Classics dwarfed by moderns

[lowdrag]

As a golfer, I compare the width too. I can put a full-size golf bag sideways in the back of the old Mercedes T202 (2000) estate, but a new 3 series estate needs the back seats down to accomodate, and the new C Class will take it diagonally, not width-ways. When I had a Mk 1 Jetta in 1981 I could fit four bags in sideways and weekend luggage.

[mgeee]

[LordBretSinclair]

na said:

all the cars need to be bigger because of all the extra items on them, for pedestrian safety, because adults and children are generally much bigger now, perhaps more padding inside - I'm sure a lot of modern cars have less room for the driver and passengers than the older smaller versions or models

Requirements of the NCAP ratings have a lot to do with this

[CDP]

LordBretSinclair said:

na said:

all the cars need to be bigger because of all the extra items on them, for pedestrian safety, because adults and children are generally much bigger now, perhaps more padding inside - I'm sure a lot of modern cars have less room for the driver and passengers than the older smaller versions or models

Requirements of the NCAP ratings have a lot to do with this

But as I mentioned earlier my TF managed four stars without side airbags. That's in a convertible with all the hood mechanism too.

Though safety has moved on I can't see that it's to blame for everything. A Panda is still fairly narrow.

[Rapierdave]

Took the Manta out today to a shopping centre & every car looks taller & fatter compared to it.
Oh well at least it was easy to spot in the car park when i returned from shopping

[mph1977]

CDP said:

LordBretSinclair said:

na said:

all the cars need to be bigger because of all the extra items on them, for pedestrian safety, because adults and children are generally much bigger now, perhaps more padding inside - I'm sure a lot of modern cars have less room for the driver and passengers than the older smaller versions or models

Requirements of the NCAP ratings have a lot to do with this

But as I mentioned earlier my TF managed four stars without side airbags. That's in a convertible with all the hood mechanism too.

Though safety has moved on I can't see that it's to blame for everything. A Panda is still fairly narrow.

two seaters have it inherently easier as they have much greater likelihood of having a number of decent bulkheads other than the firewall ... what's the distance between the bulkhead at the front of the cockpit and the firewall at the back of the cockpit ...

[na]

LordBretSinclair said:

Requirements of the NCAP ratings have a lot to do with this

doh, I meant to put driver and passenger safety

years ago I can remember seeing the interior space of a 1100/1300 and thinking I'd forgotten just how much space there was in the smallish car compared to the new cars at that time, same when my mate got a Dolly Sprint

[CDP]

mph1977 said:

CDP said:

LordBretSinclair said:

na said:

all the cars need to be bigger because of all the extra items on them, for pedestrian safety, because adults and children are generally much bigger now, perhaps more padding inside - I'm sure a lot of modern cars have less room for the driver and passengers than the older smaller versions or models

Requirements of the NCAP ratings have a lot to do with this

But as I mentioned earlier my TF managed four stars without side airbags. That's in a convertible with all the hood mechanism too.

Though safety has moved on I can't see that it's to blame for everything. A Panda is still fairly narrow.

two seaters have it inherently easier as they have much greater likelihood of having a number of decent bulkheads other than the firewall ... what's the distance between the bulkhead at the front of the cockpit and the firewall at the back of the cockpit ...

Not far. It's got several bulkheads too - front, behind the seats and behind the engine, the back panel and cross bracing under the dashboard; subframes too. Probably why it's so heavy - over 1100kg which for a tiny car with little equipment and superlight engine is silly but twice as rigid as a Z3.

[LordBretSinclair]

CDP said:

But as I mentioned earlier my TF managed four stars without side airbags. That's in a convertible with all the hood mechanism too.

IIRC the MGF and TF also had excellent NCAP ratings for pedestrian safety. I'm sure that the fact there are no hefty engine parts within millimetres of the inside of the bonnet had a lot to do with this.

I do miss my F - it wasn't fantastic or particularly exciting but it did what it said on the tin - had a lot of fun in mine

[na]

I might be wrong but didn't pedestrian safety measure increase in the last few years

[CDP]

na said:

I might be wrong but didn't pedestrian safety measure increase in the last few years

Yes but it's mostly down to not having hard stuff like engines and strut tops directly under the surface. That's why bonnet lines have risen so much. A rear engine car with wishbones can pass these regulations pretty easily and keep the bonnet line low. So can the Toyota GT86 as it's boxer is so shallow.

[na]

CDP said:

na said:

I might be wrong but didn't pedestrian safety measure increase in the last few years

Yes but it's mostly down to not having hard stuff like engines and strut tops directly under the surface. That's why bonnet lines have risen so much.

yes that what I meant the bonnet lines risen bit, thanks

reminds us MGers of the increase in ride height in the 70s for USA regs introducing the 'rubber bumper' cars

[wibble cb]

more moderns (tongue slightly in cheek) that make mine look small....

[300bhp/ton]

LotusOmega375D said:

300bhp/ton said:

eh?

I think the comparison here is that current "Cavalier" mid range model is larger in all dimensions than the next size up "Carlton" model of 20 years ago. It's getting so silly that you'd struggle to get some modern saloons into a garage.

1. No it was more the Insignia was being labelled as a hatch, as in hatchback. Ok it has a hatch opening, but it's clearly a large family saloon sector vehicle just as the Carlton was. I also don't see it as a Cavalier spec model, it is Vauxhalls 'Carlton' market position while the Astra is more the modern Cavalier in terms of marketing and line up.

[300bhp/ton]

Travis Mcgee said:

Might just be me, but I am convinced the latest BMW 3 series saloon is the same size as a 90's 5 series.

It is because that's also the market place it sits in. Ignore the numbers of the models. The 3 Series hasn't got bigger it's been moved up market. Once it was the entry level model, no longer that is now the 1 Series (or arguably even a MINI).

The current 3 Series is in money, line up and market a 5 Series.

[300bhp/ton]

RichB said:

mph1977 said:

300bhp/ton said:

NotNormal said:

Lotus was quite big in its day..... not any more when up against a 4 door family hatchback!!!

eh?

all that demonstrates is that cars now are a 'size bigger' than they were 20 summat years ago, compare modern Astra with the Vectra A and the current Corsa with a Mk2or 3 Astra...

And thus proves the point.

That mixing up model names rather than examining where the model sits relatively in the wider market and in the car makers line up, proves little in terms of vehicle size.

[300bhp/ton]

wibble cb said:

more moderns (tongue slightly in cheek) that make mine look small....

Cool pic. But your car was small even when brand new.

[Agoogy]

Not as much style compared to the mk2, but compared to some here, Honda haven't too badly here size-wise IMO

[del 203]

72twink said:

And on Le Shuttle in my brothers example - the dash top level with the bumper on a Fezza 360

Very level looking so sans driver at the time

[na]

wibble cb said:

more moderns (tongue slightly in cheek) that make mine look small....

note how the second Figaro looks smaller because of the angle of perspective