Small/big car difference?

But intelligent active suspension might actualy be a cheaper solution, a kind of "catch all" compensation for whatever there is. Small cars are now equipped with APS, ABS and AIRCON, unthinkable back on time, so why not active suspension to get this elusive and posh 'Persian carpet' feel.

Ohh but I remember the old mini with 10" wheels, like driving on a tea trolley.

Sorry, my mistake!

WTF is APS?

Because it can, for almost all circumstances be achieved with purely mechanical bits, zero electronics, no added weight, no power for the hydraulics, better economy, lower emissions, far less to go wrong, faster to repair, lower cost of warranty repairs, lower cost for the customer and maybe even more profit margin for the manufacturer.

I think he means ESP. Which is a legal requirement on all new car models launched in the last year or so.

'course, ESP and active suspension do completely different jobs.

Not surprising because nowadays "small" cars are as big and heavy as large cars were then.

It's interesting to see cars of the "Yanks Tank" period when they're on a summer weekend drive. Even they can look dinky in modern traffic.

It's not yet a legal requirement, it's from 1/11/2014 for Class M1 Vehicles (i.e cars)

Ohh, I think it is PAS HTH

WTF is WTF?

That's on _all_ new cars. It's been a requirement on all new models launched for about a year.

TPMS is the same score.

Not quite ALL new cars.

There is a cop out for end of run before the must comply dates.

We will be organising end of series exercises according to the rules below:

For ECWVTA vehicles approved under 2007/46/EC or 2002/24/EC If you have stocks of vehicles still unsold which will not comply with the requirements of the Directive listed, then we can allow a further period of 12 months from the specified ?must comply? date during which the vehicle can enter into service ... more blab .. upshot - they must have a COC dated 3 months before the directive must comply date. Any made between the 3 month before and must comply date have to be registered by the must comply date.

For Motorcycles & Quadricycles approved under Regulation (EU) 168/2013 Derogation will be for 10% of the total number of vehicles covered by this Regulation which were registered during the preceding 2 years or

100 vehicles whichever is the greater of the two. The derogation period will run for 24 months from the introduction of the new standard for complete vehicles and 30 months for completed vehicles.

Not quite ALL new cars.

There is a cop out for end of run before the must comply dates.

We will be organising end of series exercises according to the rules below:

For ECWVTA vehicles approved under 2007/46/EC or 2002/24/EC If you have stocks of vehicles still unsold which will not comply with the requirements of the Directive listed, then we can allow a further period of 12 months from the specified ?must comply? date during which the vehicle can enter into service ... more blab .. upshot - they must have a COC dated 3 months before the directive must comply date. Any made between the 3 month before and must comply date have to be registered by the must comply date.

For Motorcycles & Quadricycles approved under Regulation (EU) 168/2013 Derogation will be for 10% of the total number of vehicles covered by this Regulation which were registered during the preceding 2 years or

100 vehicles whichever is the greater of the two. The derogation period will run for 24 months from the introduction of the new standard for complete vehicles and 30 months for completed vehicles.

Well into ...

Merc C180 was £20K to £47K. Anything under £25K would have been very basic and low end, fit only for use as a taxi.

BMW E36 3 series £20K wouldn't get you a 6 banger. Might not have got you a decent spec 318i, no air con etc.

328i with air con, CD changer, headlamp wash, LSD, pass airbag, headlamp wash and remote alarm was over £30K. 155bhp/ton 'vs 136bhp/ton. About 3500 paid £7K extra for a badge, 4500 made a better choice.

What Car claims £19k in 1996, up to £20,200 in 1997, then down to £18,700

I could imagine that a Smart car would be the worst for road humps? But I've never been in one.

A big car is not 'better' or 'worse' than a small car. If you like big cars , as I do, then that's what you go for. I like the load space (I'm often ca rrying things), I often tow a heavy trailer, I like to be able to seat seve ral people if I need to. For these features I'll put up with the fact that it's not so easy to park. It's averaging very nearly 50 mpg so it's not exa ctly thirsty. Several people I know have smaller cars and their fuel consum ption is not so good.

These things are not important for me. If you need space in a small can, one can buy an estate version, or maybe of those 'orrible little mini people carrier. What matters for me is the stability on the road, giving relaxed driving on long journeys. But I wonder if my views are out of date? Maybe small cars have improved, or is there something intrinsic about the size which gives stability?

All other things being equal, a longer, wider wheel base is inherently more stable than a short narrow one and an equal lateral or vertical movement of the wheels at one end will produce less of an angular change

- hence the more relaxed driving.

SteveW

But then it doesn't fit in UK sized parking spaces or across Hammersmith bridge (and many other width restrictions).

So instead of putting your living room on 4 wheels buy a car and get the lowest one that does the job.

On 20/12/2013 00:09, SteveW wrote: [... had to cut]

But that logic has its limitations: Then what about busses, supevans, lorries; then they should be emminently comfortable?

Only if you completely ignore the first five words of Steve's post.

Here's a clue. Think about the ratio of unladen to laden weight.