The double bass, a 3/4, just barely fits into the Accord (with the rear seat folded down and the passenger headrest removed. A slightly larger one (either a full size or a 7/8) was an even tighter fit, and I had to open the door diagonally opposite the one I put it in through. It wouldn't take much of a size difference to make it impossible to get the bass into a car, even if it could theoretically be positioned in the car if it could be teleported in. But to my surprise, I did manage to get the double bass into a Ford Fusion. But I think I may have knocked the bridge out of position doing so. :-(
Being able to carry the double bass and a passenger would be a Very Good Thing ... but I'm certainly not making it a requirement. If that happens it'll be as much luck as anything else -- I'm looking at vehicles with an odd number of doors first, just in case that works out, but I don't really expect to have a whole lot of options for $1,400.
I expect anything that other people recognize as a "sports car" to cost extra (even used) or to have been already run into the ground, but I'm perfectly willing to be surprised. I've gotten lucky before. (And have rolled critical failure on the car-shopping dice in the past as well.) Then again, when I think "sports car", what comes to mind is Triumph, Porsche, Alfa, and the Corvette Stingray. I don't think I'm getting a double bass into any of those on a rainy or cold day (though maybe I could in fair weather if I weren't planning on making any stops en route). ;-)
But if the small sample of modern cars I've driven lately is representative, a dozen years from now when I'm shopping for a car from 2007 I may need to limit myself to sports cars just to be able to find one I feel safe driving! I suspect that automobile designers have collectively gone mad. But I digress...
Anyhow, when I think "Camaro", "muscle car" or "sports car" is the second or third thing I think of, not the first. The first thought that comes to mind is, "American heavy-car mentality, probably from one of the decades when we did that really well, with a solid GM drive train a bit overpowered for the size of the car by today's standards". Which makes your observations about durability despite hard hauling use right in line with my mental image. Then I remember that they were considered "cool" (modulo the porcupine joke, of course) and supposed to look sporty and emphasize performance.
By the way, I drove a 1980 Mustang for a little while -- hardly the most "Mustang-y" of the Mustangs, but it still tried to be a Mustang -- and certainly wouldn't mind something like that. The one I drove (and, alas, wrecked *sigh*) was a 3-door (so the bass would probably slide right in) with an automatic transmission (I know, I know, but it was my parents' car and my Dad's feet had gotten too tender to deal with a clutch) and (I think) the 6 cylinder engine. (It may have been the four-banger, but I doubt it -- American manufacturers hadn't really figured out how to make a 4-cylinder worth driving by that time, IIRC. Anyhow, it wasn't the 8 that would have fit the whole Mustang Attitude, but it was still enough.)
Huh. I think one of the things that bugged me about the rented Fusion last week was that it seemed Ford had forgotten everything they knew about suspensions in the 1970s and 1980s. In a 1972 Marquis Brougham and the 1980 Mustang, and to a lesser extent in the 1988 Tempo, when you hit the brakes the car felt like it hunkered down to clutch the pavement more tightly. Three very different cars in all other respects, but they had that interaction of brakes & suspension in common. The 2007 Fusion did not feel like (what I think of as) a Ford.
I've had less than stellar luck with Toyota, but perhaps it was a non-representative sample ...
I hadn't thought of the retirement-homes angle. Thanks for suggesting that! And I'll continue to listen to what others have to say about Toyota in case it turns out that my experience was anomalous.
(no subject)
Being able to carry the double bass and a passenger would be a Very Good Thing ... but I'm certainly not making it a requirement. If that happens it'll be as much luck as anything else -- I'm looking at vehicles with an odd number of doors first, just in case that works out, but I don't really expect to have a whole lot of options for $1,400.
I expect anything that other people recognize as a "sports car" to cost extra (even used) or to have been already run into the ground, but I'm perfectly willing to be surprised. I've gotten lucky before. (And have rolled critical failure on the car-shopping dice in the past as well.) Then again, when I think "sports car", what comes to mind is Triumph, Porsche, Alfa, and the Corvette Stingray. I don't think I'm getting a double bass into any of those on a rainy or cold day (though maybe I could in fair weather if I weren't planning on making any stops en route). ;-)
But if the small sample of modern cars I've driven lately is representative, a dozen years from now when I'm shopping for a car from 2007 I may need to limit myself to sports cars just to be able to find one I feel safe driving! I suspect that automobile designers have collectively gone mad. But I digress...
Anyhow, when I think "Camaro", "muscle car" or "sports car" is the second or third thing I think of, not the first. The first thought that comes to mind is, "American heavy-car mentality, probably from one of the decades when we did that really well, with a solid GM drive train a bit overpowered for the size of the car by today's standards". Which makes your observations about durability despite hard hauling use right in line with my mental image. Then I remember that they were considered "cool" (modulo the porcupine joke, of course) and supposed to look sporty and emphasize performance.
By the way, I drove a 1980 Mustang for a little while -- hardly the most "Mustang-y" of the Mustangs, but it still tried to be a Mustang -- and certainly wouldn't mind something like that. The one I drove (and, alas, wrecked *sigh*) was a 3-door (so the bass would probably slide right in) with an automatic transmission (I know, I know, but it was my parents' car and my Dad's feet had gotten too tender to deal with a clutch) and (I think) the 6 cylinder engine. (It may have been the four-banger, but I doubt it -- American manufacturers hadn't really figured out how to make a 4-cylinder worth driving by that time, IIRC. Anyhow, it wasn't the 8 that would have fit the whole Mustang Attitude, but it was still enough.)
Huh. I think one of the things that bugged me about the rented Fusion last week was that it seemed Ford had forgotten everything they knew about suspensions in the 1970s and 1980s. In a 1972 Marquis Brougham and the 1980 Mustang, and to a lesser extent in the 1988 Tempo, when you hit the brakes the car felt like it hunkered down to clutch the pavement more tightly. Three very different cars in all other respects, but they had that interaction of brakes & suspension in common. The 2007 Fusion did not feel like (what I think of as) a Ford.
I've had less than stellar luck with Toyota, but perhaps it was a non-representative sample ...
I hadn't thought of the retirement-homes angle. Thanks for suggesting that! And I'll continue to listen to what others have to say about Toyota in case it turns out that my experience was anomalous.