We live in an age of obesity
>we
Speak for yourself fatass.
safety*
Safety*
>>15193954
Your mother lives in obesity
>>15193954
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.
>>15193991
Duh faggot, its called crumple zones and its why cars are fat compared to the slimmer looking cars of the past
>>15193998
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.
>>15193954
The Porsche looks better
Who cares about the others
>>15193954
The wide wheel base looks way better, but I'm sick of tiny windows.
>>15194047
>>15193954
> 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
>>15193954
They're faster, safer, more comfortable, and look better. (With the exception of the Mini)
>>15194505
>because i hate bmw xddd
you live a sad life.
>>15194550
No senpai it just looks shit
>>15194559
every single one of them does
>>15193954
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.
>>15194862
>>15194865
forgot pic
>>15194862
The NDs actually 6inches shorter than the NA iirc
>>15194862
>>15194868
Based Mazda
>>15193954
Lol, the Porsche just got wiiiiiiide
>>15194950
It's also a Carrera 4S which are wider than the standard Carreras
>>15194874
1.3 in. actually.
no we live in the age of heavy safety regulations
>>15194862
>cherrypicking
>>15194988
>Mazda bucks the trend
>anon bitches anyways
Kill yourself
>>15194874
The ND also doesn't weight much more than the NA, right?
>was safety worth it?
>>15195045
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.
>>15195467
Yeah.
>aunt buys fat as fuck mitsubishi outlander suv
>less legroom for the rear passengers than in my e46 coupe
>>15193954
And yet each "fat" car is 15x better to drive than the old one
>>15195511
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
>>15195511
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
>>15193954
>with strait and flat roads
make no mistake that corners and inclines are being removed from old roads at a rapid pace
>>15193954
It's worse than you think
>tfw anorexic in an obese car world
>>15194073
>>15194043
>>15193991
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.
>>15196284
It's probably why newer drivers can't deal with understeer when they try and be hektic m8 for their friends
>>15194868
>that by several inches lifted body exposing half the wheelwell
Good effort
>>15196284
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
>>15196325
Miatas came like that from the factory in the USA though
>>15193971
porsche has done worse.
>safety increase
>power increases
>efficiency increases
>pretty much everything is better
So bad.
>>15196416
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).
>>15196416
>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
>>15196595
>>15196484
Is the driver thing that noticeable? As in some people would actually, memes aside, get an e30 m3 over a 2017 m4?
>>15193954
>death trap and small
>safe and somewhat larger
also
>cherrypicking
>>15196609
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
>>15196627
>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.
>>15196987
that's more due to the t33 being a racing car though.
>>15196609
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
>>15193954
That's because people were skinny manlets back then
>>15196991
The new Mini is fucking moronically big for being a city car.
>>15196627
>yfw modern cars actually have less interior space than smaller old cars
>>15194870
>Fatbarge: 1971 Edition
>>15197147
4 seater RR car on the left, MR 2 seater on one right.
>>15197155
>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
>>15197158
The Evora is technically 2+2.
>>15197246
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).
>>15197337
>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
>>15193964
What happened to Tony Soprano?
I like this topic. Have some older size comparisons, not limited to the same model
>>15197690
dont talk to me or my son ever again
That's all folks!
>>15193954
We live in an age of being able to walk away from a crash
>>15197709
>wheel touching the lane
Fucking truckfags I swear.
REEEE
>>15199012
Yeah, that's gay.
>>15194073
>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.
>>15197158
What is the name of that blue car?
>>15199319
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
>>15194862
>>15194868
Needs an engine that can Rev to 9k
>>15199486
Actually, I have unintentionally spun the wheels at a stoplight when it was raining. So that is true.
>mfw
>>15196595
Nigger, are you complaining about the 11 speaker audio you get in modern cars?
>>15196959
Wide with skinny tires or wide with fat tires
>>15196987
5'3 manlet's car
>>15199539
>my car is heavier and more expensive so i can go deaf easier
>hooray
>>15199579
>implying speaker quality is raising the decibel level
>>15195467
Toyota is terrible at interior ergonomics. The seating and steering wheel position is weird as fuck in my Pontiac Vibe, but at least it's spacious. The last gen Corolla has one of the most cramped uncomfortable driving positions I've ever encountered.
>>15199450
It's an Alpine.
>>15199539
its mostly head units getting shitty and I was referring to oem becoming lower spec to the point id rather not have a stereo
a while ago you either got no stereo from factory or you optioned the car to come with its stock oem
even base clarion head units with matsushita electric industrial speakers put out good sound compared to current oem
so far as I can tell Bose is only optioned high end
and very few car makers bring aftermarket into the fold as an option
and below the point of pissing money away no one is buying good stuff
the last average car with a decent stereo was the Hyundai Tiburon rd
>>15193954
>he wants to die in a low speed collision
>>15199579
>>15199579
they are all tiny speakers
and destined for naturally heavy luxury cars
seems the main benefit is sound stage but I doubt their rage extension given the small diameter of the chosen mid and low range drivers
>>15199613
enclosure design is king
and mean counts for more than peak power
>>15196609
throttle lag on modern econoboxes is just terrible
>>15194012
I don't know about that. It seems physically impossible for a smaller crumple zone to work as well as a larger one with equal technology.
For instance, the Smart Fortwo has a very small crumple zone, and this creates a big rebound as seen in the IIHS crash test video. More rebound = greater force.
>>15199704
>she wants to wrap herself with 1 tonne of metal and plastic just to be sure, because human life is so fragile and can be taken away in the blink of an eye by cruel world full of dangers
>>15200604
More force wasted to rebound lightweight wehicle=less forced used to crumple it
I was hit by an audi wagon in my twingo. Light car was pushed about 10 meters, partially sideways on it's skinny tires, taking no damage besides small bodywork dent. If it had muh grips and muh mass it'd stay in place and get crumpled.
>>15200651
I meant force on the occupants.
>>15200672
force is force
It was already happening long time ago.
>pull up to an intersection
>turning left, in left lane
>every time there's a truck or crossover or minivan in the opposite left lane, I can't see around them to check if I can make the turn without being turned into road pizza
Fat cars are a menace to society.
>>15197701
lel
>>15193954
Of course we do. Gotta haul fat american asses around somehow. Put the average yank in a Mini, and the tires would burst, the suspension would bottom out, and the chassis would snap down the middle.
Try to put them in an old Fiat 500, and they'd get stuck in the door. You'd have to force them in with a crowbar, bend the frame back afterwards, and they'd just destroy it in seconds.
>>15197416
>body roll is part of the suspension
> Americans actually believe this
>>15197656
Almost identical wheels.
>>15201447
actually, these are the same wheels just with a different offset
if you want to know exactly what wheels, these are watanabe style, probably enkei compe
>>15197416
Eeeewww body roll and fat rolls are gross
>>15201503
>watanabe style
>Enkei compes
>heavy compe wheels on racecars
They're either Minilite, Compomotive, or Panasport wheels. They're very light and come in custom sizes.
>>15201527
>>15197669
>>15193954
>>15196826
>>15196935
>>15194870
our 69/70 mustangfs destroyed those things back in the 70s... those later model chrger whatevers whee a joke. I lmao now when I see show do a "oh restore of some POS 72/71 charger or duster
>>15197629
s2000s face looks like an ayy lmao
>>15197704
D corsa - best corsa
>>15201809
I literally have no idea what you're saying
>>15196404
>Car on the right
JUST
>>15201901
I wouldn't agree.
>>15196404
Panamera got four seats. I would rather drive Tesla.
>>15201787
>that one fat chick
>>15201324
Mate, my father is 6'3 and 230lbs, he fits in every generation mini, original included. Na and NBC miata, not so much.
Actually, I'm impressed the 911 has managed to stay as small as possible.
One would have thought it would have become fuckhuge like many sportscars, yet it's still quite compact, especially compared to its competition.
>>15202024
In this case, the fat chick would still climb on your dick and squirm like a weasel until you nut a fucking galaxy inside her.
I mean, all the skinny chicks would still be nice. They'd probably still be good at fuckin'.
>>15202724
I don't doubt that she would be a performer but the lack of looks and personality doesn't seem worth it for that market value.
This thread has done odd things to my dick...
>>15202953
Old sports car vs modern 5 seat hatch. They're built not quite for the same purpose.
Cars have gotten so small nowadays.
ITT: Manlets who want cars that look just like them
>>15197635
>pillars made of god's bones
>>15203045
>elephant hood ornament
At least they're being honest.
>>15196484
>throttle by wire
oh god, all my WHY. I drove a 2015 avenger not too long ago and the fucking thing felt like it was going to stall at every stop sign and intersection due to the sheer amount of hesitation. There's like a 1-2 second delay from when you hit the gas pedal to when you start moving. feels so fucking unnatural. How do people drive like this?
>>15200622
...exactly
>>15196484
if you think that renault has better throttle response than all modern cars just because it has a cable throttle then you're deluded
>>15196826
The NSX isn't particularly small or light. Low? Yes. But it's longer, wider and heavier than a GT86 or MX-5. Though still much more powerful than either.
>>15204318
>How do people drive like this?
By not having a shitty throttle-by-wire implementation? Such as both cars in pic related.
>>15204375
is there something wrong with that particular EFI system I don't know about? Because even a well tuned carb setup will have better throttle response than modern cars. Throttle by wire is only there for emissions. There's a built in hesitation done on purpose.
Throttle response also has to do with the intake system design itself, the stroke vs bore size etc etc etc
>>15196695
Not that bad.
As long as it's got the ass of a toyobaru, I'm okay with fat cars
>>15204318
I think thats less to do with DBW and more to do with Dodge. Definitely prefer a real throttle cable but car shouldn't be that bad, thats just general sloppiness on the manufacturers part.
>>15193964
Isn't that a medical illustration for cushings disease?
>>15204402
>Because even a well tuned carb setup will have better throttle response than modern cars. There's a built in hesitation done on purpose.
So your argument is that a properly set up carb with a cable linkage has better response than poorly set up fuel injection with an electronic throttle.
Well I guess that settles that.
Just so you're aware, the NSX was given an electronic throttle to accompany its electronic power steering (the horror!) in 1996. I'm pretty sure I've never heard a complaint about its fucking throttle response.
>>15204510
>thats just general sloppiness on the manufacturers part
Exactly. It's like saying all hamburgers are crap because you've only eaten Jr. Cheeseburgers at Wendy's.
>>15204567
Except a car from 1996 is not a modern car. It's 20 years old. Today emissions standards are even more stringent.
And who said anything about a poorly setup fuel injection system? The manufacturers tune these cars for emissions first, economy second, and pedal feel / throttle response way at the bottom of the list. A quick jab at the throttle induces a very rich condition, which isn't good when it comes to muh EPA. Even if the driver really did want a quick jab, the drive by wire won't allow it. Same with revving. if you stab it in neutral or park to throw some faggy ass revs and then let off the engine will actually sit at around 2-3k RPM and slowly back down to avoid an over rich condition.
Granted dodges seem to be the worst, but other people report hesitation from any car brand you can think of with any model that has drive by wire.
>NSX
>I'm pretty sure I've never heard a complaint about its fucking throttle response.
Why don't you go ahead and google up 'NSX drive by wire lag'. There's plenty of people saying they can notice some hesitation. Yeah, it's probably not as noticeable as the dodges, But it's still there and noticeable. Why the fuck are you defending throttle hesitation? Literally the only reason it was invented and implemented in the first place is because of emissions. It doesn't make the car better in any way other than for the enviroment.
We live in an age that figured out that a wider wheelbase is better than a narrow one m8
>>15195068
if it means i can drive more then yes
>>15204765
I'm also not saying throttle by wire is inherently flawed(though a regular cable would last longer and is much simpler). All I'm saying is throttle by wire is always going to suck for the lone reason of emission standards. TBW could perform just as well and be just as instantaneous as a regular cable if it WEREN'T for emissions.
>>15194154
The C3 is closer to the camera retard. C3s are 10" longer than C6s, barely lower and three inches narrower.
>>15204879
*C6 is closer
>>15204765
>Even if the driver really did want a quick jab, the drive by wire won't allow it.
This.
Can't rev match in my newer shitbox, it's annoying. You hit the gas quickly to just blip it and nothing happens.
>>15204765
>Why don't you go ahead and google up 'NSX drive by wire lag'
This literally yielded the exact opposite result of what you claim.
>Even if the driver really did want a quick jab, the drive by wire won't allow it. Same with revving.
Then tune out the lag, genius. It's not the technology's fault.
>>15204917
>Can't rev match in my newer shitbox
Then learn to compensate for your car's shitty DBW system.
>>15205229
>he has to modify his car to aftermarket specs to reduce BUILT IN HESSITATION.
>he defends this
You'll also never get that hesitation to completely go away unless you plan on horribly failing smog tests.
So pray tell, why exactly is drive by wire any better than a regular throttle cable?
>>15200903
That's nuts.
>>15201733
Kek
Also F
>>15202024
This. Every big group of chicks at the bar has at least one cock blocking defensive lineman.
>>15202724
As a guy who has made that mistake a few times: no.
>>15204549
Yes, nice work anon. I reverse image searched it because I was curious. Turns out it's caused by such things as prednisone. Which explained what happened to me when I was on it. It's shitty stuff but I needed it.
>>15201336
it is something that prevents the mass of the body from immodestly affecting the suspension
I run 295s on the rear of my M3.
Makes my ass look even fatter than the fenders make it look.
>>15196284
This thread is really starting to depress me. Why even live in this generation.
>>15205943
>what has science done
made the cars better and the drivers worse
not much change, just heavier and uglier...
>>15206039
no its just that the other cars are hiding behind it
Why can't all cars today be built like a 90's era Volvo? Ahead of its time.
>>15205943
this is what people want, indirectly
>>15205330
they'd build in the hesitation on cable throttles as well if they still used them.
either that or they'd just not build them at all as they wouldn't be able to meet emissions.
so, no hesitation = no ICE. is that what you'd like instead?
>>15199450
Renault-Alpine A310
>>15206831
No, that would be pic related.
>>15206831
A610 YA FUGGIN GUNT
>>15206959
Actually you could simply call it the GTA, although the internal version number is 501 (if turbo without the catalitic converter).
>>15201932
Prefer the xr2 every time
>>15201932
xr2 all day
>>15206889
>filename
Dude what are you doing go watch eva
>>15197656
>Don't ever speak to me or my wife's son again
>>15193954
The MINI isn't really a fair comparison. They're comparing it against an entirely different model, namely the countryman, which is a small SUV. If they wanted to make a fair comparison, they would have chosen the cooper, which is still pretty small (though still much larger than the old mini).
>>15208837
>(though still much larger than the old mini)
yep
>>15205588
> Americans actually believe this, as well
>>15194874
It weighs only a little more than the NA or NB, but less than the NC
>>15199539
>make sure to select lowest tier stereo
>proceed to replace shit stereo with $600 of good shit
>>15208880
I personally think it's a flaw that so many systems try to be entirely integrated nowadays. It would make much more sense to have navigation system, sound system and rearwards camera unit as modular pieces you can swap in and out with a few screws.
>>15209081
But that would keep people from spending $$$ on options, totally irresponsible!
