Sunroof vs B-pillar...whaaaaa?

[Dan1028]

Sorry if already discussed, but I couldn't find a topic using the search function.

Anywho, as I was washing my car a couple weeks ago, I noticed that the sunroof glass extends beyond the b-pillar, but the interior headliner comes up all the way to the b-pillar. In effect, it seems like a panoramic roof, but ixnay on the anoramapay?

Any thoughts on this? Doug DeMuro styling quirk?

 

[Joseph Spiegel]

Sorry if already discussed, but I couldn't find a topic using the search function.

Anywho, as I was washing my car a couple weeks ago, I noticed that the sunroof glass extends beyond the b-pillar, but the interior headliner comes up all the way to the b-pillar. In effect, it seems like a panoramic roof, but ixnay on the anoramapay?

Any thoughts on this? Doug DeMuro styling quirk?

Yeah, it opens up and out and is stopped by the antenna. So, big glass, open the shade only but small actual opening when glass is back. A quirk for sure.

 

[MerlintheMad]

I'm not seeing the quirk. So you need a yooge opening to justify the size of the glass?

 

[westcoastGT]

size matters , if you dont' know how to operate it properly ..........................bawaaaaaa !!

 

[Dan1028]

I'm not seeing the quirk. So you need a yooge opening to justify the size of the glass?

As an engineer, I usually approach designs logically, with emphasis on function. The proportion of glass to opening is unnecessarily large. If they wanted to provide a panoramic roof, they should have, in my opinion, since the larger amount of glass effectively serves no purpose other than higher cost if it ever needs replacement. That, and it likely adds additional weight over what a sheet metal panel would be.

 

[Joseph Spiegel]

I remember first seeing the giant glass compared to my Crosstour. I thought, wow big sun roof! Then I opened it and thought, wow that opening is smaller than the CT! Then I floored it getting on to the freeway with no one in front of me.

 

[MerlintheMad]

As an engineer, I usually approach designs logically, with emphasis on function. The proportion of glass to opening is unnecessarily large. If they wanted to provide a panoramic roof, they should have, in my opinion, since the larger amount of glass effectively serves no purpose other than higher cost if it ever needs replacement. That, and it likely adds additional weight over what a sheet metal panel would be.

Got it now. Heh! I hadn't noticed it, because it looks so "coool". I bet a bigger opening wouldn't work out draft-wise: it'd end up blasting down into the rear passenger's faces, etc. This is one of the many details that they worked out over years of designing and testing. The bigger glass does look nice. The weight difference is probably minimal.

 

[Mach_Tuck]

To be honest i was surprised by how little this opened as well. All my previous cars had the glass slide down and into the roof. I think i prefer that method over the up and back. But it does look great with just the shade open.

Only other issue i see is that i cannot "vent" or "crack" the sunroof without FULLY retracting the sunshade. In AZ, it be nice to keep the roof popped up but also keep the sunshade fully closed.

Minor issues overall.

 

[Weareblondi]

not sure what this thread is about, is it because the actual sunroof is small compared to the roof? where would the sunroof go when opened? my amg e class that i owned several years ago had a pano roof, the sunroof portion was only a third of the size of the roof itself. it slid up and over the rear portion of the roof, guess like the stingers. i got rid of it because it was like stupid hot in there on sunny days, even with the shad closed. it really needed something like a reflector to bounce the heat back. literally could cook on the roof. i could have done a benihana style saute on it.

 

[Mach_Tuck]

The sunshade works surprisingly well (when closed) and i live in Phoenix...forget and leave that thing open...and interior becomes stupid hot

 

[MerlintheMad]

To be honest i was surprised by how little this opened as well. All my previous cars had the glass slide down and into the roof. I think i prefer that method over the up and back. But it does look great with just the shade open.

Only other issue i see is that i cannot "vent" or "crack" the sunroof without FULLY retracting the sunshade. In AZ, it be nice to keep the roof popped up but also keep the sunshade fully closed.

Minor issues overall.

Have you tried the "up bump"? I didn't even know this existed. I thought that you would just start to retract the glass, then trigger it again to stop it at the opening size desired. But if you push up on the sunroof trigger, it pops the rear edge of the glass up. I haven't tried this with the sun shade closed, though.

 

[Mach_Tuck]

Have you tried the "up bump"? I didn't even know this existed. I thought that you would just start to retract the glass, then trigger it again to stop it at the opening size desired. But if you push up on the sunroof trigger, it pops the rear edge of the glass up. I haven't tried this with the sun shade closed, though.

"up bump" yep, press the button up and the rear edge of the glass lifts slightly. You CANNOT do this without the shade being fully retracted however.

 

[MerlintheMad]

Well, I'll be swizzled ... can you return the sun shade to closed and leave the glass lifted?

 

[Dan1028]

not sure what this thread is about, is it because the actual sunroof is small compared to the roof? where would the sunroof go when opened? my amg e class that i owned several years ago had a pano roof, the sunroof portion was only a third of the size of the roof itself. it slid up and over the rear portion of the roof, guess like the stingers. i got rid of it because it was like stupid hot in there on sunny days, even with the shad closed. it really needed something like a reflector to bounce the heat back. literally could cook on the roof. i could have done a benihana style saute on it.

It's about the fact that the glass is large enough to be a panoramic sunroof, but 30% of that glass is unusable because the headliner covers it from within. If you look outside the car, the glass is past the b-pillar and into the rear compartment. From the inside, all rear passengers have is headliner. I would have thought that a smaller glass panel would have been used instead of what we have. Point of the thread is just an observation, not a criticism , but the exterior makes it seem as though we have a panoramic sunroof when in fact we don't.

 

[Dan1028]

Got it now. Heh! I hadn't noticed it, because it looks so "coool". I bet a bigger opening wouldn't work out draft-wise: it'd end up blasting down into the rear passenger's faces, etc. This is one of the many details that they worked out over years of designing and testing. The bigger glass does look nice. The weight difference is probably minimal.

The vehicles with panoramic glass roofs that I've been in had fixed rear panels to solve exactly that problem. Doing that allows for the view without the draft and, in some cases, the rear may have its own retractable shade for the rear occupants to control.

 

[Weareblondi]

It's about the fact that the glass is large enough to be a panoramic sunroof, but 30% of that glass is unusable because the headliner covers it from within. If you look outside the car, the glass is past the b-pillar and into the rear compartment. From the inside, all rear passengers have is headliner. I would have thought that a smaller glass panel would have been used instead of what we have. Point of the thread is just an observation, not a criticism , but the exterior makes it seem as though we have a panoramic sunroof when in fact we don't.

ah, maybe if i paid closer attention to the first post i wouldn't look like such a doofus.

 

[Mach_Tuck]

Well, I'll be swizzled ... can you return the sun shade to closed and leave the glass lifted?

Nope...

 

[MerlintheMad]

The vehicles with panoramic glass roofs that I've been in had fixed rear panels to solve exactly that problem. Doing that allows for the view without the draft and, in some cases, the rear may have its own retractable shade for the rear occupants to control.

With that wonderful fastback window "in the way", I will guess that designing what you just described wasn't feasible from an economic standpoint. All throughout the design they were balancing modern comforts and conveniences that are standard with the retro approach to a 70s gran turismo. If the insistence on a fastback, full hatch had been sacrificed, then the panoramic glass and second retractable sun shield would have been easy to include. So despite appearances being somewhat deceiving, I prefer the look over a bit more open to the sky rooftop.

 

[Dan1028]

With that wonderful fastback window "in the way", I will guess that designing what you just described wasn't feasible from an economic standpoint. All throughout the design they were balancing modern comforts and conveniences that are standard with the retro approach to a 70s gran turismo. If the insistence on a fastback, full hatch had been sacrificed, then the panoramic glass and second retractable sun shield would have been easy to include. So despite appearances being somewhat deceiving, I prefer the look over a bit more open to the sky rooftop.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I feel like you're arguing with me when I'm not actually arguing with you . You seem very defensive of the design. We're all on the same team here . But it's foolhardy to believe any car is perfect. They all have quirks.

I'm not criticising the fastback design, or the hatch, or the engineers in South Korea.

I'll simplify this: the moving piece of glass is much larger than the hole in the roof. That means that the part of the glass that you physically can't see out of is useless. Again, not a criticism, just an observation.

If, however, Kia just cut the moving piece of glass where the headliner ends, installed a fixed piece of glass there, problem solved. It would result in the same amount of glass with ability to either stop the shade short of the rear passengers or go all the way back like it currently does. Or, they could have made the glass smaller and sheet metal longer. In either case, the hole in the roof would have remained the same. Or they could have made the hole larger, maybe not.

But perhaps there are motors/electronics in there and the fixed glass panel would likewise have been useless, I don't know.

Attached is an example of a fixed glass panel (aft) and movable glass (fore). It is from a 2012 Volvo XC60. Like ours, the movable glass pops out and up over the roof.

 

[MerlintheMad]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I feel like you're arguing with me when I'm not actually arguing with you . You seem very defensive of the design. We're all on the same team here . But it's foolhardy to believe any car is perfect. They all have quirks.

I'm not criticising the fastback design, or the hatch, or the engineers in South Korea.

I'll simplify this: the moving piece of glass is much larger than the hole in the roof. That means that the part of the glass that you physically can't see out of is useless. Again, not a criticism, just an observation.

If, however, Kia just cut the moving piece of glass where the headliner ends, installed a fixed piece of glass there, problem solved. It would result in the same amount of glass with ability to either stop the shade short of the rear passengers or go all the way back like it currently does. In either case, the hole in the roof would have remained the same. Or they could have made the hole larger, maybe not.

But perhaps there are motors/electronics in there and the fixed glass panel would likewise have been useless, I don't know.

Attached is an example of a fixed glass panel (aft) and movable glass (fore). It is from a 2012 Volvo XC60. Like ours, the movable glass pops out and up over the roof.View attachment 9983

I am defending the design because I think the original idea that gave birth to it was very cool. I didn't expect to see a car like the Stinger, looking in many ways like a GT from the 70s, etc. I'm not defending the design of the sunroof, however. I'm just trying to understand it. I hadn't really given it any thought, just accepting it for how it is. Now you've got me looking at it as quirky. I guess it is, compared to what you said so far. The idea of a hole the same size, with fixed glass behind (with its own sun shade) sounds very neat, elegant even. I wonder if it is possible? There wouldn't be an issue with a fixed piece of glass. But one that can be covered and visa versa is a different question. That there isn't a bigger "panorama" for all that glass says to me that probably a bigger (or separate) sun shade is impractical. I say this believing that the Stinger's designers would have given the car the maximum sunroof possible. That they used a larger than necessary piece of glass seems more of an aesthetic touch than a practical or necessary one.