Either you are very tall, or you have not sat in many GM products. All of
mine would easily seat me too far back for my 5'8" frame. All very
comfortably seat 4, and some actually did well with 5. Others - not so good
with 5, but those should never have had a 5th seat belt anyway.
You must have had cars from a different GM than me!
My Japanese Datsun 510s had adequate driver space for me,
but the more recent low end Japanese cars don't.
No it's not my extra 20 lbs that is the problem.
I do second that. Like I said, the crown vics seats just don't seem to
go back all the way, now the models with the more bucket style seat do,
but i'm not sure why. (Maybe just hte design of the seat).
The half tons are fine, as the seat is higher to begin with...
In many cars of Japanese origin I need the drivers seat all the way
back, but then the steering wheel is too far away.
Unfortunately they are often set up for shorter drivers.
For example I can't comfortably drive the Toyota Corolla, the steering
wheel is too far away. The Chrysler '95 Cirrus had this same problem.
The previous Corolla model my knees hit the steering wheel, so I
couldn't brake with my foot flat on the pedal.
The Toyota Camry fits me, but I need the telescoping steering wheel all
the way back.
At least I don't hit my head on the ceiling as I did in a Honda Civic of
10 years back.
The Impalla fits me perfectly, as does my Concorde.
My height is only 5'-11"
on Friday 05 October 2007 04:41 am, someone posing as clare at snyder.on.ca
took a rock and etched into the cave:
Yes, it was. I drove one for several years.
Even with the seat all the way back, my knees would often hit the steering
wheel and the dashboard.
I can't remember how many times I hit my head while trying to squeeze down
into that car.
on Saturday 06 October 2007 10:57 am, someone posing as jcr took a rock and
etched into the cave:
Man, you people are really stuck up on these "official" terms!
I'm 6'4" and 220lbs. If you want to call it a "midsize" go ahead. IMO, it
is a very compact car.
Oh, and I squeezed into a Prius once at work. They had bought a few for us.
I will never do that again.
I agree. I have driven both a 1991 Hyundai Excel and a 2007 Prius and I am
6' 2" tall and 300lbs. The Excel felt like a sardine can to me but I was
just fine in the Prius. My main vehicle until a rod bearing spun was a 1992
Dodge Dynasty 3.3L that I also fit fine in.
Both I and a friend of mine in highschool drove BMC Minis. I was 6'1"
and Frankie was 6'5".
Mine had thinshell fiberglass buckets set 3 or 4 inches back -
leaving the same rear seat space as the stock seat in the stock
Frank's was stock.
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
What was a full sized car in 1949? in 1855? in 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995,
2005? The size and definition keeps changing.
Go back to the '30s. There were full sise cars and luxury cars. The
full sise were comparable to what we have today, but taller (and
What you are looking for is not a "full sise" but a "luxury sise".
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
The classification he cited for any particular model is not the point.
People that buy SUV are doing so because they perceive function and utility
that does not exist in other kinds of car. They have to weigh for
themselves, the cost to have the utility vs the savings to give it up. They
take the utility. If they could measure the utility of a Surburban that
delivers 15 mpg vs an Excursion that gives 20, then more Excursions would be
sold. As it stands today, the Excursion gives such poor numbers, Ford can
barely sell them. This only shows that people that buy large still compare
relative economy when they make their choice.
Not only do they consider fuel mileage, but they also consider stuff like
ergonomics -- placement of knobs and switches -- preceived quality -- fit
and finish -- comfort and style. Give all of this stuff in a package that
also delivers relative economy, and they will not be able to buiild them
fast enough. Deliver economy that is absent this stuff, and nobody will want
it. The real market is somewhere in the middle.
I don't know nor care what the sales figures are for the Excursion and the
Suburban, I was only illustrating that people buy large and compare apples
to apples, where the apple basket is filled with the kinds of things that
they think is important to them.
Excellent observation but you are forgetting something - price.
I think the major factors people look at are:
price/how fast is the depreciation/how much will the lease be
perceived life/warranty/how much will maintainence cost
quality/fit and finish
And not in that order. All of these factors are interrelated.
And you can have a car score very poorly on some factors
but very well on others, and still sell well.
The problem with Detroit is Detroit mis-stepped in the 70s
by ignoring the relations of these facts. People always talk
about how Detroit kept building big giant cars when everyone
wanted high mileage cars. They forget that at the same time
that gas prices were rising and people were getting more
interested in better mileage, that a whole load of emissions
stuff was being shoved on to Detroit which was detuning
engines and loading them down with a lot of easy-to-break-down
If the US Government at the time had shown some leadership and
issued 5-7 year emissions deferrals in 1974 and Detroit had simply
kept building muscle cars, then people would have only briefly
flirted with the economy cars from Japan, and would have given
it up and kept buying Detroit Big Iron - as after the oil price
rising hysteria had died down, people would have given up the
fuel economy in favor of all of the other amenities of Detroit Big
But instead what was happening is at the same time that the Japanese
were selling fuel efficient cars that were small and uncomfortable with
no amenities, Detroit Big Iron was getting slower, harder to fix, and
breaking down much faster. Japanese fuel efficient stuff didn't have to
do the things to their 4 bangers that Detroit had to do to it's V-8's
to meet emissions - and the buying public rightly realized that they
could either drive around in a rattle trap tin can that was uncomfortable,
slow, but got great gas mileage and didn't break down as much, or
they could drive around in a luxury land yacht that was very comfortable,
but was ALSO slow, got terrible gas mileage, and broke down all of
In other words, the emissions regulations put Detroit Big Iron at a
disadvantage for at least a decade while Detroit redesigned engines,
transmissions, and everything else to meet them.
But, even that would have been survivable - but the problem was
that during this time the bean counters got control of all Detroit
automakers and started cutting corners. Product quality fell and so
when Detroit finally could compete with the rattle cans from Japan
on the mileage basis, the quality sucked so bad that once more,
Detroit was -still- at a disadvantage.
Today, I think all the automakers have finally gotten back to the
basics of marketing cars, but there's been 2-3 decades of Detroit
missteps, and due to retirement liabilites of the Big Three, they
can no longer afford to undercut Japan to buy back all the lost
market share. So it is going to be a long, hard battle for Detroit
since there's now an entrenched generation of Japanese car buyers,
and those people will never buy Domestic again. It won't be
until their kids come of age and start buying cars, that the situation
How much fuel do NASCAR cars burn...
How much fuel is burned by all other vehicules involved in racing, monster
trucks, dragters, etc....
Would we be ready to give up entertainement to save fuel?
About airplanes.... The NASA shuttles... etc...
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.