Chevy B-Bodies are getting rather scarce in these parts, and when I saw one parked next to a big new Yukon XL, I just had to shoot the two of them, as they do rather represent the changing shape of the big American car.
Yes, the Yukon is a bit bigger; most of all taller (20″) and heavier, weighing over a ton more than the Caprice. Despite all that the EPA mileage ratings are the same, at 17 mpg combined. A good example of how improving technology is keeping up with the weight gain and more aerodynamic frontal area of many bigger cars.
Here’s a few vital stats for each of these:
Caprice: 212.8″ long, 74.5″ wide, 56.4″ tall, 3699 lbs. 5.0 L V8 with 170 hp (17 mpg). 4.3 L V6: 20 mpg. 5.7 L V8: 14 mpg.
Yukon: 225″ long, 81″ wide, 76.5: tall, 5847 lbs. 5.3 L V8, 355 hp. Optional: 3.0 L turbo diesel (22 mpg) and 6.2 L V8 (16 mpg).
(all adjusted combined EPA ratings)
The Chevy seems to have lived a fairly pampered life, as its interior and exterior are still in very good condition. Grandpa kept it in the garage, where it stayed until one of the grand kids inherited it? Or?
Not sure exactly what that carton is, but it just fits in the back seat. The Yukon does have it all over the Chevy when it comes to interior space.
One of these stands head and shoulders over the other one.
Before you bemoan the fact that folks are buying these big trucks now instead of sedans, let’s not forget the the Suburban was already a very hot seller in the eighties. Folks want(ed) bigger houses and bigger cars, then and now. It’s the American way.
I wonder what the Caprice’s mpg would be with a 2.0 turbo and an eight-speed transmission.
Cool contrast. In the real world, a 305 Caprice was good for about 15 MPG (US gallons) in the city. The 350 was dropped in 1979 and it would do about 13 MPG.
These numbers are my measurements of the taxi cabs I drove in Victoria, BC. The traffic wasn’t so bad in those days but your mileage may vary.
Wow seeing those stats makes one realize how big and bloated the vehicles many choose to drive have become. That frontal design of the Yukon is just ludicrous, as so many trucks have become nowadays.
I agree. The front of pickups today are ridiculous.
As I recall, the methodology used to calculate EPA estimates has been downgraded over the years to give more realistic estimates (which historically were unrealistically high).
I don’t remember when these adjustments were made and I’m too lazy to look it up, but I’d bet if it were rated using today’s methodology, the Caprice would come in at less than 17 mpg.
The 17 mpg for the Caprice IS the adjusted EPA mileage, directly from their web site, where all the their number were adjusted some years ago. I didn’t get that number from a vintage ad or such. I never use unadjusted numbers in my posts,especially in a comparison like this, as that would be quite misleading.
It would have taken you less than 30 seconds to find the (adjusted) number at the EPA’s website before you made this comment implying that I made an unfair comparison.
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year1=1988&year2=1988&make=Chevrolet&baseModel=Caprice&srchtyp=ymm&pageno=1&rowLimit=50
My bad, I see that now. Interestingly, the EPA adjusted numbers (15 city, 22 highway) aren’t all that different from the numbers originally advertised.
Here is an ad for an almost identical 1979 model with the 5.0 V8 that lists pretty much the same numbers (16 city, 21 highway).
The EPA numbers were revised for 1985, by 10 percent for the city test and 22 percent for the highway test.
What that suggests is that the 1988 got better real world mileage as well as lower emissions and better performance, thanks to fuel injection and such.
The testing protocol for new cars was changed again in 2008, but only for new cars going forward.
The EPA does not have cars earlier than 1984 in their data base.
The biggest factor in better B body fuel economy was the addition of the overdrive transmission in 1982. A later Caprice with TBI and overdrive could easily do 25 MPG on the highway.
That said, the early 700R4 transmissions failed so often it made any fuel savings a moot point. We always replaced them with THM350s since highway driving basically doesn’t happen on Vancouver Island.
I agree with Len that the OD transmission made a big difference in fuel economy on these cars, especially on the highway. I still have the old fuel economy records for our ’84 Parisienne with a 305 and TH700-R4, and it often clocked 28 to 29 MPG imperial (about 24-25 mpg US) on highway trips. The other advantage to the OD cars were that they typically used a numerically higher rear axle ratio compared to the 3-speed cars, which often had very steep rear axle ratios, like 2.41 or 2.56. This meant they were a little zippier around town too.
While in taxi service the early OD transmissions may not have held up well, I owned half a dozen B-bodies with OD transmission and never had one failure. That includes the aforementioned ’84 Parisienne which logged nearly 200,000 miles on its original transmission. The only B-body owned in our family that had a transmission failure was a ’79 Oldsmobile Delta 88, which had the ill fated TH200 3-speed. Although it failed prior to our ownership at low mileage and had been rebuilt to a better than stock state. So it never gave any further issue during our ownership.
Yukon is almost 3 tons? and with fuel and people, way over… that’s crazy!
Just wait until they add almost a half ton of batteries.
But then it will be environmentally friendly and we can feel good about driving ourselves to work, alone in them! Not to mention all the social flex power we will have then! Truly they will make us better people! Better than our neighbors at least and that’s what’s important! Right?
Yes, yes it is.
A few weeks into our road trip in northern Canada and Alaska I’m surprised at the size diversity of non-commercial vehicles on the road here. Everything from 40’ RV’s towing sizable “toads” – Jeep Gladiator and Honda Ridgeline, plus countless CRV’s and Wranglers – to several Smart Cars, Fits, Nissan Leafs and of course the ubiquitous Geo Metro. And, quite a few mid-size vehicles like RAV4 or Chevy Equinox towing small camp trailers, boats and even utility trailers with construction materials. But of course, lots of big SUV’s and even bigger 3/4-1 ton pickups. Only one B Body, a nice jellybean wagon somewhere in the Yukon.
I never liked mammoth SUVs and those huge, tall tanks don’t like children or cyclists who are not seen in the huge blind spots and are also eight times more likely to be killed when hit by a big SUV or Pickup – they may fill a need in Wyoming, but not on suburban streets.
Yes, new cars get better mileage in spite of greater weight. Granted, there were no EPA mileage estimates in the 1960’s, but my first car, ’67 1500cc VW, had an advertised 27 mpg highway and I recall getting close to that.
My 2010 1500cc Honda Fit manual, which weighs about 50% more has an EPA highway estimate of 33 mpg and my real world results are in the 40 mpg range.
This post illustrates something I’ve been noticing over the past few years — when I was growing up in the 1980s and 90s I thought of the Caprice and Crown Vic as really big cars. Now when I see one in traffic among modern SUVs they look downright small. I’m sure it’s mostly the difference in height that makes them appear so small.
35 years later I bet every switch, knob and button works in the Caprice. I have a hunch more than a few menus in its LCD display, if that even works, will be completely outmoded in the Yukon in 2060, or disabled from a long ago over-the-air update.
I know these sorts of posts are supposed to make me impressed with technological progress, but I’m not. Space efficiency is about as useful in the real world as 0-60 times, as the large box in the Caprice’s back seat is probably about as large as any object that will be hauled in that Yukon. SUV/crossover proponents act like sedans can’t stow anything larger a purse, and that the passenger area is only ever to be used for passengers, well this is how sedans work – throw stuff in the back seat if necessary, it’s actually more convenient. Unless this Yukon hauled a family of 5 and 2 dogs to pick up a pair of 55 gallon drums to put into its cargo area, it is exactly as inefficient in usage as the Caprice.
It really depends on how you use it. A friend with 5 kids had a suburban for a while and it really did shine in being one of the only vehicles where 7 people and their stuff could move around easily (much more load room with all 3 rows then a minivan). So they did indeed use the capability pretty much daily. For me I have owned a couple sedans and while 85% of the time they are fine that 15% where what you want to move is too big for the sedan is kind of annoying. My 300M could haul a fair amount of stuff but I did miss my Wagons on Home Depot runs or even buying a TV. I drive a minivan now and since my wife also has a 3 row car it is not fully utilized a ton but man it really is great when you need it. I do miss driving a more fun car but really the van gets almost the same gas mileage while being far more practical.
Place I work with has Yukons and Suburbans in livery service primarily in and out of Logan airport. They swallow gobs of cargo, and return 20 MPG true real world mixed city/highway/traffic jams/extended idling. The switch gear still works, including a couple of Suburbans with well over 300k. The Yukon is a 2023, with the fully independent rear suspension (following the footsteps of Ford, who had it in 2002 lol) and the ride and handling is outstanding. They may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but their capabilities in this type of service, or for large families (I know several) are unmatched.
I owned a B-body sedan, B-body wagon and a GMT-400 Suburban all round the same time. Like Matt suggests, these big sedans can haul a lot more than you would think, in particular if you use the back seat. But they are still far more limited in cargo carrying abilities than the big wagons. I really liked the B-body wagons, with their folding seats, allowed for quick and easy transition from people hauler to cargo hauler. I moved my youngest brother several times with my wagon hauling a trailer, and it worked reasonably well for that purpose.
That said, when I got my GMT 400 Suburban, it did almost everything my B-body wagon could do but better. Compared to my Olds Custom Cruiser wagon I had at the same time, they were both about the same overall length and width, but the Suburban had more passenger room, seemingly double the cargo space, and was more stable tow rig. The MPGs were about 10-20% lower and the handling was not as good, but it was more comfortable with the higher seating position captain chairs.
I did not have any kids when I owned my Suburban, but I bought it for the cargo carrying more than people carrying ability. I used it like a truck and the rear seats were folded more often than not to utilize the 8+ feet of cargo floor. I was actually shopping for an old pickup when I found a 2WD “old man special” Suburban that no one wanted because it was anything but stylish. I got it for a song, and a lot cheaper than a comparable pickup. Doing home renovations at the time, it was a godsend as it could carry 4×8 sheets enclosed. I was also able to carry 16′ materials tied to the roof racks. I also used it to carry dirty materials like fire wood, but would line the cargo area with a tarp first, which kept it from getting dirty.
I loved my B-Body cars and still have a huge soft spot for them today. However, my old Suburban was truly one of the best vehicles I have ever owned. As good as it was, I don’t think one of these modern iterations like this Yukon XL would be something that I’d desire today. With there sky high price tags, less cargo room and more focus on luxury over practicality, they have moved further away from what I would seek in a large SUV/truck.
Wasn’t a big SUV fan until I ended up hauling around six full sized adults twice a week with all our stuff around town and on trips up to the Northern Country. We need to stop berating these vehicles because families need them. My Crown Vic Sport is still running strong, but it really can’t do what our Explorer does more comfortably. AND the Explorer gets better gas mileage to boot.
Our neighborhood is filled with growing families and us dads agree that nothing can replace our big vehicles for family needs.
I live in an affluent area. Jeeps and large SUVs are almost the rule here. Seldom see more than one passenger in the SUVs and I doubt that the Jeeps are anything other than image builders.
I too apparently live in an affluent area, as must be the case given the preponderance of vehicles I see every day that have list prices well over $60K and often north of $100K. And I agree that Jeeps and large SUVs dominate (also Range Rovers, Teslas, and higher end BMWs).
Virtually none of these vehicles have more than one occupant…but admittedly, my car doesn’t usually carry more than me.
Where I’ll diverge from your opinion is about the image building. I absolutely used to think that; I was all about how I thought that folks were buying off-road vehicles (although, are we sure that those Jeeps are actually even 4wd?) to pretend that they live rugged and active lifestyles that require such vehicles.
But now, I think that most people just buy what they see other people buy. So I’d substitute “image building” with “lack of imagination and weak critical thinking skills”.
People buy what the market brings them, and the market brings what people buy. It’s kind of a circle. But I guess it’s our circle.
Maybe this is why all cars are black/white/gray
I absolutely think so. Most people/consumers are afraid of being different. The excuse about color often is articulated as being about “resale”. As in “a car in anything other than neutral colors would be worth less at trade in”.
I think that’s nonsense. And yet, the same thing has happened with my house (exterior and interior). I have actually chosen to have colors applied so that it’s not the white/beige that all houses seem to be inside and out…and while the painters all applauded my “boldness” for choosing something other than white or beige, you can’t imagine the number of other people who noted that I was nuts because I had just knocked thousands off of my “resale value”. Even though I have lived here for 25 years and have no plans to resell anything anytime soon. Folks are just so afraid to step outside of the box.
I don’t get it.
That’s the double edged sword of capitalism, you own your property but you’re discouraged to actually make it your own.
Treating everything you own as an investment that you’re in effect a care taker for doesn’t sound much like freedom and liberty to me, but that seems to be the prevailing wisdom in today’s world, sadly.
I’ll stop berating these vehicles when people stop berating sedans for their supposedly inefficient packaging. There have always been vehicles, including the surburban, around to meet the needs of large families, I don’t begrudge that. What I have a problem with is acting as though a family of three, let alone just a couple with maybe a small dog, or just a single person has any justifiable reason for a gargantuan SUV, which, yeah, buy these en masse.
I don’t even slightly care if someone drives an inefficient vehicle, buy what you like, but the potential practicality doesn’t make a vehicle practical. Don’t be fooled by statistics and lured by trendiness, you didn’t make the inherent right choice daily driving a Yukon over a box caprice because you might possibly have to move a dresser once three years from now. In which case btw you can easily have it delivered or rent a pickup from the Home Depot for the cost of a tank of gas to get the job done in this day and age.
The excuse that always cracks me up, and I seem to hear this one a lot in my neck of the woods, is that the gargantuan SUV or locomotive-sized pickup is required for “towing a boat”.
Ok, Skipper…but where’s the boat?
“Oh, well, we keep it at the lake. But SOMEDAY it might need to be towed.”
LOL
My buddy was until recently a Ford salesman. He told me that he sold aspirations. A customer would aspire to have a boat and the truck would be there to pull it when the time came. Campers are much the same idea.
Then the payments on the truck make it impossible to have boat or a camper.
Your average consumer is not the smartest card in the deck.
Buy a Civic, rent the boat.
Big box hardware/home improvement stores here have free trailers to take bulky purchases home all you need is a towbar on whatever you drive.
Along these same lines, showing the march of technology, until last December I owned both a 1965 Corvair and a 2002 GMC Yukon XL. The Corvair is now gone, but my ownership of both vehicles overlapped for about 5 years. In that time, I tracked the real world mileage of both over thousands of miles of driving.
The Corvair had the 4 carb, 140hp engine, and a 4 speed manual transmission. I’d upgraded the camshaft for a slightly hotter than stock setup, and the cylinders were a 20 thousandths overbore, so it had slightly more than the 164 stock cubic inches of displacement, which in metric translates to about 2.7 liters. The curb weight for the car was about 2700 pounds. In 7 years of ownership, I drove the Corvair just over 20,000 miles.
The Yukon XL has the 5.3 liter V8 and a 4 speed automatic transmission. It’s completely stock, and when I purchased it, it had about 164,000 miles on it. The curb weight is about 5500 pounds. In about 5.5 years of ownership, I’ve driven the Yukon about 65,000 miles (mostly on long road trips).
In mixed driving, the Corvair averaged between 16-17mpg. City was pretty consistently about 15mpg and highway around 20mpg.
In mixed driving, the Yukon averages between 15-16mpg. City tends to be around 12-13mpg and highway 17-18mpg.
Amazing what modern engine management can do!
The lead pic, immediately reminded me of the common scene of two police vehicles on patrol, stopping to communicate with each other. A parking lot, being a common venue for such meetings.
I know a woman who drives one of these. When she goes to the grocery store she’s the only person in it. Same thing when she goes to the bank. Or the bakery. Or any number of shops. However when she needs to cart around her grandkids, she has a full bus.
Not sure why people are so fixated on size. There are plenty of sports car models with worse MPG than the Suburban. Is someone driving a 16 MPG V-12 Aston Martin 2 seater somehow superior because the car can barely hold a suitcase?
I guess some people like to beat a dead horse with a very long stick. This subject has been debated before many times. I like sports cars, personal luxury cars, big luxury coupes and sedans. I drove minivans for twenty years. I drove ’50’s, ’60’s, and ’70’s cars when they were twenty years old. All of our most loved vintage cars got dismal mileage, they were a product of their times. My three year old ’77 Coupe de Ville got 16 mpg. on the freeway, which I thought was pretty good at the time!
Although I think that my minivans were best for carrying passengers, until they got the stow away seating, they were a bit inconvenient for transporting large items. I used to have to physically remove the seats and stow them somewhere.
If you’ve never had a pick up truck, you don’t realize how handy they are. It’s the same with SUVs, they’re just station wagons, fold the seats down and carry long and big stuff. Put all the seats up, stuff the kids in the third seat, let the adults sit in the middle. Incredibly handy. Better than an open pick up, just don’t transport dirty stuff.
I have way too many cars, so I don’t have to drive my truck or SUV all the time, but most normal people only want to have one or two vehicles, so that’s what they drive all the time, full of passengers or solo.
I bemoan the passing of the big sedan and coupe, but I appreciate how easy it is to live with an SUV.
The other day, I had parked my Malibu curbside directly behind a brand new Tahoe, resulting in a similar scene to this Caprice and Suburban. What was surprising was that despite the Tahoe being only a few inches longer than my old Malibu, it made my old oversized intermediate coupe look downright tiny. I should have taken a photo.
These later 80’s Caprice sedans had very clean styling. I like these plain models like this rather than the gingerbread clad Brougham and Brougham LS. I’d still love to find an ’89 or ’90 9C1 with the LO5 350 one day. They were perhaps the ultimate driver’s Caprice from the ’77-’90 era, with the most powerful 350, an OD transmission, EFI and great handling.
I drove quite a few 9C1’s with the L05. Even on LPG they ran very strong. In fact, they were too powerful for cabs. I always had a full on cop car but for drivers, we’d pull the 350 and install a 4 bolt 305 with 2BBL LPG mixer. The CR I chose was 10.5:1 since LPG has like 100+ octane. With dual exhaust they ran well and got 16-17 MPG (Imperial) in Victoria BC driving. The traffic was pretty light in those days, which helped fuel consumption a lot. Now I doubt the same car could get 12 MPG in Victoria traffic these days.
I have to disagree with all of these personality-based criticisms of SUV buyers. It isn’t about lack of creativity, or one-upsmanshop, or whatever. They are simply the most rational vehicles to own, especially in the US. The SUV owner gets lots of direct benefits (space, safety, comfort, visibility, ground clearance) and pays for few or one of the costs (environmental impact, danger to other drivers and pedestrians). Gas is cheap, and environmental damage primarily falls on future generations.
The popularity of SUVs is a regulatory failure, pure and simple. A well designed regulatory regime ensures that people don’t get to benefit from harming others (for example, factory owners who would profit from polluting the local town). Safety and emissions regulations have Suburban-sized holes, and people take advantage of them. Like they always do.
*none of the costs, not “one” of the costs
This is a good example of technology compensating for bigger vehicles.
At end of the day, in the real world, I’d say both vehicles get about the same mpg.
My 2021 Colorado V6 4wd was EPA-rated at 17/24, 19mpg combined. 3.6 V6, 8-speed automatic.
It’s averaged 18.1 mpg since my first fill-up, or 1 mpg LESS than the combined; or 1 mpg more than the city figure. My fill-ups ranged from 13mpg during winter short trips to 26 mpg on a 450-mile round trip.
I estimate the Colorado weighs about 4500 lbs, or 900 lbs more than the Caprice, and has considerably more frontal area, even as it is a little narrower. Let’s assume the aero drag coefficient is the same.
If that old Caprice had this engine/trans, I bet the EPA figures would jump.
But we don’t have to speculate.
A 2012 Impala had an earlier version of the 3.6 V6 with a 6-speed automatic. That Impala will never get the love the 85 Caprice gets, but it essentially had the same room, better everything. It was rated 18/29, 22 combined.
At 22 combined, that’s 5mpg more than 17, or almost 30% farther per gallon. Put a more useful way, the Impala would consume 23% less fuel to cover the same distance.
With the newer version of the V-6 and an eight-speed auto, that 2012 Impala would pick up an extra 1-2mpg in town and on the highway. I’d rather have the older V-6 and six-speed, as they are more robust, and more than adequate, so I’ll stay with the 2012 EPA numbers.
Multiply that by 100,000,000 vehicles (that’s a very modest amount) being driven 12,000 miles a year and averaging 20 mpg, or 600 gallons a year, using 138 galllons less each. If its 42 gallons per barrel (and it takes MORE than 1 barrel of crude to net 1 barrel of gasoline, but we’ll keep it simple and understated), that’s about 3.3 barrels less per car per year. That’s 330 million barrels a year, about 900,000 barrels a day of GASOLINE. That’s more than 900k barrels of crude.
That’s a lot of CO2, not to mention a lot of misallocated resources going out the tailpipe.