Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The stats I find are that in 73/74 all full size Chevy's (including wagons) were around 600K each year, while Cutlass came in around 400K. However, if you put all of the GM intermediates together, they may have outsold all of the GM full size since Chevelle/Malibu was a decent mover too. I think you're right about fleet sales.
'82 Lincoln Town Car with added Tranny cooler pulled our 3,000# Searay/single axle trailer to many lakes & rivers, but developed my patience while doing so.
You might be surprised. I was from a town of under 10K, and I remember a lot of folks ordering their cars in the '60's and '70's. But then, there were a lot more small-town dealers out there, and even in the larger suburban areaas, there weren't the numbers of 'mega dealers' that happened later. The small-town dealers had small-size inventories.
Bill
One thing I remember about those large 60s and 70s coupes was how little room there was for your legs in the rear seats, even though the engine bay war large enough to stand in, and the trunk was at least a 3-body capacity.
True. The big cars (like this Caprice) weren't bad at all in the back seat, but the intermediates (Cutlass, Chevelle, Monte Carlo, etc.) were absolutely terrible in that respect. When GM downsized the full-size cars in '77, the coupes had increased legroom in the back seat (although interior width was down). Chevy actually had an ad with a cutaway photo of a couple in the back seat of a Caprice Coupe with the heading, "The Long-Legged Coupe".
Well to be fair, I haven't sat in *every* 70s coupe. But you can see from the profiles that some of them are going to punish your head if you are a long-torso type of guy, like me.
I don't think it's a co-incidence that foreign/import large coupes never sold that well either.
I can vouch for that, with my '76 LeMans. I've tried fitting back there, and with the front seat far enough back to where I'm comfortable, back seat legroom is essentially non-existent. Now to be fair, my car has a power seat and I have it as far back as it will go, and tilted to the point that I have more room up front than most modern cars (more than my 2000 Park Ave, for example).
Oddly though, even like that I still find it more comfortable than the current Chevy Impala. Even though the Impala is listed at having something like 38" of rear legroom, while my LeMans is probably 32-33"...so I'd love to know how they come up with those measurements! The LeMans's seat is actually fairly well padded though, and as low-slung as that car is, my head doesn't hit the ceiling, as it does in the much taller Impala. And there's more room for your feet under the front seat. The wheel wells also don't intrude into your hip room like they do with most modern cars.
I could fit better in the back seat of my '68 Dart, though, and entry/exit was much better in the Dart, as it was a hardtop, while the LeMans has that forward-sloping B-pillar. The Dart's seat was lower and not padded as well, though. There really wasn't much difference in wheelbase though...111" for the Dart, 112" for the LeMans, despite one being called a compact and the other an intermediate. A Chevy Nova was also on a 111" wheelbase by that time, while I think the Granada/Monarch were 109.9", and the LeBaron/Diplomat coupes were 112.7. So the GM A-bodies were closer to compact size than intermediate. Ford's Torino/Montego and the '77 T-bird were 114", while cars like the Cordoba, Fury, Coronet coupe, etc, were 115". And while the Grand Prix and Monte Carlo were 116", they just thew that extra 4" ahead of the firewall, making for an impressive long hood, but yielding no more interior space.
When GM downsized these intermediates, they picked up a good amount of rear seat legroom as well, although it feels to me like the front was more crowded...bigger transmission hump, a dashboard that jutted out more, less room down in the footwells, especially on the passenger side where they put the catalytic converter, etc.
The last big coupe I've been in the back seat of is my buddy's '78 Mark V. It didn't seem too bad. The seats were low, but legroom was pretty good.
BTW, here's a link to that "long legged coupe" ad. It does make the car look roomy, but I can guarantee you that the front seat is well-forward, and the people in the back seat are Dustin Hoffman-sized.
My 79 Town Coupe wasn't that bad in the rear either. Of course with the size of that thing its to be expected. The newer cars (especially FWDs) seem to do very well with interior space. My '06 Avalon was huge in the rear with an almost flat floor. Wasn't the original Intrepid/Concorde known for this concept of maximizing interior room? "Cab forward" or something along those lines.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
When you consider those things were on a 113" wheelbase, I don't think they're that impressive when it comes to interior space. The main thing Cab Forward did was gave you a big dashboard and rear package shelf that were almost impossible to keep clean!
I'd say the 1st-gen Intrepid/Concorde/Vision, as well as the 2nd-gen Intrepid/300M, were about as good, legroom-wise, as my '89 Gran Fury, which was on a 112.7" wb. The Gran Fury was a bit better up front, a bit worse in the back. Now the 2nd-gen Concorde/LHS were roomier in back, because they pushed the seat further back between the wheel wells. As a result, you lost a little hip room, and I think shoulder room dropped a bit compared to the Intrepid, and your view out the window wasn't as good because now you were tucked in between the C-pillars. I think Chrysler did this trick with the 1994-97 New Yorker/LHS as well.
I've sat in a few Avalons at auto shows, and those things are HUGE inside when it comes to legroom!
The '77 full-size Chevy, with 116" wheelbase, had six more cubic feet of interior space than a '77 Ford LTD (although I realize not all that might be useable).
The '78 Malibu Classic I liked the looks of, if it was loaded up with the 50/50 split front seat with center armrests, round 'Monte Carlo'-style gauge cluster, and those scooped-out plastic honeycomb wheel covers. They had a decent back seat for legroom--way better than the '77 Malibu--but width was compromised (remember the scooped-out rear doors of the sedans, to increase 'elbow room'? I really like the '77 big Chevys, in coupe form with 350 engine and trans, and like the '78 Malibu Classic too, but it was like GM asked us to accept less and less in the '78 intermediates than they asked us to do for the '77 big cars.
The right front position was poor in the '78 intermediates--that raised floor there put your knees up high--yuck.
Bill
OK, I couldn't remember. I probably haven't sat in one of things since they first came out. They were certainly a big departure from the vehices they replaced.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Oh I'll never forget that! My grandparents bought a new 1982 Malibu wagon, in February, when it was cold enough that nobody even thought about opening the windows. It wasn't until a hot day in April that I went to church with them, and Grandmom got in the back seat. That might have been the first time anyone even rode back there. After a minute or two of fumbling around, she said "how the hell do you put the window down?!" And that's when we noticed that you DIDN'T put the window down. All you had were those little vent that popped open. Needless to say, Grandmom had a few choice words to say about Chevrolet, GM, the high price of crappy cheap cars, etc, on the way to church that day. I think that car cost something like $11,000, and Grandmom referred to it as "the most expensive cheap car we've ever owned".
GM should have just gone ahead and given those cars roll-down rear windows once customers started complaining. Sure, they'd lose that extra elbow room that the recessed armrests gave you, but at something like 57.5", those sedans still had more shoulder room than a Fairmont/Zephyr or Aspen/Volare/Diplomat/LeBaron, or the old Nova, all of which were around 56".
Chrysler tried stationary rear windows on the K-cars in 1981, but after a customer backlash, switched to roll-down sometime during the 1982 model year. GM got away with those stationary windows through the last 4-door model, the 1987 Cutlass Supreme. I wonder if maybe people didn't complain as much with the GM cars, since they were more upscale than a K-car and more likely to be equipped with a/c?
IIRC, the last "true" domestic hardtop was the 1978 Newport and New Yorker, which still offered a hardtop coupe and sedan. The coupes are hard to find though, especially in the New Yorker series, because most of them were equipped with an optional landau roof.
If we want to talk about the downsized 1977-era cars, back in high school, my best friend had a 1978 Impala, his neighbor has a 1977 Impala. Another friend had a new 1982 Caprice Classic, and my Grandpop had a 1980 Impala sedan. My first new car was a black 1987 Caprice Classic and the last car my Grandpop bought was a new 1989 Caprice Classic Brougham.
There is a photo I've seen a bunch of times over the years, of the rear and left side of a white over light metallic green '74 Impala Sport Coupe, and it always reminded me of ours. Ours was that very pale light green, non-metallic, white painted top...hated the baby-caca green color!
The '75 Impala Sport Coupe, last of its kind, is a handsome but conservatively styled car. I always thought it'd be nice to have ordered one with wire wheel covers and all the optional exterior moldings, four power windows, and the herringbone-pattern (like a sport coat!) cloth 50/50 front seat. That would have been a pretty rare and handsome automobile...for a Chevrolet.
I too, believe the '78 Chrysler New Yorker was the last true two-door hardtop sold in the country. Seems to me I remember a goldish one on eBay maybe three years ago...very nice and bone-stock.
Bill
I just found a perfect example right here at Inside Line>
:sick:
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Tradition, man, tradition!! :P
RACING COLORS OF THE WORLD
You are absolutely right, Keith. The large majority of people bought off the lot, and the dealers offered a variety of popular configurations to choose from. If you were willing to wait maybe 3-6 weeks (and forgo the dealer's incentives to buy the iron that was on his lot) however, you could have it anyway you wanted. If your needs or tastes were unusual, that could come in handy.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Jaguar X-type wagon.. . :surprise:
They must have sold.. what? dozens of these?
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
"Lagoon Blue", eh? Sounds like someone's been checking out tcpglobal!
AND no black.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Here's an old factory shot of a black '61 DeSoto 4-door hardtop...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Either way, the car was stunning, probably a lot because I LOVE four-door hardtops, probably more than any other body style.
You know, I feel the same way; always have. For some reason they always looked beter proportioned to me than the two-door hardtops. I know I'm in the (tiny) minority, but at least if I decide to buy a classic car to play with it will be cheaper.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
4-door hardtops were pretty rare in the smaller cars. In compacts, as far as I know, they only showed up in the Corvair and Rambler lineups. In midsized cars, GM had them from 1964-72. Ford briefly had them in 70-71...I didn't even know they existed until one day I saw a sage green Torino 4-door hardtop at Carlisle, with a 429 under the hood. That thing must have been one heckuva sleeper! And Mopar offered them in 1962-64 (although those were marketed as downsized full-size cars). 4-door hardtops tended to be less practical than the pillared sedans, as they had lower rooflines and often a more cramped back seat. So I'd imagine anyone looking for practicality went for a regular sedan, and if you wanted sporty, youthful looks, you went for a coupe or convertible. The full-sized cars could afford to lose a little interior room, but with the intermediates, the losses were more noticeable.
I tend to like a car with a lot of glass area, and often with the bigger cars, the coupe would give you a huge C-pillar, and in later years opera windows, while the hardtop sedan would give you a more open, airy feeling. And in the later 60's, the coupes started going for that overly formal, upright C-pillar, while the sedans tended to be a bit more rakish.
I always liked the front-end on these, too...
A bit Buick-ish, perhaps, but handsome and rugged IMO.
Andre, I kinda forgot about the '65+ Corvairs and 70ish Torinos, even as I was trying to recall 'smaller' 4HTs at all. The Corvairs, in particular, are really beautifully styled cars, and surprisingly roomy for their size. My (paternal) grandfather was a big Corvair geek for a while, with my dad receiving hand-me-downs when he was in high school, and during our infancy (apparently, we had a Corvair wagon and/or convertible, briefly, along with the Beetle and the Ford van....I don't understand, because I know we didn't have these all at the same time btw 1968-71). Anywho, the Torinos, as well as the short-lived smaller Mopar 4HTs are likely difficult to find now.
Even some of the 'bigger' lower-priced cars (Galaxie/LTD, Impala/Caprice, Furys, Catalinas, Polaras, etc.) on eBay are so over-represented with two-doors in comparison, which isn't surprising, but kinda sad. I'd take one over a two-door any day, really.
As for the Electra/98/DeVille and Grand Ville, I don't think the length difference is really all that noticeable, unless you happen to see the cars side-by-side, or view pictures of them side-by-side. One other tidbit that shows how the Grand Ville was a bit of a hybrid between B- and C-body...the 4-door hardtop didn't have any more legroom in back than a Bonneville, Catalina, Impala/Caprice, Delta 88, or LeSabre. However, the hardtop coupe had the same amount of legroom as the 4-door hardtops...which would make it roomier in back than any of the other B-body coupes, although the C-body coupes might still be roomier.
I never really cared for that front-end...the big single headlight and vertical rectangular turn signal just seem to clash.
Ok, gotcha...must be my lysdexia setting in. :P
As for the legroom measurement, there's a 1972 Pontiac brochure at www.tocmp.com, and I remember looking up some stats awhile back and some of the numbers just stuck. Off the top of my head, I think all the B-body 4-door sedans and 4-door hardtops, and the Grand Ville 2-door hardtop had around 37.5" of legroom in back, while the other B-body coupes had something like 35.5" or 35.9" of legroom.
I always used to think the C-bodies had 3" more legroom in back than the B-body, since they were usually on a 3" longer wheelbase, and all that appeared to be in the back doors. However, I think in general, it was more like 1-2" more, depending on the year.
I think those legroom measurements can be deceptive sometimes, though. For example, my Intrepid had 39.1" in back, and my Park Ave has 41.4" (I don't have that memorized...had to look it up!). But both of them feel about the same in back to me. If anything, my knees rub ever so slightly in the Park Ave, but they didn't touch in the Intrepid. Consumer Reports does a measurement where they just measure the distance to the back seat...I think they call it fore/aft room? It's different from the legroom measurement more commonly published, which also takes into account how high off the floor the seat is.
I know...that's the thing I hated, putting what I considered "cheap car" styling cues on the upscale cars! I wonder why they started going back to single headlights on so many cars in the 1970's, anyway? Some kind of retro thing, perhaps? I guess a single headlight IS a slightly cheaper setup than quads, and if they save a couple bucks per car in manufacturing without passing that on to the consumer, there's profit in that.
Oh, and in the useless trivia department, I looked up those legroom measurements I mentioned before about the Grand Ville versus the other cars. Looks like all the 4-door B-bodies, plus the Grand Ville 2-door hardtop, had 38.5" of rear seat legroom. The other 2-door hardtops (Catalina, Bonneville, Impala, et al) and all convertibles INCLUDING the Grand Ville had 35.5". For comparison I found some C-body stats, from a 1975 Buick brochure. The Electra coupe had 40" of back seat legroom, while the 4-door hardtop had 40.8"