'93 Grand Prix LE 4Dr VS. '07 Mazda 3i Touring

[Rich]

I was thinking about how much entry level cars have grown, and decided to compare my current favorite to my first car.? I figured the Pontiac would be bigger by a couple of inches everywhere, but boy was I wrong:

2006 Mazda 3i Touring

Exterior?
Length: 178.3 in.? Width: 69.1 in.?
Height: 57.7 in.? Wheel Base: 103.9 in.?
Ground Clearance: 5.7 in.? Curb Weight: 2696 lbs.?
Interior?
Front Head Room: 39.1 in.? Front Hip Room: 54.9 in.?
Front Shoulder Room: 54.9 in.? Rear Head Room: 37.4 in.?
Rear Shoulder Room: 54 in.? Rear Hip Room: 53.9 in.?
Front Leg Room: 41.9 in.? Rear Leg Room: 36.3 in.?
Luggage Capacity: 11.4 cu. ft.? Maximum Cargo Capacity: 11 cu. ft.?
Maximum Seating: 5?

Performance Data

?


Performance?
Base Number of Cylinders: 4? Base Engine Size: 2 liters?
Base Engine Type: Inline 4? Horsepower: 150 hp?
Max Horsepower: 6500 rpm? Torque: 135 ft-lbs.?
Max Torque: 4500 rpm? Drive Type: FWD?
Turning Circle: 34.1 ft.? ?

Fuel Data

?
Fuel?
Fuel Tank Capacity: 14.5 gal.? ? ?
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)?
Manual: 28 mpg / 35 mpg Automatic: : 26 mpg / 34 mpg? ? ?
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)?
Automatic: 377 mi. / 493 mi. Manual: 406 mi. / 507.5 mi.?

1993 Pontiac Grand Prix LE 4Dr

Exterior?
Length: 194.9 in.? Width: 71.9 in.?
Height: 54.8 in.? Wheel Base: 107.5 in.?
Curb Weight: 3303 lbs.? ?
Interior?
Front Head Room: 38.2 in.? Front Hip Room: 53.1 in.?
Front Shoulder Room: 57.2 in.? Rear Head Room: 37.8 in.?
Rear Shoulder Room: 57.4 in.? Rear Hip Room: 54.3 in.?
Front Leg Room: 42.4 in.? Rear Leg Room: 36.2 in.?
Luggage Capacity: 15.5 cu. ft.? Maximum Seating: 6?

Performance Data

?


Performance?
Base Number of Cylinders: 6? Base Engine Size: 3.1 liters?
Base Engine Type: V6? Horsepower: 140 hp?
Max Horsepower: 4200 rpm? Torque: 185 ft-lbs.?
Max Torque: 3200 rpm? Drive Type: FWD?
Turning Circle: 36.7 ft.? ?

Fuel Data

?
Fuel?
Fuel Tank Capacity: 16.5 gal.? ? ?
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)?
Automatic: : 19 mpg / 27 mpg? ? ?
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)?
Automatic: 313.5 mi. / 445.5 mi.?


I find it funny that the Mazda is bigger in some interior dimensions, pretty much the same in others (other than shoulder room and trunk space), has more hp, weighs less, and gets more miles to the gallon.? Hell, my dad paid 17k in '93 for the Pontiac, and even with inflation the 3i comes in at less than that, with more features

I think it's horrible that the Mazda is as roomy as the Grand Prix was, but is considered by the mainstream as too small for a family, yet the Grand Prix was pretty popular for families in the early 90's.?

Myself, I don't need/want the extra room and I'd be very happy if automakers would make a car that had the same footprint as a lot of the 10-15k cars, but not as tall.? It seems like all of the new wave of econoboxes are tall and tippy looking, in order to have a higher seating position, which I don't want either!? I'm in the minority, though, so I am SOL.

Thoughts?

[ifcar]

The GM W-bodies were never space-efficient. Even the current Grand Prix is much more cramped in the back than many compact cars.

[ChrisV]

That tall seating position is part of what makes the car more efficient in terms of space usage. It's easier to see out of, it's easier to get in and out of, and it provides more room inside in a smaller footprint. Were you to make it lower overall, you'd have to stretch out the driving position, thus losing a lot of interior space. Then instead of the 3i you'd have a 350Z.

Leave the low seating positions to the sports cars, not the practical daily drivers.

[Raza]

That tall seating position is part of what makes the car more efficient in terms of space usage. It's easier to see out of, it's easier to get in and out of, and it provides more room inside in a smaller footprint. Were you to make it lower overall, you'd have to stretch out the driving position, thus losing a lot of interior space. Then instead of the 3i you'd have a 350Z.

Leave the low seating positions to the sports cars, not the practical daily drivers.

I'm not sure if I'd draw that line.  Actually, I'm sure that I wouldn't.  I get that for most people, it's not an issue, but would it kill the automakers to make one small car that didn't feel like an SUV when you sat in it?  As most of you are probably sick of hearing about, I'm in the midst of searching for a practical daily driver, but that doesn't mean I don't want to have fun on my commute.  I mean, yeah, I've got a second car, but I haven't driven it since Saturday, so if I can't find a way to have fun on the day to day, I'll eventually become just like everyone else, soulless and making excuses like "automatics are better in traffic".

Although I saw a Fit today, and now I want to try one out.  No power in those, though.

[Autobahn]

I'm not sure if I'd draw that line.  Actually, I'm sure that I wouldn't.  I get that for most people, it's not an issue, but would it kill the automakers to make one small car that didn't feel like an SUV when you sat in it?  As most of you are probably sick of hearing about, I'm in the midst of searching for a practical daily driver, but that doesn't mean I don't want to have fun on my commute.  I mean, yeah, I've got a second car, but I haven't driven it since Saturday, so if I can't find a way to have fun on the day to day, I'll eventually become just like everyone else, soulless and making excuses like "automatics are better in traffic".

Although I saw a Fit today, and now I want to try one out.  No power in those, though.

BMW 1-er

[Raza]

BMW 1-er

128i may or may not be worth the money.  I'll see if it really is as bad as Top Gear says it is.  And the one we're getting isn't even a hatch!  If we got the three door, I'd have to think long and hard about it over a GTI.  But now it's not so hard.  The 1 series will likely get 30-32mpg, which is at best the same as the steroid fueled Rabbit, but it's far less practical, and again likely much more expensive.  If I'm going to take a huge hit in practicality, I'm going to go for something like a 996 or GTO.  The one thing the 128i has on them is gas mileage, but I don't see it being any more practical than either.  It might be a very good car, but I'd have to battle some demons to buy one.  I am already in love with the GTO!

[ChrisV]

I'm not sure if I'd draw that line.  Actually, I'm sure that I wouldn't.  I get that for most people, it's not an issue, but would it kill the automakers to make one small car that didn't feel like an SUV when you sat in it?

That's the way they USED to make them. And it simply isn't as practical or efficient, so they went to the taller versions. Hell, I'm finding it harder and harder just getting out of the BMW much less a low car like my Fiat. The PT was about perfect for ingress/egress.

As most of you are probably sick of hearing about, I'm in the midst of searching for a practical daily driver, but that doesn't mean I don't want to have fun on my commute.  I mean, yeah, I've got a second car, but I haven't driven it since Saturday, so if I can't find a way to have fun on the day to day, I'll eventually become just like everyone else, soulless and making excuses like "automatics are better in traffic".

Although I saw a Fit today, and now I want to try one out.  No power in those, though.

If you need a lot of power to have fun in a car, you're still too young. As long as the car is slightly tossable, you can have a ton of fun without drag race performance. I had a ton of fun in my MG Midget and it had a 13 second 0-60...

[omicron]

MG Midget! Someone gave one the seeing-to of a lifetime in the Classic Adelaide a few years back. The chrome bumper versions were lovely looking cars. How were you for interior room?

[ChrisV]

MG Midget! Someone gave one the seeing-to of a lifetime in the Classic Adelaide a few years back. The chrome bumper versions were lovely looking cars. How were you for interior room?

I had 3 people in mine once. Hard to do but we all fit. Good thing the middle slot was taken by a comely lass.

Simply a tiny little car. Here it is:

[omicron]

I had 3 people in mine once. Hard to do but we all fit. Good thing the middle slot was taken by a comely lass.

Simply a tiny little car. Here it is:

I love those wheels on Midgets. I prefer wires on MGBs, but your Midget looks brilliant.

[Raza]

That's the way they USED to make them. And it simply isn't as practical or efficient, so they went to the taller versions. Hell, I'm finding it harder and harder just getting out of the BMW much less a low car like my Fiat. The PT was about perfect for ingress/egress.

If you need a lot of power to have fun in a car, you're still too young. As long as the car is slightly tossable, you can have a ton of fun without drag race performance. I had a ton of fun in my MG Midget and it had a 13 second 0-60...

I'm right with you on the power thing (I have a blast in my Passat, and that's got 170bhp through a 5 speed automatic), but just for practicality's sake, I want a car that will get to 60 in the 8 second range (simply a measuring stick).  I'm going to do primarily highway driving in this car, so a decent amount of power is nice to have so I don't have to strain the car merging and moving through traffic.  I think it might just be asking a little too much for 109bhp to do; although I wouldn't mind a Mini Cooper (although I'd prefer an S, who can really say no to those dynamics and 37mpg?) for the rest of its benefits. 

[omicron]

Raza, my dear, you need a Renaultsport Megane R26 228, or a Ford Focus XR5 Turbo, or an HSV Astra VXR, or a Golf GT.

[Raza]

Raza, my dear, you need a Renaultsport Megane R26 228, or a Ford Focus XR5 Turbo, or an HSV Astra VXR, or a Golf GT.

Yes, I do.  Or a Clio 197 or a Clio R27!