Poor visibility out back (pun intended)

Looking at the posteriours of the latest crop from japan including out back, legacy and the upcoming FT-85 toyobaru i've got to ask: doesn't ANYONE care about being able to see anything through the rear embrasure?

It seems that the latest trend in the marketing driven disrespect towards consumers resulted in the race of "how short could we make the rear slit before consumers become to complain"?

Of course I've got to blame this on the automakers desire to introduce a mechanical problem to sell electronic bandaids, such as the rear view cameras.

Then, 5-10 years after the fact the car is sold to a 2,3rd, 4th owner who is frantically knocking on the rear view camera trying to get the damn thing to work. I was very amused when i rode with a woman who was driving one of the jap

2 door tanks on stilts: apparently she could not see a thing cause her particular truck had 40-50 cm wide rear pillars compounded by the rear enbrasure glass being very high off the ground (and very short to boot). I would've been amused if it was not for a fact that it's getting nearly impossible to buy a new car with a decent 360 visibility.

Somehow me thinks the marketing desire to make a buck or two would result in rapid goodwill deprectiation from the drivers buying in the secondary market. "I could not see a thing from my Fill_in_a_manufacturer_name_here"

If this is driven my marketing research i've just got to say the makers don't have to tend to every whim of the customer. It's getting ridiculous.

Reply to
AD
Loading thread data ...

I've noticed many sedans - primarily smaller/foreign one, have had this problem since the 80s/90s or so. And of course, the backup camera IS one approach to this issue. Though I think electronics are generally cheaper than good engineering so, it may not be a money MAKING option as much as a money SAVING one for the manufacturer.

The Forester happens to be an exception - I feel, but maybe not for long.

Perhaps it is a combination of taller stance, rollover/impact strength, and maybe an aging population. My neck is not as flexible as it was ten years ago! lol!

In general, Subarus still have decent visibility - some cars of late, horrible.

Reply to
1 Lucky Texan

I thought it was FT-86, as in...Hachiroku...

If it's HALF the fun of my '85 GTS, I'm getting my hands on one, by any means possible (except stealing...I want to KEEP it once I get one!)

Reply to
Hachiroku

You can make the same argument for the headlights on new vehicles. All the focus is on the person driving the vehicle and how well they can see, because they are the ones forking over the money. But they never take into account that those nice bright lights are blinding everyone else in front of them and those traveling towards them.

So many now rely on the vehicle to drive for them rather than their own driving skills. Stability control, traction control, lane change warning systems, even ABS...gives that false sense of security. Why don't you just learn to drive? How many people do you actually see changing lanes by only using their mirrors? You don't know how many times I've almost been hit or run into the other lane because the driver (I use the term loosely) never bothers to turn their head and look in their blind spot.

Reply to
John

If the side mirrors are adjusted correctly there is no blind spot. The driver should be able to see an overtaking car in the side mirror before it disappears from the inside mirror and then see it in his peripheral vision before it disappears from the side mirror.

But a glance over the shoulder is a good idea anyway.

Reply to
John Varela

I get flashed at all the time in my Scion (now, if I could only get WOMEN to flash at me...)

What I hate is when someone 'flashes' his high beams at me by turning them on AND LEAVING THEM ON! IF I have my highs on, I'll turn them off. If they're off, I'll flash them back. If you turn on your high beams and leave them on, I have modified the high beams so they are brighter than stock, and my Hella driving lights are MUCH brighter than stock, so if'n you REALLY wanna see BRIGHT, I'd be more than happy to oblige!

But, yes, I think they are too bright for oncoming traffic. I had to aim the headlights lower than specified to keep from being blinded by idiots.

The other thing I don't like is bright low beams, with the turn signals in the headligh housing. Who TF can see that?

I like the back up warning systems: "Hey, I don't even have to LOOK anymore!"

Yeah, I think there should be a driving test every time you have to renew your license, in your own car, so the inspector can see what people are doing (or not doing) thanks to all the 'aids'.

Reply to
Hachiroku

Well, the lights you have are modified, you chose to do that and luckily you realize that they are too bright and dont blind others. What I'm referring to are the vehicles that are right off the delaer lot with low beams blinding everyone.

Reply to
John

Some automakers are dealing with the turn signal/bright lowbeam problem by turning off that headlight when that blinker is in use. I've seen Mercedes and I think Audis do this. I think it is ironic that the things that they are illuminating less are located where the car will be turning. It is opposite of my friend's mid nineties mercury sable that woudl illuminate an extra light on the side of the front bumper to help illuminate the side of the car that the car was turning towards.

As far as high rear end, I remember borrowing a friend's first gen neon and being afraid to back up in it for fear of mowing over anyone under 5 feet tall. The high rear ends are there for a few reasons: The higher belt line gives better side impact protection. It is more stylish to have a beltline that swoops upward towards the rear, and now the front of the beltline has to be higher since the hoods have to be higher since there has to be room under the hood for pedestrian crumple zones before hard points are contacted. Trunks are larger when you have a trunk opening that is higher, and trunk space is a consideration among buyers. Head rests mandated in the late 90s on rear seats already make a blind spot. Might as well use that blind space behind it.

I think the reduction in glass has gone too far. Reduced visibility on the gun-slit window Chrysler Magnum and Chevy Camaro are known problems that I'm sure the designers knew about before putting it into production, but if the prototype looked awesome, and you add another three inches of glass to it, the public might decide to change their mind when it gets to the showroom. Many automotove journalists said the Camaro would lose the gunslit windows between prototype and production for visibility issues. I guess it didn't for the above reason. Looks awesome, but when you're average height, and can't see out of the car, there is a problem.

Just my two cents. On sale today for the low price of nothing.

Bill

Reply to
weelliott

Well, I live in a place that for better of worse (usually but not always the latter FDA heavy hand is wanted, but automotive i think not) is not as heavily regulated as the states and I drive a 1960 box design with modern seats(with headrests) in front (but not in the back). The headrests in front I can cope with, but even if I had them in the rear i'd rather have low beltline around them.

The question that begs to be asked is this: since this trend is obviously costing insurance companies in the states money and those bastards are usually sophisticated when it comes to beancounting why we do not see the fine tuning of the rates of the customers who vote for the high beltline handicap, ultimately with the insurance companies dollars?

I';m absolutely sure the parking lot incidents are rampant in that group. More so in the urban areas.

Reply to
AD

Ok, since I feel prolific today I've got to expand on the pedestrian crumple zones before that idiocy spreads to the nothern part of the new world.

Firstly you have to account for the difference in the attitudes of the pedestrians in the drivers in the states, where the two are essentially two modes of transportation. I;m not sure if it's a cultural thing or something that is a result of vicious shafting by the police in the states in cases where a driver compromises pedestrian safety, bit usually it's safer to cross streets and walk on sidewalks in the states.

Outside of the states there seems to be quite an animosity between the drivers and pedestrians with the former habitually taking the right of way from the latter and the latter routinely jaywalking as a payback to drivers who won't let them cross first on crosswalks.

Secondly there is lax attitude towards drivers from the road police outside the US.

So these two combined have resulted in the euro govenment instead of fixing the police to strangle the automakers with the pedestrian safety bumpers & co.

I don't think these regulations need to spread to the states as long as police keeps shafting drivers behaving recklessly around bipeds crossing the streets.

With the proliferation of suvs and cars on stilts i don't think these regulations could be effective.

Heck, you need to carry firearms outside the states to protect the basic rights to walk on car-free sidewalks, except you can only get long guns around here.

Hence the general drop in civility (one example is the driver- pedestrian relationship). The populace packing in the states seems to put a limit on how much civility could drop before some disrespectful f*ck gets shot. Treasure the second amendment before the influx of obama instilled higher justices clutters your supreme court with the subsequent highly fluid interpretation of the bill of rights.

All things combined US could do without pedestrian crumple zones.

Reply to
AD

The thing is most cars are being designed for a global market. Europe adopted the pedestrian driven soft car frton regulations before the states did. Smaller carmakers like BMW, Porsche, etc... Aren't going to make drastically different cars for the US and europe. They will changes stuff like emissions, engine equipment, and stuff like that, but they aren't going to tool up for two different sets of body panels and frames if they don't feel they need to. So that is why the newer Z4 compared to the old Z3 looks a little odd until you get used to it.

Bill

Reply to
weelliott

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.