Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They also go by cargo room, and interior space- which is why the Taurus is considered a fullsize car.
I go by wheelbase and overall length. As has been mentioned before, they "measure" every nook and cranny to get the "full-sized" category. Sit in a Taurus then sit in a big '60s or '70s Ford and tell me the new one seems roomier!
Going by cargo and interior room is flawed because cars like a '67-'78 Cadillac Eldorado and '68-'79 Lincoln Mark III, IV and V were externally large but had interiors and trunks that were not that spacious (except for the front seating area).
I just can't see a car being 202.9" long (which the 2015 Ford Taurus is) as "full-sized."
This is what I consider a full-sized Ford (1967 Ford Galaxie 500; 213" long)...
I go by wheelbase and overall length. As has been mentioned before, they "measure" every nook and cranny to get the "full-sized" category. Sit in a Taurus then sit in a big '60s or '70s Ford and tell me the new one seems roomier!
Going by cargo and interior room is flawed because cars like a '67-'78 Cadillac Eldorado and '68-'79 Lincoln Mark III, IV and V were externally large but had interiors and trunks that were not that spacious (except for the front seating area).
I just can't see a car being 202.9" long (which the 2015 Ford Taurus is) as "full-sized."
This is what I consider a full-sized Ford (1967 Ford Galaxie 500; 213" long)...
Exactly right, Fleet.
And, when driving it, that '67 Galaxie 500 had the feel of a significantly bigger car than even the last generation Crown Victoria, despite being only marginally longer. Costs issues completely aside, given the choice I'd take a mint '67 or '68 LTD over a late model Crown Vic any day of the week.
I go by wheelbase and overall length. As has been mentioned before, they "measure" every nook and cranny to get the "full-sized" category. Sit in a Taurus then sit in a big '60s or '70s Ford and tell me the new one seems roomier!
Going by cargo and interior room is flawed because cars like a '67-'78 Cadillac Eldorado and '68-'79 Lincoln Mark III, IV and V were externally large but had interiors and trunks that were not that spacious (except for the front seating area).
I just can't see a car being 202.9" long (which the 2015 Ford Taurus is) as "full-sized."
This is what I consider a full-sized Ford (1967 Ford Galaxie 500; 213" long)...
I consider it a midsize car, but in it's defense; the mopar M-chassis 300M/Intrpeid,/Concorde are also fullsize cars. It is about the same size as a box panther.
I consider it a midsize car, but in it's defense; the mopar M-chassis 300M/Intrpeid,/Concorde are also fullsize cars. It is about the same size as a box panther.
Well, I don't consider any of those modern cars to be full-sized.
Now, if you want to see a true full-sized car... back when they were actually full-sized:
And, when driving it, that '67 Galaxie 500 had the feel of a significantly bigger car than even the last generation Crown Victoria, despite being only marginally longer. Costs issues completely aside, given the choice I'd take a mint '67 or '68 LTD over a late model Crown Vic any day of the week.
It would be a real treat for me to drive around in one of those '60s cars!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
