---

Originally posted by: ifcar

How is it innovatve to make a small MPV but not a small pickup?

---

Read-up on the Renault Megane Scenic, circa 1996.

What was different about a small pickup, versus a large one? The size.

What was different about Renault's small-MPV, versus the larger MPVs? Intelligence in execution. Small suddenly meant that some very innovative ways could be found to put people and cargo within a small footprint - yet retaining driving dynamics.

---

It does, but Volvo isn't in the business of trying to make the safest possible car. They're in the business of making money.

---

As you yourself have said, as long as people think that Volvo makes the safest possible car, they make money (well, in the old days, at least).

The people you have talked to who consider small windows to be safer have not spent any time in a car like the Chrysler 300, with poor visibility.

It's a design trend, plain and simple. Like other trends, it will come, reach its maximum peak, and fall.

All of that said, the idea that "public perception determines whether or not a car is safe" discounts every safety improvement since time immemorial - and every engineer's effotrts in the area.

---

You've owned two current gen 3-Series's? Which ones?

---

Since you ask, 328i & 325i. I know the 3 series better than most, but I'll leave it at that.

---

That's suggesting that Americans expect an SUV to ride like a Buick Ranier, which itself basically rides like a Buick LeSabre.

---

Not quite a LeSabre, no, but you get the general idea.

---

Originally posted by: ifcar

So you're saying that no intelligent execution went into the formation of the compact pickup segment?

---

This is exactly how this thread goes around in circles. I'll make an attempt to stop it, if you'll let me.

You suggested that the existence of Datsun as the first compact pickup truck should have - using my theory - meant that they were still king.

Yet the innovation you describe in the compact pickup segment is a recent phenomenon! There was no innovation in Datsun's execution.

This, like the 911, has nothing to do with my theory.

---

And it's the current trend. I don't think the 300 is a good example, because its windows are small not for the illusion of improved safety but because of its styling.

---

What? Where's the difference? The effect is the same, ifcar.

Either way, current trend or not, it will peak and subside. Look at any decade or trend in the industry you wish (and, too, outside of this industry), and you will find the same.

The engineering lessons often remain, but style changes.

---

The public perception welcomes safety improvements.

---

That is a very, very different thing than saying - as you did - that "public perception determines whether or not a car is safe."

As I said, you singlehandedly discounted every safety improvement since time immemorial - and every engineer's efforts in the area.

---

There are many popular SUVs that ride either roughly (off-road ones) or fimrly (sporty ones).

---

Hello, niche market!

So they exist. So, too, does an old Wartburg station wagon somewhere in East Germany that only a few people in this world would want. What is your point?

The GMT360 platform is among the top three produced in the entire country. There is good reason for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: CaMIRO
"
This is exactly how this thread goes around in circles. I'll make an attempt to stop it, if you'll let me.
You suggested that the existence of Datsun as the first compact pickup truck should have - using my theory - meant that they were still king.
Yet the innovation you describe in the compact pickup segment is a recent phenomenon! There was no innovation in Datsun's execution.
This, like the 911, has nothing to do with my theory.

Were it not for Datsun's original idea of a smaller pickup, none of that would have occurred. Also, weren't they the first to have an extended cab compact, and the first to have a quad cab compact? Those were the two major innovations that turned it into a family vehicle.


What? Where's the difference? The effect is the same, ifcar.
Either way, current trend or not, it will peak and subside. Look at any decade or trend in the industry you wish (and, too, outside of this industry), and you will find the same.
The engineering lessons often remain, but style changes.

Of course the trend will change. I was pointing out that the 300's small windows were for styling purposes, not for percieved safety.

That is a very, very different thing than saying - as you did - that "public perception determines whether or not a car is safe."
As I said, you singlehandedly discounted every safety improvement since time immemorial - and every engineer's efforts in the area.

Explain.


Hello, niche market!
So they exist. So, too, does an old Wartburg station wagon somewhere in East Germany that only a few people in this world would want. What is your point?
The GMT360 platform is among the top three produced in the entire country. There is good reason for that.

You think that all popular SUVs ride like Camries and all others are niche vehicles? Many SUVs ride roughly because it adds to their perception as being off-road vehicles. Many (mostly luxury/upscale SUVs) ride more firmly to add to the perception of agile handling. Those aren't niche products.

"

---

 

---

Originally posted by: ifcar

Were it not for Datsun's original idea of a smaller pickup, none of that would have occurred.

---

No one would have thought to shrink a pick-up?

As for the extended cab concept, I'd have to go back and look. The purpose, incidentally, was not family but a work truck.

Small pick-up trucks are still not "family" vehicles - but I'll grant that they are closer to that concept.

---

Of course the trend will change. I was pointing out that the 300's small windows were for styling purposes, not for percieved safety.

---

How does it matter? People might perceive it either way - and, moreover, Chrysler may already have realized that there was a tendency toward being "cocooned."

Have you driven a Crossfire? It is even worse (great design, though)...

---

Explain.

---

You said that, "public perception determines whether or not a car is safe."

Engineering determines whether or not a car is safe.

---

You think that all popular SUVs ride like Camries and all others are niche vehicles? Many SUVs ride roughly because it adds to their perception as being off-road vehicles. Many (mostly luxury/upscale SUVs) ride more firmly to add to the perception of agile handling. Those aren't niche products.

---

Your perception of ride may be a little skewed (considering that you do not find a BMW 3 series firm), but worse yet is this idea that "many SUVs ride roughly because it adds to their perception (of) being off-road vehicles."

Ridiculous! No one deliberately engineers a rough ride, perception or not. It's dangerous, for one thing, and unpleasant, for another.

This, and the safety comment, suggest that you put too much faith in marketing.

As for SUVs, look at the numbers. The X3 is a niche product. The RX300 is a much softer-riding vehicle.

Nuances, ifcar. Degrees.

As for the 'phone idea, just an idea. I do not think it is helping that you can go back - look at the Porsche 911, for instance.

Your call, though.

 

---

Originally posted by: ifcar

Let's not play the could have game. The point is that they didn't, and Dastun did.

---

Exactly - let's not play the could have game. It seems odd to say that no one else would have, had Datsun not. There is nothing innovative about shrinking a pickup - and it is precisely because of this that the theory does not apply.

---

I think that too was done entirely for styling and not for the cocoon feel.

---

Styling is such a rarely-used word in the industry these days - with good reason. The word of choice is design, because any modern car has to bow to such a host of dynamic and regulatory mandates.

Therefore, the designer becomes something of a Renaissance person. To suggest that the designers had their way with the Crossfire, and then the engineering and marketing people came in, is to ignore that things no longer work this way.

However, the Crossfire was a more stylized car (being drawn by a 24 year old!) than most, so I'll grant that pure styling is a possibility. That said, style seeks to create a certain impression. The cocooned effect was likely intentional.

---

Engineering does technically of course, but if the public doesn't consider it an improvement, it won't continue to be used.

---

Do you know of any safety devices that have been discontinued because the public did not consider them an improvement?

The one thing I can think of is the old Dodge Aspen/ Plymouth Volare seatbelt ignition switch.

Either way, I see your point - but the NHTSA, and not the public, largely tests these things and either finds or does not find improvements. The public is not educated enough to make their own assessments.

As with all other engineering venture, I agree with you that safety is a result/ cost trade-off.

---

No one would engineer a rough ride, but in many cases they wouldn't want to eliminate it.

---

Examples?

---

The x3 is not a niche product, it belongs to the class of sporty upscale SUVs, which also includes the Infiniti FX, BMW X5, and to some extent the Cadillac SRX. The RX330 just doesn't directly compete with the x3 or the other cars I mentioned.

---

The X3 is a niche product in that it rides more harshly than any of the vehicles mentioned. I'd wager that it carves corners better than an X5, and is the most on-road vehicle on your list.

Just because a vehicle belongs to a certain class does not mean that it is not a subset of that class.