(first posted 4/26/2012) Ah, Caprice. The pride of GM’s big car line, darling of police departments and taxi companies everywhere; you were taken from us too soon. Yes, the GM B-body was a most excellent mode of traditional transportation, but thanks to the rise of the SUV, its day in the sun was passing by when the facelifted 1993 model was introduced.
The original ‘whale’ Caprice came out in 1991. While the new car rode on the same V8 powered, RWD, body-on-frame chassis of its immediate predecessor, the sheetmetal could not have been more different from the 1990 Caprice. Straight-edged, rectangular styling gave way to a smooth lozenge shape that could well have been a 1991 Hudson Hornet if the company had survived to the present day.
Feelings regarding the new styling were, well, mixed. While it was nice and modern, finally bringing the Caprice out of the 1970s ‘sheer look’, it was love it or hate it styling. Sedans were available in base Caprice, fancier Caprice Classic and sporty LTZ models.
Due to the polarizing styling, Chevrolet wasted no time in modifying the sheetmetal. For 1993 the Caprice lost its rear wheel spats, changing the whole look of the car, though I have to admit I prefer the 1991-92 design. It also got new chrome-trimmed tail lamps and raised ‘Chevrolet’ lettering on the top of the grille. The station wagon kept the 1991 styling though, and would remain so until the end of the line in ’96.
While the Brougham and Brougham LS were gone after 1990, a Caprice Classic LS became the luxury trim level in 1993. It included cushier seating in Custom Cloth or optional leather, a digital gauge cluster, alloy wheels and various power assists. ABS was standard on all models, as had been the case since 1991.
1994 models added a passenger side airbag and redesigned instrument panel, but the big news was in the engine compartment. A detuned version of the Corvette’s LT1 V8 was now available on the sedan (and standard on station wagons). The 5.7L mill produced 260 hp and 330 lb ft of torque, a healthy bump from the 4.3L V8’s 200 horses.
The styling was much more mainstream now, but the day of the traditional full-size car had passed, and most cars went to police and taxi fleets. While lots of folks had bought Caprices in the past for towing, the SUV age was in full swing, and suddenly people needed a gigantic, 10 mpg Suburban to pull their boat ten times a year. So much more practical, you know. So the poor Caprice, although still selling decently, was kicked out of its Arlington home to make room for its more with-it stablemate, the Tahoe. And thus, GM single-handedly gave the lucrative full-size market to its competitors. I really wish the Caprice had continued for 1997. What could have been…
The styling on these always left me flat. Although I was never really crazy about the 91-92, at least there was a theme there. The 93-94 tried to backpedal, and was not really a good look. To me, it took the Hoffmeister kink from the Impala SS to make that body look good, and when that made it to the regular Caprice for the last year or two, the styling was greatly improved.
Upon reflecting on this car, the odd thing is the disconnect between the greenhouse and the lower part of the car. The main body is soft, rounded and curved. The greenhouse is all sharp corners and angles. The 91-92 blacked-out the door uppers, and with tinted glass, it was a whole different look. The painted door uppers of this car just accentuated the corners and angles. It just does not work for me.
I still prefer the Roadmonster.
I think GM was too cheap to spring for curved side glass, like in the Panther cars, and so you kept this more upright upper-half while going to a very curved body from the greenhouse-down.
I hadn’t even noticed they switched the pillars to body color, but now I can’t un-see it. Why did they do that? The blacked out pillars looked much better.
I just remember these primarily for their godawful, plasticky interiors…the more upscale versions of these, Buick’s Roadmaster and Caddy’s Fleetwood, were little better.
I never really consciously noticed the kink on the later ones. It does work.
1996 Caprice
Identical to the 96 I had from 2012-2016. It was a great car and I still miss it to this day.
I agree that the rounded-out rear wheel wells were less pleasing than the previous skirted look. I do think, however, that the Impala-SS-style treatment on the window behind the C pillar was a vast improvement and made this car a ton better looking.
If you miss this car, go visit Saudi Arabia. If you see one Caprice like this, you’ll see 10,000!
A ship full out these waited off the coast of Kuwait during Gulf 1. GM or an enterprising salesman must have rounded up everyone stateside and made full book
Falls under the “what were they thinking?” category. Like the Fiero and Cimmaron, the fixes were too little too late…although by 96 it was a decent enough looking car. In addition to the mentioned updates, they also integrated the side mirrors, ditching the odd, F- car styled ones, hitch was a big improvement.
The interiors still sucked though, especially in maroon. Plastic fantastic. The instrument cluster looked like it was made out of a piece of cardboard with a needle attached to it.
I did always like the front end tho…
One nice thing about opening up the wheelwells in ’93 was that they widened the track.
To be (painfully) honest, I’ve always liked the impala SS but the final generation caprice has no real magic or like ability about it.
Although the non-fender-skirt look can be acclimated to.
I never cared for the inspired-by-Hudson look of the original. The 1993 facelift, with its wider rear track, was a huge improvement, and the SS version was perfect. Of course, GM being GM, once it got the car right, it discontinued it.
I’ve never really seen the Hudson comparison — this really isn’t a fastback shape. The 1951-1955 big Kaiser, on the other hand….
I have always seen the Kaiser resemblance too. Too bad they didn’t use Kaiser like tail lights. The stock wrap around tail lights were the worst part of the styling.
My sentiments exactly.
Reaction to the styling was NOT mixed when this car appeared, it was almost universally loathed. The bloated styling makes you realise how big and heavy the thing actually was vs. the light, angular styling of the previous Caprice. And the interiors and plastic fittings definitely seem cheaper (thanks Inaki Lopez!)
I recall that as well. The original was still very well regarded at the time and everyone complained about the upside-down bathtub look of the new version was widely panned.
Chevy was only considered to have gotten it right with the Impala SS (Which attracted a cult following).
From a fleet operator’s point of view, the Whales (as they were known in the fleet business) were a complete failure. The body weighted a good 400 lbs more than the Box cars and the components in the frame were not upgraded to handle the extra load. Front end stuff in particular had always been marginal to begin with but adding all that extra lard made ball joints and centre links wear out in no time at all. In a Box taxi, you could look forward to replacing the entire front end once a year; in a Whale it was twice and since you were looking at $2000 to do this job, you were looking at a much higher cost per km. The brakes were the same story, they lasted half as long on the Whales as the Boxes.
The cars were significantly bigger inside and with the 260 hp V-8 went down the road very smartly, particularly if you had the F-41 suspension, which should have been mandatory with that motor. Downside was prodigious fuel consumption in the city with this motor, you’d be lucky to see 15L/100 km in traffic, probably less. Flat highway driving was much better, in the neighbourhood of 10L/100 km if you could resist the urge to gun that sweet LT1, an urge I could never resist!
My question is, where are they now? They were never big sellers here on the Wet Coast of Soviet Canuckistan since they were simply too large for our traffic conditions and gas prices but even when I am in the USA I don’t see many. I see loads of Roaches from the era but rarely a Whale.
I’m kinda’ interested in the Buick Roadmaster wagon, do they have the same front-end issues too?
I’ve never had Roadmaster but since it is all the same stuff up front, I would assume that it wears out just as fast. Remember, I was speaking of taxi use, which is about as extreme service as you can get. Replacing a front end would be done about every 60,000 miles in a taxi. If your Roadmaster were a garage queen or a low miler, it probably won’t be an issue.
If you really are looking for a Roadmaster, use the Canucknucklehead used car buyer’s guide: shop around and look for the one with the lowest mileage you can find. It might cost a little more, or even quite a bit more for a low miler but it is worth every penny. For GM stuff of this era, you are going to start to replace stuff at 60,000 miles or even less. By the time 100,000 miles rolls around you are looking at replacing loads of stuff like transmissions, a/c compressors and electrical stuff. The upside of this is a Roadmaster is low-tech as an anvil and any retarded grease-monkey with a room-temperature IQ can wrench on it.
I’d wager you could find a used Roadmaster with less than 50,000 miles on it if you were to look carefully and take your time. They are Granny-wagons so there are for sure garage queens around and make sure you get an LT1, those are the ones to have.
We owned two of the fat-bodied Caprices: a 1991 with the 5.0 engine and a 1994 with the 4.3 V8. Yes, a V8 despite the same liter displacement as a Chevrolet 90-degree V6.
Both were excellent, soft riding, comfortable cars. We put 133,000 miles on the first and about 90,000 on the second. The 5.0 was a honey of an engine: smooth, quiet, and adequately powerful. The engine turned less than 1400 RPM at 60 MPH. The 4.3 was the disappointment. Too little power, no better gas mileage despite GM claims, and noisier as it spent more time in the lower gears.
Neither car ever required shocks, other front suspension work, or air conditioning repair. Very reliable cars but not very beautiful.
“Where are they now?” you ask? Well seems like all the wagons have emigrated here to New Zealand where they serve out their older years as wonderful hearses!
The sport suspension/trailoring package was standard and required on all 94-96 Caprices when the 260 Hp LT1 engine was specified. The Wagon came with the heavy duty suspension and 225/7515 rubber. The Roadmaster in these years had the 260 Hp engine std and could be had with either suspension and the Fleetwood had a cross between the two as std fare.
What a pile. Brakes were fine…I put 65,000 miles on one and 50,000 on a second (both 95 wagons) with no brake trouble. The first had 3/4 of the pad left! Mileage was better than the TBI cars…I regularly topped 24 highway, and never dropped below 17. The aero was superb-I had no trouble getting 23-24mpg highway, even at 75+ MPH. Both my wagons had original ball joints past 150,000 miles.
The real weak spot was the very-pricey Optispark.
I thought I really liked this thing until I read what Canuckistan had to say. Those are factors that weight heavily in my opinion of a car. Guess I will continue to remember my 77 impala when I think of these cars.
Oh well. At least I didn’t pay to find out.
As I have stated here too many times, perhaps one of the best all around cars I have ever driven was a 1977 Impala with 305 and no a/c. It was just such an honest, good driving car. No float or wallow, just a lightweight and efficient family hauler. The Boxes with F-41were the best, especially with 350. They had just the right balance of ride and handling, the 9C1 was too harsh for most people’s daily use.
The Whales were a different thing. If they didn’t have F-41 or were not 9C1s, they were wallowing barges. The later ones with the LT1 were cool cars but they were simply too heavy, much like a whale in ballet slippers, no pun intended. I suppose the public agreed, if you were to get a car so big and heavy it may as well be an SUV because there was practically no fuel economy penalty.
While what Canucknucklehead says is basically true, don’t forget that he was running a taxi company. They could put as much wear and tear on a vehicle in a year as what a privately owned vehicle may see in its lifetime!
My parents have had a 1992 Roadmaster as my mom’s summer vehicle since about 1996. I actually convinced them to buy it. It is a great highway cruiser, and has measured 30MPG in highway driving before. My dad never misses an opportunity to point out that these cars weight more than their predecessors, despite a large amount of metal being replaced with plastic.
Very true, which is why I preceded my comments with, “as a fleet operator.”
I love the Roadmaster, it is really the Last of the Highway Tourers and yes, they can get quite reasonable mileage if you keep speeds legal.
Even if you were to pay say, $5000 for a a truly mint low mile Roadmaster wagon, now much gas it burns is immaterial anyway. You’d be saving a fortune over any new car. I’d have one in a flash if I did this kind of driving.
My last impression of the Hudson-Caprice is riding in the back of a taxi (had to be about 20 years ago when they were still in common usage) on the way to YVR and thinking it was a plastic rattletrap. Everything about it seemed cheap and even taking into account its use as a cab, the ride was awful – jiggly – not a solid car in the way the prev gen had been. The contemporary Ford Crown Vics felt better and did not seem as cheaply made.
They do make great low riders, I see them around once in a while and slamming them to the pavement does improve their looks.
I’ve always liked it…especially in Impala SS trim.
As mentioned in multiple threads: I own a ’91 Caprice wagon with the 305/TH700.
It’s not all that well appointed. A definite step down from the ’77-’91s More hard plastics than ever, as you can imagine…stuff tacked on like an afterthought. But it’s a great ride for long trips…and it gets 22-23 MPG highway even at 75-80 MPH.
One practicality issue with the lower wheelwells…wheel alignment. My local NTB cannot align it with their new equipment as the sights (or whatever they call those things they attach to the wheels) won’t attach to the rear wheels while sitting at ride height.
But they did it right underneath. Stuff doesn’t break on it and it just feels solid when driving it. Yes it’s floaty but if I want something firmer I’ll take the wife’s Subie or my ’97 Blazer. And with the F-41 suspension it’s a very competent handler for what it is.
Another GM Deadly Sin…..sorry 🙂
Maybe they should have sold the ’90 Caprice alongside the ’91s, like Mopar did with the Aspen and Dart. They could have called it the Caprice Classic Classic.
Again speaking as a fleet operator, we always wondered the same thing. Loads of B-Boxes were sold for fleet and cop duty. I wouldn’t have cost GM much to keep churning them out. From what I have read, over 150,000 a year went for these duties and that many cars from a paid up design is nothing to kiss off.
I remember reading that GM had 75% of the fleet sedan market when the Caprice was killed, within a very short amount of time that market became 75% Ford… Another example of GM just peeing away a market segment.
There are days I want to stand in front of the Ren Cen doing my best Heston impression screaming “DAMN YOU, DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!”
(I better watch out, that might end up in Baruth’s next fiction piece… 😛 )
+1
The deadly sin was killing this car in a desperate attempt to grab short term profits from full size SUVs. Let us alienate some fairly loyal buyers and convert the factory to building Suburbans and Tahoes. (eye roll)
I agree on the deadly sin. This car was a step backward in design and styling, a bloated unrefined pig of a car. The Caprice was almost reactionary in design; it was the car for buyers that wanted to go back to a time before Japanese imports, front wheel drive, or unibodies. The Caprice was a 1950’s car without the charm, the car GM used to impose on their customers when they controlled the market.
By the 1990’s the vast majority of buyers were smart enough to avoid the Caprice and it’s incestious sibling the Roadmaster. But the shame lingers on…
Yeah the deadly sin was when they killed these after 1996!
Moving the Tahoe/Sub to Arlington really wasn’t a Deadly Sin. The market for those vehicles in TX is so big that the savings in shipping costs had to be substantial.
I imagine a majority of the vehicles turned out in that plant are delivered to dealers in state.
This Deadly Sin fixation is getting annoying, and does not apply to this car. Any rudimentary analysis would show this to be the case.
This car’s restyle looked a bit odd at first but otherwise was a completely solid design. The odd looks were corrected. The restyle provided many useful updates, such as decreased drag, extra roominess, more rigid body etc.
It had a stong, stable place in the market with consistent, healthy sales. It did well in its mission as fleet car and affordable full size car for the traditional-car buyer. It’s great reliability and excellent engine options have found many fans and some models, like the Impala SS are valued collectibles.
Your correct. The fact that they killed it off in 1997 was the deadly sin. These were a great alternative to the Ford Panthers and could easily be upgraded in the suspension department if more handling was desired.
The deadly sin scenario is grossly overused on this site. Something that most any car guy I have spoke to agrees with.
The last of the best? Who’s opinion? By what measure? Because it’s RWD? Give me a break – these Roachmobiles – I HATED them. Ugly and bloated beyond belief.
They made the Impala SS a bit more palpable by adding the (at first) painted chamfer to the C pillar glass, but still awfully ugly cars with obscene overhang, but cutting the wheelbase by removing several inches from the back seat area. A four-body trunk – might as well be – more room in there than in the back seat.
Three Chinese cheers: PHOOEY, PHOOEY, PHOOEY!
I didn’t buy the Roadmaster simply because of the inept styling. With the Caprice, low price offset the styling. With the higher cost of the Buick, styling became more important. Otherwise, the Roadmaster was a great budget luxury car.
Put me in the minority, but I liked these, even stranger it seems, I like the early fender skirted versions of these.I always though the rear quarter looked awkward when the wheel wells were opened up.
I thought they looked very classy in dark colors with the alloy wheels like the white car in the picture and pencil thin white walls. They seemed so “new” at the time, it was the first time in my life that there was a new Caprice Classic, that was big news believe it or not.
The 1980 facelift successfully carried the Caprice through to the end of its lifecycle without destroying the styling theme of the ’77-’79 models, which in their day, were fresh and original. But because they were in production for so long, when the ’91 Caprice debuted, it seemed like a Mercury Sable (a car in production for 5 years by then) on steroids, or as others have suggested, a reincarnated Hudson. Where was the fresh take on a full-size car that Chevy had presented for 1977? Still, I can see where you are coming from and I agree with you and others that the skirted rear wheel models are better looking. Time can change one’s initial impression.
I like the skirted model with the smoooooth hubcaps and blacked out pillars better than the next. Looks much more aero-chic that way.
I had a 1996 Impala SS and still regret selling it. Somehow it “spoke” to me.
Question: When the rear fenders were opened-up was the rear track really widened? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
Comment: With the rear fenders opened up a casual inspection will show that the rear axle is not centered, front to back, within the wheel opening. It is FORWARD of center. A little trivia I guess.
The opened up rear wheelwell is also awkwardly shaped at its front edge so as not to mess with the door cut line from the original skirted styling. As you noted, the wheel is off center in the well which always made these look strange to me. The white color on this one doesn’t help.
Opening the rear wheel wells was a desperate hatchet job to silence critics, and it shows if you look closely. In addition to failing to center the rear axle (good catch; I never could figure out why the wheels didn’t seem to ‘sit’ right) GM also used a completely different moulding on the rears than the front. The execution was even worse than the welded rear wheel lip on the Sedan deVilles of this time period. WHY? Would it have been so difficult to use the same style?
Still, with the LT1 under the hood and the Hoffmeister’d rear quarter window (a plastic patch job on 1995 Impala SS’s, but dedicated sheet metal on the 96s… again, WHY?) this managed to be an attractive car in the end. All it took was six model years.
EDIT – I had the timeframe wrong. The Hoffmeister kink came to the full Caprice line in 1995, after being intro’d on the 1994 Impala SS via a plastic rear quarter glass insert. Whoops!
I never knew that was plastic on the 94s until now, it’s no wonder they were only made in dark colors that year!
I knew it, they never looked right to me either when the wheel wells were opened up.
I liked the 91-92s but LOVE the 94-96s SS’s. Hot ride.
Question…why was the LT-1 in the Carprice, Roadmaster and Fleetwood “detuned”? To save gas?
To protect the Corvettes a$$ like GM has always done and will always continue to do. Why did the Fiero GT have to die? Corvette.
Thank you!
There were only a few RPO cars that snuck by GM’s “can’t butcher the halo car” policy.
I haven’t looked-up the differences, but at least part of the “detuning” was probably to move more power to lower RPMs. Big, heavy cars need low-end torque to get them moving, not big horsepower numbers at some high RPM that they’ll never see when driven sanely.
the B-body Lt1 was also a 2 bolt main block, the Corvettes were 4 bolt mains.
The B-body was a 87 octane engine unlike the F-body and Y-Body LT1’s.
I don’t believe the B-body had reverse flow cooling unlike the aluminum head engines but I’m not positive
Nope, they were not. The only difference was the ones that went in the B-Bodies had iron heads, which was a good thing. The ones on the Camaro and Corvettes had head gasket issues. The 260 hp engine was a real honker for it day.
The heads weren’t the only issue for HP with the LT1.
The advertising for the Impala SS was great…..”Lord Vader, your car is ready”
> And thus, GM single-handedly gave the lucrative full-size market to its competitors.
…so to the Crown Vic then really, because Chrysler had abandoned the fullsize RWD game quite awhile before, and the born-again Chrysler 300 didn’t come along until MY2004.
The 300 appeared in spring 2004 for model year 2005, actually, with the Charger appearing in February 2005 as a model year 2006.
I despised the skirted wheels on the ’91-’92; they put a big exclamation point on the the fact that these barges were a step back towards the cheaped-out, behemoth ’71-’76 cars.
It was amazing what a difference opening up the wheels made to the ’93+ cars. Moving the mirrors to A-pillar and adding Impala Hoffmeister kink for ’95-’96 actually made these cars look pretty good. Then, in typical GM fashion, they were discontinued.
Law enforcement loved these vehicles. I’ve talked to many cops and most complained when they were forced to switch to the Crown Vic. The Chevy small block LT-1 was vastly superior to the modular V-8 in the Fords. Many police agencies kept these cars beyond their normal life cycles and in fact a few companies were actually restoring these cars to extend their use.
A little research reveals that with the 1993 opening of the rear wheel well, the rear track was INCREASED by 1.6 inches.
The Caprice is not my favorite design ever, but the 1994-1996 Impala SS is still stunning. Shame about the chintzy interior.
For non-Impala SS Caprices, I can’t decide whether I prefer the 1991-1992 or 1993-1996 rear wheels better. The 1991-1992 style is more distinctive but more awkward; the 1993-1996 style is cleaner but more generic.
Edit: I didn’t realize until now that all 1995-1996 Caprices got the Hoffmeister kink. So, for non-Impala SS Caprices, my preference is ’95-’96 over ’91-’92 over ’93-’94.
And of course, I always loved the Caprice’s siblings, the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham and Buick Roadmaster. There was also that Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser for two model years – I haven’t seen one of those in years!
That makes two of us – I forgot the Hoffmeister kink came in 1995. I thought it was a final-year-only change.
Is the full size car market truly lucrative?
The only remaining “traditional” full sized car (the 300/Charger siblings) sell around 100k units per year in the combined USA which are healthy sales for sure, but not large compared to the front-drive mid sized sedan market – which accounts for well over a million sales per year.
Which I can’t figure out, ’cause a RWD car is SO much more satisfying to drive. The only explanation I can come up with is that so many people have never driven one, or last drove one thirty years ago, that they don’t know or remember what they’re like.
The styling does nothing for me at all, especially the wheel skirt models. Personally, I don’t think skirted rear wheels look good on ANYTHING, though… certainly not anything made after the 1950s.
That said, I still like these. Big, simple RWD car with superb, modern powerplant… good enough for me. The chassis may have become bloated and outdated by this point, but I do remember when MotorWeek tested one it stayed incredibly flat through the slalom (this was with the F-41 suspension) and they said it was still very comfortable.
This iteration of the redesigned 1991-96 Chevrolet Caprice Classic both the 4 Door Sedan and Station Wagon really brought back the Colonnade styling as you would all see its kinship resemblance with its chassis based 1977 Chevrolet Malibu Classic 4 Door Colonnade Hardtop and Station Wagon. They were also basically similar in size as well. It seemed that many Car Manufacturers during the late 1980s to early 1990s wanted to emulate the 1986-95 Ford Taurus look with that said, even competitors have the Ford Taurus envy.
You still see lotsa Roadmasters here in NJ, not so many Caprice. I think the Roadmaster will be a collector car pretty soon.
So the earlyer one had a 59″ rear track????????
I owned a very nice 96 green gray sedan with the LT1 which also brought the required trailer tow package and sport suspension with limited slip. It had but 30k miles when I bought it in 2002 and was very comfortable and quick! The only three issues I had with it were the alternator at 100K, the front wheel alignment issue which wore out the inner tread of the tires quicker than normal and the rear pinion seal started dripping at 124K. other than that it was oil changes, tires and brakes and little else in the 150K that I owned the car. My buddy had a 1995 Roadmaster with the same suspension setup and had the exact same issues with his car plus one more. The MAF senor would keep going bad every year until the dealer omitted a hose going to the tubing that contaminated it. They had to re-program the chip also but once this was done the car was perfect thereafter.
I can’t wrap my head around the way this car looks…I briefly owned a Roadmonster, early production, base model car, silver with gray mousefur manual seats, full analog instrument package, tilt, cruise and that was about it…amazingly little rear leg room for something so big. It also struck me that the 5.7L engine produced about the same HP and torque as the 4.2L V8 in my old 420SEL. The telling thing was that the Benz had a huge oil filter and held 8 qts of oil, while the Buick had an oil filter the size of a thimble, and only held around 4 qts of oil…completely different engineering philosophy and designed for very different driving conditions. There is nothing in the world like GM’s HVAC…best air conditioning in the world! As crappy as some of GM’s cars are, the a/c is superb.
These cars is the sweetest looking of caprices. I got a 92 caprice a year ago from a old dudeIt got 33k on the miles and I did it a full resteration. Car was boring gold but the old paint still shinned it is now a sweet electric blue metalflakked 22 rims polished agustible suspenssion custom lether insides in white and blue 5 sony monaters for dvd 19000 watt pioneer custom audio with 21 speakers got 2 20 inches ported subwoofers in custom made fiberglass and custom lighted in neon and led. a buddy got a 04 vette motor Im wanting to get cause i cant get the stock 305 to do no better than 106mphs the vette motor will do 200. I no this car is a classic I get thumbs up everwere and it only gets worth more money every year being a 90s car everyone wants. i also got a 1986 monte carlo ss triked out 400hp 92 vette zr1 motor had it up to 150 mph but front end viberates that needing some work its got some rust thru but ill be doing a resteration later these montes are goin for big $$$$$ being from the 80s and colleters paying big for them
I have to wonder why Chevrolet didn’t offer candy lime green paint, 26 inch rims and 20 inch sub woofers in the trunk as factory options for the Caprice. These cars have gang banger written all over them. ICK!
I had a woody LT1 roadmaster wagon for many years. metallic dark cherry was the color on red leather. One of the top 5 cars I ever owned. Simply put i replace the suspension with a 9c1 cop car doner when mine wore out around 150k. Still rode like gold just didnt wallow anymore. Also upgraded the brakes, they were inferior. Trans was rebuilt before i ever aquired it due to the first owner pulling a 23 ft camper cross country for a year. Purchased at 100k for a measily $1k (practically mint and given to me at that price) I did a major tune up on the optispark at 140K (aggrivating design) never had to again touch the motor. Carried people/furniture/trailers cross country myself over the years. Stopped driving her during winters when the chip key system started failing. Then trans sensors went out and I was very sick and against my best judgment sold her for pennies instead of fixing her. Later models have terrible door panels and window mechanisms which I fought the whole time… But those were minor things… pretty much the car went 80k miles with hardly a hiccup… My aunt drove her 92 Roadmaster sedan 325k on the regular 350. No better bang for your buck in my mind
Lovely looking car. I remember this generation Caprice and Caprice Classic. I remember thinking “finally! A new Caprice to replace the reliable, but aging Caprice, which has been around since 1977.” I found this version more attractive than the previous Caprice.
Looked at/test drove a new ’91 Caprice wagon done up in midnight blue…I kinda liked it, but my wife said “no way, it looks like a hearse”. We wound up with an Astro Van instead…LOL!
Far be it for me to criticize considering what I find attractive, but I thought these were fugly when new and still do. I remember the Arlington TX assembly plant holding lot being full of these and they weren’t moving.
Much like its Cadillac sister, which I owned, I don’t object so much to the exteriors on this or any Whale body, but rather the cheaped out interiors. Look at that crappy looking little column shifter and the blah interior. They really sucked the life out of these interiors with these last models.
These have been on my bucket list for ages. Then I got to drive the LT1 Fleetwood version before buying it. Gorgeous car outside. It drove very well. But the interior was cheap. The Impala I looked at, no better.
After the test drive I hopped into my boxy b body (85 Lesabre) and never looked back. Despite the lame 307, it’s a more luxurious car and finer ride.
But I’m hoping to stumble upon a 91 92 Custom Cruiser one day. So rare.
Handsome cars IMO, but GM had some stupid looking wheel options in that era for sure that made these look fugly.
I FINALLY FIGURED OUT WHAT IT IS THAT I DID NOT LIKE ABOUT THIS BODY STYLE CAPRICE.
I ALMOST REALLY LIKED IT, BUT SOMETHING WAS NOT RIGHT.
IN MY OPINION, THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE TOO THIN ROOF, TOO HIGH WINDOWS, TOO ARCHED TOP SIDE WINDOWS. I DID A QUICK SIMPLE MODIFICATION TO THE MAIN PHOTO SHOWN, INCLUDING ROUNDING THE TOP DOWN WITH LOWERED SIDE WINDOW TOPS, AND REDUCED HEIGHT OF THE WINDSHIELD. NOT MAJOR CHANGES, BUT MAJOR RESULTS – AS IN THE AMC MARLIN’S TOO TALL ROOF.
THE DESIGN BECOMES MORE UNIFIED AND HUNKERED DOWN AND NOT AS BLOATED LOOKING. I BET THAT IF THIS TREATMENT WAS TO BE TWEAKED, ALONG WITH SOME FRONT AND REAR ADJUSTMENTS, YOU WOULD HAVE A VERY NICE LOOKING DESIGN.
You’re halfway to a W-body 2000-05 Impie there!
Ouch, ouch, the all-caps really hurt my eyes!
But your Photoshop is interesting – it reminds me of a 1996-2007 Taurus or, as the person above me mentioned, a W-Body Impala.
Much better!
In an alternate universe, they could have done that for the 1997 facelift.
The low beltline and open, airy greenhouse is what really sets these apart from modern cars. I’ve owned a few of these late b-bodies, so obviously I don’t mind the styling. I do understand, though, why some don’t like them. I prefer the open rear fender, but it is the most awkward part of the design since they had to fudge it to make it work. It is angled towards the rear, unlike the front which is symmetrical and round. The kick up on the d-pillar for 95-96 helped as well.
As one of the original commenters said above, between the power train and the styling, once GM had these cars dialed in finally, they discontinued them. So GM! I suppose using the factory to make more Tahoes was a good move financially. It still seems to me that they were leaving money on the table in canceling these. The platform was amortized many times over and they owned the fleet market at the time. They gave almost all police sales to Ford for the next 15 years.
From where I am sitting (Denmark) these cars looked great. The first iteration is like a concept car; the revision added only banality. If the downside was a slightly rough interior you need to recall the low price. I saw one of these in Rotterdam 3 years ago. It looked fabulous and the way it glided set it apart from the other, smaller and fussier vehicles around it.
A couple of points, to clarify. The blacked out pillars were used in 1991 only. The hofmeister kink was first used on the 1994 Impala SS and was a added filler panel. In 1995 all cars had the sheet metal modified to have this change. 1995 also saw new side view mirrors. The rear track on a 1991 Caprice was 60.7″, the same as a 1990 Caprice. This was later increased to 62.3″.
I remember when these came out in 1991, I thought they looked pretty good. Everyone was going aero, so why not Caprice. My father liked them and considered purchasing one, but ended up keeping his old car. I had a few friends that purchased the early TBI cars and they proved to be durable tanks that ran to very high mileage with little trouble. The 1991-92 models were pretty popular locally but they seemed to really fizzle out after 1993. They were very popular in the local cab industry, and many kept them until they literally fell apart. Ever since then the cab market has become much more fragmented.
I worked in a GM service dept in the 1990’s and these Caprices were one of the least problematic cars we serviced. Several techs bought them as personal vehicles because they were solid. I remember the Provincial Police keeping a few of the LT1 Caprices longer than normal to very high miles. They did have some issues with lower ball joints failing in Police use, which was rectified in the later cars with an oversized lower ball joint. Stock suspensions were pretty soggy on these cars though, but this was also the case with the box Caprices. F41 was the way to go, or better yet a 9C1 car (most of our local cabs were 9C1 cars, ex cop cars).
Looking at these cars now, I don’t think they’ve aged well, especially the 1991-92’s. I still think the 1993-96 cars look better than the 92-97 Crown Vics though (the 1998 Vics were a BIG improvement in my eyes). That said, I still think a black 1994-96 Impala SS is a great looking and great driving car and I’d gladly own one today. Something about the wheels, stance, eliminating the cheap Caprice grille made the car look so much better.
After reading this thread, I looked at a some pictures of Caprices from this generation. I definitely think dark colours suit them well, and I still think the 95-96 were the best looking versions.
These are probably the best ones in my eyes:
Here’s another:
But there is no doubt this was the hands down the best looking 91-96 B-body:
I see a black one of these about once a week, and everytime I see it, all I can think is how much better it would look if the windows weren’t so damn huge. This was one of my major hates in the styling of that era. They ruined car after car with giant greenhouses and windows that went past the natural bottom edge and into the doors and quarters. I have to admit, they’ve gone a little bit too far the other way now, but If I had a choice, it would be too small.
I think the early skirted ones with the pillar blackouts were the best of these wearing Caprice badges. Whale, bathtub, whatever. You know what I like in the original design? It looks fully thought out, there’s no awkward detail, even if it’s an all around ungainly design, the way the bodyline and fender skirt is probably one of the most interesting executions of that styling element I can think of, even if it was horribly unfashionable in the 90s, and the original taillights always looked better to me too, inline with the rest of the Chevrolet lineup of the era looking like the big flagship that it was – just look how natural it looks with the early Lumina next to it. But as the pillars became body color, skirts got cut out, and taillights turned into red utilitarian blobs these things just looked more and more like cop cars designed by cops, even if police departments never used them they would still look the part. The hoffmeister kink was an improvement only after the damage was done IMO. The original greenhouse worked just fine with the skirts and blended in pillars.
Impala SS is a different story, but more and more I realize it’s blessed by it’s use of dark colors. White wouldn’t look so good on one I don’t think. Even the uncommon teal colored ones roots show too much.
I remember in 1989 when these things came out. I was a college student at NYU in NYC and they showed up as taxis. I was blown away by the crazy design. Especially compared to the previous model. Thing is they were super low quality inside and out. One of the worst interiors of all time. Total garbage. They lasted throughout the 90 s and remember thinking how forgettable the design had become. Compared to when they first came out.
A fender “skirt” is a removable piece that covers the rear wheels. These Caprices do not have fender “skirts”. Those are wheel wells. Wheel openings.
No offense to anyone, sorry to be so peevish and not a grammar Nazi, but just as there were never 2 or 4 door “post” anythings ever sold, these wheel openings were never referred to as “skirted” fenders.
Even Post War Nashes and Ramblers are referred to as having an “envelope” body. Wickipedia incorrectly refers to the early Nash Rambler as having non removable “skirts”. That is just presentism, critiquing things from a current viewpoint that was never used at the time.
Hard to tell when these terms started to enter the language, but neither has been accurate. There are sedans and coupes and hardtop sedans, wagons and coupes, but no “post” or “non-post” or “skirted” rear wheels unless there is an actual skirt attached.
I have been following the industry and been a car nut for 50 years and have never heard these descriptions before, nor seen these things referred to in any print source I have read, [many many magazines and books over the years] but they seem to becoming common now.
Becoming a curmudgeon, thanks for indulging, real fender skirts were called “spats” at one point as well, so I should just suck it up. Languages changes, just one of my current pet peeves.
And the Caprice above ? I always hated it because the 77 was so perfect. All that money time and energy wasted with nothing learned from the downsizing era.
I just realized that the ’91 Caprice was the car that introduced the one smooth arched window line that Audi has made into a hallmark of luxury.
Seriously – look at ’91 Audis. Distinct kink where the window line breaks to head downward at the rear, not the smooth arc Audi has made its own, and which has been copied by Mercedes and heaven knows who else.
Modern Audi styling was invented on the ’91 Caprice. Don’t know why I only just figured this out.
I would say that the arched window was introduced by the 1951 Kaiser.
Even with the Impala kick-up.
At least few people tried to put vinyl roofs on these. That’s what ruined the look of the Fleetwood version with its limousine doors. GM tried to make their big cars more aerodynamic by narrowing the front clip, but it created the bloated look. I do miss the low beltline and tall windows.
” I do miss the low beltline and tall windows.”
So.
Do.
I!
I’ve said it before and I’ll take it to the grave:
The first order of safety in driving a vehicle is to BE ABLE TO SEE OUT OF IT. And no amount of exterior cameras or sensors can make up for that.
The wagon really shows the same design influences as the Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift hatchbacks, but the smaller car carries it off a bit better. (Sedans are a different matter since GM Design didn’t have as much of a hand in the Swift sedan.