CC reader and Cohort poster Chris Cieslak sent me an overlay he made in Photoshop of a current Buick Encore and a more recent car, inspired by seeing the two on the street. I liked it and encouraged him to make some more, including this one with the classic ’59 Cadillac. Yes, these are perfectly to scale. And guess which one has much better accommodations for its passengers? These Cadillacs (and others from this vintage) are surprisingly cramped, in today’s standards.
Let’s compare it to some others, going back to 1932:
Starting with a 1932 Ford. Looks so old fashioned, tall and short.
But it’s almost exactly the same height and length of the Encore. And similar ground clearance. But there’s not even a comparison in terms of comfort and space, as the Ford’s body sits way up on top of its frame and is much narrower.
In order to see it better, Chris made this transparent overlay.
Maybe something a bit more modern, and big? As in the longest production car ever, the ’71 – ’76 Cadillac Fleetwood 75. And it even has a raised roof.
And something a bit more flamboyant, as in a Monte Carlo.
And his original one, with a ’77 Caprice. Chris said it was startling to see how much taller the Encore was next to it on the street, and that’s what inspired him.
Thanks Chris!
Most striking to me is that the 1932 Ford and the modern CUV both have a similar approach to overhangs front and rear. Somewhere along the way, the cars got a lot of space tacked on either end of the wheelbase, with no real benefit to the interior space or presumably, ride quality. I would suppose that by negating the overhang, and using the space more efficiently, we have both gone to the past and into the future.
Great point; I know that the front overhang on modern vehicles was due to FWD packaging issues, but not sure why the rear overhang became such a thing.
Wow, that’s incredible!
Reminds me of this article from Time magazine, May 12th 1958, page 85:
(When I first saw this, I couldn’t believe the ’20s cars were really that tall!)
Looking at Time’s specs, I was impressed by what a monster the 1929 Plymouth would have been. Entering the low priced field with a car that had more power than a Ford and a Chevrolet combined would have been a radical move. It turns out that the 1928 Chevrolet had 35.5 horsepower and the Ford Model A had 40 horsepower. I guess editorial sloppiness has aged better than all of the Totalitarian of the Year Awards they’ve bestowed.
Comparing a ’29 Plymouth with a ’28 Chevy is a bit unfair. Chevy got a 46hp standard six in ’29.
This is fascinating; I had never seen it before. Thanks for posting it!
How’s the trunk space compared to a ’59 Cadillac, which one’s more cramped?
Let’s just say that the trunk of the Cadillac was about as disappointing as the interior space, meaning not nearly as big, useful and accessible as one would hope or expect, given its outside dimensions. The were quite shallow, and had that big spare blocking much of it. And it went so far forward, making it hard to access, having to reach in over that high liftover.
The cargo space of an Encore is profoundly much easier to access, has vastly better shape, and can of course be drastically enlarged by flipping one or more rear seat down.
In terms of actual every day use, there’s also no comparison.
Thanks for the answer. I’ve never seen in real life the inside shape of ’59 trunk. Unlike modern sedans, at least it has a useful trunk lid that’s not shaped as a mail box opening. I’m about the same height as you, Paul, 195cm, so I think either of us would be able to reach in to Cadillac’s trunk to retrieve items.
It’s not a view I’ve seen before either. Even if you put the spare on that shelf above the rear axle, the slope of the trunk lid still wouldn’t give you a lot of depth top to bottom. What a change from ten years earlier!
The massive tailfins I imagine defeat one of the underrated qualities of the long shallow trunk, side access to things placed toward the back(front?). Same thing I like about the dearly departed stepside pickup bed. The liftover is high relative to the trunk floor (you’re placing items into a hole, rather than setting them onto a deck, essentially) but the height relative to the human body is quite low, I’d wager that fake grille mesh on the 59 is lower in height than the opening of the Encore by several inches, so you’re not really obstructed by it by any means, you just can’t put a cooler or something in there and simply pull it out.
Gas tanks had at some point moved to a flattish tank under the trunk floor. Hence all the rear filling points, like under the license plate on a lot of Fords. Cars kept getting lower and didn’t have the high aero trunk shapes of modern sedans, so the trunks got lot and shallow like the Cadillac’s. And there wasn’t room for the spare tire to be upright on the side any more so it was often flat on the floor like in the Cadillac, or sometimes propped up at an angle against the rear axle hump.
In 1965 the new Ford and GM bodies moved the tank to behind the rear axle, extending that shape a half a foot back and putting a well in the floor where the tank used to be. Also the full size spare tire could go up there out of the way in the front of the trunk on top of the axle/gas tank.
The Eternal Platonic Ideal of a sedan, the 1961 Lincoln, had the flat gas tank under the floor and the spare at an angle in the middle. The filler was in the center behind a piece of the fake rear grille. In 1963 the trunk lid got a taller squarer shape which didn’t do it any favors aesthetically but did gain a couple inches of vertical trunk space. The major face lift the next year ruined things more in many ways. The tank was moved to behind the rear axle like in later cars making for a deep trunk and also a horrible flap on the side smack in the middle of the flat expanse of rear fender.
1961 Lincoln
Let’s compare width now and tell me which is roomier. Those 50s and 60s Caddys will have you beat hands down with headroom to wear your fedora while driving. Plus, traveling over potholes and poor roads is silky smooth, unlike anything available today. Different times.
No question the ’59 Cadillac is wider. But unless you’re carrying three, which is very uncomfortable, the extra width is quite wasted.
As to headroom, you’re quite mistaken. The ’59 Cadillac has shockingly poor headroom, due to the it sitting on top of a frame and the low roof. Good luck wearing a fedora, unless you’re short. The last time I sat in one a few years back, I was shocked at how cramped I felt. It might have been fairly roomy for 1959 standards, but not for modern standards.
As to the ride, that’s debatable too. If you like wallowing, yes, it wallowed better. But “handling” is not in its brief.
When is the last time you actually sat in,rode in, or drove a ’59 GM car?
It’s not the passengers cars that I find intimidating today; its the full size pickups and SUVs. If in double, notice how misaligned they are in parking spaces or how the side of your car door is pinged when parked next to one of these behemoths.
My current practice is to park at the far end of the lot to avoid the Wal-Mart chafe on the doors.
Or the average driver who just can’t park and has no idea where their vehickle ends and scrapes your car while turning into or leaving the parking space next to you. Two good things about the 1990 TransSport I had until three years ago: made of plastic with even more plastic where it might be scraped, and I didn’t care.
That TransSport was the base model so it had a full bench back seat, upholstered in a material like London Transport moquette only plain gray, and being a minivan had flat floors. Getting in and sitting back there always reminded me of being in a pre/postwar sedan back seat, only without the very specific odor they all had and also much bigger windows.
Yep, see that all the time.
I’ll never forget seeing a H1 Hummer parked in a compact parking area and taking up two and a half car spaces.
Also, when those SUVs and pickups are parked on the street curb near a parking lot exit, I can’t see the traffic coming from the left. They’re too high.
Modern cars have better space utilization, better consumption figures and they are a lot cleaner and safer than old(er) cars. At the same time they have become rather boring, emotionless appliances. All you see now is SUV/CUV’s with the same basic shape and almost no distinguishing features other than some -seemingly randomly applied- creases and bulges. Modern cars simply lack elegance and character, qualities that old car designs often offer in spades.
I see an analogy here with modern architecture. Sure, a high rise apartment building is more space efficient, way better insulated and probably also safer than an old house, but when you look at the picture: where do you prefer to live?
“At the same time they have become rather boring, emotionless appliances. All you see now is SUV/CUV’s with the same basic shape and almost no distinguishing features.”
Funny, you could say the same about 90% of mass-market automobiles in any era.
“Modern cars simply lack elegance and character, qualities that old car designs often offer in spades.”
Could you elaborate on this? Do “elegance” and “character” even have objective definitions when it comes to car design?
The mid 1950’s – mid 1970’s period of US cars had maximum styling and minimum space efficiency. “Longer, lower, wider”. Elegance? Character, yes.
That really doesn’t answer the question beyond “I just personally like it.”
I have to disagree with you on style. I find several current designs distinct (while not my kind of vehicle, I think the Camry is a real looker), and several rather bland. In each decade of my 60 years I’d find the same.
The encore won’t look as cool chopped and channeled when the pendulum swings back 😁
What’s that old saying, any car looks better lowered, chopped and with flames painted down the sides.
Awaiting a Photoshop of a chopped channelled and flamed Encore.
Just to test the validity of the old saying, you understand. 😉
Quick and dirty but you get the idea.
I know it’s tongue-in-cheek, but I kind of like it. I venture to guess an Encore GX would be slightly better.
That is quite an eye opening comparison. But I’m at a point in life where I don’t need practical transportation. Yes, it’s a selfish choice, but shouldn’t we all be using minimalist transportation pods when practical?
Was it Billy Crystal, who said as his Fernando character, “It is better to look good, than to feel good, my darlings!”?
It’s clear that the reduction in length of the typical engine compartment is one of the major changes. Like many modern vehicles, the front wheels of the Encore are located not far in front of the firewall. The 1932 Ford, despite a similar overall length, has to position the rear passenger seat on top of the rear wheels, instead of being able to accommodate all passenger seating within the wheelbase.
Yes, but the carmakers of the ’30s could have moved the rear seat forward and placed a tall trunk inside the body with a bit more overhang. There was about 2 feet of wasted length between the front seats and the FOOTREST for the rear seats. Many people used that space for luggage. Studie made this forward squeeze, adding a real integrated trunk to the Land Cruiser in ’34, and others gradually followed, finally leading to the true three-box around ’39.
The tall car can seat the passengers more upright, in a chair like position. That provides more leg room and support with less distance front to back needed. My Dad had a ’59 Chevy Impala and his major complaint was that it was like sitting on the floor with you legs out in front of you. He was comparing it his last car, a ’55 Chevy. He’d had an early Fifties Nash before that. The change really came in the 1960s. How many out there remember that fad for bean bag chairs? Not so bad at 20 but terrible for sitting in once you’re in your 60s.
I like the old ’60s cars, for most purposes a couple of extra feet in length doesn’t make that much difference, especially on the highway. Am I going to own another one? Probably not.
Thanks..that really illustrates why new cars look so, well, awful. The older ones are light years ahead in being low and sleek. Practicality? Well, would you rather see a lady in a slinky dress or in a practical unisex coverall?
I’d rather drive a car that doesn’t make me feel like my butt’s dragging on the ground, and that doesn’t waste so much length on styling.
Well, the unisex coverall is practical because it has a big, easy-to-use zipper right down the front, so I guess it would depend on the specific situation.
I like the way you think.
Stiletto heels or sensible shoes…?
No overlay on the best selling vehicle in America?
Just the thing for those of us who are older and less agile! Easy to get in and out and better sight lines.
John, I hear you. I loved my Minis but even at 39 I was asking myself why I was folding myself into the driver’s seat every time I wanted to go somewhere.
This has been going on for a while, too. Two of my cars are an 03 Town Car and a 71 Olds 98. Parked next to each other, the Olds looks much more sleek and stylish…it’s a few inches longer and a few inches lower and it makes the TC look drab in comparison. Of course I can always go park the TC by a bunch of CUVs and then it looks fantastic. 🙂
There’s a 71-76 Sedan De Ville in my neighborhood, it’s kind of permanently parked on the street, and every year it looks weirder and weirder. Part of the impetus for doing this Photoshop series is that, while in a vacuum the old cars look fantastic, when the modern cars park near it it starts to look like a Shriner’s parade vehicle.
I don’t see the appeal of CUVs at all. If your car says something about you, these say that “I don’t do any one thing particularly well and I like to compromise” but I’m an outlier. I chose three different luxury sedans, 2 convertibles, and an F250 for less total outlay than a Buick Encore… speaking of which, if you’re going to have an ungainly looking hatchback with a 1.4 liter engine, called Encore, why is it a hit as a Buick and a failure as an 80s AMC? From my vantage point, they are about equally desirable!
Yep, you’re an outlier: Trulia says there’s .46 cars per person around here. You’re 6.0.
Two points. First, my ’04 Scion Xb had a windshield that was pretty vertical. This allowed the front seat to be raised and brought forward. This added legroom in the rear, which I read somewhere allowed as much room inside as a BMW 7 Series, Second, a friend of mine had a ’30 Chrysler sedan. It was funny that it was hard for me to get into the front passenger seat because the seat was so far forward that my size 10 sneakers could not easily squeeze past the front door opening while the back seat had a large amount of legroom. Anyone who went to a drive in theater in a pre 1960s car has some idea of the gymnastics that could be accomplished in the back or front seats of those cars. Take that Buick Encore!
The overlay pictures really tell the story–including how wheel/tire sizes have changed. Likewise, the TIME article, Poindexter (thanks!).
Funny, but I was just at my Ford dealer’s yesterday, and one mechanic’s ’59 Galaxie was parked out in the lot aside the new/recent models, and its proportions struck me in a way that I don’t get from photos alone.
Reminds me of all those “prewar” garages that got “bump-outs” in the 1950s to accommodate the longer cars.
To echo a comment above, it’d be fun to see one of these overlays with a current “F-Series” and one of 60-ish years ago.
George, you and Dave have a great idea. If I can find suitable source photos I’ll do a follow up on F vs. F.
Thanks Paul for the source material and double-checking my Photoshop math! (Paul provided the ’32 Ford and ’59 Cadillac. You’d be surprised how hard it is to find dead-on side pictures… I found that a photo even a few inches above side level can skew the results.)
Yes, car design has went backwards! Now tall and thin, like Model A’s, except that a Model A has much better visibility.
And, something which no one seems to think of:
Cars like the 1960 Ford as an example (and most from the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s), being rather flat in their width cross section (long rectangle), might roll over only once in a roll over! Plop, and it is done!
However, a new car like the Encore, which has a cross section closer to a rounded square shape, will roll over many times in a roll over like a ball!
The overlay over that monte carlo is the one that hit me. I saw a mid 70s monza in the parking lot awhile ago. I had forgotten how low to the ground older cars were. Ive had a few montes, didnt realize how close my butt was to the ground then! Im a near boomer, after these pics, i realize why i love my cuv. Open door, turn, set old ass in tall car seat. Is it ok to admit that i miss landau tops and opera lights? LoL