By 1990, that number was down to about 8 and by 2000 only the Cadillac Eldorado and Chevrolet Monte Carlo had survived.

*raises eyebrow sharply*

Well, 1 of 2 of those is correct.

Or like me do you need a little personal luxury in your coupe?

Before I bought my 1979 Caprice Classic, I would've agreed with you 2,000% ... personal luxury coupe, preferably RWD. But, the big RWD sedan isn't that bad, either.

So, it'd be nice to see a mid-size or large RWD sedan/coupe tandem.

Cort | 37.m.IL.pigValve.pacemaker | 5 Monte Carlos + 1 Caprice Classic | * meet_04.16.11_Dwight.IL *

MCs.CC + CHD.models.HO.legos.RadioShows + RoadTrips.us66 = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"I can't take anymore" __ 3rd Eye Blind __ 'How's It Going To Be'

Did someone mention rumble seats yet?

Did someone mention rumble seats yet?

they would be hot in a Nissan Juke Convertible.

Did someone mention rumble seats yet?

they would be hot in a Nissan Juke Convertible.

Oh man YESSSSSS I would rock that all over the place.

Did someone mention rumble seats yet?

they would be hot in a Nissan Juke Convertible.

oh please no...

Edited March 11, 201114 yr by Turbojett

Did someone mention rumble seats yet?

they would be hot in a Nissan Juke Convertible.

Hmmm.... an in-decklid rumble seat would be cool in a stretched DTS dual-cowl phaeton.

Edited March 11, 201114 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

I still want a Jetback sedan.

I still want a Jetback sedan.

'jetback'?

A CTS 4dr coupe w/ the roofline of the coupe would be interesting...looks like that may be the way the ATS is going, if the illustrations are any where realistic..

Edited March 11, 201114 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

I still want a Jetback sedan.

'jetback'?

A CTS 4dr coupe w/ the roofline of the coupe would be interesting...looks like that may be the way the ATS is going, if the illustrations are any where realistic..

Excellently cool, but I wonder what the back window would have looked like if it were curved downward at the bottom instead of upward. Would have given better visibility, seemingly.

Excellently cool, but I wonder what the back window would have looked like if it were curved downward at the bottom instead of upward. Would have given better visibility, seemingly.

I guess drivers didn't care about what was behind them or back up much from the late 30s to early 50s..those tiny rear windows and often no side view mirror must have been a real PITA to live with..

With backup cameras and blind spot warnings becoming ubiquitous, something like that could fly these days without the rear visibility issues. Hopefully someone gives it a shot, mix things up a bit.

I guess drivers didn't care about what was behind them or back up much from the late 30s to early 50s..those tiny rear windows and often no side view mirror must have been a real PITA to live with..

Those upright vehicles had FAR better visibility than the equivalent versions today, at least in the 270-degree range. Thinner, way less bulky pillars farther away from your eye, huge windshields & long side glass.

Note the size of the '50 Drew posted: 121" wheelbase & an overall height right about 65"- she's a huge b**ch. So that backlight is larger than you may think. Yea- it's relatively narrow, but back then there were no smarts or minis to watch out for, either.

I daily drove a car for 2 years with no RH sideview & a LH sideview that was fender-mounted; it certainly wasn't a PITA to drive, and this in Jersey. In the day- everybody did it.

Hopefully one day studies will show that pillars 4" deep & 3" thick, 5" from your eyes and right over your shoulder make visibility a dangerous situation, and more moderate execution will return.

Edited March 12, 201114 yr by balthazar

Well my point is, if we're going to continue to have the incredible shrinking decklid, can't we at least have it in something attractive?

Well my point is, if we're going to continue to have the incredible shrinking decklid, can't we at least have it in something attractive?

Agreed...I remember when cars had usable trunks...you can haul a lot in the trunk of a 50's, sixties, or seventies domestic....

Well my point is, if we're going to continue to have the incredible shrinking decklid, can't we at least have it in something attractive?

Agreed...I remember when cars had usable trunks...you can haul a lot in the trunk of a 50's, sixties, or seventies domestic....

I'm always amazed at car shows when I see how long the decklids were on many cars of that era....seems like they are longer than the hoods on many modern cars...even the small cars of the '60s had huge trunks compared to today's cars..

Well my point is, if we're going to continue to have the incredible shrinking decklid, can't we at least have it in something attractive?

Agreed, but CAFE/aerodynamics will never allow a tapered-down decklid anything remotely like what you pictured. It's 'short & high' for perpetuity, I'm afraid.

I'm always amazed at car shows when I see how long the decklids were on many cars of that era....seems like they are longer than the hoods on many modern cars...even the small cars of the '60s had huge trunks compared to today's cars.

See, I prefer that- the longer hood/uber stubby deck is generic at this point. Even within that '60s era- I prefer the short hood/long deck look.

Another issue of modern execution is to put all sorts of paneling & fuzzy nappy material inside, so the tender-footed don't get upset seeing the inside of the quarter panels or the actual RR wheelwells. Cuts down on cargo space visually, and in actuality. Frankly, every mid- & full-size car out there could use another 3-5" of overall width.

Now... try not to get lost in the roundness of form, the fact that it has no sideview mirrors, that it has no cupholders, and just get the point of a short hood/long deck proportion.

I already know you hate it, but that proportion today is unknown.

If we at least could get something going back towards this:

where, tho the deck itself isn't long due to the tapered greenhouse, there's more rear overhang than frontal, I'd be happier.

Edited March 12, 201114 yr by balthazar

Agreed...I remember when cars had usable trunks...you can haul a lot in the trunk of a 50's, sixties, or seventies domestic...

And of course back in those days each person had relatively smaller luggage. So a trip to the airport with 6 people had six seated and all the suitcases fit in the trunk.

Today, the suitcases are so large, I barely fit 2-3 in the back of my relatively large-trunked Bonneville... so the others go in the passenger area. Nothing like a super cramped 2-3 hour drive from Atlantic City to JFK to deliver 2 and their junk to the airport. If 6 were going, we'd need two cars!

SAmadei, that is exactly my point with these tiny, 3-row crossovers and vans, like the Mazda 5 and Tony Orlando. With all seats warmed by butts, there's no place to put traveling gear, or sports gear, or much of anything except a ballpoint pen.

SAmadei, that is exactly my point with these tiny, 3-row crossovers and vans, like the Mazda 5 and Tony Orlando. With all seats warmed by butts, there's no place to put traveling gear, or sports gear, or much of anything except a ballpoint pen.

Yeah, but there is a iPod hook-up, DVD player and two Double Gulp holders for each 400 lb person, so why would you need sports gear? ;-)

For, in general, the average person hauling around much more stuff than 20 or 40 years, the inverse shrinking of cargo space is really puzzling.

It's been stated here before; that if mainstream sedans hadn't shrunk so incredibly much, the move to trucks would not have been so tidal.

Edited March 13, 201114 yr by balthazar

"Sports Gear" for THOSE guys would be a grill, beer, meat, and beer, for the tailgate party in the parking lot at the schtadium. You couldn't put a hibachi, a pack of hot dogs and a single can of Pabst Blue Ribbon back there.

Agreed...I remember when cars had usable trunks...you can haul a lot in the trunk of a 50's, sixties, or seventies domestic...

And of course back in those days each person had relatively smaller luggage. So a trip to the airport with 6 people had six seated and all the suitcases fit in the trunk.

Today, the suitcases are so large, I barely fit 2-3 in the back of my relatively large-trunked Bonneville... so the others go in the passenger area. Nothing like a super cramped 2-3 hour drive from Atlantic City to JFK to deliver 2 and their junk to the airport. If 6 were going, we'd need two cars!

The first summer we had the 07 Impala we took it to the coast (four of us) and found the trunk of 19cu. ft. was *just* big enough for the luggage of four people. Quite simply the Malibu with its 15cu. ft. and oh so stupid shaped trunk opening or anything in its class could seat five but not carry the luggage for more than two. At least for its size the Cruze has a decent amount of cargo space and a reasonable shaped opening... Just wish it didn't have those god forsaken gooseneck hinges.

For, in general, the average person hauling around much more stuff than 20 or 40 years, the inverse shrinking of cargo space is really puzzling.

It's been stated here before; that if mainstream sedans hadn't shrunk so incredibly much, the move to trucks would not have been so tidal.

And now we have a perfect storm of no large cars and truck extinction in the sites of the CAFE people... so you know where to put your money next... Trailers! Sure, that Corolla has no tow rating... but that don't stop Billy Bob from attaching one with duct tape and zip ties.

The return of the large, stylish, American RWD luxury sedan.

"Sports Gear" for THOSE guys would be a grill, beer, meat, and beer, for the tailgate party in the parking lot at the schtadium. You couldn't put a hibachi, a pack of hot dogs and a single can of Pabst Blue Ribbon back there.

We know you could get a case of Pabst into a Solstice.....so at least part of your statement is untrue.

So... buy a Solstice instead of an Orlando if you want cargo space? Whoa, Nellie!