why cars are getting bigger and heavier
07-03-09, 11:42 AM
#31
Lexus Fanatic
Not quite so. The demand for small cars in America actually started in the late 1950's, in response to the enormous, over-chromed, 20-ft long barges that were typical of the period. This was witnessed by a slow but steady rise in the sales of the air-cooled VW Beetle (the only significant small import at the time) and the compact domestic Rambler, Metropolitan, and Nash models throughout the 1950's. By 1959-1960, to compete, the Big Three were forced to introduce the compact Corvair, Falcon, and Valiant. The Corvair's serious deficiencies are well-known (I don't need to repeat them here), but the Falcon, Maverick, Valiant, Chevy Nova, and others went on to be successful small cars, and were ready for the oil crisis of 1973-74 when it hit. By then, even smaller cars like the Pinto, Gremlin, and Vega were available, but their design, quality, and engineering were second-rate.
In addition to those choosing small, American-built cars and VW Beetles, there was also a significant group of fans at that time driving the small British sports cars/roadsters, and clung to them for years, despite their unreliability.
However, you are correct that the gas lines and enormous increase in fuel prices in the 1970's led to a long-range increase in the demand for smaller cars that was over and above anything that had ever really existed before. Demand, since then, has basically gone up and down with fuel prices.
In addition to those choosing small, American-built cars and VW Beetles, there was also a significant group of fans at that time driving the small British sports cars/roadsters, and clung to them for years, despite their unreliability.
However, you are correct that the gas lines and enormous increase in fuel prices in the 1970's led to a long-range increase in the demand for smaller cars that was over and above anything that had ever really existed before. Demand, since then, has basically gone up and down with fuel prices.
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-03-09 at 12:05 PM.
07-03-09, 11:46 AM
#32
Lexus Fanatic
07-03-09, 03:04 PM
#35
Lexus Fanatic
Mike.....this is not your fault (just a technicality), but if you didn't notice, the "99" Fleetwood Brougham on the bottom is a 1960 model, not a 1959. Whoever did the graphics up on this poster made an error.
(You can tell three ways...the 1960 didn't have the wrap-around windshield or the bullet taillights on the rear fins. It also had a different front bumper).
(You can tell three ways...the 1960 didn't have the wrap-around windshield or the bullet taillights on the rear fins. It also had a different front bumper).
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-03-09 at 03:14 PM.
07-03-09, 07:28 PM
#36
Lexus Fanatic
07-03-09, 09:05 PM
#37
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (20)
ok, maybe time to reframe my original post.
yes there have been huge heavy cars in the past which subsequently got smaller and lighter.
but many mainstream vehicles are now WAAAAAAAY bigger/heavier than earlier generations. take accord, camry, maxima, civic, corrolla for example. and yes, taurus mentioned above.
maybe it doesn't mean much because as cars get bigger, new models are introduced BELOW them that didn't exist before (yaris, fit, smart, etc.). but there's no denying that even as some cars get bigger, they're ALL heavier than they were in the past comparing like sizes, because of all the added safety gear and standard equipment.
but perhaps SAME models get bigger because repeat buyers then see it as a step up even when buying the same brand/model (new version) again.
anyway, just a few thoughts...
yes there have been huge heavy cars in the past which subsequently got smaller and lighter.
but many mainstream vehicles are now WAAAAAAAY bigger/heavier than earlier generations. take accord, camry, maxima, civic, corrolla for example. and yes, taurus mentioned above.
maybe it doesn't mean much because as cars get bigger, new models are introduced BELOW them that didn't exist before (yaris, fit, smart, etc.). but there's no denying that even as some cars get bigger, they're ALL heavier than they were in the past comparing like sizes, because of all the added safety gear and standard equipment.
but perhaps SAME models get bigger because repeat buyers then see it as a step up even when buying the same brand/model (new version) again.
anyway, just a few thoughts...
07-03-09, 11:11 PM
#39
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 7,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I was going to comment on how much I love the old Caddies but then you had to go and post that HORRIBLY DISASTEROUS picture)
(I was going to comment on how much I love the old Caddies but then you had to go and post that HORRIBLY DISASTEROUS picture)
07-04-09, 06:38 AM
#40
Out of Warranty
The disparity between the size of US and "foreign" cars is disappearing. With the exception of truck-based SUV's that are based on existing models, most of the US market breaks down into three sizes - large, medium, and small. The difference is not so much country of origin anymore, but market target.
Small cars tend to be the price leaders of the marque. It was difficult to get US buyers out of the "more car for the money" mindset, but it has been largely successful. Even the full-sized cars of the American Big 3 are close to the largest offerings by the Japanese carmakers.
It is not the innate superiority of European and Asian manufacturers that produced smaller, more efficient cars. One big reason that European and Asian models tended to be smaller was taxation. In their homelands, these cars are taxed by engine displacement, or by size or weight. Were it not for their nanny governments and ancient narrow city streets, these cars would probably be as large as the '59 Caddy.
Foreign cars were forced to be fuel-efficient too. In the US gasoline has been cheap. As late as 1971 you could still find gas under 20 cents per gallon, and you could fill your tank and get change back from a $5 bill. Why develop a "small" car? It might be quicker than the traditional American barge, but our cars could be quick too - with bigger engines. Thus the culmination of the art in the muscle car era. Enormous engines returned 8 mpg on the highway, but nobody cared - gas was almost free. Big cars were known to be safe. The more armor that surrounded you, the better your chance of surviving a collision.
Several attempts had been made at developing a small American "economy" car. The Falcon, Corvair, and Valiant/Dart were the first mass-marketed domestic small cars. They achieve moderate sales success, but buyers were disappointed that a "small" car sold at a price not much less than a "full-size" car. As it turned out the cost difference between a Ford Falcon and a Ford Galaxie was not 50%, as most buyers expected, given the vast difference in size, but only a few hundred dollars (remember a good car could be had for about $3,000 in those days). Buyers expected a half-size car to cost half as much - or less - but that mindset did not reckon with the realities of manufacturing and selling an automobile.
OK, raw materials, steel, plastic, cloth, glass, and rubber cost less in a small car, but that's about the end of the savings. They still consist of roughly the same number of parts, require a similar time to assemble, and they require the same marketing and advertising as a full-size car. Those are your real costs - and they're not much lower . . . thus the similar price tag.
So "economy" doesn't necessarily come from size (and weight). It could be argued that economy is not just fuel consumption, but insurance costs, maintenance, and resale value. Domestic cars have not been granted any special dispensations here, either. Feeding, maintaining, and insuring a small car isn't a whole lot different whether you own a small car or a large one. American tradition, unencumbered by taxation and strict government limits has dictated that a big car delivers higher value, higher status, and greater safety than a small one. That's not reality, it's perception. Nevertheless, perception is what sells cars.
Thus, after a brief romance with small cars, the American buyer rushed toward the SUV - it was a big car without the stigma of being a big car. It was a SPORT (implying some kind of rugged outdoorsy image) UTILITY (meaning you could take the kids to Pre-K or attack the Baja in the same vehicle). The image was appealing to the American buyer. It was initially exempt from a lot of the regulatory junk that was attempting to strangle horsepower in favor of economy and emissions control in the '80's, and it was IMPRESSIVE in size. You turned more heads in a big red 3/4-ton 4X4 Suburban than if you were driving a Countach. To attract more attention in a lesser vehicle, you would have to be on fire.
From a practical standpoint, the full-size truck-based SUVs give you a back seat that has a full measure of headroom and hiproom. If you need to haul passengers, it is the only way do do so with any degree of comfort. In a pinch you can raise the third row of seats and install a couple of moppets back there, athough those seats should come with a yardstick painted on the doorframe; "you must be UNDER this tall to enter the third row of seats".
Since 1990 we've come full circle, first with the introduction of mid-sized SUV's built on a sedan platform, now known as "crossovers" (the RX being one of the first), then with the addition of even smaller "SUVs" built on an even smaller platform, like the Forester, the CX-7 and the RDX. Now you can project that rugged outdoor image from an eye level about 42" above the pavement.
You may save a couple thousand on the initial purchase cost, and maybe a few bucks on gas, but you'll never have the prestige that sheer bulk lends you. Sadly, it's still all about perception.
Small cars tend to be the price leaders of the marque. It was difficult to get US buyers out of the "more car for the money" mindset, but it has been largely successful. Even the full-sized cars of the American Big 3 are close to the largest offerings by the Japanese carmakers.
It is not the innate superiority of European and Asian manufacturers that produced smaller, more efficient cars. One big reason that European and Asian models tended to be smaller was taxation. In their homelands, these cars are taxed by engine displacement, or by size or weight. Were it not for their nanny governments and ancient narrow city streets, these cars would probably be as large as the '59 Caddy.
Foreign cars were forced to be fuel-efficient too. In the US gasoline has been cheap. As late as 1971 you could still find gas under 20 cents per gallon, and you could fill your tank and get change back from a $5 bill. Why develop a "small" car? It might be quicker than the traditional American barge, but our cars could be quick too - with bigger engines. Thus the culmination of the art in the muscle car era. Enormous engines returned 8 mpg on the highway, but nobody cared - gas was almost free. Big cars were known to be safe. The more armor that surrounded you, the better your chance of surviving a collision.
Several attempts had been made at developing a small American "economy" car. The Falcon, Corvair, and Valiant/Dart were the first mass-marketed domestic small cars. They achieve moderate sales success, but buyers were disappointed that a "small" car sold at a price not much less than a "full-size" car. As it turned out the cost difference between a Ford Falcon and a Ford Galaxie was not 50%, as most buyers expected, given the vast difference in size, but only a few hundred dollars (remember a good car could be had for about $3,000 in those days). Buyers expected a half-size car to cost half as much - or less - but that mindset did not reckon with the realities of manufacturing and selling an automobile.
OK, raw materials, steel, plastic, cloth, glass, and rubber cost less in a small car, but that's about the end of the savings. They still consist of roughly the same number of parts, require a similar time to assemble, and they require the same marketing and advertising as a full-size car. Those are your real costs - and they're not much lower . . . thus the similar price tag.
So "economy" doesn't necessarily come from size (and weight). It could be argued that economy is not just fuel consumption, but insurance costs, maintenance, and resale value. Domestic cars have not been granted any special dispensations here, either. Feeding, maintaining, and insuring a small car isn't a whole lot different whether you own a small car or a large one. American tradition, unencumbered by taxation and strict government limits has dictated that a big car delivers higher value, higher status, and greater safety than a small one. That's not reality, it's perception. Nevertheless, perception is what sells cars.
Thus, after a brief romance with small cars, the American buyer rushed toward the SUV - it was a big car without the stigma of being a big car. It was a SPORT (implying some kind of rugged outdoorsy image) UTILITY (meaning you could take the kids to Pre-K or attack the Baja in the same vehicle). The image was appealing to the American buyer. It was initially exempt from a lot of the regulatory junk that was attempting to strangle horsepower in favor of economy and emissions control in the '80's, and it was IMPRESSIVE in size. You turned more heads in a big red 3/4-ton 4X4 Suburban than if you were driving a Countach. To attract more attention in a lesser vehicle, you would have to be on fire.
From a practical standpoint, the full-size truck-based SUVs give you a back seat that has a full measure of headroom and hiproom. If you need to haul passengers, it is the only way do do so with any degree of comfort. In a pinch you can raise the third row of seats and install a couple of moppets back there, athough those seats should come with a yardstick painted on the doorframe; "you must be UNDER this tall to enter the third row of seats".
Since 1990 we've come full circle, first with the introduction of mid-sized SUV's built on a sedan platform, now known as "crossovers" (the RX being one of the first), then with the addition of even smaller "SUVs" built on an even smaller platform, like the Forester, the CX-7 and the RDX. Now you can project that rugged outdoor image from an eye level about 42" above the pavement.
You may save a couple thousand on the initial purchase cost, and maybe a few bucks on gas, but you'll never have the prestige that sheer bulk lends you. Sadly, it's still all about perception.
07-04-09, 07:12 AM
#41
Lexus Fanatic
Thus, after a brief romance with small cars, the American buyer rushed toward the SUV - it was a big car without the stigma of being a big car.
07-04-09, 08:24 AM
#42
Lexus Champion
I get so tired of people always talking about how cheap stuff was back in whatever year or how much an investment was worth in whatever year, all without ever considering inflation. True costs and true values haven't changed nearly as much as everyone thinks they have. Yes in my grandpa's day you could go get a root beer float for a nickel. Then again in my grandpa's day my annual income would have me firmly placed in the upper tiers of high society status instead of middle class where I am, instead.
07-04-09, 09:04 AM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
ok, maybe time to reframe my original post.
yes there have been huge heavy cars in the past which subsequently got smaller and lighter.
but many mainstream vehicles are now WAAAAAAAY bigger/heavier than earlier generations. take accord, camry, maxima, civic, corrolla for example. and yes, taurus mentioned above.
maybe it doesn't mean much because as cars get bigger, new models are introduced BELOW them that didn't exist before (yaris, fit, smart, etc.). but there's no denying that even as some cars get bigger, they're ALL heavier than they were in the past comparing like sizes, because of all the added safety gear and standard equipment.
but perhaps SAME models get bigger because repeat buyers then see it as a step up even when buying the same brand/model (new version) again.
anyway, just a few thoughts...
yes there have been huge heavy cars in the past which subsequently got smaller and lighter.
but many mainstream vehicles are now WAAAAAAAY bigger/heavier than earlier generations. take accord, camry, maxima, civic, corrolla for example. and yes, taurus mentioned above.
maybe it doesn't mean much because as cars get bigger, new models are introduced BELOW them that didn't exist before (yaris, fit, smart, etc.). but there's no denying that even as some cars get bigger, they're ALL heavier than they were in the past comparing like sizes, because of all the added safety gear and standard equipment.
but perhaps SAME models get bigger because repeat buyers then see it as a step up even when buying the same brand/model (new version) again.
anyway, just a few thoughts...
In the end consumers have won as we are still in the golden age of cars. We have mainstream 3500-4000lbs family sedans that do 0-60 in a lil over 6 seconds with 6 airbags, a 15 cubic foot trunk, heated seats, NAV and room for 5 all while having better gas mileage. These cars would give an early 1980s Ferrari a run for the money.
Now clearly cars would have better gas mileage if they were lighter but it seems the game/gimmick call it what you want is to build an even heavier hybrid to get more MPG (though each generation is lighter).
To your final point people do equate bigger and newer with better (even if arguably the newer, bigger version is not as good as the older version). To me no better example is the Accord. Has anyone really thought of how its grown and become one of the American car standards.
This is a car that was very small and fun and lightweight. It even had flip up headlights at one point! What sedan today would have the ***** to do that?
I skipped a couple models but this car was the Accord game changer.
Amazingly, it STILL only had a 4 cylinder, I believe the top of the line EX had 145hp or so. The Camry at this point offered its 2nd V-6, the 3.0 for 185 hp.
The Accord after actually grew 3 inches in width but was slightly shorter. It didn't do as well as they wanted. They also finally shoved a 2.5 V-6 in it for 170hp. When I mean shoved, the car was not planned to have it, thus the front bumper grew 2.5 inches.
Well we got this version, which was longer, wider, taller and offered a V-6 from the get go. The Accord was AMERICAN now like the Camry turned back in 1992. (ugly SOB too)
We then got this version again softer with more V-6 power as an option and bigger. We also really started to see the Accord offer a car nearly as good as an Acura. THey tried a fun, higher power hybrid but no one bought it.
Now at this point Toyota already revised and brought out a new Camry in 4.5 years not 5. Honda had to keep this one with a revised front end/tails.
Well Honda did not play around with the latest version. I've driven it and its basically an Acura. Its that good (or Acura just sucks that bad). The new Accord is all the car one could want with a big 3.5 270hp or so V-6 with the literally size of the flagship Acura RL.
Think about that. The new family sedan Accord is as big and bigger in some dimensions than the flagship of both brands. Its also as fast, pretty much as luxurious, pretty much as safe etc.
Wow.
What we have witnessed is the Accord becoming an American car. That is why Europe has their "Euro Accord" which we get as a TSX.
Guess what? That SOB grew 5 inches and gained weight and basically became another car. Now the TSX will offer a 280hp V-6 following the trend of bigger, more powerful, heavier. The "Euro" Accord is basically now an "American" Accord.
First Euro Accord
Second
Third bigger pig
As for the Europeans, its economies of scale coming into play. They HAVE To sell more models to stay competitive to keep costs down. Thus their "Growing" also has to do with what THEY NEED to do as well as what people want. As you stated, now they can slot new platform shared cheaper cars under the 3/A4/C etc and now they also are going into crazy niches with bigger/heavier cars (X6, CLS, new GT cars etc)
Remember the last S-class. It was smaller, lighter than the previous model. Many Benz purists blasted it. Thus the current version grew in size.
07-04-09, 09:49 AM
#44
No argument, there were some VERY big cars in the ... some years before my life-time.
But I think what we're talking about here is the size & weight of something like a compact car. I remember one time I was in my friends' MKII MR2 and a Yaris hatch pulled up beside us, the thing was massive in comparasson. The problem I see is the small econo cars that are a small shape and not actually a small car. Even when I'm driving around in my IS, there will be something like a civic near by and it's a little bigger than I am.
Random after thought: How big is the HS in comparrason to the IS300?
But I think what we're talking about here is the size & weight of something like a compact car. I remember one time I was in my friends' MKII MR2 and a Yaris hatch pulled up beside us, the thing was massive in comparasson. The problem I see is the small econo cars that are a small shape and not actually a small car. Even when I'm driving around in my IS, there will be something like a civic near by and it's a little bigger than I am.
Random after thought: How big is the HS in comparrason to the IS300?
07-04-09, 02:33 PM
#45
Lexus Fanatic
Yes, Mike, I remember this car well. The original U.S.-market Accord, which debuted in 1976, was considerably smaller than today's Civic.....about the side of today's Insight or Fit. The Civic of those years was even smaller, almost as small as today's Smart-for-two......not to mention the motorcycle-sized original Honda 600 of 1971-72.
The only problem that this car had (shared by many vehicles of the period) was an excessively lean running carburator that affected drivability and the tendency of the front fenders to rust out prematurely......Honda did a major recall on the rust problem.
You and I have both agreed, in the past, that this was, quality-wise, perhaps the best Accord ever. Today's Accord may have Swiss-Watch assembly quality (I know I use that term a lot), but the materials used in this version were notably better, especially in the door solidness, interior and trim. Its only problems (and they were minor) were limp, overboosted power steering and too much bumpiness in the automatic transmission shifts.....both corrected on later-generation models.
It was not unusual, BTW, on this generation Accord, to get 300,000 miles out of one, for those owners who kept them that long.
The main reason it got a V6 at that time was pressure from the auto press and magazines. I still remember that controversy well. Most regular owners were perfectly happy with the 4, but auto journalists complained that it was underpowered compared to its Taurus, Camry, Galant, and Altima competition.
You can compare a new Accord to the TL and the TSX in some ways (in fact, the TSX is the overseas-markert Accord), but it's not an RL by a long shot. The RL, true, is not much larger physically, but is a totally different car underneath.
The only problem that this car had (shared by many vehicles of the period) was an excessively lean running carburator that affected drivability and the tendency of the front fenders to rust out prematurely......Honda did a major recall on the rust problem.
I skipped a couple models but this car was the Accord game changer.
You and I have both agreed, in the past, that this was, quality-wise, perhaps the best Accord ever. Today's Accord may have Swiss-Watch assembly quality (I know I use that term a lot), but the materials used in this version were notably better, especially in the door solidness, interior and trim. Its only problems (and they were minor) were limp, overboosted power steering and too much bumpiness in the automatic transmission shifts.....both corrected on later-generation models.
It was not unusual, BTW, on this generation Accord, to get 300,000 miles out of one, for those owners who kept them that long.
The Accord after actually grew 3 inches in width but was slightly shorter. It didn't do as well as they wanted. They also finally shoved a 2.5 V-6 in it for 170hp. When I mean shoved, the car was not planned to have it, thus the front bumper grew 2.5 inches.
Well Honda did not play around with the latest version. I've driven it and its basically an Acura. Its that good (or Acura just sucks that bad). The new Accord is all the car one could want with a big 3.5 270hp or so V-6 with the literally size of the flagship Acura RL.
Last edited by mmarshall; 07-04-09 at 02:46 PM.