As massive as some of our Cadillacs are, I feel like sometimes the interiors can actually seem a bit tight especially on the rear passenger legroom side of things.
The years do matter as well, and sometimes I feel like whatever Cadillac had on paper as the specs, isn't what it seemed to be In real life.
For instance in my 64 SDV, the rear passenger legroom is tight considering how large the wheelbase is. And entering and exiting the car can be a pain because of how low the car sits. So it makes it a struggle at times.
Yet in the 70's, Cadillac interiors and the exterior grew larger with increased legroom up front and in the backseat with pretty much the same wheelbase that Cadillac used since the 1950's at 129.5-130 inches long. I believe the styling of the cars has something to do with it but again this goes to show that having a long wheelbase car doesn't always translate into having the largest interior with best amount of legroom.
What I find even more fascinating is how extremely huge the interior is in every dimension in my 54 Fleetwood in comparison to every other Cadillac I have ever owned or have sat in. The legroom and headroom alone is limousine living room size big. But you could say that of even the 62 series and Deville cars which I think have the same interior dimensions as the Fleetwoods. The mid 50's Cadillacs are tall broad shoulders cars, like an offensive or defensive lineman.
The actual physical differences in length and width between the '64 and the '54 Cadillacs aren't all that much different.
It would surprise many people to know how little legroom there is in Cadillacs of the '50s through '76 despite their massive exterior proportions. They would be even more surprised to learn that in many cases, interior room actually increased when the cars started becoming smaller on the outside.
You guys are correct. Hardly any leg room back there. Of the Cadillac production models the Series 75s would I imagine have the most interior room by far, (not counting the Commercial vehicles). I got 2 rows of rear back seats in mine, one of which can fold up into the bulkhead. You can camp out back there. Tons of room. Looks like Cadillac shortened the trunk, as as well as lengthened the wheel base to increase the interior of these models, mainly for the rear area salon passengers. Modern drivers are sometimes astonished at how little room there is in the front seat of my car as the bulkhead limits the front seat travel fore and aft. If you have a big gut it could be challenging sitting behind the wheel. Better with other models. My buddies 1962 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible is horrendous to get in and out of the backseat area and as I recall once in, there is not much leg room when you consider you are sitting in a car the size of a "whale".
Cars are a little like houses in that the designers don't have to be as mindful of the interior space when they got so much square feet to work with. Smaller homes often tend to have more thoughtful layouts as their spatial limitation dictate more how that space is used. I think Eric is correct in that the newer, smaller Cads after 1976 sometimes had a more generous interior (with a smaller exterior). Clay/Lexi
Older cars you would have much more vertical lines. So your feet do not go that far under the IP and the front seat back is straight up and down. Nowrr cars became more angled so you had more room under IP and some seat back overhang. This gave you the feeling of more room
Anyone else have a 71-78 Eldo and a 79-85 at the same time? Considering how much different they are externally at least for the driver I would say it feels like there is more room in the 79-85.
I didn't notice it at first but after driving my 80 for the winter getting in the 73 in the spring it really felt small.
When full center consoles started to take over every car started to feel tiny to me. I get some people don't like benches but why they got to take up all that space?
Quote from: TJ Hopland on January 13, 2023, 08:03:18 PMWhen full center consoles started to take over every car started to feel tiny to me. I get some people don't like benches but why they got to take up all that space?
One of the major reasons for the appearance of the centre console was to delete the centre seating position, so that the car makers didn't have to manufacture and design seat belts, and SRS (Air Bags) for that position.
Plus, as cars became smaller (narrower), it was easy to get rid of the central seating position, and say it was a design feature. And, easier to fit floor shifting for the transmission to get it off the Steering Column, and cup holders, and a myriad of "pockets" for putting stuff. Imagine trying to fit a 6 speed column shift and still allow for a collapsible column.
Bruce. >:D
A 70's Cadillac can easily fit 3 full size average height adults back there in comfort, you really can't say that of a mid size car made today or even a modern Mercedes S-Class. You most likely need to step into an SUV for that.
Just imagine how much more interior room would be had if Cadillac shrunk both the front and rear overhangs by not making the trunks and hoods so long? But kept the physical length the same? You would literally have a mini mansion on wheels lol.
Modern vehicles focus on space efficiency over styling, that would make short vehicles look better like the old cars.
When I had my 87 Brougham, I found the back seats to be much more comfortable to sit in and the legroom was better as well compared to my 94 Fleetwood Brougham that is physically larger than the 87. The 87 however felt tighter on the inside than the 94 because of its bubbly styling, it felt more airy.
The great Charles Fares owned a the small FWD 89 Fleetwood Sixty Special that was absolutely beautiful. To my surprise that car had a lot of room inside. The rear passenger legroom was massive for how short the car is. It was a very nice car for its time.
IMO the 54-56 Cadillacs Sedans had the most of amount of rear passenger legroom than any other Cadillac I've experienced. Even the hip room is extremely generous at 65 inches. The headroom is amazing as well.
Quote from: 64\/54Cadillacking on January 13, 2023, 11:17:24 PMIMO the 54-56 Cadillacs Sedans had the most of amount of rear passenger legroom than any other Cadillac I've experienced. Even the hip room is extremely generous at 65 inches. The headroom is amazing as well.
The '56 Series 75 as I recall was advertised as the car with high head room. Think it was about 3 inches taller than the other models. These are massive vehicles and because of their shape they look even bigger. Clay/Lexi
Not sure the exact models, but obviously any of the "limos" would have the most room. The ones that come to mind, that I've seen, are the early 60s, like 62-64s where the rear sections are designed to have more room back there to be driven as limos. Also, not as wide as the 50s and 60s boats, but the 30s 4 doors also designed as limos look to have quite a bit of room front to back, but being narrower cars you wont get as much elbow room as the big boats.
US cars have in general a poor space utilization. All is in the look, how to "load" people is a second thought.
When I had to let repair the front and rear seat bottoms from my '72 coupe de Ville, I could load them on the rear seat from my '2011 DTS. However, the 72 car is way wider than the DTS!
Quote from: Lexi on January 14, 2023, 12:00:07 AMThe '56 Series 75 as I recall was advertised as the car with high head room. Think it was about 3 inches taller than the other models. These are massive vehicles and because of their shape they look even bigger. Clay/Lexi
Their overall roundish and taller appearance with all that body work does give them a very beefy stout appearance much more so than any other decade. The 75 series limos did have a slightly taller
roofline, you're correct. I saw an old photo online somewhere of used early-mid 50's Cadillacs on a lot for sale from around the mid-late 1960's being advertised sitting next to few year old 60's Cads.
And you can tell how much more massive and imposing the 50's cars looked vs the more sleek, longer looking and slender 60's models. I love most decades including Cads from the 1930's-40's. All of those years too were just great for Cadillac.
Quote from: Artistic Precision on January 14, 2023, 02:34:05 AMNot sure the exact models, but obviously any of the "limos" would have the most room. The ones that come to mind, that I've seen, are the early 60s, like 62-64s where the rear sections are designed to have more room back there to be driven as limos. Also, not as wide as the 50s and 60s boats, but the 30s 4 doors also designed as limos look to have quite a bit of room front to back, but being narrower cars you wont get as much elbow room as the big boats.
The 30's-40's Cadillacs were also very upright tall and narrow cars. Much like the modern Crossover and SUV. Ease of entry was ideal for the human body.
What I like about them a lot is how the backseat sat up much higher than the floor pan. This allowed actual living room sofa like seating positions as if you were at home. More so than any other decade.
It reminds me when I took care of an old friend of mine that used to own a 39 Chevy Fleetmaster deluxe with the straight 6 cylinder. A very smooth engine I might add, well I remember how large that back seat was compared to the short length of the car. The front seat wasn't that wide and but the seats were tall and comfortable. I like having to sorta climb back in the rear seat because you felt like you can see everything in front of you, no slouching or feeling like you're sitting on the ground, it was just right.
Quote from: Roger Zimmermann on January 14, 2023, 03:17:14 AMUS cars have in general a poor space utilization. All is in the look, how to "load" people is a second thought.
When I had to let repair the front and rear seat bottoms from my '72 coupe de Ville, I could load them on the rear seat from my '2011 DTS. However, the 72 car is way wider than the DTS!
Very true. Back then styling was the utmost of importance to buyers and to the automakers.
When the station wagons first came out, it completely changed the way consumers thought about space in a vehicle. Since trucks back then was mostly utilitarian and not family friendly, the station wagon filled in that gap for large families.
Cadillacs were cars made for older people that were generally wealthy and maybe retired. No kids in the house anymore, driven by the husband or wife, and occasionally a night on the town during the weekend with friends. You'd be surprised how many people you could stuff into our old Cadillacs though, considering how space inefficient they can be.
When I used to own my '72 SDV, I routinely packed that car up with my friends and our girlfriends too with no problem. I think I fit 9 people max (4 up front and 5 in the back) once or twice, and drive to Tijuana across the border into Mexico to party. Those were some good times. 8) :D
This was when TJ was safer, I couldn't imagine taking that car across the border today.
"What I find even more fascinating is how extremely huge the interior is in every dimension in my 54 Fleetwood in comparison to every other Cadillac I have ever owned or have sat in. The legroom and headroom alone is limousine living room size big. But you could say that of even the 62 series and Deville cars which I think have the same interior dimensions as the Fleetwoods. The mid 50's Cadillacs are tall broad shoulders cars, like an offensive or defensive lineman."
An interesting discussion, especially for me, having driven '56 Cadillacs throughout the mid 60's to the mid 70's. My SDV's (short deck models) looked absolutely ancient thoughout my period of ownership. In large parking lots full of CARS (no suv's then), finding my '56 SDV was very easy--- the roof was many inches taller than any other car in the lot.... and yes, it was easy to enter, and the couch-like living room seating was all about being comfortable. Following the 64 model year, Cadillac began designing sedans with higher profiles, and the 69 model year up through the 76 model year was more like my 56 --- designed for comfort and not COMPETITION driving.
I have a decent amount at least in the rear.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/AtToHTXC2mzroG8f8
The coupe door of a 1977 is 4" longer than that of a 1976 for better rear seat ingress/egress despite a 10.4" reduction in overall length. You almost have to be a 90 lb contortionist to get in/out of the back of 59/60 coupe easily.
There's no question that space was used far more efficiently as the years went by.
Quote from: Roger Zimmermann on January 14, 2023, 03:17:14 AMUS cars have in general a poor space utilization. All is in the look, how to "load" people is a second thought.
When I had to let repair the front and rear seat bottoms from my '72 coupe de Ville, I could load them on the rear seat from my '2011 DTS. However, the 72 car is way wider than the DTS!
Yes, like I said in my earlier post when I drew an analogy between house design and these cars. It does appear that space utilization was of a secondary consideration as Roger pointed out. Getting in and out of the back seat of some of these cars is brutal. Clay/Lexi
The 79's may have enough room for dancing, but my 76 CdV has enough space for the orchestra in the bck seat
Greg Surfas
I read that the downsized 79 Eldo had MORE interior
room than the 78. They must have started with that
goal, and designed the rest of the car around it.
Then the thing that can really vary a lot, is trunk
space.
Perhaps the first "car" was a couple rails with wheels
bolted underneath and an engine on top. But I could
never understand why it took so many decades for the
body to be widened out to the same as the fenders.
The other major impact was when the front axle
moved from under the radiator, to under the engine.
Probably related to independant front suspension.
But maybe that had more to do with handling, than
interior space. Bruce Roe
This mid '50s had lots of space in the back. I had a '55 60 series and not only was the seat tall but the kids could set in the back and stick their legs out and not reach the back of the front seat. My current 75 series of course has even more space before folding out the jump seats. The back floor will sleep an adult comfortably.
To this day I remember my love affair with Cadillac began while visiting friends in Idaho who owned a 4 door 55 Caddy. I remember our whole family of 5 sitting in the back seat going down the 2-lane highway. I was just 5 and was standing up on the floor in the back. It was the first car I had ever seen with electric windows. The whole trip I was just focused on pushing that switch to make the window go down but my mom made it clear I was not to touch it. It was probably 15 yrs later before I finally got to push my first window switch.
Quote from: tluke on January 14, 2023, 06:48:33 PMThis mid '50s had lots of space in the back. I had a '55 60 series and not only was the seat tall but the kids could set in the back and stick their legs out and not reach the back of the front seat. My current 75 series of course has even more space before folding out the jump seats. The back floor will sleep an adult comfortably.
To this day I remember my love affair with Cadillac began while visiting friends in Idaho who owned a 4 door 55 Caddy. I remember our whole family of 5 sitting in the back seat going down the 2-lane highway. I was just 5 and was standing up on the floor in the back. It was the first car I had ever seen with electric windows. The whole trip I was just focused on pushing that switch to make the window go down but my mom made it clear I was not to touch it. It was probably 15 yrs later before I finally got to push my first window switch.
Interesting remarks about being a kid and being able to fully stand up on the floor in the back, because the beloved Charles Fares would tell me stories about when he was around 4 or 5 years old, his grandfather owned a '55 Fleetwood, and he would tell me how he could easily fully stand up on the floor and his head wouldn't even touch the headliner. He would even lay down on the floor with a blanket/pillow and sleep when his mom and dad rode with them in the back seat when they would travel long distances.
Quote from: James Landi on January 14, 2023, 07:47:58 AM"What I find even more fascinating is how extremely huge the interior is in every dimension in my 54 Fleetwood in comparison to every other Cadillac I have ever owned or have sat in. The legroom and headroom alone is limousine living room size big. But you could say that of even the 62 series and Deville cars which I think have the same interior dimensions as the Fleetwoods. The mid 50's Cadillacs are tall broad shoulders cars, like an offensive or defensive lineman."
An interesting discussion, especially for me, having driven '56 Cadillacs throughout the mid 60's to the mid 70's. My SDV's (short deck models) looked absolutely ancient thoughout my period of ownership. In large parking lots full of CARS (no suv's then), finding my '56 SDV was very easy--- the roof was many inches taller than any other car in the lot.... and yes, it was easy to enter, and the couch-like living room seating was all about being comfortable. Following the 64 model year, Cadillac began designing sedans with higher profiles, and the 69 model year up through the 76 model year was more like my 56 --- designed for comfort and not COMPETITION driving.
The later 60's and into the 70's, Cadillac brought back ease of entry and exiting of their cars, but they were still quite low to the ground. Not 59-64 low, but yes, they were definitely not as much of a struggle to get in and out of .
I always wondered why Cadillac owners would trade a car that had the perfect height to easily slide into the seats with no bending over to enter the cabin, and interior room for very tall people to sit in complete comfort, to only buy the latest and greatest Caddy models that had less room inside and was harder to get in and out of?
I know styling and of course better performance and the newest features mattered to the Cadillac buyer, but some compromises had to be made along the way.
It reminds of me of how sedans today have a coupe like sloping appearance. This design might look cool and give a sporty appearance, but it seriously detracts from rear seat headroom and visibility.
Which in many ways is why I couldn't stand sitting in the back seat of my '61 Lincoln Continental. The curved C-Pillar and low roof line, created this cocoon like feeling. That interior had no sense of spaciousness at all. It was cramped and uncomfortable.
"Interesting remarks about being a kid and being able to fully stand up on the floor in the back, because the beloved Charles Fares would tell me stories about when he was around 4 or 5 years old, his grandfather owned a '55 Fleetwood, and he would tell me how he could easily fully stand up on the floor and his head wouldn't even touch the headliner. He would even lie down on the floor with a blanket/pillow and sleep when his mom and dad rode with them in the back seat when they would travel long distances."
When one begins to "drill down" on (styling) form versus function (COMFORT) over the past 40 years, apparently, Cadillac has truly struggled with the public's acceptance of its uneven approach. While the "drivers' magazine" articles always place Cadillac at the bottom of the "sports sedan" class (until recently), the absurdity of a couple of seconds of acceleration or a car's ability to withstand absurdly stupid driving maneuvers is widely celebrated and promotes sales of cars costing much more and delivering some kind of "odd" status for folks sitting in the same line of traffic as everyone else--- that 600 hp engine idling along with the rest. At some point in my growth and development, I matured to the extent that I fully enjoy the XLR or Allante as two seater touring cars, and I have NEVER revved the engines above 2,500 rpms.
Quote from: James Landi on January 16, 2023, 08:28:45 AMWhen one begins to "drill down" on (styling) form versus function (COMFORT) over the past 40 years, apparently, Cadillac has truly struggled with the public's acceptance of its uneven approach. While the "drivers' magazine" articles always place Cadillac at the bottom of the "sports sedan" class (until recently), the absurdity of a couple of seconds of acceleration or a car's ability to withstand absurdly stupid driving maneuvers is widely celebrated and promotes sales of cars costing much more and delivering some kind of "odd" status for folks sitting in the same line of traffic as everyone else--- that 600 hp engine idling along with the rest. At some point in my growth and development, I matured to the extent that I fully enjoy the XLR or Allante as two seater touring cars, and I have NEVER revved the engines above 2,500 rpms.
Well said James. Unless you go to a track you can't legally drive cars on public roads like they are portrayed in advertisements. Sacrificing comfort to attain a performance not really required by most always puzzled me. Then to have their styling cues filter down to even some grocery getters was just plain bizarre. But that is what advertising is generally aiming for; selling people things that arguably they don't really need. Clay/Lexi
Was '56 the last year for the tall Cadillacs and massive rear seat leg room? Or was it '58?
I haven't seen or know how the 57-58 Cads look or feel on the inside, but looking at pics, they do look lower than the previous years, but their interiors still look pretty spacious compared to the 59-64 models.
I have seen my '56 Limo parked next to my buddy's '57 Limo and the '56 is noticeably taller. The '56 just has a more "bubbly" rounded design edge to it. I am not sure about leg room inside though. Don't know. The '57s were built on a new style of frame which if memory serves, permitted GM to further lower these cars. Clay/Lexi
Quote from: Lexi on January 17, 2023, 07:42:50 PMI have seen my '56 Limo parked next to my buddy's '57 Limo and the '56 is noticeably taller. The '56 just has a more "bubbly" rounded design edge to it. I am not sure about leg room inside though. Don't know. The '57s were built on a new style of frame which if memory serves, permitted GM to further lower these cars. Clay/Lexi
I can definitely see that comparison favoring your limo.
Correcto. The 57's was the first year of the X-frame, for better or worse, the cars were much lower and more sleek and squared off slightly compared to the previous years.
I'm not against the late 50's Cads at all as it might seem, as a matter of fact I actually would love to own a 58 or a 59 Fleetwood/Deville just for the styling alone if I could afford a nice one, but once my '54 is finally able to drive safely and run reliably, and if a few of my friends wanted to go cruise in spacious comfort, I'd take the '54 hands down over any of my other classics. And like you said, the trunks are absolutely massive in these cars, and can easily hold a small bedroom worth of belongings.
Quote from: 64\/54Cadillacking on January 18, 2023, 06:43:31 AMI can definitely see that comparison favoring your limo.
"..., but once my '54 is finally able to drive safely and run reliably, and if a few of my friends wanted to go cruise in spacious comfort....
I especially enjoyed your remark about taking friends for a cruise in 54 (though 56) model years... there's an inherent practicality regarding the high profile, one's ability to enter the car with w/o bending oneself in half, as well as the lovely, well insulated ride. Perhaps Americans truly want to ride in large suvs for "comfort's sake" --- I recall during the rush to downsize in the late 70's that some folks were purchasing Checker cabs for that reason.
Quote from: Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621 on January 13, 2023, 04:15:30 PMIt would surprise many people to know how little legroom there is in Cadillacs of the '50s through '76 despite their massive exterior proportions. They would be even more surprised to learn that in many cases, interior room actually increased when the cars started becoming smaller on the outside.
That's because they started counting the area under the back of the front seat as rear seat legroom.
The front seat legroom was also compromised after 1976 by pushing the floor area forward and you no longer have that large flat front seat footwell area of the 1965-1976 RWDs. The FWDs still had the large flat front footwells; I had a couple mid 90s full size FWDs and their front seat footwells reminded me of the 1976 & earlier footwells. Even El Dorados up to their end had wide flat front footwells, although for only two people because of the large center console that went all the way up the floor to the dash.
For me the 1965-1976 Fleetwood 60 Special, & Brougham had the most spacious interior of any non limousine car built. Flip up those rear footrests and the tallest NBA players could stretch all the way out.
Quote from: James Landi on January 18, 2023, 07:50:16 AMI especially enjoyed your remark about taking friends for a cruise in 54 (though 56) model years... there's an inherent practicality regarding the high profile, one's ability to enter the car with w/o bending oneself in half, as well as the lovely, well insulated ride. Perhaps Americans truly want to ride in large suvs for "comfort's sake" --- I recall during the rush to downsize in the late 70's that some folks were purchasing Checker cabs for that reason.
Exactly. I always wondered how all the older ladies and gentlemen of an advanced age with physical health issues, were able to handle the change from being able to slide right into their older Caddy's, to all of sudden having to crouch down into the lower profile Cads that came later?
Quote from: cadillacmike68 on January 19, 2023, 02:22:28 AMThat's because they started counting the area under the back of the front seat as rear seat legroom.
The front seat legroom was also compromised after 1976 by pushing the floor area forward and you no longer have that large flat front seat footwell area of the 1965-1976 RWDs. The FWDs still had the large flat front footwells; I had a couple mid 90s full size FWDs and their front seat footwells reminded me of the 1976 & earlier footwells. Even El Dorados up to their end had wide flat front footwells, although for only two people because of the large center console that went all the way up the floor to the dash.
For me the 1965-1976 Fleetwood 60 Special, & Brougham had the most spacious interior of any non limousine car built. Flip up those rear footrests and the tallest NBA players could stretch all the way out.
It's possible that the 65-76 Fleetwoods had slightly more legroom than the 54-56 Fleetwoods, but as far as the overall spaciousness, such as headroom, visibility, hip room, it's hard to beat the older 54-56's. Although I would love to own a '66 Fleetwood Brougham with the pull down trays in the back. Those cars are absolutely amazing and gives a feeling of someone of high importance owns the car. The '66 Fleetwood Bro was probably the best Fleetwood made in terms of having it all with luxury appointments, quality of materials, and features of the 1965-76 model years.
Quote from: cadillacmike68 on January 19, 2023, 02:22:28 AMThat's because they started counting the area under the back of the front seat as rear seat legroom.
Unless there's official documentation of this I don't buy it. For whatever it's worth I recently rode in the back of a '76 Brougham and the rear seat legroom isn't at all what I would've expected it to be.
Quote from: 64\/54Cadillacking on January 19, 2023, 08:39:00 AMIt's possible that the 65-76 Fleetwoods had slightly more legroom than the 54-56 Fleetwoods, but as far as the overall spaciousness, such as headroom, visibility, hip room, it's hard to beat the older 54-56's. Although I would love to own a '66 Fleetwood Brougham with the pull down trays in the back. Those cars are absolutely amazing and gives a feeling of someone of high importance owns the car. The '66 Fleetwood Bro was probably the best Fleetwood made in terms of having it all with luxury appointments, quality of materials, and features of the 1965-76 model years.
I had a friend who was heavy enough and with knee plus other health problems that he couldn't get in the front of my 66 Fleetwood but could slide right into the back because of the longer doors and more legroom. And I say 'had' because he passed away last year due to complications of diabetes, heart and covid.
Starting back in 1936, when GM went to "A","B," & "C" Bodies, the designers had to either stretch seat measurements via padding, etc, or tighten the fabric covering to increase or decrease seat measurements so that they could say a Pontiac had more "room" in the front/back seating areas than a Chevrolet. Ditto for Buick/LaSalle/Cadillac.
Hey, half an inch is a half an inch... They could also make the seat framework & springs slightly different to get more headroom.
They didn't want to pass up having identical bolt holes for seat attachments in the floor pans, so they had to invent new ways of measuring while still "telling the truth."
Hi everyone,
Interesting post! I can only speak to "newer" Cadillacs of the 70s - 90s.
I have owned 78-79, 84-85, and now a 93 Seville. As you might expect, the 78-79 Sevilles were pretty tight in the back seat. The 84-85 Sevilles were a little roomier in the back. But to my surprise, the 93 Seville has noticeably more room in the back seat than the previous Sevilles, although they are still quite low to the ground, and a bit difficult to get out of from the back seat (and certainly not as stylish of course).
I have also owned 70s Eldorados, which were a little tight in the back seat leg room, but they were wide enough to seat 4 in a pinch--and no floor hump!
I also owned an 89 Brougham, which also had good width in the back, but could be a little tight with the leg room. When I later bought a 92 Sedan Deville, I was amazed by the amount of leg room in the back seat! I think they had the most spacious rear seat areas of any Cadillac from the 1980s and up. Not only that, but the front passenger seat could be moved forward so far that if you needed to haul something large, there would be a huge amount of room in the back on the passenger side. This was the only Cadillac I remember owning where I didn't feel the need to move the front seats forward a bit if I had rear seat passengers.
Mike
#20545
Quote from: Mike Shawgo on January 23, 2023, 02:40:13 PMHi everyone,
Interesting post! I can only speak to "newer" Cadillacs of the 70s - 90s.
I have owned 78-79, 84-85, and now a 93 Seville. As you might expect, the 78-79 Sevilles were pretty tight in the back seat. The 84-85 Sevilles were a little roomier in the back. But to my surprise, the 93 Seville has noticeably more room in the back seat than the previous Sevilles, although they are still quite low to the ground, and a bit difficult to get out of from the back seat (and certainly not as stylish of course).
I have also owned 70s Eldorados, which were a little tight in the back seat leg room, but they were wide enough to seat 4 in a pinch--and no floor hump!
I also owned an 89 Brougham, which also had good width in the back, but could be a little tight with the leg room. When I later bought a 92 Sedan Deville, I was amazed by the amount of leg room in the back seat! I think they had the most spacious rear seat areas of any Cadillac from the 1980s and up. Not only that, but the front passenger seat could be moved forward so far that if you needed to haul something large, there would be a huge amount of room in the back on the passenger side. This was the only Cadillac I remember owning where I didn't feel the need to move the front seats forward a bit if I had rear seat passengers.
Mike
#20545
I completely agree with you. To my surprise, the FWD Sedan Devilles and Fleetwoods had a ton of rear seat leg room. Much more than my 87 Brougham and 94 Fleetwood Brougham.
For being such a small car with a short wheelbase, and overall length, Cadillac engineers really focused on interior room in those smaller Caddy's and did an excellent job at it.. Even the headroom was really good.
I think Cadillac for whatever reason didn't utilize the interior space as effectively in the next generation FWD Devilles that came in 1993 or was it 94 like they did with the previous gen. Because they didn't feel as spacious as the prior years.
Plus the floor was really flat on the 80's-92 FWD Devilles and Fleetwoods that made sitting in the middle seat not an issue as there was no transmission tunnel hump.
My 1960 Seville coupe has great room because I had the seat moved back 3 inches. Now its a 3-seater, which is fine with me.
Quote from: jwwseville60 on January 31, 2023, 01:51:32 PMMy 1960 Seville coupe has great room because I had the seat moved back 3 inches. Now its a 3-seater, which is fine with me.
;D