This morning, driving to work, I saw the new model Polo pass alongside a MK1 Golf. The polo was bigger, notably bigger! Based upon this I assume the Golf is now around the size of the original passat? I also see the new Mondeo is the same size that my old Granada Scorpio was.
So, how do car firms get away with the "Biggest boot/rooomiest in class" when, often, the car is no longer in *that* class anymore because it has increased in size into the next *class* up?
Reviewers are as bad because the make a passing reference to the increased size but never say that it is now a totally different car and cannot be compared to previous rivals due to the fact it is now the size of an E class Merc!
A few years ago the wife was really taken with the Mondeo but, when we looked at the new one, although she liked it, it was simply massive!
Carry on this way and the "Biggest boot in this class/sector" will simply mean size of a 7.5cwt waggon !
Rgds
Zuave.
|
|
Increasing standards of living enable all classes of cars to get bigger. Pre-war Austin 7s were so small that the rear footwells were really only big enough to get one foot in each, but at the time they were seen as being small family cars. tinyurl.com/cfqt7t3
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 29 Aug 12 at 07:20
|
I think it is just a sneaky way to get people to buy bigger cars. After all, if people wanted a bigger car they would buy one. There is no need for firms to be sneaky about it. A Mondeo, if it is the size of a Scorpio, should be called a Scorpio. A Polo is now a Golf. I assume a Lupo/Fox/Up/whatever is now a Polo.
Surely there is no need to hide behind a name?
Rgds
zuave
|
|
Surely all to do with safety cells hence the thick 'A' pillars that block one's view!
|
And people have been getting bigger for decades too.
I can remember cars that would easily seat 3-abreast on a bench front seat.
|
|
...or indeed in the back seat. With big cars at the limit of viability in terms of width, their thick doors restrict interior width. The LEC will take three adults in the back, but only if they're reasonably compact and they cooperate over getting in and fastening seat belts.
|
>> I can remember cars that would easily seat 3-abreast on a bench front seat.
>>
Me too.
|
.
>> I can remember cars that would easily seat 3-abreast on a bench front seat.
>>
I used to have one: a lovely Standard Ensign.
|
>> This morning, driving to work, I saw the new model Polo pass alongside a MK1
>> Golf. The polo was bigger, notably bigger!
>>
Only yesterday morning as I was waffling along the motorway to Brussels, the new Golf in front of me overtook a Mk1 Renault Scenic.
The Golf looked larger all round and to my astonishment was actually taller.
I guess this means that the current Golf is officially an MPV?
|
>>>> I can remember cars that would easily seat 3-abreast on a bench front seat.
The Ford Consul did this rather well as far as I remember.
|
>> I can remember cars that would easily seat 3-abreast on a bench front seat.
I can remember cars with a bench front seat where you get very easily to a breast.
|
The exterior may have got bigger, but some modern interiors are very, very cramped given the external dimensions.
I often clean a Range Rover Sport and the interior is very 'close', like a leather coffin.
Centre consoles have got higher and wider, as have door trims, especially on luxury cars. Light and airy need not apply.
|
And then there is the conveyor belt aspect to it, in which cars drop off the top end.
I remember back in the 1970s there were basically 3 Fords: the small one (Escort), the medium one (Cortina), and the large one (Granada).
There are now (if you exclude MPVs, SUVs, and other Vs) four (Ka, Fiesta, Focus, and Mondeo). And the Focus, which succeeded the Escort, is the 2nd largest.
If things continue like this, the Mondeo will be discontinued in a few years, and the Focus (or its successor), will be the largest car. And by late in the 21st century, the Fiesta's successor will be.
|
|
My dear old dad's first new car was a Ford Consul (in the mid fifties). It had the much admired bench front seat, as well as the three speed steering column gear change. We (and everybody else) thought that it was enormous. Thirty years, and many other cars, later, he bought a Mk 3 Escort, listed as a small hatchback at the time, and by comparing the two handbooks (he never threw anything away!) we discovered that the internal dimensions of the 'small' Escort were significantly larger than the 'enormous' Consul had been.
|
|
I think cars reached a peak of space-efficiency in the 1980s: front-wheel drive, transverse engines and (relatively) advanced computer design were commonplace by then, but the increase in crash-resistant bulk didn't come along till the early 90s. As a 1.9m teenager I fitted quite comfortably into the back seat of a 1985 Maestro; I'm not much bigger now but the back of a Focus is a tight squeeze, even though the car is a good 300mm longer than the Maestro was.
|
By contrast some old cars now look small but have a lot of room inside.
My Triumph 2000, called by some the "Big 6" (which I hate) looks a sweet little thing from outside. But inside it sits 3 abreast in the back, and there is a space between the front seats handy as a gangway or for shopping.
Also, I have only recently noticed, there is so much room in the back that there is room to slide the front seat back completely clear of the steering wheel, which is useful for reading or picnicking.
And it has a boot big enough to hide a body in, despite having a proper spare wheel.
|
>> By contrast some old cars now look small but have a lot of room inside.
I always think of the Austin 1100 and related cars (BMC ADO16, according to Wikipedia!). They seemed fairly roomy inside, but very small on the outside.
|
>>I can remember cars with a bench front seat where you get very easily to a breast<<
hehe! you sordid little man.
:-D
|
Just thinking back to when I had a 1995 Mondeo and the door were about 8" thick. My 2009 Mondeo features slabs about 14" thick. In narrow spaces (with such a wide car) it seems silly how much of the gap is taken up by the door itself.
However, I'm all for it. I prefer the extra safety.
It's not like they're going to keep getting bigger. Surely there will be a point when they are what they are. Passive safety systems can only add so much weight and bulk, interior space only needs to be so big.
So, we're probably there, or thereabouts now.
|
It would be great if car makers started to trim the fat out of the cars.
Then they wouldn't weigh so much and we would all benefit as emissions would be lower and fuel economy improved.
in the 80's and 90's car makers could make cars that had economy figures of 100mpg but the safety was terrible.
today's cars have great safety but abysmal real world fuel economy.
|
>>
>> interior space only needs to be so big.
>>
>> So, we're probably there, or thereabouts now.
>>
No, because people are getting larger all the time. Already, standard-sized seating has had to be enlarged. Look at any communal seating area and the sizes of the people trying to use it, and the average human lump now needs about 1 1/2 chairs.
Also people are continuing to get taller.
As weight goes up, engines will have to be bigger or upgraded.
Cars need to carry the average weekly shop. Bigger fatter people are eating more, getting greedier. Trolleys are bigger, many families now need 2 trolleys.
|
|
Bigger fatter people all full of junk food >)Bloke next to me on the airplane about twenty stone he should have had two seats.
|
If people are getting bigger, then airline seats should have been larger too. AFAIK, they remained the same (if not narrower) in last 30 years.
IMHO, manufacturers are making the cars bigger so that they have an excuse to charge more.
Last edited by: movilogo on Wed 29 Aug 12 at 15:12
|
>> It would be great if car makers started to trim the fat out of the cars.
This is what Mazda has done with the CX-5 and the next Mazda6. They call it Sky Active. Using stronger, lighter steel has helped lower emissions.
|
>> Using stronger, lighter steel has helped lower emissions.
Not being a tree hugger, the level of emissions isn't a factor which influences my choice when replacing my car with another.
|
|
It's also improved the handling as the car is far more rigid. Emissions or no, fuel savings are always welcome.
|
Simple answer, make small cars for small people.
Any large person attempting to buy one can be told by the salesman; "You should consider one of our larger vehicles, as your rampant self-indulgence has made you a hideous lardbucket that won't fit into our smaller cars."
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 29 Aug 12 at 18:57
|
|
I mentioned emissions but as said above that means more efficient cars that use less fuel. I care about emissions because my car is a company vehicle so it means lower benefit in kind.
|
|
Don't worry, RTJ, l'Es just throws in his 'tree hugger' assertion in case anyone has missed all its previous fourteen million airings. Those of us likely to be alive in 2050, or with children who will be, tend to take a different view.
|
>> Don't worry, RTJ, L'es just throws in his 'tree hugger' assertion in case anyone has
>> missed all its previous fourteen million airings.
Fourteen million? That's good to know, because it indicates that my typing must be quicker than I thought!
Last edited by: L'escargot on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 07:17
|
I drove a XXXXXXXXX XXXXX recently, and commented about how it was built (a) for a global market, with a 'common' dashboard with no driver ergonomics, so whether it was LHD or RHD, you'd still battle to tune the radio and adjust the aircon; and (b) how the seats seemed to be for fat buttocked people - very wide, more mushroom shaped than saucer-shaped, and with room for expansion.
Many cars these days seem to cater for the 18-20 stoner, but very few do so for a 6' 4" chap, with size 12s.
|
|
Funny you should say that, Ian, because this 6'5" size thirteener generally finds today's cars easier to fit into than those of the sunroof-blighted 1990s.
|
>> Funny you should say that, Ian, because this 6'5" size thirteener generally finds today's cars
>> easier to fit into than those of the sunroof-blighted 1990s.
>>
always want to be one bigger in everything, don't you?
:>)
But yes, you have a very valid point - the sunroof days were terrible - yep, here's a thing you'll use maybe a tenth of the time you're driving, but will take 3" off your headroom 365 days a year.
But on a lot of modern 'global' cars - ie those designed to be either LHD or RHD, I battle with the RHD car pedalboxes, where there's no room for the left foot, nor enough space between pedals to move one's feet.
|
I also find that with small cars.
a fiat chiquentoto (not even worth spelling right) thingy comes to mind.
the pedals were offset and too close together for my size 11 feet.
borderline dangerous touching the brake and accelerator pedals at the same time when trying to brake.
|
>> touching the brake and accelerator pedals at the same time when trying to
>> brake.
Hey, it took me AGES to learn heel-and-toe, and you get it for free?
I hate you!
|
very dangerous.
I did work my way around it by using the side of my foot to operate the pedals.
what a chore and after 5minutes a dead ankle as well.
glad it was a courtesy car.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Sep 12 at 01:38
|
diddy, I've drive 4x4s with the same problem, which, when you think about it, is crazy.
Where else are you going to wear wellies or heavy boots but at a 4x4-friendly place?
|
ian, never thought 4x4 would suffer that problem.
it does make me think how many other cars are designed for crippled people to drive.
|
No, neither did I!
It is crazy. Landrover design brief - can you drive in wellies?
I'm not naming names, but some of the pedals and spacing arrangements seem to be lifted straight out of a 2 door 1.1 mummy car!
|
I like sunroofs, but then again I'm not a freak of nature at 6'0, a full head of hair and size 10s...
Even I didn't fit very well in a Land Rover 90 though. Who were they made for, Gurkhas or something?
:-)
|
|
I think most car makers plan to increase the size of every car in their range over a period of years, thus allowing the introduction of new, small models. This way their range constantly evolves and there are new models to keep our interest and facilitate our needs. Golf gets bigger, Polo introduced, gets bigger, Up introduced and so on.
|
|
And garages are full of junk the car won't fit.The Focus is a wide car in comparison with the Honda Jazz we had before.Daughters Panda is narrow and easy to park.Problem is the roads arn't getting wider narrow streets and no room.
|
|
Humph in a Land Rover with a wig and no teeth selling shoes.<:)
|
>> I like sunroofs, ............
Me too. If I'm buying a new car and a sliding/tilting sunroof is an optional extra then I'll specify it.
|
I was in a Skoda Superb combi in use as a taxi the other day. Now the Superb normally has plenty of room in the back. This one had the full length panoramic glass roof fitted and my head was bouncing off the ceiling.
Until then I'd forgotten how much headroom was chewed by the de rigeur sliding sunroof of a few years ago. Praise be to climate control.
You'd have been in serious trouble, I'm nowhere near 6' 5".......
|
Yes, TC, I sat in a new MB E saloon in a showroom recently and found the same thing about the 'panoramic' roof (a misnomer, since it only lets you see upwards.) With a steel roof I have a clear hand's width above my head; the glass one was touching my well-thatched scalp.
I didn't answer Ian's point about pedals. I suspect that while Ian's press duties bring him into contact with a wide range of cars, I've missed the worst because any car I look at today needs to hold four Beests, so tiny ones need not apply. But I was shocked to find the biggish new Volvo S60 has no spare space to the left of the clutch pedal, in RHD form at least, when the footwell in my old S60 is so roomy. Never tried a manual MB; how does it work with four pedals in there?
|
Why do cars always get bigger? - L'escargot
