What is it with new cars and high beltline?

[cantdrv55]

I recently rented the new Mustang and today I'm driving a 2016 Camaro. Both cars have high belt lines, chopped off ceilings, that I hit my head getting in the car. Also visibility is so poor that I almost have to duck a little bit to see the traffic light because the ceiling is so low. Is this the new thing with car designs? Remember the 3 series BMWs in the '80s with the big windows? Great visibility and all around good looks. I'm not too keen on today's car designs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aigel]

Its the ****s. Looks cool but horrible to drive. I also don't like the very sloped A pillars which are a hazard seeing traffic. Forget about putting your elbow out the window ...

I do read sometimes that it may be safer and support a taller hood / engine compartment giving better pedestrian safety, but I don't think it has to happen to such an extreme. Even pick up trucks have high belt lines now resulting in some truck beds that are deeper looking than a hot tub. Good luck throwing anything over the side ...

The classic 911 roof up to the 993 is awesome - same way as the 80s bmw you mention in terms of visibility. It is so nice to get into my 993 after driving modern vehicles and actually SEE!

G

[aap1966]

My e24 has the best visibility of any car I've driven in the last 10 years.

Passive crash-safety is another matter of course..................

[aigel]

Yes, of course, with a stick size a pillar, you aren't going to fit curtain airbags. But that still doesn't explain the belt line ...

G

[jorian]

Totally agree. The 991's belt line renders anyone shorter than Shaq a midget. I look positively lilliputian in it. Turns me off.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

My guess is it's driven by a need to meet safety / crash survivability requirements (actual or perceived, or both) rather than by styling or aesthetic trends.

In the mid-2000s when everyone was flush with cash and throwing around benjamins like candy due to the availability of "funny money" created in the housing bubble, the trend towards big, gas-guzzling "luxury" SUVs established itself. Nobody wanted regular cars anymore - everyone wanted them big pimpin' SUVs or big pickup trucks so they could play contractor. Bumper heights rose and vehicle GVWRs skyrocketed. If you drove a regular car, you were putting yourself at risk in a collision - which drove more people to choose bigger vehicles ("for safety") and probably which was reflected in insurance claim data back to manufacturers. I remember it being pretty scary driving around on the SoCal freeways in a regular passenger car surrounded by dozens of SUVs towering over me back then - especially knowing that the drivers of most of them were incompetent on a good day and most were probably fiddling around with their new cell phones (another innovation that became popular at that time) rather than paying any attention. Of course it was hard to see what they were doing (deliberately) since they were sitting 2' higher than me behind a solid metal door panel but that's certainly how it appeared. It was quite unnerving. I knew full well if one of these things hit me, lots of large, heavy, metal components were coming for me more or less at chest / head level.

Either manufacturers were required to adjust their "regular car" designs to be safer and respond to the new trend of every Suzy Soccermom out there rolling heavy iron at the helm of her 6,000-pound grocery getter or market forces demanded it ("if we don't design these things so they at least look like you've got a chance of surviving a crash, they'll never sell and we won't be able to meet our MPG mandates") or some combination.

I think it's that simple. What we're seeing is the result of the trend towards big, heavy, tall, dumb vehicle choices that persist today out of a "need" for people to feel safer that was created in the Age of Easy Money when manufacturers wanted to push $50,000 rebodied pickups instead of $25,000 sedans.

[DanielDudley]

Side impact protection. Pretty sure it was by mandate.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by aigel

Yes, of course, with a stick size a pillar, you aren't going to fit curtain airbags. But that still doesn't explain the belt line ...

G

Side impact safety. If you've got a low beltline and a giant SUV T-bones you, his bumper and grill may go right through your window on it's way to meeting your face. High beltlines means there's metal and a cage around more of your important bits.

I don't like it either. I much prefer good visibility.

[jcommin]

Originally Posted by DanielDudley

Side impact protection. Pretty sure it was by mandate.

I think it is safety also and I don't like the look either.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Safety as mentioned. Though I think trying to make a big car look low-slung also comes into play.

I love the visibility in my 911 and RX7. The Boxster is good by modern standards, especially with the hard top and it's big rear window. I hate not being to see.

[cairns]

I don't think it's safety at all. This: "Though I think trying to make a big car look low-slung also comes into play." nails it IMO.

Safe would be the ability to see outside the car. The recent high belt line craze started with the Chrysler 300. The Camaro, Mustang and Challenger just followed that trend. But now they're the size of tanks and have about the same visibility. Huge, ugly replicas of their former selves.

[berettafan]

I had assumed it to be a style thing.

Also don't like the crazy sloped windshields. sat in the new style Silverado and felt like it was trying to be a corvette with the windshield angle. I could never do a Camaro type vehicle just for the poor visibility making me feel claustrophobic.

Always thought the way Ford has the drop in the front windows near the mirror was pretty cool. more visibility where it counts.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by cairns

I don't think it's safety at all. This: "Though I think trying to make a big car look low-slung also comes into play." nails it IMO.

Safe would be the ability to see outside the car. The recent high belt line craze started with the Chrysler 300. The Camaro, Mustang and Challenger just followed that trend. But now they're the size of tanks and have about the same visibility. Huge, ugly replicas of their former selves.

You may be right.

Forbes Welcome

The reason automotive designers are lifting belt lines on cars of all kinds is because they think it looks better. Mazda designer Derek Jenkins explained it to me this way: When considering the proportions of a car, the smaller the upper third is in relation to the lower two-thirds, the sportier it looks. That’s why sports cars have such low roofs and small windows.

[Norm K]

Originally Posted by masraum

Side impact safety. If you've got a low beltline and a giant SUV T-bones you, his bumper and grill may go right through your window on it's way to meeting your face. High beltlines means there's metal and a cage around more of your important bits.

Nothing says fellow motorist safety like the ridiculous ride/bumper height of the compensating-for-something pickups that menace the roadways. Personally, I'd prefer that bumper-height restrictions were uniformly implemented and strictly enforced.

_

[Fast Freddy 944]

Its for the wanna-be Italians to "pretend" they are gangster! Us real Italians, just laugh at em'!

[Mark Henry]

When I see those cars they remind me of this...

[Fast Freddy 944]

Originally Posted by Mark Henry

When I see those cars they remind me of this...

LOL! I miss that guy, Grimly!

[Scott Douglas]

I miss the visibility of my '68 1600 BMW. Now that you could see out of.

[Oracle]

That's why we like my 2001 Pathfinder.. The windows are big, you don't feel cramped like in the Mazda

[aigel]

The camaro and mustang mentioned are not designed with such belt lines for safety. NFW. There are a lot of cars with the same safety rating that have sane belt lines. Higher yes, to some extent, but not like driving a tank ...

G