(first posted 10/28/2017) This question was sparked when I saw pictures of the white ’76 Olds 98 coupe (bottom left) posted at the Cohort. What an endless tail! Was it the biggest of the mega-coupe era (1971-1979)? I had to find out, and spent quite a bit more time at automobile-catalog.com than I intended to. But it was for a good cause, obviously. And the answer was a bit of a surprise. In more ways than one. Or maybe not.
First, the fact that we’re looking at the coupe versions of these cars is arbitrary and irrelevant, in terms of them being the same length as their four-door counterparts. But the two-door coupe tends to accentuate the length of their rear ends, and there’s just something particularly excessive about a coupe this long.
The other reason I picked coupes was that I just assumed the longest production car of any in this era was the Cadillac Fleetwood 60/Brougham, due to its stretched wheelbase, 133″ compared to the Coupe DeVille’s mere 130″. More on that later, after we rank these six coupes.
#6. 1974-1976 Cadillac Coupe De Ville: 230.7″
The surprise loser in this contest.
#5. 1975 Oldsmobile 98 Coupe: 232.4″
That turns out to be 0.2″ longer than the 1976 version I showed in the tiled image at the top, but I wasn’t about to redo it for that little difference.
#4. 1975 Imperial & 1976 Chrysler New Yorker: 232.7″
It’s impressively big, but the 1974 Imperial had its wheelbase cut 3″ to 124″ from the previous years, in order to share more of its underpinnings with the Chrysler. That took a toll.
#3. 1977-1979 Lincoln Continental: 233.0″
I suspected that the Continental might end up the winner of this contest, but no such luck. It’s sheer bulk make it look the most massive though.
#2. 1975 Buick Electra 225: 234.4″
This might be a bit of a surprise, but the Buick’s slanted rear fender blades probably account for it being the biggest of the GM C-Bodies.
#1. 1973 Imperial: 235.3″
The winnah! The Imperial takes the cake, in more ways than one. Frankly, it looks a bit too big for its underpinnings, specially the very heavy front. And its close-coupled coupe roof makes the trunk look almost absurd. But if you love excess on the ends, the Imp’s your car. And the big surprise is that it’s not just the biggest coupe in the land.
It turns out that the Fleetwood 60/Brougham sedan is a mere 233.7″ long, which would make it only #3 in this battle of the behemoths. Which means that the 1973 Imperial is the longest regular mass-production sedan/coupe ever.
It looks like a mid-sized coupe got engulfed in a giant lower section. But that’s the mystery and awesomeness of the fuselage Chryslers. And if the LeBaron wears its crown a bit peculiarly, it wears it proudly. All hail the longest barge ever built!
I was aware of the Electra winning amoung the GM “C” bodies And, I’m not really suprised that an early 70’s Imperial won the coupe battle, But it being longer than a 1975-6 60s/Brougham threw me! I had a GF in the 80’s who had a 1971 Imperial (Hers, a 4 door.) and I will say that it handled better than a GM or FoMoCo full sizer of it’s era and for it’s size had plenty of “go”! (enough to earn me a ticket or 2!?) I guess that’s true of most Mopar fullsizers from the late 50s- early 70s. Truly a GRAND touring car in a 100% American sense.
Mine was a 4 door, still good handling, had to park in the shop, couldn’t close the house garage door
I like big trunks and I cannot lie…
When my father purchased his 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan (from a body shop – elderly owner had an accident and the insurance company totaled it out) the shop owner was also working on a mid 60s Impala SS coupe as a restoration. He had measured the rear quarter panels and found them to be in excess of 7 ft! With the trunk open it looked like you could set up a card table and chairs in the trunk and play poker.
The only way to get that amount of locking storage now-a-days is to slap a hard toneau on your pickup truck.
Our current touring cars (the highly optioned Impala, LaCrosse, 300, Charger, Taurus, and Continental) look like babies compared to these and not a coupe in sight.
I was just thinking, you could convert some of these to pickups just by removing the trunk lid.
“I like big trunks and I cannot lie… ”
+1 LOL!
Read a post once, from a guy that worked a body shop as a high school kid. Said hanging a rear quarter panel on cars of this ilk, took literally “three men AND a boy!” Have known folks who loved these huge cars back in the day. Had a brother-in-law who sneered at my Toyota Coronas, and Datsuns and Pintos (yeah,yeah, I know!) while he drove huge ’67 Coupe Deviles ’70 Cadillac convertible, and mid 70’s Dodge Monaco. (I admit I liked that car bright red with a white roof) Used to go on about how he could put mkiddie cars” in his trunk,
Something about your name seems so familiar to me. Hmmmm…
I always thought the 69 Imperial was biggest ever…
If you noticed, he qualified the statement by saying 1971 to 1979. If one goes further away from that window, perhaps some Duesenberg’s might even exceed the ’73 and ’69 Imperial.
I did say: Which means that the 1973 Imperial is the longest regular mass-production sedan/coupe ever.
I’m quite sure a Duesenberg wouldn’t be as long, since all the classic cars of that era had little or no overhang front and rear. The Model J standard version has a 142″ wheelbase, which is a bit more than most of these, but essentially no overhangs. I can’t find specs on its overall lengths, which is undoubtedly due to the many custom bodies the chassis carried.
Udpate: I found the specs for one Model J: 211″ overall length. Not even close. Even the 153″ lwb version wouldn’t be able to challenge these cars.
The ’69 Imperial is a mere 229.7″ long. It may look longer because of its even shorter roof line. I would have included it if it weren’t so short. 🙂
They got bigger in the 70’s. I had Imperials from 1955’s through 75’s, and NYB’s through 78. The 72-73’s felt more massive than the others, but still responded well as Imperials did, the 72-73’s I had also were equipped with anti-lock brakes (bought from the same families estate). Interesting though, parked side by side the 77 New Yorker Brougham was a couple of inches longer by way of the bumpers being mounted further out that my other 74-75 Imperials and 76-77-78 New Yorker Broughams, and that particular car had thicker rubber guards on the front and rear bumpers. Reducing the wheelbase didn’t stop Chrysler from having massive overhang because of the reduction. That 77 also had rear wheel well trim instead of skirts, which I liked better. pics of 73 and 77next
NYB at home
Good presentation on some beauties. Thanks. I always felt that they could use less trunk and cut the length. However, sitting in the rear seat of these coupes was always roomy. The last of the big Chryslers as only in the Newport series in 1988. A friend had one. I loved that back seat (for sitting in it!). Good day gents!
I never really noticed that about the Imperial! The straight on side shot makes it look a bit like a 70 Monte Carlo was swallowed by a river barge.
The 1975 AMC Pacer coupe had over 1,470 square inches more glass area than the 1975 Imperial according to Popular Mechanics. Not 100% sure if they were using the two or four door Imperial for comparison.
Not surprisingly, the Pacer did have more glass area than any current US car on the road at the time.
My 1998 Ford maxivan is ~240″ long…
One can see why the Big Three weren’t well positioned for the foreign luxury car takeover in the 70s. These cars are styled and proportioned as if they emerged from the late 50s and early 1960s. With some 70s styling cues, like rectangular headlights and larger C pillar windows, so they didn’t look entirely out of touch for the changing times.
Growing up at the time, these oversized coupes were clearly targeted to wealthy retiree couples. And were starting to look out of place when new. The downsized GM B bodies of 1977 were such a refreshing start in the right direction.
Somehow I just don’t find it refreshing that large cars of the past have been supplanted by large SUV’s and trucks of the present. I’ll take the land yachts of the ’60s and ’70s anytime. Automotive eye candy for me!
Anyway, I’d take a turn at the wheel of the ’73 Imperial and do something very ordinary: Drive it to the gas station and then on to the grocery store to pick up swag.
This caught me by surprise. I know it’s not the same era, but I would have thought the 1958-60 Lincoln and Continental coupes would have been bigger. And, according to autocatalogs they were wider by about an inch and heavier by 100 pounds than the Imperial. But they were 229 inches long, so the Imp wins by 6 inches.
The ’58 Lincoln suddenly popped in my head as I was going to sleep, since I had not checked it earlier. I had to quickly verify it, and thankfully, my hunch was ok.
For years the 58-60 Continental was claimed to be the longest unit body car in the world, I had those years back, and knew the Imperials and Chryslers were bigger when I bought them. I sent photos of 70’s Mopars to a magazine making the Lincoln claim. They responded the Lincolns were true collector cars and the Mopars weren’t! WTF!! It didn’t make it any less true, and collectible to who? That magazine went away. I had a dozen of the Lincolns and Marks from 58-60 and the 70’s Mopars handle better, are more dependable up to very high mileage, and a lot better mpg. pic of my 58 Lincoln visiting a friends place.
The 59 Cadillac Coupe de Ville came to mind as the one I would have expected to at lest be in the running. Alas, it was a paltry 225 inches, a mere compact to these land barges. The 73 Imperial’s greenhouse looks far too small for its heft. All hail the Imperial! The Titanic of cardom!
It’s a guilty pleasure, this Imperial. Such a swoop of images. Bad rich guy in his black factory chop-top, expensive huge ’70’s collar at the helm, even bigger tie beneath that, hair a bit oversized like the compensatory cigar he’s holding, Swiss watch glinting out. A shot of pricey whisky already within, off to celebrate some misgotten but thinly-legal gain, sweeping through a grimy New York with papers swirling in fright from the whooshing yacht, imperially imperious outta-my-way size. And doors into the shag pile for just two.
Inelegant elegance, maybe, but I’m glad it won. The others are tacky. This a gliding, slightly ridiculous and dangerous and definitely glamourous spiv.
The bad guy ride of choice in many later episodes of ‘Mannix’.
My best friend’s dad had a new ’76 Electra 225 Limited coupe. Gold with tan vinyl top and gold velour interior. Very classy car – always a treat to ride in.
The Delco AM/FM 8-track sound system was pretty great, too. My friend cracked me up when he told about his family being out in the big Buick and he talked his parents into letting him listen to Steve Miller Band’s “Book of Dreams” on tape. His dad freaked out when “Threshold” started playing. He thought a wheel bearing was going bad on his brand new car!
I suspect none of these will fit today’s parking lot markings. You’d have to pull into the front one of two empty spaces and use both, thus incurring the wrath of nannies who leave nasty messages and key your paint. Or let your rear stick out into the lane and get dented by inattentive dolts who won’t leave a note.
I thought my uncle’s 1970 Mercury Marauder X100 was long at 219″. These are over a foot longer. Amazing!
Isn’t it funny how parking places got small when cars did in the early 80s but never got bigger again when Suburbans and lwb pickups became commonplace.
Talking to an older member of the Imperial club who owns a 65, I asked if he could get it in parallel spaces any more. He said “Sure, you pull in the space and back up until there’s room to swing the front into the space
Here in Chico spaces went from 23′, to 21′, to 18′ and are now 16′. I never thought I’d be thankful I have handicap placards.
If anybody dares to call modern cars “Full size”, just point them in the direction of these bad boys. Yes, kids, we once had coupes longer than dual cab pickups!
’56 Coupe de Ville only measured 221.9″
But, Honorable Mention for added length provided by spectacular Dagmars.
More Honorable Mention for its continental spare.
…….so, who’s the longest coupe now ?!?
I think that the ’56’s actual trunk space would beat the rest of the contenders. Loading ease too… at least when non-Continental equipped.
Finally! The fuselage Imperial comes out first in a 6 way test of luxury cars! 🙂
I did not know this either. My father had a 78 Lincoln Town Coupe and it was one big car. The 64 Imperial Crown Coupe I owned on the early 90s was practically a compact at 227.8 inches.
Fuselage love!!! The only thing standing between me and the ownership of one of these is lack of garage space for it. My current garage is limited to a maximum of 220 inches so anything truly big is out. All I need to do is win the lottery and then convince management that the garage needs to be expanded back through the kitchen.
I was a bit horrified when I got my 72-73 Imperials and parked next to my 66 Imp.
Apparently you don’t have mega super size SUVs parking in your neighborhood.
The Chevy Suburban XL has a 130.0” wb and is 224.4” long.
The king of the Stupid Urban Vechicle: the Ford Excursion (1999-2005) had a 137.1” wb and was 226.7” long- hard to believe Imperial is longer than that barge! While the Imperial & Excursion are nearly identical in width the 4WD Excursion is 21” higher than the Imperial!
The featured Buick is almost a dead ringer for the one I had, except for the fact that it had wheel covers.
This time the answer is NOT Miata.
IF JPC had one of those Imperials, maybe his Miata could fit in the trunk to save driveway space? 😉
I thought those early 70s Imperials looked pretty decent, but only as 4 door hardtop, as the coupes looked like the roof/greenhouse came from a much smaller car.
Surprising that even with 3 inches taken out of it’s wheelbase that the Imperial still manages 2 spots in the top 5.
I think that there is something that everyone seems to be missing.
Amazingly, if you look at the overall package and not just the length – you will be surprised to learn that today’s cars are just as big (not to speak of trucks, which have replaced cars to some extent), as even the huge Imp.
Today’s cars, while shorter for sure, are extremely bulky (rather tall and bloated).
The 1973 Imperial, at 235″ long, fits in a box that is about 940,000 cubic inches.
The 2017 Taurus, at 203″ long, fits in a box that is about 939,000 cubic inches!
Then look at a 4 door 8′ bed 2017 F-100:
It fits in a box that is about 1,404,000 cubic inches!
Just saying…
Side mirror projection not included.
Interesting. the 73 Imperial is listed at 5150 lbs curb weight, the 2017 Taurus SHO is listed at 4343 lbs. I would have expected the Imperial to be far heaver than that in comparison to the Taurus, especially with almost 3 feet on it. Google says the heaviest car ever was a Rolls Royce at 6,000 lbs +.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I have read or heard of cars from the 1960s and 1970s being referred to as “Big Old Boats” – When many of today’s cars, not to speak of trucks, are just as heavy.
But cars today have hugely better suspensions and tires. I have driven and ridden in many cars from the 60s and 70s and until GM downsized in 1977 their cars were very hard to keep in a straight line. They just seemsd to float wherever they felt like going.
I have always thought that older American cars handled poorly because Detroit is as flat as a billiard table, and the mindset was “We don’t have to go around curves- why would anyone else in America?”
But the 70’s vehicles do not have anywhere near the equipment on a modern car. All those airbags, computers and miles of wiring add up.
Exactly. I once saw a cutaway of an instrument panel of a new car, and it was completely filled – no air spaces! Like sawing through a tree trunk. The main wiring bundle (operating sensors, air bags, etc) looked like it came out of a Boeing 737. Copper is relatively heavy.
I think in some cases weight was fudged to prevent prospective owners from staying away, my 66 Imperial has dual A/C, a optional larger gas tank, and all other options, plus 40 coats of black lacquer, when weighed years back it weighed between 700-800 pounds more than listed weight
I think the weights listed in sources like my American Cars 1960-1972 are with the base engine (usually a straight six) and three speed standard. Example: a 1968 Chevelle 300 2 door coupe is listed as 2968 pounds. By the time you add a 427 and a TH400, you’re talking 500 pounds _more_ than the extra weight LRF talked about.
A fraternity brother showed up with a 1973 douce and a quarter in the bleak winter of 1980, Springsteen’s dark “The River” was a new album. We sat in his car, he was depressed about his future. The car was fabulous, but it’s time had past. We were in malaise.
Hope you’re ok Jimmy.
Yeah, those C bodies are lighter than they look. I believe the C body Newport coupes may only weigh around 4000lbs, give or take.
Imperial: I always loved these. Probably because they hid their size and bulk so well.
As a side note, I just watched “Joy Ride” [the first one] and just for the fuselage Chrysler Newport used in it I’d watch it again.
For all the talk about the alleged awkward proportions of the Chryslers of the period that wore this body style, they are a joy to see, still.
“…the 1975 Imperial had its wheelbase cut 3″ to 124″ from the previous years…” Wasn’t this also true of the new-for-1974 Imperial? I have a hard time believing that the wheelbase would have been reduced after the first year of the final Imperial body style.
(For many years I had a 222-inch ’66 Bonneville, which also had a 124″ wheelbase. That trunk could swallow anything.)
Yes it was. Fixed now.
I am really surprised at the Imperial. I was expecting the Electra or 98 to be the winner. I’ve always loved big cars but even back in the seventies they seemed to be a bit over the top.
I love looking at the cars both here and in the flesh. Piloting these things was quite the challenge…..as a newly minted driver back then, it was nearly impossible….
The parking spot comment is so spot on! The few times I take my Olds convertible to a store on the way back from a car show or a cruise, I cannot fit in a “normal” spot so I have to admit I take 2 spots at the outer limits of the lot and trek to the store. The #1 comment I get is how big it is. My reply is that you all shrank and I stayed the same! Lastly, everyone gives me a wide berth and I NEVER get cut off!
My 77 Mercury Marquis, at 230.13 inches wpuld be the little boy in this gathering, but it requires two parking spots at the mall. I usually park far away so no one takes offence. At small parling lots, it only fits if the tail overhangs the curbstones. By about 3 feet.
As the proud owner of a ’71 Imperial Coupe, I can attest to the extreme length.
I do think the more slanted ’69-’71 C pillar carries the look much better than the more upright looking pillar of the ’72-’73.
These Few-so-large Imp coupes have very low production numbers.
Only 1440 in ’71. Even less in other years.
Mega coupes. I like that phrase!
I’m reminded of a long-ago incident at the Holiday Inn in Irwin, PA. It must have been in 1967-’68, We were on vacation, driving/riding in Dad’s ’65 Checker Marathon.
Somehow, he got into a discussion with the manager about cars. He was proud of the Checker in comparison to other makes.
In the parking lot, he got his tape measure out to show how much less overhang behind the rear wheel the Checker had than the Cadillac parked next to it.
This picture will show what I’m talking about.
I love my 78 Coupe Deville its a 17K miles all original garage queen!
These cars are all kinds of gorgeous, inside and out, and the only one that doesn’t float my boat is that ’73 Imperial. I’d love to go for a long drive (or ride, front seat or rear) in any other the others here and it’s difficult to choose a favorite. I wonder how, in terms of ride quality and quietness on smooth highways, these compare to their modern equivalents like the Caddy XTS and CT6 (and Escalade) and Lincoln Continental, Chrysler 300, or whatever the big Buick is now. Do the current (and very impressive) Mercedes S-class and Lexus LS ride smoother and smother the road imperfections better than ’70s land yachts? They certainly don’t look as good doing it, although they’re very elegant. I doubt they have as much passenger or luggage space (the massive front center consoles alone eat up alot of space). I think even the ergonomics are better on the ’70s cruisers (I’d bet all of us could figure out how to use the radio or HVAC the first time without any prior instruction). Simple things like armrests were done better back then – all of these have long, straight, padded armrests for both arms; it’s amazing how many new cars have only an elbow rest in the center and door armrests that let your hands rest against sharp, hard plastic door pulls and controls. Even with the long hoods, outward visibility is likely better than in modern luxury cars too.
In terms of the old-modern comparo, I have some notes. My hubby and I have a 1978 Continental Town Coupe and a ’77 Thunderbird Town Landau. Over the past several years we’ve had those, my husband’s daily drivers have been a 2005 Dodge Neon SXT, a 1997 Lincoln Town Car, a 2012 Ford Fusion SEL, a 2013 Ford Taurus SEL, and now a 2017 Ford Fusion Titanium.
Easiest comparo first: 1978 Continental versus 1997 Town Car.
Both had that beautiful long hood, that amazing smooth ride, and couch-like interior. The Continental could take a bump better than even the Town Car (on which we had completely rebuilt the suspension when we got it). On “typical” broken pavement the Conti had the edge on ride comfort. It’s only on massive potholes (which abound here in the salt-encrusted heavy-truck-traveled wastes we call Michigan) that the Conti’s side-to-side wobble upset the smooth ride, one thing the Town Car was less prone to doing. The Town Car communicated the slightest hint of road feel, a, frankly, unpleasant intrusion into what was otherwise a smooth experience and an intrusion the Continental *knows* is verboten. If I want road feel, I’ll choose a car accordingly. I don’t want it in my luxury car.
Driving them back to back, though, was surprising. The Town Car handled like a sports car compared to the Conti, no joke. It had a much sharper turning radius, a steering ratio that felt twice as quick, and noticeably sharper response to steering input. I will say, the Conti’s brakes, which are power-boosted via the power steering pump, have as good of pedal feel and response as the Fiesta ST I had. That’s not to say the car would stop as quickly, mind you, but the Conti’s brakes inspired WAY more confidence than the Town Car’s did.
Next closest: 1978 Continental and 2013 Taurus.
Driving the Taurus, I can pretty easily imagine what the MKS would feel like. I feel comfortable in saying the Taurus/MKS were crafted in the Lincoln tradition. The Taurus is probably the smoothest/nicest riding *modern* car I’ve been in (I’ve not ridden in a car that, overall, rides smoother than our Continental). It communicates way more road feel than does the Conti, but does not wobble or upset at all over big potholes or otherwise. The Taurus, honestly, rode as well as the ’97 Town Car, but was much more composed and stable over bumps. You’d not mistake the driving or ride of one for the other, but the Taurus felt like a modern interpretation of the intended ride of the old Lincoln. And, the Taurus was quieter inside than the Conti or the Town Car.
Handling between the two was no contest, despite the Taurus being quite big-boned itself. The Taurus would handle circles around either the Town Car or especially the Continental. It would out-accelerate either of them, out-brake them, and out-feature them. My complaint with the Taurus was the seat and control layout. The seat bottom was too shallow, and I could not bring the wheel close enough. This meant I could never get a position that was suitable for long distance, a problem I’ve never had with the Continental despite it having a fixed-back driver’s seat (with beautiful velour pillowtops!). As a passenger, the Taurus suffered from having a bump-up on the floor to allow for wiring or rear HVAC or something. That bump-up raised the floor about 1 or 1.5 inches at about 3 inches in front of the seat, so pulling my legs toward me to change position always felt like I was putting my legs on a short stool.
The seating positions in that Taurus, frankly, impaired what was otherwise a really good car.
2017 Fusion and 1978 Continental:
The current Fusion, in a lot of ways, has picked up where the (wait, they still make it!?) Taurus left off. Inch for inch it’s nearly as big inside as was the Taurus, and the interior design makes it feel roomier (even though it’s not). The ride is amazingly good, night and day difference from the 2012 Fusion and almost as good as the Taurus was. It handles much better, uses less gas, stops well-I honestly think the Fusion’s one of the best cars on the market right now, period.
And, I hate to say it, but as cool as the old Continental is, we usually opt for the Fusion over my X-Type or over the Continental for road trips. The Fusion rides, handles, and stops as well as my Jag and uses considerably less gas. Compared to the Conti, yes, we can afford the gas, but it is literally a $50-$100 decision to take that car out of state to visit friends or family.
And, something I haven’t touched on yet: The old cars are actually much more *work* to drive. We’ve taken the Continental and the Thunderbird across multiple states. Those old cars take noticeably more steering input to drive. I’m not even talking to keep in line-that vintage of Lincoln (and Thunderbird in the Lincoln image) are meant to be aimed, not steered. Even with overboosted steering and a floaty ride, those cars just take a lot more work to go around curves and keep aimed in the right direction. A simple freeway curve that is a slight movement and barely noticed in a modern car is a steering event in one of the old cars because of the sheer number of turns it takes to turn those things lock-to-lock for the terrible turning radius they can even do (my ’95 F-150 has a better turning radius than the ’78 Continental does).
That floatiness is great for an hour or two, but driving it for five hours will fatigue you in a way five hours in a modern car will not. It wasn’t until we took the Continental on our first road trip I understood why there used to be so many roadside motels and rest areas.
Speaking of visibility-The Continental has the best visibility of nearly anything I’ve driven. Those sharp bladed fenders and straight hood mean you always know where the car is, and the tall glass means you actually have a window through which to view it. I joke that I could run over a medium sized child and not know it in the Continental (wouldn’t see it over the hood and wouldn’t feel it under the wheels!), but-and I’m as serious as a heart attack when I say this-the Continental is easier to parallel park than my 2014 Fiesta ST was. I can see out of the Conti and I know where the ends are. AND, I can use the body to judge where my wheels are and not hit the curb because it doesn’t suffer from the wide track nonsense modern cars are cursed with.
In terms of ergonomics? Modern cars, hands down. The Lincoln’s wiper controls are a chrome knob on the dash, to the left of the steering wheel, all the way to the bottom. The Lincoln’s headlight controls are a chrome knob on the dash, to the left of the steering wheel, all the way to the bottom. The only way to tell them apart is, after having fumbled about to find them at all, to feel up the knobs to tell which one is shaped like an octagon and which one is round. They’re not easily spotted while driving, they’re right next to each other, and they’re not easy to reach unless you lean forward and reach down awkwardly.
Huh, glad I didn’t make a wager. I would’ve bet the Lincoln.
Cool article, though, and something I’ve wondered about. I’m sure it was real torture falling down an old car rabbit hole!
I knew the Imp was King, having had a 71 NYer I was a bit envious of the recordholder bigger, richer brother. What was fun about my barge was with the pre-smog 440 you punched it on an onramp and watched the Heliport of a hood lunge upward! Oh the joy of slightly dampened marshmallow suspension!
I know it isn’t a production car, and further is a convertible not a coupe, but the van Kempen Rolls Royce Phantom 6 by Frua is worth a mention at 258.7″ long. The limousine 145″ wheelbase obviously helps.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/1973-rolls-royce-phantom-vi-dropehead-by-frua-the-end-of-an-era-of-custom-coachbuilt-rollers/
I never saw it until I read this article but that 73 Imperial reminds me soon much of a puffed up Volvo 262C, just in a different size category.
Maybach 6 concept is 21 feet long
Link:
https://images.app.goo.gl/WRpL4Jt6YSzXfgJb9
I’ll take a 71 Coupe Deville, not the longest by a few inches but the preetiest and most valuable of the group.
Our 148” wheelbase non-extended Ford Transit (the middle of three sizes) is 235.5” long according to Ford. Beats the Imperial by 2/10ths! And as a cargo van, it’s only a two seater.
My Promaster 159″ wb van is 236.2″ long. It sure looks longer than yours due to it having a much shorter snout.
For a long time 225 inches was the max for GM big cars. Hence the Electra 225. Early 60’s Cadillacs were slightly shorter, although the late 60’s and ’70 Cadillacs were right up to that limit. All of the American luxury cars were big at this time, but so were most of the full size standard cars. The first years of the 5 mph. bumpers added a few inches on both ends. As I said before, my F150 long bed is 230 inches. It is long but I don’t have many problems parking it in lots or even at the curb. I have owned several big American luxury cars in the past, but don’t think I’m going to revisit that segment.
American parking lots are usually set up well enough for a “standard” length full-size trucks at around 230″. I’ve had some issues in my 250″ behemoth.
I never understood how the intended market for these differed from that of higher-end personal luxury coupes like the Eldorado and Mark IV or V. Both types were huge, plush, and inconvenient for more than two people. The full-size non-PLCs probably had more rear seat room, though I’m not sure if they were as roomy as the corresponding sedans without checking. It does seem they were marketed toward similar buyers. I recall most of these coupes being considerably outsold by the sedans, the exception being the Coupe de Ville which I recall outsold the sedan in many years.
I believe these big coupes were for traveling salesmen who needed to project the image of success. They had ample luggage space for carrying samples and product documentation while displaying substance without the decadence associated with higher end PLCs.
la673: That’s not really any different from today where so many pilot these huge SUV and trucks around with one or two people in tow. And for what? They have become today what these cars were back then.
What a fun article. When I first looked at the title and pic at the top, my guess was the Buick. I had heard back in the day that the Buick was the largest standard production car for GM. But I didn’t realize it was just GM and forgot how big that Imperial was. I’d take any of them with a huge smile.
Entertaining article, Paul. Nice job. OAL to cabin length might go to Imperial too, and by an even larger margin.
Had a healthy laugh from Former Saturn Owner: “They just seemed to float wherever they felt like going.”
The packaging inefficiency of these cars is astonishing. My 2002 F150 Super Cab long bed is only a hair longer at 239.4″ but has an 8′ cargo box, a 157″ wheelbase and only slightly less rear seat room. Amusingly the optioned up XLT on my truck includes leather seats power windows, locks and mirrors, a tilt steering column and a roof console with a thermometer and compass, pretty much every option a mid 70s luxury car would have except power seats. My 5.4 V8 also has more horsepower than a Malaise Era big block too.
I’d like to know how many of these big mid 70s coupes were sold with no vinyl roof. Not many, but they’d be more likely to survive. The 1970 Hurst Grand Prix began the landau roof craze, then the ’72 Eldorado offered a heavily padded one with an opera window, and it finally hit the masses with the ’73 formal Colonnade coupes.
This is fascinating stuff! The 1970’s were somehow the aberration that proved the rule. If the American car makers had somehow been able to skip the 1970’s and go straight to the 1980’s I think all of them, AMC included, would have been in a better place.
Some of those early postwar long-wheelbase sedans were generally as long as these, though I haven’t found anything as long as the Imperial Coupe. The 1948 Packard LWB Sedan was 233.625″ long for example, so third place in this comparison.