Archive for the ‘Car Specifications’ Category

As noted in my review, I really like driving the new Ford Fusion. I even find its rear seat the most comfortable in the midsize sedan segment. But I’m only 5-9, and even I can tell that the Fusion (top photo) doesn’t have nearly as much legroom as the VW Passat (bottom photo). Ford’s official specs (displayed here until we have better ones) state otherwise. What’s up?

My strong suspicion: they’ve cheated the specs the same way they did for the new Escape. With the Escape, they moved the front seat all the way back, measured front legroom, then shifted the front seat to where the X-percentile driver would put it, and measured rear legroom. Voila, 2.7 more inches of combined legroom!

(more…)

Inputting the interior dimensions for the redesigned crossover, the combination of 43.1 inches of front legroom and 36.8 inches of rear legroom surprised me. I’ve been in the new Escape, and its rear seat is considerably tighter than most in the segment. Yet these specs from the brochure (and various popular car sites) suggest it should rank among the roomiest.

Suspecting a typo, I checked the official specifications sheet on Ford’s media site. There they have not one but two front legroom specs, 40.4″ and 43.1″, the latter labeled “Max legroom.” This makes some sense, as there are two legitimate ways to measure front legroom, one with the front seat set for an x-percentile male (which generally yields a number in the 40-to-41-inch range) and another with the front seat as far back as it will go. Most manufacturers publish only the first spec, but others (most notably Nissan and Hyundai) often publish the latter.

So what’s wrong with Ford’s technique? When other manufacturers release the max spec, they also measure rear legroom with the front seat all the way back. Ford, on the other hand, is providing front legroom with the front seat all the way back plus rear legroom with the front seat pushed forward 2.7 inches. I’ve entered specs for hundreds of different cars over the years, but I can’t recall anyone doing this before.

If Ford had released two sets of numbers, I’d praise them, as the Escape could then be compared to competitors measured with either method. But the logical complement of a “maximum front legroom” spec, “minimum rear legroom,” is nowhere to be found. They’re only using the alternate method when it makes their car look better. Not only this, but in the numbers car buyers will see they’re combining one stat measured using one method with another measured using the other to misleadingly suggest that the new Ford Escape’s total legroom is nearly three inches greater than it actually is. This isn’t a trivial amount. It’s enough to move a car from near the bottom of a segment to near the top.

Ford has already recalled the Escape for a fuel line issue. Perhaps they should recall the brochures as well?

Back in 2002, Jaguar had to restate the power output of its engines in the U.S. because it had been using the DIN (German) rather than the SAE (American) formula for horsepower. Since 100 DIN horsepower are equal to 98.6 SAE horsepower, Jaguar’s “400-horsepower” supercharged V8 ended up being credited with a less impressive 390. (Why not 394? Apparently it wasn’t quite making 400 DIN.)

Well, it seems that VW never got the memo. I’ve been adding European powertrains for European cars, because we have some members outside North America who have been requesting them. To keep things consistent, I decide to enter SAE horsepower for these engines into the database. And it turns out that the figures VW and Audi publicize in the US are DIN, not SAE.

I’m not going to correct their official US figures, because this would be confusing. But as a result the figures will be a bit off for the US engines when these are viewed by European members.

Of greater concern: American car buyers aren’t getting quite as much horsepower as they think they are.

Back when I first became interested in cars, the second-generation Honda Accord was one of the hottest products on the market. People liked it because it was thoughtfully designed, well-assembled, agile, and compact. What it was not: fast or roomy. Owners looked down on Detroit iron as unnecessarily large and wasteful.

For 2008, Honda has introduced an eighth generation Accord. And it’s huge, a little larger even than Acura’s RL flagship. Compared to the 1983 Honda Accord, the 2008 has nearly 14 inches more wheelbase, over 20 inches more length (for a total of 194.1!), nearly eight inches more width, and four inches more height. Curb weight is up by over 1,000 pounds for the four-cylinder, and by over 1,400 for the V6. The latter weighs over 3,600 pounds. These are all HUGE differences. Even today’s Civic is significantly larger than that old Accord. More pointedly, the Accord is now much larger and heavier than most of Detroit’s midsizers were back in 1983.

Engine output has grown even faster than the car’s size. Back in 1983, the sole engine was a 1.7-liter four good for just 75 horsepower. For 2008, engines range from a 177-horsepower 2.4-liter four to a 268-horsepower 3.5-liter V6. The latter is nearly four times as powerful as the 1983′s engine.

Back in 1983, Honda loyalists saw Detroit’s V6s and V8s as unnecessarily large and powerful. Now we have an Accord that seems to confirm that Detroit was right all along: bigger and more powerful is better.

Is this as large and powerful as the Accord will get? Or can we expect a two-ton, 200-inch-long Honda sedan in the future? Even the size of the 2008 boggles my mind, since I still vividly recall the compact, finely detailed 1983 car.

From time to time I receive an email asking which cars are most comfortable for someone who is tall, long-legged, large, or all of the above. Problem is, I’m none of the above–at 5-9 and 175 pounds I’m probably very close to the size person cars are designed around. So this isn’t something I can evaluate well during my test drives. Even so, I’ve long noticed that the official interior dimensions provided by manufacturers are at best a loose indicator of how roomy a car actually is. Why? I don’t know, but that’s the way it is. So the specs are nearly useless for answering such questions.

In the end, the best information will come from people who are tall, long-legged, or large and who have paid attention to comfort while shopping for their own cars. If you fit any of these descriptions, please either leave a comment or contact me (see link at the bottom of the page). Whenever possible, be specific about how a particular car excels (headroom, legroom, cabin width, ease of getting in and out, and so forth). I’ll update this blog entry as information comes in.

I strongly encourage people of all shapes and sizes to evaluate roominess and comfort as much as possible before buying a car. Too many people discover that a car is physically uncomfortable for them after buying it–and this is something that the warranty and lemon laws do not cover. In other words, once such a problem occurs, you’re stuck with it as long as you own the car.

Vehicle specifications seem simple enough. After all, scales and tape measures provide numbers that would appear to required no interpretation. And yet, for at least two major specifications, there are enough hard to explain anomalies in the official numbers that they cannot be readily trusted.

(more…)