Vellum Venom Vignette: The Emperor Has No Clothes

Another '69 SDV owner on TTAC? I think these are gaining in popularity. Don't know if you follow Curbside Classics, but here is the story of mine... http://www.curbsideclassic.com/my-curbside-classic/my-new-curbside-classic-1969-cadillac-sedan-deville-38¢-per-pound/

But Sajeev is right, if you consider the majority of cars on America's roads today - the Japanese makers. I had a 1983 Accord hatchback, with a peppy 75 HP engine. That'll barely move a 2013 Accord out of its shadow. Likewise, my sister had a 1993 Sentra, and I had a much bigger compact 1995 Altima. Today the Sentra is the same size as the '95 Altima, while the 2013 Altima is much bigger, the same size as the '95 Maxima (and 2013 Maxima!). It's only when you compare older American makes with their modern counterparts that you see considerable shrinkage from the late '60s, and as afflo pointed out, that period was an anomaly. Compare older Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans to their current models and they've gotten huge.

While you have good points to my flawed posting, why are you only including lengths? Cars are growing in width/height/wheelbase/interior dimensions, and while they might not dwarf the Caddy like this picture, these modern machines are larger than most (all?) of their nameplate's previous designs in the 1990s-1980s. And yes, send over that photo of your Caddy next to an SUV when you can. Much appreciated.

@Sajeev Mehta Well, that's another problem with American makes. Remember the downsized 1980s Cadillacs? After the smog rules of the '70s strangled the big V8s of the '60s, Detroit downsized a bit too far. They've grown their cars since, as drive train technology advanced, turning our cars from wrenchable machines into computers.

@Sajeev Mehta Oh, I only posted the lengths simply because I knew most of them off the top of my head and I didn't really want to run around wikipedia and manufacturer's websites and stuff looking up wheelbases, widths, etc. for a casual comparison. :) Both you and Lorenzo are absolutely correct about the '80s and '90s cars vs. now. That's a discussion that I have with one of my BMW fanatic friends from time to time. The F30 3 series is a marginally bigger car than the E28 5 series was (182in long, 67in wide, 55.7in tall for the 5 vs. 182.0in long, 71.3in wide, 56.3in tall for the 3 [I even went to wikipedia and looked those up! :P]), and the SWB E32 7 series is juuuuust slightly smaller than the F10 5 series. This lineup of the various E-Classes that was posted on Jalopnik I-don't-remember-when is pretty impressive, too: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2010/06/seven_generations_e-clas.jpg So yeah, I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The longest post-war production car sold in the US (and next on my list of cars to buy, specifically for that reason) is the '73 Imperial, which is something like 9" longer than an Excursion and a full foot longer than the Cadillac. Nothing anyone makes now really measures up (pardon the pun) to the size of that thing. But compared to what they were in the '80s (or even earlier), cars like the Camry, the Accord, the E class and the 5 series have become absolutely enormous.

@kenzter i follow CC sporadically, but I hadn't seen that post. Clean car. I had a '70 CDV for about 9 hours a few years ago; bought it in LA, was told the brakes had been completely gone through, started driving back to the bay area, lost the brakes at the top of the grapevine. I was not pleased. Took the car back, got my check back, called it done. I've thought about buying another one on and off since then, but never got around to it. I decided some time ago that I like the SDV more than the coupe, and that I prefer the '69 to the '70 (the little medallions on the front fenders on the '70s bug me. A lot.), and I've been idly looking through ebay and stuff when I remember to for the past couple of years. I happened to find a '69 sedan back in Illinois a few months ago that looked like it was in decent shape, had an indicated 40k on it that seemed to be accurate based on the condition of the interior, and-most importantly-was painted that metallic green color they had in '69 and didn't have a vinyl roof. I know better than to buy a car out of the midwest, but I like that color and I detest vinyl roofs, so I figured I'd risk it. I'd rather have a rusty (within reason) car that was optioned the way I want from the factory than a car that's clean but the wrong color. It's not as clean as a CA or AZ car of its age would be, but the rust that I can find under the car will come off with a wire brush, and the paint bubbling is pretty minimal and localized. And judging by how the car drives relative to other GM cars of the same era that I've owned and driven, I suspect that 40k number is, in fact, correct. I'm pretty happy with it.

@Lorenzo I would guess that the ages of the majority of posters' ages here range mainly from 30's to 50's. The "huge sedan/wagon" phase of the 1970's would be fairly formative memories. For all the complaining, cars have never been better. We're in a golden age of horsepower, and even the worst handling crapcans are better drivers cars than many "performance cars" of yesteryear. And that caddy - at least the modern SUV's and crossovers DO something with their mass - an enclosed trunk is the worst possible design on a car. Wagons though - I have a weird thing for old wagons. I think it's a mix of my parents Buick station wagon and the hearse from The Ghostbusters. The 190-200 inch car seems to be a sweet spot that the industry hits again and again. Big enough to hold a family of 4, small enough to fit in the garage or a cramped parking space.

I had a 1974 Chevelle Laguna Type S-3 that I bought new. With a 454. It was not a land barge. The Colonnade cars back then were considered a mid-size car. The Caprices, LTDs, and Cadillac/98 Regencys were much bigger.