Evolution of the size of cars (old vs. latest)

[-]

53bvo@reddit

It’s not (only) the safety norms. The Mazda Miata is still the same size as it was 30 years ago but conforms to all the safety requirements.

Reply

[-]

Have you ever sat in a ND Miata? Its ridiculously small inside. I'm a small guy and i find the interior to be on the limit of acceptable. The edge of the front window is right at my head with the seat all the way back. Great car and really special that they achieved those dimensions and the weight but there is a reason other cars don't do the same.

Reply

[-]

LC_Kamikaze@reddit

How small man? I'm about 5'10 and find the interior just right and pretty cozy. I could probably drive all day in an ND and not be too tired.

Reply

[-]

longgamma@reddit

Ok I would call it cozy. If you are not girthy like me then yeah you’d fit in well. I found the BRZ to be more accommodating

Reply

[-]

LC_Kamikaze@reddit

Ah that's true. Weight would definitely change things

Reply

[-]

53bvo@reddit

That was exactly my point. The safety requirements aren’t the reason, because if that was true the Miata couldn’t exist. So the size increase is (also) due to other factors. I assume it is much easier/cheaper to build a safer car if it is bigger so car manufacturers will prefer that over putting effort in a smaller car.

Reply

[-]

PRSArchon@reddit

No, the safety requirements force you to compromise interior space or to make the car larger. Most manufacturers chose for larger cars because most consumers dont want to compromise interior space.

Reply

[-]

MayaIsSunshine@reddit

Have you ever sat in an NA or NB? I have an NB (1999), and my friend's 2017 ND is downright spacious in comparison, especially as a passenger.

Reply

[-]

PRSArchon@reddit

I owned an NB for years and rented an ND for a week, not sure how anybody could think an ND is more spacious while the outside dimensions are identical and the ND having way more space used on safety.

Reply

[-]

MayaIsSunshine@reddit

The ND doesn't have half of the passenger floor space taken up by the transmission tunnel like the NB has though. As a driver, my knees touch the bottom of the steering wheel in my NB, but I don't have that problem in the ND. I guess my point is that at the very least it is comparable.

Reply

[-]

PRSArchon@reddit

That's just because the ND has an adjustable steering wheel and the NB does not.

Reply

[-]

srsbsnssss@reddit

RHD maybe? LHD the hump is so annoying for pax

Reply

[-]

53bvo@reddit

I was under the impression that the ND isn’t much different regarding interior space than the NA Miata? But I do think it is indeed the case for most older cars that were relatively roomy inside for the outside size.

Reply

[-]

leedle1234@reddit

To be completely fair while it does meet all requirements, it only does so because 1. In the US at least, convertibles are excempt or have much more lenient requirements on the basic mandated DOT safety testing 2. Mazda does not submit the Miata to get an the optional NHTSA rating. It simply says no rating on the window sticker. People can have their opinions about safety, but in reality next to the "light truck" and "offroad vehicle" loopholes, NHTSA safety ratings (and equivalent in other places) is the real one that is causing car bloat. thicker pillars, doors, minimum space from airbags, etc.

Reply

[-]

Slyons89@reddit

All while being (slightly) cheaper, relative to inflation, than it was in 1990. Base price 1990 = $13,800 which is $33,311 in today's dollars. While the ND starts at just under $29K. The miata stays winning

Reply

[-]

BattlePrune@reddit

There are regulatory requirement and there are consumer expectations. Both influence how cars are made

Reply

[-]

Unreachable1@reddit

Would've been fun to include a couple American cars from the 50s. Those were easily bigger than any of the cars today.

Reply

[-]

niftyjack@reddit

Not that much bigger tbh. A full size then is the same as a full size now—a '61 Impala was 209 inches long, an S class now is 208.

Reply

[-]

Less-Amount-1616@reddit

Shhhh that messes with the narrative

Reply

[-]

Garrosh@reddit

I'm not sure if this is just because security norms when [you have this.](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mazda-mx-5-2015-roadster-vs-mazda-mx-5-2000-roadster/).

Reply

[-]

Tumbleweedwhacker@reddit

Everybody forgets this, which is almost the same weight. [Suzuki-swift-2008-vs-Suzuki-swift-2017](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/suzuki-swift-2008-5-door-hatchback-vs-suzuki-swift-2017-5-door-hatchback-sport/)

Reply

[-]

jeremiahishere@reddit

Most of that room is dedicated to safety. I wouldn't want to be in a wreck in a classic mini or fiat. There is a single thickness of metal between you and the outside. You could break an arm when you get a door ring. 1/2 ton trucks have roughly the same length and width for similar cabin and bed lengths compared to old trucks. They have mostly gotten taller. Bigger cabs have made them longer but it isn't an apples to apples comparison. Comparing a 1/4 ton to a 1/2 ton truck isn't apples to apples either.

Reply

[-]

KMKtwo-four@reddit

I think for the Mini or fiat 500 that’s true. But if their original compact cars had to grow for safety, how are companies able to make new compact vehicles like the 2-series or Maverick to fill the spots made by the Ranger and 3-series?

Reply

[-]

Tumbleweedwhacker@reddit

The Suzuki Swift is the other car that has gotten lighter with the new gen. The model RZ/AZ from 2017 has two variants just under 1000kg and four other engine variants with under 1100kg.

Reply

[-]

PRSArchon@reddit

Have you ever sat in a ND Miata? Its ridiculously small inside. Great car and really special that they achieved those dimensions and the weight but there is a reason other cars don't do the same.

Reply

[-]

velociraptorfarmer@reddit

I'm a 6' marathon runner, and I straight up don't fit in an ND. I have the seat all the way back and down, and my head is buried in the roof.

Reply

[-]

King_in_a_castle_84@reddit

I'm 6'2, and I fit fine in any car made in the last 20 years. Weird.

Reply

[-]

velociraptorfarmer@reddit

I'm long in the torso. I literally went and tried sitting in a new ND at the dealership and with the seat as far down and back as possible, I was fine with legroom, but my head was pressed against the convertible top.

Reply

[-]

TrptJim@reddit

You have the same issue my buddy does in my ND and is unfortunate. If you have enough leg room, you could try scooting the seat forward a few notches to allow the seat back to angle back a bit. Others have replaced the seat rails to lower the seat by a few inches. But yeah I don't get the downvotes. The Miata is one of the smallest mass market car you can buy, with a specific design ethos unique to the rest; of course not everyone will fit in it. It's a damn miracle I fit in mine at all at 6'3".

Reply

[-]

velociraptorfarmer@reddit

If I scoot forward, my knees are in the dash panels on either side of the steering wheel. Literally the only way my legs fit is with the seat all the way back. I need about 2-3" more headroom.

Reply

[-]

Fair_Sweet8014@reddit

That's a bummer. Was it the RF or regular?

Reply

[-]

velociraptorfarmer@reddit

Regular. There aren't any RFs near me, but the salesman was saying that the RF really didn't have any more headroom than the regular. Wife ended up vetoing it anyways (it would've been her daily) because it was just too small.

Reply

[-]

KMKtwo-four@reddit

The point is it's disingenuous to say cars grow primarily for safety reasons. I'm not saying the Miata is big enough for everyone, it isn't. Im saying the Miata is an example of a car that got smaller *and* safer at the same time, instead of just larger until Mazda was forced to create a new small car in the lineup to fit underneath it.

Reply

[-]

King_in_a_castle_84@reddit

> Im saying the Miata is an example of a car that got smaller *and* safer at the same time, Funny how manufacturers can make cars both lightweight AND safe.......when they actually give a fuck to do so.

Reply

[-]

Carl-99999@reddit

Then don’t buy things that don’t do this. Until a majority of profits goes away from their actions they don’t care

Reply

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

It's not disingenuous. The sole exception to the trend doesn't invalidate the trend. Mazda made a number of decisions to prioritize size and low weight because that's the Miata's entire raison d'etre. But it's s waste of time for most other auto makers to be so fixated on size and weight at the expense of other things because most buyers don't care. I don't care that my BMW 6 series is 1000 pounds heavier than the 1977 original. To keep the weight close to that in a modern car would've required them to make sacrifices to refinement and other amenities that I wouldn't accept as a buyer.

Reply

[-]

KMKtwo-four@reddit

> To keep the weight close to that in a modern car would've required them to make sacrifices to **refinement and other amenities** that I wouldn't accept as a buyer. Are we talking about safety or aren’t we?

Reply

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

Fair enough, let me expand. Safety requirements are the primary driver of vehicle size increase over time (within a category). But they are not the *only* driver. There are a number of competing requirements: weight and comfort (refinement, amenities) are two. For most cars it makes far more sense for consumer appeal to sacrifice weight for comfort. In the case of my 6 series, to keep the weight close to the original in a modern car and still meet safety requirements would've required sacrifices to refinement and amenities. BMW would have had to sacrifice sound deadening and compromise interior volume. The last generation 6 series had more interior room than the original in every dimension for front occupants. For the Miata, the sensible sacrifice is not weight because that's one of the top reasons consumers buy that car. Nevertheless, the Miata has grown over time. The ND is 3 inches wider and 200 pounds heavier than the NA. Given how small it still is, it may or may not be that noticeable to a driver, but it's not immune to the size growth required by regulations. Mazda have just to limit it as much as possible because of the USP of the car. And if you look at aerial shots of the [NA](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fbc3yr1tz9ia71.jpg), [ND](https://dealerimages.dealereprocess.com/image/upload/3422535), and [NA vs NC](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F9vp6s9s35dn81.jpg), it's clear that the Miata has grown outward over time to be more crash-worthy. Another point regarding the Miata's weight is that the engine hasn't become bigger (and heavier) and the car is still rear-wheel drive only.

Reply

[-]

jondes99@reddit

Every generation Miata is small. On the other hand, I once parked my NB next to an MGB and my car looked enormous.

Reply

[-]

Nikansm@reddit

The ND is a masterclass in packaging. Granted I'm not that tall but having all the safety equipment and modern electronics packed into a similar form factor as a NA is fantastic. Now as an owner of both a NA Miata and G20 3er.... most new cars are humongous. I like the space but it's getting to the point that I have to be really careful to avoid dinging adjacent cars even when parked far away

Reply

[-]

spongebob_meth@reddit

The interiors of those old cars are absolutely tiny. Yes safety makes cars a little bigger, but the new models aren't even attempting to be in the same class of car. There is no demand for a new car the size of a classic mini. If a smart fortwo was stretched to have a rear seat, it would look like a midsized SUV sitting next to a classic mini.

Reply

[-]

I_Am_Vladimir_Putin@reddit

Look at Kei cars, there’s absolutely demand. The reason we can’t have these cars in North America is BECAUSE other cars got so idiotically big that it’s not unsafe for small cars.

Reply

[-]

spongebob_meth@reddit

The failure of the smart fortwo shows that there is no demand for kei cars in North America. The only reason they're popular in Japan is their tax advantage.

Reply

[-]

Less-Amount-1616@reddit

Well, also there's a niche demand for used kei cars imported into North America because of how inexpensive they are after 20 years while still being functional enough.

Reply

[-]

Fair_Sweet8014@reddit

The Smart fortwo was ugly and is one of the worst cars I've ever driven, and I've driven some real crap. Honda Fits and other small cars have sold well.

Reply

[-]

solowng@reddit

yeah, the problem with the smart for two was that as expensive

Reply

[-]

Carl-99999@reddit

Then you can’t HAVE a small car

Reply

[-]

spongebob_meth@reddit

Kei cars are almost all ugly little toasters. Honda fits are several classes larger than kei. The only cars we've had remotely close to kei size are the smart and OG minis and fiat 500s.

Reply

[-]

Bluecolt@reddit

A dozen people stating on social media they want kei cars in the US is not demand, and half of that dozen saying it are virtual signaling and wouldn't actually own one. To say they'd be a niche marlet here is putting it mildly.

Reply

[-]

Trollygag@reddit

>1/2 ton trucks have roughly the same length and width for similar cabin and bed lengths compared to old trucks. My '96 GMT400 ( Silverado) is 194Lx77Wx73H, 4000lbs. The smallest Silverado being sold right now is a fleet vehicle 211Lx82Wx80H, 4500+lbs. That is, a foot longer, almost half a foot wider, and over half a foot taller, and 500lbs+ heavier. The smallest quarter ton Colorado is 213Lx75Wx79H, 4280lbs. So, trucks have absolutely gotten much bigger to the point that sometimes a unibody light duty quarter ton is significantly bigger in almost every dimension from a body on frame half ton from the 90s.

Reply

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

Modern Silverados are still 79" in the body, the 82" width is due to fender flares that don't count to official body width for the actual FMVSS. The GMT400 is also just about the smallest ever 'full size' truck excepting the early 50s models.

Reply

[-]

freelance-lumberjack@reddit

I was surprised When i checked, you're right. From 65 to 95 It got a little heavier, within an inch or two everywhere else.

Reply

[-]

2ManyAccounts2Count@reddit

>The smallest Silverado being sold right now is a fleet vehicle 211Lx82Wx80H This is empirically false given federal regulation prohibits trucks from exceeding 80" wide if they don't have the orange marker lights. I believe "non ridged bodywork" and mirrors can exceed that 80" but all the half ton trucks out there have been right at 79" for decades now. Also worth noting here that trucks from the 90's and earlier were not required to have bumpers federally which means many of the measurements you find for them on Google and other websites are the published figures for the base model without the bumpers making them look shorter.

Reply

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

Yup, it's all in 'flexible' plastic fender flares. Without them, it comes out below 80" wide.

Reply

[-]

2Stroke728@reddit

1992 C2500 Scottsdale owner here. 218" long because 8 ft box, 5200 lbs. The equivalent base work truck 2500 today has the same wheelbase, is 18 inches longer, 5 inches wider, and 6 inches taller. That is significant!

Reply

[-]

opeth10657@reddit

Probably has double the power and towing capacity too though. Aside from safety, the modern equivalent almost always have way more power

Reply

[-]

2Stroke728@reddit

Double the power (401 hp vs 190), more than double the towing (18k vs 7500), about the same payload capacity (3400lbs vs 3232). Modern stuff is pretty amazing to me. I remember when a 200 hp 2.0 turbo was amazing power output, and have owned a 160 hp 350. Now non-enthusiest appliances make >300 hp from 4 cylinders.

Reply

[-]

Count_Dongula@reddit

I think our 89 Suburban is the outlier here. It weighs 6000 pounds. So do the new ones. Eyeballing it, the new ones don't look any longer. Ours is taller than the standard, hands down, but I think that's a quirk of ours being a 4x4.

Reply

[-]

pburgess22@reddit

Carwow recently did a comparison between different age BMWs and interviewed some vehicle experts. Some of the size is down to safety but a lot of it now is simply bigger vehicles sell better so they keep scaling them up. In terms of safety it's an arms race and the size mismatch is a massive issue.

Reply

[-]

DependentFamous5252@reddit

Safety for the people in the car. Less safe for those outside. No improvement in other words.

Reply

[-]

Muttonboat@reddit

Pop up headlights died for pedestrian safety.

Reply

[-]

Collecting_Hobbies@reddit

Vehicle related fatality rates have significantly been reduced, so saying "no improvement" isn't true. I agree it's not ideal and it should definitely be addressed before it gets worse. But it's definitely not safety selfishness.

Reply

[-]

PRSArchon@reddit

I'd rather have a modern car crash into me than an old car, as long as it is not an american car (read truck). They definitely worked on pedestrian safety as well, been part of european safety testing for decades.

Reply

[-]

Tin_Can_739@reddit

I towed my ‘66 c10 with a ‘17 Toyota tundra. The widths are nearly identical. Of course the interior of the tundra was way better utilized. Length was about the same but the 66 is a long bed. The 2 pictures of mini trucks are way off.

Reply

[-]

DocPhilMcGraw@reddit

I don’t think it’s only safety that made cars larger. I think there has just been a preference over time for larger and larger vehicles too. The reality also is that we as people have gotten bigger over the years as well. According to the CDC, the average man gained 1 inch in height between 1960 and today while simultaneously gaining over 32 lbs in weight.

Reply

[-]

q0vneob@reddit

American cars were huge in the 60s and 70s, its not a new phenomenon. We downsized for the malaise era and the oil crisis

Reply

[-]

Less-Amount-1616@reddit

And by this point those sedans have upsized significantly but still generally achieve very good fuel economy relative to those dinky cars. The marginal fuel savings of downsizing again is so small as to be de minimis against the typical cost of car ownership these days.

Reply

[-]

Mend1cant@reddit

Yeah the only real limit right now is that parking garages are only so large before you can’t park in them. Otherwise it’d all be suburbans on the road

Reply

[-]

Less-Amount-1616@reddit

Well it is going to be more money for more car. Also you can park Suburbans in most parking garages, it's a bit difficult (though actually with driver assist features maybe it isn't).

Reply

[-]

caterham09@reddit

Some of these make sense, but the tundra vs the tiny Toyota pickup is so disingenuous

Reply

[-]

sultan_of_gin@reddit

Yup wouldn’t hilux be a more appropriate comparison?

Reply

[-]

Masta_Wayne@reddit

Yeah, Hilux or Tacoma would work better.

Reply

[-]

sirbleep@reddit

That wasn't even a Tundra. It was an quad cab F-250 from the mid-2010s next to a single cab first gen Toyota Tacoma. Not only is it not even the same weight class, it doesn't even have the same number of doors.

Reply

[-]

DepartureOwn1817@reddit

I think he’s referring to the head-on shot of the two Toyota trucks.

Reply

[-]

7frosts@reddit

Well, if F=MA, they’re just swapping the “M” to reduce “A”, right? Crumple zones, airbags, etc.?

Reply

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

They're reducing A but also G. To be clear, the F in this case is force on the vehicle occupants. Safety regulations require a decrease in that force over time even as vehicles get heavier (i.e. vehicles crash into each other with greater force for a given speed due to increased mass). So F on vehicle B from vehicle A increases over time, but F on all occupants must decrease from, say, 10 years ago. The only way to do that is to have the car be a padded tank. Simulations also show how to distribute the force over a large portion of the vehicle body, but ultimately it must become thicker and have more airbags. Everyone keeps shouting "but the Miata!" Subject it to the same testing that cars attempting to get a top safety rating have to endure and then see if the Miata is still a paragon of weight savings against the trend of evil manufacturers ruining all the fun with their bloated modern cars.

Reply

[-]

bigoof94@reddit

Physics is zero-sum. That's great that they're reducing the F on the occupant of the massive vehicle. But the same thing increases F on the thing the massive vehicle collided with. That could be a pedestrian, another vehicle, or a building. Using your logic, I should literally just drive a tank to make it as safe as possible for me, while I make pancakes out of whatever I crash into. It's all for (my) safety, right?

Reply

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

I said F on *all* occupants must decrease - i.e. all occupants of all vehicles in the collision. All vehicles in a given year must adhere to the same safety regulations (except convertibles, which is partly why Mazda can limit the Miata's size and weight increase). > Using your logic, I should literally just drive a tank to make it as safe as possible for me, while I make pancakes out of whatever I crash into. It's all for (my) safety, right? This is not my logic, it's simply the change of minimum crash safety standards over time. Unfortunately, some consumers have indeed interpreted things that way and buy large trucks for perceived safety, which further drives the need for ever-increasing crashworthiness standards.

Reply

[-]

bigoof94@reddit

You've done your analysis wrong. If both the 2024 and 2024 'rolla have increased their M, then the total F is going to remain the same for _both_ vehicles as well. F = MA for the F-150 and F=MA for the Corolla. If you increase the M for the F-150 but not for the Corolla, then F will increase for the Corolla and decrease for the F-150 (energy cannot be created or destroyed, it has to be zero sum). If you then increase the M of the Corolla, then the F for the F-150 will increase back to the original value, and the F for the Corolla will decrease back to the original value. The thing about increasing M is that it becomes an arms race. Everyone has to do it to avoid getting flattened by the few that do increase their M.

Reply

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

Everything I said regards peak forces on the occupants' bodies, not on the vehicles. The peak forces distributed to the occupants' bodies can decrease through things like crumple zones, airbag number and volume, and quickness of airbag deployment. [Here](https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/toyota/corolla-4-door-sedan/2015) are the IIHS results of the 2015 Corolla small overlap crash test, in which "a vehicle travels at 40 mph into a rigid barrier with 25% of the vehicle’s front overlapping." The car weighed about 2800 pounds. > Driver injury measures > Neck > Tension (kN) 1.2 > Extension bending moment (Nm) 10 > Maximum Nij 0.24 > Chest maximum compression (mm) 21 > Femur (kN) > Left 2.4 > Right 2.0 > Knee displacement (mm) > Left 4 > Right 1 And [here](https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/toyota/corolla-4-door-sedan/2023#moderate-overlap-front-original-test) are the IIHS results of the 2023 Corolla crash tests. The car weighed about 3100 pounds. > Driver injury measures > Neck > Tension (kN) 0.9 > Extension bending moment (Nm) 6 > Maximum Nij 0.17 > Chest maximum compression (mm) 25 > Femur (kN) > Left 0.9 > Right 0.5 > Knee displacement (mm) > Left 1 > Right 0 The 2023 car had lower peak forces on the occupant in nearly all measurements despite being heavier.

Reply

[-]

bigoof94@reddit

No one is complaining about a Toyota Corolla -- if anything you've just proved that you don't need a 5,000 lb car to be "safe." 3100 lb isn't that much.

Reply

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

How are you repeatedly missing my point? My only point is that due to ever more stringent regulations, cars must continually perform better in crash testing with respect to peak forces on human occupants generation after generation, even as cars on the road become heavier. I'm not arguing for heavy vehicles, I'm explaining why they're heavy. I'm not speaking about the forces the vehicles themselves experience. I am speaking exclusively about the passengers of the vehicles. The passengers obviously do not experience the same magnitude of force in a frontal collision as the front bumper. That difference in force is the only thing I'm discussing. A collision between a 2024 Corolla and two trucks of different weights is not relevant to my point. My point is that the 2024 Corolla fares better than a 2013 (or 2015) Corolla in every scenario. That is the primary reason for the same model of car getting larger over time. Pedestrian safety is a problem. But that's another point that I'm not getting into.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

No memes, trolling, copypasta, or low-quality joke posts or comments. *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.*

Reply

[-]

7frosts@reddit

Well said.

Reply

[-]

turboash78@reddit

Pickups have gotten unnecessarily larger while their beds have become more useless

Reply

[-]

Carl-99999@reddit

Unless a majority of car drivers are willing to die in a car crash, and will drive a Fiat 500, it’s not going to be that small ever again.

Reply

[-]

Reduxalicious@reddit

I say (Had the name not already been a Global nameplate anyway) The Maverick should have been the Ranger and the T6 and T6.2 Ranger should have been a F100 or F50 But then the whole semantics argument of what's midsize versus what is compact bla bla bla gets brought up. I also don't get why they showed a 1st Gen? Tacoma (If it was even a Tacoma yet) next to a Tundra then a F250 (Though the F250 are absolutely larger than the older ones) Hell IIRC in the 70s maybe even the 90s F150's and 250's a lot of parts and body panels were interchangeable.

Reply

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

Even today, the F-150 and super duties share the same cab, just different frames/beds/front clips.

Reply

[-]

DimesOnATime@reddit

It’s so funny how people complain about there’s too many big cars on the road that it feels dangerous, cause a lot of people buy bigger cars to feel safer lol. Everytime someone posts these “car used to be small, now big” articles or videos, everyone in the comment section complains about big cars are a danger to society. Why do they think that? They’ll complain about pickups and SUV’s but don’t complain about semis? It’s almost like they don’t know that some people need a long bed truck, or a one ton dually for work reasons. You’re not gonna be towing a 15k lbs trailer in a 88’ Toyota pickup that’s for sure.

Reply

[-]

BigOldButt99@reddit

I have an aircooled 911, 1987 coupe. I parked it next to a 997 turbo one time and it was hilarious how small it looked next to it. I swear the 997 seemed almost double the width. The newer 992 generation makes the 997 look small too, I'd love to park next to one of those to see the size difference.

Reply

[-]

DraaiZe@reddit (OP)

Amazing Porsche you got there! Indeed it must look real funny compared to a new 992

Reply

[-]

BigOldButt99@reddit

Thanks, it honestly looks comically small next to basically any car on the road today anyway lol.

Reply

[-]

Dp04@reddit

The average consumer will tell you they want more interior space AND more safety / features. The only way to do this is bigger cars. The consumer dictates the market. Also, comparing 4 door vehicles to 2 door, or completely different make / model… circlejerking at its worst.

Reply

[-]

SLAPUSlLLY@reddit

I've been buying white vans for decades. Not the same model/size but my first (1989 lite ace) would fit easily inside (without the load floor) my current (2020 hiace zr). And thats the "small" model. 1690 vs 2020mm wide 1700 vs 1990 high 3800 vs 5300 long. Or so. Zx is 5800 long

Reply

[-]

Snazzy21@reddit

I recognize some of those pictures from reddit posts where I got the impression the OP were more concerned with proving a point instead of being fair. The Hilux/Pickup ones are being compared against full size pickups, the Tundra is not a descendent of the original Toyota pickup- the Tacoma or Hilux is. The F150 is more stupid, even one from that Toyota pickup's era dwarfed it. More often than not a compact or midsize model is larger than it was 20 years ago, so this observation is true. It's not hard to find actual examples of this, using deception is unnecessary.

Reply

[-]

__TryFailRepeat@reddit

Now park one of those new BMW electric mastodonts next to it. Those things are GIGANTIC.

Reply

[-]

DraaiZe@reddit (OP)

They look insanely big in videos, can't wait to see one

Reply

[-]

zoned_off@reddit

Really cool content, absolutely awful format. I prefer to row my own ~~gears~~ pictures.

Reply

[-]

DraaiZe@reddit (OP)

Agree! I kept clicking trying to pause

Reply

[-]

Nonameswhere@reddit

Maybe a Corolla to Corolla comparison would be more apt since it is a very old nameplate and there never was a gap in production. It is still considered a small car. Wonder how much bigger is the latest Corolla compared to the first one.

Reply

[-]

FlatBrokeEconomist@reddit

My first car was an 86. My mom now has a 2006, and it is significantly bigger than even the 80’s full size camry.

Reply

[-]

MyMotherIsASeagull@reddit

Did you even click the link? Check the 9th pic

Reply

[-]

turniphat@reddit

Car sized doesn't have the 1st one, but it's grown a fair bit since the 80s. https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-1987-liftback-vs-toyota-corolla-2018-5-door-hatchback/

Reply

[-]