510 messages,
Last post on May 14, 2013 at 7:27 AM
You are in the
Automotive News & Views Forum.
What is this discussion about?
Automotive News
#430 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [andre1969]
by hpmctorque
Oct 02, 2012 (7:32 am)
I think interior space, and how it's configured, are more significant than exterior dimensions. Such things as FWD and space efficiency in general, seats that are much more adjustable, and greater attention to interior configuration has compensated for smaller exterior dimensions and three abreast front seat capability.
Wouldn't four people, and especially the driver front seat passenger, be more comfortable in a new Accord than, say, a '60s or '70s Impala/Galaxie/Fury on a long trip?
#431 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [benjaminh]
by lemko
Oct 02, 2012 (7:34 am)
I imagine that hood opened from the back like my Park Ave. It was the only car I had that did that. Ford products of the 1950s had hoods that opened fron the back as well.
#432 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [keystonecarfan]
by lemko
Oct 02, 2012 (7:37 am)
I had a 1979 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency with the 403 V-8 that went 148K+ miles before being destroyed in an accident with a box truck.
#433 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [lemko]
by fezo
Oct 02, 2012 (7:43 am)
My grandfather's old 49 Buick's hood opened from the side!
#434 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [fezo]
by lemko
Oct 02, 2012 (7:53 am)
Those old Buicks had a setup where you could open the hood from either side. I imagine if you hit all four latches and had some help, you could take the entire hood off.
#435 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [hpmctorque]
by andre1969
Oct 02, 2012 (8:01 am)
Wouldn't four people, and especially the driver front seat passenger, be more comfortable in a new Accord than, say, a '60s or '70s Impala/Galaxie/Fury on a long trip?
They might just be. I know my '67 Catalina convertible, which is the same basic thing as an Impala, isn't that comfortable for me on long trips. Legroom is a bit tight, but worse, the steering wheel is too close to my chest, so I have to drive with my arms bent a little, and that gives me a touch of tennis elbow after awhile. And if I can't stretch my left leg from time to time, my knee gets a bit achy. Getting old is a B*tch!
The seats also aren't all that well padded and there's no side bolstering or contouring to speak of. However, one thing that it does well is give me some support in my lower back. Many newer cars seem to overdo it at the upper back, but not the lower, so it forces me into a bit of a slouching position and my back starts hurting. However, I dunno if a new Accord would do that or not. I'm sure a nicer model would have lumbar support, which would definitely help.
#436 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [lemko]
by fezo
Oct 02, 2012 (12:17 pm)
You may be right. He was gone by the time we hit the age where we would have thought of attempting such a thing - but indeed you could open it from either side. I remember him doing that.
#437 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [andre1969]
by keystonecarfan
Oct 02, 2012 (2:24 pm)
GM cars of the 1960s weren't known for prioritizing passenger space over style. Judging by the sales figures, customers didn't seem to mind, although GM pushed it too far with the 1971 full-size cars and personal luxury cars and 1973 Colonnade intermediates.
To some extent, the growth in sales of Mercedes and Volvo at that time was a reaction to domestic cars that were huge outside and not very roomy inside.
It wasn't just the imports that were more space efficient. The 1965-68 Chrysler Corporation full-size cars felt HUGE inside compared to their GM counterparts.
#438 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [keystonecarfan]
by benjaminh
Oct 02, 2012 (3:32 pm)
Good observation. But by the 1980s this had changed, maybe for everybody. My 1988 Olds 98 was at least a foot shorter and about a thousand pounds lighter than a 1984 98, but it had almost the same amount of room inside as the previous generation. That 1988 Olds 98 (or really starting with the 1985's) was small on the outside and big on the inside. I think it was bigger on the inside than many of today's cars of the same size...
#439 of 510 Re: Honda reliability [benjaminh]
by andre1969
Oct 02, 2012 (3:42 pm)
Believe it or not, it was about TWO feet shorter! I think the 1984 Olds 98 was around 221" long, while the 1985 was around 196".
Compared to the 1984, the main thing the '85 gave up was trunk space and shoulder room. I think legroom was about the same. However, I sat in Lemko's '88 Park Ave once or twice, and it seemed like the seat sat up a bit higher, but didn't go back quite as far as the old RWD models did. I think headroom overall was increased, too.
The trunk got shrunk from around 20-21 cubic feet to maybe 15.5-16. And it probably lost a lot of towing capacity. However, I've always wondered...how much could an early 80's RWD B/C body tow, anyway? Somehow, I don't think an '84 Ninety-Eight, sporting a 140 hp 307 with 255 ft-lb of torque and mated to the lightweight THM200-R4 transmission would be all that capable. That transmission could be beefed up considerably...after all, it was used in the Buick Grand National. But, I still don't think a 140 hp engine is going to be all that great at trailering.
I think you're right, though. Nothing that small (~196 inches) is going to be nearly as roomy inside as those early FWD C-bodies.