Kia is the new Plymouth (sort of). And tall cars are in again, even in the economy car class. As then-Chrysler Prez K .T. Keller said about the tall cars he championed back then: We build cars to sit in, not to pee over. So what else is new?
Well, the site went very buggy last night after an attempt to update it, but it got fixed at bedtime. That helps explain the lack of fresh (no-rerun) content this morning. So I’ll let you add to my brilliant observations.
I think people like to drive at an eye level around their standing eye level. I think this partly explains the popularity SUVs and CUVs and trucks.
My theory for quite a while has been that CUVs and SUVs are really just a return to the ride height and basic shapes of prewar and immediately postwar American cars.
Who’d think a Soul was that big?
I agree completely. Automobiles gravitated to a certain h-point and overall height for a reason. With all due respect, Harley Earl and his counterparts in Dearborn and Highland Park, boogered this up in the 50’s.
I frequently meet a fellow at a stop light on the way home from work who drives an early 50’s Chevrolet 2 door sedan. In my 2014 Honda CRV, we are at about the same H-point and overall height – just about right.
Virgil Exner deserves more blame than Harley Earl. American cars weren’t terribly low through 1956. It was the debut of the radically low Forward Look Mopars for 1957 that sent GM into a panic, resulting in the ultra-low 1959 models.
The 1958 Chevrolet and Pontiac were planned and approved for production before GM stylists and top brass saw the 1957 Mopars. The 1958 Chevrolet and Pontiac were longer and wider, but not THAT much lower than their 1955-57 counterparts.
Interesting point. Makes sense to me.
Take a look at the Honda HR-V. 63 inches tall and 169 inches long. The tall compact is the new big automotive trend.
Great photo. I remember during the 60s and 70s when car makers were boasting “lower longer and wider” the cars from the 50s seemed so tall and ungainly to me. Today when I see a 60-70s model on the road it looks like it went through a car crusher!
That photo is just startling! How do these cars stack up on width?
Startling in the best of ways. The Plymouth might have gotten 12 mpg, felt most comfortable at 45 mph, needed lots of regular maintenance, and belched lots of pollution. The Kia returns 30+ mpg, will cruise happily at 80mph all day, need an oil change only every 7500 miles, and puffs only mild bunny farts. I love old cars, but technology has really made cars lots better…..
I can agree.
and yet, the Kia leaves me cold and disinterested. Moreover, if you are prepared to get dirty and spend some time in the garage, that Plymouth can be made to perform on under modern conditions (it was never as bad as you made it out to be, actually those flat sixes were capable of returning more than 20mpg constantly; cruising speed was at least 10 mph higher than what you mentioned). No, it would not be as good as a modern equivalent in all respects, but I know which one I’d rather have.
I’d rather have the Plymouth, but I’d rather depend on the Kia
Compact crossovers, very hot right now, among all generations. The best selling of them is the Renault Captur. Often seen in all kinds of fresh color-combinations, like the one below. A low-profile unicolor is also possible, of course.
Technically fully based on the Renault Clio hatchback (B-segment / sub-compact), which is also available as a wagon.
Renault hit a home-run with these. An affordable compact and tall car that didn’t look like a box, apparently that was what many people wanted.
I always feel amazed with the fact that the current cars, even the compacts, seem to be big compared to the cars of yore. See this plymouth, looks big, but at the same time, little compared with the KIA.
I’d take the Plymouth any day over the Kia Soul. 60 yrs ago, even car makers knew that even economy cars could still look attractive, even without all the “bling” most cars had. 60 yrs later, unfortunately, it seems, car companies seem to have forgotten that. I’ve never found the Kia Soul to be a very attractive vehicle.
Those taillights remind me of a baboon’s butt.
The Plymouth, though, was generally held to be one of the dowdier cars in its class. It’s not without charm, but it was hardly a stunner in its day.
If you compare the actual new postwar models of Ford, GM, and Chrysler:
The Ford is conceptually similar to any sedan after that. The overall shape of the car is a bit pod like and not linear.
Chryslers are conceptually a modernized prewar car. The rear fenders are separate and the rear door opening goes around them. The hood is more prow shaped and goes down on the sides to the fender line, which fades out in the front door. There is a double shut line between the front and rear doors. When you get in the back seat, the seat is behind the door and the armrest is on the wall next to the seat, not the door. And they are taller. And the door handles work by turning the whole lever down, like lever house door handles.
The GM cars are in between. Separate rear fenders, but the rear door opening cuts through it. Single shut line. Less of a prow shape, but still there. More linear overall shape than the Ford.
Also note that this generation of Plymouth marks when the division really began falling behind Chevrolet and Ford in sales.
In 1940, Plymouth came very close to knocking Ford Division out of second place. By 1952, that was inconceivable.
And when the Kia’s owner is done with it, Do they go to Hell for selling their Soul???
Maybe once Cuba opens up a little more, we can all go down and do a shop talk with hombres who have transplanted newer engines into their old iron, based on necessity and running expenses.
Indeed. They have transplanted diesel tractor engines into ’55 Buicks….out of necessity. They have also learned to custom form glass into complex curved windshields, and countless other fabrication techniques to keep the old iron on the road. Necessity is the mother of invention!
I remember a black, rusty “Judge”-alike GTO… with a transplanted 4 cyl. diesel tractor engine… Wasn’t “cuban”… Wasn’t fast… Somebody had used to use it for diesel petrol smuggling…in east-europe back in the early ’90’s. What is sure about Soul (and Soul alike) cars that these doesn’t have roomy trunkspaces. Dead angles especially in rear corners of the passenger compartments are usual. It’s maybe fashionable and good on gas but ain’t so practical.
Those Souls are larger than they look, rather cramped on the inside, and economy isn’t that great. Personally, I’ve never understood their appeal.
Irritating EMD listening Hamsters drive them in commercials, that’s what people aspire to be these days…
Honestly the weakest link, in my view. I don’t particularly like crossovers, much less small ones, but the Soul strikes me as not bad for what it is. (I give it points for having a bit of styling flair without being completely bizarre, which puts it one up on the very odd-looking Nissan Cube.) But the ad campaign — I have absolutely no idea at whom that’s supposed to be aimed or who thought it was a good idea.
Agreed, other than it being not remotely my cup of tea I really don’t find anything bad about the car itself, the hamster commercials are the first thing I think of when I see these though, which may be the intent of the marketing but it certainly doesn’t win me over.
I once heard the Soul referred to as hamster cars in the vein of the impact the Mustang had creating the pony car segment, which seems like a really big stretch.
One of the local dealers has ads where he calls them hamster cars.
Despite the youthful marketing, the Soul has been a surprisingly strong seller among senior citizens. Consumer Reports recently named the Soul one of its “Best Cars for Older Drivers.” And it makes a lot of sense. It’s fairly inexpensive, good on gas, easy to get into and out of, and easy to get the grandkids into. And it’s small and easy to park. Next time you see a Soul on the road, take a look at the driver, and there’s a good chance it’ll be someone in their 60s or older.
I think the Scion XB and Honda Element have similar (older) buyers. There is a certain irony that their target demographic tend to buy used Honda Civics and Ford Focuses over the cars that the auto industry tries to market to them. I guess economic reality trumps shameless pandering.
I think that’s true of a lot of vehicles of that genre, going back at least to the Honda Element. Honda pitched the Element to young “active-lifestyle” buyers, but it was popular with middle-aged empty-nesters who wanted something reasonable economical to haul home improvement stuff and the like.
I could not possibly buy a car endorsed by rodents! (I guess it DOES make it a factory “rat rod”!)
Kia is the cheap brand from Hyundai, you get what you pay for.
And for the money you get a damned good car. We’ve got two at the house right now, an ’06 Spectra and an ’08 Sedona. And our dealer does service like I haven’t seen since I quit driving BMW’s. Next year, when I’m new car shopping, they on my list. Biggest negative I’ve found is that manuals are rapidly disappearing from their lineup, and on the few cars you can get one, its only on the cheap models with limited color choice (white, black,silver, grey).
Silver 2011 Forte LX (manual, crank windows, manual locks) here. Entirely dependable, consistenly 33-34 mpg, no rattles or other quality issues after 80k miles. I am a satisfied Kia customer. Like you however, I wish the market for manuals was larger, to provide greater variety for those of us who are “manuals only” types. I am considering upgrade to a 2013 Acura ILX 2.4 manual—which is their top line model…almost irrestible to me.
Guess what, power windows and locks (even without the remote, like in my car, and it’s from the dark days of GM) are an incredible convenience. Unless you have a VW and they all break after three years. Mine have been working for 24.
I agree with Syke. My 2015 Kia Rio 5 has surpassed my expectations in every way. It drives much better than I expected, with an excellent ride-handling compromise. It is also averaging 7.5L/100km in Vancouver traffic.
My Rio was a manual and at least here in Soviet Canuckistan, they seem to be pretty popular.
I agree with Syke and Canucklehead too, on both quality and dealer service. Happy camper here with a ’12 Sedona.
It’s not Hyundai’s cheap brand so much as their brand focused at a younger audience who want a “sportier” feel and style. The Hyundai brand itself has shifted their focus toward comfort and a “luxurious” feel and style. At least that’s the positioning in this country.
I also agree with Syke–great cars for the money. My wife drives a ’12 Forte Koup that we bought new, and it’s had nary a problem. Compared to the same year Elantra, which I also test drove, the Forte had more road feel and seemed lower to the ground. Positive qualities in my book. It’s not sporty at all in terms of driving, but it feels more confident than its platform-mate. The Elantra had a softer ride and it felt higher up, though it may not have been.
I had been reasonably happy with the dealership experience until recently, but I think that was a problem with one franchise in particular rather than something endemic to Kia service.
Hyundai/Kia offers good value for the models, and reasonable styling. But still need to admit, they are still very Hyundai/Kia, the details are still at the same level as Dodge Journey ( door seals, mountings such ) but such doesn’t prevent them from being good daily cars.
We’re on our second Soul now, spanking new 2015 model loaded to the nuts. Love them. it’s surprising how much stuff you can haul in one when necessary.
They are cheap, and most buyers believe they are roomy. To youthful eyes, they are cute. 30 mpg is considered “good on gas” to most buyers, and it meets that criteria.
They all but give them away. For a while they were offering $99/month leases on the base model.
Personally, I don’t get the tall car thing. Unless you are limitied by your mobility, what’s wrong with a conventional height car?
I suspect thouigh that there’s a case of if you can’t beat them (towering over you), then join them.
Or are we all so SUV obesessed we want to appear as if we have one?
You can’t show off to your snooty friends in a regular car.
Fashion designs are not necessarily rooted in any practical considerations, but I do see three points in favor of compact SUVs/crossovers. First, I think a fair number of them do go to people with mobility issues who find the greater height easier to manage — if you have bum knees for whatever reason, not having to stoop is useful. Second, I suspect child seat laws are a factor. Being child-free, I haven’t had to mess with wrestling child seats and their occupants in and out of vehicles, but I assume there, too, not having to stoop is a benefit.
Third, in an SUV-heavy market, driving a low-slung car in traffic can sometimes be intimidating. I don’t spend a lot of time in heavy traffic, thankfully, but sharing the road with SUVs that (this being America, after all) are like as not the size of Gibraltar whose drivers’ elbows are at about the level of your face is not an especially comfortable experience. It’s also not uncommon to get boxed in so that you can’t see what’s going on ahead of you, which leaves you uncomfortably dependent on the judgment and attention of other drivers who may be whiling away the time playing Angry Birds or attempting to persuade their new SUV’s touchscreen infotainment system to find a traffic report.
Third, in an SUV-heavy market, driving a low-slung car in traffic can sometimes be intimidating
This I definitely see as a big factor. I must admit driving my lowered already low(52″ from the factory) Cougar in traffic is kind of a pain since it’s very difficult to see around the S/CUVs and vans around me. If I’m in traffic commuting to an unfamiliar area in particular I usually won’t spot an exit until the last second.
Worst part is dark tint seemed to become standard on SUVs and vans at some point rendering the ability to see what’s going on ahead through the windows of the vehicle in front of you impossible
“Personally, I don’t get the tall car thing.”
There, there, young man. There’ll come a time when you will understand!
I am still young but I prefer cars with roominess, and older boxy cars from ’70s and ’80s have so much better visibilities! and I won’t bump my head neither.
I think you hit the nail on the head..part of this might just be the aging population, combined with the idea that higher driving position is what people got used to with rugged “lifestyle” vehicles like trucks and SUVs, but without the lower MPG (and 4WD in some cases). I know this is a generalization, but as people age, they are less likely to be “scramblers” and like to get in and out of low seat height vehicles…these taller vehicles also tend to have higher seat heights than other economy cars (and certainly sporty cars) and fill that aspect. The fact that you are sitting higher is also a bonus if you are used to higher seating position (in a truck or SUV…though of course not quite as high, certainly higher than most economy cars). The fact that these taller vehicles still get good gas milage is probably a bonus, even though they are probably a little worse that “normal” economy cars (not sure of this), but maybe they still have a similar frontal area, if they are taller but not as wide? Probably not everyone likes the styling, but at least they are different than the economy car “jellybean” where all makes are starting to look almost identical, at least these are a bit different (at least until everyone starts making them).
I know that to marketers the idea of a “geriatric” car is probably suicidal, but if you can buy a car that is comfortable (and meets the needs of) older people, independent of the style, they will probably gravitate to it…especially if it also seems to be marketed to younger people “you can sell a young mans car to an old man..” . These are also pretty roomy, so you can bring along your stuff (maybe even including wheelchairs, scooters, etc, as people develop infirmities that tend to become more common as people age).
As the bigger traditional cars like the panthers were withdrawn from marketing, where do the traditional buyers go next? Maybe (except for style) this is where some are going, if they weren’t actually going to get a truck or SUV. They can’t buy a ’53 Plymouth Concord anymore either (at least not a new one)…maybe the next trend for guys is to start wearing fedoras (more headroom in these too, per K.T Keller)
And is there any new tall small sedan out there?
The Taurus/Five Hundred was until it got restyled with a chopped top to get on the high beltline bandwagon, it sat very high for a sedan at the time.
The original Saturn S-series was the last low car launched. A year later Honda brought out the ’92 Civic that was taller than the model it replaced, and almost every car since has been.
I was thinking just today that Kia is the new Pontiac, at least in Canada. A slightly nicer Hyundai, with better styling and a more driver-oriented feel.
I think Hyundai is more like Buick or Oldsmobile. Less sporty and more comfortable, targeting an older audience than Kia. Kia is more of a combination of Pontiac and Chevrolet.
I’ve been stuck in rentals for 3 months on a travel assignment for work.
My first was a Versa Sedan. Holy awful. Like a coffee can full of loose change. And it was almost brand new. I was slipping on the ice and grabbed for the car and the car moved.
My next month was in a Hyundai Accent sedan. Great pickup and phenominal gas mileage. I went 2 weeks between tiny cheap fill ups. It was fairly comfortable.
This month is a Soul. The stereo is great, it rides nicely, its got decent features. But, the back end is TINY… I mean the box I had to reach for in the Accent trunk barely fit in the back of the Soul. I don’t get the thrill if you’re basically driving a crossover but with zero cargo space. As much as the driving position is pretty great, I’d buy the Accent hatch over the Soul hands down for utility. The Soul has zero.
“I don’t get the thrill if you’re basically driving a crossover but with zero cargo space.” Possibly the thrill of fitting into a small parking space?
Just flip the rear seat down.
Except for when you’ve got 3 friends in the back seat and you can’t even fit the cooler let alone all the other crap that goes for a beach day… I owned a 2006 Sportage and it had plenty of cargo room. Not to mention that the pitch of the back seats could change if you needed a little more room. I just think that they could have done better. I was kind of disappointed to be honest. On a day to day basis I don’t want to put the seats down every time I make a shopping trip!
I’ll take the Plymouth, please. Hold the hamster-wagon!
Yeah its plenty tall enough toss out the flathead and chuck in a LD28 turbo and manual and treble the fuel economy a modern day economy car.
Yup, K.T.’s revenge.
Actually it’s not surprising. Americans didn’t especially WANT lower, longer, smoother cars. When the trend started in 1940, comedians made jokes like “By 1943, we’ll have to drive laying down!” It didn’t happen quite that fast… the war and other things (including K.T.) slowed the trend … but it did happen.
https://archive.org/download/FibberMcgeeMolly1930s/Fmm1939-10-310220AnnualAutoShow.mp3
The Soul isn’t really a crossover, at least in my book, more like a small wagon. Never realized it was as tall as a ’51 Plymouth. Cars did become too low in the 60s through 80s. Now they’re getting taller again. I believe the Prius is 59 inches tall and the current Camry just one inch lower.
The classic ’57 Chevy was an even 60 inches tall, and you just slid into the driver seat — no stepping up or down. My ’98 Frontier 2wd is 63 inches tall and again, you just slide right in. There are no raised sills at the lower door edge so it’s easy to sweep debris out with a whisk broom.
That’s because a ’57 Chevy is a ’55 Chevy with a heavy facelift. The ’57 Ford was actually all new and had a bowed frame that allowed foot wells and a lower car. Hudson of course had foot wells years before because it had a unit body.
If Korean cars are so great, Korean car apologists, then where are the old ones? Most seem to have the longevity of a butterfly…..Even in the NW.
Korean cars have only become reliable over the past 10-15 years, so yeah, you’re not going to see a lot of 20-year-old Accents on the road. Also, until fairly recently, their main selling point was their low price, so most of them were sold to people who didn’t have a whole lot of money and didn’t maintain them well, and kids who beat the crap out of them. That sent most of them to an early grave.
I am on my second Accent now, and it’s a great, honest, simple, reliable car. I don’t what to tell someone who won’t believe that Hyundais are good cars because they remember what a piece of crap the Excel was. That was 30 years ago. Times change.
I think the biggest change has still been in the last 10 years, less than that even. Older Hyundais/Kias were pieces of crap, no question. I think they started to get the reliability thing down in the 2000-2005 range, but the cars at that time were still bland and sold mainly on price. The 10/100k warranty helped immeasurably to build confidence in the mechanicals. Once that was all sorted, only then did they start to build cars with the features people wanted, with appealing styling, and with good driving dynamics. For most models, that’s current generation and one generation previous, so you’re generally starting in the 2007 to 2010 range for the good ones, and the ones that are far less likely to meet an early grave.
You are correct. At my local Pick-n-Pull (just a pull-it-yourself junkyard), the only foreign cars less than 10 years old are all Hyundais and Kias. They’re just cheap, disposable cars.
Same here, speaking as a regular visitor to the local wrecking yards. Hyundais and Kias until very recently(still think it’s too early to call them good) seemed to rarely be more than 2 owner cars before getting scrapped.
Who buys a used Hyundai?
Second owner = handmedown 😀
I dunno … why not? Who buys a used Cobalt?
People who want a cheap beater
Of course the first tall economy car was the Ford Model “T” Other cars were also tall,but the “T” may well have been the first “economy car”.
I’m of two minds about tall cars. I love taller rooflines, since I like big windows, good visibility and, most of all, headroom. If I’m sitting in a car 16 feet long, I’d expect more than a couple inches clearance above my head, the point from which I see and sense the world. Is that too much to ask? In most of today’s cars, yes, it is.
But I hate the elevated “command” driving position! No, I don’t want my head at standing height when I drive. I’m sitting down, after all. But the taller I sit, the more my head gets jerked sideways when the road camera changes, or a pothole causes one side of the car to dip. It’s the simple principle of levered motion. That’s why of our two very similar cars, the Tiguan rides much worse than the GTI.
Today, I drove the Tiguan in downtown Denver, where the raised seat height was a special nuisance. It made the car feel bigger, even in places where you wanted it to feel small. My wife scolded me for parking with the bumper two feet away from a garage wall. My sense of the car’s sight lines never quite adjusts to its height. As everyone’s getting on the high-rider bandwagon, I think that’s a reason today’s drivers seem so tentative and slow. I see cars stopping at red lights a full car length away from the car ahead. That’s what they teach in drivers’ ed, my teen reports: “Stop where you can see underneath the car ahead.” That’s a long way back if you’re driving a raised vehicle with a modern raised, passenger-friendly hood. So if you wonder why the roads seem to begetting smaller, blame the cars getting taller!
I dislike tall vehicles but I also dislike vehicles that are too low. Tall vehicles do not handle and brake very well. Vehicles that are too low are a nuisance to get into and out of.
Switching from a really wide and low (and, OK, 5000 lb) ’62 Continental to a much taller GM plasticvan (a little lower but also narrower than a modern minivan) I definitely noticed the side to side rocking. Not caused by bad shocks or something, but just by the geometry of sitting higher. If your car was 100 feet tall, you would be going side to side several feet, but up and down the same distance.
Pretty soon I didn’t ever notice. But riding in anyone’s compact car and I really notice the tightness of the interior and busyness of the ride. And of course a modern minivan is far better.
If a raised, passenger-friendly hood and seating positions contribute to a compromised line of sight, then explain why a full-size van has such good visibility. The cars would be farther apart if the hoods were lower, not to mention longer.
I questioned both my parents about this and they spoke with no fondness about having to drive “with [their] butts on the ground”, having to gaze off into the distance just to see over the hood, or having to account for the several extra feet of overhang when parking.
A while ago, I took a picture of my Caprice parked between two Smarts, thinking it would make a funny picture since the Caprice is so out of proportion.
I was a bit disappointed because the Caprice is much sleeker than the Smarts. So it does not look so big next to them.
Wow that photo is an interesting comparison. Nice pre-1980 (77-79) Caprice. I suppose the Smart is the ultimate small-tall car. But it’s really terrible. Maybe the new one will be better. It kinda has to be.
The Toyota Echo was one of the first extra tall small cars. Even the 1st gen Ford Focus was on the tall side.
I drive a 2008 Grand Cherokee and my previous car was a 1997 Grand Cherokee. I like sitting up higher, I feel that I get a better view of the road and it’s easier to get in and out of. When I drive my son’s 2006 Altima I feel like I’m sitting right on the road!
I truly do not want a view of the road as it rushes under my hood at speed. The low, short-hooded cars of the ’80s gave too much of that, and it was distracting when I should have been looking farther ahead. But this equation reverses when parking, however.
Sitting taller also makes the drive seem slower. The perceived difference between my Tiguan and my GTI is probably 25% or more. The first time I took my teenage daughter for a ride in the GTI, she was terrified. Accustomed to the tall Tiguan seating position, she asked “DAD– How fast are you going?” Fifty-seven, as a matter of fact, but to her it seemed like 70
I don’t love the Soul, and it is vastly less popular here for some reason despite our similar national affinity for crossovers, but I’m continually impressed with how far Hyundai/Kia has come. Many of their latest cars just have a feeling of quality: doors that close with a nice thunk, a solid feel on the road, neglible levels of NVH. I’ve driven a new Sonata and Elantra GT and although I wouldn’t call either fun to drive, they seem to be well-made, reliable and well-priced. It seems like Hyundai is besting Toyota at their own game.
We are the demographic for the Soul as my wife & I are both 69.
My wife just bought a new Soul yesterday mostly based on our satisfaction with my 2013 Kia Rio SX Sedan.Hyundai & Kia are now as good as any car for quality & inexpensive maintenance.
The Soul replaces her PT Cruiser which she loved but had lousy quality.
We also have 2 Rolls Royces a 58 Silver Cloud & 90 Spur 11 & a 92 Merc 500SL.
The Merc was the last car M-B not built to a price & we won’t ever sell it until we can’t get in it any more.
When I was a kid our Neighbor had a 51 Plymouth Convertible of the same vintage as the one in the picture.It drove terribly compared to a Ford or Chevy @ that time.
We like to sit high on long trips but we do like the low driving position of the Rio & 500SL when cruising around town.
Variety is the spice of life.
Variety is the spice of life indeed, based on your fleet! Absolutely love the Silver Cloud… And who’s to say Kias haven’t matured into a great product, if they’re worthy to share a driveway with two RRs and a Mercedes?