You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views
Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars

386 messages, Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 9:01 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 25, 2009 7:08 am) I've read somewhere that the 59 Cadillac holds the record for the largest tailfin ever on a car. Don't know how that was measured/authenticated. The 57 Chevy probably was easy to park, maneuver what with its tailfins. But, the 57 Dodges and Desotos probably had bigger fins than the Chevy. In terms of judging things/distance, etc, saw a recent large Jeep big suv in a parking lot with monster size chrome rims, perhaps well over 20". The owner had "curb feelers" at all 4 corners, no doubt to protect his $2000+ wheel rims. Did not know that curb feelers were still available.
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 25, 2009 7:17 am) I've heard that too, about the '59 Cadillac. However, I think the height might have been exaggerated by making the trunk lid slope down, whereas on the Mopars the decklid was pretty flat. They did slope it for '60-61, but then went back to a flatter surface for '62. The fins on my '57 DeSoto come up about to my belly button. I'll be at the GM show in Carlisle this weekend, so I'm sure there will be a '59 Caddy to compare! They might not have measured it from the ground though, but maybe from some other spot on the car, such as the top of the rear bumper? One thing that's weird on the DeSoto, when I drive it, is seeing the left fin in the rearview mirror. That's not something I'm used to seeing in a rearview mirror, so at a quick glance it makes me think that there's a car cruising in the blind spot off my left flank. |
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 25, 2009 7:17 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 25, 2009 7:01 am) I remember test driving a new TR-7; you couldn't see the hood at all. You had to raise the retractable headlamps in order to guesstimate where the front bumper was... |
|
|
|
|
One other thing with big cars is the stigma for now middle aged Baby Boomers, they refuse to buy them. Mid sized sounds "better", and if they want room, then it's SUV shopping. But the Impala is a stretched to the extreme W body, kind of like a pair of pants let out at the seems as far as the tailor can, but still tight. Also, back seats of Crown Vic taxis with 'bullet-proof shields' are very tight. Sure are not the old Checker cabs.
|
|
|
Replying to: tomcatt630 (Jun 29, 2009 10:09 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Jun 29, 2009 11:55 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: berri (Jun 29, 2009 4:26 pm) I see many trips with two adults in the rear for a few owners. I tried the seating where I adjust the front seats for myself and then sit in the rear seat behind each one. I have enough leg room. However, I fully understand that someone taller in front and someone taller in the back will have a paucity of kneeroom.
|
|
|
|
| A red new Camaro was starting his motor to leave the small town cruise-in this evening. He started the Camaro and goosed it a couple of times and I was transported back to the big motors of the 60s and early 70s for GM. That car has a great-sounding exhaust. I commented to the driver. He said something about having an LR3 motor and 400 horsepower and he had set it up that way. I think he meant he had changed the exhaust for that beautiful sound. | |
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jun 29, 2009 5:07 pm) By my standard, there is no such thing anymore, as a car that can comfortably seat 3 across in the back. Oh sure, it can be done, but the key word is "comfortably", and my definition is going to be different than someone else's. Like you said, nowadays, people that regularly need to carry that many people just get a minivan, SUV, or whatever. FWIW, when a friend of mine bought his '04 Crown Vic, we tried to get 3 across in back to see how it felt. Horrible. The car actually had the shoulder room for it, something like 61.5 inches. However, seat is really only contoured for two people back there. The armrest and driveshaft hump make the center spot uncomfortable, while the wheel well intrusion and curved sides make the outboard passengers tip inward. There's also very little room for your feet under the front seat. The Crown Vic also isn't all that generous when it comes to legroom in back. The published specs look good, but in real life, it just doesn't measure up IMO. My main beef with the Impala, and all W-bodies, has always been the legroom in back. With the front seat adjusted to where I'm comfortable, I can't even fit in the back unless I sit sideways. I can actually fit more comfortably in my '76 LeMans, which is a low-slung coupe. AND my head doesn't hit the ceiling like it does in the Impala! Now granted, I'm 6'3", so when I adjust the seat to where I'm comfortable, it's going all the way back in just about any car ever made (one exception is the new Camaro) and that's going to make the back seat really tight. However, when I find that I can actually fit in the back seat of a Civic, Neon, and Corolla more comfortably than I can a W-body, which is midsize (passes as full-size with the Impala), that just doesn't seem right to me! I think one thing that might work against the W-body, in my case at least, is the "theater style" back seat. The cushion is higher, which might be good for a shorter person, but for someone like me, all it's going to do is push my head more into the ceiling. And when you're tall, sometimes it's easier to squeeze into a lower back seat, because your legs aren't as straight-out, but angled upward a bit so they actually need less fore-aft room. But, it's not that often anymore that I have back seat passengers these days, so a big back seat isn't critical anymore. So that issue alone wouldn't keep me from buying a W-body, if something came up and I needed a car, and found one I liked at a good price.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views
Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle


Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats