It’s easy to forget just what a milestone–or grave stone–these cars represent: the end of the road of almost a hundred years of traditional big American RWD cars from General Motors. Who could have foreseen that in 1955, when GM alone sold four million of them and owned over half the market, with a 50.4% share? Nobody.
In 1955, VW was just getting starting to become a serious manufacturer. In 1955, Toyota built all of 7,005 cars. Did either of them dream of becoming the two biggest automakers in the world?
But there’s somebody who’s stated dream is to overtake them both.
Elon Musk has stated that Tesla’s goal is to make 20 million cars per year by 2030, which is more than Toyota and VW combined built in 2021 (about 19 million).
This post did not start out to be about Elon Musk and Tesla, which is projected to build some 1.5 million EVs this year, up from just under one million in 2021. But it’s an inconvenient truth that Tesla is the biggest disrupter of the market since…VW and Toyota. Will Tesla meet its 20 million per year goal? I don’t know, but it will be interesting to watch them try, as it has been so far. BTW, Tesla is now the #1 selling premium brand in the US, having leap-frogged BMW, Mercedes and Lexus.
It’s somewhat debatable whether the 1905 Buick or Cadillac best represent the beginning of this long road of front engine RWD GM cars, but since the Buick had two cylinders to the Caddy’s one, let’s give it the nod. It deserves it, as Buick was really the heart, soul and cash cow of GM for a very long time; it was the core around which Durant added so many other brands, quite a few that were soon irrelevant and killed off.
After Durant was booted out of GM in 1910, he backed the creation of the first Chevrolet, a rather big and pricey six cylinder, with 4.9 liter displacement. In 1914, Durant leveraged profitable Chevrolet to regain control of GM.
In 1917, Chevrolet introduced the Model D, with a 288 cubic inch OHV V8. It made 36 hp @2700 rpm, a not inconsiderable amount for the time. But it was even more expensive, and was dropped after one year. After that Chevrolet started moving downmarket to eventually take on Ford.
Given that our featured Caprice has some version of the Chevy small block V8 that first arrived in 1955 (above), it’s not a stretch to say that there were really only three distinct Chevrolet V8 families under the hoods of their full-sized cars: the Model D, the SBC, and the big block W and Mark IV (same basic block). That’s a notable fact.
We covered the decline and death of the big American car in my post “Who Killed The Big American Car?“. This chart shows how that whole industry segment declined from 1950.
Here’s the Chevrolet version, starting in 1955. Chevrolet outperformed its segment from 1958 through 1964, thanks to weak showings at Ford and Chrysler. But starting in 1965, the decline appears to be even steeper than the whole segment, as buyers increasingly moved to mid-level brands like Pontiac, Olds and Buick. That was fine for GM overall, but not good for Chevy. By the end of the sixties, market share for the full size Chevrolet was below 8%, or less than one-third what it had been as late as just 1958. A precipitous plunge.
After 1980, market share was essentially stuck at around 2%, and undoubtedly fleet sales represented a very healthy percentage of that, as Chevy taxis and cop cars were almost ubiquitous for much of that era. The “new” 1991 models gave a bit of a boost, but that evaporated after just one year. From then on market share was well below 1% and dropping, which of course explains GM’s decision to ditch them after 1996 in favor of better selling SUVs at the last remaining plant in Arlington, TX.
I don’t know if this example was a former fleet car or not, as there’s no obvious visible tell-tales.
It’s seen better days, but it’s also still on the road. A survivor of a rapidly vanishing breed.
I was not a fan of this major restyle of the “Box Bs”, trying too hard to be both “Aero” as well as reviving the excessive width of the 1970s. It just didn’t click for me, and presumably for much of the market. But in reality, 98% of the market wasn’t even looking at big RWD sedans and wagons by this time; they’d moved on to so many other things on the market.
We had a neighbor who had one of these, in white too, but a 1995 or 1996, with the little affected “Hoffmeister kink”. Sweet old guy; a retired dairy man. It was the only one of its kind in our part of town. He drove it until he couldn’t anymore, and then it probably ended up in the hands of a young guy like the owner of this one. Old cars are cool, especially if they’re cheap.
It’s common to assert that trucks and SUVs have replaced the big American sedan, but the stats don’t really support that. The market shifted in many ways starting back in the late ’50s with the imports and in the ’60s with compacts, pony cars and mid-sized cars. Looking at that chart above, it’s clear that these are what replaced the full-sized RWD car, more so than trucks at the time. By the time truck and SUV sales really kicked into high gear, the full-sized car was already a minor player.
Nothing really replaced the full size American car; it just became increasingly irrelevant, and thus died a natural death.
Related reading:
Who Killed The Big American RWD Car? PN
Other than the peppy and powerful LT1 350 V8 engine, available in some years of this car, I found the #FoMoCo “Panther” (Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, Town Car) chassis cars to be superior cars in many, many different categories.
The Buick variant:
This Caprice was one ugly-ass car. I think this version with the full wheel cutouts but before the beltline kink that came at the end was the worst of all of them.
Agree with JPC.
I would even go as far to say “Butt Ugly”.
This is the only version I like much at all. Most of these low-beltline cars look weird today, but this one did at the time.
They had 3 years to reconsider the trend, yet made similar mistakes with the bloated ’94 Deville. They sort of fixed it in ’97 by enlarging the wheel cutout and nose and widening the rear tread.
I think the best was the Buick. The Chevy looked like the front was too small for the car and rest was hideous. The caddy had odd proportions and in distance looked just like the smaller deville. The Buick was a good looking car inseam form and the olds vista cruiser was a nice looking car.
I used to really dislike the Roadmaster but I’ve come around to thinking the same. My biggest gripe with it is the chunky C pillar and skirted rear fender makes it look heavy but it wears its proportions way better than the caprice and Cadillac. I think the rear end is the best part, the Caprice really does look like a bathtub with its rounded edges, the Roadmaster’s more traditional squared off rear end is a welcome differentiation.
I also am partial to the wagon bodystyles, something real classic cool about the designs, and I’m not really a wagon fan normally.
My father’s final automobile, I inherited it after the funeral and promptly traded it in on a newer, better Dodge Dakota for my sutlery business. While surprisingly good handling (dad always went for the F41 option after his eye-opening moment with the 70 Camaro), it was the antithesis of everything I both believed in, and owned, in an automobile all of my life: Big, fat, automatic transmission, bench seat, V-8 engine.
I did keep it long enough to name it: Moby Grape. Well, what else do you call a burgundy whale?
Just don’t get sued over your ca’s name, as members of the like-named rock band repeatedly did.
These are still relatively common sights in some parts of the US, such as where my in-laws live in rural Missouri. In fact, one of their mail carriers drives a ’91 Caprice on his route. I talked to him about that car once, and it has several hundred thousand miles on it.
Here’s another example I saw on the road recently; from the dust, it seems this is also likely a rural car that spends a good bit of time driving on gravel roads.
I admit it, I liked these cars when they came out. Aero styling was in and at the time the old boxy Caprice seemed so archaic and out of touch. However, through modern eyes, the 91-96 Caprice hasn’t aged overly well, in particular the early 1991-92 cars. This example is pretty clapped out, with a too low stance, ugly wheels and a fleet white paint job, none of which helps the car’s appearance. I know the majority seem to like the styling on the 92-97 Crown Vics better, but I don’t think they are a good looking vehicle either. I suppose the more conservative styling of the Vic appeals to the conservative people who tend to like these cars. I will say that the 1998 restyle was an improvement.
All that said, I still think that the 1994-96 Impala SS is a great looking car. The little changes made a big difference; the hofmeister kink, the improved grille, the better stance, the fatter wheels and tires, and bucket seats/console. And of course the Impala SS had great performance, handling, and braking for the time. They were just great driving vehicles, probably the best driving of the 77-96 B-body chassis and arguable the best ever of the traditional American full-size cars. There is a reason they are the most collectible of the modern full-size cars. I’d love to add one to my fleet some day.
I agree about the Impala SS. Great car. My son-in-law bought a brand new one back in the day. Him and some friends were checking it out in his driveway after bringing it home from the dealer. One of his friends happened to own a body shop and while looking in the trunk, found much evidence of a quarter panel repair not done well. Drove it immediately back to the dealer and got his money back. That’s why I never got to drive one.
I was about 16 when a neighboring town got a whole new police car fleet of the new aero-Caprice.
We thought they looked like orange turtles.
Good to see a b-body survivor in Eugene! This one definitely looks rough, and I hope the owner is planning to replace the window rather than let it slowly slide into neglect and a date with the salvage yard. I think these do generally have high survival rates, as being the final GM BOF rear drivers makes them special enough to some to keep them going when other cars might be let go.
I can’t tell from the pictures if it has single or dual exhaust. Dual would be the LT1, single would indicate the 4.3L “baby” LT1 (L99), which was 265 c.i., the same as the original 55 SBC. I’ve never heard if that was a coincidence or an intentional tribute. Hard to tell on such a well-used beater if it was originally a cop car, but I’d put better than even odds on it. No interior shots here, but if it has a yellow button below the headlight dial to the right of the AC vent rather than a small cubby or a small black button to the right of the radio rather than a power outlet, then it is a police package car.
Yes, I am a 9C1 nerd. I’ve owned a 94 and 95 9C1, as well as a 94 civilian wagon and 96 Roadmaster wagon, so I am a bit biased on these. I acknowledge they are not the most handsome cars GM ever made, but I find their looks at a minimum inoffensive and in the right guise, even a bit handsome. Here’s how the 94 looked in it’s natural, fearsome state. Seeing that, no one was too concerned it was a little whale-like!
Jon, I am on the same page as you about these cars. I also thought they looked pretty good in police livery. They sure were loved by most cops. One minor point, the 4.3L L99 was not a 265, it was actually a 263. Most people incorrectly say the displacement. The L99 used the 3.736″ bore shared with the 305 engine, and a 3.0″ stroke resulting in a 263.1 displacement. The 265 used a 3.75″ bore and a 3.00″ stoke, resulting in the 265 displacement.
I do think this was somewhat of a tribute to the 265. I don’t know if you remember or not, but in about 1994 GM Performance built a 1955 Chevrolet with an L99 engine as a tribute to the small bock Chevy. Nostalgia aside, there was no logical reason to make the shorter stroke engine. I would have made a lot more sense to keep the base engine a Gen II version of the 305 rather than make this one off low production 3.0″ stoke 263 engine. Plus, the big heavy Caprice could have used the extra torque the larger engine would have created.
I don’t recall hearing about the L99 55 Chevy, sounds cool! Chevrolet officially listed the specs of the 4.3 as 265c.i., so if it is in reality 263 but they called it 265, that would certainly imply they were conscious of the parallel.
I also never really understood why they bothered to make the 4.3. My theory is that it was for fleets. A surprising number of police fleets went with it, including I believe NYPD and LAPD. Many agencies didn’t feel they needed the extra h.p. (260 was considered pretty serious power at that time compared to the preceding 20 years) and preferred to get a little better gas mileage. Cars originally sold as taxis universally had the 4.3. I would also estimate at least a third of the civilian Caprices had the 4.3.
Car people wring their hands and go on about
”no more full size cars.” But, big pickups are the #1 sellers for each of the ‘Detroit 3’. So essentially, the 4 door pickup is the ‘big car’ or today. Just changed styles.
As the graph shows, even before the 1973-74 Gas Crisis, big cars were declining. So, cant completely blame CAFE.
Yes, but as Mr. Niedermeyer points out, big car sales plunged long before pickup trucks became so popular.
Yes, “large” or “standard” size car sales started dropping in the late 1950s.
While I don’t understand how they went to 70% in 1959 (10% imports, what where the other 20%? Ramblers? I think not. In 1959, the big three had only large cars, Corvettes and T-Birds), in the early mid-60s, the “mid-sizers” came out.
A 1964 Chevelle had the same wheelbase as a 1955 Chevrolet.
Domestic mid-size cars are, for all intents and purposed, pretty big, and they grew until 1978 when GM downsized them and 1979/80, when high fuel prices and the inflationary recession killed them from Ford and Mopar.
I agree with Chicagoland–the large car is alive and well, with “full-size” pick-ups including two JAPANESE badged trucks. And the “mid-sized” trucks are pretty big too now.
It wasn’t 70% in 1959; you misread the chart. It was about 80%. 10% for imports and 10% for Rambler, Studebaker Lark (which had its best year ever in 1959), and a few minor models like the Corvette, T-Bird and such.
It was 70% in 1960, due to the new domestic compacts.
We could call that the Pickup Replacement Theory, and I think there’s credibility to it. Ever since the prewar period when typical American cars grew to be much larger than the rest of the world’s, Americans have had a thing for large, heavy cars with big engines. Even though our cars aren’t that unique anymore, we sure buy a heap of big pickups and SUVs. So I agree, fundamentally nothing has changed despite the demise of the traditional fullsize car.
The midsize cars that replaced many of the fullsize sales in the 60s-80s were still pretty big cars relative to Europe and Japan.
Big families needed big cars. There was quite a downturn on births between 1955 and 1970. Dual income families arrived during this time as well. The economy, women’s freedom, divorces, and gas shortages changed things. Instead of one large family car, families often had two cars – or more – if they had Boomers still living at home.
So, I believe demographics had a role in this too. It wasn’t enough to have a nice big car, the next generation wanted to be seen as young as the Boomers, so they bought pony cars, sporty cars, smaller cars because they were empty nesters who wanted to look like swingers. We’re not talking about Boomers, but their parents. The “Greatest Generation” who broke the sound barrier and put a man on the moon didn’t want to be seen tooling around in a Chevy Brookwood anymore. They wanted a Mustang.
I never had a big car until ten years ago. I never wanted a bloated road whale like my father’s. I accidentally discovered that the species evolved into Police Interceptors with computerized handling, but with full size comfort, V8 power and silent interiors. It was a revelation.
AS to this Chevy – sad. Ugly. When it was unveiled, I could not believe what I was looking at. A giant plastic Packard? The “chrome” was nothing more than cheap metal paint on plastic. After a generation of calling these cars, “road whales”, GM makes a car that looks like a whale?
If you think the exterior is pathetic, you shouldn’t see that interior. My kid’s plastic toys used better materials than what GM put into these cars. It was a terrible ending to a legacy. It should have never been built. It would have been better to have ended a generation sooner. How many of this generation’s Olds 98, Roadmaster or Caprice are left? Better to have a 1975 Caprice than a 1995 Caprice.
I wonder what the regional distribution is? In Bend Oreogn I see Roadmasters more than Caprices, at least in my regular haunts. Then again I see a lot of early oughts LeSabres and Park Avenues but not many Malibus or FWD Impalas.
No doubt how Americans look at cars has an evolving logic. After WWII, most companies / brands had a basic standard car that would be built in several body configurations. Most “standard” domestic cars were similar in size across companies / brands, and there became a sort of definition of a standard or full-size car.
As brands began to introduce more diverse models in earnest in the early ’60, we ended up with terms for what amounted to extra small, small, medium and large. The trouble was, the small through large classes tended to walk all over each other.
The 1949 111″ wheelbase Plymouth was a standard car, but the 1975 111″ Plymouth Valiant was a small car? The 1977 116″ Malibu was a mid-size, but the 1977 116″ Impala was a full-size? The 1973 116″ Malibu 207″ overall length was a mid-size, but the 1953 115″ Chevrolet 195.5″ overall length was a standard car?
Globally, these were all Yank Tanks. It was the marketing folks that came with Grande, Venti and Trenta, opps, this isn’t Starbucks, rather Compact, Mid-Size and Full-Size.
The United States gobbling up Cordoba over Newport, Cutlass over Chevrolet, and Chevrolet over Cutlass was not exactly a nation on a strict automotive diet.
The real change was when meaningfully more fuel efficient cars came along with 4 and small 6 cylinder engines, mostly in front wheel drive, and the change was driven largely by what was available in the showroom. The 1986 Chevrolet showroom still had several tanks, by 1996 the Tanks had fully tanked.
I think the reason so many associate the F-150 as the Ford LTD / Galaxie etc. is its placement in the line as typically the largest and most expensive offering in the showroom, providing a high level of utility hauling people, cargo and trailers, and drawing the largest number of sales in a diverse showroom, just like the big Fords did in a diverse showroom in 1972 and 1962.
The front ends were pretty handsome, but the design progressively gets less and less attractive as you move further back, culminating in the rear end that’s a little too long and way too rounded at the corners. I’m not sure I agree with people that the round rear wheel openings and hoffmiester kink fixed anything either, to my eye those changes just made it more utilitarian, looking like an airport tug. The Impala SS looks good because black is slimming, note they never made a white one and that lighter greenish colored one was notably the least popular
As to the big car, I think there was a crossroads somewhere where the segment was declining because “they’re just too big for me” and “I’m not buying that barge, it’s an old man’s car”. They may have been losing ground all through the 60s but the designs were still contemporary and fresh through the decade, still being the style leader the intermediates and compacts would have styling features trickled down. The turning point where they lost that seems to be the doom point, the 77 B bodies followed the sheer look brought on by compact Seville, then intermediate and compact offerings imitated aspects of European cars, while the full sizers now looked like the grouchy live in grandparent on a lazyboy in the lineups.
I don’t even think the size was a problem for the average buyer anymore after downsizing occurred, it was simply the big car stereotypes, and many holdover traits they had. Like despite their thorough aero restyles in the 90s, they still had 70s looking dashboards, column shifters and bench seats, not to mention boats rides with standard suspension. Even if someone were intrigued by the new look they’d exclaim “ohhh…” once they opened the door and took it out for a test drive. Plus broughamy names like “Caprice Classic”, “Crown Victoria”, “Grand Marquis” didn’t exactly match the sleekened image either. Dredging up Impala for the SS package was probably as endearing as anything else about it, Caprice SS doesn’t have quite the ring to it.
The late GM Bodies and Panthers are “big” but they’re nowhere near mid 70s big, they’re pretty manageable really, but they viscerally feel completely removed from contemporary standards, a Collonade like the Grand Am built 20 years earlier than this is about the same size yet it’s image and way it’s packaged is closer to 90s standards than these if you think about it.
To that end there may have been a time full size should have reinvented itself and simply become midsize. The 62 Dodge/Plymouths are fascinating because they essentially did that, but it was arguably thwarted by the styling direction. Had they (what would be known as the B body) remained full size after 1965, eschewing the C-bodies, would Chrysler have really felt the loss? Would C body buyers of that time shunned or accepted the idea of the Coronets and Belvederes as full sizers or would they have defected to Ford and Chevy offerings? I’m not so sure, they may well have set the trend for the industry. Afterall. The midsize car was in essence the organic “full size” or “standard car” for most people until the crossover.
This. Truck sales went crazy in the late 90s. The Suburban was longer and weighed more than 500 pounds than these did but sold off the charts. The ending of these was due to them being seen as old man cars.
Good thesis! I can definitely see it became as much about image as size in the 70’s-80’s.
The RWD GM sedan we really should be pouring one out for is the current Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing. Although, the 1996 Chevrolet Impala SS was the final “reasonably priced” large RWD sedan offered for sale by GM, there were quite a few reprisals. Namely the Pontiac G8, Cadillac STS, Chevrolet SS, Cadillac CTS, and Cadillac CT6. If you include the weaksauce Cadillac Catera, GM has offered a RWD sedan for sale pretty much non-stop since 1996. They all just got a lot harder to afford and much harder to find.
I agree we should be pouring one out for the CT5-V Blackwing. Cadillac claims it will be the last ICE Blackwing.
Remember riding in a rather new one in “1992”. I think the top of the dash had the same surface area as the floor in many closets I’d seen.
It rode quiet, the a/c outlets looked small and few for the large interior.
My ride was in cool weather so a/c was not in use.
I’ve never ridden in a 92, but all the 94-96’s I’ve driven or ridden in had great AC.
My 93,original(60,000) miles rides awesome,even with larger wheels,handles better.Paint job only addition.
Whatever else good or bad that I can say about Chevies; they always had truly excellent factory air conditioning systems. Since 1955, #IIRC.
It didn’t really dawn on me until a few years ago, that before I was born in 1960, each division was selling variations of one car, plus the Corvette and Thunderbird niches.
I wish they had kept making these for a few more years, such wonderful cars these B-body GM cars were, great to ride in, drive, sit in, look at in and out, and they even got decent milage with classic V8 horsepower, what more could you ever want in a 1990s daily driver?
Compared to a Crown Vic or Grand Marquis all too many of these Chevies had cheap looking, trashy plastic interiors with “Pac-Man” instrument clusters.
“Hold my beer.”
– The 2011 Lincoln Town Car said to the 1991 Chevrolet Caprice
I don’t know what that means, but my dad and I went to see the new Buick Roadmaster while driving a rental car – the Town Car. My dad always loved Buicks and wanted to see the resurrection of a legend, the Roadmaster.
The excitement faded the moment we got into the Buick. It had none of the quality of the Town Car. The plastics were cheap feeling, the toggle switches felt hollow and cheap. The materials used in the interior were not worthy of the name Buick or Roadmaster.
The prices were the same however. The Roadmaster was such a disappointment, we didn’t even bother test driving it. After reviewing all the cars in the showroom, we left in the better car – the Lincoln Town Car.
So I don’t know what you are getting at, but that Roadmaster made the Caprice look even cheaper. These GM cars did not have interiors worthy of a GM car larger than a Citation.
Would everyone please stop calling that rear window fillip a hoffmeister kink? It was featured on Kaisers of the early ’50s, give credit where it is due!
As to these, my Dad had a ’91 Caprise with lackluster 305, and a ’96 Roadmasher with LT-1, the latter was a hoot to drive.
Caprice.