Last year when I was looking to trade up, one car I looked at was an Audi A4. I found there was less legroom in the back than in my Seat Leon - same idea as above, put the driver's seat in my position and then tried to get in behind. It was a struggle! Perhaps the front seat in the Audi wasn't sculpted in the same way as in the Leon, but it was a bit of a disappointment. One thing I like about the Passat I ended up with is that there's loads of room front and rear for legs and heads - virtually the same as an Audi A6. It was certainly roomier than the old 5-Series I had.
andymc
|
It's to prepare you for the level of comfort when you travel by plane. Look on the bright side, coaches are even worse!
Gareth (6'1")
|
Hahaha, try a 'new' Virgin Voyager.
Yes you get a plug by your seat, just a pitty that if I do actually get a seat, I can't sit in it without taking up two seats by sitting diagonally. [Parallels to the car parking thread?]
7 hours standing up, Hahahahahahahahaha. God bless progress.
Kev [somewhere about 6'1]
P.S. Think sp's stat isn't too far away, depends if it's just the yoof age group I think he speaks for.
|
|
|
|
I agree with you about the Passat, which only reinforces my point. This is a modern family hatchback/saloon with a decent amount of internal space that also looks good from a styling point of view. That is perhaps something Ford took to heart when designing the new Mondeo - it certainly did with the overall look of the car. I haven't sat in a new Vectra, so perhaps someone could comment on this one. I have sat in the latest Laguna though and it too has poor rear headroom.
Let's knock another point on the head. There are very few people who are too short to drive a biggish car. Most modern family saloons have height adjustable seats and steering wheels that adjust for height and reach. As for the average family being two adults and two children, well there are lots of teenage boys that are 6ft and over.
The fact is that the population of the Western world is becoming taller and, thanks to obesity, bulkier with each generation.
|
|
m - you are right about small people driving large cars. My daughter is 5'0" and occasionally drives a Primera or even a Jag. She has a low navel-ratio (short legs) and her main problem is having to sit uncomfortably close to the wheel.
|
|
|
Try a Skoda Superb. Bags of room fore and aft.
Speaking from experience, I have yet to encounter a large car where I am unable to find a good seating position. At 5\'6\" I always seem to be able to find something to suit. Once you get to 5\'2\" or less it is a totally different story. You often see shorter drivers hugging the steering wheel. Many car seat\'s, once adjusted for height, have to be pulled forward for shorter drivers to have good control of the pedals. Result? Chest on steering wheel and pained expression when braking hard. Dread to think what an airbag will do in such circumstances. Certainly I have often seen advice that shorter drivers consider having the airbag deactivated if they are that close to the wheel.
I go back to my earlier point. Buy a car that fits. Complaining that certain cars don\'t fit your physical requirements is a little like the purchaser with large loads to carry complaining that the boot on a Smart is too small for their needs. Move on, find one that fits the bill. Everyone has a list of priorities when buying a car and may be disgruntled when a favourite has to be excluded when the reality falls short of expectations. This is no different.
Just saw Andrew T\'s note, posted whilst I was composing this. It mirrors the point made about proximity to the steering wheel.
|
I agree with you about the Skoda Superb, but you have thrown in another red herring. I am not referring to the likes of Smart Cars, or even superminis (or going up the scale even more, Focus size cars). I repeat, I am referring to the Mondeo class of saloons where some of its competitors have serious space limitations owing to design issues. I also repeat that I am not unusually tall or bulky. I don't generally look at anything smaller than a Mondeo class car when I am considering buying a car, because I know it won't fit the bill for space. In the back of the Volvo S40 I tried at the weekend, I was seriously uncomfortable in the back seat, not just slightly cramped.
Back in the seventies, I used to have an NSU 1000C. Now that was a small car but I was comfortable in the drivers seat and I used to be able to sit comfortably behind my wife if she was driving the car. My mother and father could also sit in reasonable comfort behind me and they were 5ft.9in and 5ft.10in respectively.
|
I think No Dosh used the Smart car to illustrate a point of buying a car for what you need in general - not your point specifically, so no red herring. He could just have easily have compared it to someone who wants a car which is easy to park buying a Jeep Grand Cherokee, or similar.
Someone who wanted a car which displayed his individuality buying a BMW 3-series perhaps? ;-)
|
|
|
Apologies for the Smart reference - it was using an extreme to illustrate a point rather than suggesting you seriously consider one.
The S40 is a bit of an oddity in its class. As mentioned above, it is built on the Focus platform and really sits in Rover 45/BMW 3 series territory on size, rather than Passat/Mondeo/Vectra/406.
The sharply raking rear roof lines, combined with higher seats in the rear of cars really aren't compatible with your needs for a whole swathe of the market. Rear seats tend to sit higher to give greater perceived legroom for small-medium height (if you are sat more upright you don't need your legs to wander off into the distance to be comfortable) and also are useful in allowing car designers to package the fuel tank further forward in the structure. It's all design to the market median out of necessity as few people would want a car capable of carrying 4 six-footers if the price is a smaller boot or poorer fuel economy due to aerodynamic compromises.
|
My answer to your last issue of cars capable of carrying 4 six footers in comfort is again to point to the Mondeo, the C5 and the Passat. All have good enough fuel economy for the class (especially the diesels), good aerodynamics and big boots. The Mondeo and Passat look good enough also, whilst the C5 is an acquired taste. So it can be done without compromises in this class of car. Why would a car manufacturer not want to design a family car that appeals to the whole population?
Anyone have any relevant comments on the new Vectra?
|
|
I found the Vectra to be claustrophobic in the front. Wouldn't dare sit in the back.
|
|
Have you tried a Vauxhall Omega not a small to medium size but you can buy it for the same price my m8 sits in mine with comfort who is also 6,2.
|
|
|
|
|
It comes back to misleading marketing. The S40 is not, by any stretch (pun intended) of the imagination in the same league as a Passat, no matter how Volvo pitch the quality and price. It's Bora sized, no more, no less. Ditto the 156, pitched firmly at the BMW3 series, in itself no match of the capacity of a Mondeo or Passat.
|
Adding to the above, I think we should consider a distinction between true family cars and those pitched at the \"exec\" market (I shudder when I use that phrase).
Bora, 3 series, S40, 156 are all aimed at the thrusting young exec or those with a need for some carrying capacity but with a firm eye on driving fun. The ads sell them on these values, not their ability to lug 4 adults around. That\'s where the next class up comes. The S40 is a bit of an unknown quantity at the moment as the ad men haven\'t really pitched an identity for it, but the previous model was certainly aimed at the \"lifestyle\" market.
Classic example is my 156 Sportwagon. Some call it an estate, but in reality it is little more than a well crafted hatchback. The hinge for the rear is so far forward on the roofline and the actual load carrying capacity so poor that to call it an estate is a travesty. I chose it as I do sometimes have a need to shift stuff that you can\'t get in a saloon (due to access rather than overall capacity) and I love the way it drives. The looks totally blow me away as well. After 15 months with it, I still smile when I see it in a car park and think \"that\'s mine, that is\"
If you look at the overall dimensions, it\'s nothing more than a pretty Ford Focus with a bit more rear legroom and a hell of a lot more grunt.
|
Classic example is my 156 Sportwagon. Some call it an estate, but in reality it is little more than a well crafted hatchback.
The preferred term amongst the Sportwagon owners on AlfaOwner is a '5-door coupe'. ;-)
|
But they all chose to spend their hard earned cash on an Alfa ... would you trust their opinion?
[duck beneath nearest available cover]
That was TIC btw, before anyone insults me and starts a new moderator thread...
|
I don't need to duck. I normally find taller people to get in the way of any incoming flak.
That was TIC as well.
Bazza is partly correct. The correct term is 5door Veloce sports coupe..... Unless you have Tourismo spec in which case you should keep quite about it.... Peasants!
VERY TIC!
|
But they all chose to spend their hard earned cash on an Alfa ... would you trust their opinion? [duck beneath nearest available cover] That was TIC btw, before anyone insults me and starts a new moderator thread...
Even if I pointed it out as TIC, I still think that I'd get moderated if I revealed what they tend to refer to your chosen mode of transport as, Mr. Patently. Lol
Oh, that was TIC by the way ;-)
|
what they tend to refer to your chosen mode of transport as, Mr. Patently
Oh I'm well aware.....A thick skin comes as an optional extra....
|
Now you have moved on to one of my favourite subjects - Alfa Romeos. We had two back in the 90s, the first being a 75 and the second being a 164. We only had them for a short time, before common sense prevailed and we traded the 164 in for a Xantia, which we have had for almost 10 years. The strange thing is that the person who bought the 164 got in touch with us recently and sent us a photo of the car which he took just before he traded it in for an Audi (I think). It still looked in pristine condition. I could never get a comfortable driving position in the 164.
Moving on to the 156, from my memory the headroom in the back of one of those is not bad. I can't remember what the legroom is like. I know that the driving position is miles better than a 75, 155 or 164. I still keep wondering whether it would make sense to get another Alfa, I do love the look of the 156.
|
If you do, seriously consider the 2.4JTD. The new 20v version is an absolute rocket!
Although I have no problems with the engine, I would warn you to expect to replace the odd suspension bush from time to time. I had the rear bushes done on mine at 30,000 and it's not uncommon on the earlier cars to have to look at the front bushes as well. Not what you expect, I know, but I consider it a small price to pay for the overall package. I have a car that looks, drives and handles at least on a par with a 3 series and got to keep the change. Not bad really.
Go on, take one for a test drive. You know you want to......
:o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
