Yes, cars are getting beefier all the way around, to the point where a compact sporty coupe like the Veloster makes an old S-Class look downright diminutive. Well, the W126 wasn’t ever all that big, designed shortly after the first energy crisis. Since looks can be deceiving, the S-Class is actually wider than the Veloster, by exactly one-half inch.
image by David Sullivan
I also lament the growth of cars but the growth of owners has been even more pronounced. The Veloster is case in point, I see it as an overgrown abberation but then again, many Veloster owners wouldn’t fit in a 1991 Miata.
When I first stepped into the driver’s seat of an NC Miata, the last thing I expected was to feel like I was too small for the car. Of course, its core market someone a couple decades older and paunchier than me, but still…
The new Miata! Now with room for YOUR spare tire!
Bada bing…
“I’m here all night – try the veal!”
Um, I have a Veloster. I have had no trouble getting into a Miata either. The V is still small by today’s standards. I look up at the back end of Corollas in that thing and it looks like a toy next to my F150.
Of course the size of the truck proves the point about how cars have grown in the last couple of decades.
It’s not that the S-Class has gotten smaller, modern cars have just gotten fatter. A W126 weighs about 3600 pounds, while a current S-Class is about 4300-4800, depending on the model. All that safety equipment adds up!
It’s more a case of new cars being taller; a W221 S-Class is about the same length as a W126.
Height, plus the perspective and (poor) parking of the Velosters also makes the W126 look smaller. One of my friends has an ~87 500 SEL—it definitely still looks and feels like a large car, and according to wikipedia is around forty inches longer than the Veloster. It’s just very low compared to many modern cars—sitting inside feels like sitting on a 25 year-old red leather reclining sofa (though the springs probably contribute more to that impression than anything else).
Its not just the safety equipment, its the toys that everyone demands today too. This high end Benz is almost a stripper today.
Recall the last time an old-school car started turning into you in traffic before you blasted your horn…
*silence*
These ugly modern-day cars have horrendous blind spots! Just look at that! Yuck.
It’s so true. This is why I’ve kept my 1997 Outback so long. I had a rental 2013 Escape I thought was so nice, how much I’d enjoy all that extra power and quiet, till I went to back up. My Subaru is like driving a greenhouse by comparison, the B pillars are narrower than the seatbelt. But I know which one I’d rather crash…
They don’t make them like they used to.
I noticed how much larger modern BMWs are when I had my ’87 325.
This makes me miss my old 325e coupe. Unbeatable visibility, with a decent sized backseat. Newer cars seem twice the size with claustrophobic interiors. What happened?
Safety and equipment- not dying in minor accidents has its costs. Side airbags, intrusion bars etc all bulk up a car. Plus all those power seats and sound proofing have to go somewhere! That lovely old Merc, even though in its day it was a extremely safe car in an accident, is pretty much a death trap compared to the modern equivalent. But I would still rather have it and take a risk!
Mercedes was always at the forefront of safety, so even a late 80s S-Class could hardly be called a death-trap. I’d feel as safe or safer as I would driving any 2013 model.
You did read the next few words after death trap?
I’d largely agree with you though, as M-B have designed their cars with more in mind than just passing standard 40mph offset crash tests. Having said that I bet the body of the new car is significantly stronger and more crashworthy than the older cars.
Looking at a googled photo, the crash test of the W126 shows some movement of the A pillar and roof, plus the sill under the drivers door, likely the door would be hard to open at least. I would not expect the last 2 generations of S class to have the same damage after the same test.
“Bugs Bunny, the Monopoly guy, and Daffy Duck all arrived at the same time and parked next to each other.”
Stop it Tom – you’re killing me! 🙂
Some of it has to do with the relative roundness of most new car designs today. The three box set up like the W126 M-B and many cars of the day made them appear to be longer than they might actually be. I am not sure if that was directly intentional or just the design fashion of the day. Chrysler really tried to maximize that allusion with their R-cars for 1979-81 because they couldn’t afford to engineer a new car. Unlike GM that emphasized the downsized nature of their cars, Chrysler wanted people to still think big.
I can’t tell from the picture which model is here but looks like the standard wheelbase 280 or 300SE which according to Wiki figures the 6 cylinder cars accounted for a majority of S class sedan sales. Where I live, M-B are seen semi regularly now but not so much of this genre. It seems to have taken the Gen-X generation to really bite into the M-B/BMW genre for trendy upscale cars.
I can’t see what series W126 this is; might be a smaller 300SE. Either way, I love these Benzes. I usually see the later 420SEL’s (L = Longer, “Limousine”) and there are a (not surpisingly) appreciable number of 23-32 year old W126s running around here on the island of Oahu (Honolulu County) in various degrees of condition (none to the point of “North Shore Surf Car – Haleiwa Orange!”). A walk by the Jaguar dealer in Kakaako has a very clean ’83 300SE in their used car lot. Turquoise over tan leather. Well kept.
You might call the Veloster a “compact sporty coupe” but I’d call it an oddball. I’ve only ever seen one, and I have no wish to see another.
How can something SO bulbous and tall have such a small amount of glass?
It’s my hope that some aspects of car design are cyclical, and that in a few years we’ll oscillate back to a more rational design aesthetic. For example, it seems to me that beltlines (for many cars, at least) moved upward in the forties, downward in the sixties, back up in the seventies, down again in the eighties, and up again for the past several years. Similarly, overall shapes have oscillated between boxy/functional and blobular/nonrational over the decades.
But… there are a whole lot of things that may have made my beloved 3-box sedan permanently obsolete. Aerodynamics is obviously a big part of it; that rear trunk sticking out into the trubulent air flow is no help whatsoever. But this doesn’t fully explain forms like the Veloster… e.g., why all the blind spots if safety is a genuine concern?
A couple of three-quarter baked theories: The rising beltlines of recent years help hide the many activities we now perform in our cars that we used to perform more privately, such as eating and talking on the phone. Then there’s the phenomenon of “risk homeostasis,” which says we tend to accept a given level of risk when we participate in an activity. If that activity is made safer, we act more dangerously to keep the overall risk where it was. Hence, antilock brakes and traction control and air bags mean it’s “OK” that we can’t see as well out of our cars.
Sigh.
I agree, I detest blind spots & invisible hoods & trunks which make sensors & cameras almost a necessity. Many modern designs look like a drunk styled them. What’s so bad about a three-box? Must visibility be compromised so much for the sake of Cd? So I miss the more rational ’80s designs one could actually see out of, which was why I was impressed with the contrarian 1st-gen Scion xB. Naturally Toyota had to ruin it later. Are they hiring ex-Detroit suits?
One of my pet peeves is the growth in the size of cars. My G37 sedan is perfect for dense, urban life: just under 70 inches wide, 187 inches long, tight turning circle, comfortable seating for four, good visibility, reasonably spacious trunk (with struts so no intrusion of hinges into the storage area). These criteria were paramount in my last search for a new car and my fear is that cars in this class – MB C-class, BMW 3-series, etc. – will keep growing (the G’s replacement Q50 is slightly larger).
Good design can produce stylish looks, better visibility, and reasonable space within tighter dimensions. MB and BMW were masters at this for years (in this regard, my friend’s new 1972 BMW 2002 was a revelation to me at the time, especially side-by-side with my new 1972 Maverick). I wish all automakers would keep this in mind when designing new models, and not just for the subcompact and compact classes as plenty of buyers of higher end cars want them to be reasonably sized, especially given the growing number of us who live in large urban areas with heavy traffic and restricted parking.
I like your points. While I more easily understand (but do not like) the recurrent American obsession with bulk, I don’t understand how European makes can square this with their EU customers, esp. given the more strident environmentalism there.
Ever-improving fuel efficiency and emissions do a good deal for environmentalism, even if much of the benefit is on paper. In Europe there seems to be a very large degree of ingrained newer = better, comparing the newer to old stereotypes of 30 year-old cars rather than seeing dimishing returns from more recent emissions steps or fuel economy that isn’t much better than say a 12 year old car. Having said that Europe was rather late in adopting catalytic converters.
There seems to be a strange disconnect between the resources used to build a new car and emissions resulting and the difference/reduction in emissions from actually driving said car versus its predecessor. Not to mention the other ‘fluffy’ stuff such as claimed recyclability of newer cars (biodegradable wiring looms anyone?) – 1950’s cars were plenty recyclable!
Yes, but if you trace the G37’s JDM Skyline heritage, you’ll see it grew substantially from its forefathers to reach the optimum version of today. They grew through the 50s/60s/70s; remained around the same size through the 80s and early 90s; and then 1993’s R33 grew rather a bit in wheelbase, length and almost every other direction. Unusually for the time, the R33’s 1998 R34 successor then shrank back down again in wheelbase and most other dimensions. My former R33 was the perfect size sports car; the R34 was too squashy by comparison (hence I drive a C35 Laurel, the R34 Skyline’s cruiser sibling, but built on the R33’s longer platform). A G35 Skyline is the logical and desired next step in my R33-C35-? ownership progression, but if it was C34 size, no way.
A great example of this is comparing the new “retro” Mustang to a first generation 65 Mustang. The new car looks fine by itself, but it looks massive when parked next to the classic. it’s only 6 inches longer overall, but it’s 6 inches wider, 6 inches taller and a 1,000 lbs heavier. But on the positive side, the new Mustang is a lot safer and can handle the girth of us up-sized Americans. One of the most popular modifications in a classic Mustang is modifying the seat pans to allow the seats to be mounted lower and further back so that your belly doesn’t rub the steering wheel.
Modifying the seat pans to make room for your stomach?! I guess now I’ve heard everything.
Man, the lengths one will go to to be lazy.
I once worked with a guy a long time ago who was maybe 6’2 350 who drove a 1980 Civic coupe with automatic and a/c and removed the rear seat and redrilled new holes for the front seats.
+1, Tom!
Go to a library & find the Consumer Reports issue (I forget which) comparing the ’70 Boss 302 with a modern V6 equivalent. Bottom line: Modern one heavier but quicker & had better MPG.
By 1970, the Mustang had strayed from its original roots and was quickly becoming the large near personal luxury muscle car that apexed with the 71-73 models. We knew the end was near as soon as Ford released the “GRANDE” model. The problem was, the 71-73s had Bunkie Knudson’s (old GM exec stolen by HFII in 1968) pawprints all over it – the same guy who greenlighted the original Pontiac Grand Prix. Of course we then know, that by the time Iacocca became President of Ford in 1970, he greenlighted the Mustang II for 1974 which brought the car back to something more like the original concept.
“Grande” was a trim option beginning in 1969. It’s springs were also recalibrated for a “softer” ride. It rolled in the corners like a Buick Deuce-and-a-quarter. The Mustang Grande was kind of a “poor lady’s T-bird”.
’69 and ’70 models came standard with a vinyl top, full wheel covers, white sidewall tires and a houndstooth-checked interior.
Not only safer, but it has much more in it. A basic 65 Mustang is a little more that an engine and wheels with a seat, a new Mustang has Lincoln features that are now commonplace in new cars.
I call that “feature inflation.” Andrew Carnegie is supposed to have said, “What were the luxuries have become the necessities of life.”
I confess to liking the ’71-73 Mustang fastback’s styling, even if it was a barge.
What about the new Camaro? Big and huge. And porky at about 4200 pounds.
Paul published a photo here a few months ago showing a current Mustang looking absolutely gigantic next to its 1971-73 counterpart.
Another rationale not so discussed the disappearance of the trunk lid. On three box cars and back in the day from post-WWII to the 1980s, hoods and trunks often took up 50% of the length of the car. Now a days, just look a the picture, the Hyundai’s have a hatch-like rear storage area. SUVs, crossovers, most coupes, and even a lot of sedans have these hybrid trunk designs that have altered the look of the car. All in an effort to maximize internal space and since most everything is FWD and transverse motors, you can move the A & C pillars out. The true evolution of cab forward design.
In other words, it is the modern version of the Pacer.
Funny you should say that. The first time I saw a Veloster on the road (a blue one), the first thing I thought was it looked like a retro Pacer.
Except you can actually see out of a Pacer.
And Mr. Pacer is much better looking. Sad.
Another reason for the shortening of the trunk, or at least why designers can get away with it: trunk openings nowadays are more efficient. They almost always extend from the very bottom of the rear window to the top of the bumper. In cars from the 60s and 70s, inches were often lost behind the rear window, and more inches were lost because designers didn’t feel compelled to minimize rear lift-over height. Comparing apples to apples, we now can get a comparable opening size from a smaller rear deck.
the long wheelbase W126 remains, in my mind, the most elegant luxury car to ever come out of Europe
What a revealing picture and well done for spotting this. Cars have indeed gotten larger these days it’s truly jaw-dropping when the proof is placed before your eyes. Does a sport coupe, or should a sport coupe that is meant to hold two or three persons in a pinch need to have nearly double the mass and displacement of an executive class car that is designed to hold five? To me, the designers have monumentally failed to meet the requirements set out in the brief. What’s really scandalous is all that increased size seems to have only benefited safety (the addition of airbags and better rigidity is to blame, they say).
Cars are undoubtedly safer; that’s true and that’s a very good thing, but there’s no getting around the fact that size creep is caused by the industry’s endemic practice of benchmarking the key competitor in a given segment and then trying to better that competitor on each of the key factors, and most of these factors (hip room, trunk space, etc… are factors that only look good on paper and marginally increasing them doesn’t pay off. A few model cycles of this and you arrive at where we are today.
Because the funny thing is; cars don’t feel roomier on the inside today than the ones from 20 years ago and I have gotten smaller rather than larger. And, until very recently (and finally brought to bear on the industry through government mandate), cars failed to deliver much else better utility, sportiness, etc…and improving gas mileage was never a benchmark figure worth much in US showroom. So fat was fashionable. We took fins, chrome and length and mushed and squished it up into a brick on four wheels, the SUV. Net gain on efficiency and gas mileage? A big fat zero, maybe even a minus 1. Carbon emissions? Maybe a plus 1 or 2. Not a lot to show for 40 years of auto industrial development. It’s shameful, really.
Even with the new reality here in the US, the automakers have found it hard to get out of the “benchmarking plus one” trap even as priorities have now focused on the kinds of factors that should start the new replacement models on a downward spiral but it hasn’t really happened. The best manufacturers have done to date is held the line in terms of size and weight, downsized turbocharged engines have been called upon to deliver the improved mileage and carbon footprint goals.
But just think of how different and substantially better cars COULD be if automakers stopped benchmarking each other and instead just designed the very best car possible! A car that for once really addressed the requirements, needs and yes, the fanciful dreams that can be found within any given auto segment.
Very well stated.
“Because the funny thing is; cars don’t feel roomier on the inside today than the ones from 20 years ago”
I would say that is true for large cars, but small & midsize cars have grown in that time, eg look at a 1992 Camry, Corolla, Accord, Civic etc. Huge difference.
I was forgetting I was a lot smaller and slimmer 20 years ago lol! 😉
I don’t know about the Veloster, but I’ve ridden in this vintage of S-class benzes, and its cavernous inside! Rooms you could stretch out in! (I rode on the back.)
Anyway, isn’t the point of getting an unusual car like the Veloster is to be unique? How annoying is that having the twin of your car, even in exact same color, parked just one car away…
Velosters are everywhere here in Brisbane, which is bizarre because Aussies are usually averse to coupes. They come in some awesome colors (pale matte grey, metallic copper) and I try to like them but they are WAY over styled. They need to clean up the design, get rid of a million feature lines and creases and indentations. It hasn’t grown on me like the Elantra and Sonata.
Ditto in NZ. The copper-coloured ones stand out a mile away on the motorway, but totally agree with you they are OTT. They look to me like a Toyota WiLL VS that’s given up exercising and let itself go: