Ask the Car People.SM


Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars - READ ONLY

398 messages,  Last post on Sep 26, 2011 at 6:23 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, Classic Cars

Messages Page 36 of 40

#350 of 398 Re: X cars [lemko] by andre1969

Jun 24, 2009 (10:03 am)

GM should've just stayed with their extremely solid B and C RWD cars and updated them as appropriate. They probably wouldn't be in the mess they are in if they had.
 
I would have liked to have seen that happen, as I like the old GM B/C bodies. However, interest in cars of that size slowly died out over the years. It's to the point now that only the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car remain, but their days are numbered. And I don't think private individuals can even buy these cars anymore! Aren't they limited to police forces, taxi companies, livery services, rental companies, etc?
 
The Crown Vic is a good example of how this type of car WAS improved over the years. While it's still based on the 1979 Panther, I'd imagine that very little would actually interchange. The engine is different, the transmission is different, the body was redesigned in 1992, the rear suspension was redesigned in either 1998 or 2004, and the frame was even tweaked for 2004.
 
The Caprice went through a similar change, as the 1991 model had a radically different body, although it was still on the same 1977-vintage frame. But over the years, the transmissions changed, and the engine got a radical overhaul for 1994.
 
But, it just wasn't enough change, and GM left this market after 1996. To be fair, they dumped these cars to capitalize on the SUV craze, but even if they had kept them in production, I'm sure production would have tapered off year after year, just as it did with the Crown Vic and its siblings.

#351 of 398 Many have just said 'no thanks' by tomcatt630

Jun 24, 2009 (9:54 pm)

I said this to many who defend the big cars, people who want room have bought trucks in the past 20 years and don't think of buying a 'large' car. To loyal SUV/'people mover' buyers, a Crown Vic is just another car. And to car buyers it is old fashioned.
 
Today's "full sized car' is actually the current Accord, classed as a 'large car'.

#352 of 398 Re: Many have just said 'no thanks' [tomcatt630] by dieselone

Jun 25, 2009 (4:54 am)

Replying to: tomcatt630 (Jun 24, 2009 9:54 pm)
Today's "full sized car' is actually the current Accord, classed as a 'large car'.
 
While an Accord maybe physically smaller than a CrownVic, I wouldn't be surprised in interior volume isn't to far off except for maybe width. My dad went from a '92 Crown Vic to a '00 Taurus and he now has an '09 Accord and it does seem big inside. Plenty or room for me in the backseat.

#353 of 398 Re: Many have just said 'no thanks' [dieselone] by andre1969

Jun 25, 2009 (6:39 am)

Replying to: dieselone (Jun 25, 2009 4:54 am)
My dad went from a '92 Crown Vic to a '00 Taurus and he now has an '09 Accord and it does seem big inside. Plenty or room for me in the backseat.
 
I've noticed that, too, that the Accord isn't too far off from the Crown Vic in many respects. However, IMO at least, the Crown Vic always felt like the smallest of the downsized Big Three cars. The transmission/driveshaft hump is really big, the back doors are small, the rear wheel wells intrude too much into the back seat, and the dashboard seems to jut out too far. A friend of mine had a '95 Grand Marquis and now has an '04 Crown Vic. I've banged my knee on the dash getting into it.
 
One thing I just noticed, according to the EPA's website, is that the Crown Vic's interior volume was rated at 111 cubic feet from 1992 through 2006. But for 2007 and newer, it's 107. I wonder if that's a typo, or if Ford actually did something to the interior?
 
In comparison, a 2008+ Accord is rated at 106 interior, and 14 cubic feet of trunk. The EPA's threshold for a "full size" car is 120 combined, so the Accord barely qualifies. Get one with a sunroof, and it's actually a midsized car! FWIW, most midsized cars have been right around this threshold for years. A 1978-83 Malibu sedan, for instance, has 102 cubic feet of interior, and 17 cubic feet of trunk.
 
Most "traditional" full-sized cars had interior volumes of around 110 cubic feet, plus 20+ cubic feet of trunk space. And on top of that, they usually had 60" of shoulder room or more. So that might have made some of them "feel" roomier, even if they really weren't. An Accord feels about as big inside to me as an old Malibu, or maybe about the size of my old '89 Gran Fury, so regardless of what the EPA says, it still feels like a midsize to me. A GOOD midsize, but still a midsize!
 
The EPA also considers my Intrepid to be full-size. The Impala's considered full-size...yet I can't even fit in the back seat! No legroom, regardless of the published specs, and my head hits the ceiling. The 2000 Taurus was also considered full-size, because that year's restyle raised the roof and decklid just enough to give it more rear seat headroom and one more cubic foot of trunk space.
 
I think what's happening now is that what passes as a full-sized car is more focused on being a comfy 4-seater, than trying to be a 6-seater. I'd imagine that most people rarely see the need to haul more than 4 people on a regular basis, and those that do go for something bigger like an SUV or minivan. And IMO at least, they haven't made a car that can seat three across comfortably since maybe the 1979 Lincolns or 1978 New Yorker/Newport. Anything since then just didn't have the shoulder room, and even if it did, downsizing ensured that the transmission humps and driveshaft humps made the center spot less comfortable. Plus, once split bench seats and center armrests became more common, forget about that center section!
 
My '85 Silverado probably has more shoulder room than any car ever built. Yet on the few occasions I've gotten three people in the cab, it's felt like a tight squeeze.

#354 of 398 Re: Many have just said 'no thanks' [andre1969] by dieselone

Jun 25, 2009 (7:02 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 25, 2009 6:39 am)
The Impala's considered full-size...yet I can't even fit in the back seat! No legroom, regardless of the published specs, and my head hits the ceiling. The 2000 Taurus was also considered full-size, because that year's restyle raised the roof and decklid just enough to give it more rear seat headroom and one more cubic foot of trunk space.
 
 
I don't know what GM did with the Impala redesign. My wife was shopping for a new company car in 06 and she had the options of an Impala, Grand Prix, and Ford 500. The 500 felt like a limo compared to the GM alternatives and she picked it over the other two. The 06 Impala felt like it had less rear seat room than the 01 Impala my wife had. Due to being relocated, she ended up getting stuck with an 07 Grand Prix, I have to give GM credit for figuring out how to get so little comfort and usable room out of a car of its size.
 
I'll have to look at the specs of the 2010 Taurus, it looks like it's a big car.

#355 of 398 Re: Many have just said 'no thanks' [dieselone] by andre1969

Jun 25, 2009 (7:23 am)

Replying to: dieselone (Jun 25, 2009 7:02 am)
I don't know what GM did with the Impala redesign. My wife was shopping for a new company car in 06 and she had the options of an Impala, Grand Prix, and Ford 500. The 500 felt like a limo compared to the GM alternatives and she picked it over the other two. The 06 Impala felt like it had less rear seat room than the 01 Impala my wife had.
 
IMO, the W-body has always had a bad back seat, but I noticed that too, that the '06 Impala seemed tighter in back than the '01-05. Legroom and headroom both got worse.
 
I like the Ford 500. It doesn't quite feel "full-sized" in shoulder room, and legroom feels a bit tight up front. The seating position is high, but not far back, so it's kinda like sitting in an old pickup to me. But yeah, the back seat is almost limo-like! I'm curious to see what the 2010 Taurus is like, too.
 
I drove a 2010 Fusion a couple weeks ago. It's the same size as the old model I think, but it felt a bit bigger inside to me. Maybe they just gave it more seat travel? Anyway, it seemed big enough for me.

#356 of 398 Caprice by xrunner2

Jun 25, 2009 (7:36 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 24, 2009 10:03 am)
The Caprice went through a similar change, as the 1991 model had a radically different body, although it was still on the same 1977-vintage frame. But over the years, the transmissions changed, and the engine got a radical overhaul for 1994.
  
But, it just wasn't enough change, and GM left this market after 1996.
 
GM made a huge mistake with the redesign of the Impala/Caprice when the fat guppy styled version appeared around 94-95. The only version that looked "marginally" acceptable stylewise was the SS Impala.
 
The previous generation looked smaller overall and had good proportions. Too bad that GM went for SUV craze and did not instead just refine the rwd platform of the late 80's early 90's Caprice.
 
Had a 77 Caprice station wagon that served well as people hauler and "stuff" hauler. With middle row seat folded down, and it folded flat, could and did haul lots of 4x8 material. Had the third row seats but never put anyone (kids) back there. Had front bench seat. Recall that could comfortably fit 6 adults, 3 front, 3 middle in that Caprice. Do not remember that hump for driveshaft was an issue with me.

#357 of 398 Re: Many have just said 'no thanks' [andre1969] by lemko

Jun 25, 2009 (7:47 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 25, 2009 6:39 am)
It has never really been a matter of interior volume to me. I'm 5' 11', I drive a big car, yet sit rather close to the steering wheel. I just like the proportions of a longer, lower, and wider car. I love looking out over that long hood as I'm driving using the hood ornament to aim the car. Longer cars are just sleeker looking and have more of a presence than, say, an Accord.

#358 of 398 Re: Many have just said 'no thanks' [lemko] by xrunner2

Jun 25, 2009 (8:01 am)

Replying to: lemko (Jun 25, 2009 7:47 am)
I love looking out over that long hood as I'm driving using the hood ornament to aim the car. Longer cars are just sleeker looking and have more of a presence than, say, an Accord.
 
"Aiming" is a good word for large GM cars of the past. Last GM I had was a Suburban with big broad hood. One positive about it in maintenance was that engine bay was so big, one could get at everything in there to do work. At times, I used a small stepladder to stand on and then leaned way over fender to get at stuff.
 
About hoods and Hondas, some that I have had in past, driver could not even see the hood in that it sloped down sharply.
 
When wife and I had Hondas and the Suburban at the same time, I recall that the Suburban was generally aimed while the Hondas were precisely driven.

Messages Page 36 of 40

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement