Huge cars

[Camino LS6]

Lots of past vehicles still to explore - should last me the rest of my lifetime.

I won't be taking part in the transportation pod era.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Camino LS6

[Intrepidation]

Camino, I bet you enjoyed the new Charger commercial.

[Camino LS6]

Which one?

[Robert Hall]

The only Charger ad I've seen is the one with the black car in rainy traffic..great ad. I really like the Durango ad also, the one where they mention it's been away for a couple years..

[ocnblu]

I think the new Durango would look good with BF Goodrich All-Terrain T/As on it, instead of the sissy tires the factory throws on. They would really bring out the man in the machine.

[Intrepidation]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw7_UTk0d6Y

[balthazar]

^ 'cept I saw a few episodes of Futurecar this weekend and they are totally grooving on making robot-driven cars... so we can all slug back and surf the interwebnet while we're driven around in sacks of amniotic fluid. These guys (students, think tanks, etc) are determined to replace every manual control with computer / robotics. Welcome to your suck-suck-sucky future.

>>"Again, though, this is 2011..a 'vintage perspective' isn't very relevant in discussing today's car market. "<<

Tho I did use a vintage reference, my viewpoint / terminology is simply one of of dimensions. 205" x 73" is not a 'large' car in my book. While it is larger than other cars, there ARE no 'large' cars left anymore.

>>"I was thinkin' the Aspen/Volare were tagged as "compacts" when they came out and replaced the Dart/Valiant. "<<

So the Arrow / Sapporo were sub-compacts.... what did that make the Colt??

Edited July 18, 2011 by balthazar

[Robert Hall]

>>"Again, though, this is 2011..a 'vintage perspective' isn't very relevant in discussing today's car market. "<<

Tho I did use a vintage reference, my viewpoint / terminology is simply one of of dimensions. 205" x 73" is not a 'large' car in my book. While it is larger than other cars, there ARE no 'large' cars left anymore.

Again, in 2011 reality, 205"x73"x5000lbs is a large car. It doesn't matter if it is not large by your 1959 perspective. This is 2011. The auto industry has evolved, metrics from 50 years ago don't apply...

Same with horsepower..in the 50s, 300hp was a lot. In 80s, 200-250 was a lot. Today, 400 is ho-hum, 300 is what a typical family car V6 makes. Metrics vary over time.

>>"I was thinkin' the Aspen/Volare were tagged as "compacts" when they came out and replaced the Dart/Valiant. "<<

So the Arrow / Sapporo were sub-compacts.... what did that make the Colt??

Colt and Arrow were the same thing underneath, I think (Galant)..and the Sapporo/Challenger were based on the Galant Eterna.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Intrepidation]

Same with horsepower..in the 50s, 30hp was a lot. In 80s, 200-250 was a lot. Today, 400 is ho-hum, 300 is what a typical family car V6 makes. Metrics vary over time.

Fixed

[balthazar]

Colt and Arrow were the same thing underneath...

Early Colt was 61" x 163", Sapporo was 67"x183"- markedly different size classes. "Underneath"s don't factor here.

-- -- --

>>"In the '50s 30 hp was a lot"<<

Thirty ?? I assume you meant '300' , since you could have 30 HP in 1905. In the '50s, more than 1 car offered 400hp.

-- -- --

>>"Again, in 2011 reality, 205"x73"x5000lbs is a large car. It doesn't matter if it is not large by your 1959 perspective. This is 2011. The auto industry has evolved, metrics from 50 years ago don't apply..."<<

Like I said, relatively speaking, it's billed as "large", but it's not large by absolute standards. Town Car is currently available in 2011, it dwarfs an s-class. Is it "super-large"... "large 2.0"... or what? Do I dare mention the 2011 TC-L (221" overall)? No one is reasonably going to lump a 205" car and a 221" car in the same category... so what's the '2011 metric' here? IMO, the TC is the last of the full-size "large" cars left, and cars like the s-class, regardless of where mercedees or the EPA choses to plug them, are mid-sized, or at best; 'mid-sized plus'.

Edited July 18, 2011 by balthazar

[bobo]

My boss has a Lucerne, and I've ridden in the back several times, and I think it's appropriate as Buick's flagship car. With the Lucerne's passing, GM doesn't really have any true full-size cars anymore, as the Lacrosse is too narrow, and the Impala has outdated packaging. I suspect the XTS will also be narrow.

[SAmadei]

Again, in 2011 reality, 205"x73"x5000lbs is a large car. It doesn't matter if it is not large by your 1959 perspective. This is 2011. The auto industry has evolved, metrics from 50 years ago don't apply...

2011 reality is ridiculously distorted and you are guzzling the Flavor-Aid by the gallon. 1959 car dimensions reflect a time during which people bought the size car they wanted, due to having better car buying power, not hindered by federal requirements.

Has the average person gotten taller or shorter since 1959? Have the average person gotten fatter or thinner since 1959? Seems to me that cars should be physically bigger just to carry the taller, fatter people around.

In 2011, it seems to me that people buy a lot more easily broken, cheap Chinese crap than in 1959... you would think they would get a car for the job, instead of making multiple trips.

Of course, we all know why cars have shrunk. Women. More men are willing to shove into a smaller car to please the little lady then women are willing to drive a larger car to benefit the comfort of their man. Yeah, we know who really wears the pants in most families... and so do the GM designers.

Never thought I'd live to see the big car face extinction due to "poor sales"... I always figured that the government would outlaw big cars first... "for our safety". Guess the mind altering chemicals they put in our water work really well. ;-)

[Camino LS6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw7_UTk0d6Y

Even without sound, that's just awesome!

Chrysler may be foreign-owned - but they act like an American company.

Love the attitude.

Ford and GM need to take a lesson.

I reject with extreme prejudice the "suck,suck,sucky" future Balthy brought-up.

Screw those think-tank hacks - I will buy and drive what I like, and nothing else.

[Robert Hall]

Of course, we all know why cars have shrunk. Women. More men are willing to shove into a smaller car to please the little lady then women are willing to drive a larger car to benefit the comfort of their man. Yeah, we know who really wears the pants in most families... and so do the GM designers.

Though cars have shrunk, trucks and SUVs have grown considerably...maybe there is a correlation there? The Suburban is the Caprice Estate wagon of today...

[Robert Hall]

Colt and Arrow were the same thing underneath...

Early Colt was 61" x 163", Sapporo was 67"x183"- markedly different size classes. "Underneath"s don't factor here.

Note I said 'Colt and Arrow'. I didn't say Sapporo. The Challenger/Sapporo/Galant Eterna was a bigger car.

Thirty ?? I assume you meant '300' , since you could have 30 HP in 1905. In the '50s, more than 1 car offered 400hp.

300. Typo.

Like I said, relatively speaking, it's billed as "large", but it's not large by absolute standards. Town Car is currently available in 2011, it dwarfs an s-class. Is it "super-large"... "large 2.0"... or what? Do I dare mention the 2011 TC-L (221" overall)? No one is reasonably going to lump a 205" car and a 221" car in the same category... so what's the '2011 metric' here? IMO, the TC is the last of the full-size "large" cars left, and cars like the s-class, regardless of where Mercedes or the EPA choses to plug them, are mid-sized, or at best; 'mid-sized plus'.

The TC is gone, out of production this year. Though I wouldn't mind having a LWB TC. Again, your view of the S-class as 'mid sized' is pure delusion, the E-class is midsize.

[Robert Hall]

2011 reality is ridiculously distorted and you are guzzling the Flavor-Aid by the gallon. 1959 car dimensions reflect a time during which people bought the size car they wanted, due to having better car buying power, not hindered by federal requirements.

No, I'm just being realistic, living in the here and now. Times change, the car market has changed and evolved. Living in the past does me no good, have to live in the here and now, whether it is 'distorted' or not, it is reality...

Anyway, it's pointless to blather on more in this thread. All I know is for better or for worse, the US auto market is evolving...into what, I'm not sure yet.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[the_yellow_dart]

It's not my wife or regulations that make me want a smaller car. It's just practicality - I want something that's high mileage, easy to park, and easy to drive on cramped Toronto streets where you regularly squeeze through in the half lane between the guy turning left and the parked cars.

The Lumina I had was bought entirely because of the low insurance rate it would get me. After I rolled the Sunfire, I needed all the help I could get to lessen the raping that the insurance company was giving me.

Even the Cruze is bigger than I would normally look at. If I could have gotten something slightly smaller with better mileage, I would have.

[Drew Dowdell]

It's not my wife or regulations that make me want a smaller car. It's just practicality - I want something that's high mileage, easy to park, and easy to drive on cramped Toronto streets where you regularly squeeze through in the half lane between the guy turning left and the parked cars.

The Lumina I had was bought entirely because of the low insurance rate it would get me. After I rolled the Sunfire, I needed all the help I could get to lessen the raping that the insurance company was giving me.

Even the Cruze is bigger than I would normally look at. If I could have gotten something slightly smaller with better mileage, I would have.

You got married?

[SAmadei]

Though cars have shrunk, trucks and SUVs have grown considerably...maybe there is a correlation there? The Suburban is the Caprice Estate wagon of today...

There certainly is.

SUVs only rose to power because CAFE made large cars in the '80s nearly undriveable, powerwise. It makes a lot of sense to force people into driving something even bigger, less efficient and less aerodynamic. Now that CAFE will start affecting SUVs, there is nothing to move back down into. CAFE killed a relatively efficient mode of transportation and there seems to way to revive it. Now, I don't expect CAFE to kill off SUVs... but I do expect real gas prices will.

Without the massive SUV sales to float profits, large trucks will stagnate and become more expensive... hurting the working people who actually need a large work truck.

No, I'm just being realistic, living in the here and now. Times change, the car market has changed and evolved. Living in the past does me no good, have to live in the here and now, whether it is 'distorted' or not, it is reality...

You use the term evolve as its been a good thing, but in actuality Frankensteining is more like it.

Yeah, well, just buy whatever pablum the government and the market committees continues to pinch onto car lots. For some of us, its long been time to rebel.

Anyway, it's pointless to blather on more in this thread. All I know is for better or for worse, the US auto market is evolving...into what, I'm not sure yet.

The US auto market is evolving to uselessness. 4 door cars that can't actually fit 4 average humans, without giving two a bloodclot. Trunks that can't fit a families' week of groceries. But they still weigh too much, paradoxically. With the economy continuing to tank and the unsustainable budget our government has placed on our backs, we are headed to 3rd world or Cuba status...

It's not my wife or regulations that make me want a smaller car. It's just practicality - I want something that's high mileage, easy to park, and easy to drive on cramped Toronto streets where you regularly squeeze through in the half lane between the guy turning left and the parked cars.

Needing something smaller to park in cramped streets is, IMHO, a valid reason to buy a small car, assuming you fit and you can use it to haul what you need. Buying a Smart and living in rural south Jersey? Not a good idea... but I see more Smarts in South Jersey than I a see in NYC.

But you still need to thanks millions of women for your Cruze. Without the persistence of more women buyers starting in the '70s and desiring small cars... first Vegas and Cavaliers and later Hondas and Toyotas, GM would never have finally taken the small car market seriously and gave us the Cruze. Unfortunately, those millions of women wanted those cars and expected their ill-fitting husbands and brothers to just drive in something else or walk.

[the_yellow_dart]

You got married?

Yeah, last September. I thought I posted here about it, but maybe not...

[Drew Dowdell]

What is strange is model size growth over the last 30 years.

A Fiesa is about the size of an 87 Escort.

A Focus today is larger than a Contour or Tempo

A Fusion is the same size as a first generation Taurus.

A Taurus is larger inside than a Crown Victoria

The Accord today is larger than an '87 Lincoln Continental inside.

Today's Civic is larger than the Accord was in the 80s.

A CTS weighs more and has more interior room than my '81 Toronado.

[the_yellow_dart]

What is strange is model size growth over the last 30 years.

A Fiesa is about the size of an 87 Escort.

A Focus today is larger than a Contour or Tempo

A Fusion is the same size as a first generation Taurus.

A Taurus is larger inside than a Crown Victoria

The Accord today is larger than an '87 Lincoln Continental inside.

Today's Civic is larger than the Accord was in the 80s.

A CTS weighs more and has more interior room than my '81 Toronado.

The Maxima went from Compact to Full-size in 2 decades. link

[Cory Wolfe]

Needing something smaller to park in cramped streets is, IMHO, a valid reason to buy a small car, assuming you fit and you can use it to haul what you need. Buying a Smart and living in rural south Jersey? Not a good idea... but I see more Smarts in South Jersey than I a see in NYC.

But you still need to thanks millions of women for your Cruze. Without the persistence of more women buyers starting in the '70s and desiring small cars... first Vegas and Cavaliers and later Hondas and Toyotas, GM would never have finally taken the small car market seriously and gave us the Cruze. Unfortunately, those millions of women wanted those cars and expected their ill-fitting husbands and brothers to just drive in something else or walk.

Nobody buys a Smart for a valid reason on these shores.

IMO, Assuming women are to blame for small cars is just laughable. You must be really, reeeaaaally obsessed with size.

[SAmadei]

Nobody buys a Smart for a valid reason on these shores.

Actually, I disagree. If I was back doing the daily thing in NYC, I'd have a Smart in a heartbeat. The Smart is very roomy inside because it is not trying to be everything to everyone (I.E., a 102 inch sedan for people without legs). Only downfall with the Smart is the tranny... which I would be getting rid of when I convert it to a Hayabusa. As for the lack of trunk space, I don't see it as being that much smaller than some of the mid-size trunks out there.

IMO, Assuming women are to blame for small cars is just laughable. You must be really, reeeaaaally obsessed with size.

You can read into it what you will... but GM _HAS_ pandered to the female crowd at the expense of larger guys... making seats higher, but they can't be adjusted downward, for example.

The changing of cars to suit females was a hot topic during the '80s and was very extensively written about... but you would have to read material that predates the commercialization of the Internet.

[Robert Hall]

You use the term evolve as its been a good thing, but in actuality Frankensteining is more like it.

Not really... I'm using evolve as in change...not necessarily for the better or worse, but different.

The US auto market is evolving to uselessness. 4 door cars that can't actually fit 4 average humans, without giving two a bloodclot. Trunks that can't fit a families' week of groceries. But they still weigh too much, paradoxically. With the economy continuing to tank and the unsustainable budget our government has placed on our backs, we are headed to 3rd world or Cuba status...

Agreed about the tiny trunks. The poor outward visibility is what really annoys me. Since I rarely ever have more than 2 adults and dogs in the car, back seat space is not a big issue to me.

But you still need to thanks millions of women for your Cruze. Without the persistence of more women buyers starting in the '70s and desiring small cars... first Vegas and Cavaliers and later Hondas and Toyotas, GM would never have finally taken the small car market seriously and gave us the Cruze. Unfortunately, those millions of women wanted those cars and expected their ill-fitting husbands and brothers to just drive in something else or walk.

As far as women go, my Mom (Lincoln Town Car, Navigator) and sister (Merc S-class, E-class) are anomalies in their taste in cars They like cars that are over 4000lbs...they've had smaller cars in the past, but not now..

[balthazar]

The TC is gone, out of production this year.

It's available right now, on dealer lots. That's your 2011 metric.

The TC is current in the realm of making comparisons (and will be for a number of years). s-class is no where near the size of the TC.

This scenario contradicts the marketing contention that an s-class / 7-series = large. Whatever.

[Croc]

You can read into it what you will... but GM _HAS_ pandered to the female crowd at the expense of larger guys... making seats higher, but they can't be adjusted downward, for example.

The changing of cars to suit females was a hot topic during the '80s and was very extensively written about... but you would have to read material that predates the commercialization of the Internet.

Oh please. Then why were large SUVs largely bought by soccer moms?? Yes, all automakers pandered to these very petite women who wanted small cars, which is why they all came out with Cayennes, Range Rovers, Expeditions, Suburbans, and Explorers that kept getting bigger and bigger.

Interior packaging has largely improved over the years without question, the main difference being the switch from bench seats to buckets + consoles up front, and this is largely due to 1) safety issues and 2) consumer preferences. Fact is nobody hardly ever used the 6th seat, and even then it was usually reserved for children...who quite frankly have NO BUSINESS being in that kind of position in a car, ESPECIALLY since air bags became ubiquitous. Even prior to that, those seats were lap-belts only, and lots of hard dash equipment was right in the path of tiny foreheads in the event of even a minor collision.

Frankly, the interior room of a Chevrolet Cruze compares extremely favorably to most midsized cars today, and certainly trumps anything in its equivalent class from yesteryear.

If a Lucerne or DTS is "too small" for you, then in all honesty the problem is your size, not the size of cars today.

[SAmadei]

Agreed about the tiny trunks. The poor outward visibility is what really annoys me. Since I rarely ever have more than 2 adults and dogs in the car, back seat space is not a big issue to me.

Things in life change. What happens when you may need to put some linebackers in the back seat on a regular basis, perhaps ones you work for?

One reason I like coupes... its not an open invitation for backseat riders. But I also like to know that I can get a big sedan, if I need one.

As far as women go, my Mom (Lincoln Town Car, Navigator) and sister (Merc S-class, E-class) are anomalies in their taste in cars They like cars that are over 4000lbs...they've had smaller cars in the past, but not now..

Actually, the women in my family are also fine with larger cars. In fact my mother has probably driven bigger trucks than most people here have... with a stick.

This is why I find the attitude over the years of women outside my family who will simply refuse to drive anything later than, say a Chevette. My father found a very sweet low mileage Citation, cheap, for a friend of the family 2 decades ago... and she refused to test drive it. Bought a Chevette for nearly double the price a few days later. Then another Chevette the next year. And A few more Chevettes until the supply was pretty much dried up. Then bought a '88 Nova.

[balthazar]

If a Lucerne or DTS is "too small" for you, then in all honesty the problem is your size, not the size of cars today.

There are numerous subjectives involved in judging a given car's suitability to a person; it's seldom back & white.

No one 'needs' a car that can exceed even 100 MPH, yet scores buy cars capable of half that again.

Preference.

[Croc]

If a Lucerne or DTS is "too small" for you, then in all honesty the problem is your size, not the size of cars today.

There are numerous subjectives involved in judging a given car's suitability to a person; it's seldom back & white.

No one 'needs' a car that can exceed even 100 MPH, yet scores buy cars capable of half that again.

Preference.

I was clearly talking about physical size.

[SAmadei]

Oh please. Then why were large SUVs largely bought by soccer moms?? Yes, all automakers pandered to these very petite women who wanted small cars, which is why they all came out with Cayennes, Range Rovers, Expeditions, Suburbans, and Explorers that kept getting bigger and bigger.

Did I ever say SUVs weren't part of the female influence? Women like that up high seating position. They don't seem to mind driving the QE2, as long as they can do it from the crow's nest. This somehow conveys "safety".

Interior packaging has largely improved over the years without question, the main difference being the switch from bench seats to buckets + consoles up front, and this is largely due to 1) safety issues and 2) consumer preferences. Fact is nobody hardly ever used the 6th seat, and even then it was usually reserved for children...who quite frankly have NO BUSINESS being in that kind of position in a car, ESPECIALLY since air bags became ubiquitous. Even prior to that, those seats were lap-belts only, and lots of hard dash equipment was right in the path of tiny foreheads in the event of even a minor collision.

I'm not getting your tie-in logic here. I don't care if anyone is seated in the middle of the front bench. Quite frankly, I like Bucket or Bench about the same... what I don't like is tiny buckets because we need a 14" wide console in a 66" wide car.

As far as Interior packaging getting better... then riddle me this: Why is the new Camaro, based in spirit on the first Gen Camaros, longer, wider and taller (in body height, not ride height) than the original, yet suffer from horrible ergonomics and have no visibility compared to the first gen Camaros? For all my monsterous size... I used to ride in the BACKSEAT of the 1st gen F-bods without trouble. (My back would probably prevent it today). Its not possible in the 5th gens. I barely can ride in the front seat.

Interior packaging seems to be set up to maximize the EPA measurements, not the usefulness of actual human beings.

Frankly, the interior room of a Chevrolet Cruze compares extremely favorably to most midsized cars today, and certainly trumps anything in its equivalent class from yesteryear.

I'll keep that in mind when forced to rent one, because its listed as the only full size left on the lot. But in the meantime, I've been driving the Sunfire on a regular basis since my normal driver's tranny died. I doubt the Cruze is easier for me to get in/out of than a Sunfire coupe.

If a Lucerne or DTS is "too small" for you, then in all honesty the problem is your size, not the size of cars today.

I didn't say the Lucerne /DTS is "too small"... only that they are a bit tight and and virtually extinct, according to GM. Once the Lucernce, DTS, CV, TC, GM are all gone, whats left? Going to just adjust your attitude that anyone who can't fit in the Impala/LaCrosse is no longer a valid consumer?

I can fold up into some small cars, but that does not make it comfortable. In the long run, a lot of you young guys are going to regret the passing of the big cars... when your knees, backs and flexibility fails. You'll be surprised what minor "design issues" can quickly remove even mid-sizers off your list because you can't bear to be in it for more than 20 minutes.

[balthazar]

Interior packaging seems to be set up to maximize the EPA measurements, not the usefulness of actual human beings.

Look no further than the supplementing of 'cubic feet' for actual interior measurements one can gauge vs. themselves and other cars for an EX of this. Oh- they still have most of the interior measurements, but the hip room statistic is defunct since everything has a console now and that number is going to look ridiculous if they publish it. But they need things to look as if they're progressing...

Edited July 19, 2011 by balthazar

[Satty]

Not an armrest in sight!

[balthazar]

More than enough room and comfy, to boot!

[Robert Hall]

More than enough room and comfy, to boot!

Ah, the Peel Trident..from the Isle of Man.

[Intrepidation]

And now for something completely different.

Yeah I guess Chrysler missed the Bleak Future memo.

[Robert Hall]

And now for something completely different.

<pics>

Yeah I guess Chrysler missed the Bleak Future memo.

Great pics...love all those.. RWD and V8, all over 4000lbs. Chrysler is a bright light in a world of FWD mediocrity.

[FAPTurbo]

If you're too big to get comfy in a midsize family car...

You should consider...

Walking!

MIGHT DO YOU SOME GOOD!!

[Camino LS6]

Yep, Mopar is fast destroying what little loyalty I still feel for GM.

[Drew Dowdell]

If a Lucerne or DTS is "too small" for you, then in all honesty the problem is your size, not the size of cars today.

DTS is just about right and I'm 5'10" 160lbs.

If a Lucerne or DTS is "too small" for you, then in all honesty the problem is your size, not the size of cars today.

There are numerous subjectives involved in judging a given car's suitability to a person; it's seldom back & white.

No one 'needs' a car that can exceed even 100 MPH, yet scores buy cars capable of half that again.

Preference.

I was clearly talking about physical size.

Are we talking about needs or comfort? I need a lot of car around me to feel comfortable.

[the_yellow_dart]

I think people are missing the point when they are accusing large car buyers of being fat. That is certainly one demographic that would like larger cars, yes. However, certain people (like Olds) just like more room. Can't fault them for that.

I wouldn't worry too much about 'the future' - just remember, capitalism usually finds a way to satisfy people. If there are enough people who still want large cars, someone will make money selling them and continue to do so.

[Drew Dowdell]

It's not just room, it's packaging and comfort. Larger cars ride better and are better for long distance driving (on average). No amount of quiet tuning will get a Verano to ride like a Lucerne. I have no illusions that I need a firm riding car for my driving needs... I'm not apexing corners here. I drive the speed limit or 5 over. I loved my CTS, but doing it over again, I would prefer a DTS (with modern interior) or XTS today.

[Blake Noble]

Yep, Mopar is fast destroying what little loyalty I still feel for GM.

They succeeded in doing that to me back in April.

[balthazar]

I too like room to move around in a car: change position, shift my legs around, turn & reach into the back seat, whatever. when you're encapsulated in an overstuffed car, all that is restricted.

[Potluck]

Size matters.

[Cory Wolfe]

I enjoy being small (5' 6" & 125 lbs)... It allows to get comfortable in the smallest cars. Since cars are most likely designed to atleast fit the average male (5' 10" & 170 lbs), I generally have more than enough room. There are a few cars that aren't packaged well or are generally built for other markets that are more of a "just right" fit for me, but that's not common. Example, my CRX is more comfortable with more space to move about than our Sunfire.

[Drew Dowdell]

I enjoy being small (5' 6" & 125 lbs)... It allows to get comfortable in the smallest cars. Since cars are most likely designed to atleast fit the average male (5' 10" & 170 lbs), I generally have more than enough room. There are a few cars that aren't packaged well or are generally built for other markets that are more of a "just right" fit for me, but that's not common. Example, my CRX is more comfortable with more space to move about than our Sunfire.

I can probably fit in 99% of the cars BV can fit in. I can drive them in a comfortable position for a reasonable amount of time like for a daily commute. However, they are not comfortable cars to me. I could fit comfortably in the Jetta and Cruze. Drove the Jetta to Toronto and the Cruze to Detroit. Yet despite fitting comfortably, they weren't comfortable to drive for those distances. I'd rather have a DTS, Lucerne, or MKS over those small cars any day.

Since I use a bus to get to work and the rest of my driving is long distance, having the larger car for comfort is important to me. There is more to it than just "fit".

[Robert Hall]

I'm 6'0", 240lbs (need to lose 60lbs, harder to do than it sounds). I've found I can fit in most any modern car..I've driven a lot of cars over the years...ironically, the car I've had the longest is the tightest for me on headroom--my '87 Mustang GT--since the seat doesn't have height adjustment, my head scrapes the roof. (though my '69 Mustang passed down from my Dad is ergonomically worse--the tractor-size steering wheel doesn't adjust so it touches my legs..)

The key I've found w/ any car new to me is to take a few min to adjust the seat, wheel, mirrors before driving off...

In the past, I've driven the '87 Mustang and my Grand Cherokee on several 1000-1500 mile road trips, both have been very comfortable on long drives. The Mustang seats (though lacking height adjustment) are very comfortable w/ adjustable side bolsters, lumbar, etc.

It's been over 3 years since I've taken a road trip, though..Phoenix is so isolated from anywhere I normally go, so I have to fly and rent a car...

I do like the idea of having a nice, quiet full size car for my daily driver, though..something that isolates from road noise and is smooth and quiet is a plus in the daily grind...esp. when I have gigs w/ longer commutes..

Edited July 19, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

If you're too big to get comfy in a midsize family car...

You should consider...

Walking!

MIGHT DO YOU SOME GOOD!!

O RLY?

I'm too big to fit comfortably in MOST cars and I'm not overweight at all...

As far as the original question, I'd love to have a car that doesn't kill my back. (Probably one of the reasons I have sciatic nerve trouble and arthritis in my neck at the ripe age of 29 is shoving myself into tiny pony cars all my life) But I much prefer the driving dynamics of a smaller car. My Focus was an absolute blast to drive... Actually, it was more fun than my current Mustang GT in a lot of ways.

Edited July 20, 2011 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[SAmadei]

If you're too big to get comfy in a midsize family car...

You should consider...

Walking!

MIGHT DO YOU SOME GOOD!!

Tell that to Big Show in person, big talker. Let us know when you get out of the coma.