http://autos.aol.com/gallery/trading-down-smaller-car/
This article says that a little over a quarter of new car buyers are replacing their previous cars with something smaller. It's an interesting trend and not surprising.
I'm probably part of that lot. I've been resisting the "advice" of many to be looking at minivans and SUV's for the past year since I've added another child to the Northlands clan. I'm finding that there are a lot of vehicle choices out there that will likely handle what the four of us will need most of the time to get around town.
What's likely to happen for us is I find a station wagon-esque vehicle for family outings, and the second car will still be an econobox type like my wife and I have now. The nice thing is that there are offerings that aren't boring too. It's not that I dislike larger vehicles, ( ie. vans or 5+ passenger SUV's ) , but why pay for more fuel when you don't have to?
Plus with all the money saved, I can get myself something fun down the road ( er... car or motorcycle ). :winkguy:
I tend to like something sporty, zippy, easy to maneuver and park and obviously, car/SUV/ crossover considered to be safe vehicle. Fuel efficiency is certainly a plus these days of fluxuating gasoline prices. With an increased enfaces on innovative safety features on cars of all sizes, I can understand this trend. Plus, small cars are no longer, IMO, viewed as cheap, basic transportation (sometimes it's the case), but with higher trim packages you can choose your features. Thinking of such models called: Limited, Titanium, Premium, Platinum, etc.
On the other hand, with large vehicles becoming far more fuel efficient, the tide could turn.
There is a greater variety of small/smaller/less costly (in some cases) cars to choose from, as well, like the Fiat 500, a fairly comprehensive lineup from Mini Cooper, a far better Ford Focus, and so on.
Quote from: Northlands on August 04, 2012, 08:39:58 AM
I'm probably part of that lot. I've been resisting the "advice" of many to be looking at minivans and SUV's for the past year since I've added another child to the Northlands clan. I'm finding that there are a lot of vehicle choices out there that will likely handle what the four of us will need most of the time to get around town.
What's likely to happen for us is I find a station wagon-esque vehicle for family outings, and the second car will still be an econobox type like my wife and I have now. The nice thing is that there are offerings that aren't boring too. It's not that I dislike larger vehicles, ( ie. vans or 5+ passenger SUV's ) , but why pay for more fuel when you don't have to?
Plus with all the money saved, I can get myself something fun down the road ( er... car or motorcycle ). :winkguy:
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/audi/s6_avant/1412179.html
Quote from: Galaxy on August 04, 2012, 01:11:18 PM
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/audi/s6_avant/1412179.html
If I bought that car, I would be in jail so fast... :lol:
Modern small cars are a lot roomier than cars of old. I would wager to say that many subcompacts are as roomy as midsizers of not too long ago.
People are lemmings- for a while the cool thing was big trucks. But they didn't want trucks so they complained and the automakers made the trucks more like cars.
Somehow buncha popular people started buying cars with lots of batteries and electric motors, then people finally realized the big truck-like cars get crappy gas mileage and there was no need for them anyway...
Quote from: 2o6 on August 04, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
Modern small cars are a lot roomier than cars of old. I would wager to say that many subcompacts are as roomy as midsizers of not too long ago.
No, but they are about equal to compacts of 20 years ago.
Every single car I've purchased as a daily driver has been smaller than the last. E320 to Passat to Jetta. And I'm planning on going from the Jetta to a two seater or 2+2. I might go 2+2 just so I have one more step to motorcycle. Because after motorcycle, you're down to unicycle, which is slower than walking.
Quote from: Raza on August 05, 2012, 09:05:10 AM
Every single car I've purchased as a daily driver has been smaller than the last. E320 to Passat to Jetta. And I'm planning on going from the Jetta to a two seater or 2+2. I might go 2+2 just so I have one more step to motorcycle. Because after motorcycle, you're down to unicycle, which is slower than walking.
Nah, you just go from a 2-seater bike to a 1-seater. After that, you're walking.
Crap, I've got to buy something smaller then a Miata?
Quote from: Onslaught on August 05, 2012, 09:19:17 AM
Crap, I've got to buy something smaller then a Miata?
(http://www.fahrzeugbilder.de/1024/messerschmitt-kabinenroller-erhaelt-anlaesslich-oldtimerausfahrt-28797.jpg)
Quote from: Raza on August 05, 2012, 09:05:10 AM
Every single car I've purchased as a daily driver has been smaller than the last. E320 to Passat to Jetta. And I'm planning on going from the Jetta to a two seater or 2+2. I might go 2+2 just so I have one more step to motorcycle. Because after motorcycle, you're down to unicycle, which is slower than walking.
Vespa.
Quote from: MX793 on August 05, 2012, 09:15:07 AM
Nah, you just go from a 2-seater bike to a 1-seater. After that, you're walking.
Roller skates.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 05, 2012, 10:37:01 AM
Roller skates.
That's 8 wheels, which would make me a semi-truck. My tolls would be outrageous!
Quote from: Onslaught on August 05, 2012, 09:19:17 AM
Crap, I've got to buy something smaller then a Miata?
:lol:
Yeah i went against the trend and upsized when i ditched the Miata and got the BRZ.
Quote from: Raza on August 05, 2012, 10:50:45 AM
That's 8 wheels, which would make me a semi-truck. My tolls would be outrageous!
Not quite. 4 axles is still pretty expensive for tolls, though.
Why not downsize to a Formula Ford?
(http://www.exelement.co.uk/images/products/969_1.jpg)
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on August 05, 2012, 12:22:12 PM
Not quite. 4 axles is still pretty expensive for tolls, though.
Why not downsize to a Formula Ford?
(http://www.exelement.co.uk/images/products/969_1.jpg)
I like your thought process, kid.
Quote from: dazzleman on August 04, 2012, 08:31:35 AM
http://autos.aol.com/gallery/trading-down-smaller-car/
This article says that a little over a quarter of new car buyers are replacing their previous cars with something smaller. It's an interesting trend and not surprising.
Makes sense to me. if I were in the market in the near future I'd consider a 1L ecoboost Focus.
http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/ford-focus-1_liter-ecoboost-first-drive/
Quote from: MiataJohn on August 05, 2012, 07:55:59 PM
Makes sense to me. if I were in the market in the near future I'd consider a 1L ecoboost Focus.
http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/ford-focus-1_liter-ecoboost-first-drive/
The latest Focus is not a particularly light car. A 125 hp motor is going to be painfully slow. About as bad as the 2.slow powered Jetta.
I upsized from the Focus to a G37.
My last car (Acura TL) and my very first car (Volvo 240) were both about the same size as the Caddy.
Quote from: MX793 on August 05, 2012, 08:25:40 PM
The latest Focus is not a particularly light car. A 125 hp motor is going to be painfully slow. About as bad as the 2.slow powered Jetta.
1.0L TT replaces the 1.6L and 1.4L in the Focus.
It's also the motor that is in the smaller Fiesta and Ecosport. (which makes more HP and torque than the fairly older designed 1.6L)
Quote from: dazzleman on August 04, 2012, 08:31:35 AM
http://autos.aol.com/gallery/trading-down-smaller-car/
This article says that a little over a quarter of new car buyers are replacing their previous cars with something smaller. It's an interesting trend and not surprising.
I guess I went against the trend, from Passat to LR2. But I have some special circumstances, being a boat owner and also wanting (needing? :lol:) the ability to drive on the beach for fishing and occasionally cover a news story which requires off-road.
My Dad is going from an '01 A6 to a 3er (GTI and S60 are his other two considerations), most likely, so he's with the trend. He got a deal of the century on the A6, which is why he bought it. He's always preferred small cars. He's retired now so doesn't put any miles on a car. It's just a desire to be more nimble in traffic. In '01, I was also still in high school and he thought something bigger was better.
Something to consider, a lot of these small cars are not really much smaller than old "medium" size cars
A new Civic is about the size, inside anyway, as an old Accord. Golf/Jetta are about as big inside as a B5 Passat. The Versa is downright cavernous. And a lot of current "medium" cars are just too god damn big. Most people are not hauling around 5 legit size adults on a regular basis, which makes something like a current Accord excessive for a solo commuter. And then if you do need to haul a lot of people around, i.e. a family w/young kids, a little CUV makes more sense because of its ease of ingress/egress. They are getting lighter too... CX-5 is just about as roomy as a Mazda6, with more cargo capacity, ground clearance, gas mileage, and about the same curb weight (FWD). I mean I would prob go with the CX-5 over the 6.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 06, 2012, 10:55:53 AM
Something to consider, a lot of these small cars are not really much smaller than old "medium" size cars
A new Civic is about the size, inside anyway, as an old Accord. Golf/Jetta are about as big inside as a B5 Passat. The Versa is downright cavernous. And a lot of current "medium" cars are just too god damn big. Most people are not hauling around 5 legit size adults on a regular basis, which makes something like a current Accord excessive for a solo commuter. And then if you do need to haul a lot of people around, i.e. a family w/young kids, a little CUV makes more sense because of its ease of ingress/egress. They are getting lighter too... CX-5 is just about as roomy as a Mazda6, with more cargo capacity, ground clearance, gas mileage, and about the same curb weight (FWD). I mean I would prob go with the CX-5 over the 6.
All very true. I was parked next to a new Jetta yesterday and if you asked me what car it was before seeing the name on the trunk, I would've told you it was a Passat.
I parked my Focus next to a CRX last year and I couldn't believe how monstrous my car looked next to it. It looked like it was 12" taller, 12" wider, and 36" longer. In reality, my car was 6" taller, 1" wider, and almost 24" longer. But it sure didn't look like it.
I know I've raised this before. But there does seem to be a dearth of small, expensively-engineered cars. However there are lots of players in the game if you're looking only for an expensive car that is merely a cheap car with added twiddly bits & gizmos.
I like small cars. Especially hatchbacks.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 06, 2012, 06:49:44 PM
I like small cars. Especially hatchbacks.
So do I. The problem with small cars in America is, for too long, the only small cars that were available here were cheap, nasty, horrible penalty boxes more devoid of creature comforts than a Guantanamo prison cell. It was only with the introduction of the MINI a decade ago did Americans finally discover small cars didn't need to be God-awful torture devices for the terminally poor. Thanks to the influence of the MINI, all small cars have become infinitely better. Even formerly cringe-worthy crap buckets like the Kia Rio have evolved into fairly decent cars.
Today, cars like the Rio, Fiesta, Mazda2, Sonic, Fit, Yaris and Fiat 500 are all very good cars which, unlike most of their predecessors, don't require you to wear a paper bag over your head out of fear of the shame you were certain to endure if anyone you knew saw you driving them.
And we owe it all to the MINI. Thank you, BMW, for bringing it to America despite the naysayers claims that we would never buy any. Where are these people now, I wonder? Eating crow, I assume!
The Golf wasn?t that bad I think. But yeah, other than that mostly crap.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 06, 2012, 09:21:17 PM
The Golf wasn?t that bad I think. But yeah, other than that mostly crap.
Yeah, the Golf was always good but not technically a "small" car. Lower medium is better description.
Quote from: Madman on August 06, 2012, 09:12:53 PM
So do I. The problem with small cars in America is, for too long, the only small cars that were available here were cheap, nasty, horrible penalty boxes more devoid of creature comforts than a Guantanamo prison cell. It was only with the introduction of the MINI a decade ago did Americans finally discover small cars didn't need to be God-awful torture devices for the terminally poor. Thanks to the influence of the MINI, all small cars have become infinitely better. Even formerly cringe-worthy crap buckets like the Kia Rio have evolved into fairly decent cars.
Today, cars like the Rio, Fiesta, Mazda2, Sonic, Fit, Yaris and Fiat 500 are all very good cars which, unlike most of their predecessors, don't require you to wear a paper bag over your head out of fear of the shame you were certain to endure if anyone you knew saw you driving them.
And we owe it all to the MINI. Thank you, BMW, for bringing it to America despite the naysayers claims that we would never buy any. Where are these people now, I wonder? Eating crow, I assume!
The MINI is a fashion statement, nothing more. Other automakers were already building competent hatchbacks for their respective markets. (Most notably, Toyota)
Quote from: Morris Minor on August 06, 2012, 05:56:10 PM
I know I've raised this before. But there does seem to be a dearth of small, expensively-engineered cars. However there are lots of players in the game if you're looking only for an expensive car that is merely a cheap car with added twiddly bits & gizmos.
No profit margin. Small cars usually have most everything on them leveraged against some other model in the automaker's lineup. To design a small car to be first and foremost to be "expensively-engineered" would likely yield no profit.
Besides, many modern small cars are so refined, I honestly question how anyone can kick up refinement even more.
It probably costs MORE to engineer a good small car than the big ghastly SUVs or 'crossovers'. They have to cram all the good stuff into a smaller package... then they have to sell little cars for less. US automakers love trucks and SUVs for that reason...
Quote from: Madman on August 06, 2012, 09:12:53 PM
The problem with small cars in America is, for too long, the only small cars that were available here were cheap, nasty, horrible penalty boxes more devoid of creature comforts than a Guantanamo prison cell.
:lol:
Quote from: Madman on August 06, 2012, 09:12:53 PMIt was only with the introduction of the MINI a decade ago did Americans finally discover small cars didn't need to be God-awful torture devices for the terminally poor.
:lol:
Quote from: Madman on August 06, 2012, 09:12:53 PMToday, cars like the Rio, Fiesta, Mazda2, Sonic, Fit, Yaris and Fiat 500 are all very good cars which, unlike most of their predecessors, don't require you to wear a paper bag over your head out of fear of the shame you were certain to endure if anyone you knew saw you driving them.
:lol:
On a serious note, I thought the American compacts like the Chevrolet Chevelle and Cavalier and Simca-based Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon received a lot of praise when they first came out? I remember reading something about how testers were so enthusiastic about them and all that.
Quote from: TurboDan on August 06, 2012, 12:51:18 AM
I guess I went against the trend, from Passat to LR2. But I have some special circumstances, being a boat owner and also wanting (needing? :lol:) the ability to drive on the beach for fishing and occasionally cover a news story which requires off-road.
My Dad is going from an '01 A6 to a 3er (GTI and S60 are his other two considerations), most likely, so he's with the trend. He got a deal of the century on the A6, which is why he bought it. He's always preferred small cars. He's retired now so doesn't put any miles on a car. It's just a desire to be more nimble in traffic. In '01, I was also still in high school and he thought something bigger was better.
Dan, would the Volvo S60 be new. If so, they are awesome. I am an enormous fan.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 07, 2012, 05:59:20 AM
On a serious note, I thought the American compacts like the Chevrolet Chevelle and Cavalier and Simca-based Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon received a lot of praise when they first came out? I remember reading something about how testers were so enthusiastic about them and all that.
You did. Appalling cars.
The press will boost whatever is fashionable. We are again in a small car fad so the media dutifully sings the praises of whatever is small. I saw a clueless brown-nose piece on the Acura ILX the other day. The tester who wrote it obviously did not understand that the car she was driving was just a Honda Civic in drag.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 07, 2012, 05:59:20 AM
On a serious note, I thought the American compacts like the Chevrolet Chevelle and Cavalier and Simca-based Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon received a lot of praise when they first came out? I remember reading something about how testers were so enthusiastic about them and all that.
Those are perfect examples of why one should never listen to the media.
Motor Trend made the Omni/Horizon car of the year when it first came out in 1978. My grandmother had one, a 1978 model. It seemed like an OK car then, but the standards of the time were very low, and I don't think that car held up well over the long run.
The Chevelle was awful. The Omni/Horizon were good for first American small car efforts, but not good w/o qualifiers. The same year Japanese cars were several times better in pretty much every way (aside from the Omni GLH).
Quote from: Morris Minor on August 06, 2012, 05:56:10 PM
I know I've raised this before. But there does seem to be a dearth of small, expensively-engineered cars. However there are lots of players in the game if you're looking only for an expensive car that is merely a cheap car with added twiddly bits & gizmos.
There were a few. Most notable to me is the Benz 190E. Maybe it was pure supply/demand, or maybe it was really reflective of actual costs, as they really WERE overengineered. But MB was charging what would be about $60K today for the top of the line model- no options!!! And they could have kept that game going, if not for those pesky Japanese cost cutters, with their synthesized brand equity & market share stealing profit foregoing entries...
Small cars today don't seem too underengineered though. What does that mean? Most cars in the C-segment (Focus etc) have IRS, DOHC VVT, sometimes direct injection, usage of advanced materials and sophisticated crash structure design, and all those goofy little tech trinkets. The B-segment cars (Fiesta etc) don't have the volume or margins to warrant any of that crap... and frankly I don't think their market wants it. The Mini is alright, but I don't get the point of a $30K hatchback in which I can't use the back seat. All the engineering they put into it, only to make the rear seat uninhabitable.
I think the sweet spot in car size is (and always has been) where the current C-segment is. All the medium size cars people pine for (mid 90s Accord, B5 Passat, E39 5 series) all fall in that range.
Quote from: 2o6 on August 06, 2012, 10:54:25 PM
The MINI is a fashion statement, nothing more. Other automakers were already building competent hatchbacks for their respective markets. (Most notably, Toyota)
The point was, we didn't get them HERE. Small cars were cheap ass penalty boxes before that, with very few exceptions, because people would not spend premium dollars on small cars. We bought on value, and value means, to most people, getting MORE for your dollar, thus cheaper LARGER cars (sort of the Costco 5 gallon drum of mayo kind of value), and you only bought a small car (that wasn't a sports car) if you were poor and just starting out.
You can theoretically put people in the back seat of a Mini. Or stuff. I mean, I don't put people in my back seat, even though I can (they fit perfectly), but I put stuff back there all the time.
I've been in the back seat of my buddy's Cooper S. It wasn't as bad as you'd think it would be.
Then again, I'm also 5'9"/140. You would be surprised at how well packaged these hatches are, my friend who's 6'4"/210 commonly sits in the back of the GTI.
In Minis, it depends on how tall the driver is. A tall driver is going to leave absolutely no room for back seat passengers, but a 5'8-5'9 driver will have the seat far enough forward to allow for some knee room in the back.
Quote from: Morris Minor on August 07, 2012, 06:29:05 AM
You did. Appalling cars.
Well I guess getting over 10 mpg in a Chevelle and Omni was a breath of fresh air for testers in those days. :lol:
Quote from: Morris Minor on August 07, 2012, 06:29:05 AMThe press will boost whatever is fashionable. We are again in a small car fad so the media dutifully sings the praises of whatever is small. I saw a clueless brown-nose piece on the Acura ILX the other day. The tester who wrote it obviously did not understand that the car she was driving was just a Honda Civic in drag.
We don't get Acura here but their design language has been horrific for a number of years now from what I can see. I don't think the ILX looks that bad (the name sucks though) but that ZDX thingy...Jesus H. Christ...
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 07, 2012, 12:08:10 PM
Well I guess getting over 10 mpg in a Chevelle and Omni was a breath of fresh air for testers in those days. :lol:
I think you mean Chevette. The Chevelle was a much larger car.
Chevette.
(http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/04/24/10/10/1976_chevrolet_chevette-pic-2296.jpeg)
Chevelle.
(http://www.creativecrash.com/system/photos/000/088/979/88979/big/chevrolet_chevelle_ss_69_1.jpg?1271192462)
Quote from: dazzleman on August 07, 2012, 06:34:49 AM
Those are perfect examples of why one should never listen to the media.
I don't bother listening to the media or magazines about cars today as well. I listen to the people who own them. :praise:
Quote from: dazzleman on August 07, 2012, 06:34:49 AMMotor Trend made the Omni/Horizon car of the year when it first came out in 1978. My grandmother had one, a 1978 model. It seemed like an OK car then, but the standards of the time were very low, and I don't think that car held up well over the long run.
The Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon were based on the Simca Horizon, a brand that in Europe was known for its FWD technology and packaging efficiency. Although the Simca Horizon wasn't very successful here to my knowledge, it got good reviews at the time. I do seem to recall the Dodge/Plymouth versions receiving a lot of praise in their day for packaging/space efficiency etc. and being decent on gas. Although the engines were underpowered, the cars didn't weigh much so I guess performance could be deemed "acceptable".
Man, I wish I was alive during the Malaise era. :lol:
Quote from: Madman on August 07, 2012, 12:10:42 PM
I think you mean Chevette. The Chevelle was a much larger car.
Ah yes, thanks. The Chevette. My bad. :ohyeah:
All my cars have been pretty much the same size, the Integra and RSX was practically the same car, and the Rx8 is pretty much similar in terms size. Elise is "slightly" smaller.
Quote from: Madman on August 07, 2012, 12:10:42 PM
Chevette.
(http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/04/24/10/10/1976_chevrolet_chevette-pic-2296.jpeg)
Chevelle.
(http://www.creativecrash.com/system/photos/000/088/979/88979/big/chevrolet_chevelle_ss_69_1.jpg?1271192462)
Between those two I'll take the Chevelle. Screw the treehuggers. :lol:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 07, 2012, 05:59:20 AM
On a serious note, I thought the American compacts like the Chevrolet Chevelle and Cavalier and Simca-based Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon received a lot of praise when they first came out? I remember reading something about how testers were so enthusiastic about them and all that.
Cavalier wasn't horrible upon introduction.
The problem with the Cavalier was the fact that by its death in 2005, the basic platform was pretty much the same from when the car was introduced in 1982.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 07, 2012, 12:30:30 PM
Between those two I'll take the Chevelle. Screw the treehuggers. :lol:
The Chevelle was actually a pretty good muscle car if you got the powerful engine.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 07, 2012, 12:12:06 PM
I don't bother listening to the media or magazines about cars today as well. I listen to the people who own them. :praise:
The Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon were based on the Simca Horizon, a brand that in Europe was known for its FWD technology and packaging efficiency. Although the Simca Horizon wasn't very successful here to my knowledge, it got good reviews at the time. I do seem to recall the Dodge/Plymouth versions receiving a lot of praise in their day for packaging/space efficiency etc. and being decent on gas. Although the engines were underpowered, the cars didn't weigh much so I guess performance could be deemed "acceptable".
Man, I wish I was alive during the Malaise era. :lol:
Motor Trend wasn't totally crazy to name the Omni/Horizon car of the year at the time.
As far as American-made compact cars went, they did represent a major advance, a diamond-in-the-rough, so to speak. The only American-made compacts up to them were shitboxes like the Vega and Pinto, or further back, the Corvette.
I remember it was a big deal that Omni/Horizon were considered "compact" rather than sub-compact because they just squeezed in under the rules at the time. That put them in a separate class from a lot of the Toyotas and Hondas they were competing with.
I learned to drive during the Malaise Era. Trust me, those cars are much better remembered than actually driven. You wouldn't be jizzing in your pants so much about those cars if you actually had to give up your BMW and take one of them in its place as a daily driver.
Quote from: 2o6 on August 07, 2012, 02:13:47 PM
Cavalier wasn't horrible upon introduction.
The problem with the Cavalier was the fact that by its death in 2005, the basic platform was pretty much the same from when the car was introduced in 1982.
I always wondered why people called it the
Crapalier. :lol:
Quote from: dazzleman on August 07, 2012, 02:22:10 PM
Motor Trend wasn't totally crazy to name the Omni/Horizon car of the year at the time.
As far as American-made compact cars went, they did represent a major advance, a diamond-in-the-rough, so to speak. The only American-made compacts up to them were shitboxes like the Vega and Pinto, or further back, the Corvette.
I remember it was a big deal that Omni/Horizon were considered "compact" rather than sub-compact because they just squeezed in under the rules at the time. That put them in a separate class from a lot of the Toyotas and Hondas they were competing with.
I learned to drive during the Malaise Era. Trust me, those cars are much better remembered than actually driven. You wouldn't be jizzing in your pants so much about those cars if you actually had to give up your BMW and take one of them in its place as a daily driver.
Interesting. I just love the old days. I am a nostalgic guy and I grew up with movies from the '70s and '80s and I always liked the stuff in the background (cars, architecture, advertising from those days etc.).
I guess the Omni that's best remembered is that performance GLH version? 0-60 in 15 seconds! Yeah, baby, I beat that 105-hp 3.5 ton Cadillac boat off the line! :rastaman: :lol:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 07, 2012, 02:39:15 PM
Interesting. I just love the old days. I am a nostalgic guy and I grew up with movies from the '70s and '80s and I always liked the stuff in the background (cars, architecture, advertising from those days etc.).
I guess the Omni that's best remembered is that performance GLH version? 0-60 in 15 seconds! Yeah, baby, I beat that 105-hp 3.5 ton Cadillac boat off the line! :rastaman: :lol:
You'd have loved the women from the 70s and 80s too. :lol: Ever see the original "Charlie's Angels?" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073972/
And 15 seconds is better than I would have expected. When gas prices went way up during and after the Arab Oil Embargo in 1974, and again in 1979, many people decided that the days of performance were over, and opted to accept bad performance in return for better fuel economy. That continued for much of the 1980s, until about 1986 when oil prices went down sharply again.
Quote from: dazzleman on August 07, 2012, 02:51:18 PM
You'd have loved the women from the 70s and 80s too. :lol: Ever see the original "Charlie's Angels?" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073972/
I loved that show! But not because of the girls, but because of the cars! That's partially where my obsession with 1970s American cars comes from! :rockon:
And Kate Jackson caused me to spill a lot of seed. :lol: :winkguy:
Quote from: dazzleman on August 07, 2012, 02:51:18 PMAnd 15 seconds is better than I would have expected. When gas prices went way up during and after the Arab Oil Embargo in 1974, and again in 1979, many people decided that the days of performance were over, and opted to accept bad performance in return for better fuel economy. That continued for much of the 1980s, until about 1986 when oil prices went down sharply again.
No wonder they called it the "Malaise era". :lol:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 07, 2012, 02:39:15 PM
I guess the Omni that's best remembered is that performance GLH version? 0-60 in 15 seconds!
No, the Omni is best remembered as a rusting shitbox that drove an entire generation of drivers away from buying another American car.
Back in the mid-'80s, a friend's dad had a Plymouth Horizon (identical to the Dodge Omni) with the 1.7 litre Volkswagen engine. He had nothing but problems with it. The last straw came when we went to the Fine Arts Theatre in downtown Chicago to see the film "Spinal Tap" on it's original release. After the movie, we jumped back in the Horizon and it refused to start. Turn the key......nothing! We had to take the train home.
A few days later he bought a brand new Honda Civic 3-door hatch. He's driven Hondas ever since.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 07, 2012, 03:02:18 PM
I loved that show! But not because of the girls, but because of the cars! That's partially where my obsession with 1970s American cars comes from! :rockon:
And Kate Jackson caused me to spill a lot of seed. :lol: :winkguy:
No wonder they called it the "Malaise era". :lol:
Kate Jackson? I think she's the least sexy of the cast. Back in the day, we were all huge fans of Farrah. I even named my dog after her. But now she looks a bit flashy, and the classic beauty of Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd win out, IMO. Even Shelley Hack isn't half bad, though for some reason she didn't make it as an angel and was replaced with Tanya Roberts (not my favorite) in the last season.
Quote from: Madman on August 07, 2012, 03:06:30 PM
No, the Omni is best remembered as a rusting shitbox that drove an entire generation of drivers away from buying another American car.
Back in the mid-'80s, a friend's dad had a Plymouth Horizon (identical to the Dodge Omni) with the 1.7 litre Volkswagen engine. He had nothing but problems with it. The last straw came when we went to the Fine Arts Theatre in downtown Chicago to see the film "Spinal Tap" on it's original release. After the movie, we jumped back in the Horizon and it refused to start. Turn the key......nothing! We had to take the train home.
A few days later he bought a brand new Honda Civic 3-door hatch. He's driven Hondas ever since.
To be fair, most American cars during that era were the same. That's what killed Detroit. Many (like my parents) swore they'd never buy another American car after their experience with cars from that era. What did my family in was our experience with a 1982 Mercury Lynx. The Horizon was a finely engineered driving machine next to that car.
Quote from: Madman on August 07, 2012, 03:06:30 PM
No, the Omni is best remembered as a rusting shitbox that drove an entire generation of drivers away from buying another American car.
Madman, ever thought about becoming a comedian? You rock. Seriously. :lol:
Quote from: Madman on August 07, 2012, 03:06:30 PMBack in the mid-'80s, a friend's dad had a Plymouth Horizon (identical to the Dodge Omni) with the 1.7 litre Volkswagen engine. He had nothing but problems with it. The last straw came when we went to the Fine Arts Theatre in downtown Chicago to see the film "Spinal Tap" on it's original release. After the movie, we jumped back in the Horizon and it refused to start. Turn the key......nothing! We had to take the train home.
A few days later he bought a brand new Honda Civic 3-door hatch. He's driven Hondas ever since.
That's Honda. The Power of Dreams! :praise:
Quote from: dazzleman on August 07, 2012, 03:10:22 PM
Kate Jackson? I think she's the least sexy of the cast. Back in the day, we were all huge fans of Farrah. I even named my dog after her. But now she looks a bit flashy, and the classic beauty of Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd win out, IMO. Even Shelley Hack isn't half bad, though for some reason she didn't make it as an angel and was replaced with Tanya Roberts (not my favorite) in the last season.
Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith were my favorites. Never really thought Farrah F. was hot. I always tended to skip her while lusting over the other two. ;)
And the best thing about that show was the theme song and the various cars in the background. The world seemed a better place back then. There was us (the free world) and them (the Communists)! :lol:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 07, 2012, 03:16:27 PM
Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith were my favorites. Never really thought Farrah F. was hot. I always tended to skip her while lusting over the other two. ;)
And the best thing about that show was the theme song and the various cars in the background. The world seemed a better place back then. There was us (the free world) and them (the Communists)! :lol:
So I guess the Farrah pictures didn't get as sticky as the pictures of Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith? :winkguy: Farrah doesn't look as good in retrospect as she did then. Not sure why. But during the first season of Charlie's Angels (1976-77), Farrah-mania swept the land. I remember a car dealership in my town had a huge poster of Farrah that took up one of their plate-glass windows.
I do love watching the shows and women from that era. Everything seemed simpler and cleaner. I still am drawn to the style of hair and clothes that women had during that era. Not sure if the world was a better place, though. Surely different, but not necessarily better. It was a bad moment when the Soviets invaded Afganistan. That put a big scare into a lot of people.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 06, 2012, 10:55:53 AM
Something to consider, a lot of these small cars are not really much smaller than old "medium" size cars
A new Civic is about the size, inside anyway, as an old Accord. Golf/Jetta are about as big inside as a B5 Passat. The Versa is downright cavernous. And a lot of current "medium" cars are just too god damn big. Most people are not hauling around 5 legit size adults on a regular basis, which makes something like a current Accord excessive for a solo commuter. And then if you do need to haul a lot of people around, i.e. a family w/young kids, a little CUV makes more sense because of its ease of ingress/egress. They are getting lighter too... CX-5 is just about as roomy as a Mazda6, with more cargo capacity, ground clearance, gas mileage, and about the same curb weight (FWD). I mean I would prob go with the CX-5 over the 6.
You're right, companies are getting much better at packaging. There's considerably more room in my B6 Passat than my old B5 and I don't think the car is much bigger if at all. However I don't think they have managed to do this with smaller hatches, I don't think for example the new shape Focus is any more spacious than the old one.
Cars are getting larger and larger but there is actually no more room inside them than before......... go and look at the marvels of things like an Austin Maxi or "landcrab" ADO17 to see the acres of legroom in a car that was only 14 foot long............... most of the problem is less to do with crash protection (that's the excuse usually trotted out), and more to do with the angle of the screens. When the screen was almost vertical, so was the dash panel, but now you get a vast acreage of dash moulding, robbing the car of interior room. I measured the distance from the base of the windscreen to the edge of the dash in a Fiesta and it is 2 feet....... that is 2 whole feet of space lost to the passengers. No wonder there is no more space in the current Fiesta than in the first generation car even though the latest one is an awful lot longer.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 06, 2012, 10:55:53 AM
Something to consider, a lot of these small cars are not really much smaller than old "medium" size cars
A new Civic is about the size, inside anyway, as an old Accord. Golf/Jetta are about as big inside as a B5 Passat. The Versa is downright cavernous. And a lot of current "medium" cars are just too god damn big. Most people are not hauling around 5 legit size adults on a regular basis, which makes something like a current Accord excessive for a solo commuter. And then if you do need to haul a lot of people around, i.e. a family w/young kids, a little CUV makes more sense because of its ease of ingress/egress. They are getting lighter too... CX-5 is just about as roomy as a Mazda6, with more cargo capacity, ground clearance, gas mileage, and about the same curb weight (FWD). I mean I would prob go with the CX-5 over the 6.
Hey, you're alive. Glad to have you backed. I missed having someone to argue with :lol:
Unfortunately, no arguing today. I agree on all counts. The new Civic is the old Accord in terms of size, and yeah, I think it's the sweet spot in the market too. The population in general though is growing though. Seems kind of crazy, but as a whole, our generation is taller, bigger, faster, stronger than the previous one. I've got quite a few friends who are just simply too tall to fit in a civic all that comfortably. A lot of them bought Accords instead.
I could definitely buy a CX-5 over a mazda6 also. I'm a big fan of the CX-5.
Quote from: Colin on August 08, 2012, 05:19:39 AM
Cars are getting larger and larger but there is actually no more room inside them than before......... go and look at the marvels of things like an Austin Maxi or "landcrab" ADO17 to see the acres of legroom in a car that was only 14 foot long............... most of the problem is less to do with crash protection (that's the excuse usually trotted out), and more to do with the angle of the screens. When the screen was almost vertical, so was the dash panel, but now you get a vast acreage of dash moulding, robbing the car of interior room. I measured the distance from the base of the windscreen to the edge of the dash in a Fiesta and it is 2 feet....... that is 2 whole feet of space lost to the passengers. No wonder there is no more space in the current Fiesta than in the first generation car even though the latest one is an awful lot longer.
An original Mini could fit four 6' tall passengers. Can't say that about the new one, even though it is quite a bit larger.
Quote from: Colin on August 08, 2012, 05:19:39 AM
Cars are getting larger and larger but there is actually no more room inside them than before......... go and look at the marvels of things like an Austin Maxi or "landcrab" ADO17 to see the acres of legroom in a car that was only 14 foot long............... most of the problem is less to do with crash protection (that's the excuse usually trotted out), and more to do with the angle of the screens. When the screen was almost vertical, so was the dash panel, but now you get a vast acreage of dash moulding, robbing the car of interior room. I measured the distance from the base of the windscreen to the edge of the dash in a Fiesta and it is 2 feet....... that is 2 whole feet of space lost to the passengers. No wonder there is no more space in the current Fiesta than in the first generation car even though the latest one is an awful lot longer.
Windshields start further forward though. Making the windshield and dash completely vertical means you would still be stuck with the same legroom, so the dash would just be 2 feet further away from you.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on August 08, 2012, 02:34:24 AM
You're right, companies are getting much better at packaging. There's considerably more room in my B6 Passat than my old B5 and I don't think the car is much bigger if at all. However I don't think they have managed to do this with smaller hatches, I don't think for example the new shape Focus is any more spacious than the old one.
One thing I am not sure of is how the new packaging affects maintenance... for example, old Accord, you open the hood and you could access pretty much every component. Intake/exhaust manifolds, engine mounts and everything in between. New Civic, windshield damn near comes to the valve cover. I don't know how people maneuver in that engine bay, though I guess for 99% of the owner base thats a non issue
Quote from: MrH on August 08, 2012, 06:51:44 AM
Hey, you're alive. Glad to have you backed. I missed having someone to argue with :lol:
Unfortunately, no arguing today. I agree on all counts. The new Civic is the old Accord in terms of size, and yeah, I think it's the sweet spot in the market too. The population in general though is growing though. Seems kind of crazy, but as a whole, our generation is taller, bigger, faster, stronger than the previous one. I've got quite a few friends who are just simply too tall to fit in a civic all that comfortably. A lot of them bought Accords instead.
I could definitely buy a CX-5 over a mazda6 also. I'm a big fan of the CX-5.
No more arguing from me....
Its def true people are legitimately taller. Me and all my siblings are taller than my parents for example. Still though, I have a few relatively tall friends, but they fit fine in my buddy's GTI for example. I guess my point is even though people are def way bigger (not just fatter but taller too) than they used to be, I dont think the avg family needs the room of an Accord over a Civic just yet.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 08, 2012, 10:06:28 AM
One thing I am not sure of is how the new packaging affects maintenance... for example, old Accord, you open the hood and you could access pretty much every component. Intake/exhaust manifolds, engine mounts and everything in between. New Civic, windshield damn near comes to the valve cover. I don't know how people maneuver in that engine bay, though I guess for 99% of the owner base thats a non issue
No more arguing from me....
Its def true people are legitimately taller. Me and all my siblings are taller than my parents for example. Still though, I have a few relatively tall friends, but they fit fine in my buddy's GTI for example. I guess my point is even though people are def way bigger (not just fatter but taller too) than they used to be, I dont think the avg family needs the room of an Accord over a Civic just yet.
Maybe because you live in NYC so you don't use a car as much, but after having the baby, I can understand why people may want a bigger car. It's simply more convenient to have a bigger car when you have a stroller, bunch of baby stuff to carry around. Not to mention a car seat that they most likely have to be in until the age of 8.
If I put my kid in the RSX, it's a pain in the ass to get the car seat into the back seat and then the stroller takes up majority of the room. And in the RDX, stroller still takes up a lot of room and car seat takes up a lot of room where if you want to seat 4 adults + 1 kid, it's really difficult.
Quote from: NomisR on August 08, 2012, 10:58:02 AM
Maybe because you live in NYC so you don't use a car as much, but after having the baby, I can understand why people may want a bigger car. It's simply more convenient to have a bigger car when you have a stroller, bunch of baby stuff to carry around. Not to mention a car seat that they most likely have to be in until the age of 8.
If I put my kid in the RSX, it's a pain in the ass to get the car seat into the back seat and then the stroller takes up majority of the room. And in the RDX, stroller still takes up a lot of room and car seat takes up a lot of room where if you want to seat 4 adults + 1 kid, it's really difficult.
Stroller? Kids have fucking legs. If not, you carry them in a backpack.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 08, 2012, 11:00:54 AM
Stroller? Kids have fucking legs. If not, you carry them in a backpack.
He can't walk yet, i don't think I can put him on a leash and make him crawl everywhere.
Yeah, I'd backpack the kid for sure then. I'd never let a stroller hold me back from BRZ nirvana.
Quote from: MrH on August 08, 2012, 11:40:48 AM
Yeah, I'd backpack the kid for sure then. I'd never let a stroller hold me back from BRZ nirvana.
Keep talking, buddy. You'll be bald and in a minivan in 5 years. :lol:
Quote from: Raza on August 08, 2012, 12:04:05 PM
Keep talking, buddy. You'll be bald and in a minivan in 5 years. :lol:
I call dibs on the pristine low mileage 5-year-old BRZ.
Quote from: NomisR on August 08, 2012, 10:58:02 AM
Maybe because you live in NYC so you don't use a car as much, but after having the baby, I can understand why people may want a bigger car. It's simply more convenient to have a bigger car when you have a stroller, bunch of baby stuff to carry around. Not to mention a car seat that they most likely have to be in until the age of 8.
If I put my kid in the RSX, it's a pain in the ass to get the car seat into the back seat and then the stroller takes up majority of the room. And in the RDX, stroller still takes up a lot of room and car seat takes up a lot of room where if you want to seat 4 adults + 1 kid, it's really difficult.
An RSX is tiny inside compared to a newish Civic
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on August 08, 2012, 02:34:24 AM
You're right, companies are getting much better at packaging. There's considerably more room in my B6 Passat than my old B5 and I don't think the car is much bigger if at all. However I don't think they have managed to do this with smaller hatches, I don't think for example the new shape Focus is any more spacious than the old one.
B6 is about 3 inches larger depending on the year.
Quote from: dazzleman on August 07, 2012, 03:20:33 PM
So I guess the Farrah pictures didn't get as sticky as the pictures of Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith? :winkguy:
None of sticky white stuff was wasted on her. :thumbsup:
Quote from: dazzleman on August 07, 2012, 03:20:33 PMFarrah doesn't look as good in retrospect as she did then. Not sure why. But during the first season of Charlie's Angels (1976-77), Farrah-mania swept the land. I remember a car dealership in my town had a huge poster of Farrah that took up one of their plate-glass windows.
These days people will go to Google pictures, but in those days having a fullsize photo of Farrah on your dealership showroom window probably helped sell a few cars. :tounge:
Quote from: dazzleman on August 07, 2012, 03:20:33 PMI do love watching the shows and women from that era. Everything seemed simpler and cleaner. I still am drawn to the style of hair and clothes that women had during that era. Not sure if the world was a better place, though. Surely different, but not necessarily better. It was a bad moment when the Soviets invaded Afganistan. That put a big scare into a lot of people.
Shows from that era had their own character. Static and simple camera views and boring lighting but it all had such charm. :praise:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 08, 2012, 12:16:29 PM
An RSX is tiny inside compared to a newish Civic
Yeah, but i'm wanting even more room with the RDX.