My How You Have Grown
 

A comparison of how models have grown in size. I found it saddening. :( Think of the efficiency increases if everything hadn't gotten so wide and tall. :(

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/rese...tanntp#image=1

nhtsa- perhaps.

epa- no.

lard-ass Duhmericans- definitely.

47 slides?! So ask me how you can make a good salary without college. It's making clickbait "news"! You start out as an apprentice baiter, then work your way up to journeyman baiter, finally you can be a master baiter and write for MSN. They just make it look so easy!

Seems like the hoop you need to jump through for the content. sigh

Yep cars keep gettin bigger so manufacturers have to keep introducing new smaller models.

Corolla got too big so yaris and echo were born.

Landcruiser got too big so prado and Rav4 was born. Current Rav4 is nearly as big as the landcruiser we had as kids.

Bmw 3 series gets too big so the 1 series is born.

There's may other examples too

I will pass on the slideshow. Some people may like that format, but I find them tedious. I have found some sites that convert slideshows into a single page, but they did not seem to work very well.

According to Wikipedia:
The first Honda Accord:
Wheelbase 2,380 mm (94 in) sedan
Length 4,450 mm (175 in) sedan
Width 1,620 mm (64 in) sedan
Height 1,360 mm (54 in) sedan
Curb weight 945 kg (2,083 lb)

Compact car: 1976–1989
Mid-size car: 1990–present
Full-size car: 2008–2012 (North America, sedan)

1988-1991 Civic
Wheelbase 2,500 mm (98.4 in)
Length 156.1 in (3,965 mm) (hatchback)
166.5 in (4,229 mm) (sedan)
161.7 in (4,107 mm) (wagon)
Width 65.6 in (1,666 mm) (hatchback)
65.9 in (1,674 mm) (sedan)
66.1 in (1,679 mm) [wagon?]
Height 52.4 in (1,331 mm) (hatchback)
53.5 in (1,359 mm) (sedan)
56.1 in (1,425 mm) (FWD Wagon)
56.9 in (1,445 mm) (4WD Wagon)
http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1510319721

I am pretty sure that the current Civic is larger than my 1990 Accord

Back probably over 20 years ago. Car & Driver did an article about how car prices were skyrocketing. They compared an Accord from maybe 10 or 12 years earlier with a then current Civic. Why? Because the Civic had grown over the years so that its size and weight were comparable to the older Accord.

Can we compare the prices of the 70s Accord, 90s Civic, and current Fit, adjusting for inflation?

1972 N600 (2 door hatch), 1100lbs: MSRP $1473 ...8626
1977 Accord, (2 door hatch) 2018lbs: $4000 ...16157
1987 Accord LX (mid range) sedan, 2529lbs: $13,414 ...28904
1997 Accord LX, 2900lbs: $18,990 ...28962
2007 Accord LX, 3100lbs: $22,500 ...26563
2017 Accord LX, 3240lbs: $22,455

1977 Civic, ~1500lbs: $2800 ...11310
1987 Civic hatch, 1841lbs: $7500 ...16161
1997 Civic hatch DX, 2238lbs: $12,200 ...18607
2007 Civic, 2660lbs: $16,000 ...18889
2017 Civic hatch, 2915lbs: $21,375

2007 Honda Fit base, 2432lbs : $15,500 ...18299
2017 Honda Fit base, 2513lbs: $16,800

Charts of: year vs weight, year vs 2017 dollar price, price vs weight

Oops, just noticed the price/year chart has the wrong title. Oh well, the axes are labelled correctly.

Just for interest, the original Ford F-series pickup weighed about 3025-3250 lbs (depending on options), nowadays the F-150 runs 4,051 to 5,238 lbs, the F-350 5,909 to 6,989 lbs. Can't find prices for the F1s, though.

I'm not going to try to find it but I saw a picture of a BMC Mini, a original BMW Mini, and a current Countryman Mini. The current BMW is to the original as the original is to the BMC predecessor.

Yep. The new Mini --- isn't.

I see these comparisons always start with a little car but what if you started further back, and didn't focus on a name which is meaningless? Look say at the #1 selling Ford or Chevy and go back to the beginning, or just the best selling car period year by year. They started small, got bigger and bigger, then smaller, and now bigger again.

Here you go!

Model T: 1908–27
Dimensions
Wheelbase 100.0 in (2,540 mm)
Length 134 in (3,404 mm)
Curb weight 1,200 pounds (540 kg)

Fiesta: 2017--
Wheelbase 2,493 mm (98.1 in)
Length 4,040 mm (159 in) (hatchback)
4,406 mm (173.5 in) (saloon)
Width 1,734 mm (68.3 in) (w/o mirrors)
Height 1,483 mm (58.4 in)
Curb weight 1,113–1,207 kg (2,454–2,661 lb)

I think that is all of them! :D

So 100 years and about the same size.

Ps, although almost 3 times the weight! Bring back those wagon wheels and tires!

I doubt the entire weight gain is from the wheels. Why don't you just put 26es on your car?

Narrower is better, right?

I think a perfect fitment for a VW Beetle would be 19" Model A wires, or 19" MG-TC wires with knockoffs, with BMW i3 Bridgeports.

That's not surprising.

The current 2017 Civic has the same weight, wheelbase and interior space as the 1997 Accord. (okay, the Accord has a *longer* trunk, and is thus longer, but the Civic has more cubic feet of trunk space).

And, adjusted for inflation, you get MORE car for your money with the 2017 Civic than you did with the 1997 Accord. Faster, too, with the 1.5 Turbo.

Well the Accord one day be the size of an battleship, the Civic the size of a cruiser, and the Fit the size of a destroyer, with new smaller cars that are still larger than the original Accord?

Depends on what exactly you mean by more. In this case, I think "less is more" applies. It's rather like adding 100 lbs to your Sports Illustrated swimsuit model or Chippendale dancer - not something most of us would think of as an improvement :-)

100 pounds of clothing? That seems excessive.

This comes a bit late, but still:
from fiat 500 article at driving.ca:
http://wpmedia.driving.ca/2016/03/fi...op=1&strip=all

and from mini article at motoringfile.com:

http://s3.motoringfile.com/wp-conten..._369484_25.jpg

Would be tough to reverse-park that Mini towards the other Mini, as you would not be able to see it!

But these graphs don't exactly show the growth of cars per se. Just the inflation of cars bearing a certain type name.

I had an '85 Civic. When I got a lift in an older Civic that was a completely different car.
Then I got aboard an '82 Accord I recognised a lot from my car.

Honda did not increase the size of the Civic at that time.
They downsized (and seriously restyled) the Accord and rebadged it Civic.

Volkswagen's Golf used to be their smallest car just as the Beetle it replaced.
Then they introduced the Polo to have a smaller car.
The current Polo is already a lot bigger than the original Golf, so they introduced even smaller cars like the Lupo, which got replaced by the Brazilian Fox and even smaller Up!.

So as the models grow, smaller ones are introduced to fill the void their growth creates.

Honda's Accord has all but outgrown the Dutch market and is rarely sold. The sub-Civic Jazz (Fit) may be their best seller here. The Legend is long gone and forgotten.

Except that the new "small" models are still bigger than the original model, E.g. the first generation ('70s) Civic: 146.9 x 59.25 x 52.25 inches, 1,500 lbs (hatchback), vs the Fit: 157.4 x 65.9 x 60.0 inches, 2,390 lb.

This one tells the story. Even though people may have turned into indistinct blobs of protoplasm, our skeletal structure is still the same. So things like the H-point and sight lines are unchanged.

I still think the VW Beetle is right-sized for humans.

Yes, because if the new small cars were built like the old ones they would not be allowed on the road.
Also our expectations have changed. Even in a 'cheap' car we want A/C, stereo, power windows, adjustable seats with headrests, power to get to 100 mph, ...

Like this?

http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-fr...1-100-1207.jpg

Real race economy cars don't have doors.

I'd be surprised if a modern stereo (not "infotainment" system*) isn't lighter than a '70s radio, even without the 8-track tape player. Put one in the Miata a couple of months ago: weighs about a pound, and instead of a box of 8-track or cassette tapes, or even CDs, I can put hundreds of disks worth of audio on something the size of my thumbnail.

Same applies to most of the rest. Given modern materials & engineering, just about everything could be made both lighter & stronger. Consider the Insight: it can get to 100 mph (at least if you don't have a headwind) using an engine that I can lift with one hand. (128 lbs per Insight Central)

*FTM, what does one of those "infotainment" systems do that can't be done by your average tablet, weighing in at a pound or two?

More like this: Welcome to ArielAtom.com

Ha, I knew one of the list would be pulled and criticized. But I won't have it.

Modern car stereo systems are way more powerful. Even if the radio's are not heavier than 40 years ago the speakers, wires and padding/sound proofing definitely are.

Even so, the original Beetle, Mini and Fiat 500 did not have a radio at all.
And no radio is still lighter than even the tiniest music players of today.

Ponder the weight of two or three 12" subwoofers. And the second battery.

Back in the day cars only had two options, a radio and/or a heater. The 1949 Nash Airflyte was the first car with an integrated heat/vent system.

edit:
jamesqf — Your link gets a redirect to https://www.arielna.com/

I don't like the Atoms difficult ingress/egress and weather protection. I do like the Nomad, but I don't need one:

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...mad+Hummer.jpg

Well, this seems like a surprisingly touchy thread...but the ballooning weight is one of several reasons I've really struggled to accept cars of the last ~10 years or so.

And my 2013 Fit is right about the same weight as my 1989 Accord was.

1st gen CRX weighs about the same as a 1st gen Insight (both w/o A/C) despite the latter being made of aluminum, saving I believe ~300lbs, and the CRX probably has more interior volume. Both had radios. :p

But those are neither necessary nor desirable if you're planning a system to listen to, rather than one to annoy everyone within a quarter mile, and ensure continued profitability of hearing aid makers.

Even ordinary speakers ought to be lighter these days, since the old iron permanent magnets can be replaced with more powerful rare earth ones.

Weird, my underseat 10" fills in the deep bass nicely and doesn't bother anyone and my hearing is just fine.

Subs are not just for shaking things, some of us use them listening at a reasonable volume.

Certainly, but your underseat 10" is not a pair of 12's in the back with an extra battery. I have a sub and amp in my Insight too, but the weight added is negligible.

I wasn't trying to cause a problem. I understand a ganged array of cheap styrofoam boat speakers delivers acceptable bass.

My '85 Civic came with a 6 Watt mono radio cassette player and one speaker in the left door only. There were wires to the right door but no speaker.
Moms actually had the radio removed as she was teaching evening courses in the worst parts of The Hague, and even that lousy mono radio would have been an excuse to have a window smashed.

10 years later I put a Sony 4x55 Watt radio with CD changer in the car and Boston Rallye 6.5" high end speakers and a couple of pounds of some weird Swedish audio dampening foam.

Each speaker was easily 20 times as heavy as the tinny speaker Honda put in, which had a hump on the back containing the coil and all less than one inch across.
The Boston magnet alone had a larger diameter than the whole Honda speaker. When I accidentally let it come within an inch of some metal part it pulled itself out of my hands and stuck with a bang. Had to pull with all my strength to free it.

The Insight OEM stereo system is probably not as good as my aftermarket system in that Civic, but in a totally different league compared to the Civic OEM thingy.
Times have changed.