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.
Whomever wrote that article, clearly never lived in the 60's/early 70's.
I agree. The Cadillacs, Chryslers, and Lincolns from that area were HUGE, compared to today's "full sized car". And people, over time, are getting taller, so how are they supposed to fit in the average sized Nissan, Toyota, or Volkswagen?
I agree. The Cadillacs, Chryslers, and Lincolns from that area were HUGE, compared to today's "full sized car". And people, over time, are getting taller, so how are they supposed to fit in the average sized Nissan, Toyota, or Volkswagen?
Today's "full size cars" would have been classed as compacts back then.
Spaces got smaller in the 80s. My college designed an entire lot for compact cars and we’d get a warning if we used the regular lots. I hated it because my doors always got dinged. That’s when I started taking end spots at the back of the lot. Still have a compact car and I still do that.
The other day I was in a small parking lot and every SUV was over a line. Maybe we should just remove lines and let people park.
Worst is some lots don’t have a big enough isle to easily back out of the spots.
Carl Schneeman's test vehicle is 79" wide and 202" long. Here are some comparison vehicles from way back when:
1969 Buick Skylark 4-Door-Sedan: 75.6" wide and 204.7" long
1970 Chevrolet Impala: 79.8" wide and 216" long
1974 Chevrolet Impala 79.5" wide and 222.7" long
I drive a 2019 Buick Encore, a tiny vehicle: 69.9" wide and 168.4" long. Its height of 65.3" allows for better ground clearance and more interior and cargo room, though. However, don't try to fit four 6 ft people into the Encore, or two 6' people with two child seats in the back seat. Three adults will fit in the back seat, but only if they are female gymnasts.
I guess now we’re going to rail against the size/dimensions of vehicles instead of weight. Back in the day, I remember reading criticism about SUVs because they are ‘heavy and dangerous’ but now that EVs are heavy due to the battery, we’re not concerned about weight anymore. Heavy is now acceptable.
Either way, I agree with the others who cite the “land yacht” vehicles of yesteryear. Those were definitely big!
Eh if you can’t park it, you shouldn’t buy it. We’ve driven in Europe where plenty of folks can put a good-sized minivan or camper van in a far smaller parking spot than what you find in a typical suburban Walmart here.
Carl Schneeman's test vehicle is 79" wide and 202" long.
Here are some comparison vehicles from way back when:
1969 Buick Skylark 4-Door-Sedan: 75.6" wide and 204.7" long
1970 Chevrolet Impala: 79.8" wide and 216" long
1974 Chevrolet Impala 79.5" wide and 222.7" long
1959 Cadillac Eldorado convertible: 80.2" wide and 225" long.
1973 Chrysler Imperial: 79.6" wide and 235.3" long.
My 2011 Crown Vic is 77.3" wide and 212" long.
A modern Honda Acord 73.3" wide and 195.7" long.
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.
