The 6.5" extra width is unwanted imo as it still wouldn't be wide enough to comfortable sit three adults across the back seat and most of that is probably used up by the airbags in the doors etc.
Most of the extra weight is probably due to crash protection and also extra standard equipment like electric windows that some people think are essential but I can happily live without.
True, crumple-zones, extra air-bags, upgraded suspension componants to manage the extra weight, it all adds up
Visibility is another factor in most modern cars;
- Thicker windscreen pillars (A-posts) to allow for roll-over protection
- B pillars (door posts) for same reason, & possibly airbags?
- C- pillars, as part of rear impact protection (to stop roof folding, pillars absorb energy?
- High door lips, I'm not that tall, but not a midget either, at about 5'9", & there are some cars (even with seat at highest setting), I struggle to easily put an elbow on the window sill - let alone look out of it if required, say; for reversing
My Landies (using my last 110 as an example) had a door lip, at not much above waist height, brilliant for visibility & 'airiness'
I've never even sat in 208 but I would expect it to be quieter and more refined, a more modern engine and sophisticated fuel/ignition systems and improved aerodynamics have probably improved the fuel consumption but probably not by much in the real world. So probably a reasonable update and progress.
Yes, we had (as a 2nd car) a '61 plate' Fiat Panda, with the 1.0 litre engine
It was gutless, wouldn't easily hold speed up a m-way incline in 5th, returned 35MPG urban.
if you wanted to 'make progress', you had to drive it like an Italian; rev the hell out of it, & hold gears
It was replaced recently with the (new shape) '64 plate' Panda; same engine, bigger, heavier, but more economical, more flexible in its speed/gearing (despite same ratios)
The ECU must have been re-written/augmented???
However, I would still prefer my 205. It's DIY friendly and simple to maintain, light weight, high ground clearance and narrow tyres make it more usable in the snow or in the fields so it suits my needs. It's also probably more fun to drive. Sure, it's more dangerous should I wrap it around a tree but I try my best not too, unlike some drivers I see
I'll agree, my mother has an old Corsa (dads offered to buy her a new one, but she says it works, & "doesn't owe her anything after 17 years, so why spend money?")
It's a 'R plate' (1997) 1.0litre, on 145 x 13 tyres, & I've driven it in the snow, passing the fancy SUV's sitting there spinning tyres (despite fancy ATC electronics), because it's light, 'bugger all power/torque', can dig into the snow
I know my Octavia can do the same, just let it plod along, with the feet off the throttle
I've also (when I've had Landies) done the same; driven past the wheel-spinning Range Rover 'Sport' (horrible things), Shoguns, etc.... because I've had proper rubber on it - not fashionable 'rubber band' tyres
Once more this year, it'll be interesting to see how many owners of 'premium 4x4's/SUV's get caught out again, due to their pure belief in either the vehicle, or the electronics, or maybe their superiority due to driving that??
The laws of physics still apply, it may set off easily, but cornering & stopping still rely on 4 patches of rubber
