I end up driving a fair amount of different cars, and everytime I get into my Mustang I realize how the car has so much more visibility than just about anything else.

I know some if it is in the name of aerodynamics, but man, what's with all these 9 foot tall trunks? I mean, have you looked at the height of a trunk these days and compared it to a car of 5 years ago, then 10 years ago? I think they get 2" taller every 4 years. You used to be able to see when you back up, now, when you look back, you are eye level with the rear seatback. On top of that, most manufacturers these days put headrests on the back seat that don't retract or fold down out of the way when you aren't using them. Front seat headrests also seem to be swelling in size. If the damn thing is so big that I get into an accident because I can't see around it, its not useful as a safety feature. It's like you go look over and check your blind spot, and all you see is b-pillar and head rest. It's kinda like driving a Uhaul truck. ****, compared to a lot of these new cars, even an F-body is way better.

Oh well, I guess there is an advantage to owning a car based on a '79 Fairmont.

 

The '78 Fairmont was a car with great visibility and packaging - but everything else about the car was dubious even by the standards of 1978.

 

Fairmonts were actually innovative cars back then. They were extremely light weight, they had styling that broke with the dubious taste of 70s era automotive styling, and they became the fastest selling car of all time (actually beating the original Mustang's pace of sales at one time! )

They had rack & pinion streering (a HUGE deal in 1978), handled very well (again by 1970s marshmellow handling sedan standards) and were nearly as roomy as big cars, but was sized in a small package. And they were c-h-e-a-p to buy.

There was alot of things about them that sucked by 1990s standards let alone today's. But back then, they were "the" daily driver for about 2 years till you simply saw too many of them, and the Chrysler "K" cars came out & became THE new commuter car

 

i never got the whole "K" car phenomenon. what the hell made these cars such hot sellers? my grandfather got an '84 one in '95. it was only a bit over 10 years old but it was terrible. besides having old age issues, it just didn't seem like a solidly built car at all. the steering wandered going in a straight line, the styling was squaretastic uglyness, the engine made funny noises and guzzled gas even when the engine was off(not really but it seemed like it some times), etc. were cars so bad around the turn of the decade that this was THE best car out there for commuting purpouses?

 

think about your post and you have your answer.
it was 10 years old when you drove it.
but when it was new 10 years ago:
the car seemed solid since it didnt have 10 years of use on it.
the steering never wandered. it was tight and new.
everything was square in the 80s. from the camaro (that looked badass) to the charger 2.2 to... well, everything. much like everything built in the 90s is shaped like a aerodynamic jellybean.
the engine didnt make noises and suck gas when new..

so with all your complaints dismissed... yea, it was the cheap, cheap, car to buy.
if you would like to know who in their right mind would buy that, just look at todays sales.
how many toyota corollas, ford focuses, honda civics, chevy cavs, ect do you see?
a heck of alot more then performance cars... because cheap, basic cars sell.

 

problem is, today's cars hold up about 9932048209% better than those K-cars. my dad's Maxima is almost 10 years old and has about as many miles on it as the Dodge Aries did when my granddad first got it, just under 100K. but you can't even compare the two in how well one held up next to the other. which more or less validates my point. if it's weak 10 years from when it was built, it was probably weak when it was new. but you put it best. it was just cheap. but even today's cheap cars, Koreans, Suzukis, Civics, Foci, Cavies, Aveos (oops, already mentioned the Koreans), pretty much any genuenly "cheap" car is golden compared to those K-cars.

 

But you are still comparing it to today's cars. Think about how well the other car's off the day held up. If you got to 100,000 miles you felt you got your moneys worth.

BTW I think the fairmont is a great car. Once you add a 5.0L to it.

 

Probably because people don't want to be seen in most of the new cars made these days....

 

Dambippy! I'll go along with that!

Another smart-aleck answer is that cars now have rear-video systems integrated into the front DVD/GUI system screen - so you can watch what's behind you on the dash board screen as opposed to actually having to make the effort of turning your head or body to look out.
Small problem... the gear selector has to be in Reverse for this feature to auto-activate. Tough to do that going 70 on a highway and you want to execute a lane change, huh?

 

Gotta love those K cars... my all-time personal favourite feature of these cars is how the gauges were never lined up or centered in their holes in the bezel - whether 10 years old or new. Did you have to pay extra for that attention to detail?

Now we're way off-topic... If styling trends follow the lead of the 300 (although the raised hip point in the design of new cars started to appear before the 300 came out) then perhaps one can expect even more restricted visibility in the cars to come? But then, I have not been privileged enough to sit behind the wheel of a 300 as of yet, maybe the chopped look of the greenhouse really doesn't interfere with visibility.

There, back on topic:-)

 

you guys do know the real reason for the ever increasing higher sides right?

its not styling, its side impact crash standards.

to meet them, they basicly HAVE to be taller.

 

Well, inasmuch as this trend is obvious from the 70's, 80's and 90's era, go back a little further. Go back to 1930's. There were some cars back then that had a peephole for the rear window. No, make it two peepholes - one on each side. We are wondering about high belt line on 300 and small windows - again, some cars back then it was even more so.

Can't you see the pattern? It started with PT cruiser, now with HHR and 300. We are imitating the 30's all over again. I think this is the single most probable reason for reduced visibility. Something about appeal to the mob.

 

All I know is that visibility sucks in my Camaro, and my old 91 Regal has the best visibility out of any car I've ever driven