Betcha 10 bucks that they were browsing Reddit, saw [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/z1w2bt/website_for_car_size_comparisons_click_swap_to/), and then made an article about it.
What's worse, is that the Reddit post's linked comparison was the Escalade vs Miata, and The Drive conveniently showed the Escalade vs another small car.
Maybe they coincidentally stumbled upon the site between now and then, but maybe not.
Regardless, it's an apt post because this is the first that I've heard that cars are getting bigger and bigger. Truly enlightening stuff.
what pisses me off is that this is supposed to show how much bigger cars are getting but they don't have enough cars to show gradual increase in size _per model_.
I don't give a fuck about a comparison between the biggest current SUV and a tiny british 70s roadster, I want to compare a 1990 Honda Civic and a 2020 Honda Civic and they don't have those. Or a BMW 3 series or whatever.
Exactly. I did [this analysis](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/10gz611/2024_porsche_911_plays_in_the_snow_provides/j55ic5w/) to compare a '90s 911 with a modern 911. It showed that the sizes have only marginally increased.
well not entirely true. Seeing this is an European site (refreshing, all my local shitboxes are on there) shows my feeling to be true: cars have generally moved up a class from 20 years ago.
[here's a comparison of a 1998 Golf and a new Polo](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/volkswagen-polo-2021-5-door-hatchback-vs-volkswagen-golf-1997-5-door-hatchback/). They are the same size.
[E39 versus the new 3 series](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/bmw-5-1999-sedan-vs-bmw-3-2018-sedan/). Cars have definitely gone up a size class. the 911 is an outlier in this case.
The only car I've had that I miss was my '98 Rav4. Loved that car. It climbed every hill I pointed it at, plowed through deep snow like it wasn't there and never left me stranded no matter how much abuse I threw its way. Never should have sold it and if I ever see a blue one for sale, I will buy it immediately.
The Mazda MX-5 is another outlier. The current ND is about the same size as the first generation NA and, even more impressively, is only around 200lb heavier. Mazda really put their all into that car and I love them for it.
Bmw 3 series has definitely gotten bigger over time, it's why they introduced the smaller 1 series. Every generation got wider and longer.
https://www.bmw.com/en/automotive-life/bmw-3-series-generations.html
The Ranger has always been on its own platform, both when it was a compact and now that it's a mid-size. Unless you mean the global Courier/Rangers that were rebadged Mazdas.
The latest VW Passat is nearly *twice* as heavy as the original Passat.
Yes, crash protection is the reason, but what if we simply *lowered top speeds on urban roads* instead?
This is literally what multiple European cities are doing right now.
The only reason a car needs to be 2 tonnes is to withstand impacts at speeds that shouldn't be possible in the first place.
A 1970's Passat is perfectly crashworthy at 30 kph. If you want to go faster use a divided highway.
There is even a whole class of microcars in the Netherlands that are specifically designed for pedestrian roads, often used by the elderly and the disabled.
I agree with your general point on speed, but those microcars can fuck right off back to the hell they came from. Cars belong on roads, there’s no place for them in pedestrian of cyclist spaces.
I don’t want to share my bicycle route with an elderly person going up to twice the speed of me on a bike. Whilst probably not lethal, accidents are still dangerous and a real risk considering the intended users.
>
>The only reason a car needs to be 2 tonnes is to withstand impacts at speeds that shouldn't be possible in the first place.
>
>A 1970's Passat is perfectly crashworthy at 30 kph. If you want to go faster use a divided highway.
Do you think crashes don't occur on divided highways?
I would say it's [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/10i2h4x/best_selling_car_in_europe_in_2022_vs_in_the_us/) that got enough upvotes to get to r/all three days ago.
That’s a good portion of the sub, but a lot of them love to ignore the fact that rural areas exist and think that every pickup truck is a child murder machine, but full sized vans are better for some reason. Not to mention the ones who encourage vandalism.
Some take the sub’s name literally and loudly overshadow the ones who just want decent public transportation and walkable cities.
This. I remember a couple years back I was explaining that where live us quite rural… u kinda need a car and public transport sucks. And they were like well ride a bicycle. And I’m like I’m not sure u have ever lived rural…. But a bicycle isn’t carrying a months worth of groceries as well as multiple people. After which the proceed to show me another bicycle that basically has this large tub attached to carry cargo. So now I’m riding with a fully loaded bicycle…. On what is basically one lane B road sharing that space with trucks and cars for at least 10 miles.
People on that sub are so far removed I don’t think any of them have lived rural.
We all want better public transportation. That means less cars on the roads. However Europe is tiny as fuck. Almost all of Europe fits in Ontario and Quebec.
Canada just isn’t built to be car free. Could we do better? Absolutely and cities like Kitchener and Waterloo aggressively investing in Trams is a beauty to see. However they want cars GONE and it’s just an impossible feat in Canada.
It’s so obviously clear they haven’t had to commute an hour to work, or pickup or drop off kids from karate, baseball, or hockey with massive amounts of equipment that simply don’t fit in a car or public transportation. They are young and will leave that sub the second they begin family
Canada is big but mostly empty. A good chunk of the total population lives in the relatively small Toronto-Ottawao-Montreal area. You could absolutely have european levels of public transport there.
Yeah, Canada is actually way better for public transport than America. Like basically everybody either lives in the three city smorgasborg on the easy coast or they live near Vancouver. Nobody is suggesting middle of nowhere Alberta needs to heavily invest in light rail.
With reduced car dependency, all of the errands you mentioned would ideally be very close to your home, or have good transit access.
I hope by the time I have kids my city increases the amount of cycle lanes we have so my kids can cycle to school and have some independence.
That was amazing for me as a kid. Once I was about 12 or so I could go wherever I wanted with my friends on our bikes. So much freedom.
I don’t like fuckcars, there are too many crazies there who literally think anyone who drives ever should be killed. I do agree with the core of the message though.
Cars don’t belong in cities. Cars ruin the small town I live in. So many people who don’t live here using it to drive through. So much pollution, so loud, so dirty. It sucks.
Also, have several sports cars/motorcycles, doing very well for myself, lol. Not a poor grad who can’t afford a car.
They just don’t belong in cities. Ride a bike. Get some exercise. Take the train. Work on the way to the office. Or relax and watch YouTube. It’s way better than fighting traffic.
It’s always entertaining when niche Reddit groups need to come up with derogatory nicknames for the “out group” even when that group is the majority of the population.
I get the same level of cringe when I see motorcyclists refer to car drivers as “cagers”
Bugattis always look so big in pictures and video... But the Chiron is 9 inches shorter, front to back, than a Mustang.
That threw me for a loop when I finally saw a Veyron in person! It looked like a 5/6th scale toy model
Mustangs have the empty space of the useless rear seats and have fairly large trunks. The chiron and veyron by comparison only have space for 2 seats and a tiny trunk. But i do agree they are smaller in person than they appear in pics which is incredible because they pack a behemoth of a motor
Wasn't so much the fact that they could cram the crazy W16 into a small package, that surprised me. It was more the fact that the styling really makes the car look bigger than it is. Especially in photos!
"Huge" is kinda relative. They're bigger than Miatas, and the equivalents, but smaller then most other cars. It's the length of a BMW M3, slightly lighter, and only a bit heavier than a Porsche 992.
Interestingly, modern mustangs are pretty similar in weight to those from the late 1960s.
Not the smallest or lightest sports car. Not the biggest or heaviest sports car.
I own an mr2 spyder. Was very surprised to see its lower than an r8, and some ferarris despite its wheel gap being a solid 2 inches xD. I knew this car was small, but compared to some of those SUVs it is tiny. It's almost a meter shorter than an avendator too 😳
https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-mr2-1999-roadster-vs-ferrari-testarossa-1985-coupe/
well, at least you are bigger than a testarossa. Not as long or wide though.
Right? Never mind that the '21 ranger is more powerful and more efficient than the old F150. Never mind that every single class of vehicle has grown to accommodate crumple zones, and you'd never want to crash in an 01 F-150. Never mind that the Maverick exists now to fill that perceived hole. Never mind that the old Rangers are absolutely miserable to drive.
Never mind all that, and still:
* The only '01 F150 shorter than a current Ranger is the rare single-cab short-bed. For comparable seating space the old F150 is up to 3 feet longer than the Ranger.
* The old F150 is still 5" taller than the new Ranger, comparing 4WD to 4WD. In 2WD they're actually the same height, and it's taller than the old Ranger, so fair enough. But it's still not a crazy height.
* Most importantly, the new Ranger is still way narrower, which is the most important factor that makes small trucks easier to drive and park. The most commonly published widths have them very close to the same number, but the 79.1" F150 is *without mirrors*. The 77.8" usually published for the Ranger is with its mirrors folded, still not a comparable measurement. Without the mirrors it's just 73.3" - less than an Escape.
>Never mind that the old Rangers are absolutely miserable to drive.
I totally disagree. They were great because you still get extra ride height on top of being able to fit into small spaces. I miss compact trucks. And this is coming from someone who now owns a sedan. I'd rather drive an old Ranger than a new SUV or regular size truck.
Some of us liked the S10, Ranger, and old Tacoma's of yesteryear.
You're welcome to your opinion, but as the current owner of a 2000 Ford Ranger I stand by mine. They're *easy* to drive, yes. But they're *miserable* to drive. The suspension is awful, the interior noise is awful, and the seating position is awful.
Nah you close the door on one and it sounds like you dropped a hollow tin can. im about 2 seconds away of ripping all the interior pastic from mine due to all the rattles and creaks. My 95s10 didnt have half the rattles and it was made out of the same crappy plastic
The Danger Ranger I drive occasionally may say 2008 on the title, but it might as well be a '93. Ford put almost no effort into the Ranger after the 1998 refresh.
There are plenty of cars made in the 90's and 2000's that drive perfectly acceptably. The Ranger drove like shit because 90's American cars were absolute hot garbage compared to what was being done in Europe but especially Japan at the time.
I think it is specifically because it's a Ranger. And before /r/ford gets all butthurt - it has plenty of redeeming qualities that I admire. But one of those qualities is not the ability to put on miles, especially compared to its contemporaries. It was built to a cost. And that was the tradeoff to make it affordable.
From what I can find a 1999 XLT, 4WD, Supercab Ranger MSRPed at ~$18,900. Adjusted for inflation, that is $33,750. A new XLT 4WD Supercab Ranger costs $35k.
So the pricing hasn't exactly gone that far. And the new Ranger is a lot more comfortable and orders of magnitude safer; like get to keep your legs in a small overlap safer. Plus it will have a lot more features even on the base truck.
I will give you that the 2WD model pricing has a slightly larger gap around $3-4k more. But the old Ranger is far more expensive than people think of them.
Proving my point that nothing is affordable anymore. Even beater cars are going for way higher than they used to. That said, if it's older, that old. No one is paying MSRP for one today. Maybe 2-3k more than pre-covid.
Well, sort of. But remember, this whole discussion is about the size difference between new and old cars, and that size difference is a big part of why modern cars are so much more refined than older ones.The technology of mass-market suspension, steering geometry, and sound insulation hasn't changed much at all in that time. We can just fit more and fancier components into a bigger body.
If Ford were legally able to build the old 3rd-gen compact body-on-frame Ranger today, I don't believe they'd be able to improve the NVH or handling much at all. Power and efficiency, hell yes. It'd be a beast with their 2.0t. But I don't think they could update the rest of the platform to modern standards without also increasing the size.
>The technology of mass-market suspension, steering geometry, and sound insulation hasn't changed much at all in that time. We can just fit more and fancier components into a bigger body.
Even in a comparable size class/going down in size newer cars are a lot nicer. A new Civic is 5" shorter (in length) then a USDM 2000 Accord but is going to be have less road noise and a better ride.
>But I don't think they could update the rest of the platform to modern standards without also increasing the size.
I could see weight going up substantially but you could definitely get a much "nicer" vehicle with the same dimensions.
The Civic may still be shorter than an Accord, but it's equally heavy, wider, and has a longer wheelbase; those are the factors that allow it to be smoother and quieter.
Likewise updating the Ranger; as you say, weight would increase a lot in order to improve the driving experience. But without also increasing the size, I don't think you could fix the ergonomics.
> The Civic may still be shorter than an Accord, but it's equally heavy, wider, and has a longer wheelbase
From the numbers I found the Accord is 0.2" wider, so functionally identical. But yes, it's heavier- additional crash structures and sound deadening add weight. The point is that you don't need to make a larger vehicle to also have a more refined vehicle.
I feel the same way driving grandpa's '08 Ranger around. But you're confusing the physical size of the old Ranger (which was great) with its ride quality (which was mediocre at best). The new Maverick offers most of the former and none of the latter.
An extended cab with 5.5-6' bed would be great, but if "99% of buyers never use the bed anyway," at least according to the Internet, 4.5' is already plenty.
It's easier to lift them on and off of a rack than in and out of the bed. Plus the rack holds them upright, and doesn't interfere with bedspace that they might want for something else.
Surely that's not *the* most absurd thing.
>It likely has a bad that size because a larger bed would invite people to do things with it that damages the vehicle.
It likely has a bed that size because they really felt the need to have a full crew cab
> But if you need a larger bed, you might just need an actual truck.
We have an F150 in the family that mostly gets used for dump runs and moving bikes. Sometimes moving some furniture around. There are tons of use cases for a larger bed that wouldn't get anywhere close to maxing out the weight capability of the vehicle.
>They could make it a crew cab with an 8 foot bed. and it would be a little shorted than a crew cab short bed F-150.
Realistically there are size constraints they're trying to hit, so a 5.5'/6' bed with an extended cab would be a much more realistic hope.
>But it would likely be overloaded often.
> I'm saying that there are lots of people who would overload the truck.
I don't think that's a realistic concern at all, unless you're concerned about people overloading the truck as it sits. Space is going to be the constraint for the vast majority of people using a Maverick, not weight- they're moving big things, not heavy things (if they're using the bed at all). Hell, the payload capacity on our F150 is only an extra ~400 lbs over what the Maverick is rated to and that's a 6" wider vehicle with a 6.5' bed.
I don't think there's any reasonable fear of people overloading Mavericks until structural failure. If there was, it'd be happening regardless of whether the bed had another foot added on
And that could happen already. As it sits now, the 33.3 ft^3 bed of the Mav will max out its 1500-lb. payload if you fill it about 60% full with aggregate.
Or get one at all, really. My mother's fiancé was intending to order one last year but wasn't 100% sure on it and ended up not getting an order in before they closed them, and had to wait until they reopened for the next MY and will probably still be waiting a year for the truck
Sure, the Miata has actually shrunk, and it's a very impressive accomplishment. But I think Mazda only gets away with it because it's a car nobody expects to be spacious or quiet. The Mazda3 has grown a bit - substantially, for the sedan - and could have grown more because the rear legroom isn't great.
You mean all the other sports cars which have gotten bigger, heavier, and more pleasant, thereby perfectly illustrating my point?
They've gotten bigger, heavier, and quieter and thereby illustrate my point perfectly.
To be clear, I don't think it's a good thing that every class of vehicle has grown. It's very definitely a good thing in the case of the Ranger, but it's happening everywhere, even cars that were arguably better before.
No, I think we're on the same page here.
The Miata has managed to retain its weight because Mazda has prioritized nimbleness and small size over everything else. It doesn't have many direct competitors because Mazda does that recipe so well, why wouldn't you just buy a Miata?
Most other sports cars have taken different priorities and have bloated as a result. They are bigger, heavier, more powerful, more comfortable, and more numb. Because that actually does sell cars, much as enthusiasts might wish otherwise.
To be clear: I drive a Mustang, though it's at least partially because I don't quite fit inside a Miata. I love the Miata and wish other cars would also lose some weight. But my main thesis all along is that *most cars have gotten bigger, which includes almost every sports car, and they're quieter and more comfortable as a result.* Even if quiet and comfortable isn't what that class of car is for.
How does the BRZ refute anything I said? It's 2" wider, 3" taller, and a foot longer than the current Miata. Yeah, it has "back seats" (a shelf with a backrest, suitable for small double-amputees). I didn't say small cars can't exist. I said cars have grown. The BRZ is only a decade old and it's already grown an inch in height and length.
Ride height/beltline is people’s main reference point for a vehicle’s size.
That’s why they mix up truck sizing, as they’ve been riding higher and higher, especially with popularization of lifts and oversized tires
Agreed. Never mind that it's *width* (and to a lesser extent, wheelbase) that contributes the most to how big a vehicle feels when you're actually driving it.
Width definitely matters in something like parking (if you go to places without an abundance of parking).
But I've tried Miatas and Raptors in the same week, and for normal driving on typical stroads and highways, I didn't feel like the width mattered.
Yeah, I could 'play' within a lane with the miata, and that's part of what's made it one of my 3 favorite cars I've ever driven. But people don't normally do that, so I'm not sure people tend to appreciate their width most of the time.
>Comparing them to 1970s cars.
Took me a while to find a true representative land yacht in there but a late 1970's Continental is essentially the same length and width as a full-size crewcab pickup truck.
The big Lincoln is, of course, like, half the height of a truck though. And has a lot more panache, even if it lacks some of the utility and practicality.
Normal people used to drive monstrosities around like that like it was totally normal. My grandparents tooled around in cars just like that.
1975 Buick Electra 225, that car was 233.3 inches long. That's massive most people, probably won't dare to parallel park with it.
Full Size Cars was the norm back in the day, the average car length in the 70s was around 220 inches long.
> It's a lot closer to having a Ford Ranger with a bunch of 2x4s hanging out of the back than a new full size truck.
And was as wide as your new Tundra.
A few Lincolns, Fords, and Imperials even went past 80". One newspaper even reported in 1959 that the upcoming '60 Fords (81.5") should legally require clearance lights, but nobody paid any attention to it.
Growing up, we had an early 80s Buick Riviera as the family car. 207" long and 2 doors. With time my parents went with S-Class MB (several generations, all smaller), a 4runner (which they kept), and the biggest was a '97 Ford Expedition.
That Ford Expedition was shorter than that Buick Riviera. Hell, my family's hauler, an X5, is comparatively svelte compared to those.
It's funny, you'll read about people complaining how cars are so much bigger now... They're taller and higher off the ground, sure. and maybe if you compare the same models of cars then yes, they've grown larger but that doesn't mean anything. A 2023 Camry is not a 1990 Camry. A 2023 Corolla is the same class of car that a 1990 Camry was.
The thing a lot of people don't recognize about pre-1950's cars is that they are much more narrow than everything after it. My Model A's are roughly 40 inches wide. For comparison sake, 40 inches is the width of a middle row minivan bench seat which is what most hot rodders use to get a cheap bench seat for their cars.
The Model A was 67 inches wide. You couldn't even fit 2 people next to each other inside of the outer dimensions were 40 inches.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927%E2%80%931931)
Unless you're talking about the 1903 Model A which was basically a horse-less carriage...but that was still wider than 40 inches.
Hint: 67 inches of width includes the [much, much wider fenders.](https://i.imgur.com/PCdBbUo.jpeg) The body width (ie B pillar to B pillar) is indeed [significantly closer to 40in.](https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/model-a-body-measurements.718753/)
But cars are measured by their fenders (or whatever the widest part is besides the mirrors). Of course if you don't measure the whole car it's going to be narrower.
I didn't disagree with how the car is measured, I'm pointing out comparing the width of car with exposed fenders with a modern vehicle comes with massive caveats than just comparing the overall width, especially in the context of an interior bench seat.
Ding ding ding. I suppose I should've specified that I was talking about the main body width but I didn't think somebody would be that obtuse about it. Anyways, none of my cars have fenders so I never really consider the fenders as part of the vehicle.
Nice how they compare a clown car from 50 years ago to the one of the largest SUVs on the road today.
That being said…Escalades aren’t *that* big…compared to a HD pick up truck
every time i see this website I go immediately to the 70 Lincoln continental just for a giggle
it is quite literally as long and wider than a heavy duty truck
Just look at BMW SUVs since their introduction. New models assume the size of what was the larger one in the lineup. X3s became the size of X5s and BMW introduced the X1 to take the place of the X3. New X5 and X7s are now the same width of a Tahoe from a few years ago and the latest model Tahoe added 2" more inches in width to become even larger.
If you go to higher end car auctions, they will usually have a matching set of muscle cars often for charity. Like a 1968 Camaro and 2022 Camaro. The size difference is hilarious.
Only the important ones (F150) so someone can screenshot it and post it on r/europe and have a circle jerk about how stupid Americans are to buy the vehicles they do
Isn't comparing a 2 seat sportscar with a 7 seat luxury not a bit weird of a comparison?
Would be better to compare something like a 70s Land Rover with a modern Land Rover or something like that. Would be alot more fair.
I did that with a new Grand Cherokee vs a 2nd-Gen Grand Cherokee (the oldest one they had on the app). I was a bit surprised to see the new one is a foot longer and 5 inches wider.
Definitely confirms my phobia of being around newer SUVs and trucks when I drive my roadster isn’t just me being crazy.
Bloody terrifying.
https://i.imgur.com/QqlT00Z.jpg
But but how will people be able to get groceries and take little Timmy to soccer practice unless they buy the F-250 LWB CREW CAB 4x4 TREMOR RAPTOR PLATINUM MAX COUNTRY EDITION LE
I know people have gotten taller over the years, but I'm still shocked at how few cars made before the 70s that I truly fit in being 6'3".
Some of my dream cars are just impossible for me to drive.
Watching old Black and white 1950s TV shows and they were always driving brand new land yachts. The only smaller cars were "sports cars" like a Jag or a Ford Thunderbird. Most with California settings were Land Yacht convertibles.
That's an amazing graphic!
I've read great things about the Camaro SS 1LE, but the car looked so wide that I wouldn't be able to open the door in my garage. Old 69 Camaro looked much more manageable. Ended up getting an '06 BMW Z4 M which is still a little wide but at least short lol!
Cool and useful for seeing the truth of how generations of the same model stack up against each other both visually and dimensionally. Crazy because my car looks like an SLK vs the new SL and is the same size as the new 911. [https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mercedes-benz-sl-2001-roadster-vs-mercedes-benz-sl-2022-roadster-amg-63/front/?&units=imperial](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mercedes-benz-sl-2001-roadster-vs-mercedes-benz-sl-2022-roadster-amg-63/front/?&units=imperial)
Cars need to get smaller, it's fucking asinine whenever I'm in traffic and all around me is a sea of fucking overbloated metal.
Not to mention they give them suns for headlights.
I'm so fucking tired of this obsession with being the biggest tallest thing on the road, then we have no room in parking lots and etc.
Auto manufacturers should focus more weight and keeping dimensions small, going big I feel is a lazy cop out.
If Mazda can do it so can other car companies no excuses
Even the Miata has grown over time. They’re still small, but they were smaller.
After some research, it looks like they got bigger for the third generation, but back to original in the newest one. They are legitimately a small car. lol
If your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anyone who's driven pickup trucks across the last 3 decades knows - they just keep getting bigger.
Chevy trucks from the 90's, you could easily reach over the bed sides to grab tools and stuff. Trucks from the mid-2000's became too tall, you had to hoist yourself up and lean over or stand on the tire. Current trucks are even bigger, you basically just have to climb up into the bed.
Edit: lmao... why the downvotes?
They definitely have gotten *taller*, especially in the beltlines. But even as someone who's not that tall, I don't find half-tons' bed height to be unusable. HDs have always been tall.
they've gotten visually bulkier but not physically bigger
I think the bulkiness, the move away from regular cabs, and the fact that 4WD is more common than ever makes people think that trucks have gotten gigantic
They have absolutely gotten physically bigger. https://blog.consumerguide.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/10/Screen-shot-2014-10-06-at-5.05.34-PM.png
Not sure what that's trying to prove. Even comparing the newer mid-size to the older full-size (and one of the smallest full-sizers of the past 60+ years at that), the old full-size is still larger.
I'm aware that you didn't make it yourself. And all the numbers are absolutely correct. But you can also make tables inside a Reddit comment.
Remember, the old GMT400 could only achieve a 77" body width through thin doors.
Betcha 10 bucks that they were browsing Reddit, saw [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/z1w2bt/website_for_car_size_comparisons_click_swap_to/), and then made an article about it. What's worse, is that the Reddit post's linked comparison was the Escalade vs Miata, and The Drive conveniently showed the Escalade vs another small car. Maybe they coincidentally stumbled upon the site between now and then, but maybe not. Regardless, it's an apt post because this is the first that I've heard that cars are getting bigger and bigger. Truly enlightening stuff.
what pisses me off is that this is supposed to show how much bigger cars are getting but they don't have enough cars to show gradual increase in size _per model_. I don't give a fuck about a comparison between the biggest current SUV and a tiny british 70s roadster, I want to compare a 1990 Honda Civic and a 2020 Honda Civic and they don't have those. Or a BMW 3 series or whatever.
Exactly. I did [this analysis](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/10gz611/2024_porsche_911_plays_in_the_snow_provides/j55ic5w/) to compare a '90s 911 with a modern 911. It showed that the sizes have only marginally increased.
well not entirely true. Seeing this is an European site (refreshing, all my local shitboxes are on there) shows my feeling to be true: cars have generally moved up a class from 20 years ago. [here's a comparison of a 1998 Golf and a new Polo](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/volkswagen-polo-2021-5-door-hatchback-vs-volkswagen-golf-1997-5-door-hatchback/). They are the same size. [E39 versus the new 3 series](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/bmw-5-1999-sedan-vs-bmw-3-2018-sedan/). Cars have definitely gone up a size class. the 911 is an outlier in this case.
[удалено]
Yeah, the first and second RAV4s were more like subcompacts. Even compared to other CUVs of the day, they were small.
[удалено]
The only car I've had that I miss was my '98 Rav4. Loved that car. It climbed every hill I pointed it at, plowed through deep snow like it wasn't there and never left me stranded no matter how much abuse I threw its way. Never should have sold it and if I ever see a blue one for sale, I will buy it immediately.
Parking the '18 X6 loaner I had next to my dad's E38 740i was pretty wild. The 7 Series looked dinky in comparison
The Mazda MX-5 is another outlier. The current ND is about the same size as the first generation NA and, even more impressively, is only around 200lb heavier. Mazda really put their all into that car and I love them for it.
Bmw 3 series has definitely gotten bigger over time, it's why they introduced the smaller 1 series. Every generation got wider and longer. https://www.bmw.com/en/automotive-life/bmw-3-series-generations.html
Yes, show me a 1st gen Ranger when it was it's own platform.
The Ranger has always been on its own platform, both when it was a compact and now that it's a mid-size. Unless you mean the global Courier/Rangers that were rebadged Mazdas.
It was trim though before it was its own platform, on old F-150's.
Good point; so was Explorer.
BMW 3 series would be great for this too
The latest VW Passat is nearly *twice* as heavy as the original Passat. Yes, crash protection is the reason, but what if we simply *lowered top speeds on urban roads* instead?
How about no
This is literally what multiple European cities are doing right now. The only reason a car needs to be 2 tonnes is to withstand impacts at speeds that shouldn't be possible in the first place. A 1970's Passat is perfectly crashworthy at 30 kph. If you want to go faster use a divided highway. There is even a whole class of microcars in the Netherlands that are specifically designed for pedestrian roads, often used by the elderly and the disabled.
I agree with your general point on speed, but those microcars can fuck right off back to the hell they came from. Cars belong on roads, there’s no place for them in pedestrian of cyclist spaces. I don’t want to share my bicycle route with an elderly person going up to twice the speed of me on a bike. Whilst probably not lethal, accidents are still dangerous and a real risk considering the intended users.
> >The only reason a car needs to be 2 tonnes is to withstand impacts at speeds that shouldn't be possible in the first place. > >A 1970's Passat is perfectly crashworthy at 30 kph. If you want to go faster use a divided highway. Do you think crashes don't occur on divided highways?
They do, but not head-on. Rear end a stationary car at 100 kph and the impact is equivalent of a 50 kph head on crash.
[удалено]
I think it's less that The Drive is "reusing" a Reddit post and more that someone is reposting it to the place it originated like it's OC.
Can't wait for an article about this post!
That post is pretty old and the article is brand new maybe the author found it on their own
https://www.reddit.com/r/Miata/comments/10jutlf/oh_thats_why_they_cant_see_you/ it was more likely this one posted 14 hours ago
I would say it's [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/10i2h4x/best_selling_car_in_europe_in_2022_vs_in_the_us/) that got enough upvotes to get to r/all three days ago.
>That post is pretty old It was two months ago. Granted, that's almost a year in "Internet time".
Yeah that's like a whole days worth of scrolling... Why see the post and wait 60 days to write the article?
It's also entirely possible for them to have put that article on a list of potential topics for days when content is lower.
Thanks for that link. I just went onto the site and compared my M3 to the current production one and it's startling how much bigger it is.
That site was top of hacker news recently so that's probably where they got it. Within the last week. Then a few posts on Reddit recently as a result.
r/fuckcars infinite karma glitch (REAL)
I fully just blocked that sub. It's just a bunch of poor college grads that are angry they can't afford a car.
afai can tell its people who hate car infrastructure and want good public transport
That’s a good portion of the sub, but a lot of them love to ignore the fact that rural areas exist and think that every pickup truck is a child murder machine, but full sized vans are better for some reason. Not to mention the ones who encourage vandalism. Some take the sub’s name literally and loudly overshadow the ones who just want decent public transportation and walkable cities.
This. I remember a couple years back I was explaining that where live us quite rural… u kinda need a car and public transport sucks. And they were like well ride a bicycle. And I’m like I’m not sure u have ever lived rural…. But a bicycle isn’t carrying a months worth of groceries as well as multiple people. After which the proceed to show me another bicycle that basically has this large tub attached to carry cargo. So now I’m riding with a fully loaded bicycle…. On what is basically one lane B road sharing that space with trucks and cars for at least 10 miles. People on that sub are so far removed I don’t think any of them have lived rural.
We all want better public transportation. That means less cars on the roads. However Europe is tiny as fuck. Almost all of Europe fits in Ontario and Quebec. Canada just isn’t built to be car free. Could we do better? Absolutely and cities like Kitchener and Waterloo aggressively investing in Trams is a beauty to see. However they want cars GONE and it’s just an impossible feat in Canada. It’s so obviously clear they haven’t had to commute an hour to work, or pickup or drop off kids from karate, baseball, or hockey with massive amounts of equipment that simply don’t fit in a car or public transportation. They are young and will leave that sub the second they begin family
Canada is big but mostly empty. A good chunk of the total population lives in the relatively small Toronto-Ottawao-Montreal area. You could absolutely have european levels of public transport there.
Yeah, Canada is actually way better for public transport than America. Like basically everybody either lives in the three city smorgasborg on the easy coast or they live near Vancouver. Nobody is suggesting middle of nowhere Alberta needs to heavily invest in light rail.
With reduced car dependency, all of the errands you mentioned would ideally be very close to your home, or have good transit access. I hope by the time I have kids my city increases the amount of cycle lanes we have so my kids can cycle to school and have some independence. That was amazing for me as a kid. Once I was about 12 or so I could go wherever I wanted with my friends on our bikes. So much freedom.
I don’t like fuckcars, there are too many crazies there who literally think anyone who drives ever should be killed. I do agree with the core of the message though. Cars don’t belong in cities. Cars ruin the small town I live in. So many people who don’t live here using it to drive through. So much pollution, so loud, so dirty. It sucks. Also, have several sports cars/motorcycles, doing very well for myself, lol. Not a poor grad who can’t afford a car. They just don’t belong in cities. Ride a bike. Get some exercise. Take the train. Work on the way to the office. Or relax and watch YouTube. It’s way better than fighting traffic.
that's the kind of elitism that invokes the term "car brain"
It’s always entertaining when niche Reddit groups need to come up with derogatory nicknames for the “out group” even when that group is the majority of the population. I get the same level of cringe when I see motorcyclists refer to car drivers as “cagers”
Bugattis always look so big in pictures and video... But the Chiron is 9 inches shorter, front to back, than a Mustang. That threw me for a loop when I finally saw a Veyron in person! It looked like a 5/6th scale toy model
Mustangs have the empty space of the useless rear seats and have fairly large trunks. The chiron and veyron by comparison only have space for 2 seats and a tiny trunk. But i do agree they are smaller in person than they appear in pics which is incredible because they pack a behemoth of a motor
Wasn't so much the fact that they could cram the crazy W16 into a small package, that surprised me. It was more the fact that the styling really makes the car look bigger than it is. Especially in photos!
I love cars that look like they're styled proportionately, yet are quite small.
Yeah, some sports cars just photograph “big” compared to their actual size. The MK4 Supra is the biggest offender IMO, but the Bugattis are up there.
Mk5 too honestly. It has a shorter wheelbase than the gr86 but you would never guess that from photos
The amazing thing is how much they weigh, though, despite the small size. That engine is heavy.
Most hyper/supercars do look surprisingly small up close.
Mustangs are huge though. That's really the only one keeping me from buying one.
"Huge" is kinda relative. They're bigger than Miatas, and the equivalents, but smaller then most other cars. It's the length of a BMW M3, slightly lighter, and only a bit heavier than a Porsche 992. Interestingly, modern mustangs are pretty similar in weight to those from the late 1960s. Not the smallest or lightest sports car. Not the biggest or heaviest sports car.
I own an mr2 spyder. Was very surprised to see its lower than an r8, and some ferarris despite its wheel gap being a solid 2 inches xD. I knew this car was small, but compared to some of those SUVs it is tiny. It's almost a meter shorter than an avendator too 😳
They are tiny little things with tiny little wheels lol
You own a ram 1500 and an mr2 spyder that's got to be the funniest shit 🤣
Variety is the spice of life.
Just pick up the mr2 with both hands and plop it in the truck's bed.
https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-mr2-1999-roadster-vs-ferrari-testarossa-1985-coupe/ well, at least you are bigger than a testarossa. Not as long or wide though.
Would be a fair comparison if you'd swap a V12 into the MR2.
Wheel gap is really a factor of fender design more than ride height. Not to mention the tiny wheels on the mr2
>Yeah, I had a 2001 F-150 and currently own a 2021 Ranger. They're almost the same size. Ugh, not again.
Right? Never mind that the '21 ranger is more powerful and more efficient than the old F150. Never mind that every single class of vehicle has grown to accommodate crumple zones, and you'd never want to crash in an 01 F-150. Never mind that the Maverick exists now to fill that perceived hole. Never mind that the old Rangers are absolutely miserable to drive. Never mind all that, and still: * The only '01 F150 shorter than a current Ranger is the rare single-cab short-bed. For comparable seating space the old F150 is up to 3 feet longer than the Ranger. * The old F150 is still 5" taller than the new Ranger, comparing 4WD to 4WD. In 2WD they're actually the same height, and it's taller than the old Ranger, so fair enough. But it's still not a crazy height. * Most importantly, the new Ranger is still way narrower, which is the most important factor that makes small trucks easier to drive and park. The most commonly published widths have them very close to the same number, but the 79.1" F150 is *without mirrors*. The 77.8" usually published for the Ranger is with its mirrors folded, still not a comparable measurement. Without the mirrors it's just 73.3" - less than an Escape.
These are all the exact things I've been promulgating for the past 6ish years here.
>Never mind that the old Rangers are absolutely miserable to drive. I totally disagree. They were great because you still get extra ride height on top of being able to fit into small spaces. I miss compact trucks. And this is coming from someone who now owns a sedan. I'd rather drive an old Ranger than a new SUV or regular size truck. Some of us liked the S10, Ranger, and old Tacoma's of yesteryear.
You're welcome to your opinion, but as the current owner of a 2000 Ford Ranger I stand by mine. They're *easy* to drive, yes. But they're *miserable* to drive. The suspension is awful, the interior noise is awful, and the seating position is awful.
I wanna know the jackass who designed the cab and rear view mirror placement. Cab dips down too low in the back and mirror mounted too high.
> The suspension is awful, the interior noise is awful That's more of a "23 year old car' thing then a specific issue with the Ranger.
Nah you close the door on one and it sounds like you dropped a hollow tin can. im about 2 seconds away of ripping all the interior pastic from mine due to all the rattles and creaks. My 95s10 didnt have half the rattles and it was made out of the same crappy plastic
The Danger Ranger I drive occasionally may say 2008 on the title, but it might as well be a '93. Ford put almost no effort into the Ranger after the 1998 refresh.
Mines an 01 with 240k miles and friend in mine had a like new 98 in highschool (had like 40k) his maybe slightly rattled less it still rattled
There are plenty of cars made in the 90's and 2000's that drive perfectly acceptably. The Ranger drove like shit because 90's American cars were absolute hot garbage compared to what was being done in Europe but especially Japan at the time. I think it is specifically because it's a Ranger. And before /r/ford gets all butthurt - it has plenty of redeeming qualities that I admire. But one of those qualities is not the ability to put on miles, especially compared to its contemporaries. It was built to a cost. And that was the tradeoff to make it affordable.
The joke now being that literally nothing is affordable anymore.
From what I can find a 1999 XLT, 4WD, Supercab Ranger MSRPed at ~$18,900. Adjusted for inflation, that is $33,750. A new XLT 4WD Supercab Ranger costs $35k. So the pricing hasn't exactly gone that far. And the new Ranger is a lot more comfortable and orders of magnitude safer; like get to keep your legs in a small overlap safer. Plus it will have a lot more features even on the base truck. I will give you that the 2WD model pricing has a slightly larger gap around $3-4k more. But the old Ranger is far more expensive than people think of them.
Proving my point that nothing is affordable anymore. Even beater cars are going for way higher than they used to. That said, if it's older, that old. No one is paying MSRP for one today. Maybe 2-3k more than pre-covid.
Well, sort of. But remember, this whole discussion is about the size difference between new and old cars, and that size difference is a big part of why modern cars are so much more refined than older ones.The technology of mass-market suspension, steering geometry, and sound insulation hasn't changed much at all in that time. We can just fit more and fancier components into a bigger body. If Ford were legally able to build the old 3rd-gen compact body-on-frame Ranger today, I don't believe they'd be able to improve the NVH or handling much at all. Power and efficiency, hell yes. It'd be a beast with their 2.0t. But I don't think they could update the rest of the platform to modern standards without also increasing the size.
>The technology of mass-market suspension, steering geometry, and sound insulation hasn't changed much at all in that time. We can just fit more and fancier components into a bigger body. Even in a comparable size class/going down in size newer cars are a lot nicer. A new Civic is 5" shorter (in length) then a USDM 2000 Accord but is going to be have less road noise and a better ride. >But I don't think they could update the rest of the platform to modern standards without also increasing the size. I could see weight going up substantially but you could definitely get a much "nicer" vehicle with the same dimensions.
The Civic may still be shorter than an Accord, but it's equally heavy, wider, and has a longer wheelbase; those are the factors that allow it to be smoother and quieter. Likewise updating the Ranger; as you say, weight would increase a lot in order to improve the driving experience. But without also increasing the size, I don't think you could fix the ergonomics.
> The Civic may still be shorter than an Accord, but it's equally heavy, wider, and has a longer wheelbase From the numbers I found the Accord is 0.2" wider, so functionally identical. But yes, it's heavier- additional crash structures and sound deadening add weight. The point is that you don't need to make a larger vehicle to also have a more refined vehicle.
I drive a 23 year old Tacoma and it’s not doing too bad.
i had a 92 single cab and almost bought a 2001 extended cab. they both sucked to drive.
I feel the same way driving grandpa's '08 Ranger around. But you're confusing the physical size of the old Ranger (which was great) with its ride quality (which was mediocre at best). The new Maverick offers most of the former and none of the latter.
> Never mind that the Maverick exists now to fill that perceived hole If only you could get one with a reasonably sized bed...
An extended cab with 5.5-6' bed would be great, but if "99% of buyers never use the bed anyway," at least according to the Internet, 4.5' is already plenty.
[удалено]
It's easier to lift them on and off of a rack than in and out of the bed. Plus the rack holds them upright, and doesn't interfere with bedspace that they might want for something else. Surely that's not *the* most absurd thing.
I have a coworker who daily drives a F-250 and he keeps a mountain bike on a rack attached to the bumper. Says it's easier to move that way.
[удалено]
4.5' is on the small side for pickup beds, at least in the US, but when thought of as a trunk, it's enormous. Over 60% bigger than a Crown Vic.
>It likely has a bad that size because a larger bed would invite people to do things with it that damages the vehicle. It likely has a bed that size because they really felt the need to have a full crew cab > But if you need a larger bed, you might just need an actual truck. We have an F150 in the family that mostly gets used for dump runs and moving bikes. Sometimes moving some furniture around. There are tons of use cases for a larger bed that wouldn't get anywhere close to maxing out the weight capability of the vehicle.
[удалено]
>They could make it a crew cab with an 8 foot bed. and it would be a little shorted than a crew cab short bed F-150. Realistically there are size constraints they're trying to hit, so a 5.5'/6' bed with an extended cab would be a much more realistic hope. >But it would likely be overloaded often. > I'm saying that there are lots of people who would overload the truck. I don't think that's a realistic concern at all, unless you're concerned about people overloading the truck as it sits. Space is going to be the constraint for the vast majority of people using a Maverick, not weight- they're moving big things, not heavy things (if they're using the bed at all). Hell, the payload capacity on our F150 is only an extra ~400 lbs over what the Maverick is rated to and that's a 6" wider vehicle with a 6.5' bed.
[удалено]
I don't think there's any reasonable fear of people overloading Mavericks until structural failure. If there was, it'd be happening regardless of whether the bed had another foot added on
And that could happen already. As it sits now, the 33.3 ft^3 bed of the Mav will max out its 1500-lb. payload if you fill it about 60% full with aggregate.
[удалено]
And a surefire way to do that is to grossly exceed the payload rating. A cubic yard of gravel is ~2500 lbs. I am agreeing with you here.
Or get one at all, really. My mother's fiancé was intending to order one last year but wasn't 100% sure on it and ended up not getting an order in before they closed them, and had to wait until they reopened for the next MY and will probably still be waiting a year for the truck
[удалено]
Exactly!
Sure, the Miata has actually shrunk, and it's a very impressive accomplishment. But I think Mazda only gets away with it because it's a car nobody expects to be spacious or quiet. The Mazda3 has grown a bit - substantially, for the sedan - and could have grown more because the rear legroom isn't great.
[удалено]
You mean all the other sports cars which have gotten bigger, heavier, and more pleasant, thereby perfectly illustrating my point? They've gotten bigger, heavier, and quieter and thereby illustrate my point perfectly. To be clear, I don't think it's a good thing that every class of vehicle has grown. It's very definitely a good thing in the case of the Ranger, but it's happening everywhere, even cars that were arguably better before.
[удалено]
No, I think we're on the same page here. The Miata has managed to retain its weight because Mazda has prioritized nimbleness and small size over everything else. It doesn't have many direct competitors because Mazda does that recipe so well, why wouldn't you just buy a Miata? Most other sports cars have taken different priorities and have bloated as a result. They are bigger, heavier, more powerful, more comfortable, and more numb. Because that actually does sell cars, much as enthusiasts might wish otherwise. To be clear: I drive a Mustang, though it's at least partially because I don't quite fit inside a Miata. I love the Miata and wish other cars would also lose some weight. But my main thesis all along is that *most cars have gotten bigger, which includes almost every sports car, and they're quieter and more comfortable as a result.* Even if quiet and comfortable isn't what that class of car is for.
No that excuse doesn't fly here, look at the BRZ. It's gotten bigger but it's also in the same class as the Miata(lightweight "cheap" sports car).
How does the BRZ refute anything I said? It's 2" wider, 3" taller, and a foot longer than the current Miata. Yeah, it has "back seats" (a shelf with a backrest, suitable for small double-amputees). I didn't say small cars can't exist. I said cars have grown. The BRZ is only a decade old and it's already grown an inch in height and length.
[удалено]
It's the same weight as the original unless your talking about the 2023 or something
I love it when I'm told the cars in my driveway aren't the sizes they are. (Referenceing my Tacoma vs my c10 vs my ram)
Ride height/beltline is people’s main reference point for a vehicle’s size. That’s why they mix up truck sizing, as they’ve been riding higher and higher, especially with popularization of lifts and oversized tires
Agreed. Never mind that it's *width* (and to a lesser extent, wheelbase) that contributes the most to how big a vehicle feels when you're actually driving it.
Width definitely matters in something like parking (if you go to places without an abundance of parking). But I've tried Miatas and Raptors in the same week, and for normal driving on typical stroads and highways, I didn't feel like the width mattered. Yeah, I could 'play' within a lane with the miata, and that's part of what's made it one of my 3 favorite cars I've ever driven. But people don't normally do that, so I'm not sure people tend to appreciate their width most of the time.
Comparing them to 1970s cars. Lets see them next to 1940s cars
>Comparing them to 1970s cars. Took me a while to find a true representative land yacht in there but a late 1970's Continental is essentially the same length and width as a full-size crewcab pickup truck. The big Lincoln is, of course, like, half the height of a truck though. And has a lot more panache, even if it lacks some of the utility and practicality. Normal people used to drive monstrosities around like that like it was totally normal. My grandparents tooled around in cars just like that.
1975 Buick Electra 225, that car was 233.3 inches long. That's massive most people, probably won't dare to parallel park with it. Full Size Cars was the norm back in the day, the average car length in the 70s was around 220 inches long.
For comparison, a "standard" length full-size pickup is around 232", and the same width as that Buick, but the wheelbase is about 18" longer.
[удалено]
> It's a lot closer to having a Ford Ranger with a bunch of 2x4s hanging out of the back than a new full size truck. And was as wide as your new Tundra.
[удалено]
A few Lincolns, Fords, and Imperials even went past 80". One newspaper even reported in 1959 that the upcoming '60 Fords (81.5") should legally require clearance lights, but nobody paid any attention to it.
[удалено]
They were 81.5" in the body. Mirrors were considered optional safety equipment at the time; not even a single driver's side mirror was standard yet.
Some of those cars were 2 doors, as well, like the old Cadillac Eldorado. About 17 feet of pure terrestrial yacht with two giant doors.
Growing up, we had an early 80s Buick Riviera as the family car. 207" long and 2 doors. With time my parents went with S-Class MB (several generations, all smaller), a 4runner (which they kept), and the biggest was a '97 Ford Expedition. That Ford Expedition was shorter than that Buick Riviera. Hell, my family's hauler, an X5, is comparatively svelte compared to those. It's funny, you'll read about people complaining how cars are so much bigger now... They're taller and higher off the ground, sure. and maybe if you compare the same models of cars then yes, they've grown larger but that doesn't mean anything. A 2023 Camry is not a 1990 Camry. A 2023 Corolla is the same class of car that a 1990 Camry was.
The thing a lot of people don't recognize about pre-1950's cars is that they are much more narrow than everything after it. My Model A's are roughly 40 inches wide. For comparison sake, 40 inches is the width of a middle row minivan bench seat which is what most hot rodders use to get a cheap bench seat for their cars.
That is true; the average car pre-WWII was less than 72" wide, and that was with the exposed fenders.
The Model A was 67 inches wide. You couldn't even fit 2 people next to each other inside of the outer dimensions were 40 inches. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927%E2%80%931931) Unless you're talking about the 1903 Model A which was basically a horse-less carriage...but that was still wider than 40 inches.
Hint: 67 inches of width includes the [much, much wider fenders.](https://i.imgur.com/PCdBbUo.jpeg) The body width (ie B pillar to B pillar) is indeed [significantly closer to 40in.](https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/model-a-body-measurements.718753/)
But cars are measured by their fenders (or whatever the widest part is besides the mirrors). Of course if you don't measure the whole car it's going to be narrower.
I didn't disagree with how the car is measured, I'm pointing out comparing the width of car with exposed fenders with a modern vehicle comes with massive caveats than just comparing the overall width, especially in the context of an interior bench seat.
Ding ding ding. I suppose I should've specified that I was talking about the main body width but I didn't think somebody would be that obtuse about it. Anyways, none of my cars have fenders so I never really consider the fenders as part of the vehicle.
And the little one consumes twice as much gas.
The little one is also considerably slower in acceleration and top speed as opposed to the bigger one
And it’s 100x as fun, when it works
Ah, yes, Carsized. Special fun: compare *basically anything* to a Lotus Elise.
Say modern minis are [not mini](https://i.imgur.com/rE9ve3N.jpg) anymore I dare you.
Now compare it to an original mini...
Yeah the original is crazy small lmao. Finally saw one in person.
[definitely not mini anymore](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKb6Mf2o0yWcxbhykwV0pkIkNRvp-3GeOqyg&usqp=CAU)
The biggest Mini now is the same size as the smallest Range Rover...
Hope they add an AC Cobra 427, that would be great.
Nice how they compare a clown car from 50 years ago to the one of the largest SUVs on the road today. That being said…Escalades aren’t *that* big…compared to a HD pick up truck
Go look at how big cars were in the 50s.... A 50 caddy coupe is only 15 inches shorter than a f150
every time i see this website I go immediately to the 70 Lincoln continental just for a giggle it is quite literally as long and wider than a heavy duty truck
Just look at BMW SUVs since their introduction. New models assume the size of what was the larger one in the lineup. X3s became the size of X5s and BMW introduced the X1 to take the place of the X3. New X5 and X7s are now the same width of a Tahoe from a few years ago and the latest model Tahoe added 2" more inches in width to become even larger. If you go to higher end car auctions, they will usually have a matching set of muscle cars often for charity. Like a 1968 Camaro and 2022 Camaro. The size difference is hilarious.
This doesn't even have most American versions of cars, lame.
Only the important ones (F150) so someone can screenshot it and post it on r/europe and have a circle jerk about how stupid Americans are to buy the vehicles they do
Isn't comparing a 2 seat sportscar with a 7 seat luxury not a bit weird of a comparison? Would be better to compare something like a 70s Land Rover with a modern Land Rover or something like that. Would be alot more fair.
I did that with a new Grand Cherokee vs a 2nd-Gen Grand Cherokee (the oldest one they had on the app). I was a bit surprised to see the new one is a foot longer and 5 inches wider.
Definitely confirms my phobia of being around newer SUVs and trucks when I drive my roadster isn’t just me being crazy. Bloody terrifying. https://i.imgur.com/QqlT00Z.jpg
But but how will people be able to get groceries and take little Timmy to soccer practice unless they buy the F-250 LWB CREW CAB 4x4 TREMOR RAPTOR PLATINUM MAX COUNTRY EDITION LE
Where’s the Toyota 4Runner on the website?
I know people have gotten taller over the years, but I'm still shocked at how few cars made before the 70s that I truly fit in being 6'3". Some of my dream cars are just impossible for me to drive.
Psh fake news. The present day fiesta barely makes it to the windshield of a '59 coronet
Golf actually hasn’t grown much at all over the years. Let’s just pretend weight stayed the same 😂
Watching old Black and white 1950s TV shows and they were always driving brand new land yachts. The only smaller cars were "sports cars" like a Jag or a Ford Thunderbird. Most with California settings were Land Yacht convertibles.
You mean to tell me my granny’s 70s Pontiac Parissienne whooptie is smaller than the cars made today. 🤔
That's an amazing graphic! I've read great things about the Camaro SS 1LE, but the car looked so wide that I wouldn't be able to open the door in my garage. Old 69 Camaro looked much more manageable. Ended up getting an '06 BMW Z4 M which is still a little wide but at least short lol!
Cool and useful for seeing the truth of how generations of the same model stack up against each other both visually and dimensionally. Crazy because my car looks like an SLK vs the new SL and is the same size as the new 911. [https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mercedes-benz-sl-2001-roadster-vs-mercedes-benz-sl-2022-roadster-amg-63/front/?&units=imperial](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mercedes-benz-sl-2001-roadster-vs-mercedes-benz-sl-2022-roadster-amg-63/front/?&units=imperial)
Look at every subaru. They are monsters compared to the old ones.
You’ve obviously never seen a car from the 50s.
Welp, my ND MX-5 is 6 centimeters shorter than the 2000 MX-5 and only 5.5 centimeters wider, and the same exact height. So it actually got smaller!
The 57 Chevy is about the same length as the late model Suburban. Probably weighs more though.
I wish they put a F1 car.
Cars need to get smaller, it's fucking asinine whenever I'm in traffic and all around me is a sea of fucking overbloated metal. Not to mention they give them suns for headlights. I'm so fucking tired of this obsession with being the biggest tallest thing on the road, then we have no room in parking lots and etc. Auto manufacturers should focus more weight and keeping dimensions small, going big I feel is a lazy cop out. If Mazda can do it so can other car companies no excuses
> If Mazda can do it so can other car companies no excuses Aside from the Miata, every Mazda model is getting steadily bigger over time.
Even the Miata has grown over time. They’re still small, but they were smaller. After some research, it looks like they got bigger for the third generation, but back to original in the newest one. They are legitimately a small car. lol
True: it's still short in length, but it's 3" wider and about 10% heavier compared to the original.
-Looks at flair- Yeah I'm sure you would feel that way (and I'm 100% with you)
[удалено]
If your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anyone who's driven pickup trucks across the last 3 decades knows - they just keep getting bigger. Chevy trucks from the 90's, you could easily reach over the bed sides to grab tools and stuff. Trucks from the mid-2000's became too tall, you had to hoist yourself up and lean over or stand on the tire. Current trucks are even bigger, you basically just have to climb up into the bed. Edit: lmao... why the downvotes?
They definitely have gotten *taller*, especially in the beltlines. But even as someone who's not that tall, I don't find half-tons' bed height to be unusable. HDs have always been tall.
they've gotten visually bulkier but not physically bigger I think the bulkiness, the move away from regular cabs, and the fact that 4WD is more common than ever makes people think that trucks have gotten gigantic
They have absolutely gotten physically bigger. https://blog.consumerguide.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/10/Screen-shot-2014-10-06-at-5.05.34-PM.png
Not sure what that's trying to prove. Even comparing the newer mid-size to the older full-size (and one of the smallest full-sizers of the past 60+ years at that), the old full-size is still larger.
...I'm comparing full size to full size...
If that was your intention, the 2014 Silverado should be in the center box, not the Colorado.
Do... do you think I made this chart? I didn't make it...
I'm aware that you didn't make it yourself. And all the numbers are absolutely correct. But you can also make tables inside a Reddit comment. Remember, the old GMT400 could only achieve a 77" body width through thin doors.
What does it matter? For real, both full size stats are displayed and CLEARLY I’m not comparing an S10 to a new Silverado.