Modern cars are ginormous.

"mazda616" (mazda616) 03/06/2020 at 11:45 • Filed to: Jolene the Sunbird

5

43

Modern cars really are huge.

I drove the Sunbird to work today. Look at how it is positively dwarfed by a newer Mustang. I also think that blue Chevy Spark is about the same size as the Sunbird!

I was on the highway passing semis with some high winds today, too. That was an experience. Got up to 75. The little 2.0 was winding out.

bob and john > mazda616 03/06/2020 at 11:51

6

yes. modern cars are bigger.

they are also just as if not more efficient , FAR faster (as you so demonstr a te ) far better built, quieter, and better in more or less every measurable way.

and lets not even get started on safety ...

lone_liberal > mazda616 03/06/2020 at 11:55

2

The Sunbird is also not a drab color unlike the rest. You’re right that cars are bigger but t o be fair, the same year Mustang was probably bigger than the Sunbird too. The packaging for a RWD V8 isn’t as efficient.

mazda616 > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 11:55

12

Which is why my modern car sees 11-12k miles and a year and the Sunbird sees 1-2k.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 11:55

14

SAFETY!?!?! YOU SNOWFLAKES NEED  TO MAN UP AND BECOME THE CRUMPLE ZONE!!1!

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 11:59

2

I was going to say, “and safer.” To think of the bombers people were roaring down the interstates in the early 70s at 80+ mph on early 70s tire technology. And drum brakes all around. It’s a miracle that the human race did not go extinct, at least in Murica.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > mazda616 03/06/2020 at 12:02

0

Well it’s not bigger compared to a Honda Fit!

:-p

dogisbadob > mazda616 03/06/2020 at 12:03

0

nice Focus photobomb

Actually, the Mk1 Focus and Echo were the first of the big small cars

I like seeing those Sparks in cool colors

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > lone_liberal 03/06/2020 at 12:06

4

The Fox Mustang was *slightly* shorter than the Sunbird of that year... like by 1-2”

fintail > mazda616 03/06/2020 at 12:09

2

Most CUVs are bloated, but the target market likes it.

For others, it’s not the size, but the weight.  My E wagon weighs in at over 4300 lbs, I believe.  

bob and john > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 03/06/2020 at 12:13

6

whats a crumple zone?

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > mazda616 03/06/2020 at 12:13

3

I was shocked to see an “old” Challenger once next to a “new” Challenger.

Like seeing a 1964 Austin MINI next to a bloated 2014 BMW MINI Countryman “Chicken Fried Steak with Gravy” Edition.

It’s silly.  Cars, with modern materials and smaller turbo engines, should be getting lighter not heavier.

bob and john > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 03/06/2020 at 12:14

0

I mean...thats part of the reason people had like 3 or 4 kids no?

not all of them where gunna make it...

/ dark humor

Long_Voyager94 > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 12:14

1

I’ll give you safer to a point.

The rest is subjective. My Acclaim is a small midsize. A Modern Compact is larger than it, offers less usable interior space, isn’t really faster, and gets the same fuel economy.

A Modern Midsize is substantially larger, still offers less usable space ( seriously find me one sedan that can fit 6 people ), and gets substantially worse fuel economy.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 12:16

0

Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available > mazda616 03/06/2020 at 12:20

1

https://atlanta.craigslist.org/atl/cto/d/atlanta-cavalier-z24/7083575345.html

What is your opinion on this Cavalier Z24?

bob and john > Long_Voyager94 03/06/2020 at 12:23

1

there is no ‘safer to a point’ modern cars are SIGNIFICANTLY safer, even going back 15 years. let alone 30 or 50. end. of. story.

the size thing (what is and isnt a small car” i can agree with.

faster? dude. You compare mid size with mid size. your acclaim was good for 11.1 0-60 (take off 0-60 times, linky at bottom)

the equivalent new car (the chrysler 200) was 8.5 for the slowest sedan, and 5.7 for the fastest. almost 1/2 the 0-60 time.

https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/plymouth-0-60-mph-times/

https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/chrysler-0-60-mph-times/

and according to fuelly, they get about the same fuel economy (~ 25 mpg for both) (real world owners, not claimed)

http://www.fuelly.com/car/plymouth/acclaim

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chrysler/200


I get that some ppl like the older cars, dont get me wrong. But dont go spouting off bullshit because #themodernman is bad. back your claims up. and do apples to apples, because I can easily pull an old pinto and put it up against a VW golf/jetta  and LOL will the pinto get fucked 

mazda616 > Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available 03/06/2020 at 12:32

1

Not bad. Offer $1,350.

smobgirl > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 12:33

1

Acceleration rates and sustainable speed aren’t the same thing.

bob and john > smobgirl 03/06/2020 at 12:39

1

you are really g oing to tell me a 3 speed acclaim with 100 HP will have an easier time holding 75 mph then a 9 speed 200 with 185 hp?

smobgirl > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 12:40

1

I’m just pointing out that your response didn’t address the actual post. You’re very worked up about this.

bob and john > smobgirl 03/06/2020 at 12:44

0

“: isn’t really faster,”

how is 0-60 not THE measurement of this? honest question here.   

Ssfancyfresh > mazda616 03/06/2020 at 12:47

0

I was stopped in traffic next to a C5 corvette yesterday. It is so small, low, and slick relative to modern Corvettes. It was impressive how diminutive it was relative to what my brain was telling me it should be.

Long_Voyager94 > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 12:47

1

My real world mileage: http://www.fuelly.com/car/plymouth/acclaim/1995/vancollector/938349

The Acclaim was good for 9.5 sec 0-60 with the 3.0 in stock trim, so only 1 sec slower than the 200, which happens to have 5 extra gears helping it along.

And safer to a point. Thanks to modern vehicles “safety”, they are also more likely to be in a crash due to the terrible visibility and factory distractions. More crashes lead to more chances of fatality.
Deaths per 100 million miles in 1995 was 1.73.
Deaths per 100 million miles in 2018 was 1.13.
So less than 1 more person per 100 million miles died in 1995 than in 2018, doesn’t seem like a huge safety improvement if you ask me.

CobraJoe > SBA Thanks You For All The Fish 03/06/2020 at 12:51

1

It’s silly. Cars, with modern materials and smaller turbo engines, should be getting lighter not heavier.

I’m not sure about you, but I’d rather not sit in the back seat of an old challenger for very long, nor the front seat for extended periods, nor would I trust it much in a crash...

For all the advancements in tech, we’re also demanding more comfort, more utility, more safety, and more toys inside too.  

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > Long_Voyager94 03/06/2020 at 12:53

0

Dude, that’s a 35% decrease, that’s substantial.

smobgirl > SBA Thanks You For All The Fish 03/06/2020 at 12:58

2

The Miata figured this out! It’s just terrifying when up against a pick up that’s now 3 times the size.

Long_Voyager94 > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 13:00

0

141 hp, 173ft-lbs of torque, which happens to be right in the cruising rpm, so actually yes it will have an easier time keeping it’s 2500 lbs at 75 mph than a 200 with the same 173ft-lbs (above cruising rpm at 4600) trying to hold 3400lbs at 75 mph.

HP means very little in terms of cruising ease.

gin-san - shitpost specialist > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 13:04

4

This is the crumple zone for that vehicle:

bob and john > Long_Voyager94 03/06/2020 at 13:06

0

EDIT:L hang on, 1, 7 3 to 1. 3. thats a 35% drop in fatalities. And thats ‘insignificant?! .

so, the fastest acclaim VS the slowest 200. AND yours was modded.

comapre it to the stock V6, its still WAY far off.

Deaths per 100 million miles is a interesting statistic. But I also want to see how many CRASHES per 100 million miles. if there are 3 times the crashes (

with the sheer number of people on the roads (and texters *shudders*) I’m shocked it hasnt gone up.

also, where are you getting your deaths per million? because by IISH, we are down 1/3 for deaths and total crashes are down as well. which, then that pop has gone to 1.5X what it was before.....

  https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot

Long_Voyager94 > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 13:18

0

Soo a 4 cyl 9-speed vs a 4 cyl 3-speed???? That’s an even comparison as well right?
Stock for the V6 is 9.5, mine runs 6.5 secs 0-60, so only a couple tenths slower than a V6 200 which runs 6.1 secs.
Lets not mention the fact that a 200 struggles to seat 4 adults comfortably while the Acclaim can seat 4 without issue, 6 in a bind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191641/traffic-related-fatalities-in-the-united-states-since-1990/

https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

I mean given deaths per 100 million miles driven, 2014 was the safest, at which time the average vehicle on the road was 11.4 years old, meaning that 2002-2003 were the safest vehicles produced.

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > smobgirl 03/06/2020 at 13:20

0

Heh. Yeah. I’ve got that X1/9 roller project in the shop right now next to my 3500 Series Extended Express Towing Van ( the long wheelbase of the Express makes an outstanding tow rig).

Like looking at a grape.... next to a bowling ball.

bob and john > Long_Voyager94 03/06/2020 at 13:24

0

yea, whatever was the base motion for it, thats your comparo.

the average age thing is..questionable in t his context (not that its TOTALLY without its merits) . certainly less newer cars on the road, but the newer cars also arent crashing as much w ith safety systems (and certainly newer/ less worn out tires compared to the horrors I’ve seen on t he road)

Id love to see a break down of years of the cars crashed / deaths/suitability .


and on a side not, that trend is constantly point down, suggesting newer cars ARE safer over all. 

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > CobraJoe 03/06/2020 at 13:26

2

Oh, I don’t disagree— but I have no doubt that with the advent of carbon fiber, titanium and aluminum we could do better than a ‘mid-size’ sedan that weighs 4400 pounds, when a 5-series sedan used to weigh 2800. Especially as we are mounting I-4s where we used to mount 600 pound V8s.

And, yeah, harnesses are heavy, airbags are heavy, seat motors are heavy... it all adds up. But my W126 wasn’t a deathtrap and it’s lighter than an lot of these new “4 cylinder” luxury cars. Seems weird.

Jason Spears > mazda616 03/06/2020 at 14:11

1

Modern cars really are huge again.

FIFY

CobraJoe > SBA Thanks You For All The Fish 03/06/2020 at 14:16

0

Which midsized sedans are you looking at that are 4400 pounds? A Chevy Malibu can weigh as little as 3100 pounds, and Fusion starts at 3400, and even a 3 series is 3500 .

And while a 5 series in 1972 was under 3000 pounds, a midsized american sedan from that time was well over 3000 pounds (A ‘72 dodge coronet sedan or a ‘72 Chevy Malibu sedan was a bout 3500 pounds).

It is true that the modern drivelines weigh a lot less, and there is more weight added elsewhere, but direct comparisons aren’t all that different. The biggest changes are in the brands that moved to a luxury market in the US (like BMW and Mercedes). The one thing that remains true from back then is that buyers in the US tend to prefer bigger vehicles.

Future next gen S2000 owner > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 14:17

1

Come on summer...come on.....

Urambo Tauro > mazda616 03/06/2020 at 14:21

0

The worst part   about today’s bloated cars IMO is how people struggle to handle parking them. (Altho ug h I gotta admit t he picture you provided doesn’t do much to convey how big of a problem this is ... Must be nice to have neighbors who actually put some effort into their parking. )

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > CobraJoe 03/06/2020 at 14:32

1

5-series tops out at 4400 pounds these days.
E-class at almost 4700.

1985 5-series (525i) weighed in under 2700.
even a 300E was only 3100... that’s like a 50% increas e to today , even with aluminum and modern materials.

I know it’s “features, motors and safety” but the engines are getting a lot smaller, better computer modeling and materials...  just seems weird .

Didn’t somebody at Benz, for fun, a few years ago put a modern MB diesel into a 190E chassis and get a 60 MPG cruiser that would still do 150MPH?

Long_Voyager94 > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 16:12

0

2014 was the lowest deaths per 100 million miles @ 1.08 , since that deaths have been ticking back up, which tells me the added safety systems aren’t as helpful as you’d like to think as most began becoming very mainstream around 2015.

Honestly without a breakdown of vehicle years involved in crashes/deaths, this is all a moot point. For all we know everyone killed last year was driving 2018 vehicles. Or everyone killed in 1995 were driving 1987 vehicles. Without that data, no one can actually determine whether new cars are safer or not.

bob and john > Long_Voyager94 03/06/2020 at 16:18

1

I 100% agree with that one. Id be VERY curious to see it.

would love to see one with types of vehicles too (compact, SUV, etc etc) as well.

Long_Voyager94 > bob and john 03/06/2020 at 16:25

0

Me too.

I’m sure vehicle type plays a huge roll as well. I mean you can tell me a Mirage has a 5-star rating all you want, when it gets slammed by soccer mom in her 5k lb CUV I bet it’s a different story.

bob and john > Long_Voyager94 03/06/2020 at 16:42

0

I think it would still fair well. its more a matter of how much the other car would get damaged too (remember all tests are done against a solid wall.)

Long_Voyager94 > bob and john 03/09/2020 at 07:02

0

Solid wall =/= 5k lb soccer mobile slamming you head on at 50 mph.......