Most small cars are more narrow than larger cars, with width proportioned to length. This makes for easier parking, less weight, less wind resistance, and better MPG.
However, I don’t like sitting against a door, for safety reasons. I think most small cars have worse side-crash ratings than most larger cars.
Why not make a small car just a lttle more “square?” (close to large car width). It would have more room, be safer in a side crash, and have a wider track for fewer roll-overs.
Would they have to inherently sacrifice most of the MPG advantage or is there a way around that?
. I don’t see how widening the car will allow you to sit away from the door. MOST people WANT to sit next to the door. That’s where the arm rest is and the controls for the windows and door-locks. I don’t see how it’s going to be safer in a side impact crash.
. Small cars are designed with the main purpose of increase gas mileage. So as you say…widening the car will yield lower gas mileage…then what’s the point.
. Small cars are NOT prone to rollovers. In general they’re fairly safe vehicles.
. A wider small car is less nimble…which a lot of people want in a small car. The ONE safety feature you pointed out (not being right up against the door)…is NOT really a safety feature. That’s where MOST people want to be…so that’s where the seat is going to be. I see no advantage in making small cars wider.
I think that small cars seem very tall compared to the rest of their dimensions because in an attempt to make the car feel bigger engineers try to allow more head room giving the car an airy feeling.
I would like to ask where you get your statistics/information? or is this just your perception? I have been around “small” cars a long time (i’m from Ireland) and roll overs are something I dont thing I have ever really heard of. the center of gravity of these cars is still very low, even if the roof is tall.
the honda Fit, is exactly the car you describe and it gets really good crash test ratings, better than a lot of large sedans/suv’s.
If small cars were wider, they would be mid-sized cars. There are plenty of mid-sized cars on the market for you to choose from.
How is that for a common sense answer?
If you want a really wide small car, you need to find an AMC Pacer. I owned one and it seemed quite stable and there was as much room between the driver and the door as on any large car. It was a very safe car–it didn’t run much of the time so I wasn’t in any danger on the highway.
If you want a really wide small car, you need to find an AMC Pacer.
Yea…but they were so UGLY.
I watched a rerun of “Wayne’s World” the other day. It features nerdy, ugly actors, and they found the perfect car for them, an AMC Pacer.
As I recall from test reports, the gas mileage of the Pacer was no great shakes; it was too heavy, had too much FRONTAL AREA with the result that the wind resistance was the same as a lager car. The definiton of an economy car demands that it also uses less gas. The Pacer was easy to park, and see out of; it was a fishbowl in wheels.
The common sense answer is that they don’t make 'em because few people would buy 'em.
None of your personal preferences are shared by the large market in general. Manufacturers figure these things out before planning new models. They will only make what they know they can sell.
I sat in some Ford pickups and the seat is so far from the door that I ruled out buying one. They also had thode dumb running bars under the door that force you to get dirty when you crawl in. I call it ergonothing.
Get a small car with side air bags. That will be far safer than a wider car. Actually in an accident I doubt if having a few more inches between you and the door would increase safety at all. You and that door are going to connect at about the same speed no matter how far you are away from it. I just means you may have a few hundredths of a second more time before you connect.
They are not going to make what you want because the market is just too small, most people want all those things you list.
In addition to the other correct answers that were already given, I will provide another. In Japan, in addition to other ways of computing the tax on a new car, the WIDTH of the car is a factor in the rate of taxation. The reason for this is that Japan abounds in old, very narrow alleyways and lanes, and a car that is wider than a particular measurement is considered to be a nuisance and/or a luxury. Certainly the Japanese manufacturers are not going to manufacture the same model in differing widths for different countries, so on their cheaper cars, narrow is the way to go.
Europe also has many ancient narrow byways where a wide car is a nuisance. Even though cars are taxed in Europe on the basis of their engine displacement, it is still advantageous for a car to be fairly narrrow on that continent.
And, even though the economy cars from other countries do not sell particularly well in Japan, it is necessary for manufacturers from other countries to attempt to be competitive in the Japanese market, so the Japanese tax structure drives this design parameter in other countries also.
So, unless you are willing to settle for the old, ugly, not particularly economical AMC Pacer, I think that you will have to accept small cars that are more narrow than you would like.
I think small cars are in fact wider than they used to be, at least in the US. When I had a '75 Civic I could easily reach the passenger door from the driver seat without leaning. Currently my '06 Matrix is shorter, taller and wider than my '88 Accord. And the Accord is a bigger class of car than the Corolla/Matrix.
To my knowledge, Both Honda and Toyota sell 2 different sise family cars. The Accord and Camry are narrower in Japan and some other foreign markets for reasons stated by others. Japanese drivers are also narrower and skinner than American drivers, reported to be the fattest (largest butts) in the world. We politely call it “elbow room”.
The AMC Pacer was manufactured in a time period (1975-1978) when mileage on most cars wasn’t all that terrific. I do remember that the mileage on the Pacer with its 258 cubic inch 6 cylinder engine was about the same as the Ford Maverick that I also owned with a 250 cubic inch 6. In many ways, the design of the Pacer was great if you had a small child as I did. The right door was a couple of inches longer than the left door and I could put my 2 year old son in his child seat that was in the back seat without a problem. He could also see out very well. I still had the safety of a 2 door car. The Pacer was much more comfortable than the Ford Maverick, and with its rack and pinion steering handled better than the Maverick. The Pacer did have problems–the exhaust manifold cracked, a baffle came loose in the gas tank, and the diaphram in the vacuum advance on the distributor ruptured. This latter problem caused the distributor cap to blow off on occasion. The 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon that I bought to replace the Pacer is a heavier car, but with its 260 cubic inch V-8 engine, gets better mileage than the Pacer ever did. I still have the Oldsmobile after 30 years. I’m certain that the Pacer has long since met the crusher.