My, how you've grown...

[Bobthebeard]

So tractors should offer great economy and ride comfort.

If you don't get the type with the tiny front wheels.

Tiny front wheel tractor evolved into the 'Chelsea' tractor IIRC.

Same huge wheels alround.

[Brent_Crude]

[mat_the_cat]

forget cars. The Mk1 transit is ickle next to the Mk73 or whatever its up to now.

 

At least not all vans followed the trend...

[Pillock]

Good point and good answer! Please stop giving good answers as this is Autoshite... We like to live in the past!

 

Oooops sorry!

 

The other way of looking at it is that in 1985 I remember not being able to clean the roof of my mum's Polo breadvan as I was too short. However now I can clean our Touran all the way across the roof and a Touran is substantially bigger than the current Polo. It therefore leads me to conclude that cars are getting smaller. 

[stormee]

I once lost my Scirocco Storm in a car park. 3 short weeks later I found it. It was completely obscured by a Bini.

[Spiny Norman]

So it does 70mph faster than an old car did 70mph on a motorway?

 

Obviously, yes....

The thing that annoys me about the new heavy breed of car isn't so much the performance & economy which usually is better than he older ones, but the idea of how much better things could be given the advances in engine technology if today's small family boxes didn't weigh as much as an 80's luxobarge.

Imagine one of the modern eco-hippy Dizzlers in something like a Mk1 Golf or a GS. 100mph & 100mph from the same car, easy, and a genuine 70+ mpg everyday. Instead we have these very efficient engines carting around 300KG of largely unnecessary baggage so the progress is used up before it gets a chance.

[Rusty Pelican]

My E30 Beemer seems tiny nowadays , bloke at work has a Renault Megan wedge arse and the Beemers seems small , new 1 series is bigger than my 3 series , new 3 series is bloody massive ,Im sure  Its a right load of old  bollocks about there being  more cars on the road , the amounts the same they just take up 3  times the space they need to .

fucking stupid if you ask me.

[Bren]

When ever I walk up to my SD1 I am always surprised how low it is compared to a modern.

 

Even when I had inflated the tyres it was still very low - the povo spec models do ride a bit higher than than the EFi cars. However, for such a large car it is a bit cramped inside with very little leg room - especially in the rear - a criticism when they were new.

 

When I had my driveway done around 14 years ago and  I replaced my fence panels and posts I cursed for leaving the gap between the gate posts a little on the tight side - I had a jelly mould granada at the time. There was'nt much room either side of the mirrors.

 

Fast forward 14 years and I have even less room to get my vectra C on the driveway.

[Ratdat]

I have yet to find a modern car that's as comfortable to ride in as my R16. Even the Vel Satis had hard seats and a fairly choppy ride. I guess this is another 'one size fits all' kind of thing as I find most modern car seats to be quite hard.

 

As cars get bigger and heavier so they need to be be built stronger to withstand the higher inertia in an impact... and in achieving this so they get bigger and heavier... and with massively thick pillars (something I loath in moderns). Vicious circle it seems. The lardy nature of modern cars does seem to somewhat defeat a lot of the advances in engine efficiency in the last couple of decades. It's a shame that we've gone down the route of passive safety (impact strength, airbags etc) rather than active safety (improving driver skill better and making roads safer).

[trigger]

 

This isn't the clearest photo but I parked my Civic next to a new Clio recently and it completely dwarfed my car.

 

 

The same as the Jazz which was parked next to the Jaguar.

[Richard]

One of the things I liked about my Volvo 940 Estate, a car that was sold on its bulk and weight, was how compact it was. It looked tiny in the drive and I could get the wheely bin around it.

 

A while ago I joked with somebody that the Vauxhall Astra was heavier than a Jaguar XJ12, after a bit of research it turned out to be true for some versions of the Astra.

[chaseracer]

At least not all vans followed the trend...

 

 

But isn't that the biggest LT next to the smallest Crafter...?

 

[Junkman]

Obviously, yes....

The thing that annoys me about the new heavy breed of car isn't so much the performance & economy which usually is better than he older ones, but the idea of how much better things could be given the advances in engine technology if today's small family boxes didn't weigh as much as an 80's luxobarge.

Imagine one of the modern eco-hippy Dizzlers in something like a Mk1 Golf or a GS. 100mph & 100mph from the same car, easy, and a genuine 70+ mpg everyday. Instead we have these very efficient engines carting around 300KG of largely unnecessary baggage so the progress is used up before it gets a chance.

 

That's what I mean. A brand new Clio 1.5 8v Energy dCi 90 83g engine together with the 6 speed put into a 980 kg R16 would probably yield a 100mpg family cruiser?

[dollywobbler]

 

But isn't that the biggest LT next to the smallest Crafter...?

 

 

They're both LTs. The newer one is nowhere near as wide as the old'un, even if the old'un does have the high roof option.

[Richard]

I wish people would stop saying Range Rover Classic. It's a Range Rover. See also SAAB 900 and Mini.

[wuvvum]

Having owned two old-shape LTs and driven a new one, I can confirm that the old model is substantially wider, and has a much bigger turning circle.  Still nowhere near as big as the original Renault Master though - the only vehicle I've ever literally got stuck whilst trying to turn round.

[Timewaster]

I wish people would stop saying Range Rover Classic. It's a Range Rover. See also SAAB 900 and Mini.

We'll they can't really call it a "Range Rover Proper" can they?

[Brent_Crude]

I wish people would stop saying Range Rover Classic. It's a Range Rover. See also SAAB 900 and Mini.

The later models of the 'Mark 1' shape were actually, officially marketed and badged by Land Rover as a 'Range Rover Classic', to distinguish it from the newly launched P38, as there was some overlap of the two models. Mine is one of these later models, with the 'Classic' badge.

 

It's an important and recognised distinction.

[Richard]

A Range Rover is a Range Rover though, any distinction should be made in the later models. Adding a qualifier to the original Range Rover diminishes it. I know Land Rover used the badge but so did Ford with the Mk3 Fiesta and you don't see people referring to them as FFC.

[ChinaTom]

I expect the current XJ will dwarf my XJ40 more than this one did.

[rml2345]

New cars are bloody enormous. The 740 is a big car but it never ceases to amaze me how small it looks in comparison to new Mondeos and whatnot. It's still quite long by modern standards though.

New cars aren't nearly as roomy inside as their predecessors either because they're full of side impact protection airbags and hot and cold running electric climate seating or whichever new gadget they've cooked up this week. None of that bothers me as much as the move to big wheels and low profile tyres though because big squishy tyres are an aid to a softer ride and a hard riding but otherwise normal car seems quite silly to me, especially with the number of bloody potholes about.

I think the move to ever larger wheels has as much to do with styling as anything brake related as a bigger car on smaller wheels would look silly. Are the ideal height proportions not 2x wheel and tyre diameter or something?

[chaseracer]

Are the ideal height proportions not 2x wheel and tyre diameter or something?

 

I think I've read this somewhere too.  Clearly, a memo that the 'designer' of the SsoWrong Odious* did not receive... 

 

 

 

* Other popular automotive internet tropes are available...

[rml2345]

Those Rhombus things are one of the worst looking and oddly proportioned cars of recent times. That and coming from a manufacturer with a pedigree of dismalness is part of their appeal for me.

[Junkman]

The length and height is not that much of an issue for me, but where the newfangled tosh has grown most obviously is in width - and that simply makes it awkward to drive and park.

When we decided to downsize from the 405, since SWMBO found it too bulky for her daily runs (which I can understand to a degree, the 405 is more of a barge than most people think it is), we wanted something that's really smaller by good old inches, not just by being labelled 'compact' in the sales brochure. And the new smallness was predominantly desired in the width department.

Now, the 405 was in fact classed as a 'large family car' when it was launched, but is nowadays merely considered mid-size at best, so much for that.

However, it turned out that pretty much all newer 'small' cars were actually wider and offered worse visibility to boot. They also felt cramped inside.

For example, during my research, I found out that the Rover 600 Series, something decidedly considered mid-size nowadays, is in fact an inch wider than a W126!

This is why we finally settled for the Colt C10. It offers most mod cons we got used to in the 405, but it honestly smaller, without even appearing less roomy inside, save for the rarely used boot space, of course.

 

We got so used to that bloated obese tosh of today, that even the early Sixties Falcon I spotted the other day appeared to be rather compact not only in an American way of looking at it. Remember what Brontosaurs those were among contemporary Eurochod.

[chaseracer]

We got so used to that bloated obese tosh of today, that even the early Sixties Falcon I spotted the other day appeared to be rather compact not only in an American way of looking at it. Remember what Brontosaurs those were among contemporary Eurochod.

I followed a '65 Mustang through town a while back. It looked tiny next to the BINIs and Mundignias and Insanos that infest this part of the world.

 

And when the X6 pulled up next to it at the lights...

 

[ProgRocker]

The increasing sizes of cars over the years really grinds my gears. I have my own designated parking space and I can just about squeeze out of my Almera. The flats and parking spaces were built in the late 1980s - so quite adequate for a mark 4 Escort but not so good for our lardy Euro NCAP modern mobiles.

 

Last night they young girl who parks her BINI two spaces along was completely cased in by the white VW Caddy van (next to me) and an Astra IV. Unless either vehicle moved out of their parking spaces, the only way she could have got into the car was through the boot.

[vulgalour]

To illustrate a point with the Rodius I have done this shonky photoshop.  There's a gigantic saloon in there that's not too terrible if you channel the body by about 2 feet and remove the cold frame from the back.

 

[chaseracer]

 

 

[dugong]

Why do you keep posting BMW X6s up? Confused. 

[Junkman]

If there is one thing I can say in favour of the newfangled behemoths, then it's that I like the 'because we can' factor.

 

"If we'd stop doing things just for the heck of it, it will be a very sad day indeed".

(Sir Donald Campbell)

 

But.

 

The 1971-1976 GM full-size range, in particular the A-Bodies (Cadillacs, Buicks, and senior Oldsmobiles, i.e. the Ninety-Eights) were arguably the largest mass-produced cars delivered in automotive history. The severely downsized 1977 models are often seen as a result of the OPEC oil embargo by the ones not in the know, however, this is not the case.

Given the 4-year lead time of new model development at the time, the decision was obviously made well before the Sheiks turned the oil tap control wheels clockwise. If you add the managerial decision process and the lead time for persuading the bean counters to clear the funds for the development, the initial decision was actually made shortly after the 1971 models were launched. If I then believe some people I know who actually worked in the GM design studios at the time, the reasons for downsizing were a lot more trivial, namely to maximise profit.

Let me explain.

 

- The cars had reached a size that allowed fewer cars being on the assembly line at a given time, which reduced output.

- The heft of the cars required such an amount of raw materials, that a certain profitability threshold was passed.

 

Consequently the decision to downsize was made to reduce unit production cost. Making the cars smaller not only rectified the above mentioned points, but since the smaller cars no longer required the expensively to produce Big Blocks to perform well, those could be deleted as well.

In the end, the 1977 GM full-size offerings were reduced to a 116 inch wheelbase, last seen on the 1955-1957 models, or the Intermediates. They also were a whopping 550 lbs lighter than their predecessors on average. Other US manufacturers followed suit with the usual delay and a lot more haphazardly developed shite, to merely counter the GM marketing offensive, and not as a reaction to the oil crisis either.

I just thought this completely pointless piece of useless trivia might interest the odd autoshiter.

 

However, considering the above, I see history repeated. With that, I think we will see yet another generation of yet bigger cars in Europe, before downsizing commences. Currently, the new car offerings in Europe are a slap in the face for any self-respected engineer, but that's probably only my opinion, as usual. Please be aware that I actually am a graduate automotive engineer who aspires to the demanding standards set by the likes of Spen King.

 

Oh, before I forget, the downsizing of passenger cars in America has led to the daft septics now predominantly buying lorries. Because they can.