Not to mention that for some, a 5+ meter long Chrysler concord was considered "Family sized" just like the 4.7m long Mazda6 X___X.Originally Posted by henk4
Enthusiast
Not to mention that for some, a 5+ meter long Chrysler concord was considered "Family sized" just like the 4.7m long Mazda6 X___X.
it was actually me who killed vasilli zaitsev, heinz thorwald, carlos hatchcock, and simo hayha
Enthusiast
What I find kind of strange is how all cars grow over the generations.
Look at the Golf. It started out as a small hatch, now in it's fifth-gen guise it can basically be classified a segment up. The current Polo even is bigger than the first Golf... Some day the Polo will probably be as big as the current Golf, with the Golf/ Jetta occupying the market currently held by the Passat, with the Passat taking the place of the Phaeton and the Phaeton, well...
Same thing with just about every other carmaker out there. Look at the brand-new still to be released C-Class. I'd say that's just about on par with the W124 E from the late 80s and early 90s. The E has taken what would've been considered S-Class proportions just a few years ago.
Same with BMW, same with Honda, same with Toyota etc.
Are we caught in a cycle?
Supporting Member
During the summer of 2006 I shot the generally praised Brera next to the mid-sixties designed Giulia Spider model. I saw them standing together I could not escape thinking how bulky the Brera looks in comparison (and we all know how heavy the Brera actually is)...
As weight has to be moved, the trend of more economical engines has also been necessitated by the about 50% gain in weight of the average car.....Just imagine we had the current engines in cars from the sixties or the seventies...
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Furniture
some of us don't have to imaginemy neighbour has a Triumph with a mazda engine
his fuel efficiency craps all over mine....
Andreas Preuninger, Manager of Porsche High Performance Cars: "Grandmas can use paddles. They aren't challenging."
Supporting Member
I hope it is not a rotary though...some of us don't have to imagine
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Furniture
no, i think it's a four cylinder and the triumph is a TR4we were toying with getting a similar engine into a mini but decided against it as i have enough mini engines anyway
Andreas Preuninger, Manager of Porsche High Performance Cars: "Grandmas can use paddles. They aren't challenging."
Supporting Member
a very useful conversion I would say.no, i think it's a four cylinder and the triumph is a TR4
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Furniture
the fuel efficiency would be very welcome, but the extra work in fitting the engine and adapting the car for it is noti'm hoping the clubman i have allocated for myself will return decent fuel mileage but i am prepared to be underwhelmed..
Andreas Preuninger, Manager of Porsche High Performance Cars: "Grandmas can use paddles. They aren't challenging."
Supporting Member
sorry I was talking about the triumph, the Minis should be left alone...the fuel efficiency would be very welcome, but the extra work in fitting the engine and adapting the car for it is not
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Furniture
ah. well, it's a neat conversion, sounds good too, i'll probably get some pics of it at some point.
actually what fuel efficiency did you get with your mini, henk? and with what engine
Andreas Preuninger, Manager of Porsche High Performance Cars: "Grandmas can use paddles. They aren't challenging."
Enthusiast
i'd respectfully disagree with you. i don't see anything bad in todays low greenhouses and as for me most of the cars look better with them, eg. CLS. i think it's just you're used to the proportions that were dominant for such a long time and now it'll take some time for you to get used to it
12 cylinders or walk!
Enthusiast
Personally I like the looks of most of the new generation cars (every generation has its ugly cars) At least most of the makers are trying to develope a sense of marque again (instead of 60-70% of all the cars looking almost identicle) Personally I like high waist lines and bigger wheels (so long as they have the bigger tires to fit)
Also I think that the family size and smaller cars are trying hard to develope a feel that isn't so out of place compared to the 18 wheelers and massive pick-ups/SUVs ect. that it will most likely be sharing the road with. I still remember how uncomfortable I felt when I was driven from Liverpool to London in a Lotus Super 7 a few years ago (no doors, no roof, truck wheels are taller than you, ect.). I mean yeah it would be great if the majority of cars where still made as light as in the good old days but every time I look at a car from the early 80s or earlier and see the pathetically skinny A and B posts I can't help but imagine how awfull it would be if someone crashed in it.
Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it
Engine torque is an illusion.
Enthusiast
Regards skinny pillars, this ancient Volvo 140 weighs in at a mere 1179 kg (2600 lbs) .. or did, before the 7,076 kg roof rack was added
For Great Justice.
It's all well and good to complain about how cars greenhouses are getting smaller and the pillars are getting fatter - but it's a prerequisite to meet the demanding safety requirements of todays modern streets - and buyers.
they had a comparison in CAR magazine the other month about the ever increasing size of A-Pillars - a 1982 5 Series was put against a CLS and the difference was vast. but i know which car i'd prefer to be in should a rollover occur.
All the stuff that people expect in a car has to go somewhere - although size has become a huge issue - no pun intended. it's amazing when you park a VN commodore up against the new VE just to see the huge size difference - and most of it is in the body - they probably share about the same amount of glasshouse.
The trend is trying to be reversed (Witness the latest designer influx of glass roofing) but it's not doing any good. Pillars like the Volvo SCC concept (they had glass triangles cut out of them so you could see, and they were reputedly strong enough to pass volvo's exacting tests) might just be the answer.
it's a shame how large cars are getting actually - these days people are going one model down the range to get the same size car they could have got 10 years ago. case in point the E-class mercedes - these days the new C-Class is equivalent in size. thats just absurd.
EDIT: the suspension on that bottom Volvo is suspiciously well-sprung. methinks it might have just been publicity
<cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>
Enthusiast
Safety should account for more than just the occupants of the vehichle. Huge blind spots accompanied by generally shitty visibility isn't safe. A pillars that can make a pedestrian or motorcycle completely invisible to me aren't a good thing, even if they mean that the 2 ton mass of my car can't crush my roof structure in the event of a roll-over. Safety is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it shouldn't be used to justify cars the weigh as much as a M4 Sherman and have the visibility of a pillbox.
Last edited by Mr.Tiv; 01-21-2007 at 08:19 AM.
Go n-ithe an cat thu, is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat
When you go Home, Tell them for us and say 'For your tommorrow, We Gave Our Today.'
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote