SUV and Parking

C. E. White wrote:
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "C. E. White" > wrote
> >> > wrote ... On a similar theme, while walking past a
> >>> supermarket car park in West London (England) I observed a very angry
> >>> couple gaining entry to their Mercedes M-class via the rear boot. The
> >>> Merc
> >>> wasn't badly parked, the cars on either side were parked just fine, but
> >>> it
> >>> was FAR too big for the parking spot. I shoulda taken a pic, but they
> >>> really weren't happy about all the people smirking at them.
> >>
> >> So would people had smirked at people driving a Honda Accord (71.5"
> >> wide), Toyota Camry (70.7" wide), or VW Passat (68.7" wide)? All of the
> >> vehicles are within 3.5" of the width of a Merceedes M-Class (72.4")? I
> >> can't imagine the difference in width between an Accord and an M-Class
> >> would have been the make or break difference in being able to get in the
> >> car. And at least with the M-Class you could go in through the rear
> >> hatch.
> >
> > Except, Ed, that the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry sold in EUROPE
> > is a different and smaller car than those sold in the US. You need to
> > compare an Acura TSX - sold as the Accord in Europe - which is 2"
> > narrower than the US's Accord - much the same as the Passat.
>
> OK, assuming the cars were properly centered as you suggested, do you think
> 1.8" will make much of a difference?
>
> Your story is a cute anti-SUV piece, but like a lot of the anti-SUV tales,
> it is mostly hyperbole. The most common US SUV, the Ford Explorer has about
> the same footprint as a US Toyota Camry, yet based on the horror stories
> people like to concoct, you would think it was the size of an ocean liner.

The current Explorer 4-dr is 193.5 long and 73.5 inches wide. The
current Camry is 189.2 inches long and 70.7 inches wide. Neither
would fit the city of Palo Alto's definition of "compact" car (180" x
72"), but I find the width is more important when navigating a parking
space.