Tire technology helped us get where we are today, able to handle more HP & weight safely and with "enough" durability. I don't know if automotive tire tech is asymptoting but I suspect it is. Active handling and traction control allow cars like the ZR-1 (and late model S2000's, lol) to be relatively safe in grandpa's hands as well. That's getting more refined but I doubt we'll see massive improvement there.

I figure the trend reverses when the price of gasoline is painful to the average employed American. Unless you're a trucker, $5 a gallon isn't the threshold of "omg, we need a more fuel efficient car!" Don't know what is, maybe $10 a gallon?

 

It all depends. On the street I will never be anywhere near the limit of what my car is capable of. At the track, you would hard-pressed to find a car that was more fun, and easier to drive fast through the corners. But for street driving, I think that a Mustang of Vette could be just as much fun since they are sill going to handle as well as needed for any amount of speed that you should be carrying through a corner. Plus when getting on the freeway you can have what most of the car world would consider fun, getting up to the speed limit more quickly than a miata or s2k could.

It all depends of your definition of fun. Some people like to drag race, where the acceleration forces are what gives them their fun. Some people enjoy going to a track and getting around a corner as fast as possible, and they enjoy to lateral G-forces. The fact that most of us on this forum drive small, possibly under-powered cars means that the majority of us probably prefer the cornering forces.

And yes I do agree. The fact that a car has a lot of power does not mean that it will necessarily be fun.

 

This is an easy question to answer:

Safety regulations; we haven't discovered cheap enough alternatives that are lighter in nature, yet produce similar/the same results in terms of total rigidity (or flex) of the chassis; as well as the body panels itself.

The key here and for good reason is safety; a car doesn't do you much good if you're killed in it. But how has safety lead to increased sizes; different materials, etc. Well obviously innovation; people sat down and said how can we do something better. But here's the real problem...

The very first time the 2nd car was innovated to be safer than the car before it; it created a problem in the road (minus business competition) you now have cars that are more safe, and heavier than other cars, which means those cars are even less safe than they were before car #2 came out. Thus it's a never ending cycle of necessary bulking up; to keep up with the safety of the cars that bulked up before you. That is until we come across a technological breakthrough that is both safer and economical; while carbon fiber chassis might be great in terms of weight; they're not economical (they also create a huge headache under crash conditions; carbon doesn't bend, it splinters/shatters.) Of course when you add weight; you have to add power unless you want a less powerful car than yesteryear.

The point is; you'd be delusional to think that a 1990 CRX is just as safe as a 2011 CRZ in 2011. However; in their respective years, they're similarly (if not identically) safe when judged at respective times.

So the question you're really posing is, why did we ever start to innovate in the automotive industry? which is a really silly question

But even then if you ignore the overarching ridiculousness of the question by logic; then it becomes further ridiculous by direct logic. Your argument that cars have gotten "bigger"; perhaps by 1990 standards; but really... bigger? They've still gotten smaller

Last time I checked Pontiac doesnt have a coupe this big



Does Subaru make a Sedan as large as the P-1



Is the Accord couple really any bigger than the 1970 Honda 1300?

 

Just FYI - yes. Honda 1300 = 151 inches long. Accord Coupe = 195 inches long. That's 3.5 feet longer. Even the S2000, at 163 inches, is longer.

 

word, bad example... although perfect example of how small they were and, why they had to get bigger.

 

^are you serious man? The average passenger vehicle on the road today, in 2011, is heavier than at any time in the automobile's history (speaking about the US). The cars these days ARE bigger on average than the cars from the 60s and 70s or any other decade.

This whole trend is very troublesome to me. I don't understand why a BMW 3 series is now bigger and heavier than previous generations of the 5 Series. Ditto the Honda Civic, now bigger and heavier than older Accords. When do you stop? And what's the point. If you want a bigger car don't buy a Civic...buy an Accord!


And to get back to the OP, Mercedes has been selling an S600 for over 20 years. Where have you been?

 

 

I would pay $50,000 for that small car on the right, just so I could park it next to my S2k

 

Yeah... you need to hit up wikipedia and check out vehicle dimensions. Cars are freaking big now.

 

As far as supercars and horsepower are concerned, the R35 GTR is seeing 3 horsepower increases since its debut, with the rumored Spec-R (figures unknown) being the most recent. With the current trend, it's easy to predict that the GTR won't stay in the 530+ club for long. If the R35 can get that many updates, imagine the R36. Porsche isn't going to back down either if Nissan keeps this up.

Even the 2013 Shely GT500 is increasing their power to 600. I don't see the trend backing down anytime soon for supercars.