Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Off-topic posts, quotes of the day and anything else you just would like to vent to the world. PG-13 or below PLEASE!
tankinbeans
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 4029
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:04 pm
Cars: 17 Mazda6 To, 18 Mazda3 i
Location: Shakopee, MN

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by tankinbeans »

Wouldn't the crossover equivalent to the Impala be the Traverse? I forget which vehicles fall within which brackets, but I thought the Equinox has less legroom than the Impala.

Cruze = Trax
Malibu = Equinox
Impala = Traverse
17 Mazda6 Touring
18 Mazda3 iSport
InlinePaul wrote:The driving force of new fangled features to sell more cars [is to] cater to the masses' abject laziness!
Image
Teamwork
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:49 pm
Cars: 2015 VW GTI

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by Teamwork »

Wow, didn't mean to kick the hornets nest here with all of this...
I think your average large sedan is doomed. I don't really see a point to it and it has no advantages. Minivans and crossovers are more practical for a family. They also get very comparable gas mileage and seat people just as well. Both are also easier to get in and out of. Footprint is the same and people like to sit higher. Price-wise you're also in the same ballpark with a similarly equipped crossover. It drives just as well as a large sedan in terms of road manners.

Leave large sedans for luxury automakers and be done with it.
Disagree mostly. I do agree though that large sedans probably do have an expiration date though and that the most R&D and pushes for technology are probably within SUV's. Do disagree that large sedans are inferior versus SUV's though but that's probably a minority opinion. I don't understand the fascination of being elevated higher off the ground and naturally less aerodynamic- do they serve an intended function? Yes, but it's one most people exaggerate needing or rarely will actually need. Comparable gas mileage? Yeah sure, if we're comparing V6's to I4's... and don't even get me started on CUV's and SUV's that are FWD only...
tankinbeans wrote:Wouldn't the crossover equivalent to the Impala be the Traverse? I forget which vehicles fall within which brackets, but I thought the Equinox has less legroom than the Impala.

Cruze = Trax
Malibu = Equinox
Impala = Traverse
I believe Trax and Sonic are the sharing platforms here and I'm not even sure how much the Impala and Traverse have in common, underlying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I'm pretty much in the minority opinion and fully understand that. I like small cars that have hatches (those are frowned upon in the US, right?) and don't really understand the infaturation with SUV's. My family personally got by just fine with 0 mini vans, 0 SUV's and only large Sedans and one (mistake) station wagon. Even if I dip out of manual transmission someday, I'd still be inclined with a car that can handle and doesn't feel soggy.
User avatar
theholycow
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 16021
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:36 pm
Cars: '80 Buick LeSabre 4.1 5MT
Location: Glocester, RI
Contact:

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by theholycow »

Teamwork wrote:I don't understand the fascination of being elevated higher off the ground and naturally less aerodynamic- do they serve an intended function? Yes, but it's one most people exaggerate needing or rarely will actually need.
Although it used to be solely an image thing for the average soccer mom or office dweller, there is a more valid functional argument these days in the form of an arms race. When most people drove sedans, you could expect to look through someone's windows or over their hood/trunk lid to see traffic on the far side of that car. Now if you're low to the ground in a car and surrounded by SUVs you are walled in with opaque sheet metal that blinds you to what is beyond. As a result, people who didn't care for the extra height before care now...and they get SUVs and become part of the problem.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT

Put your car in your sig!

Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD
Rope-Pusher
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 11607
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:44 pm
Cars: '08 Jeep Liberty
Location: Greater Detroit Area

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by Rope-Pusher »

theholycow wrote:
Teamwork wrote:I don't understand the fascination of being elevated higher off the ground and naturally less aerodynamic- do they serve an intended function? Yes, but it's one most people exaggerate needing or rarely will actually need.
Although it used to be solely an image thing for the average soccer mom or office dweller, there is a more valid functional argument these days in the form of an arms race. When most people drove sedans, you could expect to look through someone's windows or over their hood/trunk lid to see traffic on the far side of that car. Now if you're low to the ground in a car and surrounded by SUVs you are walled in with opaque sheet metal that blinds you to what is beyond. As a result, people who didn't care for the extra height before care now...and they get SUVs and become part of the problem.
Drive a go-Kart and look underneath the SUVs, CUVs, Pick-m-Ups, Semi Trucks, etc!
'08 Jeep Liberty 6-Speed MT - "Last of the Mohicans"
User avatar
AHTOXA
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 14693
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:31 pm
Cars: '19 4RUNNER TRD ORP
Location: Irving, TX

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by AHTOXA »

The desire to sit up higher for many is a "want" and not a "need". I also prefer the higher sitting position, although it's not the only and certainly not the main factor in choosing a vehicle.

I also don't have physical limitations or injuries hindering mobility, but getting out of standard height cars is more difficult for me vs. an SUV or a truck. I suspect many people feel the same way.
'19 Toyota 4Runner TRD ORP
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650
Teamwork
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:49 pm
Cars: 2015 VW GTI

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by Teamwork »

theholycow wrote: Although it used to be solely an image thing for the average soccer mom or office dweller, there is a more valid functional argument these days in the form of an arms race. When most people drove sedans, you could expect to look through someone's windows or over their hood/trunk lid to see traffic on the far side of that car. Now if you're low to the ground in a car and surrounded by SUVs you are walled in with opaque sheet metal that blinds you to what is beyond. As a result, people who didn't care for the extra height before care now...and they get SUVs and become part of the problem.
Eh, I get that partially but I've never felt the need. Matter a fact the last two cars I had (and one being a lease) I've actually lowered from stock ride height. Never felt an absolute instance where I needed to be at eye level with a class D vehicle. I guess the only annoyance I have/had with being lowered is when a class D or a lifted truck is shining HID's through my rear glass but that's tinted 20% and basically eliminated that problem mostly.

A hatch is infinitely useful though on any size or class of vehicle. When I almost went with the WRX I probably would of regretted opting off of that. Subaru says there's no market for a WRX/STI hatch which is ironic considering 80% of the cars they make.. have a hatchback design. I thought last gen wrx/sti hatchbody style with the altezza tails were some of the best aesthetic WRX/STI's of any generation as well.

Shifting subject a bit though- I'm a bit intrigued by the diesel that Chevy Cruze/Equinox is using. Seems to be on spec what the TDI used to be (if not even better) but a 9 speed automatic? I wonder what it's characteristics are like in the real world. It seems barely adequate in the Cruze in terms of power and numbers so I wonder if this is a +10 second vehicle in the Equinox..
IMBoring25
Moderator
Posts: 3418
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 5:01 pm
Location: OK, USA

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by IMBoring25 »

I've never seen the point either. To see over you'd need to be FEET taller than everybody else. I find I seldom get useful information through other vehicles' windows, between large headrests and the popularity of deep tint. In my experience, even trying often takes enough focus away from other things you should be watching to be a net negative.

The easiest ingress/egress, from what I've heard, is to need to neither climb into the vehicle nor fall into it. That's probably a little higher than most conventional sedans and significantly lower than most CUVs.
Teamwork
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:49 pm
Cars: 2015 VW GTI

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by Teamwork »

IMBoring25 wrote:I've never seen the point either. To see over you'd need to be FEET taller than everybody else. I find I seldom get useful information through other vehicles' windows, between large headrests and the popularity of deep tint. In my experience, even trying often takes enough focus away from other things you should be watching to be a net negative.

The easiest ingress/egress, from what I've heard, is to need to neither climb into the vehicle nor fall into it. That's probably a little higher than most conventional sedans and significantly lower than most CUVs.
Yep agreed, and I am not full on stance nation or anything of that nature. I have lowering springs on my GTI now which drops just a bit more then an inch from stock and I've been on coil overs on other vehicles. Tastefully modded IMO but to kids probably "not low enough" but I still would prefer low center gravity over any "sight advantage" of being up high. I think I referenced it in this thread in the past but on a business trip I was forced to rent a newish Ford Expedition and doing any sort of city maneuvers or turns in that thing was just sloppy and cumbersome. Literally I just hoped to keep 90 degree turns at a minimum or would slow down to probably 10 MPH or less without feeling like I was lifting wheels. I know the vehicles serve a purpose, they aren't meant to be sporty, but I just can't see how the majority prefers this.
User avatar
AHTOXA
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 14693
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:31 pm
Cars: '19 4RUNNER TRD ORP
Location: Irving, TX

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by AHTOXA »

IMBoring25 wrote:I've never seen the point either. To see over you'd need to be FEET taller than everybody else. I find I seldom get useful information through other vehicles' windows, between large headrests and the popularity of deep tint. In my experience, even trying often takes enough focus away from other things you should be watching to be a net negative.

The easiest ingress/egress, from what I've heard, is to need to neither climb into the vehicle nor fall into it. That's probably a little higher than most conventional sedans and significantly lower than most CUVs.
Not if you're me. New pickup trucks are certainly tall compared to those a decade ago and it's perfect. I slide right onto the seat.
'19 Toyota 4Runner TRD ORP
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650
watkins
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 15880
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:42 am
Cars: '08 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by watkins »

AHTOXA wrote:
IMBoring25 wrote:The easiest ingress/egress, from what I've heard, is to need to neither climb into the vehicle nor fall into it. That's probably a little higher than most conventional sedans and significantly lower than most CUVs.
Not if you're me. New pickup trucks are certainly tall compared to those a decade ago and it's perfect. I slide right onto the seat.
Damn that nuclear fallout!
User avatar
theholycow
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 16021
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:36 pm
Cars: '80 Buick LeSabre 4.1 5MT
Location: Glocester, RI
Contact:

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by theholycow »

(Note: Keep in mind we're considering the relative merits of the popularity of taller vehicles vs. cars where functionality is equivalent but CAFE and pop culture image push people into the taller vehicles...I'm NOT ranting against tall vehicles as a whole, just the seemingly gratuitous ones -- and even then I would never suggest that people shouldn't drive what they like or that there should be any kind of law involved.)
Teamwork wrote:I guess the only annoyance I have/had with being lowered is when a class D or a lifted truck is shining HID's through my rear glass but that's tinted 20% and basically eliminated that problem mostly.
When I pull up to an intersection, I want to see the cross traffic, regardless of turning or straight, though it is even more acute for turns. If there is a vehicle of similar height to mine next to me I can look right over its hood and see. If there's something taller, all I see is a wall of metal...especially if it's driven by someone who likes to stop further ahead than they should (or in intersections which naturally position us like that).

There is one intersection in particular. A connecting road empties out onto a 45mph main road, which only has one lane each way. I turn right. There is an island for right-turners that prevents me from edging out (as does my long hood in other intersections) enough to sight down the lane if someone turning left stops forward of their stop line in a tall vehicle. Their left turn can involve quite a bit of waiting, while my right turn can be done quickly, due to asymmetric traffic levels, but I can't just jump out blind so sometimes I end up waiting and missing plenty of good opportunities. I try to remember to stop further back in hopes of looking behind the rear of a very forward stopper, but that doesn't always work. What does always work is similar vehicle height.

Additionally, this kind of sight is important for situational awareness. When there are lots of lanes I mentally and visually track every moving object; obstructed views produce surprises.
IMBoring25 wrote:To see over you'd need to be FEET taller than everybody else.
When I drive my average 2002 model 1500 pickup I see over car roofs all the time...but mostly seeing over the other car's hood is important, and for that you need only be at a similar height.

I agree about seeing through windows; it suffers from more than just height issues these days due to tint and such.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT

Put your car in your sig!

Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD
User avatar
theholycow
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 16021
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:36 pm
Cars: '80 Buick LeSabre 4.1 5MT
Location: Glocester, RI
Contact:

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by theholycow »

...and today while driving behind a minivan I saw brake lights through the minivan's mildly tinted glass, and that reminded me of a specific situation where looking through glass is important...when the driver in front of you isn't paying attention and slams on the brakes but you get to brake gently, even if you failed to keep an extra-long following distance, because you see the traffic in front braking.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT

Put your car in your sig!

Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD
Teamwork
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:49 pm
Cars: 2015 VW GTI

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by Teamwork »

Cow,

I agree with the being able to look through glass situation or "preferring" to have a car to follow that's easier to see/sense traffic flow in front of. I brought up early on from me starting to learn manual that I basically would dictate a lane change if the person in front of me was driving erratically or if braking patterns were inconsistent. It definitely is helpful though being able to "negotiate" for the person in front of the person you are following though.

Still though being able to see over the vehicles next to you- I don't really see (no pun) an overwhelming argument for it. I agree with I'mBoring unless you're comparing a commercial level vehicle ride height versus a consumer level (on either account) I'm not sensing this becoming a legitimate factor to purchasing consideration. Again, I've been driving in probably EPA classified subcompact class for over 10 years now and probably have encountered less then 5% driving scenarios where I felt like I could of benefited from a "higher ride height". With that being said though I know if I opted for an SUV or a vehicle with a higher ride height that's there would be no substitution from the feeling of a lower center gravity - 100% of the time (yes, I am biased to prefer this but still would there be a substitute?)... Maybe I'll be able to see a cross traffic pattern better when making a turn at an intersection? Maybe.. but I'd prefer the driving experience of the latter.
User avatar
theholycow
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 16021
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:36 pm
Cars: '80 Buick LeSabre 4.1 5MT
Location: Glocester, RI
Contact:

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by theholycow »

Teamwork wrote:no substitution from the feeling of a lower center gravity
Agreed, which is part of why I choose cars. I'm talking about one of the reasons that others choose differently, an advantage that I know from experience.

That one scenario I described where I turn right, though...seems like every damn day at that turn I wish I was in my pickup instead of my car.
1980 Buick LeSabre 4.1L 5MT

Put your car in your sig!

Learn to launch/FAQs/lugging/misused terms: meta-sig
watkins wrote:Humans have rear-biased AWD. Cows have 4WD
User avatar
potownrob
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 7833
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:35 pm
Cars: '17 CX-5 GT
Location: Dutchess County

Re: Misc Thread VI: Return of the Threadi

Post by potownrob »

tankinbeans wrote:Wouldn't the crossover equivalent to the Impala be the Traverse? I forget which vehicles fall within which brackets, but I thought the Equinox has less legroom than the Impala.

Cruze = Trax
Malibu = Equinox
Impala = Traverse
i think we're missing an implicit part of the point of tone-bone's argument here, that compact SUVs being taller inside allow for more passenger room without being longer than a sedan. i still think there's something missing compared to a larger midsize to large sedan though, let alone compared to larger SUVs. there are still other potential trade-offs in the sedan's favor though, such as MPGs, potentially drop-dead sexy looks and that real mafia approved trunk. the height proposition will vary from one person to the next. i personally am not going to sacrifice a lot of MPGs, sportiness etc. just to be able to see over or through the other SUVs and trucks. it may help that i don't typically drive in traffic where i'd deal with this problem like others have mentioned. i also am not usually an aggressive driver, and usually just wait for the cars in front of me to move unless i have an easy way to pass them (i.e. car turning left and i can pass on the shoulder). also, a lot of my driving is either on 2 lane roads or on larger roads while the traffic is light. also, not really a reason i traded the cr-v, but my mom had trouble getting up into (and out of) the cr-v. everyone else who rode in it probably found it easier to get into than a sedan or other lower car though.
ClutchFork wrote:...So I started carrying a stick of firewood with me and that became my parking brake.
Post Reply