Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I remember test driving a new TR-7; you couldn't see the hood at all. You had to raise the retractable headlamps in order to guesstimate where the front bumper was...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive
But the Impala is a stretched to the extreme W body, kind of like a pair of pants let out at the seems as far as the tailor can, but still tight.
Also, back seats of Crown Vic taxis with 'bullet-proof shields' are very tight. Sure are not the old Checker cabs.
I see many trips with two adults in the rear for a few owners. I tried the seating where I adjust the front seats for myself and then sit in the rear seat behind each one. I have enough leg room. However, I fully understand that someone taller in front and someone taller in the back will have a paucity of kneeroom.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
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.
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?
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!
4 kids in the back, one in the front with mom and dad. :surprise:
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!
And sure those old big cars could fit 7-8 people, but safety is more important.
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.
Considering that many W-car's have been sold to fleets as company cars it's probably a fair amount. My wife often has 3 other people in her company car when traveling to meetings and/or lunch. I find the backseat of her GrandPrix to be borderline dangerous as my head gets wedged between the roof and the rear window, it's horrible. It's fine for kids, but anyone over 5'10 and/or has long legs will not want to sit back there long.
HAMMER@NJ.NET
How is the center spot on that Concorde? I'm curious, because I have a similar 2000 Intrepid, although I have bucket seats. I've seen a few of them with a split bench though, and that center spot looks like a total waste to me. The dashboard juts out at the center. Plus, while it's FWD, the engine/transaxle are longitudinally-mounted, and do intrude a bit into the passenger cabin. You don't really see it so much with the bucket seats, because the console hides most of it. Also, these cars do have a vestigal "driveshaft hump", as they were originally intended to have an AWD option that never materialized.
I think those split bench seats can be nice because they let you stretch out more, and the center armrest is usually more comfortable than what they give you with buckets and a console. But for 3 across seating, I'd imagine they'd be horrible.
I also have a 1985 Silverado, which just has the old fashioned regular bench seat. It has about 65 inches of shoulder room, more than any car ever had, with the exception of maybe GM's '71-76 big cars, and their '91-96 "bathtub" style cars. Honestly though, even with that truck, I don't like putting 3 across, at least not for a very long trip. As the driver, it just makes me feel hemmed in.
Guess it just depends on what you're used to.
nice the 3 or 4 times that I needed to make a brief trip with 5 other adults. It was not too uncomfortable. Once I made a round trip of about 70 miles with 2 other adults and three teenagers. It was not too bad. You would not want to do it too
frequently. The Concorde is an LXI with a dual power leather bench seat. The Intrepid is a base model, cloth interior driver side power only. I think that with 2
people in the front the confort is about the same. I do like the Concorde better
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive
The so-called "Trophy Four" in the 1961 Pontiac Tempest was a V-8 sawed in half.
The family grew to utterly despise this car. It finally met its end when, while parked on the street in front of our house, a driver who was lapsing into a diabetic coma plowed into it and totalled the thing. My parents' response was -- literally -- to applaud. It was a long time before they bought another GM car.
Other than that transmission though, those early 60's Pontiacs were supposed to be pretty good cars. How many miles did your parents' have on it when it was finally totaled? And what did they replace it with?
Which GM model did they buy when they tried GM again?
I had a 1969 Pontiac Catalina Safari wagon for all of about 8 months in 1986. Not surprisingly for a car that age then it needed a lot work. But when it ran it was pretty cool. Just an absolute monster of a car. Huge beyond belief. Held 9 people easily, and if some were small and kids you probably could have fit 11. It was probably a bit bigger than your 64...
Also have a horrible Pontiac wagon story. My dad picked up a really cheap 58 Safari wagon that was nothing but trouble. One day my brothers and I, who were maybe 11 - 14 at the time pile into the car where a woman that worked for him was going to drop us somewhere. Right in the parking lot the thing had a sudden acceleration issue with my dad standing there watching! She managed to right the thing with no damage to anyone or even the car but that was the end of that one.
Happy Birthday Chevy (11/3).
"1966 Chevelle SS 396: With 72,272 sold, this model solidified the Chevelle as a muscle car icon. All SS models packed 396 big-block V8s, with horsepower ratings of 325, 360 or 375".
The vegetation looks like it could be lower Michigan. Dunno.