The MW Automotive Thread 5.0 GT

[SchizophrenicMC]

Question for those who may know:

If the manufacturers want to preserve their low roof-line for exterior appearance, why can't they just lower the seats some for more headroom? Don't need 6 inches, just an inch or two can make a HUGE difference for a good chunk of the population. Every time I sit in a potential new car, and crank the seat down all the way to check headroom--it always seems like there's room to allow it to go down further--it just doesn't due to how they designed the rails. (ever see a cut-away of a Countach? I think there's about 1 inch between butt and outside air, at the low-point of the seat---you CAN build seats down much lower to the floorpan)

Heck, a semi-permanent adjustment would be really nice. Like a "high" and "low" bolt-placement. The power adjustments would still work, it'd be independent of that---just have alternate places for the actual bolts to insert, that hold the seat to the rails/tracks. Could change them when you sell it, etc. Set it to "high" for old ladies, etc.

So you may have noticed, every car today has a really tall grille and hood, and it's kind of ugly. There's a reason for this.

European and Asian pedestrian safety regulations (which are slowly bleeding into the US's regulatory body) require a certain amount of clearance between the bottom of the hood and the top of the engine, radiator support, and cowl. I wanna say it's somewhere in the field of 88mm. You can only make the engine and radiator support so short, especially now that engines have tons of plastic covers on them, covering up all the junk that makes their valve covers come so high like individual coil packs and direct injection systems. So the hood line comes up. When the hood line comes up, the base seating position for the average driver (a model against which car interiors are designed, generally consisting of a 5'10-6' male's typical dimensions) has to come up so the visibility over the hood and past it are retained. In reality, people above 6' aren't incredibly common, generally not enough to justify developing seats that go down lower for them. It's always been a problem in car design. Of course in most cars, in response to the hood line and seat height raising, the roof line comes up, and then the car is lengthened and put on 17-19" wheels to maintain the proportions of a car with 15-16" wheels. (And to clear the brakes needed to stop something that heavy within acceptable distances) This isn't the case in the Camaro, where the roof line only comes up a little bit.

GM just doesn't have any competent designers. That's what I've decided. The rest of the automotive industry has followed the trend toward bloated obese homogeny out of necessity, because otherwise people don't fit. GM has bucked that, and now even normal sized people don't fit, there's no cargo space, and the car weighs very nearly 2 tons despite having an engine that has long been praised as being very small and lightweight for its output. At least for the Challenger's mass and huge outward size, you get a big interior and a car that acts the part of the sedan chassis it's based on.

Actually I think more cars should be like the Honda Fit. It's a small car with a huge comfy interior, it weighs considerably less than my nimble 1990s Japanese sports car, and its sticker price is almost always below $20k but it never feels like quality was sacrificed. (Unless you see the 3 in the first digit of the VIN)

[areaseven]

And now for a look at Mercedes-Benz's current supercar.

[reddsun1]

Damned hot little number, that Merc.

[Shadow]

Actually I think more cars should be like the Honda Fit. It's a small car with a huge comfy interior, it weighs considerably less than my nimble 1990s Japanese sports car, and its sticker price is almost always below $20k but it never feels like quality was sacrificed. (Unless you see the 3 in the first digit of the VIN)

That and I'd like to see more sport oriented cars take after the Fiesta ST.

[David Hingtgen]

So you may have noticed, every car today has a really tall grille and hood, and it's kind of ugly. There's a reason for this. ::snip::

Just wanna say thanks for that, very interesting.

[Duke Togo]

Question for those who may know:

If the manufacturers want to preserve their low roof-line for exterior appearance, why can't they just lower the seats some for more headroom? Don't need 6 inches, just an inch or two can make a HUGE difference for a good chunk of the population. Every time I sit in a potential new car, and crank the seat down all the way to check headroom--it always seems like there's room to allow it to go down further--it just doesn't due to how they designed the rails. (ever see a cut-away of a Countach? I think there's about 1 inch between butt and outside air, at the low-point of the seat---you CAN build seats down much lower to the floorpan)

Heck, a semi-permanent adjustment would be really nice. Like a "high" and "low" bolt-placement. The power adjustments would still work, it'd be independent of that---just have alternate places for the actual bolts to insert, that hold the seat to the rails/tracks. Could change them when you sell it, etc. Set it to "high" for old ladies, etc.

Do these cars not come with vertically adjustable seats?

[SchizophrenicMC]

Do these cars not come with vertically adjustable seats?

Adding vertical adjustment requires additional mechanisms that make the seats taller at their lowest point. I don't know if the Camaro has height adjustment or not, this is just a blanket statement.

It also adds cost and complexity to a car made by a company known for cutting corners, especially in interior quality.

[Duke Togo]

It also adds cost and complexity to a car made by a company known for cutting corners, especially in interior quality.

Ah, that's it.

[David Hingtgen]

Do these cars not come with vertically adjustable seats?

Yes, but "at the bottom" is still way too high, often with inches of clearance below.

"at the bottom" with the seat tilted way back, shouldn't put my head only a finger or two from the headliner, being "merely" 6ft tall. (I measure headroom with my fingers, it works well---1 finger is suicidal, 2 fingers is "eerie", 3 fingers is bare minimum to live with, 4 fingers is good)

[mecha2241]

My wife's 2014 Camero SS has fully adjustable power seats, including vertically, I'm 6' 2" and have no problems driving it or riding in it, the interior has more than enough space in the front seats.

[ron5864]

So you may have noticed, every car today has a really tall grille and hood, and it's kind of ugly.

The new ND Miata resisted this trend, and Mazda actually came up with a car that has a lower nose than the original NA. Hopefully the partnership with Toyota will not dilute the Mazda bloodline.

[Agent ONE]

I did it. I traded in my 911 C4 S for the Alpha Romeo 4C.

Test car I have ever owned, Even better than my Lotus, and you guys know how I felt about that.

[David Hingtgen]

My wife's 2014 Camero SS has fully adjustable power seats, including vertically, I'm 6' 2" and have no problems driving it or riding in it, the interior has more than enough space in the front seats.

I always ascribe situations like this, to overall height vs torso height. Two people of the same height, could have different torso vs leg length.

Also---I know of very few people 6ft plus who think the Camaro has anything close to "more than enough" room.

[areaseven]

I did it. I traded in my 911 C4 S for the Alpha Romeo 4C.

Test car I have ever owned, Even better than my Lotus, and you guys know how I felt about that.

Congrats, dude. What color did you get?

[Duke Togo]

I did it. I traded in my 911 C4 S for the Alpha Romeo 4C.

Test car I have ever owned, Even better than my Lotus, and you guys know how I felt about that.

Speaking of lack of headroom...

[Agent ONE]

Congrats, dude. What color did you get?

The gunmetal grey.

The car is amazing. The entire interior (walls, floor, just about everything) is carbon fiber.

[areaseven]

The gunmetal grey.

The car is amazing. The entire interior (walls, floor, just about everything) is carbon fiber.

Probably means there's little or no sound deadening, but the power-to-weight ratio must be phenomenal for its class. If I recall, it's also the only production car right now with no power steering, which is unnecessary for such a lightweight car.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The new ND Miata resisted this trend, and Mazda actually came up with a car that has a lower nose than the original NA. Hopefully the partnership with Toyota will not dilute the Mazda bloodline.

The ND is a bag of mixed feelings for me. On the one hand, the engineers got everything right. On the other hand, the designers got everything wrong. To speak of the good, Mazda developed 2 hoods for the car: one for the US, where pedestrian safety regs are still loose, and one for Europe and Japan which uses pedestrian impact sensing and a set of airbags to push the hood up and away from the hard bits underneath. That adds, I want to say 75lbs to the E-code car, but they make up for it with a lighter engine and less emissions gear. What I really like about the ND is it weighs less than the NC. Like a solid 200lbs less across the board. Mazda did some really clever stuff to pull weight out of the car, like trading traditional seat springs for a composite polymer design that weighs less but is expected to be even more durable. They used a few structural tricks to get the weight down too, and to all the people asking why the ND doesn't have a hard top: soft-top convertibles are exempt from US NHTSA FMVSS rollover requirements, meaning they could use less-stringent Euro-NCAP requirements as a basis for the car and cut the weight down some more. And then you get things like 4-lug wheels on all models, greater use of aluminum in the powertrain and suspension, and so on. All in all, I think the final car weighs like 2400lbs. That may be heavier than the NA, but not by much.

All the same, the designers were trying too hard. The ND looks too aggressive. The Miata has always been a goofy-looking car that wears its heart on its sleeve: it's slow, but you'll be smiling just as hard as the opening in the bumper. It's a car driven for the experience of driving, not for its street presence or how many girls it's prone to scare off. Honestly, I could see myself driving any of the first 3 generations of Miata and enjoying every minute of it. In the ND, I'd feel like people would think I was trying too hard to compensate for some kind of insecurity. You can't have masculine insecurity and drive an NA with the top down.

All in all, I still think Mazda is the only Japanese carmaker that still gets it. That still understands that cars, and driving, matter. Everyone else has gone and diluted their brand with junk to appeal to fad markets, but Mazda has hunkered down and refined their core. They only make 6 cars. But damn if they're not 6 of the best in their respective classes. I look at a new Mazda and I see a Mazda. I look at a new Toyota and I see a junky, tinny piece of profit-leader trash and it takes a second to figure out whether I'm looking at a Corolla, Camry, or Avalon. I look at a new Nissan and I see some French buggery. I try not to look at Hondas too much. (Which is difficult because I work at a Honda dealership)

I did it. I traded in my 911 C4 S for the Alpha Romeo 4C.

Test car I have ever owned, Even better than my Lotus, and you guys know how I felt about that.

I'm caught somewhere between "I don't want to grow up" and "When I grow up, I want to be Agent ONE". Must be nice.

[Shadow]

Mazda's current platforms are hit or miss with me. I like the overall designs of the Mazda 3 and 6 but with cars like the 3, I thought they overdid it on the front-section. I don't know why they designed the hood to be so long and it's one piece that bothers me about the 3rd Gen Mazda 3 as opposed to the 1st and 2nd Gen. The 1st gen Mazda 3 in my opinion is still probably the best looking compact car Mazda has made yet. I agree on the Miata. I'm mixed on the looks but like the direction they took technically. Just need them revive the RX-7.

[dizman]

The gunmetal grey.

The car is amazing. The entire interior (walls, floor, just about everything) is carbon fiber.

Congrats and good choice! Been to the track yet?

[ron5864]

Mazda's current platforms are hit or miss with me. I like the overall designs of the Mazda 3 and 6 but with cars like the 3, I thought they overdid it on the front-section. I don't know why they designed the hood to be so long and it's one piece that bothers me about the 3rd Gen Mazda 3 as opposed to the 1st and 2nd Gen. The 1st gen Mazda 3 in my opinion is still probably the best looking compact car Mazda has made yet. I agree on the Miata. I'm mixed on the looks but like the direction they took technically. Just need them revive the RX-7.

That's the reason I bought a 2009 Mazdaspeed3. The design was very clean and functional, like the Honda S2000. The long hood with the current Mazda 3 made the car longer overall without creating more interior space. Function was sacrificed for the sake of design.

It looks like modern designs are going for the dramatic look, or "emotional" look as Toyota calls it. That's why there are so many deep sweeping lines all over the car that ends up looking busy. The ND Miata has more curves than its predecessors, but other manufacturers are over doing it. The new 2016 Nissan Maxima and the Lexus NX are good examples of busy body lines in the design.

[SchizophrenicMC]

That's definitely true, and I'm getting tired of stylish cars. I want handsome cars, not stylish ones. Cars that will age well because they have simplistic designs. Look at Nissan with their AUTISTIC HEADLIGHTS and Ford with its pointless angry shark mouth and 20 lines in the hood. The Honda Accord is a big, fat mess today, and in 10 years it'll be hideous. The CB generation Accord never stood out, but it will never look bad. And why should a sedan stand out? It's 4 wheels, 4 doors, and 4 cylinders of get-where-you-need-to-go.

This is the one place I've fallen out of favor with Mazda: they're designing stylish cars, and it takes the focus off their great engineering, which really should be the main reason you buy a Mazda. If you want to make cars with long hoods, build them RWD. We're all still waiting on a new RX car.

It's all a part of the rampant bloat we're seeing in cars now, and as more millennials become car designers, it will only get worse.

[reddsun1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_568aer8bQ

[SchizophrenicMC]

Two Volkswagens and a Renault enter a motorway.

[areaseven]

This thread needs more 4C. Until A1 posts pics of his, here's Saabkyle04's review.

[anime52k8]

it's amazing how much better the 4C looks without those god awful kit car headlight assemblies.

Edited May 30, 2015 by anime52k8

[areaseven]

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Lamborghini Countach was the most desirable supercar among elementary and high school boys. It clearly outsold Ferrari, Porsche, and Corvette in poster sales. (Not for me, though; I had a Testarossa on my wall back then.) Even today, it remains iconic among car enthusiasts and movie buffs. Most recently, the Countach was featured in the crowdfunded film Kung Fury and the David Hasselhoff music video "True Survivor". The Countach's design cues continue to be used in Lamborghini's current lineup, most notably the scissor doors.

Yet you have to ask: For being such an iconic car, is the Countach really all that?

[SchizophrenicMC]

The Countach was a mid-80s Italian car. Yes, it was a Lamborghini, so it was very fast and very striking. But it's a mid-80s Italian car. Things like reliability, ergonomics, creature comforts- these things were not important. The car was a purely outrageous machine in a time of ridiculous extravagance. You could never build it today. People are far too conscious about that sort of thing now.

I miss the more decadent days of the 80s and 90s. When people could do something crazy just because they could. Now we have to weigh consequences first, and pussy out second.

I still bet you could get a considerable amount of the female population to drop panties by saying 5000QV in Italian though. Ferrucio knew what he wrought.

[Duke Togo]

So, I'm curious: am I the only one who browses this thread who can't drive stick? (I assume not, but if I were to guess I'd say more can than can't)

[EXO]

You can learn how to drive a stick in a few minutes... I've taught a few people from personal experience. Now... how to drive a stick like a race car driver... that's a whole different story. It's all in learning how to use the clutch, the hardest part is keeping your feet on the clutch and not the brakes on an uphill surface. That should be enough just to get around town, everything else you'll learn or already know from regular driving. No fancy tricks.

warning for language:

[SchizophrenicMC]

I. wat.

But no seriously, driving stick is easy. I have severely reduced mobility in one of my arms and I can still drive stick.

[anime52k8]

I'm seriously going to miss driving stick in ten years when nobody makes them any more.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I'm seriously going to miss driving stick in ten years when nobody makes them any more.

God that's a sad thought.

[Beltane70]

I haven't owned a car with an automatic transmission in over 20 years! The last time that I drove an automatic car (2009 when I rented a Dodge Magnum during a vacation), it felt so damn sluggish!

Sorry, Duke, I hate that we're all making you feel lonely with our ability to drive cars with manual transmissions!

[Duke Togo]

I haven't owned a car with an automatic transmission in over 20 years! The last time that I drove an automatic car (2009 when I rented a Dodge Magnum during a vacation), it felt so damn sluggish!

Sorry, Duke, I hate that we're all making you feel lonely with our ability to drive cars with manual transmissions!

Well, I guess technically you can drive my car like a stick, but it's not what you guys would consider legit, lol. And I didn't even get the model with the paddles.