We live in an age of obesity

We live in an age of obesity

>we
Speak for yourself fatass.

safety*

Safety*

Your mother lives in obesity

that photo shows how much Porsche clings to its heritage, its not really that much bigger

Wider wheelbase = better handling.

You don't want to sacrifice performance just so some jackoff can forgo learning to park properly, ever, so all cars will always be fat.

It's not safety. We have always been able to design safe cars that aren't miniature tanks with slit windows.

Duh faggot, its called crumple zones and its why cars are fat compared to the slimmer looking cars of the past

You can, in fact, build a smaller crumple zone that crumples just as well. It would just cost more than anyone would be willing to pay for five fewer inches to park.

The Porsche looks better
Who cares about the others

The wide wheel base looks way better, but I'm sick of tiny windows.

...

> 911 is similar height
> and wider track for the obvious benefits
I don't see the problem unless you like overly twitchy shit boxes that can't go around a corner with any resemblance of stability or speed

...

They're faster, safer, more comfortable, and look better. (With the exception of the Mini)

>because i hate bmw xddd
you live a sad life.

No senpai it just looks shit

every single one of them does

...

Don't remind me OP

They don't make 'em like they used to, raised, tucked, lithe and athletic looking, hips out and ass up, ready to pounce.

...

forgot pic

The NDs actually 6inches shorter than the NA iirc

Based Mazda

Lol, the Porsche just got wiiiiiiide

It's also a Carrera 4S which are wider than the standard Carreras

1.3 in. actually.

no we live in the age of heavy safety regulations

>cherrypicking

>Mazda bucks the trend
>user bitches anyways
Kill yourself

The ND also doesn't weight much more than the NA, right?

>was safety worth it?

Maybe 50lbs more

A few days ago I parked a brand new Rav4 for my neighbor.

When I first saw it I was surprised at how large the car had gotten. It also had fuckhuge mirrors for some reason.

Then I climbed in and was surprised again at how small it was inside.

Car designers are doing something fucking wrong.

Yeah.

>aunt buys fat as fuck mitsubishi outlander suv
>less legroom for the rear passengers than in my e46 coupe

And yet each "fat" car is 15x better to drive than the old one

Mother drives a '12 outlander, its pretty nice for a cross over
Got inside a brand new outlander this Monday, its fucking huge outside and smaller inside, shit is fucked u

Germans are big people so their always have lots of leg room

Japs are tiny people and jap cars reflect that

911 looks better with girth in the hips

>with strait and flat roads
make no mistake that corners and inclines are being removed from old roads at a rapid pace

It's worse than you think

>tfw anorexic in an obese car world

The problem with wider cars is that besides making them heavier and less aero efficient, is that on real roads (expecially mountain roads) you have less room to actually pick your trajectory, so you won't have as much fun driving.

Parking the car depends more on overall lenght though.

It's probably why newer drivers can't deal with understeer when they try and be hektic m8 for their friends

>that by several inches lifted body exposing half the wheelwell
Good effort

bigger problem is there are people who never deal with low traction because of wide tires
and when it does happen its quick because of the high speed they are going

wide tires are also shit on some types of ice and snow as well as mud
they just sit on top and throw slush rather than compacting and gaining grip

Miatas came like that from the factory in the USA though

porsche has done worse.

>safety increase
>power increases
>efficiency increases
>pretty much everything is better

So bad.

efficiency increase is not exact, it's more like better performance for the same fuel consumption, which is a positive.

However, steering feel and throttle response are not coming back thanks to EPS and throttle by wire (even on N/A engines).

>now to list what's worse

stereo systems
material selection
comfort & ergonomics
outward cabin visibility
ease of repair and maintenance
chassis and suspension design (electronic stability control and the like now avoids the built in limitations)
driver feed back (efforts in fly by wire and hnv reduction means that drivers are both less aware and less able to deal with what the car is doing)

what's behind all of this is rampant cost cutting to meet the demand of a larger and less discerning pool of cheapskate car buyers
not to mention the retirement of designers with well founded concepts

Is the driver thing that noticeable? As in some people would actually, memes aside, get an e30 m3 over a 2017 m4?

>death trap and small
>safe and somewhat larger
also
>cherrypicking

well, the m4 thing is not fair since that is turbocharged so it would be noticeable anyway. But if you have a feel for it, you can tell very easily that is a certain lag due to latency, then a certain ramp before catching up (blame emissions controls), it's not even due to fuel injection though so you can mostly eliminate it. Cars like the nissan 370z are notorious for the difference in the throttle response you can get with a remap.

...

the ariel atom is fatter than the nsx.

crash safety mandates

>cherry picking
I could post the same pics with mustangs and f100's.

...

...

...

>implying the cars on the right are even big

Nobody wants to drive in a fucking clown car except japs who are naturally tiny and weeboo teenage ricers.

that's more due to the t33 being a racing car though.

...

fly by wire is very different
when it was first being developed for aircraft the flight controls provided no feed back to the pilot at all
this was causing huge problems with then current test pilots so a system of force feed back was implemented to stop them from crashing all the time

the problem is a bit like lag between what is happening and what the pilot is aware of
with manual control's there is a more immediate feed back
and without it the pilot has to anticipate more what will happen and wait much longer to see the effects of his actions
this is made worse by overly comfortable cabins that further numb and delay the senses

also coming in around the same time was auto pilot for take off and landing as well as cruising at altitude
this alone causes problems one is that even experienced pilots come to rely on the system and begin to for get their training
and even if they do remember their training the reliance on the system has lulled them into a state of inattention so they can not react in time

examples where this can cause crashes
clear air turbulence during take off or landing -auto pilot cant deal with it but skilled pilots can

sensor failure most notable irl being
>air speed sensor failure under auto pilot resulting in a stall
>gps and or map inaccuracy leading aircraft into a mountain range
>altitude sensor failure crashing the aircraft into the runway on landing (think -15 meters)

a computer much like a person can only act on information given
this information could be incorrect but not known to be so
it is assumed correct and actions are taken based on it
without humans over seeing computers and vice versa mistakes easily go to far

in short use it or loose it
the body can even fall asleep if it thinks nothing is going on even tho you have plenty of rest
and hallucinate if there is a lack of information and stimulus

That's because people were skinny manlets back then

The new Mini is fucking moronically big for being a city car.

>yfw modern cars actually have less interior space than smaller old cars

>Fatbarge: 1971 Edition

4 seater RR car on the left, MR 2 seater on one right.

>tfw today's fat-barges make it look sleek
and its not just the size its the shape
I used to think the 1960s mustang was fat
having only ever seen photos and not knowing that it was small for its time
then I saw one in person in a car park next to new cars that make the mustang look tiny

The Evora is technically 2+2.

It's because it's not only width, but height as well. Just compare the amount of ground clearence between old and new (another reason why newer cars have stiffer suspension).

>ground clearance
diffusers and side skirts are part of it
as is roads being much smoother than they once were

>stiffer suspension
they really want to get rid of body roll
people forget that body roll is part of the suspension

and the kicker
less suspension travel
so they don't have to worry about the suspension arms moving to an extent they cause a unwanted change in alignment

finally the springs now have to hold up more mass over a shorter distance
no room for softness

What happened to Tony Soprano?

I like this topic. Have some older size comparisons, not limited to the same model

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

dont talk to me or my son ever again

...

That's all folks!

We live in an age of being able to walk away from a crash

>wheel touching the lane
Fucking truckfags I swear.
REEEE

Yeah, that's gay.

>unless you like overly twitchy shit boxes that can't go around a corner with any resemblance of stability or speed

Oh yes. I drive an old beetle, which is taller, but I assume handles similarly by layout. It doesn't have the power but you can feel the limits way more easily than any other car that I've driven. It's fantastic.

What is the name of that blue car?

That's because the limits are so much fucking lower in your piece of shit, you'd approach them taking off too quickly at a red light