The fox is a shy animal, difficult to find and photograph in the wild. A rare repeat sighting of the Audi Fox that I previously profiled presented an ideal opportunity to reiterate one of my earlier points about the Fox: the difference between its trim and chiseled shape and the bulky designs that predominate today.
Finding it sandwiched between two current mainstream midsized sedans, a Honda Accord Camry and a Ford Fusion, illustrates this point perfectly. The high and puffed-out rears of the Accord Camry and Fusion allow superior trunk space, probably giving them six-body trunks if you stack them vertically three deep, but the low beltline and larger windows of the much smaller Fox give it a decided advantage in driver field of view and passenger perception of space. Whether the Fox’s classic German three-box style or the parabolic profile of modern sedans is preferable is a matter of personal preference, but since I don’t carry bodies in my trunk, my preference goes to the former.
That’s not an Accord, its a Camry.
The fact that they’re so easily confused also says a lot about modern car design.
Yeah, and it’s not like the average Joe c. 1977 could tell the difference between an LTD and an LTD II at a glance, and the latter was brand-new then.
It’s not a fact that they’re easily confused, especially w/ that honking Toyota insignia hanging on the back.
The original Accord was probably about the same size as the Fox.
Modern cars look so bloaty and bulbous by comparison.
The high-bustle rear end also has aero advantages, something that needs to be considered these days. What’s scary is how the weight of today’s cars has ballooned. Even something small like a compact SUV carries more avoirdupois than a full-size car from as recently as the mid-1990s. The 2014 Dodge Dart weighs about as much as the far larger 1994 Dodge Intrepid.
Given how hard they work to keep the weight down (for example, the new aluminum F-150s) it must be for crashworthiness. If I found myself upside down, I’d sure rather be in one of today’s cars.
Yeah, it’s fun to reminisce and critque the visual aspects of the designs, but I wouldn’t put my family in those old cars. Well, at least not as a daily driver that is.
Nor would I. Without ABS and side airbags, I wouldn’t drive such a car every day.
That’s the unfortunate thing. I’ll take the chance on my own, but a couple years from now when my wife and I will (hopefully) start a family, I’ve resigned myself to the fact that I’ll need to get rid of my 1997-vintage Ford and buy something with all the modern safety bells and whistles. I’ve said all my life that I wouldn’t ever drive a minivan but it’s starting to look inevitable–sedans don’t have enough room for all the “stuff” that comes with kids these days, the Germans are the only ones left making wagons and they’re too expensive, and I’d take a minivan over an SUV.
Even more regrettable is that, whenever I do get around to reviving my older car (1979 Malibu) any children will not be allowed to even ride in it. Makes me wonder whether it’s worthwhile…
Takes all the fun out of it, and results in bloated and overweight designs like these, but you can’t knowingly risk the safety of the family. A devil’s choice.
Oh no the horrors…..how did we ever survive? I’m sorry, but maybe you should just lock your family in the basement and have them wear helmets and motorcycle body armor all the time, you know, just in case……but then a pipe in the basement could burst and flood the basement……oh nooooooo! Maybe the backyard would be better…..but what if a meteorite comes burning through the atmosphere straight at them…..ohhhh nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooo!
Think of the children!!!!!
When it comes down to it, minivans just make sense. They make life a lot easier.
If you want to feel better about it, there was a Top Gear episode where an Odyssey left Crown Vic police cruisers in the dust.
Carmine, of course we survived. Those that didn’t don’t tend to post here.
Personally, I think it’s a no-brainer. A better performing, better driving, more reliable, and safer car vs something older that looks better and has superior visibility. Not many parents are going to put their families in the latter on a daily basis unless they can’t afford better.
Not trying to be the safety nanny here, just stating how I see it.
the Germans are the only ones left making wagons and they’re too expensive, and I’d take a minivan over an SUV.
I gave $21K for my new VW Jetta wagon, with auto, air, cruise, power mirrors, power locks and the 2.5 gas engine. The safety scores are excellent. Insurance for the Jetta is the same as for my Ford Taurus X, which itself was known for stout, safe, design.
And I can see out the back window of the Jetta.
I understand that, but statements like, “my children wont even be allowed to ride in my 1979 Malibu”, are effing ridiculous…..as if it was a rabid great white shark mixed with a rapist tiger covered in TNT in your garage and not a reasonably modern car with shoulder harnesses, disc brakes, safety glass, etc.
Are you sure you should even keep that death trap 79 Malibu in the same house as your kids? It might spontaneously combust in the middle of the night!!!
Think of the children!!!
Meanwhile in Thailand or someplace, a family of 6 rides a Honda Cub, I know that’s not ideal either, but somewhere have to balance between safety and paranoia, you don’t need to load your kids in an APC to take them to the park, let the little bastard ride in a convertible every once in while, its still probably better than stuffing their gullet full of Happy Meals.
No shoulder belts in the back seat, which is a good part of the problem as that’s where child seats have to live. I didn’t say “forever” but it’s probably going to be the case “while they’re in child/booster seats” which, at the rate the government is raising the mandatory ages/weights, will probably be age 13 or somesuch nonsense.
But, yes, I’m being a bit alarmist. Thankfully my wife is the more pragmatic one of the two of us.
Chris, don’t get neurotic about the kids’ safety before you have them.
A ’97 Ford has some pretty good safety margin already. Sure it is a few bags of air short but it has crumble zones, driver and passenger air bag and hopefully ABS.
The minivan is not necessary because of the kids. It is necessary because of the baby seats and a stroller. You also will appreciate the space when you need to change the diapers. But: you also need to keep your own identity and passions and share those passions. Who else is going to teach them?
If your passion is an old car teach them how much fun it is!
Meanwhile in Thailand or someplace, a family of 6 rides a Honda Cub, I know that’s not ideal either, but somewhere have to balance between safety and paranoia, you don’t need to load your kids in an APC to take them to the park, let the little bastard ride in a convertible every once in while, its still probably better than stuffing their gullet full of Happy Meals.
Now now, you wouldn’t want to load kids into an APC anyway Carmine. There’s too many sharp edges inside for kids to cut to cut their precious little fingers, and even worse they’d also be exposed to the unpleasant side of the world when they ask why a vehicle like an APC exists. As we now know, good parenting means that children should be shielded from anything with the slightest danger until they’re at least 27 years old. Otherwise they’ll either be dead, scarred or be war mongering phycopaths!
Learning to drive in pickups and minivans teaches you to never even bother with rear visibility. Ours was completely negated with cargo long before any designs took it away.
@Chris M.: I remember how happy I was on my 12th birthday when I could legally sit up in the front seat of the ’98 F-250 or the ’99 Caravan.
@Carmine: I think when Chris said “any children will not be allowed to even ride in it,” he meant by the government, not by himself.
FWIW, anyone (except maybe the Mrs.) telling me I can’t take my kids in this, that, or the other thing can go suck eggs. I rode in a two F-250’s with non-working seatbelts until I was 12 and I turned out fine. But let’s cross that bridge when (if) we come to it, and work on finding a wife, no, a girlfriend first.
@ Chris M. No shoulder belts in the back seat is good thing when it comes to mounting car seats. That eliminates the need to use the clip that always slips and is a pain to readjust. The old fashioned style seat belt is easy to keep properly tightened. Now once they move into booster seats that is another story entirely and you need the shoulder belts.
Lap belts don’t pose any problem at all. For the child seat, install some form of anchor for the top tether strap and you’re good. As Eric said, mounting a car seat with a lap belt is easier than with a shoulder belt.
As for kids of booster seat age, booster seats are only to be used in conjunction with shoulder belts, as the main purpose of them is to raise the child up so that the shoulder belt is across their chest and not their neck/head.
Kids are not banned from using lap belts, at least in in my neck of the woods. The law says that, if the only seating position available has a lap belt, the child may ride wearing only the lap belt. They don’t publicize this; you have to actually go and read the law for yourself. The overly safety conscious may have a problem with this, but it works for me!
There are millions of us who grew up riding around in these supposedly dangerous beasts, even some of us who had accidents in them, and we’re fine. In the 80s people remarked on how much safer cars like the Fox were compared to the wallowing drum-braked behemoths of the 50s. It reminds me of people who are terrified of letting their kids walk around their negligible-crime sidewalk suburbs, while I used to ride my bicycle to school on no-bike-lane 45mph roads from age seven.
I’m more concerned about crashing into something (or someone) I can’t see given the abysmal visibility out of recent cars, knowing that even a minor fender-bender will cost thousands to fix.
This is why I have two Volvo 740 sedans, an ’86 and a ’91. They offer superior visibility all around, plus I don’t have to go running to the dealer when something breaks. I can fix them both in my yard.
Also, the 700 Series was deemed to be the safest car on the road at one point in the late 1980s. Even though the ’86 doesn’t have airbags or ABS, what it does have is a safety cage, front and rear crumple zones, anti-submarining front seats, and guard beams in the doors. I’ll trust that car over any other modern vehicle on road trips.
Nope, sorry. todays Gub-mint crash ratings are an absolute FAIL. Take a look at how these newer cars are made. Ive seen whats behind the Dollar Tree plastic of these front bumpers…its absolutely frightening to think that a piece of Styrofoam and an aluminum gutter are all that stands between the occupants of an econobox and a Cummins Ram barreling down on you. These crash tests are mandated by some bureaucrat politician with absolutely no automotive knowledge whatsoever. Idiots likely cant even find a hood latch, yet theyre going to dictate engineering parameters. Riiiiiggghht. Anyone who wants to drink that Kool-Aid is welcome to chug a lug. I saw what my ‘dangerous’ and ‘unsafe’ ’85 Scrambler did to a brand new Olds W body sedan when the old hag tried to run a red lite. Totaled her granny sled, barely bent my bumper. Everyone was ok and that’s what mattered, but if the speeds had been increased at all, Id have crushed my way to the trunk. And that Jeep wasn’t mongo-lifted either…2″ kit and it was on 31’s.
I suggest you head on over to TTAC and learn about what happened to Jack Baruth.
I did…it says he was in a collision and expected to recover, not much else is said. Hope he’s ok….but I don’t get your point.
Truth be told, I don’t want to get in a wreck in ANY car or truck. But if it does happen, I wont trust my life or well being to plastic and Styrofoam that some politician says is safe. You don’t see race cars using whats on these cars, its all steel rollcage. Only rig made like that is a Jeep Wrangler. Having rolled a ’81 CJ-7 off an icy bridge I can say that even the crappy 4 point roll…er…’sport’ bars on those are better than a roof which has all the strength of a pizza pan.
The safety cage surrounding the passenger cabin on any modern unibody car is made of high strength steel, not styrofoam and plastic. There is a reason that a 2014 Cruze weighs nearly as much as a 1957 Bel Air. The unoccupied portions of the car are designed to crumple to dissipate energy while the passenger compartment is extremely rigid. If there isn’t another car’s crumple zone to cannibalize, the weakest point on a BOF vehicle tends to be the cabin. In Jack’s post-crash articles at TTAC, he talks extensively about the safety deficiencies in the body-on-frame Lincoln he was driving. It was replaced with a 2014 Honda Accord, with safety being one of his primary purchase considerations. The massive decline in road fatalities per vehicle-mile traveled over the years speaks for itself. Science works whether you trust it or not.
Also, I’m unaware of any major automaker that employs politicians in their engineering department. NHTSA also employs thousands of highly qualified engineers who are tasked with developing crash test parameters and safety standards. I should know, I work with them every day.
‘safety cage’? Nope, sorry…Im just not seeing that. Ive seen the shells of modern cars and what I see is formed sheet metal. A ‘safety cage’ would resemble whats in a stock car or dragster. Tubular steel, not a flimsy little A-pillar. Cruze vs Cruze or corolla or kia or whatever…sure, you might stand a chance. Cruze vs a solid Plymouth Duster….or a ’77 RamCharger with a 4 inch lift, tubular bumpers and a skid plate. Um yeah, Ill take one of those.
No matter what, every day you live your life is a roll of the dice. There are NO guarantees…..except the fact that no matter what you drive, youre always at risk of a wreck. But if you choose the safe boring mom mobile….youre 100% guaranteed to be driving a mediocre car.
MoparRocker: it’s generally not a good idea to advertise one’s ignorance. I’m not going to bother rebutting your statements, because I doubt you’re actually interested in the facts. Maybe you should leave safety to those that do, and stick to what you do best: telling us what big hot-rod V8 you’d jam into the engine compartment of every car that we show here.
Uh, moparrocker74 you said:
“‘safety cage’? Nope, sorry…Im just not seeing that. Ive seen the shells of modern cars and what I see is formed sheet metal. A ‘safety cage’ would resemble whats in a stock car or dragster. Tubular steel, not a flimsy little A-pillar.”
That sheet metal on new cars is made of ultra high strength steel that is three times stronger than any part of pre-2000s cars:
New car: 110,000 pounds per square inch tensile strength.
Old car: 35,000 pounds per square inch tensile strength.
That thick frame of the old cars is easily bent by the passenger compartment of the new car. And the weak body and firewall of the old car, combined with not enough bolts used to attach it, just has the new car tear it right off the frame in a crash. The only part of the new car that uses the old type of steel is the crumple zone. That A-pillar on the new cars is very thick and very strong, not flimsy at all.
Look at the picture. The safety cage is like a rollcage.
A 80/90s Thunderbird is still slippery by todays standards and those have tidy little butts. If aero really was as big of a deal these days as everyone claims it is SUVs and CUVs wouldn’t be sold and bought in the numbers they are.
I think the real reason for big fat asses is the same reason CUV/SUVs became popular. People are suckers for utility weather they need it or not, and a tall trunk adds a nice amount of cubic feet. That or pedestrian safety, which is ironic considering how visibility goes to shit.
That excess weight is mostly sound deadener it doesnt translate into strength in a crash.
Aerodynamics has a lot to do with the high, almost fastback, rear profile. I agree the Fox is more attractive, with superior visibility. But there’s a lot of turbulence behind that rear window that adds drag.
Having said that, I sure wish I could see out the back of my 2010 Prius better, it’s pretty bad. I miss those wide open windows.
Yes, but the high-back rear deck makes it harder on rearward visibility, particularly when judging distances between vehicles. Such as when backing up and parallel parking.
All the better to sell you a backup camera, proximity sensors, and a blind spot monitoring system! Or perhaps even an auto-parking system! Everybody wins!
All the better to sell you a backup camera, proximity sensors, and a blind spot monitoring system!
Lack of rear visibility has become such an issue that a new government safety reg will require backup cameras in all passenger vehicles in a couple years. So, with the crutch of the standard backup camera, I expect the ability to look out the window of a car to become even worse.
Remember when SUV rollovers were a big issue? So the government required installation of a stability control system to try to keep the things under control. So was do automakers do? Design SUVs that are even more unstable. Consider the new Chevy Trax, only 1 inch lower than my Taurus X, but 5″ narrower and over 30″ shorter.
From the looks of it the driver of that Camcord has had issues backing up judging by the wrinkled corner of the bumper cover. Personally I find our Fusion of that era not too bad to see out of the back, certainly better than the 2000 Taurus that is no my son’s car. I hated its rear visibility so much that it got a back up camera shortly after we got it. When it was time to replace it we went back to a Panther, the 1 MPG penalty was well worth it when the wife was only driving 10K per year. Of course shortly after we got that car there were a number of changes so her car now sees 30K per year, hence the reason for the Fusion Hybrid.
Was the Taurus the wagon with the awful oval window?
You say “awful,” I say “a shot at immortality.” In twenty years, no one will remember the ’96 Camry. But the ’96 mobile-oval will live on in memory.
No it is not a wagon and no it is not the ovaled out model it is the deovaled 2000.
You should try the new Accord Hybrid – much better performing and much better visibility than the Fusion Hybrid.
Do cars not come with side view mirrors in the US you dont need to see out the centre back to reverse park.
Yea they have side view mirrors but that doesn’t give you all the picture like a light pole that might be in the middle of the car.
A Fox in a hen house?
Fox is one of those interesting automotive names that can mean different things depending on what car you are actually talking about…Audi? VW? Ford?
Unlike those that roam my neighborhood, this Fox is an endangered species in the wild.
I thought they were extinct. That is another car I once drove as a company car back in 1973 it’s first year in the US. Not a bad car but only had it a year before I was given a 74 Duster with the slant six. Did hear that the Fox pretty much fell apart a few years later. My recollection is that it was an ok car but the automatic hampered the performance.
Interesting talk about what car a kid can go in and not go in. My 5 year old has been in 7 of the 8 vehicles I have. The only one he can’t go in for a ride is the 1965 F100. He has been in the 67 Park Lane, 68 Cougar, 68 Mustang, 73 Polara, 91 Mazda 626 and routinely Mom’s 98 Sable wagon. He loves to go for rides and does have his favorites. On the other hand my Cougar Club President’s wife thinks his 68 Cougar XR7-G is completely unsafe for the son to ride in for a show. So his 5 year old is never there while mine is.
Interesting that you should mention your Cougar. A couple of months ago I was at a build session for the robotics team I mentor and the parents of one of the students was there as it was their turn to bring food. One of the other students was there and as he often does brought up the 65 Mustang he is working on in hopes of having it ready when he turns 16. The father said how he had a 68 Cougar that he had built up years ago and wouldn’t mind getting another. His wife said that if he did he wouldn’t be allowed to take his son in it. I’m somewhere in the middle. I wouldn’t put either of my kids in a 65 Mustang as their daily driver but I certainly have taken them for rides in my Scouts and Travelall. When they were much younger and smaller in the nice time of year I regularly picked them up from school in my Cabtop Scout with the top removed. Now that they are bigger we don’t fit 3 across very well and my daughter who used to love riding in it with the top off doesn’t like to any more since it blows her hair around. Heck even in our modern cars she doesn’t like riding around with the windows down when it is nice out. I’ll often roll down all the windows and just to piss her off I’ll lock them. I had always wished that when you locked the windows that the front passenger window would stay on and with our 2010 Fusion it does and my wife and I don’t like it because if our daughter is up front she’ll roll it up. Of course since it is a Hybrid rolling the windows up and running the AC is way more fuel efficient.
As a young child (which was really only 15 years ago), my favorite cars to ride in were any of my father’s Ford pickups; he usually picked us up from daycare in them. Had to always lean over and open the door for us because our lack of height=no leverage for the door handle. The SuperCab; that was fun because it had two jump seats in back and my sister and I could play cards or whatever on the cooler that was our table. But even then I would have said any of my mom’s minivans were better to ride in on a really long trip, since you could recline the back seats and sleep _whenever_you_wanted_.
I don’t recall ever using a booster seat past the age of 5, and I was always shorter-than-average height as a kid because I was a “preemie”.
I always thought the Fox was handsome and tidy looking, but I also thought it was a bit weak in the trunk, relative to the upper part of the body (C pillar, rear window), so the contrast might be a bit exaggerated.
It would be interesting to see how a current A4, which is theoretically the Fox’s descendent, measures up to the Camry and Fusion. It’s grown a lot larger as well, but I don’t think it’s nearly as bloated looking as those two.
I always thought the Fox was handsome and tidy looking, but I also thought it was a bit weak in the trunk,
My favorite of that line was the 2 door Dasher, with the wagon a close second. Particularly the ones from 78 on, when they went to quad headlights. Being rational, the lack of reliability kept me away from the Dasher, Scirocco, Corrado and assorted Golfs and GTIs until the Jetta wagon finally improved to a point I was willing to chance it this year.
Friends of mine had a Audi Fox ok car to ride in but nothing special, it had about 150k kms on it when it began burning oil at a prodigious rate and got scrapped the cost of overhauling anything from VW group made it uneconomic to keep.
It looks like the Fox’s butt has no chance to keep up with today’s automotive Kardashians.
I am thinking that today’s big rear ends are an excuse to force rear view cameras on us drivers.
The BMW 2000 Coupe was soooo nice looking. I am just reminiscing.
Whenever people say that we’re now in a modern Malaise Era, I don’t mind because that means that the eighties and nineties redux is coming up soon.
I hope not. I thought most cars of the 80s and 90s looked incredibly bland. The 70s was an era of poor taste, but at least they had something. IMO, automakers have relatively recently figured out how to make cars aerodynamic that don’t look bland and don’t all look the same.
Holy carp! Modern cars do have huge butts!
I’ve never seen one of these Foxes in the wild: I didn’t realize how small it was compared to newer midsize cars.
Not too long ago, I read a comment (on this site, I think) that basically said: Nobody makes small cars anymore, just cars that look small.
I had a Brocade Red one of these Foxes. It was an auto so I yanked it out and in went a four speed. It had a lot better performance after that. This was 28 years ago, I expect it’s dust now.
KJ
Robert – in my opinion – it’s not as simple as you’ve written…
Its true – cars are getting bigger every year / model restyle, but in this picture we have a mixture of two very different generations AND two very different continents.
Its true – all cars are now much bigger than they used to be in the 70′, but we shouldn’t compare US-only model of Ford with any ancient european product.
They were always much bigger, better equipped and far more comfortable – even if they had the same nameplate (like the modern Passat – the “hecho en Mexico” americanized model is nearly a foot longer than it’s european “sibling”.
If we look at the comparison of any American vs. European car of higher classes – we always end up looking at big size differences.
Look at the picture. Taken last week on a small side street in Poland… 😉 It shows the difference between the continents very clearly…
Cars are not getting bigger these days. They just swell up.
Here in Nova Scotia, the government has three weight classes for vehicle registrations, with correspondingly graduated biennial fees (under 1000 kg, 1000 to 1500 kg, over 1500 kg). They have not changed in 30+ years or more. Unfortunately, it’s almost impossible to buy a new car that is 1000 kg or less. Happened to test drive a Mazda2 last week….1050 kg..!!?! Government is silently laughing all the way to the bank… Now, gotta find a “driveable” sub-compact from the 80’s….
Now, gotta find a “driveable” sub-compact from the 80′s….
Check out a Scion iQ, Curb weight 965Kg
http://www.scion.ca/scion/en/vehicles/iq/overview
With the exception of a select few models that are absolutely horrid (2010+ Taurus, any Chrysler 300, a few others), I think people on car sites like this exaggerate the visibility issues in modern cars.
I’ve driven those Fusions and Camrys extensively (btw, you’re writing on car site and you can’t tell the difference between a Camry and Accord… the two most common sedans in existence? They don’t even look alike…), and neither is really bad, especially if you remove the obnoxious rear headrests – like my father has done in his 2010 Camry.
I think the “fantastic” visibility of the 1980s/ealry-90s was the exception rather than the rule. Have you seen cars from the 1930s, ’40s, and early ’50s? Their gunslit windows and massively high beltlines make a 2006 Charger look like the Popemobile. Visibility also sucked on most American cars through much of the ’70s with massive C-pillars, high beltlines/rear decks, and tiny opera windows instead of actual windows… not to mention those crushed velour seats mounted about 5 inches off of the floorboard in most of them. The visibility in my ’86 Fleetwood (a very 70s design) was really no better than a 2010 model, with such low seats, high dash, and gunslit rear window covered by the massive vinyl roof and C-pillar.
Rose-colored glass and selective history. Disclaimer: European cars have always better about this, and generally continue to be.
You mention pretty much every era except the 60’s. That was another time when many cars had excellent visibility from inside. In general, they had large greenhouses with slender (or nonexistent) pillars, a low beltline that didn’t kick-up at the back, rear windows went right down to the trunklid, and hoods and trunks that didn’t taper off too quickly so you could see where they ended.
The same was also true of a lot of 70’s cars as well, as long as you didn’t get the “Brougham” version (such as your Fleetwood). Our 1978 Oldsmobile Delta-88 can check all the “good visibility” criteria I mentioned, and that design was new for 1977.
I consider the visibility from inside my 60’s Chryslers or our 70’s Olds to be much better than from inside our 1994 Roadmaster. We still own all these cars and I’ve driven them all in the not-too-distant past. No rose coloured glasses required. 🙂
I know I’m a little late to this game, but reading some of the things said in this post make me think of ttac. What draws me to this site was the relaxed free flowing comments and commentors. Y’all need to relax and get back to how the site was just a short while ago. Faithfully reader sometime commentor. William Robinson