USA Today article

Great, now people are going to be saying that bench seats are the asnwer when the actual answer is to get people to quit getting larger. If it were my choice, I'd leave seats at a reasonable size and if people cant fit in them, oh well. Engineers shouldn't be wasting time on this stuff because you have to have that second burrito or the large fries.

So now my bucket seats are going to feel like benches? Will they at least have options for us who dont want to slide around when turning?

Well.. the belts are certainly designed for some FAT people. We had 5 people in an '05 Grand Prix yesterday, and we couldn't find the middle rear belt - so we took the right belt and stuck the right and middle passengers in together, no problem.

People and companies need to stop accomodating the overweight. Some of these people actually demand the use of handicapped parking spots because they're too lazy to walk a couple extra feet. If we quit the accomodation and acceptance of it, people would think twice about eating that extra hamburger or not exercising.

I agree wholeheartedly... but that's not the way things work. Instead we have weight-discrimination lawsuits.

It should just be an option......call it the fat bassted seat option, code FB42 Many GM "buckets" have always been a bit on the large side, the LSS has huuuuge "buckets" The media will excuse the imports for loose fitting buckets but I bet they still go after GM for having them. Also interesting to note that the imports are going wider for side protection. While GM is critized for haveing large cars with smaller interior dimensions, they never bother to mention how thick the doors are and the why fors think about it, just check out how thick a GM door is sometime when you have the door open.

We're only encouraging this nation's obesity problem to continue by accomodating for the severely obese in mainstream products. A line needs to be drawn somewhere.

i'm sorry guys, but having bigger seats in cars isn't why americans are fat. Regardless I have trouble sitting in some seats and I'm not fat at all. I'm just tall - 6'5" (185 lbs). I'm sorry that my ass is a little bit wider than a 5'2" 100lbs girl.

oh geez. we are supposed to design our cars to FIT people. That's what DESIGN is about. Deal with the fact that folks want more room. Its not a carmakers job to push a social agenda to get McDonald's to stop supersizing their fries. The real crime is wasting tons of the earths resources to build cars that people cannot feel comfortable in. Crossfire? What's wrong with some shoulder room and hip room? How would you like it if someone built you a house that didn't accomodate the size for things to make you feel comfortable? This is an entire separate issue than our nation's national fitness. Its about designing to fit, not to piss off. Its the customer's choice as to what fits them. If people got taller, shouldn't we increase head room and leg room? This European self deprivation mentality on this sort of stuff drives me nuts. Everyone was wondering why I put 3'-0" doors in my new house. Then, they walk around and check it out and see how nice it is to loosen up and provide room if you need it. Its great for moving furniture and really feels nice moving through spaces. By the way, a narrow car like a Lancer Ralliart has great seating for the wider set. The seat hugs nice and is comfy (but the doors are thin..LOL). We've suffered through enough generations of contortionist cars, dictated by a styling paradigm that is out of date (low rooflines).

Edited January 3, 200620 yr by regfootball