|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
I think you might be better off with the rear-facing seat in a center position (I think you can do that). But I was definitely happier when my boy got big enough to face forward, and I think he was too. He likes to ride.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,786
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,786 |
Originally posted by frenchblueC2:
You have a long body, Mark. That could be the difference.
I have a long leg. That doesn't keep me from moving the seat farther forward though.
-Auto Mak or-
-Experiment or
-Station Wagon or-
-Computeriz or-
I have a foot that is bigger than a foot.
SuperChipFOR SALE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44 |
I agree. I'm 6'3" and don't have the seat all the way back. Try adjusting the tilt of the seat backwards. I find it more comfortable anyway. Mind you I do have the seat back reclined a bit too.
00 Silver Frost CSVT
#1136/2150 Born 4 Jan, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
I have always felt like I had more legroom in a Contour than in a Taurus. My seat isn't all the way back, although I keep it reclined to the point that my shoulder bumps the B-pillar just so my arms are comfortably extended (not reaching, but not wrapped over the steering wheel). I'm over 6'4".
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 980
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 980 |
Back to the original subject... When I found out we were having a second one, I test-fitted the car seats. I can get both car seats in there without a problem. The seats are a rear-facing infant and forward facing convertable type...
2000 Mystique LS
Duratec 2.5L MTX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 313
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 313 |
We had twins, and had two rear-facing car seats in the Contour. It was a tight fit, but worked well.
Then we had another 18 months later, which pushed us into a minivan as a primary kid hauler, though the Contour still sees occasional 1-or-2-kid booster seat time.
My '95 Contour doesn't have a center shoulder belt, so the middle position isn't an option for us, even with just one kid.
Last edited by phil; 08/22/06 09:08 PM.
1995 Contour GL V6 ATX T/C
1986 Mustang GT 5.0
2000 Windstar LX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 807
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 807 |
That's the problem with the Contour and a lot of other midsize cars like the Grand Am, Stratus, Jetta, etc.: They take up the space on the road like a midsize, while having less interior space than many compacts. The Focus has more interior space than the Contour, and my old roommate had a late 80s/early 90s Civic that was absolutely cavernous inside. I suppose maybe engineers just aren't under the gun to utilize space efficiently when they've got more space to work with... That said, I really don't get it when people run out in a blind panic to buy a minivan as soon as their first baby is born. When I was 11 1/2, my brother 9 and my sister not quite 7 my dad got a new '86 BMW 325e 5spd coupe and all three of us fit fine in the back. I can't vouch for putting a car seat back there, of course...  --T.J.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
I think we'll be pressed into a Mazda 5 if/when we have another baby come along. The big question (read: FIGHT) will be over whether we trade in our Mazda 6 on it, or if my Contour goes. I like my wife's car, but only because it's hers. If it were mine exclusively, I would not be nearly so fond of it (ATX/4-cyl, kind of a snoozer).
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 32
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 32 |
Quote:
That's the problem with the Contour and a lot of other midsize cars like the Grand Am, Stratus, Jetta, etc.: They take up the space on the road like a midsize, while having less interior space than many compacts. The Focus has more interior space than the Contour, and my old roommate had a late 80s/early 90s Civic that was absolutely cavernous inside. I suppose maybe engineers just aren't under the gun to utilize space efficiently when they've got more space to work with...
I'm not sure about the current Jetta platform but old Jetta's and Contours are technically compacts. I'm almost certain that early 90's civics have less space than a Contour.
The difference between a small midsize and a large compact isn't total size, but the dimensions. Modern compacts have a lot of space because they are taller and shorter with tall seats that position your legs more vertically. They tend to be 2-3" higher with a wheelbase that is generally 3-5" shorter and width that's about 2" narrower than a Contour. Interior space ends up about the same with leg comfort going to the modern compact, depending on whether you enjoy being seated more upright.
For me, the dimensions of modern compacts ruin the driving experience. A lot of the Contour's good driving dynamics come from its dimensions, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,867
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,867 |
Originally posted by Desiato:
Quote:
That's the problem with the Contour and a lot of other midsize cars like the Grand Am, Stratus, Jetta, etc.: They take up the space on the road like a midsize, while having less interior space than many compacts. The Focus has more interior space than the Contour, and my old roommate had a late 80s/early 90s Civic that was absolutely cavernous inside. I suppose maybe engineers just aren't under the gun to utilize space efficiently when they've got more space to work with...
I'm not sure about the current Jetta platform but old Jetta's and Contours are technically compacts. I'm almost certain that early 90's civics have less space than a Contour.
The difference between a small midsize and a large compact isn't total size, but the dimensions. Modern compacts have a lot of space because they are taller and shorter with tall seats that position your legs more vertically. They tend to be 2-3" higher with a wheelbase that is generally 3-5" shorter and width that's about 2" narrower than a Contour. Interior space ends up about the same with leg comfort going to the modern compact, depending on whether you enjoy being seated more upright.
For me, the dimensions of modern compacts ruin the driving experience. A lot of the Contour's good driving dynamics come from its dimensions, in my opinion.
Yes, the Contour is a compact, while the Cirrus/Stratus, although about the same size on the outside, were midsized cars.
I remember at least one road trip from KS to IL with two kids in carseats, a 45 lb dog, a week's worth of luggage and baby gear for the 5 of us, and a few Christmas presents, to boot. That was back when the Contour was our "large" car (next to our 91 Civic sedan.) Previous to that, when the Civic was the large car (next to our CRX), we made regular trips home (pre-kids) with a big plastic box on the roof.
Didn't really consider a minivan until we started working on kid #3, and even then we knew we were looking at the space as a luxury, rather than a necessity.
Function before fashion.
'96 Contour SE
"Toss the Contour into a corner, and it's as easy to catch as a softball thrown by a preschooler." -Edmunds, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
