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 38 of 40

#369 of 398 Re: Large cars [imidazol97] by andre1969

Jun 30, 2009 (5:39 am)

Replying to: imidazol97 (Jun 29, 2009 6:07 pm)
How often do people carry three adults in their rear of the sedan? I know lots is made about the W-car's rear seat but I think it's a relatively small number of trips made with 3 in the rear. Buyers who routinely want to carry 3 will purchase a larger car or an SUV.
 
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.

#370 of 398 Re: Large cars [andre1969] by berri

Jun 30, 2009 (6:24 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 30, 2009 5:39 am)
I don't mind Impala's for rental cars. However, it not just legroom in the back, Something about the seat bottom angle and design makes it uncomfortable just like the Venture minivan. Also, the front seats can get uncomfortable (at least for tall people) on a longer trip. Generally, I find Ford seats more comfortable for long hauls. But I know that can be an individual thing.

#371 of 398 front benches by tomcatt630

Jun 30, 2009 (8:20 am)

Some still wish for 6 passenger cars, but the center front is not meant for sitting, especially since there are no shoulder belts.
 
The days of three across in a front bench seat went away with driving without seatbelts.
 
BTW: Do big pickups have middle front seat shoulder belts?

#372 of 398 Re: front benches [tomcatt630] by andre1969

Jun 30, 2009 (8:36 am)

Replying to: tomcatt630 (Jun 30, 2009 8:20 am)
BTW: Do big pickups have middle front seat shoulder belts?
 
Here's a shot of a 2008 Silverado interior, and it doesn't look like it has a shoulder belt for the center spot...

 
Big pickups are starting to get sort of the same way big cars started getting with the advent of downsizing, where it seems like they make that center spot less comfortable. I've noticed that the center spot on a 2008 Silverado is worse than it is on my '85. The seat is more thinly padded, and the transmission hump is bigger. The bottom of the dashboard also juts out further. I think the dash and the seat are both higher up as well. Here's a pic of a 1985 or so Silverado, to compare...

 
Nowadays, I think most big pickups essentially have two thinly padded, flat buckets in the with a stationary section in the middle that can fold down into an armrest with a big, flat writing surface on it. I have a friend who has a 2005 Silverado, and I know the seats are individual, but I can't remember how they're set up, whether it's a 50/50 split, 40/60, or what. It's a stick shift, but you can still get 3 people in it...just not comfortably!

#373 of 398 Pickup benches... by andre1969

Jun 30, 2009 (9:07 am)

actually, it looks like they have added a shoulder strap to the center section of pickup truck back seats nowadays. Here's a 2007+ Silverado, with a seat cover on, showing the center shoulder strap...

#374 of 398 Re: front benches [tomcatt630] by toomanyfumes

Jun 30, 2009 (9:12 am)

Replying to: tomcatt630 (Jun 30, 2009 8:20 am)
My wife is one of 5 Kids. They're family car growing up was a 1973 Delta 88.
4 kids in the back, one in the front with mom and dad.

#375 of 398 Re: front benches [toomanyfumes] by andre1969

Jun 30, 2009 (9:21 am)

Replying to: toomanyfumes (Jun 30, 2009 9:12 am)
My wife is one of 5 Kids. They're family car growing up was a 1973 Delta 88.
4 kids in the back, one in the front with mom and dad.
 
My grandparents had a '72 Impala 4-door hardtop. I remember as a kid, going on trips with them, actually climbing over the seat! If I got bored in the back I'd climb up front to sit in between Grandmom and Granddad, and then climb back over when I got bored up front. Sometimes I wonder how we survived our childhood, growing up in those carefree days!
 
Back in college, I used to help out with the youth group in the church I attended back then. One time we took the kids to an amusement park, and I remember squeezing 6 of them in my '69 Dart hardtop. 4 in the back, and two in the passenger side bucket seat. The lap belt stretched enough to hold the two up front in, while the ones in back were on their own. Plus, that was long enough ago that nobody really cared if a back seat passenger wasn't belted in. Now, these also weren't big kids...just 10-13 year olds.
 
I wonder how many you could pile into a 70's GM full-size, if you really put your mind to it?
 
I think the last time I really tried cramming a car to the max, it was my '89 Gran Fury. Got 6 people in it. That car only had 56" of shoulder room, whereas any full-size car worth a damn should have 61+". However, that car was also slab-sided, and the dashboard and wheel wells were out of the way, and the driveshaft/tranny hump weren't all that bad. Plus, it had a solid bench seat up front (but still had an armrest) and no armrest in the back, so the center spots weren't too bad. Still not something I'd want to do for an extended trip, though. Plus, 6 passengers would probably exceed the GVWR of most modern cars!

#376 of 398 Re: front benches [andre1969] by lemko

Jun 30, 2009 (9:54 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 30, 2009 9:21 am)
Heck, I had EIGHT of us in my 1975 Cadillac Sedan DeVille one time. It was cramped, but everybody fit.

#377 of 398 safety first. by tomcatt630

Jul 01, 2009 (8:59 am)

The 80's Gran Fury M-Body was actaully a slightly stretched Volare'/Aspen F-body [no, not related to the GM f body Camaro!], called a 'compact' in 1976.
 
And sure those old big cars could fit 7-8 people, but safety is more important.

#378 of 398 Re: safety first. [tomcatt630] by andre1969

Jul 01, 2009 (10:41 am)

Replying to: tomcatt630 (Jul 01, 2009 8:59 am)
The 80's Gran Fury M-Body was actaully a slightly stretched Volare'/Aspen F-body [no, not related to the GM f body Camaro!], called a 'compact' in 1976.
 
Actually, it was on the same 112.7" wheelbase as a Volare sedan/wagon, although there was a bit more overhang. I think my Gran Fury was about 205" long, whereas a Volare sedan is around 202. Not a huge difference.
  
And sure those old big cars could fit 7-8 people, but safety is more important.
 
Well, my Gran Fury had an airbag. Crumple zones. Rudimentary crumple zones by today's standards, but still had 'em. Side door guard beams. Fewer blind spots than probably any car built today. EXCELLENT brakes, as it was a copcar. Also had a beefed up suspension, and enough power to get out of its own way. It was also a heavy, solidly built car. Smaller than a Caprice or Crown Vic, but not much lighter.
 
Your typical similar-sized car of today is going to be safer, as time has marched on and so has technology and safety standards. But I'd hardly call an M-body a death trap. I also wouldn't recommend 7-8 people, as it only had 56" of shoulder room! My guess is that it's about as big inside as a Ford Fusion, but actually feels roomier because of the big windows, no center console, less intrusive dash, less curvature of the sides, etc.

Messages Page 38 of 40

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement