![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I don't understand today's cars. Oh, I understand as much of how they work as I ever did, and I can drive some of them[1], but the marketing, nomenclature, and design decisions confuse me.
I got into a rental car. An economy car, I think, since my insurance company is paying for it. And as one might expect from a small car, the passenger compartment is a bit cramped. But ... the outside of this car looks like it's the same size as my Accord, which is apparently one or two size categories up. And sitting in the driver's seat, it feels like I am Surrounded By Bulk -- it's just that none of the bulk is Space I Can Use; it's all just ... in my way. And that includes being in my way of seeing out of the car, though part of that is just that the rear view mirror is too small, and another part is that I'm apparently too tall for the car (the mirror is awfully low in my field of view, and for that matter the top of the windwhield isn't very high up either -- I don't bump my head on the ceiling, but there's precious little clearance there).
I'm also confused by hearing that the Accord is now a full-size. Have Accords gotten that much larger since 1990, or has the definition of "full size" gotten that much smaller than what I'm used to? (I know it has gotten smaller; I'm just not sure how much. I used to drive a 1978 Pontiac Catalina -- pretty much the same car as the Bonneville and the Cutlas Supreme of the same period -- and by 1978 standards that was considered mid-size. Today, it would be a land-yacht, and the 1972 Mercury Marquis Brougham would look like two cars.) I'm not certain which size-class my 1990 was categorized as.
Tomorrow, I go back to Enterprise and trade this car for the hatchback that wasn't ready for me tonight. I'm hoping that whatever model that turns out to be doesn't wind up being much smaller on the inside than a Mazda 323 -- I know the double bass fits into one of those easily.
[1] The ones that I'm not too tall for.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Over the years, the "import" cars have tended to go up in size. The first generation Accord was physically smaller than the latest two generations of the Civic.
At the same time (over the last ~35 years), US automakers down-sized how they described automobile sizes. My '68 Ford Torino was a "mid-size", my '78 Ford LTD II was also, but much, much bigger (length ~20 feet). Yet, my '86 Chrysler LeBaron GTS was a large mid-size and was nearly 4 1/2 feet shorter than the car it replaced (the LTD II).
So today, we have model names that once were small or mid-sized, yet are considered full-sized by both the down-sizing of class designations and their own growth (bloat...)
Janice (who has been driving for a very long time...)
(no subject)
(What is the current rental?)
(no subject)
I think part of it is safety. People were buying SUVs when the gas prices were low because they thought they were safer. Sure, they'd survive a crash better than a smaller car but they have a nasty tendency to roll over.
Then there is the backlast against gas guzzling SUVs and you get the current generation of sub-compacts like the Fit and the Yaris. But people still want leg room and cargo space so designers are getting creative with interior designs. Plus safety features have improved considerably so you don't have to be surrounded with several tons of steal to survive a crash.
(no subject)
And yet a late '70s Chevette was almost as roomy, for the driver, at least. A car not much more than 2/3 the size. Of course, it had no trunk space or room to work on the engine by comparison; I held a three-handed poker game in the trunk of my Catalina one day when it was raining out and we were quite comfy.
(no subject)