In reply to DeadSkunk (Warren) :
Not a mini Mini like yours, but we have an F54 Clubman. Stunning car, we even took five people from Michigan to Montana in it a couple of years ago. So good we're buying a new one this year as it's the last year for the Clubman. The only reason I've got my Volvo wagon is because it can tow 3,300lb's which we need.
parker said:I was walking by a new Silverado recently and realized that the top of the bed came to my shoulder. I'm 6' 3".
Is this you? I only ask because the bedrail height on a new Silverado is 57" on the 3500 DRW. Quite a bit lower on the much more common 1500s.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
In my world that Clubman is a mid-sized car. The wheelbase and weight exceed the mid-eighties mid-size GM cars. I'll be looking at something in that range in a few more years when I decide to dump the truck though.
In reply to 93gsxturbo :
I was curious so I grabbed a tape measure. 57" is two inches below the very top of my shoulder. With a small lift and slightly larger than stock tires the bedrail would be higher than my shoulder. Run a tape measure up to 57" and imagine trying to load anything with any weight over that. I grew up hauling hay and loading sacks of feed. A truck this tall would have been impossible. Most people would need a ladder to check the oil. It's completely ridiculous.
I have an '84 Rabbit GTI, I was looking at some Smart ForTwo parts. The Smart ForTwo track width is 3 inches wider than the Rabbit.
matthewmcl said:I have an '84 Rabbit GTI, I was looking at some Smart ForTwo parts. The Smart ForTwo track width is 3 inches wider than the Rabbit.
Wow! I would not have guessed that.
In reply to parker :
Older cars have narrow tracks.....a shifter Kart and my Datsun of almost identical track widths.
A couple of years ago I drove through the local Lexus dealer lot. There was a nice LS400 sitting in the front row, between a couple of typical SUVs. It looked pretty small for a full-size car.
A friend of mine drives a '72 K5 Blazer. I had a rental Jeep Cherokee last year and parked next to him for grins. It was bigger in every dimension than his Blazer. I don't think he's ever going to get over that.
Original (1966-1977) Ford Bronco - 152" long, 69" wide, 72" tall.
Full-size (1978-1996) Bronco - 180" long, 79" wide, 76" tall.
New (2021-present) Bronco - 175" long (2 door), 79.5" wide, 72" tall.
There's no question that vehicles have gotten larger over the years. I took this picture a couple months ago of my E36 Touring parked between a "large" vehicle (the Ford Expedition on the left) and a "small" vehicle (the Kia Soul on the right). I took the picture because it was hilarious how big the Soul was compared to the E36.
IMHO, part of this is driven by the market and part by safety standards.
In reply to DeadSkunk (Warren) :
My son has a LS400 and it's marginally bigger than our neighbor's Camry.
Since we're talking about size, this is 18'11" of Detroit landyachtness. Which reminds me, I gotta get a battery for that thing.
When my father bought a new 1996 Volvo 850, I thought it was huge and heavy. But when I bought my 1998 V70R, it looked tiny parked next to my wife's Accord.
The Maverick is a ray of hope in the trend towards upsizing.
Having been born and raised in big cities I never understood the appeal of large vehicles. They just seemed like more trouble than they were worth - unless there was a practical reason such as in a work truck. Then I visited family in Nebraska and got it. Why not have a rolling living room if the roads are wide and you rarely have to turn? Now it seems that even city folk like their elbow room. But then, they sure do perform better than they used to.
It seems like we are approaching or past the 70s land yacht era. I don't like it.
The new Civic is an Accord in everything but name.
And now we've lost the Honda Fit and Mazda 2. I'm worried about the future options for used small cars, as I don't buy new.
The cheapest new car is the Nissan Versa stick shift and I'd love to see one next to a 1970 Datsun 510.
Yep they're huge. I used to take note that each generation of civic was roughly the same size as the prior generation accord.
The keep growing just like Americans.
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
Even the Maverick isn't small. It looks larger on the road than my 2003 Ford Ranger. Probably because it's 3" wider and nearly as long and as tall. Unfortunately, it has a fairly useless bed so making them into work vehicles isn't possible.
It even makes the Ridgeline look small.
A four passenger (five if you're in high school), 1972 Corolla compared to a Miata....
I watched a video the other day, which may or may not be accurate.
In it, the guy blamed CAFE standards for our ever embiggening of cars and trucks. In a nutshell, the area is calculated (wheelbase X track). There is a graph that CAFE has compiled, and a fuel efficiency is assigned for this number. In essence, the larger the number, the less fuel efficient the vehicle can be. Note that these rules do not apply to EVs.
Food for thought, anyway.
In reply to wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) :
That is definitely having an effect. CAFE makes it much harder for small cars to meet their requirements than large ones. I (and others) saw this coming a mile away when the new rules were created. It really doesn't help that short cars are inherently harder to make aerodynamic than longer cars, and that little part of physics was ignored.
Tom1200 said:Interestingly enough my 72 Datsun 1200 was meant as a car for a young family of four. It's smaller than a NA Miata; the Miata is 5" longer and 10" wider.
These things are cyclical; Look at a Model T or A then compare those to cars from the 40-60s. The fuel crunch ushered in smaller cars.
Flash forward to today and technology had created large cars that get decent fuel mileage..................people like big / bigger cars because they ride nice and they are quiet inside.
The Mini was designed for a family of 4 including luggage.
That said, having driven a classic Mini on modern highways at current traveling speeds, I wouldn't say it was a pleasant experience. I like how they show the luggage in the boot, but don't show the occupants with their knees in their chests.
ConiglioRampante said:Since we're talking about size, this is 18'11" of Detroit landyachtness. Which reminds me, I gotta get a battery for that thing.
For all it's "hugeness", that's only 3" longer than my GMC Canyon. A lot of the perception of size with current vehicles comes from their height. Modern vehicles are needlessly tall for sales reasons. I doubt my truck is appreciably taller inside the cab than a truck from the 70s, but the floor is further from the ground. I rented an F250 from Enterprise to tow to the Challenge a few years ago. Here in Michigan, 2wd trucks are rare, so the rental was 4WD. It was so tall my five foot tall wife couldn't climb up into it. The floor was 32" above grade. My 4WD Canyon would get more use if it were closer to the ground but the 2WD variants look just as tall.
25 years ago I DD'd an NA Miata with total confidence. First/second Gen Explorers and Jeep Grand Cherokees were big vehicles back then. I'd be terrified in an NA MIata on todays streets. Even a 986 Boxster is scary small at times.
You'll need to log in to post.
