Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
"What kind of car is that?"
"A Kia Sephia," he blurted out. It was white and it had a 5-speed tranny installed at the factory.
"D'ya like it?", I wanted to know.
"Ahhh...it's fine for what I want it for...gets good gas mileage."
"What does it get," I asked.
"30+ mpg", was his response.
Both of us had a 45 mile commute each way from Burlington, WA, south to Everett, WA. We both built Boeing jetliners at Boeing's widebody jet plant.
"Humm...it drives OK?", I asked again.
"It's fine, I just told them I wanted to leave the lot for as cheap as I possibly could."
"So you got a good deal?" I asked.
"Oh, yeah!"
"Humm."
As I stared at the front end of his white Sephia I studied the body design and noticed an obvious superiority to the boring bland style coming from the Toyota and Honda camps round about 1999.
At that time I was driving a 1997 Ford Escort sedan I bought used in the spring of 1997-it had 18,000 miles on it and I got a decent deal. I liked my purple 4-door Ford Escort and had possibly one recall pickup needed done in the coupla years I'd owned it.
I went to Jerry Smith Kia of Anacortes and test-drove a 1999 Violet Mist colored Kia Sephia that also had a 5-speed manual tranny installed straight-from-the-factory. The light purple Sephia had no A/C(one doesn't absolutely have to have air conditioning in Washington state)and no radio.
I ended up paying $7,995 after a $2,000 Kia manufacturer's rebate was taken off of it. And the rest is history as they say. We traded the '99 Sephia in in Sept. of '01 (with around 80,000 miles on it) for a 2001 Kia Sportage 4X4.
Before I traded my '97 Escort in I thought of the whole "ya gotta buy American" thing. By that time I was reading on the internet pretty much daily. I read of the horrible time Kia and big brother Hyundai were having with the de-valuation of the Korean won, illegal Chaebol involvement, strikes against both carmakers, currency manipulation figurings, etc.
Kia got an assist from Ford on their Sportage truck-like ladder frame and Kia built the Festiva microcar for Ford. Manufacturers were and had been trading materials, knowledge, people, deals on parts and assemblies, etc., for a long time before that deal for my Sephia in May of 1999.
What did it matter if I bought American cleanly and clearly? Is a purchase of an American car really a cleanly-American purchase? Nope-it's not. Sharing everything under the automotive sun was in full operation.
So I bought my Sephia with no feeling of guilt whatsoever. Then the '01 Sportage 4X4 and now we have just one car...I have left Kia Motors to buy a 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS.
I may return one day to buy another new Kia vehicle, possibly a new Cee'd 5-door crossover. They are awesome and if a diesel engine and a 5-speed tranny could be had in one I'd leap that way like Kobe Bryant leaping out of Gary Payton's way as Gary floated to yet another unmolested layin against the Lakers.
So, no, the "buy American" crowd need to consider what they're building and they need to build small and subcompact with earnestness. Otherwise I will look to new love Mitsubishi and old favorite Kia Motors for my next purchase in another 5 years down the road. I include my Lancer in here, even though it's considered a compact car. Because even though Mitsubishi doesn't really build a small subcompact Kia does(Rio, Cee'd)and they are way too good for me to push them forever to the side, like a smelly old Kobe Bryant Laker sock. That's too much cash to spend to not get what I want, gentlemen. Kia and Mitsubishi deliver and GM does not. Simple as a GP steal and unmolested drive to the hoop for another nice layin over Kobe and his hapless dorks in L.A.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Which begs the question, where else would they install the tranny?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So really, the American companies that survive today are an example of un-free trade. The US government didn't give the American public a chance to vote freely. If they had, it would have been thumbs down in the Colosseum for Detroit.
Which makes sense. I mean, we'd have been crazy to let the Japanese do that to us.
But "free trade" is a quaint American myth, like "rugged individualism" etc etc. The car business, though, isn't run that way I don't think. It's a government protected industry.
Why do you think we don't get all those killer cars you see in Europe and Japan--those small, fast subs and compact turbo diesels or small sport sedans?
Name a free-thinker who decides to work on transmissions anywhere in the U.S., that's where else. I'm just making it clear what type of tranny my rig had and from what source, that's all.
With so many people out there that modify their rigs it's got me thinkin' I'll just make it clear that my rig is one where that particular tranny was installed straight-from-the-factory.
Another reason is a good Clint Black song called 'Straight From The Factory' is playing in my head and I am hearing that song in my head while posting and explaining history's of my cars and SUV's.
Yes, I know, those are all very, very good reasons. And I tank you for your time and for wasting mine...I...I mean thank you for helping me see the need to make that important point stand out free and clear for all free Americans out there in any one of our 50 free States under the Constitution of these United States.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Three reasons:
1) Unwillingness of European manufacturers to meet US crash and pollution standards.
2) Unwillingness of same to build a dealership network to support their product (remember Fiat, Renault and Puegeot all were in the US markets in the 70s.
3) Consumers purchase subcompacts only when they are short of cash or when gas hits above a certain point.
I was in the Rio Grande Valley the last two weeks and I saw quite a number of compacts that looked interesting and are currently sold in Mexico. Even though I could register the vehicle in Mexico and bring it across the border, do I really want to have to import parts from Monterrey everytime I need one?
2% tariff on imported cars ? Whoopie. 20%? on Trucks and SUV's ???? Big 3 are able to handle the competition even with the currency manipulation issue.
-Rocky
Yeah service jobs. As Fintail, has said a cookie cutter MBA does not yield a high paying job. Our economy the way it's going will be two classes of haves and have nots. I don't know about you but I preferred having a strong middle class and would love for the big 3 to be able to build subcompact automobiles in this country. However with currency manipulation, and low cost competition building this segment using 3rd world labor it's a tough segment to be in. :sick:
For people without much of an education, life gets harder, but it's been getting harder for a long time.
I agree and our politicans in Washington, are making it worse. :sick:
-Rocky
I'm all in favor of that but free trade, isn't equaling "fair trade". If the government would level the playing field by eliminating the currency problem we have with the Asians that would be one step in the right direction.
Two can play this game !!!!! :mad:
If there is no competition then there is no incentive to produce a better product, their is also a very good probability of backsliding.
Agree !!!! I'm in favor of trade, as long as it's "fair trade".
Believe what you want but there are still plenty of well paying jobs in this country. The shear fact that the US GDP makes up over 22% of the GWP says a lot.
We have a large number of the worlds wealthiest people in this country.
Real wages adjusted for inflation is up.
According to who ???? Every source I've read says we have taken several steps backwords. Just a few years ago we were at year 2000 levels and have came up just this year. We are still behind where we need to be.
(COL vs. Wages/Benefits)
The bottom line is the big 3 will have a very hard time manufactoring subcompacts in this country at a profit with the way things are today. It's only goingto get worse once the Chinese and Indians "dump" their subcompact versions on our shores. Hyundai/Kia, have shown signs they are in it to win however I think the Chinese/Indians, will have something to say who ultimately wins if their is no changes in our trade laws. :sick:
-Rocky
WOW, where are you coming up with these claims ???? If the big 3 were protected wouldn't their be more trade barriers and tariffs on imports ???? :confuse:
-Rocky
P.S. Just make sure you don't accidentally swallow the paint on those chinese made subcompacts when they arrive. I hear bad things health wise can happen. :P
Two can play this game !!!!!
Rocky, this this with the Asian market is so political and so complicated dating back to WW2 and McArthur and all that. The Japanese get special deals from us because they do not have standing army. We also nuked them so they get special compensation from that. Politically Correct America will always do this sort of thing.
The Japanese tax a US car so intensely that they are unsalable in Japan. his has been going on for many years.
I sure don't know the solution but putting up trade barriers of our own really won't help at this point. I know a few guys living in Asia and one is a damn good friend and he's into all this stuff and he just says it's the way it is. Rules are different in Asia than in the US. You can't equate their society to ours in any way.
Korea is even worse. They inject such nationalistic pride at every level that very few non Korean manufacturers will succeed there.
ASEAN nations are a bit different but they do get some great small cars. But they will usually cost you more than in the US. The grass always looks greener when you look at the other side of the fence but the grass still tastes like grass.
It would be nice if things were as easy as you make them seem.
Cars from India will fail in the US, remember the Yugo?
Well it didn't sell very well and cheap crap never will in the US.
India has a long way to go to catch up with Kia and Hyundai.
So the factory will send their cars out to these guys to get their trannies put in?
Another reason is a good Clint Black song called 'Straight From The Factory' is playing in my head and I am hearing that song in my head while posting and explaining history's of my cars and SUV's.
For me its "One piece at a time" by Johnny Cash.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That would go away if leadership had any fiscal responsibility at all. China is financing a US war in the middle east...you think things are bad now, wait until the Chinese repo the United States for defaulting on the war bonds...
...How come American citizens aren't buying those war bonds?
As for our safety and emissions laws, that's also a clamp on "free trade". Our choices become limited by government intervention.
When you look at the 70s and 80s, to the history of the Big Three back then, don't look at sales figures, look at profits. They Big Three were getting beat up pretty badly, and they needed protection because they could not compete "freely" with the Japanese on product or price.
I'd gladly bet anyone that if Toyota came out with a 100 mpg car the size of an Impala, there is no way in hell they would be allowed to sell it here.
It's hard enough getting subcompact turbo diesels into America. Fortunately for the Big Three, both the subcompact and the diesel markets are limited in America.
You are more than likely correct. No more than we could have an open market to sell rice to Japan.
And see how easy it is to forget about Sub compacts and get on other subjects?
I remember one of the first rounds of Sub compacts that came to the US. The cars were cheap and got good fuel mileage. The National 55 MPG sped limit gave them a big shot in the arm. But people bought them even if the paint faded. Engines were only good for 50k and had pretend air conditioners if any at all. Don't tell me they had quality because I had a B-210. But people bought them and they got bigger, more powerful and now those same sub compacts are mid sized cars. They also had Compact trucks but they simply don't make anything smaller than what used to be mid sized anymore. We even had more choices from Europe. Cars that may have worked fine in Europe but simply didn't hold up to America. Renault and Fiat to name two.
It is cyclical and maybe you are right, the cycle can last longer if our economy will stay flat and fuel will stay high. But if we rebound? Americans like their comfort and while a flat back wooden chair may be all we need to sit on it is also true that Lazy Boy does very well.
It will be interesting to remember what we thought was a sub compact 25 years from now and see what they are then.
If we must discuss, we shouldn’t just look at the result but also the cause. I didn’t experience this first hand, but from what I can gather, the Japanese were being the trend setters or taking advantage of a trend. The big 3 were probably to stubborn to adjust to the market. We are seeing a bit of the same in recent years. The Big 3 try to be trend setters by using one word: big. In the 90s, the word applied to vehicle size. Short term gains helped put blinders on long term vision. Now they are scrambling to get back in the game.
We are seeing a bit of it in the very near future as well. Diesels might be the next big thing. The names that are on top: Honda (interestingly enough, did not have a diesel engine until five years ago), Audi/VW and Mercedes Benz. The big-3 are busy demonstrating potential of what they can do with 6-8 liter gasoline engines. Once again, it is a different set that seems ready to be the trend setter. And once again, the big-3 will be scrambling (often relying on their “import” arms) to follow.
This has little to do with free market or lack of, more to do with lack of having a long term vision.
We can always look back, 25 years ago. Civic was a subcompact (actually, it is a borderline compact right now). And Fit is smaller than Civic was, in the 1980s. It is just that subcompacts are making a comeback after a brief hiatus, and likely to stay this time around, as they have in the rest of the world.
There might be one final push for the mammoths though. They had a chance to be big, then shrunk then grew and now have largely gone out of fashion.
BMW ALPINA D3 Diesel Saloon
"The BMW ALPINA D3 saloon takes the unique collaboration between the two companies into a new market segment. Built alongside the BMW 320d, the D3 derivative raises the bar for 2.0 litre diesel power and performance, with 100hp per litre on tap, and a top speed of 145mph. Yet the car has one of the lowest CO2 figures in the entire BMW range and offers nearly 50mpg on the combined cycle."
james
In a way, that might be good for diesel subcompacts. I think there will be less resistance to a $15,000 diesel than to a $40,000 diesel.
Americans don't like how loud the engines are, and they hate the messy fill-ups.
I felt the E class diesel had a bit of lag, and power came on like an on/off switch. Hit the gas...then, then, then..BAM. It's really fast, and comes on all at once.
They've revised their diesel at least once since I've sampled one so perhaps the effect is lessened.
The problem I'm touching on is that the big 3 seem to get into the game later when it comes to smaller/high fuel economy vehicles. We certainly shouldn't blame import brands for "grabbing" the market.
That was one case where the stars were all properly aligned - one company was in dire straits, and one person in the form of Lee Iacocca was charismatic enough to rally labor, government and even taxpayers to Chrysler's cause.
The U.S. does not have a systematic program or policy in place to aid ailing domestic automakers.
Mr. Shiftright: Why would we have domestic content laws?
It is my understanding that we don't have domestic content laws for passenger vehicles, despite the best efforts of the UAW. New vehicles are required to have the percentage of domestic parts listed on their price sticker, but a vehicle can be made entirely of foreign-sourced parts and still be sold legally in the U.S.
The only exception is the 25 percent tariff on trucks (the "Chicken Tax"), but, as shown with the Titan and the Tundra, that will only provide limited protection to the home team.
Mr. Shiftright: As for our safety and emissions laws, that's also a clamp on "free trade". Our choices become limited by government intervention.
But our safety and emissions laws are drafted to reduce fatalities and clean up the environment, not keep out foreign companies. The Clean Air Act, for example, was never drafted as a hidden tariff or barrier to keep out foreign offerings. It's the same with our safety standards. These were never intended to be protectionist measures.
Any vehicle that can meet those safety and emissions standards can be sold legally in the U.S.
Granted, some foreign companies have been much more successful in meeting the standards than others, but there was never a sustained attempt by the American government to use the regulations as a way to keep companies out of the U.S.
Mr. Shiftright: I'd gladly bet anyone that if Toyota came out with a 100 mpg car the size of an Impala, there is no way in hell they would be allowed to sell it here.
And I'll bet you that Toyota would be allowed to sell it here. Toyota is viewed favorably by many Americans, and with the company producing more of its products here in the United States, it is cultivating a group of federal legislators who don't necessarily look too favorably on protectionist measures.
Plus, since it already has a fairly extensive American production base, if measures were taken to ban this vehicle's importation, Toyota would merely build it here, and make an end run around any protectionist measures.
One way or another, it would be sold here, especially given the desire for higher fuel economy. At the most, Toyota might announce a "technology" sharing venture with GM, Ford or Chrysler to allow them to use the mileage-boosting technology.
This would be a PR move for Toyota, although, in the long run, it would further burnish Toyota's reputation while making the domestics look like the automotive equivalent of the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
Mr. Shiftright: It's hard enough getting subcompact turbo diesels into America. Fortunately for the Big Three, both the subcompact and the diesel markets are limited in America.
But, once again, this is because of environmental concerns, not protectionist concerns. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been hostile to diesels because of concerns over particulate emissions, and CARB is seen as a leader among many state agencies. It is my understanding that the new low-sulfur diesel fuels have softened CARB's stance on diesels. Also note that Honda has said it will produce a diesel Accord for 2009 that meets all applicable emission standards, and it will be offered for sale here in the U.S.
As I recall, even the early salvo of "safety" regulations included an arbitrary minimum wheelbase requirement that eliminated some foreign vehicles. Hardly safety related! And what of the "domestic" content labeling that conveniently includes Canadian content, which has UAW representation, as "domestic"?
Not protectionist? Is the tooth fairy real?
The Canadian Auto Workers union (not the UAW) represent Big Three employees in the Canadian plants.
link title
Sorry, can't buy that. The regulations written in response to the bills have been quite clear - if the vehicle meets the standards, it can be sold here, regardless of country of origin. These are not protectionist pieces of legislation.
Protectionist acts would either be:
1. Written to exclude various overseas manufacturers. Given the success of the Germans, Japanese and Koreans in this country since the adoption of safety and emissions standards, I think one can logically conclude that this has not been the effect of this legislation.
2. Revised at various points to handicap the foreigners while benefitting the home team, even if the changes do not increase the effectiveness of the legislation. Again, this has not happened with safety and emissions legislation.
daysailer: As I recall, even the early salvo of "safety" regulations included an arbitrary minimum wheelbase requirement that eliminated some foreign vehicles. Hardly safety related!
And was that requirement included in the final regulations?
If not, your example only proves that, like many pieces of legislation, it initially attracted provisions that distracted from the legislation's original intent and were eliminated during the drafting process.
This does not prove that the final product was protectionist. It only proves that some legislators or organizations tried to turn it into a protectionist bill, and failed.
daysailer: And what of the "domestic" content labeling that conveniently includes Canadian content, which has UAW representation, as "domestic"?
And name one vehicle that the domestic content labeling legislation has banned from sale in the U.S.
The answer? None...
Labeling requirements are not necessarily protectionist. For them to be protectionist, it would be necessary for the vehicle with a certain percentage of foreign-sourced parts to either be banned for sale, or assessed with a tariff. Neither of which has happened.
daysailer: Not protectionist? Is the tooth fairy real?
Not by the common definition of "protectionist." Again, any manufacturer that chooses to meet the regulations can sell vehicles here. The playing field is truly level.
Diesel may be cheaper to refine but that's not reflected at the pumps. Right now there's a 50 cent per gallon premium for diesel over regular unleaded here in Boise, and NJ isn't much better. Report Your Local Gas Prices Here
In my world, proof that the final legislation or regulations actually favor the domestic manufacturers over the foreign ones in operation is required before such legislation or regulation can be labeled protectionist.
So far, I have not seen any proof.
The fact that such legislation exists does not constitute proof that it is protectionist.
(If anything, one could argue that CAFE favored the imports, as they were better positioned to meet the standards.)
The only vehicles I see as "favored" are those that meet the regulations.
If GM builds a Chevy that does not meet the standards, then said vehicle cannot be legally sold in this country - and GM will be punished, even the Chevy if is assembled in the U.S.
The regulations apply equally to GM as they do to Hyundai, BMW, Honda, etc.
Gas here is 2.50-3.00/gal, so we can say that an additional 50 cents for diesel is about 20% premium over base grade gasoline; diesel cars seem to be between 20 and 50% more fuel efficient than their gasoline counterparts.
VW Jetta TDI 36/41, VW Jetta 2.5 21/28
So even at the increased rate, it may still be cheaper on a cost-per-mile basis. Also, diesel demand, for the meantime, is pretty fixed, while gas prices fluctuate quite a bit with demand.
It protects de facto the American automakers from further competition, which would definitely have hurt them.
When Renault and Peugeot first came here inthe 1950s, THAT was a freer market, and they failed ultimately because their cars stunk.
But now they can't get it to compete because of the myriad of regulations, some of which at least are (as we've found out) useless---like bumper height.
Americans have fewer choices because of direct government intervention on any number of levels.
If foreign manufacturers started killing the Big Three again (and they might), you'll see very swift and sure further protectionist action by our government, don't you worry!
What form it will take, I don't know. It will be crafty and sly so as not to trigger retaliation from abroad. They'll call it "something else".
Legislation is not protectionist because some foreign companies cannot design attractive vehicles that meet the standards.
What you are describing is the inability of those manufacturers to design, engineer and build competitive vehicles that meet American standards.
Given that several foreign manufacturers do meet this challenge - indeed, they meet the challenge so well that they are stealing sales from the home team every year - the logical conclusion is not that the legislation is protectionist, but that Fiat, Renault and Peugeot cannot design vehicles that Americans want and that also meet the standards.
That's not protectionism - that's a management failure (or lack of commitment to cracking the U.S. market).
They all want to go to China and Africa, where there aren't such obstacles to free trade and where they are better opportunities (emerging markets, not mature ones like ours).
Of course, America being a mature market isn't protectionist--that's just a fact of doing business.
I am going to have to disagree with you there, I think that that action while helping in the short run hurt the American auto industry in the long run. I am pretty sure that the American auto industry would be further along than it is now if Uncle Sam hadn't joined the party. They would have had to be to survive.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That would be an excellent 3-beer conversation and thought exercise wouldn't it? Who's buying?
In any event, I think most of the innovation, styling cues and new concepts come from abroad these days.
American subcompacts, "sport" sedans and entry-level convertibles all seem like copy-cats to me. I don't see the Big Three as "pro-active" in this changing market.
Gonna be interesting if oil keeps going up per barrel isn't it? Cars are going to change as radically as they did in 1979 perhaps?
When you're talking about what they classify as "pollutants", then yeah, cars are really about as clean as it's going to get. Keep in mind though, that CO2 is NOT considered a pollutant. Greenhouse gas, yes, but pollutant, no. That's stuff like NOX, CO, and HC.
The last two times it's had to go through emissions, they've just done the OBD-II scan on my Intrepid, so I don't get printouts of pollutants anymore. However, back in 2002 it went on the treadmill test. I remember the readout for CO was something like 0.002 grams per mile. My grandmother's '85 LeSabre went on the treadmill, and I remember it was around 1.6 grams per mile.
So when they say that an older car could put out 1000x more pollutants than a newer car, well there ya go. 1.6 grams versus 0.002. is 800 times more, and I'm sure an old 60's or 70's car would be much worse.
But how are you going to get it to the point that a new car is so clean that compared to it, my Intrepid puts out 1000x more pollutants? Unless you go to pure electric, or voodoo, or selling your soul to the devil, I'm sure it's not going to happen. At least, not feasibly.
Man is that the truth. Most of the additional crash/safety standards required for US cars are BS.
Just check out the Euro NCAP site.
Citroen
Every car there from 2001 on is at least four stars and the Euro Crash test is more difficult then the American test.
Peugeot
Everything from 2002 up is also four starts or better.
Not necessarily...most of what passes for "big" these days just isn't that space-efficient. Ford's Panther cars date back to the disco era, and I just don't find them all that comfy. I think GM's B-bodies and Chrysler's short-lived 1979-81 R-bodies were much more comfy. Anyway, a brand-new Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, or Town car is probably no more comfortable inside than it was in 1979 or 80.
Chrysler's "full-sized" cars consist of the 300C/Charger and Magnum. Cars with a tranny/driveshaft hump that cut them down to 4-seater size, and trunks about in range of what would've been considered a midsized car in 1980....15-16 cubic feet.
GM has the Lucerne/DTS. They're laid out pretty well, but just don't have the shoulder room to warrant "full sized" status. Most cars today get their generous interior volumes from headroom, but that ain't gonna get you any more people in the car.
Now those big old coupes were usually smaller inside than their sedan counterparts, and personal luxury coupes like an Eldorado or Mark V smaller still. But they had the shoulder room to handle 3-across seating. Also, one thing that people tend to forget is that with downsizing, even though published dimensions like legroom, shoulder room, etc, might look good, they don't take into account things like a larger tranny/driveshaft hump, or wheel wells that encroach into the passenger cabin, or a dashboard that juts too far inward, etc.
Heck, a '76 Eldorado could probably haul 6 passengers in more comfort than any car built today could! Well, okay, maybe the ride might get some of them seasick, but 6 would still fit in better than any new car. Now SUV's and minivans are a different story, but if you're just talking cars...
In some ways, it seems like the Germans and Japanese are doing big cars better these days than the domestics...but you pay the price. The BMW 7-series and Benz S-class and Lexus LS are wonderful cars inside, well appointed, roomy, comfortable. IMO they blow away anything that Detroit tries to pass off as a big car these days. If anything, when it comes to back seat comfort, I'd rate them up there with the old Fleetwood 75's of the late 60's and such, where you could just stretch out in comfort.
Well if you're talking dreadnaught-class cars like a 70's Eldo or Mark V, well I can fit comfortably in the back seat of my buddy's Mark V. Even though the car itself is low-slung, the seat is also low, so I fit okay. Now I'm not so crazy about up front, because the sunroof takes out a lot of headroom.
While cars have improved since the 70's in many ways, I think the full-sized car is one class that really hasn't. It took well to the first wave of downsizing...cars like the '77 GM B-bodies, or the '79 Ford Panthers and Mopar R-bodies, didn't give up much compared to their mastodon forebears. In some dimensions, notably headroom and back seat legroom in the coupes, and trunk space, they actually gained. But the second wave, which started with the 1985 Electra and such, just took them down too small, really blurring the distinction between midsize and full-size.
Now, my LeMans is pretty tight in the back seat. Once I get the front seat to where I'm really comfy, the back is a tortue chamber. But by 1976 standards, it was pretty small. Its 112" wheelbase was pushing compact territory!
There was a lot of wasted space in those old cars, especially the pre-downsized 70's models. Those rakish rooflines and long hoods and sloping rear decks really cut into interior room. But with the bigger models, they were just so BIG, anyway, that space-inefficient or not, few cars built today could rival them for interior room.
Still, I think the biggest improvements have come from the smaller cars, mainly the compacts and subcompacts. Most midsized cars pretty much stayed pat, or saw slight improvements. With big cars though, I'd say they actually regressed a bit, with regards to interior room. But then these days, the big car has pretty much been replaced by the minivan/SUV/crossover, so the manufacturers just don't have a whole lot of incentive to put their best foot forward in that market. Besides, no matter how wide a car gets, I'd imagine that most people prefer a 2+2+2 seating configuration to a 3+3.
I haven't seen the new MINI yet. I've sat in the previous model though, and it wasn't too bad. Legroom was good, but it was kinda narrow inside. Door panel seemed a bit close.
A friend of mine has a VW Golf, around 2003 vintage I guess. Now legroom-wise, that sucker is HUGE! Up front, at least. But the seat went back so far that it almost seemed like we were sitting in the back!
Honestly, most cars that I have issue with when it comes to legroom could easily be remedied by just giving them more fore-aft travel. I mean, if that tiny Golf could do it, seems to me just about any car could. It's gonna make the back seat more cramped, but the driver's comfort is much more important.
Well I'm living proof that this little gem isn't true. I have always been mostly in subcompacts, which are not only the perfect tool for the task I have for them, but are usually inherently a lot more fun than larger cars...for me....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Au contraire, andre, au contraire. Indeed, that is EXACTLY the subject of the controversial Supreme Court decision this year which put the EPA on its ear, and gave CARB and the California state attorney general better standing: that CO2 emissions should be regulated as air pollution. The others you mention, NOx, etc should be treated as smog-forming air pollutants, while CO2 is not.
But we are off-point, eh? ;-)
As for your other post, from my personal POV the current batch of subs have as much useable interior space for passengers as many cars that are much larger, especially because of the recent trend towards "4-door coupe" styling, which drastically limits rear-seat passenger headroom in many of the new sedans.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It'll be really interesting to see how that plays out, since CO2 tends to be directly related to how much fuel you burn. While the NOX, CO, and HC can be cleaned up with emissions controls and such, the only way you can reduce CO2 is to burn less fuel. For instance, when you just take into account the NOX, CO, and HC, my grandma's '85 LeSabre probably did put out 1000x more pollutants. However, once you factor in CO2, that LeSabre didn't even double it. I remember the CO2 figures for the Intrepid were around 30 grams per mile, whereas the LeSabre was something like 48 gpm.
As for your other post, from my personal POV the current batch of subs have as much useable interior space for passengers as many cars that are much larger, especially because of the recent trend towards "4-door coupe" styling, which drastically limits rear-seat passenger headroom in many of the new sedans.
I've actually been noticing that for about 10 years or more now. Heck, I pretty much figured that, when I hit my head on the rear window of a 1996 Caprice, that the full-sized car ain't what it used to be! :sick:
I have a job to do: I'm a performance driving instructor,- towing my 3200# track car (Porsche GT3) with a vehicle that gets reasonable mileage. Our prior Toyota 4Runner 4.7 V8 got 9-10 mpg in this capacity. We replaced it with a VW Touareg V10 TDI, which does a hugely better job of towing and gets 14-15 mpg with the same load.
We did this upgrade because we have an '05 M-B E320 CDI, which gets 24 mpg around town and 35 mpg in brisk highway cruise.
If you haven't driven a modern diesel, I don't want to hear your opinions about NOX, CO2, etc.. I buy cars on the basis of performance, and diesels currently have the lead. We are a two-diesel family, note, on the basis of performance!
When GM/Ford/Chrysler have realized how far behind they have fallen in diesel technology, maybe we'll begin to see the results of competition favoring American manufacturers. I hope this is soon! And I DON"T mean replacements for the self-destructing "diesels" GM inflicted on us in the past.