|
I'm seriously looking forward to test driving a Mazda 3 myself. I went along with my brother for a test drive of the previous 3 with skyactiv and it was a seriously impressive car.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Outside of the styling factor of the 3. Wouldn't that overhang make parking in /pulling out of tight spaces a pain? That's one of the best perks of driving a compact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Math You posted:Outside of the styling factor of the 3. Wouldn't that overhang make parking in /pulling out of tight spaces a pain? Dunno, the overhang doesn't really look much bigger than any other FWD car with US bumpers. I think it's just the styling (and the angle on that particular photo) that accentuates it. For example, the sedan looks more proportionate:  compare to a similar sized car like the focus:  or the civic  The actual overhang is pretty much the same, but the front grille/nose of the Mazda is more square/upright and the A pillars aren't as pushed forward, so it looks longer. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Sep 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
The base model probably has small wheels. One thing you can do to hide the overhang is to use giant rims, which add unsprung weight and ruins ride and handlin. Thankfully Mazda has not gone that route. VAG loves this poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:and the A pillars aren't as pushed forward, so it looks longer. I think this is the big optical illusion. Notice how the A-pillar on the Focus and Civic both extend well into the area above the wheel well, meanwhile on the Mazda the A-pillar ends long before the wheel well even begins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
dissss posted:Doesn't look too bad to me - I guess all the 407 'wagons' around here have made me used to extremely long noses (the Mazda is far less awkward looking) I just recognized an ironic thing. When the CT200h came out i posted about it somewhere saying i thought it looked fairly good (mostly the F-Sport) and reminded me of a mazda3 hatch. Some people posted up and said that no, it looked terrible because the front overhang was too long, to which i thought 'ehhhh, i guess?'. Now the Mazda3, which 2 generations back was a benchmark for good looking 5drs in my opinion, has gone off the deep end of disproportionate front overhang. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Guinness posted:I think this is the big optical illusion. Notice how the A-pillar on the Focus and Civic both extend well into the area above the wheel well, meanwhile on the Mazda the A-pillar ends long before the wheel well even begins. I feel like the front end of the Mazda was designed as a sedan first then turned into a hatch. Instead of the Focus and many other compacts, which seem like they were designed as hatches first and then turned into sedans for NA. On a sedan, if you push the a-pillars that far forwards, the front starts to look bulbous and stubby compared to the rear and the trunk area, and the windshield angle gets so extreme it throws off the three box sedan look. But on a hatch, a stubbier looking front end helps balance out the rounded rear. The more upright windshield on the Mazda3 sedan help push the visual balance of the car back, especially the passenger compartment, going more for the classic sporty long hood, short deck look. On the hatch, it might push that balance a little too far back, making it a little bit (only a little) like the AMC Gremlin. Also, the problem isn't so much that the front overhang is unusually long (it really isn't any longer than other similar cars) but that the rear overhang is so short, which along with the hatchback and everything else unbalances the look a bit on the hatch. Dunno, I still think the 3 hatch looks pretty good for a FWD car. Also, super long A-pillars are bad for visibility and I'm a little sick of the whole cab-forward / bubble-car look anyway, so I welcome the giant nose. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Sep 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I feel like the front end of the Mazda was designed as a sedan first then turned into a hatch. Instead of the Focus and many other compacts, which seem like they were designed as hatches first and then turned into sedans for NA. On a sedan, if you push the a-pillars that far forwards, the front starts to look bulbous and stubby compared to the rear and the trunk area, and the windshield angle gets so extreme it throws off the three box sedan look. But on a hatch, a stubbier looking front end helps balance out the rounded rear. I get what you're saying and mostly agree with you. I think we can all agree that the pic of the hatch in goattrick's post makes the thing look especially bad. Some cars just have bad angles. But even with the 3-car profile comparison you posted, I find the Mazda to be the most awkwardly shaped. I'm not sure why they tried so hard to make the front end look longer, but i dont think it's helping the overall look of the car. The way the windshield comes off of the hood seems (relatively) abrupt and makes the car look like it was vertically 'pinched' right there. The way the styling makes the front end look longer works better on the sedan, but still not well. When i divide the car into front and back halfs at the B-pillar it looks like the rear section was compressed or the front section stretched. I think the sedan could use more visual balance and the hatch could use a LOT more. Vigo327 fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Vigo327 posted:I get what you're saying and mostly agree with you. I think we can all agree that the pic of the hatch in goattrick's post makes the thing look especially bad. Some cars just have bad angles. But even with the 3-car profile comparison you posted, I find the Mazda to be the most awkwardly shaped. I'm not sure why they tried so hard to make the front end look longer, but i dont think it's helping the overall look of the car. The way the windshield comes off of the hood seems abrupt and makes the car look like it was vertically 'pinched' right there. I feel like that's pretty standard styling, though. On a traditional sedan, there's a clear demarcation between the hood and the windshield as the intersection of two curves and not a single line from grille to roof. I think that the 3 sedan looks pretty good, in part because they push the passenger cabin back so it looks almost like a fake coupe. They're also trying to give the illusion of a greater axle-to-dash distance, again to try and remind you of a RWD sports car and hide the FWD proportions. And also because super angled A pillars are bad for visibility. But then again I've always thought the other cars I posted, like the Focus and the Civic, to look very awkward in their sedan forms because of the extreme windshield angles and shortened hoods, which makes the whole car look blobby and throws off the typical 3-box sedan profile. This is mostly down to personal preference, though. But it's not so much that Mazda tried to make the hood longer, it's that most of the compact competitors have tried to make the hood look shorter, and for compact cars A pillars now no longer end at the door hinges. Dunno, I like nerding out about car styling and I'm open to hear other peoples' opinions, since I'm not an actual expert or anything. Found some another profile photos that make the hatch look different:  
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
I think it's the wheel size. The wheels in the second image look pitifully small, while the wheels in the top version look appropriate even if they're only 1" larger all around (though to me it looks like 2", maybe 16 vs 18?) and mute some of the smashed-in effect of the rest of the car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:On a sedan, if you push the a-pillars that far forwards, the front starts to look bulbous and stubby compared to the rear and the trunk area, and the windshield angle gets so extreme it throws off the three box sedan look. I have that problem with most B segments, prime offenders being Sonic sedan and Fiesta sedan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:to try and remind you of a RWD sports car and hide the FWD proportions. This, and simply because in car design language "longer hood" tends to mean "more muscular".
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Dunno, I like nerding out about car styling and I'm open to hear other peoples' opinions, since I'm not an actual expert or anything. I dont know why the car is so susceptible to looking different from different angles. I even think that 1st photo looks noticeably better than the 2nd one. One thing i think may be affecting my thinking on the base of the windshield area is that the body line that goes from the back of the headlight to the middle of the front door is already sloping down as it passes under the base of the windshield. I think that tricks the mind into thinking the front is bulbous and rakes the wrong way even though no part of it is actually above the bottom of the windshield.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Doesn't pedestrian impact standards mean the hood is higher or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Pedestrian impact standards affect the minimum height of the front of the hood, which is why today's cars aren't nearly as pointy in front as they were >10 years ago. The height of the hood between the wheels is dictated by the suspension and engine height and hasn't really changed much. That means either the hoods can be made flat, which make the front end look bulbous and fat, or they can still have some slope, which pulls the windshield and glass line up and make the car claustrophobic (this is also affected by side impact standards.) The windshield can go lower and counteract some of this if the front of the glass is pulled forward, which is commonly done for aero reasons / headroom anyway. E: see above pics of Civic / Focus where the DLO is deliberately pulled down under the A-pillar to get bigger side windows with a higher windshield E2: My first bit was wrong anyway: quote:European legislation relating to pedestrian safety now requires an 81mm clearance between the hood and the immovable engine and suspension components beneath, for all European-market cars. Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Oct 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Pedestrian impact standards affect the minimum height of the front of the hood, which is why today's cars aren't nearly as pointy in front as they were >10 years ago. The height of the hood between the wheels is dictated by the suspension and engine height and hasn't really changed much. That means either the hoods can be made flat, which make the front end look bulbous and fat, or they can still have some slope, which pulls the windshield and glass line up and make the car claustrophobic (this is also affected by side impact standards.) The windshield can go lower and counteract some of this if the front of the glass is pulled forward, which is commonly done for aero reasons / headroom anyway. Not entirely true - there's no minimum height to the front, only a minimum distance between the hood and the top of the engine, so the whole front end has to be bulbous in order to give the required inch or whatever it is between hood and engine cover. The bulbous front ends are mostly to disguise this. The only alternative is an airbag and/or pop-up mechanism on the hood, which has been explored but has yet to be implemented because it's expensive and complicated.  Of course, these are standards from Europe, not the US, but they apply here anyway simply due to economies of scale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Who gives a poo poo about pedestrian safety? Only pedestrians, and they clearly aren't important or they'd be driving. drat plebs. In all seriousness though, those laws really do suck, but it's just a fact of modern life, safety trumps style.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:Who gives a poo poo about pedestrian safety? Only pedestrians, and they clearly aren't important or they'd be driving. Ironically they might actually end up worse for pedestrians, since now with giant tall front ends, more of the impact is delivered to smash their torsos to the ground and then run them over instead of being dissipated over a longer period of time, hitting their legs first as they are thrown on top of the hood. This used to be a criticism leveled at SUVs but now it seems to apply to almost every modern car. It's hard to say because the tests are done with dummies and are often pretty heavily abstracted. Higher cowls, taller riding positions, higher beltlines, thicker A-pillars, and smaller windows also reduce visibility and make it harder to spot pedestrians or low things like bikes and motorcycles, which might actually increase the chance of an accident as well. The world is complicated and these sorts of fairly arbitrary standards can often have unforeseen effects. They're also worse for fuel economy since they tend to increase drag and frontal area by making everything taller and fatter, in addition to adding weight and encouraging people to upgrade to 19 and 20-inch wheels so the wheels don't look small on their newly fatter car, which adds even more expense. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Oct 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Higher cowls, taller riding positions, higher beltlines, thicker A-pillars, and smaller windows also reduce visibility and make it harder to spot pedestrians or low things like bikes and motorcycles, which might actually increase the chance of an accident as well. I went from a '96 Subaru to an '07 Volvo, which really isn't that bad in this regard, but holy crap. The first time I drove the Volvo I was severely put off by how bad the visibility was. That's partially because I'm tall, and found that the rear view mirror is directly in my line of sight, but the A-pillar is quite obtrusive as well and the roof feels really low. I have a lot of trouble seeing traffic signals sometimes, and have to be very careful pulling out that no cross traffic (especially pedestrians) is hiding in my A-pillar. Everything about this car is better than my old one, except the visibility, and going from a car with a huge greenhouse and 3" wide A-pillars to one with 6" wide A-pillars set really far forward took a lot of adjusting. I can't imagine how bad it must be to drive one of these even newer cars with their belt-lines around your neck and A-pillars the size of a goon's thighs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The only alternative is an airbag and/or pop-up mechanism on the hood, which has been explored but has yet to be implemented because it's expensive and complicated. Some Nissans (the 370Z and some JDM Skylines) have had this since 2007 and Jaguar XK has had it since 2005.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The only alternative is an airbag and/or pop-up mechanism on the hood, which has been explored but has yet to be implemented because it's expensive and complicated. The EU version of the Nissan GTR at least does have a pop up hood and probably others too. There was an amusing thread quoted here from the GTR forums a while ago about how some guy's minor fender bender cost him ₤20,000 because of this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:I went from a '96 Subaru to an '07 Volvo, which really isn't that bad in this regard, but holy crap. The first time I drove the Volvo I was severely put off by how bad the visibility was. That's partially because I'm tall, and found that the rear view mirror is directly in my line of sight, but the A-pillar is quite obtrusive as well and the roof feels really low. I have a lot of trouble seeing traffic signals sometimes, and have to be very careful pulling out that no cross traffic (especially pedestrians) is hiding in my A-pillar. I've experienced annoyance at A-pillars being right in my line of sight in 'spirited maneuvers', but it's still case-by-case, not the kind of thing i'll paint with a broad brush. The 07 Prius we just bought definitely has this problem. Luckily i will not spend much time doing spirited maneuvers in it; it's fine for my partner who doesn't do such things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
I know we're a few pages past it, but while I was looking for the pics of that Plymouth concept, I came across an actually interesting thread on VWVortex, and pics of the 2002 Chrysler California Cruiser Concept. I had forgotten about this thing, but seriously, it's amazing how much better this looks than the production PT Cruiser. From the beltline down, it's basically a PT convertible, but the angular rear fenders and the square-ish roofline are enough to make it look a ton better. If Chrysler had actually built this, it might have been a real contender in the small-box-on-wheels segment.   
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Some official information about the next generation MINI hardtop has been released: http://www.motoringfile.com/2013/09/29/mini-unveils-f56-new-engine-transmissions-we-go-hands-on/ - Cooper: 1.5L Turbo I3, 134 hp, 162 lb-ft (at 1,250 RPM!) - Cooper S: 2.0L Turbo I4, 189 hp, 207 lb-ft - 6 speed manual with automatic rev matching or 6 speed automatic - Updated suspension geometry to reduce torque steer and increase steering feel - Adjustable shocks Seems a bit underpowered for a 2.0 Turbo, but hopefully they've focused on longevity and efficiency. It's still more powerful than the current Cooper S, which isn't exactly lacking in the real world. I bet they also left a lot of room for a more powerful model. Unofficially, there are new spy shots. The car seems to have less of a flat face than the last set of pictures, although to me it still doesn't look quite right. This is a Cooper S, and if the current lineup is anything to go on, the Cooper might look better since it won't have the hood scoop or brake duct underbite at the bottom. I currently have a Cooper S but I'm much more interested to see the regular Cooper this time around. Seems like a decent combo of power, weight, efficiency.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
DropShadow posted:I know we're a few pages past it, but while I was looking for the pics of that Plymouth concept, I came across an actually interesting thread on VWVortex, and pics of the 2002 Chrysler California Cruiser Concept. I had forgotten about this thing, but seriously, it's amazing how much better this looks than the production PT Cruiser. From the beltline down, it's basically a PT convertible, but the angular rear fenders and the square-ish roofline are enough to make it look a ton better. If Chrysler had actually built this, it might have been a real contender in the small-box-on-wheels segment. Possibly better than the PT Cruiser, but that thing is still gently caress-ugly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Possibly better than the PT Cruiser, but that thing is still gently caress-ugly. By the description it has 100% of the PT C's mechanical downsides as well. I don't really see what a slightly different greenhouse would do for sales, but maybe it would've had more impact eleven years ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Possibly better than the PT Cruiser, but that thing is still gently caress-ugly. I think it looks rather good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
DropShadow posted:how much better this looks than the production PT Cruiser Way to set the bar high. The PT Cruiser and HHR have got to be a couple of the ugliest cars made in recent times, followed closely by the Flex. I guess the Big Three have got to stick together in some things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Way to set the bar high. I think the HHR was acceptable, and if they did a redesign that opened up the greenhouse, cleaned up (or just detached and chrome plated) those bumpers, and made it less fat/inflated looking, it could be a perfectly decent small wagon / xB competitor. Maybe if they butched it up a bit to make it look more like the angular 60s Suburban instead of the 50s suburban. Something like this SEMA concept, except 4 doors and without the dumb pinstriping/weird windows:  Also I liked the Fairlane concept and the Flex. The proportions are a little bit off, but overall I like simple and clean designs instead of over-sculpted melty stuff, especially if it's a giant minivan anyway. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Oct 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
DropShadow posted:I know we're a few pages past it, but while I was looking for the pics of that Plymouth concept, I came across an actually interesting thread on VWVortex, and pics of the 2002 Chrysler California Cruiser Concept. I had forgotten about this thing, but seriously, it's amazing how much better this looks than the production PT Cruiser. From the beltline down, it's basically a PT convertible, but the angular rear fenders and the square-ish roofline are enough to make it look a ton better. If Chrysler had actually built this, it might have been a real contender in the small-box-on-wheels segment. Well, i guess reception was good enough in 2002 that they felt comfortable putting those headlights on the updated 2006 PT, the hood lines on the 03 crossfire, and the roofline and taillights on the 2008 caravan. So it wasn't a total loss. In my opinion some of the problems with the PT cruiser were that they didnt play up the retro ENOUGH (color options, wheel options, trim options, etc). Another problem was MPG, and the final problem that probably bothers me most is that there should have been a stretched version with a 3rd row. But at the end of the day it was always going to be kitsch. Most of us would probably still feel substantially the same about it even if they had done all those things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Way to set the bar high. Personally I give the Flex a pass, just because it's big enough to actually be useful for moving people. And also because of the Ecoboost option. A crossover that runs mid 13s in the 1/4? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
I, too, kind of like the Flex. It's not nearly as hideous, bulbous, and fat-looking as a PT Cruiser or HHR and it is a legitimately useful wagon-truck thing with its large size. My family rented one on a vacation once, and for hauling 4 adults + luggage (plus 2 golf bags) it did a good job. It's almost as practical as a minivan, but not (quite) as obnoxiously high-riding and poo poo-handling as an SUV. I'd never buy one since I don't need or want a car nearly that large, but if you put a gun to my head I'd buy one before a PTC or HHR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
I think yall are making GBS threads on the PT cruiser too hard. It was one of the first American cars in about 10 years (excluding vettes and vipers)that people were excited about. Sure that excitement faded fairly quickly and the design has not aged well, but better than the melted egg shaped also rans that were coming out at that time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Vigo327 posted:
They sold an ever-loving shitton of them though...So regardless of what people think of it now, or what "car guys" think, it made the company money. T It's not like the Aztek that cost a shitload to make and sold lovely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:I think yall are making GBS threads on the PT cruiser too hard. It was one of the first American cars in about 10 years (excluding vettes and vipers)that people were excited about. Sure that excitement faded fairly quickly and the design has not aged well, but better than the melted egg shaped also rans that were coming out at that time. I agree with you and Mighty Horse about keeping the PT in context, where it fares decently. I just have a tendency to look at everything that happened at chrysler under MB as coulda-beens because i grew up watching their explosive rise in the early-mid 90s and was loving it and looking forward to what was going to come out of them. As it is the PT is one of the only pre-takeover good ideas (of which there were MANY) that made it through the gauntlet and into production in a somewhat watered down state under Daimler. You could say the RWD LX cars were another good idea that made it through, but not after being set back for years and watered down by forcing Chrysler to do it with an old MB platform. That's another case of something that is successful in its own right but still didnt live up to what it could have been. Or the current 'pentastar' v6 engines which are relegated to also-ran status because MB slowed down chrysler's DI 300hp v6 to the point that it was late to market instead of first. Vigo327 fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Oct 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Since long commutes in dumb cars were mentioned earlier... I commute 156 miles per day in a Nissan Titan Pro 4X. Average MPG : 13.4 Yearly Miles : 40,560 + whatever I drive for pleasure. Average thus far is about 50,000miles/year I don't tow anything, and the only thing you'll find in the bed is a mountain bike from time to time, or camping gear two or three times per year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
So at $15,000 a year in gas, why not just buy a second car?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:Since long commutes in dumb cars were mentioned earlier... Well this sort of brings up a new car im pretty interested in, the Ram 3.0 Diesel. Assuming you got one and were able to average 26 mpg (this assumes something like a ~75% highway usage), it would basically pay for itself every month in fuel savings. Roughly $415/mo in savings on fuel, assuming diesel costs 0.40 more per gallon. Bring the mpg down some, raise the price of diesel some, etc, and at worst you would probably have to pay for half the truck, with the other half paid for in fuel cost savings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Hashal posted:So at $15,000 a year in gas, why not just buy a second car? I left out one slightly important bit of information: I'm supplied with a car allowance and gas card. I've always had a company car up until my company decided to make the switch the allowances last year. It's not a terrible deal, and I prefer driving my truck to the Prius I was supplied by my company. Being on the hook for maintenance sucks, but the allowance covers my payments and I have free gas. It's also nice that I don't have to drive anywhere or use my car for my job. I commute to the office and back and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Vigo327 posted:You could say the RWD LX cars were another good idea that made it through, but not after being set back for years and watered down by forcing Chrysler to do it with an old MB platform. Just to clear something up, the LX cars are not and never were based on a Benz platform. They re-did some of the suspension components so they were based on old E-class tooling, but that's it. Those things are almost pure Chrysler.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 22:35
|
|
