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.
Going by the above criteria, you would probably like the '60s and '70s Cadillacs (as I do). A quiet and soft ride, plush seats and an attractive dashboard. Below is a '69.
Yeah...I really like the 91-96 Caprice, 95-96 Impala SS and the 95-96 Fleetwood
Well, I never considered my former 1966 Dodge Dart GT, at 196.3", "big." It was a compact.
The 2009 Cadillac CTS-V is only 191.6"!
"Only" 191.6 is equal to the 5 series, and for another comparison a half foot longer than my midsize mazda6 (which I find to be on the large size, personally). This is a big boy; price, content, and line-upwise it's more than a foot longer than it's class competitors (i.e. the 3 series is a tidy 178")
"Only" 191.6 is equal to the 5 series, and for another comparison a half foot longer than my midsize mazda6 (which I find to be on the large size, personally). This is a big boy; price, content, and line-upwise it's more than a foot longer than it's class competitors (i.e. the 3 series is a tidy 178")
I realize that the word "compact" and "mid-sized" has changed a lot since the 1960s, but I can't see any car which is less than about 195-196 inches long as "mid-sized."
And certainly not a car under 190 inches in length. A mid-1960s Plymouth Valiant was 188 inches long; those were definitely classified as a "compact" (at least back in the '60s).
In the '60s, "mid-sized" meant a car with a wheelbase between 112 and 118 inches and an overall length roughly of 197 to 207 inches.
If you think a Cadillac CTS is a "big boy," what would consider the size of my cars to be? (1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, 228.5"; 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, 252.2"; 1995 Lincoln Town Car, 218.9".)
I realize that the word "compact" and "mid-sized" has changed a lot since the 1960s, but I can't see any car which is less than about 195-196 inches long as "mid-sized."
And certainly not a car under 190 inches in length. A mid-1960s Plymouth Valiant was 188 inches long; those were definitely classified as a "compact" (at least back in the '60s).
In the '60s, "mid-sized" meant a car with a wheelbase between 112 and 118 inches and an overall length roughly of 197 to 207 inches.
If you think a Cadillac CTS is a "big boy," what would consider the size of my cars to be? (1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, 228.5"; 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, 252.2"; 1995 Lincoln Town Car, 218.9".)
We get it already, OK? We know you think even today's big cars aren't big by your standards, because you've said so over and over already. But we were talking about by TODAY'S standards. Got it? Can't we ever talk about something without gratuitous and repeated references to cars of the 60s and 70s? Jesus flippin' Christ.
If you think a Cadillac CTS is a "big boy," what would consider the size of my cars to be? (1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, 228.5"; 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, 252.2"; 1995 Lincoln Town Car, 218.9".)
We get it already, OK? We know you think even today's big cars aren't big by your standards, because you've said so over and over already. But we were talking about by TODAY'S standards. Got it? Can't we ever talk about something without gratuitous and repeated references to cars of the 60s and 70s? Jesus flippin' Christ.
RELAX BUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like it or not, there are quite a few members here who like '60s and '70s cars.
Get over it or just skip past my posts and stop with your constant and irritating whining.
RELAX BUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like it or not, there are quite a few members here who like '60s and '70s cars.
Get over it or just skip past my posts and stop with your constant and irritating whining.
I have a better idea: if you think so many people want to talk about 60s and 70s cars, start your own damn thread on the subject instead of steering every thread you participate in toward the same topic over and over and over and over again. It's not enough to just skip past your posts because you drag others into your conversation even when, like yo vanilla, they keep trying to get it back to the actual thread topic and you keep dragging the conversation back toward your topic. It's really freakin' old.
And I'm not the only one who thinks so since I've already received rep for my prior post.
I have a better idea: if you think so many people want to talk about 60s and 70s cars, start your own damn thread on the subject instead of steering every thread you participate in toward the same topic over and over and over and over again. It's not enough to just skip past your posts because you drag others into your conversation even when, like yo vanilla, they keep trying to get it back to the actual thread topic and you keep dragging the conversation back toward your topic. It's really freakin' old.
Every thread? Wrong! You are exaggerating.
Quote:
And I'm not the only one who thinks so since I've already received rep for my prior post
I have received many comments (reps) regarding the photos of the cars I own.
As I said the last time you complained about this, as long as I don't break the TOS, I will reply as I see fit and if it is relevant to the subject. You are more than welcome to skip right over my posts.
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.
