American cars are growing like...well Americans.

I'm coming down with an illness. Since joining this forum, i've slowly started liking BMWs. This is driving me crazy... am i going to start liking miatas soon?

On a different note, your BMW looks kind of jacked up in the front. A tad bit lower and it'd look nice, especially with those wheels. ... Oh my God i just talked about a BMW looking good, what's happening to me!?

Skylines are growing too!

In reply to jrw1621:

That's because Skylines are like The Highlander; they absorb their predecessors.. .. .. via lightning. That's the "Magic" behind the latest one's speed and why it won the World's Greatest Drag Race.

EdenPrime wrote: ...your BMW looks kind of jacked up in the front. A tad bit lower and it'd look nice, especially with those wheels.

Still riding on stock springs. I bought the rims/tires used on a good deal. They are staggered with 15x7 in the front and 15x8 in the back with bigger rubber on the rear. This smaller front tire helps to exaggerate the fender gap.

Stockers:

In reply to jrw1621:

Man those wheels sure class it up. And staggered is always gorgeous. .. Stop making me like this!

jrw1621 wrote: In an interesting reversal, I took this picture last month of my e30 next to the wife's Mazda 5. The front bumpers of all three cars are lined up and I was surprised to learn that the BMW and Mazda5 are the same length.

Surprised in a good way or a bad way? I'm surprised the Mazda 5 isn't longer. The e30 is a compact sedan/coupe from the 80's. The 5 is a mini-minivan built on a modern midsize car chassis. You'd think a modern midsize car would be as big as an old full-size.

Surprised - good. A reversal of the trend of growing cars.
Of course, the Mazda 5 is hardly the typical American car. More of a euro-style passenger shuttle.
I was sorry to hear that Ford seems to have killed off the C-Max, it's own version of the Mazda 5. It is also sad that Ford puts little to no effort into marketing the Transit Connect as a passenger vehicle. My guess is that Escapes and Edges are more profitable.

Late 70's - early 80's introduced downsizing, now we have supersizing...

Why does the insde of most every new car feel like crap? it's just a bunch of hard plastic panels everywhere, even in stuff over 35K. Even the cheapest 80's econobox had padded armrests and vinyl covered door panels.

Gearheadotaku wrote: Why does the insde of most every new car feel like crap? it's just a bunch of hard plastic panels everywhere, even in stuff over 35K. Even the cheapest 80's econobox had padded armrests and vinyl covered door panels.

+10000. Although I was thinking more of the '90s.

Also it drives me absolutely nuts I can't rest my arm on the window of any modern cars without feeling like an ape. I absolutely hate that so much I won't buy any car that feels like that.

This very popular '80's econo car was far from luxurious. A center armrest was not offered and typically had to be sourced from the aftermarket. Same for the e30 which required going out to the aftermarket to get an armrest.

Similar shot from current lowly '09 Hyundai Accent.

Twin_Cam wrote: Also, the original CRX could do upwards of 50 mpg on the highway if driven correctly, and all these new car makers are really stoked about their 40 mpg cars. Really, guys? A car from the late '80s can do (much) better. I understand some of the weight increase is from gubment-mandated safety crap (Tire pressure monitoring on all new cars? This is what I fund their paychecks for?), but not every car needs sat-nav and power everything.

I agree....TPMS, mandatory traction and stability control, enough airbags for a minor bump to total the vehicle....There are too many gizmos on new cars.

Yeah, the crown vic got fat, old and then died. Then after it's death was commended on how great of a car it was, even though it wasn't THAT great.

3700lbs isn't bad for a vic though, the old 80s ones were about the same. My 89 wagon with me in it and a trailer hitch was 4470 lbs at the landfill scales.

Otto Maddox wrote:

I refuse to see your point.

EdenPrime wrote: In reply to Lesley: Well what's with new cars nowadays looking like big puffy marshmallows? For instance, i saw the 1970 Challenger next to a 2010 Challenger, and the bottom of the 70' is like 3-4 inches higher on the body than the 10'. The 10' is so puffy and the body is so tall and thick. Like the 70's body is thinner. Here's what i mean:

To be honest, the actual sides of the cars don't look too different in "thickness". Notice how the '70s Challenger sides roll under the car, making it darker? It gives the impression that it the lower 4 inches isn't "there" as much. A bit of illusion that. What the current Challenger lacks is a lower body line with a tiny bit of inward angle to help give it a bit of definition and take away from it's slab-sided looks.

Yup. The character lines in the new Charger help it look less porky. Look how big the arse on the new Challenger is compared to the old...

I should add that I wasn't blaming anyone or picking on Ford, that was just car that I saw and which caused me to ponder. My first drive of an Accord was in this:

And my latest was in this:

Twin_Cam wrote: Also, the original CRX could do upwards of 50 mpg on the highway if driven correctly, and all these new car makers are really stoked about their 40 mpg cars. Really, guys? A car from the late '80s can do (much) better. I understand some of the weight increase is from gubment-mandated safety crap (Tire pressure monitoring on all new cars? This is what I fund their paychecks for?), but not every car needs sat-nav and power everything standard. And further proving the point of this thread, park a '90s Subaru Outback next to a new Subaru Outback. Or a '90s Ford Taurus next to a new Ford Taurus. It's amazing these things are still classified as 'cars' and not 'tour buses.'

The EPA also killed the lean-burn engine technology that Honda used in these as well, thanks to the NOx emissions, IIRC.

Pinchy, your first Accord is actually a Civic but I get your point.

Here is the Honda 1979 line:
The sedan you added is likely a '82 Civic Sedan

To Keith:

the difference between the CRX HF and a "regular" CRX, in 1984-85 was the engine and the transmission. In 1984, the CRX HF used a 1.3 liter engine, the "regular" used a 1.5 liter engine. HF produced 60 horses, the regular produced 76 horses. In 1985, Honda did away with the 1.3 liter engine, and came out with 2 different 1.5 liter engines. One engine was a 3 valve per cylinder engine, the other had a CVCC head. (This is what my reference book says. I thought that the CVCC used 3 valves per cylinder?) The '85 HF now produced 58 horses, while the "regular" used an engine STILL rated at 76 horses.
There was also different gearing used in the transmissions. And, of course, the tires used by the HF were NOT a "low profile" design, like those on a regular CRX.

Same situation exists today with the Civic. DX/LX is somewhat different from HX.

The weight difference between my 1966 Impala and a 2012 Prius is only 400lbs... With the right passenger, I'd have a Hybrid!

I suggested this on a bike forum a while back, and they all thought I was some kind of nut.

EdenPrime wrote: I'm coming down with a wellness. Since joining this forum, i've slowly started liking BMWs.

FTFY

Thanks integraguy. I was curious about that.

Still, you can't say that modern cars won't compete with the 80's in terms of economy. I'm not sure you could sell a 58 hp car anymore, even if did only weigh 1800 lbs Meanwhile, a stock MINI Cooper will make better fuel economy than a non-HF CRX according to the official ratings. Heck, a Jetta wagon will beat it.

My half ton Ram seems to be smaller than modern Dakotas and is dwarfed by a new rear drive Ram 1500.