Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
A 3800 Series III with SC @ 260 HP isn't far off a 4.6 Northstar V8 with 275 HP.
There is a short list of era V6's with more guts than my Series II with 282 ft-lbs. I doubt an Altima 3.5 is even on that list.
You can't compare a N/A engine to forced induction. Going apples to apples, you'll find the 3800S/C easily outclassed. Nissan's 3.7 twin turbo is over 480hp and 434ft-lbs of torque. BMWs 3L I6 twin turbo is 300hp and 300ft-lbs of torque. Even GM's turbo Ecotec matches the HP and nearly the torque of the 3800 S/C. Ford's new 3.5 Ecoboost v6 is not even comparable to the 3800 S/C. 350hp and 350ft-lbs of torque and from the little I've read, is buttery smooth and refined. The only other S/C v6 I can think of years back was Ford's 3.8 S/C used in the Tbird in the early 90's. It had around 300 ft-lbs of torque, but also came with garbage disposal grade refinement and I don't think it was very reliable.
Nissan's N/A 3.5 v6 that was used in the Pathfinder was tuned for 240hp & 265ft-lbs of torque at 3200rpm w/o a turbo or supercharger (it was tuned differently for SUV use back then). It was great engine. I had an '01 Pathfinder that I used to pull our near 5,000lb boat and it would pull 6% grade every bit as good as my '00 5.3 powered Suburban. Actually, since the PF had better gearing, it could maintain 60mph in 3rd gear at 3200rpm (right at torque peak rpm) up the grade, where the Suburban had to run 2nd at around 4,000rpm up the same grade (5.3 torque peak was at 4,000 rpm). The main reason was 3rd gear was 1:1 and way to tall for pulling power and the ratio spread between 2nd and 3rd was way to wide(I'm sure the new 6speed in the Suburban will make it's towing performance much better). What I liked was the PF didn't feel like it was working hard and the 5.3 would be screaming while feeling taxed and strained. Granted it also had an extra 1000lbs of SUV to haul and gearing that was to tall.
As for the 3800, I just find it crude when pushed. It's adequately sedate as long is it's not pushed. Our GP is peppy to about 50 and after that (like Fintail mentioned) it's sluggish IMO. I'm comparing this to DOHC v6's I compare it to. No comparison IMO. The 3.5 my brother had in his 06 Maxima would flat out kick the crap out of our GP . The 3800 needs a S/C to even the score but it still won't match the smoothness and eagerness to rev. Maybe if I had it in a decent car I'd like it better, but I've not liked anything it's been in.
As for pushrod engines, I'd vote the most reliable, albeit not the most refined, were the Volvo/Penta Inline 4 and Inline 6 engines. The Volvo Inline 4 had more main bearing area than a Chevy 350 V8.
Yeah, that has been my experience. Had a buddy with a 98 GP S/C and it was a POS too. Rattles and everything fell apart. They were definitely quick for their time, but that was then. Heck a run of the mill v6 Camry, Altima, or Accord will easily run with a 3800 S/C GP and you don't have to live with a complete POS in the process. I don't think GM improved the GP at all from '97 to '07. My wife's 07 is every bit the POS my buddies '98 was. It has 50k on it know and it feels like it has 150k on it. The suspension is feeling old and floaty, impact harshness is horrible, and the interior would feel insanely cheap in a car 1/2 the price. I won't even go into packaging, room, and comfort. Nonexistent.
Those 195 HP 283's were pretty peppy and nearly as fast as the 250 HP 327's.
Yeah, those old Volvo Penta's were great engines but parts were expensive. Now all Volvo gas marine engines are GM based. Had a 4.3L v6 Volvo in our old boat, basically the same 4.3 you'd find in a Chevy. Very reliable,tough, and relatively fuel efficient, but man, running down the lake over 3,000rpm would definitely show it's crude side.
I didn't think they started putting the THM up to smallblock engines until the lighter THM350 came out, around 1969?
Many GM car's I've driven have a reluctance to downshift. My Suburban nearly had to be floored to downshift (real annoying when in o/d at 55mph), as did my grandpa's Park Ave. That really drives me nuts. Now my wife's 07 GP downshifts fairly easily and doesn't upshift nearly as quick as other 3800 powered cars I've driven. It will routinely wait until 3k+ rpm to upshift under moderate acceleration. So it's not as bad as some others I've driven. The 3800 doesn't feel like it has any more power much above 4,000rpm. I'm guessing torque must fall off fast past 4k rpm.
My grandmother's '85 LeSabre was like that. It didn't like to downshift, and always seemed like it wanted to upshift too early, even under hard acceleration. If you'd hold the gears manually, it was a much better performer. And that overdrive gear was totally gutless unless you got the car up to 85+, which is what you had to do to get the engine to rev fast enough to have any power in that gear.
Current ride is a 2006 Pontiac GPGT w/260hp S/C 3.8 showing 34k miles with no engine issues, intermediate steering shafts and batteries are it's issues, had 3 of each, all warranty covered..Car was bought cheap w/4300mi in June 2007, Caddy tradein..paid 1/2 of original MSRP, so it's a keeper. loaded with all items..
Yes, it's loud, not too comfortable, but holds 5 occupants, enough power to run along at a 80+ cruise and enjoys the 120 mph blasts to loosen up the carbon deposits..It could stand a better suspension system and may upgrade the struts.
Living in SW Fla, the a/c is a must, and with the 260hp, any drag by running the a/c is overcome..I've had better cars and worse cars, but this one will stay. The S/C smooths the 3.8 out under heavy acceleration..May install an SLP catback exhaust system which eliminates the intermediate muffler and offers 2 1/2 inch piping all the way..Little more noise, but who cares..
Next buy will be a 2010 Mustang GT w/track pkg and 5spd manual, I miss the 2009 Bullitt and I imagine Obama will kill all the fun cars, so at 76yrs young, it's going to be fun to the end. The Pontiac also stays with me. No more GM/Obama cars will enter my garage..
Please don't mention the [non-permissible content removed] cars on this memory forum!!!!!!!!!! My background doesn't allow me to ever relish a tin can from Asia.. My roommate has a 2002 Camry XLE w/72k miles on it and the only thing it has going for it is better gas mileage..miserable noisy engine, sloppy suspension, and an a very uncomfortable driving position, entry and exit from the drivers seat is a pain, the silly steering wheel is always in the way..She loves it, her money, so it's not my problem..except for gas and maintenance..the Toy dealer is a piece of work, they love to sell filters,belts, radiator flushes,transmission fluid changes, and every other gadget known to the automotive world..especially to the older women..My instructions are to change the oil/filter and check tires for 34#, that's all..If it breaks, you can fix it..Otherwise don't try to sell her the shop for the sake of preventative maintenance..
Those engines do have a unique aural presence too, kind of reminds me of a quiet vacuum cleaner - as opposed to the horrible noises made by the 2.8-3.1 family.
What the heck is up with GM and those ISS issues. I would have thought they'd have fixed problem by '06!! Oh, that's right, we are talking GM and takes years to fix a know problem and when they finally get it fixed it gets discontinued. LOL. Wife had an 01 Impala with that issue along with the engine cradle and so did my '00 Suburban. Very annoying. Oh the memories.
Ironically, I had thought my wife's 07 GP was developing an ISS problem as it was clunking when you turned the wheel at slow speeds. The dealer rotated the tires and the problem went away. I still feel some type of play in the suspension but it's tolerable. It's a company car and should be replaced by the end of the year. Don't know what her car choices will be this round. The only car still available that was on her list from a few years ago is the Impala, as the Ford 500 and GP are gone. I guess the Impala would be okay, the 3.5 should be better than the old 3.4 she had in the 01.
Never had much experience with those you mentioned, but did with the 3.4. All I can say is it was much better than the 3.0L v6 vulcan Ford kept around 20 years to long. My wife had an 03 Taurus after her 01 Impala. That had to be the slowest car I've in a long, long time. Any acceleration required foot to the floor, have the a/c on, better turn it off if you wanted to merge on to an expressway without getting killed. Gas mileage was unimpressive too. Guess I should have asked Motorcity if I can mention Ford. Oh well.
"boy, are these ever cheap tires." Although I was tempted, I didn't dare tell him there was no problem with tires, rather, that car could "lay" 50 to 100 feet of rubber when I floored the accelerator at stop lights and I proved it far too often.
My mother, uncle, and grandmother all had Taurii with that old lump, so I know what you mean. Slow, not efficient, not quiet - a big reason why American cars have an unrefined rep. I think it might have been you who compared the refinement of that unit to a garbage disposal...pretty much spot-on.
A buddy of mine in high school had a '86 or '87 Buick Regal T-Type with the turbo 3.8. That was a great car to drive in a straight line and not have to stop quickly, but it looked cool, was fast, but like many, got stolen. I miss the pseudo luxury sport coupe market, with cars like the Monte Carlo SS, Cutlass, Regal (rear drives with turbo v6 or 305-307 v8, T-Bird, and Cougar etc.
Another HS buddy had a '87 Fiero GT, another car that eventually turned out to be pretty good. It was fun to drive and looked cool and was decently quick for the time.
My uncle had a new '87 Monte Carlo SS, 305 with headers all the emission crap removed, chipped, after market rims etc (can't remember all that he did to it). It was silver with excessively tinted windows, and all decals and pin striping removed except for the SS decal on the side. It was very sharp, sounded good and he used to let me take it out on Friday nights. Had lots of fun in that car.
That reminds me. The parents of a girlfriend in HS had an 87 Taurus with the 2.5 4cyl auto. Now that was the slowest car I've ever driven. I can't think of a much worse combo than a crude under powered 4cyl stuck in a family sized car. To think, the 3.0 Vulcan v6 could be considered and upgrade and it was. Oh the horror and and customers lost forever.
Delta 88 became the prominant name in '69, until 1989, then was simply called 'Eighty-Eight'.
I had one and it was probably the worst quality car we ever owned, plus GM dealers could never fix it right when the numerous things broke. The other two bad cars I owned were a 99 Ford Explorer and a 71 Plymouth Sebring. So I guess I covered all the Big 3 bases. Unfortunately, even the better D3 vehicles we owned were noticeably inferior to Toyota and Honda. I hope that will turn around because I like choice, differentiation and competition.
When it was not very old my parents also bought a Tempo for unknown reasons...the Tempo seemed like a degree higher in technology to me, mainly because of its shape and the engine, with FI, looked more modern.
If you drive in 3 instead of OD, that will be somewhat gone. The tranmission likes to upshift to 4th and lock up the torque converter at about 45-48. I could look it up in my service manual. When it's locked up in OD, the economy is great, but the feel of zip for those who want it is, well, underwhelming. But floor it and it downshifts and all hell breaks loose.
I also believe, having owned three of these, that the fuel trim in the computer changes based on whether you are accelerating from a dead stop through those speeds at a smart pace or you are cruising gently and step on the gas. It's like it takes time to unlock TCC, shift to 3, and flush extra fuel out of the injectors. But if you just accelerated hard and step on it again, it's ready to continue.
Despite the detractors on that motor in the GP (a noisy car in my opinion in terms of sound proofing), I hit the fuel economy reset near Downtown Dayton and had 39 mpg when I got to the Ohio River downtown Cincy. I cruised at 60 and some at 55 in light traffic. No AC.
Return trip was about 35 with AC on and slightly faster moving with traffic.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If you drive in 3 instead of OD, that will be somewhat gone.
I have no choice. Mine is stuck in 3rd for the duration. It does the 3rd gear lockup at 47-48 mph and drops from about 2200 to 2000 revs. Used to shift into 4th and drop to 1600 revs at 47 mph.
Now at 2400 revs at 60 mph, It gets awful quiet when I get to the off ramp and revs fall in half as if it finds 4th gear when I take my foot off the gas. I've lost 5-6 mpg not having 4th gear, but still manage 22 in summer.
Gran Prix is not supposed to have the sound insulation or the gearing of a Buick. The Buick hood has a rubber seal around all 4 sides and the engine is even boxed in underneath. The carpet is 3 times as thick as a Grand Prix's.
My Mustang has factory headers so you wouldn't expect much sound insulation.
Gave me 12 mpg, on high test (which was really high test back in those days), pretty much no matter how I drove it. But then again, gas could be found for only 27 cents/gallon.
That "302" (if you do the math, it's really a 301, just like the Ford 302) was rated at 290 hp gross, but supposedly it was under-rated. I've heard claims of 400 hp, but I dunno if that's a bit of an embellishment or not.
The 290 hp rating was generally considered conservative, to keep it under the 300 hp and the 1 hp/pound metric some of the insurance companies were using for rating purposes. I don't know about the 400 hp claim - something between 325 and 350 hp was probably more like it.
Not true. "My 1996 SC 400 had an original MSRP of $56600. I bought it in 2001 with 80K for $15,500.....but it still feels, drives and smells as if it were new". About a ’93 SC400: What really send chills down my spine is the purr she makes when taking off and her raw acceleration power when taking off and, cruising on the highways. 510 combined HP&T sparked those 2 comments about a V8 Lexus from the era I was commenting on. The 12 valve GM pushrod is 522 HP and Torque to the ’09 Altima’s 528 combined. “Note that the ’06 uplevel Altima Coupe 3.5 SE, which starts around $25,000, beats the others (Honda and Camry) with 270 horsepower and 258 lb-ft of torque at 4400 rpm coming from a 3.5-liter, double overhead cam V6”. Ten years and 12 valves later, up by 1% (528 to 522) compared to ‘adequate if has SC’ pushrod. The Turbo add on to the GM 4.3 in the ’81 Syclone added 100 HP and 100 ft-lbs. You can’t compare SC with Turbo in power added or in reliability. Can you compare 12 valves with 24 and call it fair?
Your still comparing supercharged 3800 to similar displacement nonsupercharged engines. Gee, I don't know, do you think a Nissan 3.5 v6 with a supercharger just might create a lot more than 528 HP/TQ combined. Ford's 3.5 Ecoboost engine is 715 HP/TQ combined (I know it's turbocharged, but I can't think of any supercharged v6s around anymore). GM's DI 3.6 is 577 hp/tq combined, not bad at all. Nissan's 3.7 is cranking out 600. I'd say that's good progress, since these are N/A engines that don't need forced induction.
Comparing apples to apples, lets compare the 3.6 to a 3.8 n/a. Fair comparison as the 3.8 has a bit more displacement. That would be around 430 hp/tq compbined to 577. That's about a 26 % increase in power and more importantly an even larger improvement in refinement.
What baffles me is you own a Lexus with one of the smoothest running v8s out there and you also find the GM 3800 smooth. Would you prefer the 3800 in place of the 4L v8 in your Lexus?
Domestic and import full-size truck and SUV sales are declining with fuel economy concerns, so manufacturing two of the same brand is not a profitable long-term business model. Chevrolet and GMC trucks and SUVs are essentially the same vehicles. Chevrolet models cost less, have equal or better quality and fuel economy, and outsell GMC models more than three to one. Toyota and other imports don't manufacture two of the same full-size vehicles under different brand names; it does not make sense, economically, for GM to continue producing both GMC and Chevrolet.
Advocates who hope to keep GMC as the auto industry changes to more fuel-efficient models want to continue a business strategy that will ultimately be as unprofitable as the now defunct brands of Hummer, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, and Saab.
Follow the import business model, eliminate GMC now, and save the costs associated with the extra GMC manufacturing processes and distribution channels, which will not be part of a long-term solution. The new GM will be more profitable going forward without GMC if Chevrolet produces and sells all of GM's full-size trucks and SUVs.
GM won't need government and taxpayer support again if GMC is eliminated now.
1969 Chevrolet truck
1969 GMC truck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_cpNDC2i3E (2 parts)
The old X body Novas would run forever, but FWD X's died early.
By the time these cars were more reliable, they looked ancient. Compare an 80's Taurus to a Celebrity, or even a '90 Lumina to see who was design king then.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
My Intrepid is like that. I can't even see the hood of the car unless I lean forward while driving. I also can't see the rear of the car, beyond the back window. Luckily though, there's not much car back there. It's also really rounded off on the corners, so despite the blind spots, it's pretty easy to maneuver.
In the past though, one reason I usually preferred Mopars to GM cars was that it was easier to judge the corners. On every other Mopar I've had, besides the Intrepid, I could usually see, within a couple inches, of where the car ended. But on the GM cars, the trunk sloped off enough that I usually couldn't see all of it, and the front corners were often vague. When I first got my '79 Newport, I used to think that the trunk wasn't closed all the way, just because I wasn't used to a car of that era having such a flat decklid that you could see most of. With my '80 Malibu, '82 Cutlass, '85 LeSabre, and '86 Monte Carlo, they all sloped off more.
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.
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.