Why do GT makers bother...?
Discussion
Can anyone tell me why makers of GTs so often put unusably small rear "seats" in their cars, at great cost to the luggage space?
And why do they tend to place the fuel tank between the rear "seats" and the derisory boot, meaning that you can't extend the boot by folding the rear "seats"? I was disappointed when I learned that applied to the DB9, F550, California etc.
The old Jaguar E-type worked brilliantly as a GT partly because the FHC and 2+2 had substantial rear space that was not cut off from the main cabin. The modern Corvette does something similar, with a 636 litre boot whose size derives in part from eschewing rear "seats" and in part from positioning the fuel tank below the boot floor.
Why don't more (super-)GT manufacturers do that? I'd buy one of their cars if they did!
And why do they tend to place the fuel tank between the rear "seats" and the derisory boot, meaning that you can't extend the boot by folding the rear "seats"? I was disappointed when I learned that applied to the DB9, F550, California etc.
The old Jaguar E-type worked brilliantly as a GT partly because the FHC and 2+2 had substantial rear space that was not cut off from the main cabin. The modern Corvette does something similar, with a 636 litre boot whose size derives in part from eschewing rear "seats" and in part from positioning the fuel tank below the boot floor.
Why don't more (super-)GT manufacturers do that? I'd buy one of their cars if they did!
Hi Cheeky 
I dont understand it either.
Rear seats seem only good enough for baby seats or overnight bags.
I was looking at DB9's last years.
Personally I wasnt bothered because I thought the space would be useful but didnt buy in the end because my Tuscan problem was fixed.
For me a lot of the issue of space are caused by the automatic convertible designs that eat up half the luggage space.
I dont understand it either.
Rear seats seem only good enough for baby seats or overnight bags.
I was looking at DB9's last years.
Personally I wasnt bothered because I thought the space would be useful but didnt buy in the end because my Tuscan problem was fixed.
For me a lot of the issue of space are caused by the automatic convertible designs that eat up half the luggage space.
I replied to your other thread... not sure why it was deleted.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Because those rear seats are useful. My 944 has seats that the previous owner's 12-year-old daughter struggled to fit in (she was a big girl), but they are enough to carry a reasonable-sized adult in only mild discomfort for about 20 minutes. It therefore qualifies as an 'occasional 4-seater'.
Given that I needed a car that could seat more than two people it was enough to make me buy it over an MX5.
Oli.
Given that I needed a car that could seat more than two people it was enough to make me buy it over an MX5.
Oli.
zcacogp said:
Because those rear seats are useful. My 944 has seats that the previous owner's 12-year-old daughter struggled to fit in (she was a big girl), but they are enough to carry a reasonable-sized adult in only mild discomfort for about 20 minutes. It therefore qualifies as an 'occasional 4-seater'.
Given that I needed a car that could seat more than two people it was enough to make me buy it over an MX5.
Oli.
That doesn't apply to the cars I mention though. There doesn't seem enough space for any size of legs in the rear of a DB9. And why divorce that section from the boot, rather than offering the flexibility of more luggage space or more seating?Given that I needed a car that could seat more than two people it was enough to make me buy it over an MX5.
Oli.
cheeky said:
That doesn't apply to the cars I mention though. There doesn't seem enough space for any size of legs in the rear of a DB9. And why divorce that section from the boot, rather than offering the flexibility of more luggage space or more seating?
Fair enough - I have't been in the back of a DB( (although from your comment it sounds like it's impossible!) Can't explain why the fuel tank is laid out as you describe either, unless it is to improve weight distribution. I imagine a tall and narrow fuel tank will allow less movement of fuel than a wide, flat one (such as would fit under the boot floor) and hence there is less weight transfer when the car accelerates and brakes (still a slight factor to consider even with baffled tanks). More importantly it will keep the weight of the fuel nearer the middle of the car, thus reducing polar inertia and improving handling responsiveness.
Oli.
zcacogp said:
Because those rear seats are useful. My 944 has seats that the previous owner's 12-year-old daughter struggled to fit in (she was a big girl), but they are enough to carry a reasonable-sized adult in only mild discomfort for about 20 minutes. It therefore qualifies as an 'occasional 4-seater'.
Given that I needed a car that could seat more than two people it was enough to make me buy it over an MX5.
Oli.
Had a (thankfully short) passenger ride in the rear seats of a friends Porsche 928 very recently. I'm 6ft tall. As if the experience wasn't like being buried alive (unable to move at all), he almost managed to crack my skull before we even set off - I'd climbed in the car, the boot was still open, rear boot opening is at such an angle my head was poking out of the boot, he slammed the boot shut. It sort of set the tone for rest of the drive really. Given that I needed a car that could seat more than two people it was enough to make me buy it over an MX5.
Oli.
So I can confirm that any more than a 20 minute drive would be excruciatingly uncomfortable. And make sure you're paying attention when the boot gets closed.
<dredges memory> Aren't there tax benefits in some markets that mean a 2+2 is preferable to a pure 2-seater?
As for the tanks, they've gotta go somewhere. Under the boot floor is less than optimal in the event of a rear-end shunt. So where...? Most larger tin shoves 'em under the back seat - not ideal here, because there's larger rear suspension & diffs intruding further into the already small space. Packaging is finite.
As for the tanks, they've gotta go somewhere. Under the boot floor is less than optimal in the event of a rear-end shunt. So where...? Most larger tin shoves 'em under the back seat - not ideal here, because there's larger rear suspension & diffs intruding further into the already small space. Packaging is finite.
Maser GT has proper seats in the back, but is the only one to do so. Agree with you about the DB9 and also the Jag XK and the 911 is hardly spacious in the back if you are over 5 years old! From what I have read the new F Type Jag Coupe has a hatchback so maybe has a better use of space than many other similar sized coupes. Think I would still choose the Maser over the Jag, but then I am a bit biased!
Because most purchase decisions of these cars involve 'permission to buy'. This has to be gained from the wife.
Excluding all other considerations:
Excluding all other considerations:
- if it has 4 seats - it's a necessary and justifiable means of transport.
- if it has 2 seats - it's a ridiculous, frivolous toy, and you're a selfish moron.
cheeky said:
Can anyone tell me why makers of GTs so often put unusably small rear "seats" in their cars, at great cost to the luggage space?
Are you by any chance referring that extraordinary piece of Lotus insanity called the Lotus Evora?Totally agree with you. Anyone who really wants a 2+2 (and doesn't have amputees for passengers) just buys a BMW 3-series coupe/convertible.
SpeckledJim said:
Because most purchase decisions of these cars involve 'permission to buy'. This has to be gained from the wife.
Excluding all other considerations:
>Cough< That may or may not be the subtext to my earlier post on this thread .... Excluding all other considerations:
- if it has 4 seats - it's a necessary and justifiable means of transport.
- if it has 2 seats - it's a ridiculous, frivolous toy, and you're a selfish moron.
Oli.
SpeckledJim said:
Because most purchase decisions of these cars involve 'permission to buy'. This has to be gained from the wife.
Excluding all other considerations:
Pretty much this. Practicality doesn't come into it. Four seats are just acceptable. I chopped in the Astra for a coupe delux. I couldn't care less about the fuel tank positioning etc. It looked good and the little one has a seat.Excluding all other considerations:
- if it has 4 seats - it's a necessary and justifiable means of transport.
- if it has 2 seats - it's a ridiculous, frivolous toy, and you're a selfish moron.
edit: I read this again, I don't have a super coupe. But reasoning is as what was said by SJ
Edited by deltashad on Thursday 5th December 17:21
Colossus said:
Maser GT has proper seats in the back, but is the only one to do so. Agree with you about the DB9 and also the Jag XK and the 911 is hardly spacious in the back if you are over 5 years old! From what I have read the new F Type Jag Coupe has a hatchback so maybe has a better use of space than many other similar sized coupes. Think I would still choose the Maser over the Jag, but then I am a bit biased!
Maserati GT has a small boot though and (again) it's a shame not to be able to convert rear seat space into more boot space when needed.It also has (in common with most others in the class) a smaller than necessary boot opening... why don't they all make it a full width opening like the Corvette's? That will swallow a few sets of golf clubs, or a double rifle box and lots of kit, or a bicycle...
You're right: F-type coupe may be worth considering, although that too has a limited width opening IIRC.
I've just bought a 6 series Gran Coupe (the 4 dr) - plenty of room in the rear, huge boot, and (IMO) better looks than the Coupe. I looked at most of the other cars mentioned above, including the Masser - all were dismissed due to the lack of rear room (I've teenage kids)...
I think the GC fits the GT moniker perfectly.
I think the GC fits the GT moniker perfectly.
SpeckledJim said:
Because most purchase decisions of these cars involve 'permission to buy'. This has to be gained from the wife.
Excluding all other considerations:
And when "The Wife" is the one with the two seat frivolous car? Excluding all other considerations:
- if it has 4 seats - it's a necessary and justifiable means of transport.
- if it has 2 seats - it's a ridiculous, frivolous toy, and you're a selfish moron.
I'm just off to call her a selfish moron to test your theory
talksthetorque said:
SpeckledJim said:
Because most purchase decisions of these cars involve 'permission to buy'. This has to be gained from the wife.
Excluding all other considerations:
And when "The Wife" is the one with the two seat frivolous car? Excluding all other considerations:
- if it has 4 seats - it's a necessary and justifiable means of transport.
- if it has 2 seats - it's a ridiculous, frivolous toy, and you're a selfish moron.
I'm just off to call her a selfish moron to test your theory
zcacogp said:
Because those rear seats are useful. My 944 has seats that the previous owner's 12-year-old daughter struggled to fit in (she was a big girl), but they are enough to carry a reasonable-sized adult in only mild discomfort for about 20 minutes. It therefore qualifies as an 'occasional 4-seater'.
Given that I needed a car that could seat more than two people it was enough to make me buy it over an MX5.
Oli.
The rear seats in a 944 useful for adults, not sure if the space is any different in a cab like I had but I took two mates from work for a spin, one was a tall chap, he went in the front, the smaller than average bloke sat side saddle in the back, they were only any use for carrying my bike or shopping.Given that I needed a car that could seat more than two people it was enough to make me buy it over an MX5.
Oli.
sebhaque said:
The M6 has a pretty cavernous boot and I'm informed the rear seats are pretty generous. Then again it is an enormous bit of kit - and it has a tiny fuel tank given its apparent purpose.
Apparently so, I went for the 640d M Sport GC, and on a 80+mph run, 40+ MPG is possible, so I'm told. Not had a chance to test this yet, so we'll see.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff