balthazar

I agree, but it points to the real world weight of having models in each & every segment in order to 'compete', when in so many instances --mercedees, BMW, audi (to a lesser extent), for EX-- your statement is the exact scenario. I personally like having unique, niche models, breaks up the monotony, but many believe every model has to be a volume tour de force.

More than enough room and comfy, to boot!

I've waited & waited to read a statement from the UAW that shows they're connected to reality, but so far these many years, I must've missed it.

Look no further than the supplementing of 'cubic feet' for actual interior measurements one can gauge vs. themselves and other cars for an EX of this. Oh- they still have most of the interior measurements, but the hip room statistic is defunct since everything has a console now and that number is going to look ridiculous if they publish it. But they need things to look as if they're progressing...

There are numerous subjectives involved in judging a given car's suitability to a person; it's seldom back & white. No one 'needs' a car that can exceed even 100 MPH, yet scores buy cars capable of half that again. Preference.

'69-71 Chrysler convert, dark blue, a bit tired, hitchin' a ride on the tail of a car carrier. circa '70 Imperial 2-dr hardtop, black, nice original, motorin'. '66 Merc Monterey convert, blue w/ top down, very decent original, motorin'.

It's available right now, on dealer lots. That's your 2011 metric. The TC is current in the realm of making comparisons (and will be for a number of years). s-class is no where near the size of the TC. This scenario contradicts the marketing contention that an s-class / 7-series = large. Whatever.

Much like lexus, audi exists on the back of a few models- the leading ones with any appreciable volume are the a4 (about 35K/yr) and the q5 (about 21K/yr). a5 sells about 14K per year, but "no one" buys the rest of the lineup. #4 is the a6, a pretty 'hot' segment, but audi only moves about 7K/yr there. Isn't there an 'A1' coming?- maybe audi can trade on it's image and whore out their rep for some quick volume for a few years.

Early Colt was 61" x 163", Sapporo was 67"x183"- markedly different size classes. "Underneath"s don't factor here. -- -- -- Thirty ?? I assume you meant '300' , since you could have 30 HP in 1905. In the '50s, more than 1 car offered 400hp. -- -- -- Like I said, relatively speaking, it's billed as "large", but it's not large by absolute standards. Town Car is currently available in 2011, it dwarfs an s-class. Is it "super-large"... "large 2.0"... or what? Do I dare mention the 2011 TC-L (221" overall)? No one is reasonably going to lump a 205" car and a 221" car in the same category... so what's the '2011 metric' here? IMO, the TC is the last of the full-size "large" cars left, and cars like the s-class, regardless of where mercedees or the EPA choses to plug them, are mid-sized, or at best; 'mid-sized plus'.

^ 'cept I saw a few episodes of Futurecar this weekend and they are totally grooving on making robot-driven cars... so we can all slug back and surf the interwebnet while we're driven around in sacks of amniotic fluid. These guys (students, think tanks, etc) are determined to replace every manual control with computer / robotics. Welcome to your suck-suck-sucky future. >>"Again, though, this is 2011..a 'vintage perspective' isn't very relevant in discussing today's car market. "<< Tho I did use a vintage reference, my viewpoint / terminology is simply one of of dimensions. 205" x 73" is not a 'large' car in my book. While it is larger than other cars, there ARE no 'large' cars left anymore. >>"I was thinkin' the Aspen/Volare were tagged as "compacts" when they came out and replaced the Dart/Valiant. "<< So the Arrow / Sapporo were sub-compacts.... what did that make the Colt??

The medium dutys are/were built there, also.

Maybe not by a 1959 standard, but in today's market the S-class is a definitely big car...124.6 wb, 205 length..a bit narrow (73.7 inches) though..but definitely heavy enough (up to 5000lbs for the S65AMG). To put it into vintage perspective, an s-class is only 4-5" longer than an intermediate Plymouth Volare / Dodge Aspen. S-class is only relatively 'large', but in the big picture it's only mid-sized. The width is far too narrow.

Anyone have the formula/method for how interior cubic volume is measured??

Holy crap this is good sh!t:

s-class/7-series aren't very big cars. Town car is the last true full-size car IMO. Moltie- surely you'd be more comfortable in a Town car than a narrower s-class/7-series with a bloated console. A Town Car has 57.0" / 59.9" front/rear hip room (s-class can't give these figures because it has a console, but it'd be less), and my '59 has 66.1" / 66.3" - nice! That's part of the 'overstuffed' scenario I referenced earlier: TC is only 2.2" narrower, but has 9" less hip room.

I agree with the sentiment that a console is fine & even preferred in some types of vehicles... but not ALL. They have this misplaced 'sports car' perception, but an altima is not a sports car. The bottom line is that they hold the (99% of the time) automatic shifter, and a bin & cup holder.... all things that can be answered elsewhere, yet they take up 4-5 cubic feet of interior space; space modern family sedans really can't afford to give away. What's of note to me is- so many SUV conversations center on whether a 7-seat version will be available, yet cars, supposedly desirable over SUVs, have all been cut from 6 to a tight squeeze for 5 (some are best suited to seat 4). Maybe if a quantity/choice of cars sat 6, less & less people would be gravitating into SUVs. Ironically perhaps, the last time I was in a Lucerne (last summer), we had 6 adults in it.

Not sure I'm very reassured on the road by the flummoxing of controlling a mere 203" car. That's some marginal, strangely-dimensionally-corrolated skill set there. I loved driving my '64 daily. Suspension, tire & alignment upgrades had it handling extremely well- better than a Lucerne, that's for sure. And @ 213", it was a pleasure to toss around. No wallow, no sliding across the seat. What was relatively the best was no stupid console and an interior width of about 66" (or about 3-4" more than an S-class; they can't report hip room anymore). I miss it.

'reasonable' is as 'reasonable' does. I've been inside a Lucerne- IMO it's more the overstuffed-ness of it, but many cars "suffer" from this currently. Also has somewhat strange seating positioning, IMO. OTOH, I've been inside a mini; it's a tight-assed compartment. Did not care for it. I don't tend to get caught up in the nonsensical 'interior space vs. exterior space' rope-a-dope. Give me a clean, roomy interior where my legs aren't constrained by a tumescent purposeless console and my arms by giant armrests for a person (driver) who's supposed to be gripping the wheel, and I'm happy. Where this is in a modern car, I'm not sure- I guess nowhere. My Silverado is pretty good tho I have 1 or 2 minor complaints, but then again I work out of my truck, so it carries more than me, a latte and an iPod. Was just daydreaming this very morning; would love to find a clean '64 Pontiac Safari wagon, have all the mechanicals refurbished and an OD trans and work out of that. Should be able to pull down around 17-18 MPG (mine with the RHM375 did 14)- I could live with that. That's a excellent era for interior space- what it may lack in height it makes up for in width.

That's the hood I was referring to. Nice '70- always liked 'em.

Not a fan of this gen F/S Olds'... Nice shape tho (needs rims or even steelies/poverties).

Wowee, look! A car with an actual trunk! These are pretty nice, mean-looking scrappers. My brother & I looked at a '68 R/T one time years back, guy also had a '70 R/T with the 'big' scooped hood. I had a '73 Charger Rallye 440 for a while, too. MoPar was banging on all cylinders in this era, no question.

No dice here.

One thing I wonder on- if diesel cars become commonplace in the U.S., refiners would have to up the amount of diesel production to a degree... but I don't suppose the supply will ever eclipse the demand and decrease the price spread....

^ I've lived in this area for a long time, I wasn't wandering, but beelining from station to station. There could've been a diesel pump nearby, I won't say there couldn't have been, but none I was aware of or that showed themselves since. I have neither NAV or OnStar, so that route is out for me personally. For others it makes sense tho. Still, would be nice to see diesel expanded. Why doesn't exxon sell it (not that I like their pricing...) ??

Here in central Jersey, the logjam of human congestion and the halfway point between NYC and Philly, diesel is indeed a problem to find. Entire chains of gas companies do not sell it (Exxon, the largest, doesn't here), and many of the little stations don't either. When I get below a quarter tank away from home, I'm looking for a diesel station. Luckily for me, there are 2 within a mile of my house. One time I set out to get on a major highway, 20 minutes from my house. Just before I got on, I realized I was near the 'low fuel' level and there really aren't any fueling stations on 287. I went thru the local city and ended up coming all the way back within 1 mile of my house to find diesel, passing up about 6 stations in between. Down at my folks, I again ended up passing 4 stations in order to find diesel- a good 15 minutes out of my way in the wrong direction. The last station I had to ask the jockey- his brother had a diesel so he knew where one was. In my local observations, diesel is available at about 20% of stations... this may not be accurate across the nation tho. I drive all over the center of the state and it needs to get a LOT better here before diesel cars become commonplace. Premium is not a valid comparison IMO- most vehicles don't require premium. Diesel has been higher than 87 since before I got my DuraMax in June '06. May have been the other way 'round about a year-2 yrs before that.