Classics dwarfed by moderns

[Agoogy]

[72twink]

300bhp/ton said:

Fine. But I still have my opinion too.


As for pictures, well here's a good one showing how much smaller modern cars have gotten:




Good picture of the classic Lotus showing how the newer models are so much bigger



The older TVR making the newer one look massive!



The newer 101 totally outsizing the older S11b....



A 420 being dwarfed by the newer bigger XJ



The obvious size increase from 3rd to 4th generation Firebirds





Yep it's true all cars are definitely getting bigger.

If you put a Smart next to a Berkley it would look massive, I'm sure new Esprit will look huge next to the older versions. Why not find a picture of the Tamora next to 70's S or a Vixen etc .......

[NotNormal]

300bhp/ton said:

AllNines said:

Funny but I followed an E-Type the other day and found it tiny in comparison with other cars on the road!
(It was dark and raining, so no pics unfortunately.)

But it is tiny, it's a 2 seat sports car.

of which the modern day equivelant is this

[300bhp/ton]

AllNines said:

Er, which you used as evidence that modern cars are smaller
It wasn't tiny in its day, that's the point.

Yes it was tiny, and as you can see it still dwarfs a modern 2 seat sports car. Therefore new cars must be getting smaller... that's how this works isn't it?


Oops my bad I forgot the rules of these threads. I need to find two totally different vehicles from totally different market sectors and compare them. Like the 5 door premier luxury saloon vs the classic GT in the thread in GG and in this thread in the OP we have have purpose built compact 2 seat sports car against a mid/large family car and a 5 door family car.

So on that basis of not comparing like for like:


Wow aren't older 80's cars so much bigger than modern MX-5's


New cars are just so tiny! - this is how it works isn't it....


Now this one you'll love. These are really really similar cars.

Daewoo make both of these (image for illustration purposes only )



There new 4 wheel offerings are a lot smaller than the old ocean going ones.

[lowdrag]

Now a Honda S800 next to an S2000 perhaps?

[300bhp/ton]

NotNormal said:

of which the modern day equivelant is this

Well to me I'd say the new F-Type has chunkier styling, this doesn't mean it's bigger.

In fact looking at the stats:

	Length	Wheelbase	Height	Weight
E-Type	105	184	51	1530kg
F-Type	103.2	176	51	1597kg

So the E-Type is longer and has longer wheelbase and they are the same height. In fact the F-Type is only bigger in one dimension - "width" (can't find proper stats for this, as I think the ones quoted include mirrors). Guessing 4 to 5" difference here. But the E-Type was particularly narrow even in it's day and when compared to it's peers from mainland Europe, America or even home grown rivals like Aston Martin.

[Agoogy]

300bhp/ton said:

Oops my bad I forgot the rules of these threads. I need to find two totally different vehicles from totally different market sectors and compare them. Like the 5 door premier luxury saloon vs the classic GT in the thread in GG and in this thread in the OP we have have purpose built compact 2 seat sports car against a mid/large family car and a 5 door family car.

you continue to do that....the rest of us will find what we consider are cars of similar/same market sectors relative to their era and see how the times have changed them.
Mercedes 190 vs C-class...not bad
911 vs 911 - substantial change
Fiat 500 vs Fiat 500 - substantial change
Range Rover vs Range Rover - substantial
Mini vs Mini - substantial
Honda CRX - Honda CRV...not bad...

the trend is clear, whilst exceptions can be found.

[Cledus Snow]

Ahhh, That charts have started. Not long now....

[72twink]

Pistonheads - Boring Stats Matter!

[nicanary]

There's an awful lot of bhing going on here. I thought that was reserved for general gassing.

For an idea of how large cars have become, simply take a look at the garages built during various decades. They were built that size to accomodate the cars of their day. The width of a 30s semi like you can see in the suburbs of most towns and cities will take an Austin 7hp or Ford 8hp, which were the family cars of the time. You could hardly get a G-Wizz through those doors today.

Similarly, the garage doors of the 60s, which was a period of housing boom, will take an Anglia 105E and easily a Mini, but won't take a Fiesta of today. Unfortunately, large garages cost money to build, so they have not increased in size to match the cars - so nobody uses them now for cars, more likely for kids bikes and junk. The chances of getting a 2012 Mondeo into a garage AND opening the door to get out are extremely slim.

We all know why they're bigger - safety equipment, all the features we think we need, fat bast**d kids, bragging rights etc. So the model ranges just get bigger and bigger, because as the mainstream ones increase in size, they have to bring a smaller one in at the end to form the "starter pack". Brand loyalty is important to the manufacturers.

[Agoogy]

I like the stats, it proves that for Jaguar they have a car in a similar market sector from diffrent eras, that in this case differ hardly at all! (although having written that, I'd probably argue that the F-Type represents a lower sector and that the E-Type aligns with the XK...)

It also proves (for me) that it's ridiculous to compare the E-Type to a Smart Roadster as they don't occupy the same market sector in their respective eras...at all.

[Cledus Snow]

An XK8 is 188.74 inches long according to Jaguar.

[300bhp/ton]

Agoogy said:

you continue to do that....the rest of us will find what we consider are cars of similar/same market sectors relative to their era and see how the times have changed them.
Mercedes 190 vs C-class...not bad
911 vs 911 - substantial change
Fiat 500 vs Fiat 500 - substantial change
Range Rover vs Range Rover - substantial
Mini vs Mini - substantial
Honda CRX - Honda CRV...not bad...

the trend is clear, whilst exceptions can be found.

911's are more GT than sports cars these days. Same name, similar shape, but not the same market IMO.

Same with the Mini/MINI. They may share a name and a styling, but aimed at very different segments and customers. Also considering how small the MINI is inside, you really couldn't have kept the same styling and made it much smaller while still meeting modern legislation. So yes it is bigger, but for other reasons.

Range Rover as pointed out has been moved massively up market into the top flight luxury category. Very different today compared to 1971. But a name and heritage does wonders for sales.


All joking aside.



1975 'average' family car that seats 5 with some boot space:



2012 'average' family car that seats 5 with some boot space:

	Wheelbase	Length	Width	Height	Weight
Escort	94.8	159.3	62.8	53.8	995kg
Fiesta Sedan	98	173.6	67.8	58	1169kg
Fiesta Hatch	98	160	67.8	58	1151kg

I know the names are different, but as you can see from the pictures above, the sedan Fiesta is actually offering up pretty much the same package/ability as the Escort did in the 70's. The Fiesta is not a compact city car. But a compact family car aka an 'average' family car today.

In terms of size, ok it's a tiny bit bigger and certainly has chunky styling and big bumpers. But it's really a very similar size to the Escort. The hatch version even more so being the same length and only marginally wider.

[300bhp/ton]

Agoogy said:

I like the stats, it proves that for Jaguar they have a car in a similar market sector from diffrent eras, that in this case differ hardly at all! (although having written that, I'd probably argue that the F-Type represents a lower sector and that the E-Type aligns with the XK...)

It also proves (for me) that it's ridiculous to compare the E-Type to a Smart Roadster as they don't occupy the same market sector in their respective eras...at all.

That was the entire point...

Although a much closer comparison than a Ford Focus MK11 and an AC3000ME as per the op

[Cledus Snow]

The first 'I give up' will be along shortly.

[nicanary]

Cledus Snow said:

The first 'I give up' will be along shortly.

It's me. He really just doesn't understand, does he?

[mph]

300bhp/ton said:

Well to me I'd say the new F-Type has chunkier styling, this doesn't mean it's bigger.

In fact looking at the stats:

	Length	Wheelbase	Height	Weight
E-Type	105	184	51	1530kg
F-Type	103.2	176	51	1597kg

So the E-Type is longer and has longer wheelbase and they are the same height. In fact the F-Type is only bigger in one dimension - "width" (can't find proper stats for this, as I think the ones quoted include mirrors). Guessing 4 to 5" difference here. But the E-Type was particularly narrow even in it's day and when compared to it's peers from mainland Europe, America or even home grown rivals like Aston Martin.

The E Type in the picture is a series 1

It would be slightly shorter than the F Type. Ten (10) inches narrower and 280 kg lighter.

[72twink]

300bhp/ton - you are right, everything you have said is right, we all beleive you and are convinced by your argument ...... and yes, I deliberately drove my car around my car park at work until I found 2 huge cars in different market sectors to make a point on PH, either that or I (like lots of us) picked the biggest spot available and took one last glance at my car, sniggered to myself and captured it on my phone.





Now someone please post a pic while he constructs a powerpoint!

[Cledus Snow]

nicanary said:

Cledus Snow said:

The first 'I give up' will be along shortly.

It's me. He really just doesn't understand, does he?

Worry not, Someone else will continue banging their head against this brick wall for a while yet. the 1% will continue to entirely miss the point (I assume this is intentional as he likes an arguement) Eventually boredom sets in, The thread dies on it's Arse. Another victory for the 1% and another fun thread lost forever.

[DBSV8]

NotNormal said:

of which the modern day equivelant is this

great photo , do you have any more of the E Types