Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47

Thread: Four door coupes--what are they, the concept, and who cares?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    and why is the CLS less practical than the Audis?
    Because he's an Audi apologist?

    Maybe even a legit reason? Probably not!

    We would need some measurements or to actually have sat in the car to gauge better.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mansfield, Ohio
    Posts
    392
    Car and Driver said that visibility is limited out of the CLS 63 AMG, and I'll bet that the CC has similar problems, in addtion to the fact that it looks like a skip was dropped on a Passat. And then there's the issue of taste vs practicality.

    The Audi A5 Sportback and the A4 are the same car under the skin, have similar head room and passenger space, and the same wheelbase. Why not graft an A6-like roof on the next-gen A4 and split the difference.

    And with the CLS, there's a car that looks a lot like it in profile--the E-class coupe, which looks similar to the 2011MY CLS, aside from the tail lights and the fact that the E-class is a two door coupe. And like the A5 Sportback and the A4, the E coupe and the CLS share the same platform and such. And then there's the BMW 5 series GT, which looks a lot like the X6, a car that Jeremy Clarkson from the series 14 season finale of Top Gear criticized for trying to do to many things at once, and cocking up because of it (too car like to be any good off road, and too offroad-like to be any good on the road--and it's a four door coupe that doesn't have very good rearward visbility).

    Is this all just the Germans trying to fill every niche try and cash in on buyer's tastes instead of keeping things basic? And why do some, like Audi, GM's Euro and Austrailan devisions, and Hyundai/Kia get it right while others mess up, like BMW's X6 four door coupe SUV?

    However, I will give the CLS one, and what I feel is a big plus point--the presence of a B-pillar. I know that the E-coupe and the CL don't have B-pillars in them, and as we all know, on convertables, a lot of stiffening of the chassis has to be done to stave off chassis flex. And this adds just as much, if not usually more weight than if the car had a fixed roof with the B-pillar. I wonder if M-B had to really stiffen the chassis on the CL and E-coupe to make up for the lack of a B-pillar due to lack of chassis rigidity and namely, rollover protection? But then again, the B-pillar may be the source of compliants from some quarters on the awkward visibility.
    Last edited by Chernaudi; 11-23-2010 at 06:59 PM.
    Power to me is having the ability to make a change in a positive way. Don't dream it, be it.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Chernaudi View Post
    And then there's the issue of taste vs practicality.
    Here, here...

    As for the pioneering cars, let's not forget the Hudson Commodore 8 from the early fifties, even preceding the DS (which I think hardly qualifies). Also some Fords from the late forties had the humpback shape which is now considered posh.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mansfield, Ohio
    Posts
    392
    Personally, I think that the standard VW Passat pulls off the Coupe like roofline better than it's CC twin. The normal Passat has that A6/VE Commodore hump-back roofline, and I think that it flows better than the somewhat more extreme versions used on the CC, CLS, and even the Hyundai Sonata, which the latter is pretty good, but if it were a little less extreme, it would be even better.

    The CC has a similar roof to the CLS, which I can understand visibility issues out of the rear quarter windows and the rear, which the latter might not be too bad, but I'm wondering if the CLS/CC's B-pillar might be the cause out of the rear quarter, but then again, that's why cars have mirrors

    But then again, I do think that the CLS is a little lighter and perhaps a little safer in a roll-over because of the B-pillar being there, and doesn't have the stiffening required or a "pillarless" coupe. Any thoughts on that?
    Power to me is having the ability to make a change in a positive way. Don't dream it, be it.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mansfield, Ohio
    Posts
    392
    Sorry to revive a dead thread, but among those that I consider to have gotten the four door coupe right are the Audi A6, Hyundai Sonata/Kia Optima, and the Opel/Vauxhall Insignia and it's Americanized sibling, the Buick Regal. Even the Holden Commodore/HSV E series/Vauxhall VXR8 have a curved roof that sort of mimics a coupe. The Insigina does the job so well I'm like "why bother with the Calibra coupe?" Just make it a straight up two door version of the Insignia, with no 370Z fast back rear.

    Speaking of which, as far as I've seen, the Audi A7, the A5 Sportback and the Aston Martin Rapide do that job well.

    However, it seems to be a trend to put some coupe-like styling in modern cars--the Audi A4, A8, the BMW 3, 5, and 7 series, and the M-B C, E, and S class have the arched/curved roof, albeit in a lighted, less obvoius fashion to keep the height down and head room up. Even the CLS and the Passat CC wouldn't be bad if they could improve rear quarter visiblity, which the CLS needs that thick C pillar because like the E-class coupe and the CL, it doesn't have a B-pillar. That doesn't excuse the CC, however, as it has a B-pillar.

    Give it a gently sloping roof with raked glass, a B-pillar, and good rear/rear quarter visibility, and it'll work for me.
    Power to me is having the ability to make a change in a positive way. Don't dream it, be it.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    what about the Mazda RX8?
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mansfield, Ohio
    Posts
    392
    RX8 doesn't have a B-pillar. Only the fact that it has a roof saves it from massive strenthening beams and such that a convertable would need, and at that, it probably has a lot of metal in the other pillars to make up for that in a roll over, which is why the CLS has that massive C-pillar.

    And besides, those rear doors are called "suicide doors" for a reason. I think that an old Saturn had a small door like that on one side, and tried to market that as a couple.

    GM should've waited until the Opel/Vauxhall Insignia aka Buick Regal before marketing a a multi door (ie, more than two doors) coupe. Say what you want about Buick and that it's an Opel or Vauxhall aside from the badge, it's a lot better than most sedans of its type. Would maybe be better if it was badged as a Pontiac or even a Cadillac, but Buick needs saved to keep it from ending up like Pontiac--a shelved brand name that it's not known when/if it will return.

    Just like I wish there was a 2.0T version of the OPC/VXR Insignia to take on the Hyundai Sonata or Kia Optima in Europe--the Regal GS and the Opel/Vauxhall equivlants (non-OPC/VXR) have AWD and the 2.0T engine, just as I wish that Audi would give the A4 a detuned 2.0T out of the S3 and TTS to fill the gap between the basic 2.0T and the S4.

    Maybe Buick and Hyundai/Kia would force their hand on that one. And get them to import the A5 Sportback with that engine. We know that Audi will need more than the 3.0T in the A7 to take on the CLS AMG, but we know nothing of the proposed S7 yet.
    Power to me is having the ability to make a change in a positive way. Don't dream it, be it.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Californian by nature, living in Teggsas.
    Posts
    4,130
    Coupe = 2-door. The rest is marketing gimmickry.
    An it harm none, do as ye will

    Approximately 79% of statistics are made up.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,456
    Saw the A7 at the show, it a sleek looking car, like all Audi nowadays...but still can't get over the fact that their physical mechanical layout is still very poor....what with the quattro and all...
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Chernaudi View Post
    RX8 doesn't have a B-pillar.
    It does, it's just movable
    Only the fact that it has a roof saves it from massive strenthening beams and such that a convertable would need, and at that, it probably has a lot of metal in the other pillars to make up for that in a roll over, which is why the CLS has that massive C-pillar.
    No, the RX8 rear door has a beam and "lock in" to top and bottom body members to give extremely good torsion stiffness.
    And besides, those rear doors are called "suicide doors" for a reason.
    Because when they first appeared on cars they would fly open.
    BUt this isnt the 20s and the RX8 rear door CANNOT OPEN without the front door being opened first.

    Batting 3-0 there, but understandable as unless you get up close and try one it's not clear how well it works.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Chernaudi View Post
    Just like I wish there was a 2.0T version of the OPC/VXR Insignia to take on the Hyundai Sonata or Kia Optima in Europe--the Regal GS and the Opel/Vauxhall equivlants (non-OPC/VXR) have AWD and the 2.0T engine, just as I wish that Audi would give the A4 a detuned 2.0T out of the S3 and TTS to fill the gap between the basic 2.0T and the S4.
    There is, in Europe. We have a 2 litre turbo Insignia with 220bhp and available in either front or four wheel drive.
    Quote Originally Posted by RacingManiac View Post
    Saw the A7 at the show, it a sleek looking car, like all Audi nowadays...but still can't get over the fact that their physical mechanical layout is still very poor....what with the quattro and all...
    Indeed.

    And BMWs drive great but look terrible.

    What a cruel world.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer View Post
    There is, in Europe. We have a 2 litre turbo Insignia with 220bhp and available in either front or four wheel drive.
    WE have a V6 2.8 Turbo OPC AWD that puts out 325 BHP.....
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,227
    That 2.8L - as installed in the SRX - was apparently garbage.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    I know, but he was asking for mid-powered versions, I think.

    We even used to have a non-OPC 2.8 Turbo.

    (EDIT Answering Pieter)
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitdy View Post
    That 2.8L - as installed in the SRX - was apparently garbage.
    I wasn't garbage, just that nobody wanted it.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •