Walking is better but it is too hot in Texas.

That's the new SHO parked next to an MDX.

It seems just about every car goes through inflation every year. My parents 2012 Civic is almost the exact size of my '86 Accord. Of course, the Accord is much larger than it was. The Civic's size creep necessitated the creation of the Fit.

The MINI hardtop is going the same way. The 2nd generation added a few inches on the first, and the 3rd adds a few inches on the second. And the MINI hardtop is the smallest in the line.

Pretty soon they'll to introduce a smaller car under it, maybe they'll call it the MINIATUR.

And, yes, on top of all that cars in general have added a huge amount of weight for all the safety, insulation, and electronics. So much so that mileage hasn't got much better in spite of the huge improvements in efficiency in motors, and use of thinner metals and plastics.

ProDarwin wrote: The efficiency regulations are based on vehicle footprint, so often its easier to make a car longer/wider (and thus have a lower CAFE target) than it is to make it more efficient.

And that's the same reason, IIRC, why the world was gifted with this:

"We need to make the car 6 inches longer. But we have no money to redesign everything."

"I got just the idea! All we have to change is the hood, grille, and bumper..."

HiTempguy wrote: I am pretty sure that of all forums, I had to bitch someone out for complaining a new car (or an old metro, I forget) on grm was dangerous to merge with. A metro is not dangerous to merge with and besides the miragd I think all modern cars are faster than it

On a local track-oriented forum that used to exist, one member was bitching about how his RX-8 had no acceleration and was a "momentum car". It's a 14 second car, it accelerates just fine. (And, as another friend pointed out, all cars are momentum cars)

He also was talking about some minicar and how it sucked because "You could floor it in 5th and it just wouldn't go!" So? Try driving a car where you need WOT to maintain 70mph under many conditions. This assumes that you can go that fast in 5th and don't have to downshift.

Buncha entitled whiners, I tell ya. Drive one car that can smoke the tires in 3rd and suddenly everything that can't do that is dangerously slow.

People want a more refined driving experience and a "feeling of safety", bigger cars give you that. It's the market driving it, not the auto manufacturers. Fuel economy and safety have increased across the board. Yes they could do even better on fuel economy with smaller cars, but people don't buy them. People want their economy car to feel roomy now.

To Basil; Honda would have trouble selling a handful of 1986 accords if they released that car today. The civic is better in every area.

Cars have not gained that much weight, relatively, particularly when compared with what you get. Looking at the longer term, the only time cars really got lighter was the 80-90's. Most of those cars are e36 M3 boxes that aren't even in the same universe as cars sold today. Look at the Ford Fiesta and compare that to what you got 20 years ago from Fords cheapest car.

They could do better with fuel economy in smaller cars but they'd get slaughtered on CAFE. Once the next level of regs go into place something the size of a smart car would need to get something absurd, like 80mpg combined or get the gas guzzler tax. And when a car getting 60mpg combined is a gas guzzler while another bigger car getting 30mpg combined isnt a gas guzzler something is wrong.

Interior space is interesting to compare. I know someone who just bought a Land Rover. Forget the model, but she claims that it will just barely fit two car seats in the back (it is a 4 door SUV) and with a car seat behind the driver's seat the seat won't go far enough back for her husband to drive comfortably.

So, this LR gets worse fuel economy than any minivan currently made, holds less inside, handles worse, has only marginal off-road capability (which will never get used anyway) and costs way more (not to mention depreciation and maintenance). And, frankly, it's ugly.

There was big publicity over the fact that the "downsized" full sizers for 1977 from GM had more capacity than the previous years models, even though they were lighter and shorter. And it seems like cars and minivans have done very well in terms of engineering interior room- the exception being rear headroom in sedans, which I attribute to that ugly raised-butt styling everyone's going to for aerodynamics. But crossovers and SUVs seem to be going the opposite direction, back to the pre-'76 GM sedans that were mammoth but made poor utilization of the size of their pavement shadow.

Going back even further, BTW..it seems to me like there was a sweet spot sometime in the 1960's, when cars got smaller from the progressive excesses of the 1950's, true compact cars started really coming on the scene, and prior to the puzzling bloated barges of the post-72/pre-77 era.

Leafy wrote:

RoughandReady wrote: I've certainly noticed that cars have gotten smaller inside. My mother's CX-7 is an enormous bloated cow on the outside and is a BMW E30 on the inside.

Thats not fair to the e30. You can fit 2 sets of tires, an air tank, a big tool box, luggage, lunch, helmets and other driver gear, a whole bunch of spare parts, a 6 cd changer in the trunk, and a passenger in an e30 which is substantially smaller than the smallest car that BMW sells now.

I dunno. The inside of an E30 (my wife has a beautiful stock '91 318is that everyone is always trying to buy from her) is smaller than anything I've been inside in 10 years and I suspect its crash-worthiness is essentially that of the tin can it is. It could only fit a rearward facing car seat by putting the front seat to an uninhabitable position and it's not really practical for anyone to sit behind 6' tall me.

I saw a bug eyed Sprite at a park yesterday. It's hard to believe anyone ever sold a car that small.

I believe that the US is top 3 in the car market worldwide and top 5 in obesity. I mentioned in a similar thread that a bunch of fat 25-55 year old people/couples can't demand small vehicles since they can't fit in them. Especially since fat people are more likely to have fat kids, and fat kids are very likely to not be skinny adults.

Since we're so important for the car market, companies that want to sell cars here need to make what we want, which has been SUVs, trucks, and not many minivans,wagons, or hatchbacks.

Fuel efficiency wouldn't be that bad if the masses demanded more electric, hybrid, and diesel vehicles, in that order. Since that's not happening more, we will have plenty of environmental problems.

mfennell wrote: ...and I suspect its crash-worthiness is essentially that of the tin can it is...

You would be surprised at how well they can hit a tirewall at a non-insignificant speed ... and keep right on going. More like a tank than a tin can.

Oh, and as far as cars being HUGE...

I have a '99 Miata and a '73 Corolla sitting in the garage. Both are the same length (within fractions of an inch), the Miata is 6 inches wider overall, but door to door inside they're both 49 inches wide. I can remember running around with 4 people in a Corolla similar to mine back in my college days.The Miata weighs more and it's wheels are 2 inches greater diameter. So the Miata is the fat one, but is pretty darned light by current standards. Some of it's probably just styling, but a bunch of the difference has to be safety regulations.

Mr_Clutch42 wrote: Fuel efficiency wouldn't be that bad if the masses demanded more electric, hybrid, and diesel vehicles, in that order. Since that's not happening more, we will have plenty of environmental problems.

Yeah, too bad those lightweight cars with small motors from the late 70's/early 80's couldn't get 50mpg (80s Honda 1.3 Civic or CRX, whatever it was, I believe rabbit diesels also did...).

The fat cars of today with their really efficient and powerful motors would do that all day long if not for so many mandates (and or creature comforts...).

Fat people notwithstanding....

But then, I like poison air and water too.

In reply to OldGray320i:

MMM, good old fashioned carcinogens

RoughandReady wrote: ^Yes, there was a time when cars were really berkeleying huge. The age of American excess. Fuel is dirt cheap, no one worries about the environment, America is the tits and no one can touch us (maybe the last one isn't true in '73, but it seems to be a leftover attitude from the 50s). The whole problem, in my eyes, is that this totally bullE36 M3 attitude is still lingering. Gas is 3.70 in the city right now, the planet is not coping with us so well, and America is not the one true king anymore. But the attitude lingers. "I DESERVE an Escalade because I EARNED it." Those times are dead and people need to get real on what they actually need and what they actually use. It becomes a lame "we're all in this together situation," as much as I don't really want to participate.

This irks me to no end. There are a bunch of people on this board, and and plenty of non-enthusiasts elsewhere I'm sure, that would be fine CHOOSING a small light weight car, because that's what they do. There are others who CHOOSE to own an SUV - if they've earned it, who are you to limit that choice?

No one worries about the environment? Oh, that's right, I want poison air and water. That's the stupidest argument there is. And don't forget about all the green weenies who want to tell you what you can do with the land you own (and even city councils, for that matter, taking land from one private entity to give it to another private entity so the local government can get more money).

So much for the right of the individual to choose...

OldGray320i wrote:

Mr_Clutch42 wrote: Fuel efficiency wouldn't be that bad if the masses demanded more electric, hybrid, and diesel vehicles, in that order. Since that's not happening more, we will have plenty of environmental problems.

Yeah, too bad those lightweight cars with small motors from the late 70's/early 80's couldn't get 50mpg (80s Honda 1.3 Civic or CRX, whatever it was, I believe rabbit diesels also did...). The fat cars of today with their really efficient and powerful motors would do that all day long if not for so many mandates (and or creature comforts...). Fat people notwithstanding.... But then, I like poison air and water too.

Those 70's hondas got 50mpg with a 2 bbl carb didnt they?

nicksta43 wrote: In reply to OldGray320i: MMM, good old fashioned carcinogens

Is that for the exhaust fumes, or the char-broiled burgers!?

I had a 83 sentra wagon the got 50mpg on premium fuel consistently 1.6 carbed 5 speed. I put overload springs on it and hauled a 350 chevy in the back.

HiTempguy wrote:

RoughandReady wrote: Are cars really that much safer (actual, not rhetorical question)? *snip;* Seems to me like people expect too much (regarless of how many cheeseburgers they eat). Everyone needs AWD, heated seats, Super auto climate control, Instafacetweet on their dash, etc. The new Dart, just for an example, should have 500 lbs cut from it, a 1.0 L engine that mankes 100 hp, and an 8 speed (or whatever) gearbox. I've daily driven many heavy (by the old standard) cars with ~100 hp or less, and have honestly never missed the excess power.

I am pretty sure that of all forums, I had to bitch someone out for complaining a new car (or an old metro, I forget) on grm was dangerous to merge with. A metro is not dangerous to merge with and besides the miragd I think all modern cars are faster than it

I've said many times, if you can merge into 80 mph traffic in a 3000 lb, 72 hp Mercedes 240d, you can merge in anything.

Feedyurhed wrote: That's my biggest issue with American performance cars. Challenger, Camaro, Mustang, Charger, Corvette etc......all porkers. Not just size but the weight too. Ya I know, the Asians and Europeans aren't much better.

Are you sure about the Vette? I'm not sure about the C7 but the C5 and C6 were quite svelte. One of the few if not the only American cars that were weight conscience. The Z06's were just a shade over 3100. You'd have to go all the way back to '62 to find a lighter one.

Carro Atrezzi wrote:

Feedyurhed wrote: That's my biggest issue with American performance cars. Challenger, Camaro, Mustang, Charger, Corvette etc......all porkers. Not just size but the weight too. Ya I know, the Asians and Europeans aren't much better.

Are you sure about the Vette? I'm not sure about the C7 but the C5 and C6 were quite svelte. One of the few if not the only American cars that were weight conscience. The Z06's were just a shade over 3100. You'd have to go all the way back to '62 to find a lighter one.

yep, the vette is the only thing wrong on that list.

I remember when I thought my 95 9C1 was big at 4,052 lbs. That is apparently pony car territory, now.

I miss the larger greenhouses and lower belt lines of the older cars. They had a completely different feel. I like being able to see out the back window, and rest my elbow on the door frame without looking like I'm riding a chopper. Style has a lot to do with the increased size of cars. Platform sharing is another big contributor.