Once upon a time, this car, a ’65 Olds 98, looked perfectly normal. But from today’s vantage point, not so much so. That rear overhang is practically obscene. Or at least absurd. I’ve said it many times before, but I’ll say it again: these long, low cars with their endless shelf butts were an historical anomaly. And a dead end. The CUVs (and even sedans) of more recent decades are just getting back to the default norm before these mutations appeared for a few decades.
Don’t get me wrong; they’re delightful. But in a ridiculous way.
This shot I took a few years back makes the point graphically. Just substitute a CUV for the MINI.n
I didn’t think twice about proportions when these were on the road, but today’s 2019 viewpoint gives me pause about the overhang, skinny tires, and wheels seemingly pushed in toward the midline too much.
I know this photo angle (below) exaggerates it, but I saw a ’62 Mercury like this in a local show last summer, and all that length behind the rear axle (more than in a Galaxie of same year?) was like a new discovery:
That does look ridiculously, almost cartoonishly long, even for a Sixties American car. If the car positively had to be that long, why not put more space into the interior where it would be of more benefit? I imagine these would have got the tail hung up when turning into driveways, to the accompaniment of a decidedly-unprestigious grinding noise.
This length I totally agree was a historical anomaly, I don’t agree that the sedan or three box shape is however. 3 box is the proportion of a horse and rider, timeless and ingrained in the human psyche.
I get the impression that the introduction of compact and intermediate lines, in addition to filling these once sparsely tapped segments, was as much of means for designers to to indulge in the long/low/wide themes in the standard lines to extremes without losing customers and drawing criticism like their indulgences in the late 50s did. One thing I will defend these for is the design themes that trickled from these to down to the intermediate and compact lines actually did lead to some very attractive designs.
3 box is the proportion of a horse and rider, timeless and ingrained in the human psyche.
I sure don’t see a horse and rider. Mighty short legs, that horse has; a quadruple amputee?. More like none at all. How about a snail and its shell?
Ingrained in the human psyche? Tell that to the typical urbanite that’s barely ever seen a horse and rider. Sorry Matt, but that’s a stretch way too far for me.
Heh, well people didn’t domesticate snails over a few millenia to travel great distances before the horseless carriage rated in horsepower, and occasionally named after horses came to be. I don’t think you need to directly witness the fact firsthand to figure out that there is a history with humans and the domestican of horses, or the see the imagery through numerous forms of art.
And let’s not forget those 38(ish) Chevys and their peers had 3-box bodystyles too. I’m not at all contesting mid 60s land barge full size designs aren’t anomalies, they clearly were, but 3 box design has been around since the beginning.
Paul, There is a French affinity to the snail as a gustatory bistro delight when served with garlic butter complemented with a delightful glass of wine and also on French roads as the Citroen 2CV–the tasty, eternally French treat known as the “Tin Snail”. Note that the “tin snail” has the trim classic configuration of a two box design and definitely without the bloated Kim Kardashian like dominant tail of 1950’s and 1960’s American cars.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a25826/smithology-sweet-confection/
How many people could ever afford a horse? The streets weren’t full of people on horseback.
I have been noticing this lately too. A couple of weeks ago I saw a 67 or 68 Coupe DeVille. The part of me that grew up around these wanted to revel in its long, low stance. But all I could see was really odd proportions. There really has been a massive shift in the proportions of even a sedan.
And then there’s this, from Australia. It’s like it was contagious.
The Holden Brougham was pretty much laughed off the market. It didn’t have the long wheelbase and rear seat sprawl room the Fairlane had. Even Chrysler gave the Valiant VIP a longer wheelbase after its dismal first season. But Holden stuck it out for three years with this. Of course, like the Edsel, it’s highly collectible now.
Todd motors in NZ assembled regular wheelbase VIP Valiants with the normal rear window in the late 60s, another oddity unknown in Australia. Those Broughams never sold well GMH trying to do luxury on the cheap.
Some day people will marvel at the ridiculous proportions of today’s CUVs and SUVs.
That people would accept a 30% penalty in gas mileage for the psychological boost of sitting tall will be considered the height of irresponsibility in a world challenged by climate change.
30%? That’s hardly accurate. A 2019 Camry gets 32 mpg combined, a 2019 RAV4 gets 30 (both with 2.5 four/automatic). That’s about an 8% difference.
Some folks like the practical aspects even more than the height, given that there’s hardly any wagons left to be had.
The RAV4 is generally considered a compact, while the Camry is a Midsize. Though the reality is that is a valid comparison, since that is the switch many people make. It doesn’t feel cramped vs the larger sedan thanks to the upright stance of the CUV and the sedan rooflines of today.
On my way home from work today, I saw a late 4-door Thunderbird, complete with Bunkie beak. I couldn’t help seeing the same things that don’t work on the downsized Lincoln Town Car: the absurd front overhang, and the rather long rear deck after the back wheels.
Sometimes it’s hard to get a sense of just how crazy these things really got without something to give some perspective
Yes, compared to the offerings just 5 years earlier, this 65 Olds is extremely restrained.
American cars of the 50s and 60s are nice pieces of artwork. Some even jawdroppingly brilliant. And those overhangs had a reason, namely to impress, especially the girls. With age it did look somehow odd and dispensable of course. However those overhangs represent an irretrievable peak in american society.
However those overhangs represent an irretrievable peak in american society.
Maybe to some folks. Not to others, I can assure you.
Maybe the long overhangs were the stylistic equivalents of the male historical
stylistic, fashionable “codpiece” of the 16th century.
Hahahaa. I’ll go one further–maybe the long overhangs were compensation for uh….deficiencies in other aspects.
Paul’s got it right. Maybe a peak for the older white male. Not so much for anyone else. And like Paul, I was around back then to see it firsthand.
We could sit at home and watch the news on TV while we ate dinner, and the news was full of film from Vietnam, film of antiwar protests, film of the endless battles against segregation, and so on. It was an interesting time. The oddities of ’60s car styling are just a small part of that history.
while I wont correlate a styling detail of an object to social injustices(there are good things in bad times and good times with bad things), but I wouldn’t say this extent of overhang reflects any good or bad in society in general. The Mustang was the hottest car in the US when this Olds was produced and its key styling trait was the short deck, and it remains an American icon.
Long overhang full size cars as style leaders were penned off of late 50s inertia as the 60s -70s begat smaller and smaller segments up to the inevitable downsizing of pretty much everything. To me these long mid 60s full sizers represent the ebb of the “standard” size car – Stylists kept on pushing the boundaries further and further but it was clear the writing was on the wall with ever more dominant intermediates and compacts with more manageable proportions ascending to the defacto category of choice.
“Once upon a time, this car, a ’65 Olds 98, looked perfectly normal.”
Yes it did. In the US and Canada.
Bingo.
The RAV4 is based on the Corolla not the Camry The anti-log of the Camry is the Highlander. Likewise look at the Civic/CRV and the Accord/Pilot.
Except you’ll find Accord/Camry/Fusion are priced closer to CR-V/RAV-4/Escape. And a lot of mid-size sedan buyers have gravitated towards compact crossovers. So I think it’s fair to compare the fuel economy of a RAV4 with a Camry.
Mr. Stopford:
.
The pricing you cite is the result of people being willing to pay premium prices to have a high, bulky vehicle. As a consequence, the base vehicle now goes for considerably less money than it’s elevated variant. The real value in vehicles now is the compact and mid-sized sedan. Most people shop based on current fashion and are totally ignorant of the premium they are paying as a consequence.
Compare the actual interior space of a Camry with a RAV-4.
Would a wagon Corolla or Camry be a “better” vehicle than a crossover? Sure, if you don’t need AWD (which many crossovers don’t have). But for most people, a RAV-4 is a more practical vehicle than a Camry.
My in-laws went last year from a Prius to a RAV-4 hybrid. They’re both in their 80s, and my father-in-law has two artificial knees. They can get in and out of the RAV-4 more easily than they could in the Prius, and they gained interior and cargo space. How does the RAV-4 compare with our ’09 Camry Hybrid? Well, it does seem about as roomy, partly because of the higher seating positions. The seats are firmer in the RAV-4, though (maybe a bit too firm), and I like the Camry’s seats better. Someday, but not yet, I can see us wanting a more RAV-4 like vehicle.
In most dimensions, the SUVs are closer to the class-above car. A Pilot and Highlander are larger than the donor platforms’ sedan body styles.
And if we’re being honest, the RAV4 hasn’t been Corolla-based since the second generation, which went away after 2005. Since 2006 it has had a dedicated platform using exclusively Camry engines.
Same with the CR-V since 2007, though it switched to Accord engines for the second generation, which was hardly related to the Civic in any meaningful way.
As of now, the Civic, Accord, and CR-V are ALL on the same platform. Honda’s Global Platform that started with the 2016 Civic.
Most likely, a cost cutting measure by Honda, but smart, much like how many cars Ford got out of its Fox Platform back in the day.
Don’t forget the endless variations on Chrysler’s K car and Ford’s endless variations on the Falcon!
Paul, seriously, why do you write articles that are so critical of the style of many American cars? Being critical of them completely misses the point of enjoying classics. We are enthusiastic about them BECAUSE of the extremes, the irreverence, the style, the abstract shapes, the fashion and the marketing used for them. It’s what makes them interesting.
Do you think we’d be so interested in cars if they were all utilitarian cubes? Of course not. Come on, no one writes about boring consumer products, there’s precious few sites celebrating washing machines or sump pumps.
Your being critical of such things, and so may of your articles are just that – critical – goes against the nature of your site. Did you really put all this work in this wonderful site just to bitch about overhangs – or Fords of the 70’s – or GM products of the 80’s – or whatever other bee is in your bonnet today? We’re here to enjoy the classics, not pick them apart.
Sincerely, you have many fine writers who write enthusiastic articles on fascinating cars – then your articles drift over like a cold dark cloud, displacing people’s sunny enthusiasm and dumps freezing rain and depression on everyone.
Please don’t put words in my mouth until after the first date. Speak for yourself, eh! That’s number one.
Number two, what’s the trouble with your reading comprehension? Which part of these long, low cars with their endless shelf butts were an historical anomaly, which is a statement of demonstrable fact, reads to you like someone issuing a “so critical” opinion? Which part of Don’t get me wrong; they’re delightful failed to register? Paul doesn’t need me to stick up for him; he does fine on his own—this is me speaking for myself: I think the problem’s on your end here.
Your post, Team Obsolete, reminds me of something I saw on Facebook today. I was on Malaise Motors and somebody posted photos of their Lincoln Versailles, saying they were banned from the Lincoln Versailles Facebook group because they posted a picture of the Versailles, Seville and Fifth Avenue and asked the group, “Which car hid its roots the best?”
The Versailles fan boys found this so offensive that there would be any criticism that they banned him.
I’m sorry, I’d rather read the generally balanced criticism of Paul than read some annoying, sappy lovefest or a delusional echo chamber like that Versailles page.
Obviously we all love classic cars on here but what makes this site different from others is that we present balanced takes on cars (in addition to personal reminisces) – that goes for Paul, that goes for my articles, and it goes for others.
And frankly, I don’t even see this post of Paul’s today as being negative. I think you’ve been a bit sensitive.
Thank you for your comment. You know, many people actually own and enjoy cars with big overhangs? Or 70’s Fords? Or Thunderbirds, or whatever other cars that Paul writes and complains about?
This article includes a picture of a ’57 Chevy and suggests it has a ridiculous or ‘almost obscene’ feature. Do you think fans of one of the most popular classics out there want to read this? Or see their car featured with this kind of association?
Negative articles like this insult cars, and indirectly insult the owners or fans who enjoy them. It’s not why people want to read about cars.
Am I overly sensitive? That’s ironic considering a couple of sensitive writers here have just leapt on my reasonable critique of editorial content here.
I actually care about this site, hence my comments. I suspect many other potential readers wouldn’t bother giving you this feedback. They simply would never return, and you’d never know it.
So, before dismissing my comments, how about giving them some thought?
It couldn’t hurt…. because I see very few new names or new people who care enough to comment. This site, with excellent writing and excellent articles just sits and stagnates.
I see a group of excellent writers simply write for each other, and, curiously enough also do the lions share of commenting. Is this really what a commercial website is supposed to be? No growth, no new people , no new views, no new outlooks, no new opportunities… An small insular group of men all sharing a narrowly defined view of automotive enthusiasm, chasing way anyone else?
There’s millions of potential readers and contributors out there. Look at other site, YouTube channels , Reddit classic car forums and so many others, all lively, all expanding and all flourishing with thousands of contributors, and enthusiasts. And look at CC…. excellent new articles every day and only a handful of enthusiasts, willing to comment or contribute. Sincerely doesn’t that strike you as being wrong? Misdirected? A wasted opportunity? A a little out of touch?
I don’t think is so simple that Paul’s negative articles have chased away hordes of enthusiasts. But I sincerely think a review of your editorial policy is overdue.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment. Let me try to answer the key points.
Thank you for your comment. You know, many people actually own and enjoy cars with big overhangs?
Count me in; I love them! I never said otherwise. I’d take this 98 in a heartbeat.
The number of comments has essentially zero correlation to the number of readers. A new article on the first day of publication commonly gets over 2,000 views; do you see 2,000 commenters? I get emails all the time from readers who never comment. It’s a small percentage that comment.
In the course of a month, CC has close to 200,000 different visitors. That’s not the big time, but it’s not shabby either. About half or so come from Google searches, as our articles tend to rank high.
As to the automotive media field, yes video is big. But I’m not about to go down that road. It takes a lot of time and energy, and our site has a lot of contributors but I doubt any of them are in a position to do video production.
Yes, there’s much more competition out there now. What are we supposed to do about that? People have more options, but the options are all somewhat different. The automotive media field becomes ever-more fragmented, but there’s no easy solution to that. Hooniverse used to be as big as CC but is dying. TTAC has had huge losses of readers in the past couple of years. And other sites too. In the face of that, I think we’re actually doing pretty well, in terms of holding our own.
Most importantly, it’s the quality of the readers and contributors that count. I don’t really want some of the ones at other sites. Seriously.
CC is a boutique automotive site. I’m very much not trying to make it “big”, meaning doing the things that attract eyeballs, like endless “Top 10” lists and other click bait.
By the the way, this is not really a “commercial” enterprise; it’s just what it is: a bunch of guys who have a somewhat similar approach to cars. meaning, instead of just fawning over them, we discuss them intelligently, including the good, bad and ugly.
I have zero ambition to be associated with a web site that just fawns over old cars. That is deadly boring to me. I’m not doing this for the money, fame or glory. I just started writing about cars in the way I genuinely felt about them. If it isn’t stimulating intellectually to me, I don’t want to do it or be a part of it.
Everything humans have done and made has good and bad qualities; that’s the human experience. I fully accept the fact that the majority of humans prefer to extol the virtues of their favorite things/tribes, be that sports teams, politicians, women, cars, etc.. It’s a tribal thing, to a large part. Black and white. We like the shades of gray.
I’ve always been a bit of an outsider. I’m not the typical old car guy, in case that wasn’t blatantly obvious. I’m only interested in pursuing a more nuanced and genuinely truthful understanding of cars and their history. So yes, that puts me at odds with the typical “old car enthusiast”. But that’s how I am.
I can only hope that my approach sheds a bit of new light on automotive history. What I enjoy most of all is busting the myths around many old car histories. I need to dig and get at what I perceive as the real truth, at least for me. But that’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
At my age, I’m mostly not very emotional about cars anymore. I see them for what they really are; a consumer product whose makers put a lot of effort in convincing us to buy them, in order to separate our money from us. Actually, it’s the business side that interests me the most, as a former business exec. And I can assure you the guys that run car companies are not emotional. Their job is to stimulate emotions, but that’s different. They’re cold-eyed and ruthless.
It fascinates me how businesses have perpetually tapped into the emotional brain of car buyers. And how then car owners form such powerful emotional bonds to their cars, or cars from their past. To tell the truth, I’m kinda mostly over that. I can let myself have a wave of emotion when I find a car I like and shoot it, but it dissipates pretty quickly. Ultimately, they’re all just a pile of steel, rubber and greasy bits, eh? Sorry. But they’re fascinating all the same.
One final note: I have been trying hard to cut back my time at CC, and I give free rein to all my contributors. I don’t tell anyone what to write or what opinions they should have or emphasize. And it’s possible I may step back further if there is the right way to structure that. I’m quite aware that I have a negative/critical side, and I know at times that has the wrong effect on some readers. So maybe you’ll be happier then.
Paul told me a long time ago that one shouldn’t use comments as a measure of the site’s success. We get so many thousands of views every month and only a minority choose to comment. That’s always been the case. That doesn’t mean anything’s wrong.
Are you suggesting that to chase what you believe to be greater success, we should completely change our format and mission? You seem to be suggesting negativity has chased away hordes of our readers which just simply isn’t the case. And you’ve said the website has excellent articles so I don’t really understand what you want to actually see changed, other than for… what, Paul to be a bit more positive? I’m not trying to be resistant to any feedback but I just want to better understand what you’re saying.
If Paul wanted to monetize the hell out of this site, he could turn it into endless slideshows and Top 10 lists and barn finds and what have you. But we’re not like other websites and, while we are a broad tent in terms of content, we’re about quality over quantity.
Yes you are being too sensitive. I own a 1960’s car with large overhang and his comment didn’t phase me at all. What he is saying is that those cars represented an extreme in design in terms of size and proportion. He didn’t say he hated them or that they should not have come to pass or that one should be ashamed to own one.
I am reminded that my car is in that rhelm every time I gas it up. People are fascinated because it is such a dinosaur.
Paul is simply pointing out that this extreme in design (huge cars with large overhangs) was an evolutionary diversion and that the move toward SUV format indicates that maybe even the whole low sedan format was a phase that we may never get back to.
As far as the whole diatribe on what this site could be–what is your point? That you wish that it was different? This site is certainly not about defending the classics, but about discussing them in their original and the current context. We are not fanboys of CC’s, there is a difference.
Every one of us read other automotive content and CC is unique and special. Just appreciate that (or don’t) and supplement with other sites as you see fit.
Paul, seriously, why do you write articles that are so critical of the style of many American cars?
This might be a critique (actually it’s not really), but it sure isn’t critical. Did I not say: Don’t get me wrong; they’re delightful.?
I love these big barges. And I’ve written many paeans to them. But their size and proportions were obviously outsized and exaggerated. That’s a simple and obvious fact. And my point here is this: what once looked common-place and even perhaps elegant in some eyes now looks a bit off in some respect. My whole point is that the conventions of style change over time.
I’m always surprised at how many folks can’t separate the difference between analyzing/critiquing a car versus flat out dissing one. Yeah; I’ve done that too in my day, but at CC we call them as we see them.
Did you really put all this work in this wonderful site just to bitch about overhangs – or Fords of the 70’s – or GM products of the 80’s – or whatever other bee is in your bonnet today?
Yup! That’s my thing, among others. Too late to change now.
And it just might just explain why CC is quite popular and has a strong reputation. We do not just fawn over old cars; we try to put them into proper context: historically, stylistically, economically, socially, demographically. If you only want to hear gushing flattery of old cars, this is not the place. Sorry.
your articles drift over like a cold dark cloud, displacing people’s sunny enthusiasm and dumps freezing rain and depression on everyone.
Gee whiz; I thought I was being pretty light-hearted about this car’s shelf butt. Maybe you need to lighten up a bit?
I’m appreciative of everything I learn at CC. For instance, I never would have connected my nostalgically beloved ’70 Torino Brougham with the Falcon without learning here about the specific points of the Falcon that got carried through all of its descendants. To look at the two cars’ external presentation, one would never guess that. I would never have guessed, either, that GM’s early 60s BOP compacts shared significant DNA with the Corvair; they don’t look a bit like a Corvair.
Picking things apart is something I do as a classically-trained professional musician. I get unnatural delight from recognizing familiar composers in pieces I haven’t heard before. I like detecting signposts in a musical journey; the better I understand the building blocks, the more quickly I can learn new music or improvise a musically literate bit in a church service.
With all that, that Olds’ long butt does look pretty odd now. And I can say the same thing about Pontiac Bonnevilles, too!
I like that this site is a “big tent” sort of place. There are articles that gush, and articles that criticize, and usually lots that do both. Looking at the positives and negatives of cars is what makes it interesting, especially since there are always different opinions on any given car or topic.
The tone is almost always respectful and restrained here, another great thing about the site, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t best to come with a thick skin. Most everyone’s favorite cars and companies will get criticized!
I love Paul’s critiques. He’s shredded 3 of my favorites (Mustang II, Torino, LTD II), yet his perspective is always welcome to me.
One thing I will say is as much as I love seeing this type of old iron on the road or in a show because of the tremendous sense of style and distinction, as a lover of driving I’m so glad this era is over. I learned to drive on these behemoths and they SUCKED to maneuver. Give me my Outback or CR-V any day of the week…they’re both more comfortable to drive, safer, and much more economical as well.
Agree completely. I just wish we could call them cars instead of “CUVs” or “crossovers”.
Or call them station wagons, which is essentially what they are. The only real difference between my wife’s RAV4 and the Celebrity station wagon that was her mother’s last car is that the RAV4 has all wheel drive so it sits a little farther off the ground. The other differences are just minor details (engine size, number of gears in the transmission, fuel economy, etc). At least in my eyes when I see a CUV/crossover I see a station wagon.
When they first came out in the ’90s, Car and Driver shared in a launch article that one manufacturer’s PR team asked, nay begged, them to please, PLEASE not call them “tall wagons”. They were afraid that would kill them on the market.
Makes me wonder, if “tall wagon” had stuck for a CUV, would they have fizzled out after one design cycle or would they be just as popular and we’d be dropping the “tall” part and calling the remaining sedan-height models “low wagons”.
Interestingly, a commercial for the 2019 Ford Edge ST that I watched this past weekend specifically referred to it as a CAR, not a crossover or SUV.
Geeber,
I used to watch Top Gear all the time and they referred to pretty much all SUV/CUV/crossovers as “cars”. I got so used to it that I sometimes have to edit my comments on here to be more American-specific.
This Ninety-Eight epitomizes why the 62 Plymouth and Dodge look so much better in hindsight — they have much more modern proportions. And, the groundbreaking Toronado (also an Olds of course) would reverse the trend with its long hood/short deck the very next model year.
Agreed. They were well ahead of their times.
1962 Dodge gave up the backwards fins. That was quite an improvement.
So true. As someone who was a 17-year-old car nut in 1965, with a preference for GM vehicles, I thought the 1965 Olds 98 rear overhang was a bit over the top, but an attention grabber, just the same. My Dad bought a new Olds 88 in 1967, which had the new Toronado-inspired proportions: the hood was a bit longer, and the trunk a bit shorter. The effect was less noticeable on the 98 series, but the overall proportions were much more pleasing. Although, I must admit, that long tail (now fashionable on McLarens, for other reasons!) made the ’65 and ’66 98s more memorable, and perhaps projected a sense of luxury and prestige at the time. As an aside, check out the hood length on a 1979 Firebird if you want to see a waste of sheet metal, or the deck lid on a ’60 Galaxie or a ’64 Impala for more of the overhang hangover. As Paul has noted, it was the mark of an era long gone (no pun intended!). Not necessarily better or worse, just different. Vive la difference, indeed!
The idea was to differentiate between what were different model lines of what were essentially the same cars. The 98 had to be longer than the 88. Buick Electra vs. Wild Cat etc. Just like the upper end models had longer hoods than their more humble brothers. Most of the time the cabin was the same length. Cadillac added three inches to the wheelbase of the 1940-50’s Sixty Specials, but mostly just longer decks. It was an inexpensive ploy to increase profits. Bigger cars could sell for more. Modern sedans have truncated rear ends that barely protrude past the roof pillars. This results in a higher deck for improved aerodynamics and increased storage space. You can’t call these cars sleek, but they are more practical. Sometime though, the inefficient proportions yielded some pretty attractive results.
Agree with Paul – I love them but I understand their shortfalls – and I own a 78 Lincoln Town Car with a seriously extended a$$…
The most egregious in my view are the early 70’s fuselage Chryslers…aft of the C pillar looks like the back half of the USS John C. Stennis…Jim.
Cars that drag their butts on driveways are at the top of my personal list of “First World problems” that people just don’t have anymore.
In thus case, can’t agree more.
On SUVs / CUVs being kind of the return-to-the norm, as well.
I tended to like such proportions for quite some time, but, well, no more. Probably that’s something about getting older…
This car would have made at least some sense if it looked something like this, with three rows of seats (collapsible row in the middle) instead of this prodigious deck…
That rework looks strangely like one of the Vauxhall PD proposals.
http://files.uk2sitebuilder.com/uk2group53061/image/3.vauxhallpdclaymock-uponthelutonviewingterrace18.05.65d-63519gmarchive.jpg
(The large overhang at the front was because it was intended to have longitudinal FWD like the Toronado).
I have applied my prodigious photoshop skills and shortened the tail of this Olds:
It doesn’t look any better. Maybe that’s too short…
I shortened the nose too. Now that’s an improvement!
Now, about that fence in the background.
Personally I think it looks better shortening in front of the leading wheels, but I’m sure not everyone would agree.
It’s kind of like the Christmas dinner table with multiple leaves 🙂
You’ve inadvertently created an Ambassador 😀
Ramblers do tend to have more ‘sensible’ proportions 😉
I guess it depends on your point of view. Humongous cars like the featured Olds were completely normal to me when I was child in the 1960s. Cadillac even went so far as to advertise extra length as a virtue with the 1958 “Extended Deck” sedans.
This is not the first CC about early-to-mid 1960’s GM sedans with, ahem, “long tails.” JPC wrote up a nice piece here. I don’t think the question was ever resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
I had noted this much more in Mopars, but this view is really weird also.
I know I can be a little repetitive, but living in a country were a ’68 Chevy Nova could be seen as a first car in a seaside property, and where a ’69 Caprice with options was a car for a diplomat or a very well-to-do businessman (people who owned Chevy Novas in the US would settle with public transport here) almost any big car, with whatever styling, was good looking and interesting for 10 year old me about ’75.
I remember floor shift cars were seen as lowly by my Dad (speaking of VWs, FIATs, and other small Europeans), a fan of American vehicles who had no access to larger Americans with floor shifts 🙂
Around ’75 I remember a new Comet sedan in my block. It was dark brown with vinyl top. I had never heard of Malaise and wouldn’t know of it for many years, so what probably had a small 6 (it was automatic, that I remember) and a nice looking interior, and those park bench at both ends (which I liked as they made the car look so massive) was a very nice car for me and my brother when we first saw it parking and approached the driver to ask about it. He was a Uruguayan diplomat coming back from Washington, DC after his term was over. The car still had its DC plates on it.
I always end up off topic here, but this is so much about memories and places and stores where there were cars, more than about the cars themselves.
I (and many others, I’m sure) enjoy your memories and perspective from a different place very much – keep them coming, that is what this site is all about.
I remember that dark brown on Mavericks and Comets – it was quite a popular color at the time and looked very fine with a contrasting top. Colors sure were different then. This is my 72 Maverick LDO in Medium Yellow Gold (before the big bumper standards were implemented).
Your LDO looks great! I like those colors and trim so much.
Something interesting about the LDO option is that, besides the Maverick, it migrated South to Brazil to become the top trim for the Ford Corcel, a parallel car to the Renault 12 produced there (there are several articles in CC telling that story).
When a new model appeared in ’78 (which was such a deep reskinning it was very difficult to realize that mechanically the car was still a Renault 12, just looking like a European Ford Taunus or Granada) the LDO option would let you choose more colors, much better upholstery and carpeting, get a remote control external mirror, internal and external lighting upgrades, and other items. My brothers purchased 2 Ford Corcel II (the II stood for 2nd series), one in light blue and the other in light cream, but they were just L trim. LDO would set you back too much money. At least they got a 1.6, 5 speed. The Corcel II (no trim level, just base) had a 1.4 4 speed, rubber carpeting, no trim at all, and the upholstery was in that plastic where you’d stick in summer.
Negative criticism, in an original post or in comments, is just fine by me. There is much to criticize in automotive history.
I don’t mind the long decks; I had a ’76 Electra 225. But I sure could heap negative commentary on proportions/looks of lots of other cars. Say: Aztek; Pacer; Gremlin; ’58 Buick/Oldsmobile.
I once read in Collectible Automobile that Detroit stylists realized American big cars had reached their maximum practical length by the ’69-’71 models. If cars were any larger, they could no longer fit in most garages or parking spaces. The situation was worsened when impact bumpers became the rule in ’73-’74. In 1977 my parents lived in a condo with a private enclosed garage. Dad bought a new Mercury Grand Marquis and discovered that in order to allow the electric garage door to close, he had to park the car absolutely straight with both front bumper guards touching the rear wall – otherwise the door would catch on the rear bumper. Friends who lived in the same building found out to their dismay that their new ’74 Cadillac Fleetwood Talisman simply wouldn’t fit in the garage no matter what – the pricey car had to be parked outside. They traded it on a downsized ’77 Fleetwood.
In prep for a snowstorm, my dad was able to squeeze our 2 cars, end-to-end, in the single car garage of our basic tract-housing home.
The 2 cars were the Laurel & Hardy pair of vehicles:
1963 Olds 98 & 1961 Austin 850 (Mini).
Well, maybe the garage was a bit longer than normal. After all, the house was built in 1957.
It should be noted that in order to have a car that is long in total length, the wheels need to be somewhat closer together than the would be if they were at the extremes of each end of the car – so as to have a somewhat normal turning circle.
Similar to a long school bus (if you ever watched one turn a tight corner and notice how the rear overhang rotates around the corner). Cornering on the Olds 98 would be impractical if the wheels were are the ends of the car. Not an issue with shorter cars which have small trunks and absolute no extra leg room in the passenger compartment. And part of the hood area is now in the instrument panel area due to the extreme slope of windshields – causing the hoods to look even shorter than they are (if that makes sense). All food for thought.
Having been a child in the fifties and entered my teen years I nthe mid 60s. I grew up around Long, low, and wide. The last car I remember having proportions like todays vehicles was my parents 56 Ford Victoria 2 dr hardtop, it was joined In 58 by a Mercury Monterrey 2 door, then replaced by a 59 Pontiac Bonneville 2 dr hardtop. the first of the many Pontiacs to grace my parents overly wide and deep garage. The Grand Prixs my mother drove , when parked next to the accompanying Bonnevilles of my father, showed well the greater deck length and overhangs of the latter car. The GP was a better balanced design. and did not require one to essentially climb into the trunk to retirece the spare tire or any object forward in the trunk. Long hood, Short Deck, works well to the Human eye. as the wedge became a design theme the decks grew higher and proportionately shorter until we have todays nearly fastback look. Most of todays CUVs are very proportionate to early 50s design. In all measurements. And I also feel most are just the station wagon with AWD and a higher stance. This is seen most readily in the Subaru Outback, which was originally a Legacy wagon. and the Current Buick TourX, which I find a handsome CAR, though it is essentially a raised AWD wagon. Honest assessments of past design themes is always appreciated. I prefer the light aiory greenhouses, a Euro dwsign theme of the 70s and 80s, and used extensively over the Bunker like designs currently being produced. It is a personal take. and like all things personal not better or worse than the next persons take. Love the variety of subjects and diversity of opinion on this site. It is what being a gearhead has always been about.
Not to push the point Paul made in this article, the rear overhand immediately reminded me of this.
The proportions do look a bit strange from a modern perspective, undoubtedly. Excessive? Yes, until you need all that trunk space. Then it would be a godsend. You could make an argument that these large cars, in the pre-SUV era, were meant to be true 6 passenger cars with luggage space for 6 as well. It’s more capacity than most owners would use most of the time, but couldn’t you say that about SUVs these days too? A 65 Ninety-Eight weighs in at about 4,200 lbs, also about what a typical modern SUV weighs.
The tall, short overhang proportions certainly are becoming the norm. I’ve noticed when attending events predominated by families that SUV’s and minivans are ubiquitous to the point that a traditional low car is maybe 1 in 10.
I find it interesting, from a practical perspective, to consider how the trunk would hold the luggage for a family of 4 for a week’s road trip. If I look at my ’66 New Yorker, an example of this extreme overhang, the trunk is actually quite shallow, you can’t stand suitcases of any substance on their sides. Compare with my wife’s Camry, where the trunk is much shorter but deeper, it can hold pretty much the same luggage but in a different orientation.
Of course the Camry’s deeper trunk is correlated to a much higher belt-line; ask me which one I’d rather parallel park…
It’s worth noting that not everybody thought huge low cars with long rear decks made any sense even back in the day. I’ve read contemporaneous accounts from the 1960s (including an article from Mad magazine I wish I could find) carping about the “ridiculously low-silhouette cars of today” that you can’t get in without crashing your head, and can’t parallel park in most spaces, or get out from your car in a parking lot or garage because its so wide. It’s not just looking back that we notice how crazy it was.
I hope not too long from now we’ll all wonder why we all need huge ground clearances and rubber-band tire aspects.
The one thing that strikes me that no one has mentioned thus far is the need to have the wheels no further apart than they are. If they were any more distant, then the low underside of these cars would have gotten hung up on railroad crossings, ungraded crests on dirt roads, rural creek bridges and so on.
I just love the way that 65 Olds looks. My mom’s 69 Delta 88 would drag its back bumper unless the car was angled when it was backed out of our driveway, and that was nowhere as extreme as the mid-60s models. I recall my dad taking great care to avoid dragging the back of the car when it was loaded for trips to Sanibel Island for family vacations. My dad also cut a little opening in the sheetrock in the garage so the pointy nose of that car would fit and he could close the garage door with room to walk behind the car and get to the trash cans. Ah, the good old days!
Agree with the basic thesis Paul uses here. The bloated overhang style was silly and offered little in terms of usefulness. Hence, in the historical sense it was a dead end.
They were, of course, the natural outcome of an industry vested in bloat: bigger vehicles command higher margins; the Sloane hierarchy encourages trading up.
For at least 70 years, however, there have been recurrent domestic efforts to produce smaller cars and trucks. The wartime proposals that never got built (or were only built in Europe), the compacts of the early 50s, the Econolines and their ilk, the downsized ’62 Plymouths/Dodges, the Pintos and Vegas, the Chrysler minivans, on and on.
Careful review of what actually got bought during these recurrent intervals to adequacy, however, reveals the other side of the bloat coin. Every time a somewhat larger version–within brands or between brands–was offered, the larger one sold in significantly higher numbers. Right there at the point of sale buyers chose what seemed to be “a lot more for your money”. This put bloat once again back on the ascendency.
Today, domestically, these contradictions seem to be sorted out. Sedans are gone. The three box format offers fewer advantages over box shaped vehicles and thus could be compared to the stylistic dead end of the big ass barges of yore. Instead, we have two basic choices. On the one hand are the six-pack pickup trucks. These satisfy the ‘larger-is-better’ syndrome that feeds both industry balance sheets and customer subliminal preferences. They represent a return to the power and mass of fifties barges including the hubris that shouts that Americans have a lot of money to throw around. In place of that bulbous trunk of yore, the extended ass can now occasionally be put to practical use. The other choice is a box-shaped vehicle (CUV, SUV, Minivan) that duplicates the virtues of a sedan (including equal gas mileage) but also accommodates a much wider range of uses.
For those customers where style or sportiness is paramount, or for those who genuinely prefer small scale efficiency, there are the imports.
“I like big butts and I cannot lie….” HEHEHEHEHEHE
Whenever I see a 60s car I’m astonished at how far forward the rear axle is and how long the rear overhang is. Almost like an Altered dragster.
Even more modern cars based on hatchback platforms like the older VW Jetta aren’t as extreme although that rear axle is further forward than I remember.
For reference I looked at a new Mazda6 and the rear wheel opening just barely touches the back door so that the wheelbase is much longer in relation to the overall length.
Mazda6 for comparison
dad bought a 56 Plymouth savoy 4 door when I was in first grade About 3 feet of those
fins stuck out from the garage How big were cars in 1942 when the house was built ?
For some reason, I’m under the impression the Olds 98 was an 88 with the extra length in the trunk. Same for the Buick Electra/LeSabre and Pontiac Bonneville/Catalina. Anyone confirm this or not? That might explain the odd proportions.
Generally, 98’s had a couple of more wheelbase inches …… which did translate into more trunk & back seat.
This pattern dated back to mid-’50’s.
The 98/Electra was a C body (shared with Cadillac) while the 88/LeSabre was a B body (shared with Pontiac & Chevy). The difference between the B and C body in those years was aft of the cowl. I don’t know if the front doors interchanged on the sedans, but it is certain that everything behind the B pillar was different.
As for the Bonneville/Catalina, you are right.
There were plenty of folks back in 1965 who also thought such gargantuan devices were not their preference. This caused them to buy cars such a Volvo instead of an Oldsmobile with an aircraft landing strip out back. Some would even have sprung for a Mercedes-Benz.
I get a kick at some of the posters here getting all mad about Paul yet again slagging GM. I have absolutely no loyalty to any particular brand of anything without darned good reason. What happened to GM is a pretty good indicator of how not to run a company.
I can’t help but wonder what would have happened at GM had the engineering department continued to do amazing things like the Corvair and the Tempest, to name only two. Instead we got the Chevy II and ever expanding bloatmobiles. The fuel efficiency of these barges was simply awful, and the embargo of 1973 doomed them.
Of course America is the land of BIG and the “trucks” are mega-bloat.
Well said, completely agree with you and Paul. GM was king in North America in the 60s; they had it all. Yes, just a little more effort on the Corvair and Tempest, and think of what could have been.
It won’t be long now before someone else (Toyota?) passes GM in market share in this country.
Just came across this on one of my Facebook groups: “Honey, are you sure this dress doesn’t make my butt look too big?”
A British view of the increased width and length of 1959 American cars. From Autocar, October 1958.
I just deleted a very long comment. I ran into what I guess is called circular logic. I couldn’t find my way out of it. I went around and around, contradicting myself and correcting it over and over. I can only come to to the conclusion that I am often full of crap. But if you’re familiar with my typical comments you already knew that.
Regarding the “Is Paul a wet blanket for classic car lovers?” debate: I (almost) always think that Paul has a balanced approach to his writing. I wouldn’t be so attached to this site if not for him. I like that he comes at things from different angles sometimes. He doesnt seem pretentious, just balanced. He can always defend his opinions well.
Plus, he makes the business/numbers stuff interesting; something I am usually not very well informed of. Besides, I came here originally because of the GM Deadly Sins series, so I appreciate some quality dissing of things when it’s done intelligently.
Blame Misterl and his successor Bill Mitchell, but first, a synopsis of how it came about. Mitchell’s first design triumph, the 1938 Cadillac 60 Special, was the first volume production 3-Box sedan with a fully-integrated coupe-style trunk . This low sedan required a longer trunk to provide the expected luggage capacity. It appearance was also the death null for the 2 ½ Box touring sedan exampled by the ’36 Chevy shown, at least for a few decades.
The next salvo came immediately with the 1940 GM Torpedo C-Body sedans and coupes. To say they were immensely influential would be an understatement. While the touring sedan fastback style still held popularity in the lower-price makes for a while, the 3-Box sedan was the absolute preference with upper-medium and luxury customers.
The first extended deck sedan was the 1948 Cadillac 60 Special where 7” were added to the wheelbase and OAL length jumped 12”, as an extension of the Series 62 C-Body. This was accomplished with less wheelhouse intrusion in the rear door opening, broader roof sail panel which allowed the rear seat to be moved rearward affording greater legroom over the Series 62. The longer quarters and deck-lid completed the elegant package. This produced the premiere ultra-luxury sedan of those heady postwar years, when you arrived in a Fleetwood 60 Special, people knew you had truly made it.
The only downside for the above build is it required additional tooling expense for rear doors, roof, floor as well as quarters, etc. The new 1950 C-Body+ for the 60 Special is solely done with longer rear quarters, decklid etc, no additional legroom. The popularity continued undeterred so it was time to extend it across the full GM stable except for Chevrolet. Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight was next: whereas prior such models shared the C-Body with Super/Roadmaster and Cadillac, the 1952 was an extended deck OB Body. It was the same game plan: add 4” wheelbase over the 88, but 9” OAL beyond it, including the hardtop coupe and convertible same as Coupe de Ville and Series 62 convertible.
Finally, bring Pontiac into the program, given its need for something new in its last year with straight eight power. Sharing the A-Body with Chevy was no impediment, add 2” wheelbase over Chieftain plus 11” to OAL, name them “Star Chief” and sell a boat load of big-boat Pontiacs as never before!
And let us not forget Buick 1959, Electra and Electra 225!
These development took place in the larger context of an increasingly affluent middle-class America, who had come to view their cars as their preferred method of daily transportation including for longer distant vacations. Prior to the war, the passenger train was the choice. The immediate postwar passenger train marketing extolled the joys of such travel but were falling on deaf ears between the personal car and airlines.
Recognizing this particular use beyond simply a stylistic affectation, advertisements emphasized “Vacation-sized Trunks” as a practical reason to buy. Never mind that the additional length taxed garaging facilities as well as the ability of most to parallel park skillfully all that additional sheet metal. For the time the extended deck reigned, the additional length also implied prestige to whatever make it was attached, following Cadillac’s lead as it were.
Now, in our crowded urban society that long distance vacations by air travel, where parking is a premium in general, takes its paraphernalia in compact units or rents it as needed, the extended deck has become an anachronism. The CUV/Crossover is the old 2 ½ Box touring sedan come back to life.
But, for those of us who lived through that extended deck period including me, it was delightful in its own innocent, goofy way, as was so much then.