At the most, I had five cars at one time...but we live in suburbia, on a .62-acre lot. Driveway two cars wide; a turnaround, and a two-car attached garage. The '63 and '64 Studebakers stayed in the garage and everything else stayed outside. My wife was OK with that. Then, I sold the '63 and '64 and bought the '66, which I sold a year later. We have four in total now; one is usually at Miami Univ.--but none are fun old cars, sadly.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Here's roughly the same view off my deck, roughly 7 years later...
The driveway, unfortunately, is sinking, so this spring I'm probably going to have to have more gravel brought out.
Uplander...yeah, I have two '79 New Yorkers. Bought my 5th Avenue back in 2001, and the blue base model in 2007. Here's a pic I took back in March of last year...
The 5th Ave is with it in some of the pics...when I first brought the blue one home back in 2007, I took a bunch of pics of both of them together in the yard. For some reason, it seems like I've taken more pics of the blue one over the years, than the 5th Ave.
Andre, as per our earlier conversation, found this brochure photo of the interior of a '74 Malibu Classic Coupe--check out that filler panel in the rear-quarter window. As I said, Malibu Classic and Laguna Type S-3 coupes had to have vinyl tops the first half of the model year. My guess is that the Luxury LeMans was the same way.
I like the big window too, but I think we're in the minority. What stunk, IMHO, is that for Chevelles, you could only get that big window on the base Malibu, which was trimmed like the previous year's Deluxe--cheap, I mean CHEAP! Not to mention, that big window gave exceptional rearward visibility.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Oh Gawd, that's HORRIBLE, how they filled in that back window to make the '74 Classic! As for those windows, I prefer the large, triangular ones as well. My Mom's '75 LeMans had them. Unlike the other divisions though, Pontiac did away with them completely for '76-77, making the opera window standard, even on the base coupe.
Just for comparison, here's how the back seat area is trimmed out in my '76 Grand LeMans...
Also, looking through that brochure, I see they give a glimpse of the base Malibu's sedan on page 9. If that's what it really looked like, they shouldn't have put that pic in the brochure. The seat looks like something that would belong in a police or taxi package, but NOT a civilian car! I do like the corduroy style cloth interior on the Classic's interior, though. And even the vinyl interior shown in the sedan on page 7 looks pretty nice.
That is a nice-looking red vinyl you've got there, BTW...leather-like and has held up over 39 years!
Yes, that interior trim panel is a lot better...Malibu Classics and Lagunas got that mid-year. On early '74's, I could even see a 'phantom' bit of the shape of the big window below the vinyl top, from the outside....if you looked realllly close.
Besides not liking the '74 grille or taillights, it always seemed to me that there should have been a model between the Malibu and Malibu Classic. The Malibu was pushed down to 'Deluxe' level, and the Malibu Classic was pretty much top-of-the-line inside...they needed a model with soft upper door panels, and a nice cloth-and-vinyl, or all-vinyl bench seat interior, not unlike the '73 Malibu, in the middle. But what do I know; I'm not a product planner.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Here's the front seat, showing off that sexy Grand Prix-cribbed dashboard!
This pic, and the pic of the back seat, were given to me by the seller back in 2005, before I purchased the car. There's a rip in the driver's seat, which that floor mat is hiding. The seating surfaces for the outboard occupants have a soft, supple feel to them, while the side bolsters, as well as the armrest and the center spot both front and rear, have a more generic, cheap-but-durable feel to them.
They've held up pretty well in the almost 10 (damn, has it been that long already?!) years I've had the car. I keep a red towel over the bad spot on the seat. The back seat hardly ever gets used...I'd guess the last time someone was back there was in 2013, when I put it in the show in Macungie, PA. The top of the back seat is a bit sun-faded, though.
And yeah, I agree, it really seems that GM should have come up with a nicer interior for the Malibu...something to slot in between that low-grade taxi stuff and the ritzier Classic. I've looked through other brochures of the '73-77 era, and it seems like the base Malibu's seats were always pretty low-rent. Were they so cheap that the upper part of the door panel was hard plastic, as well? I would have guessed that it would have at least been padded vinyl, just a lower quality and with less padding than the Classic.
The '73 Malibu had a soft upper-door panel and I thought decent interior (including optional swivel buckets), but the '74-77 were really like 1973's Deluxe...zero exterior trim standard--not even rain gutters. Hard upper-door panels.
You could get swivels even on the low-rent Malibus of '74-77--they're ridiculous looking! I hate woven vinyl on any vehicle, and they're that. Yuck!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
That GP dash doesn't really work with a bench seat, does it? A center passenger would have no place to put their left knee.
It's not as bad as you might think. I don't think that seat was all the way back when the seller took that picture. He was a bit shorter than me. With the seat all the way back, where I have it, that part where the dash juts out isn't really in the way. The center spot is definitely better than it was in the downsized '78 cars. But, I'd rather not have a center passenger, period!
And, for a low-slung coupe, I'm impressed at how high the seat sits off the floor, although that comes at the expense of headroom. I have the power seat fairly well reclined, which helps out a bit there.
Another thing that impresses me, again for a low-slung coupe, is how good the headroom is in back. I've sat back there a few times, out of curiosity, and, sadly, I'd rate it better than the W-body Impala. My head doesn't touch the ceiling or rear window, but in the Impala I'd have to crouch. Even in the '91-96 iteration of the Caprice/Impala, my head would touch the ceiling.
I remember when it came out, the brochure called it "the roomiest Caprice ever". We bought a '93 new--at ages 35 and 28 LOL! One thing I always noticed when I climbed in and out of the back seat, was how the tops of the rear doors were curved inward. I guess the front doors would have been too, but you really noticed it on the rears--I mean, you could bump your face into them getting in and out.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I remember the term 'tumblehome', and I've always thought (maybe incorrectly) that it's the curving of doors inward at the top, and also at the bottom. A car I drove (my parents') that had big-time 'tumblehome' was our '74 Impala. You opened the door and looked from the rear of it, and it was almost a "C"! LOL
The '91-96 Caprice not only had some tumblehome (not terrible at the bottom, like earlier ones), but the top of the metal door frame actually had a curved roll inward at the top, above the window. That's mostly what I was complaining about.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yeah, I think "Tumblehome" is the proper term. I sometimes refered to it as "fuselaged". My '76 LeMans, as well as the '79-81 Mopar R-bodies, have a bit of it in the doors themselves, not just the window part.
I think one reason the '91-96 Caprice might have seemed even worse is because it had those limousine/aircraft style doors, that went into the roof of the car a little bit.
As for the claim of "roomiest Caprice ever", going by EPA numbers, it probably was. They rate the 96 Caprice 4-door at 115 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 20 foot trunk. In comparison, they rate the '90 at 110/20. And I'm sure the '77-90 generation was roomier inside, overall, than the '71-76.
However, to get those figures, all they do is multiply the headroom*legroom*shoulder room for the front and back seats, and divide by 1728 to get from cubic inches to cubic feet. And sometimes those measurements seems suspect to me, especially the legroom and headroom measurements. And, they don't take into account things such as wheel well intrusion, how far the dashboard juts out, transmission/driveshaft hump, etc.
One thing I didn't like about the '91-96 Caprice is that it felt like they used a seat the same width as the '90, and you sat in the same position relative to the steering wheel and center of the car. But, the doors were further out, so the armrest ended up being too far away. And if you put three across, it would shift the driver outward, off center from the steering wheel.
Doors going into the roof became a thing for awhile - I remember our Tempo and Taurus had that design feature. On the former, the interior metal on the door near the weatherstripping eventually developed mild surface rust - the only such spot on the car.
Sightings today - very clean red earlier model Saab 9000, and a pristine brand new looking blue early 90s Buick Century wagon, driven by likely the original owners.
I never liked the Orca-bodied Caprice, but rode in a few that were taxicabs. The dash looked cheap, and the doors were ridiculously thick. It was GM at it's worst. Having said that, at least the interior door panels didn't creak and squeak like the plastic ones in every Crown Vic cab I have ever rode in do.
Our Caprice, I had dealer-traded for...I wanted the base model with F41, wire wheelcovers (hey, they were better-looking than anybody else's!), a maroon color with maroon interior. I remember my salesman telling me "203 dealers and there's only one car like you want". We drove it six years and 93K miles and my wife wanted a van. The Caprice had posi too. We liked it.
The door armrests were a long way from the seat....LOL.
The right floor was high--over the catalytic converter. And since ours was a base model, it didn't have pull straps on the door. The lower-door panels did in fact make squeaky noises after a while, when the door was pulled close with the armrest, and when you leaned on the doors.
But at the time, it was hardly any more money than a Lumina. We enjoyed ours. I still see them around. Huge trunk, and ours had a full-size spare.
I sold it to a company that exported them to Saudi Arabia. I got constant postcards from two or three companies that did that. "We buy Caprices! Call us first...call us last...just call us!".
While having it serviced at a Chevy dealer, I thumbed through a Chevy mag-for-dealers sitting there, and they had interviewed cab owners and also police who preferred the Caprice to the Crown Victoria for 'use it and abuse it' service.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Not suggesting it was a bad car. The '77-up B/C cars were a great platform. I just don't understand how that body design made it out of the prototype stage. They had such a nice, clean design from '77-up, which certainly needed an update. But to come up with the bathtub style they went with just boggles the mind.
That bathtub style looked okay to me, from the B-pillar forward. But then it seemed like they just didn't know what to do with the car from the B-pillar backward. They improved it alot when they opened up the rear wheel wells for '93, and better still when they gave the beltline that little kick-up for '95, and redid the taillights. Still, I think Ford handled the aero reskin better when they updated the Panthers. I thought the Lincoln Town Car especially was a nice update, although I thought they went too far by around 1998. They reigned it back in after a few years, but by then they were starting to decontent them.
If I was seeking out a big 90's car, I'd probably look for GM, simply because of my bias towards them. But by and large, I think the Fords came out more attractive. Back in 2012, a 1994 Fleetwood popped up for sale locally. It was a deep purple, and just oddball enough that I was briefly tempted. It also had a cloth interior...something I hadn't seen on a Cadillac in ages.
I didn't like Ford's back-to-back vent windows (rear doors and C pillar) on the Crown Vic, although the Grand Marquis got around that. I did like the simple front-end of the '92 Crown Vic. Somebody at Ford apparently thought it was too plain and put that useless bright trim between the headlights later.
I still think a '91 Caprice Classic looks OK...not beautiful. It was MT's Car of the Year. When one, then another, mag mentioned their dislike of the looks, that theory took off. While the big rear-wheel opening of the '93 did lighten the car somewhat (I'm a fan of open rear wheel openings), I'll concede that the way they did it was rather half-assed. If you look close at one you'll see what I'm talking about.
I did like the lacy aluminum wheels the upper-models of those cars had, and I liked the kicked-up quarter windows of the later ones too.
While the original dash wasn't great, I did not like the '94 dash at all.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Honestly, that back-to-back quarter window treatment was something I wasn't too crazy about either, although it was something I could live with. At least it let the windows roll down all the way. Or, most of the way...I can swear I've seen some that went all the way down, but others would stop about 3-4" up. My grandparent's '85 fox-based LTD had a similar treatment, and I didn't care for it on that car, either. And yeah, I liked the '92, with its grille-less design the best, too.
I thought the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis both updated beautifully for 1998, even if they did start using the same roofline, and making all the stuff like headlights, taillights, grilles, etc, easy-swap between the two cars. The Crown Vic, I though, looked attractive right up until the end, but the Grand Marquis got a facelift for 2006 that I didn't care for. The headlight cluster seemed smaller, and the grille more vertical, but less intricate and cheaper, somehow...the whole treatment made me think a bit of a Hyundai.
As for the '93 Caprice, yeah if you look close, you can see how the rear door and the rear wheel opening don't quite jive up. It's obvious the rear door was designed with the old skirted wheel in mind, and not updated.
Were the rear tires on those skirted Caprices hard to change? If you jack the car up by the frame, the rear axle would just hang down, but if you put a floor jack under the differential and jack it up, I wonder if there would be clearance issues in getting a wheel off? My '68 Dart had that problem, although that was because I put extra large tires on it...225/70/R14. I'm not sure what the OEM bias ply would have been, but I think a rough metric equivalent was 195/75/R14. I remember a tire shop having problems with it once, because their lift raised the car up by attaching to the rear axle. I told them they had to raise it by the sub-frame, and let the rear-end hang.
Good question on changing tires. I do know the rear track was widened in '93.
If you ever see a '93-96 Caprice (or Impala SS), check out the width of the wheel opening moldings on the rear. They're like three times as thick as in front, but they try to minimize that with painting most of it flat-black.
I was driving back from Atlanta with my parents in the winter of '90/'91, and we came upon a '91 Caprice on I-75 in OH and I honestly had no idea what it was until I saw "Caprice" on the trunklid. I had never even seen a pic of one yet. It had a company's name on the doors, so it was a fleet vehicle. Dead-on from the rear, Dad and I both hated it. The rear really never did grow on me.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I still remember the first time I saw one up close. I went with some friends to Hershey Park in the summer of 1990. Chevy had some kind of promotional thing going on, and had various models on display throughout the park. One of them was a blue 1991 Caprice. The '91 came out early in the model year as I recall, and I'm sure I had run across them on the streets and such, but this was the first time up close and personal.
I looked at a '69 GTO today, a black on black coupe, V8/350HP with 4-speed, very original, 2-owner car, alas with very few options---no power steering or brakes, no Ram Air, etc. Ran very strong but drives like a truck.
I saw a '69 GTO on Friday...in an episode of "CHiPs". My Panther-driving friend (he's had 3 in a row now) came over and we had a bad/vintage tv night. Apparently this GTO made many appearances throughout the run of the series, as they kept it around as a "ramp car". Anytime it showed up, you knew something was gonna go airborne! http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_547699-Pontiac-GTO-1969.html
On Friday nite's episode, it launched both a Mazda Cosmo and a '71-72 Delta 88.
Back in the real world though...nothing interesting to report.
Saw a 57 Chevy-70s style with mag wheels, an immaculate W123, old 4 door Land Rover in definitely unrestored condition, earlier Z car, and a Fisker Karma.
Saw a 57 Chevy-70s style with mag wheels, an immaculate W123, old 4 door Land Rover in definitely unrestored condition, earlier Z car, and a Fisker Karma.
I caught a look at a '56 Bel-Air 4-door sedan today. The quintessence of the first rung up the ladder for a young family with a sense of style. It was behind me so I couldn't see too many details beyond the colors (red and cream) and the body style (when it pulled into the left turn lane). The thing is it looked almost mint; bright paint and no noticeable flaws revealed by my brief inspection. Somehow, that pleased me.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
My theory of liking the lesser-seen cars is blown to shreds by my appreciation for bone-stock '55 and '56 Chevys. It's easy to see why they sold well I think--pleasant styling, good engine choices, reasonable size. A '56 Chevy is the first car of my parents I can remember, and I was born in '58 so they had it a long time (by those days). I always liked the Corvette-inspired '55 and '56 instrument panel, too....dropped for the '57's.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My theory of liking the lesser-seen cars is blown to shreds by my appreciation for bone-stock '55 and '56 Chevys. It's easy to see why they sold well I think--pleasant styling, good engine choices, reasonable size. A '56 Chevy is the first car of my parents I can remember, and I was born in '58 so they had it a long time (by those days). I always liked the Corvette-inspired '55 and '56 instrument panel, too....dropped for the '57's.
For some reason, of the 3 years I prefer the '56. I know I am inviting being flamed, but I always thought the fins on the '57 seemed out of place. The '56 looks had a great match of style (esp. the Bel-Air) and utility.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
I looked at a '69 GTO today, a black on black coupe, V8/350HP with 4-speed, very original, 2-owner car, alas with very few options---no power steering or brakes, no Ram Air, etc. Ran very strong but drives like a truck.
Good Lord; I owned a convertible' 70 Goat. It's the biggest car I ever owned and the idea of trying to drive it without PS/PB is crazy. I took driver ed in a no-power anything '60 Biscayne and it was sure no fun.
PS- my old GTO was a 4-speed and the shifter was like something you'd have in a truck with wide gates and a reluctant linkage. I guess some cars are just meant to be automatics.
For some reason, of the 3 years I prefer the '56. I know I am inviting being flamed, but I always thought the fins on the '57 seemed out of place. The '56 looks had a great match of style (esp. the Bel-Air) and utility.
Well, flame suit on, because I'm right there with you! The '56 is my favorite, as well. With the '55, I just don't like the too-small grille. While GM stylists would prefer you compared it to a Ferrari, and I know that was the inspiration, it also comes off looking a bit like a Nash. And something about the turn signals, I don't like. It gives the car a bit of a tired, droopy look.
I like the '56, with its forward thrusting look and full-width grille. It looks handsome, if a bit Ford-ish, in my eye. I tend to associate strong horizontal grilles moreso with Ford than Chevy, but that might be a bit revisionist, as both Chevy and Ford both did it for '56, so it's not like Ford did it before Chevy. I think I might make that association because we had a '64 Galaxie when I was a kid, and there was a junked '57 Ford in the neighborhood.
The only thing I'm not so crazy about with the '56 is the taillights. I think they're a bit tacky compared to '55. However, I like the way they're more integrated into the rear of the car, rather than jutting out as on '55.
As for '57, one reason I might not be such a fan is the car has become such a cliché over the decades, and often tend to root for the underdog. But, it seems a bit tacky and glittery compared to '55-56, as if GM was trying too hard to compete with the all-new Ford and Plymouth. Which, to be fair, is exactly what they were doing.
As for '57, one reason I might not be such a fan is the car has become such a cliché over the decades, and often tend to root for the underdog. But, it seems a bit tacky and glittery compared to '55-56, as if GM was trying too hard to compete with the all-new Ford and Plymouth.
Same here on the 57 and not liking it as much as the 56 and 55. I rode in my brother-in-laws on the gravel country roads in Indiana back when I was a teenager. It rattled and bounced all over. But then maybe I didn't like it be cause I didn't like him either!
56 or 58 for me. I think the style of the 55 has to be analyzed relative to the 54 Chev that it replaced and that jump viewed in terms of the styling on the 54, 55, and 56 Fords.
Learned to drive stick on a '57. Hated that car. Then a '59 landed in the family. Gutless automatic but much preferred it over the '57. Even liked the big fins.
Chevy managed to do something with the style of their cars in '58 that gave them an upscale look, in my opinion. Hard to put my finger on what, exactly, but when I see a '58 Chevy next to a Ford or Plymouth, the Chevy just seems like a more prestigious car. Maybe it's because they were starting to tie in the styling to Cadillac?
The more upright, reverse-slant C-pillar might have also had a bit to do with it. It was also thicker than what you saw on a Ford or Plymouth, so that might have added a formal, upscale touch.
It's kind of a shame the '58 Chevy didn't stick around for another year or two. However, styles changed fast in those years, and it would have looked outdated pretty quickly. And I'm sure the stylists would have found a way to botch it up. I heard they were considering a central theme, along the lines of the Edsel or the Tucker's third headlight, if the '58 Chevy had stuck around another year.
I was out of town yesterday and spotted a rather pristine looking 57 Chevy 4 dr hardtop parked on the street. It was in that bluish, turquoise color that was popular back then. That is just such a sharp looking greenhouse.
In Fintail's action shot, is that an early 70's Buick Skylark GS? Those were kind of rare and underappreciated back then.
For me, the 58 Chevy bounces around a bit depending on model and style. The Impala's and Bel-Air convertibles and hardtops looked nice. I wasn't as enthused by the sedans. Not a fan of the Biscayne or Del Ray that year. The wagons looked good in profile, but the little, single taillight was kind of plain. If there had been a Nomad, the chrome might have spruced that up a bit. For that matter, the dual taillights on lesser models was also kind of cheapish looking. Maybe the lens just needed to be a bit larger. I much preferred the similar 58 Pontiac.
A '57 Chevy would have to a bone-stock Nomad, or an excellent anything-else in any color except red, white, black, or turquoise for me to even stop and look at it. I do find the One-Fifty a little interesting, as it has the straight side molding and not that fanned-out piece on the rear quarter.
I like the '58 Impala, but I wish it did not have that chrome 'comb' on the rear quarter! Yuck! I could do without that piece over the rear window too. That said, proportionally, I like it better than the Bel Air that year...and of course, it has three taillights on each side.
I like that silvery blue they had in '58.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Comments
I remember those two-tone brown Eldorados--I think they're '78's.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
And, it took me emptying out the garage to do it. I think I was cleaning it out that day or something.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'm reminded that I always liked the front styling, among other things, of '67 full-size Pontiacs.
The driveway, unfortunately, is sinking, so this spring I'm probably going to have to have more gravel brought out.
Uplander...yeah, I have two '79 New Yorkers. Bought my 5th Avenue back in 2001, and the blue base model in 2007. Here's a pic I took back in March of last year...
This folder has a bunch of pics of the blue one, taken over the years:
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/jgandrew/library/1979 New Yorker Base?sort=3&page=1
The 5th Ave is with it in some of the pics...when I first brought the blue one home back in 2007, I took a bunch of pics of both of them together in the yard. For some reason, it seems like I've taken more pics of the blue one over the years, than the 5th Ave.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Chevrolet/1974_Chevrolet/1974_Chevrolet_Chevelle_Brochure/1974-Chevrolet-Chevelle-05
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Just for comparison, here's how the back seat area is trimmed out in my '76 Grand LeMans...
Also, looking through that brochure, I see they give a glimpse of the base Malibu's sedan on page 9. If that's what it really looked like, they shouldn't have put that pic in the brochure. The seat looks like something that would belong in a police or taxi package, but NOT a civilian car! I do like the corduroy style cloth interior on the Classic's interior, though. And even the vinyl interior shown in the sedan on page 7 looks pretty nice.
Yes, that interior trim panel is a lot better...Malibu Classics and Lagunas got that mid-year. On early '74's, I could even see a 'phantom' bit of the shape of the big window below the vinyl top, from the outside....if you looked realllly close.
Besides not liking the '74 grille or taillights, it always seemed to me that there should have been a model between the Malibu and Malibu Classic. The Malibu was pushed down to 'Deluxe' level, and the Malibu Classic was pretty much top-of-the-line inside...they needed a model with soft upper door panels, and a nice cloth-and-vinyl, or all-vinyl bench seat interior, not unlike the '73 Malibu, in the middle. But what do I know; I'm not a product planner.
This pic, and the pic of the back seat, were given to me by the seller back in 2005, before I purchased the car. There's a rip in the driver's seat, which that floor mat is hiding. The seating surfaces for the outboard occupants have a soft, supple feel to them, while the side bolsters, as well as the armrest and the center spot both front and rear, have a more generic, cheap-but-durable feel to them.
They've held up pretty well in the almost 10 (damn, has it been that long already?!) years I've had the car. I keep a red towel over the bad spot on the seat. The back seat hardly ever gets used...I'd guess the last time someone was back there was in 2013, when I put it in the show in Macungie, PA. The top of the back seat is a bit sun-faded, though.
And yeah, I agree, it really seems that GM should have come up with a nicer interior for the Malibu...something to slot in between that low-grade taxi stuff and the ritzier Classic. I've looked through other brochures of the '73-77 era, and it seems like the base Malibu's seats were always pretty low-rent. Were they so cheap that the upper part of the door panel was hard plastic, as well? I would have guessed that it would have at least been padded vinyl, just a lower quality and with less padding than the Classic.
You could get swivels even on the low-rent Malibus of '74-77--they're ridiculous looking! I hate woven vinyl on any vehicle, and they're that. Yuck!
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
And, for a low-slung coupe, I'm impressed at how high the seat sits off the floor, although that comes at the expense of headroom. I have the power seat fairly well reclined, which helps out a bit there.
Another thing that impresses me, again for a low-slung coupe, is how good the headroom is in back. I've sat back there a few times, out of curiosity, and, sadly, I'd rate it better than the W-body Impala. My head doesn't touch the ceiling or rear window, but in the Impala I'd have to crouch. Even in the '91-96 iteration of the Caprice/Impala, my head would touch the ceiling.
I remember when it came out, the brochure called it "the roomiest Caprice ever". We bought a '93 new--at ages 35 and 28 LOL! One thing I always noticed when I climbed in and out of the back seat, was how the tops of the rear doors were curved inward. I guess the front doors would have been too, but you really noticed it on the rears--I mean, you could bump your face into them getting in and out.
The '91-96 Caprice not only had some tumblehome (not terrible at the bottom, like earlier ones), but the top of the metal door frame actually had a curved roll inward at the top, above the window. That's mostly what I was complaining about.
I think one reason the '91-96 Caprice might have seemed even worse is because it had those limousine/aircraft style doors, that went into the roof of the car a little bit.
As for the claim of "roomiest Caprice ever", going by EPA numbers, it probably was. They rate the 96 Caprice 4-door at 115 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 20 foot trunk. In comparison, they rate the '90 at 110/20. And I'm sure the '77-90 generation was roomier inside, overall, than the '71-76.
However, to get those figures, all they do is multiply the headroom*legroom*shoulder room for the front and back seats, and divide by 1728 to get from cubic inches to cubic feet. And sometimes those measurements seems suspect to me, especially the legroom and headroom measurements. And, they don't take into account things such as wheel well intrusion, how far the dashboard juts out, transmission/driveshaft hump, etc.
One thing I didn't like about the '91-96 Caprice is that it felt like they used a seat the same width as the '90, and you sat in the same position relative to the steering wheel and center of the car. But, the doors were further out, so the armrest ended up being too far away. And if you put three across, it would shift the driver outward, off center from the steering wheel.
Sightings today - very clean red earlier model Saab 9000, and a pristine brand new looking blue early 90s Buick Century wagon, driven by likely the original owners.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
The door armrests were a long way from the seat....LOL.
The right floor was high--over the catalytic converter. And since ours was a base model, it didn't have pull straps on the door. The lower-door panels did in fact make squeaky noises after a while, when the door was pulled close with the armrest, and when you leaned on the doors.
But at the time, it was hardly any more money than a Lumina. We enjoyed ours. I still see them around. Huge trunk, and ours had a full-size spare.
I sold it to a company that exported them to Saudi Arabia. I got constant postcards from two or three companies that did that. "We buy Caprices! Call us first...call us last...just call us!".
While having it serviced at a Chevy dealer, I thumbed through a Chevy mag-for-dealers sitting there, and they had interviewed cab owners and also police who preferred the Caprice to the Crown Victoria for 'use it and abuse it' service.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
If I was seeking out a big 90's car, I'd probably look for GM, simply because of my bias towards them. But by and large, I think the Fords came out more attractive. Back in 2012, a 1994 Fleetwood popped up for sale locally. It was a deep purple, and just oddball enough that I was briefly tempted. It also had a cloth interior...something I hadn't seen on a Cadillac in ages.
I still think a '91 Caprice Classic looks OK...not beautiful. It was MT's Car of the Year. When one, then another, mag mentioned their dislike of the looks, that theory took off. While the big rear-wheel opening of the '93 did lighten the car somewhat (I'm a fan of open rear wheel openings), I'll concede that the way they did it was rather half-assed. If you look close at one you'll see what I'm talking about.
I did like the lacy aluminum wheels the upper-models of those cars had, and I liked the kicked-up quarter windows of the later ones too.
While the original dash wasn't great, I did not like the '94 dash at all.
I thought the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis both updated beautifully for 1998, even if they did start using the same roofline, and making all the stuff like headlights, taillights, grilles, etc, easy-swap between the two cars. The Crown Vic, I though, looked attractive right up until the end, but the Grand Marquis got a facelift for 2006 that I didn't care for. The headlight cluster seemed smaller, and the grille more vertical, but less intricate and cheaper, somehow...the whole treatment made me think a bit of a Hyundai.
As for the '93 Caprice, yeah if you look close, you can see how the rear door and the rear wheel opening don't quite jive up. It's obvious the rear door was designed with the old skirted wheel in mind, and not updated.
Were the rear tires on those skirted Caprices hard to change? If you jack the car up by the frame, the rear axle would just hang down, but if you put a floor jack under the differential and jack it up, I wonder if there would be clearance issues in getting a wheel off? My '68 Dart had that problem, although that was because I put extra large tires on it...225/70/R14. I'm not sure what the OEM bias ply would have been, but I think a rough metric equivalent was 195/75/R14. I remember a tire shop having problems with it once, because their lift raised the car up by attaching to the rear axle. I told them they had to raise it by the sub-frame, and let the rear-end hang.
If you ever see a '93-96 Caprice (or Impala SS), check out the width of the wheel opening moldings on the rear. They're like three times as thick as in front, but they try to minimize that with painting most of it flat-black.
I was driving back from Atlanta with my parents in the winter of '90/'91, and we came upon a '91 Caprice on I-75 in OH and I honestly had no idea what it was until I saw "Caprice" on the trunklid. I had never even seen a pic of one yet. It had a company's name on the doors, so it was a fleet vehicle. Dead-on from the rear, Dad and I both hated it. The rear really never did grow on me.
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_547699-Pontiac-GTO-1969.html
On Friday nite's episode, it launched both a Mazda Cosmo and a '71-72 Delta 88.
Back in the real world though...nothing interesting to report.
Those are extremely rare now, and actually have some value in a few places.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
PS- my old GTO was a 4-speed and the shifter was like something you'd have in a truck with wide gates and a reluctant linkage. I guess some cars are just meant to be automatics.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I like the '56, with its forward thrusting look and full-width grille. It looks handsome, if a bit Ford-ish, in my eye. I tend to associate strong horizontal grilles moreso with Ford than Chevy, but that might be a bit revisionist, as both Chevy and Ford both did it for '56, so it's not like Ford did it before Chevy. I think I might make that association because we had a '64 Galaxie when I was a kid, and there was a junked '57 Ford in the neighborhood.
The only thing I'm not so crazy about with the '56 is the taillights. I think they're a bit tacky compared to '55. However, I like the way they're more integrated into the rear of the car, rather than jutting out as on '55.
As for '57, one reason I might not be such a fan is the car has become such a cliché over the decades, and often tend to root for the underdog. But, it seems a bit tacky and glittery compared to '55-56, as if GM was trying too hard to compete with the all-new Ford and Plymouth. Which, to be fair, is exactly what they were doing.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
56 or 58 for me. I think the style of the 55 has to be analyzed relative to the 54 Chev that it replaced and that jump viewed in terms of the styling on the 54, 55, and 56 Fords.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The more upright, reverse-slant C-pillar might have also had a bit to do with it. It was also thicker than what you saw on a Ford or Plymouth, so that might have added a formal, upscale touch.
It's kind of a shame the '58 Chevy didn't stick around for another year or two. However, styles changed fast in those years, and it would have looked outdated pretty quickly. And I'm sure the stylists would have found a way to botch it up. I heard they were considering a central theme, along the lines of the Edsel or the Tucker's third headlight, if the '58 Chevy had stuck around another year.
In Fintail's action shot, is that an early 70's Buick Skylark GS? Those were kind of rare and underappreciated back then.
For me, the 58 Chevy bounces around a bit depending on model and style. The Impala's and Bel-Air convertibles and hardtops looked nice. I wasn't as enthused by the sedans. Not a fan of the Biscayne or Del Ray that year. The wagons looked good in profile, but the little, single taillight was kind of plain. If there had been a Nomad, the chrome might have spruced that up a bit. For that matter, the dual taillights on lesser models was also kind of cheapish looking. Maybe the lens just needed to be a bit larger. I much preferred the similar 58 Pontiac.
I like the '58 Impala, but I wish it did not have that chrome 'comb' on the rear quarter! Yuck! I could do without that piece over the rear window too. That said, proportionally, I like it better than the Bel Air that year...and of course, it has three taillights on each side.
I like that silvery blue they had in '58.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive