Cars are berkeleying huge.

I try to keep it under 3grand. The Focus had 130hp and 2750lbs. The 240sx had 155hp and 2750lbs. The S2K has 240hp and 2750lbs. the next 240sx (in the back yard) will still weigh ~2700lbs, butt it's gonna have a lot more powah!

Wifey went from an E30 convertible (142hp/2700lbs) to an E46 convertible (240hp/3400lbs) You don't really feel the extra weight until you try to autocross it...., ;-) All the extra E36 M3 becomes obvious when you try to work on it..., :-(

Are the Mirage, 500, or Spark small?

someone earlier on in this thread mentioned the Accord and the Fit … I haven't bothered doing the research, but a friend claimed that the Fit was longer, wider, taller, and weighed more than the original Accord … we have a Fit, and I've had older Accords … I have no reason to disbelieve him

Boost_Crazy wrote: I miss the larger greenhouses and lower belt lines of the older cars. They had a completely different feel. I like being able to see out the back window, and rest my elbow on the door frame without looking like I'm riding a chopper. Style has a lot to do with the increased size of cars. Platform sharing is another big contributor.

I actually believe that the increased beltline of cars is for better crash test results, especially for side impacts.

Mr_Clutch42 wrote:

Boost_Crazy wrote: I miss the larger greenhouses and lower belt lines of the older cars. They had a completely different feel. I like being able to see out the back window, and rest my elbow on the door frame without looking like I'm riding a chopper. Style has a lot to do with the increased size of cars. Platform sharing is another big contributor.

I actually believe that the increased beltline of cars is for better crash test results, especially for side impacts.

I believe you're right...they've traded visibility for crashworthiness. Back when the new Chrysler 300 came out I think it was a styling statement, but I no longer believe that's the main driving factor.

I find it crazy that the Mustang GT I have is almost a whole 1/4 larger than my Skyline despite having the same interior and trunk space. It's insane. I can fit this car easily in my garage next to my room mates porsche. This Mustang is like wedged in with a shoehorn. The weight difference is also about 1000lbs as well.

Both would be in their time considered mid sized cars.

Perhaps a minor correction, IIRC curb weight of my '64 corvette con. with 327 & 4 spd was 3080 lbs.

Are cars really that much safer (actual, not rhetorical question)?

Not rhetorical, you say?

Then YES.

volvoclearinghouse wrote: Interior space is interesting to compare. I know someone who just bought a Land Rover. Forget the model, but she claims that it will just barely fit two car seats in the back (it is a 4 door SUV) and with a car seat behind the driver's seat the seat won't go far enough back for her husband to drive comfortably. So, this LR gets worse fuel economy than any minivan currently made, holds less inside, handles worse, has only marginal off-road capability (which will never get used anyway) and costs way more (not to mention depreciation and maintenance). And, frankly, it's ugly.

for what it is worth, the LR is one of the best Offroad vehicles around..

Owning a Disco2, there is not a lot of room to be had in them.. the transmission hump really does contain the transmission and transfer case, they are also a narrow vehicle that gains it's leg room by making you sit upright like in a household chair rather than a recliner. They are also full time 4x4.. so not only are they extremely heavy, but you are always pushing engine power to all the wheels. It is no wonder it is much thirstier than a minivan.

Can't say much about price.. other than all the ones sold here in the US are extremely highend compared to what they sell in Europe where the lower end LRs are rather pedestrian

wbjones wrote: someone earlier on in this thread mentioned the Accord and the Fit … I haven't bothered doing the research, but a friend claimed that the Fit was longer, wider, taller, and weighed more than the original Accord … we have a Fit, and I've had older Accords … I have no reason to disbelieve him

My '78 Accord weighed a little over 1,900 lbs. stock, 1,600 prepped. A 2013 Fit weighs 2,500.

Hasbro wrote:

wbjones wrote: someone earlier on in this thread mentioned the Accord and the Fit … I haven't bothered doing the research, but a friend claimed that the Fit was longer, wider, taller, and weighed more than the original Accord … we have a Fit, and I've had older Accords … I have no reason to disbelieve him

My '78 Accord weighed a little over 1,900 lbs. stock, 1,600 prepped. A 2013 Fit weighs 2,500.

And the tiny little CVCC 4 cylinder had less power than the ICE in the first Prius. My first car was a 77.

i always just blamed this on my zephyr not being a "full size" wagon, i just find it funny when my ford station wagon weighs what a compact does these days

logdog wrote: Are the Mirage, 500, or Spark small?

I can't speak to the other two but I was looking at a 500 today and would say that it was very similar in size to my E21 BMW's. Which I felt was bigger than what I consider a small car.

mad_machine wrote:

volvoclearinghouse wrote: Interior space is interesting to compare. I know someone who just bought a Land Rover. Forget the model, but she claims that it will just barely fit two car seats in the back (it is a 4 door SUV) and with a car seat behind the driver's seat the seat won't go far enough back for her husband to drive comfortably. So, this LR gets worse fuel economy than any minivan currently made, holds less inside, handles worse, has only marginal off-road capability (which will never get used anyway) and costs way more (not to mention depreciation and maintenance). And, frankly, it's ugly.

for what it is worth, the LR is one of the best Offroad vehicles around.. Owning a Disco2, there is not a lot of room to be had in them.. the transmission hump really does contain the transmission and transfer case, they are also a narrow vehicle that gains it's leg room by making you sit upright like in a household chair rather than a recliner. They are also full time 4x4.. so not only are they extremely heavy, but you are always pushing engine power to all the wheels. It is no wonder it is much thirstier than a minivan. Can't say much about price.. other than all the ones sold here in the US are extremely highend compared to what they sell in Europe where the lower end LRs are rather pedestrian

And that is why nearly every LR sold on this side of the Atlantic will rarely see anything more hard-core off-road than a gravel parking lot at a winery. Then we're back to, what's the point?

89-94 Swift GT was 1700-1800lbs. The SX4 in 2012 was 2900lbs. And looked like an SUV while driving the Swift GT.

In reply to volvoclearinghouse: The point is, let the fancy, wealthy people buy a Land Rover new and buy one when it's 5+ years old and use it as an offroad vehicle.

DeadSkunk wrote: I have a '99 Miata and a '73 Corolla sitting in the garage. Both are the same length (within fractions of an inch), the Miata is 6 inches wider overall, but door to door inside they're both 49 inches wide. I can remember running around with 4 people in a Corolla similar to mine back in my college days.The Miata weighs more and it's wheels are 2 inches greater diameter. So the Miata is the fat one, but is pretty darned light by current standards. Some of it's probably just styling, but a bunch of the difference has to be safety regulations.

In the good old days, a 4 cylinder sports car didn't weigh much more than 2,000 lbs. or it was considered a porker. Today that basic figure is pushing 3,000. Only Lotus keeps the faith in terms of lightness, Miata isn't at all bad compared to the competition and will be better in the upcoming generation, and Corvette manages by using exotic materials at a higher cost, something you could only get away with on a top rung model

I read an analysis a few years ago that said that American SUVs could save several hundred pounds buy careful choice of materials, but that it would raise the price by something like $500. Their analysis concluded that even though a buyer would get that money back in decreased fuel cost in a very few years, the buying public was too short sighted to care and would buy from the guy down the street if the price was $5 cheaper.

So in a sense, we get the vehicles we cheap bastards deserve......