New California Laws effective 7/1/07

[henk4]

No, sorry. I have Alzheimer's, remember?

Just kidding; I've got a lot of figures memorized...
---------------------- '59 Eldo-------- '69 FB
Wheelbase------------ 130"----------- 133"
Overall length--------- 225.0"--------- 228.5"

so that is a 3.25 meter wheelbase, and that was all the legroom they could get???? (never mind that other US brands had the same problems...)

and on top of that seating six on such benches with little or none lateral support can hardly be called comfortable... (unless of course you are looking for close contact with your fellow passengers)
I would see four people with a large central armrest would be a more pleasant configuration...

[Fleet 500]

so that is a 3.25 meter wheelbase, and that was all the legroom they could get???? (never mind that other US brands had the same problems...)

My '69 FB has almost 3 feet (it is 35") of rear leg room... measured horizontally from the back of the rear seat to the back of the front seat. There's no way anyone's knees are going to bang against the front seat when sitting in the rear! One of my car friends who is 6'2" sat in the back- he could easily stretch out his legs and said something like, "This would be a great car to sit in the back and drive to Las Vegas. The carpeted, fold-down footrests are a nice touch.
Again, though, the two-door hardtop styling really cuts down on rear leg room... many owners didn't care!

And Car & Driver's test of a '65 Rolls-Royce criticized the interior room: "Very little room inside (which is strange, in view of the car's great exterior dimensions)."
And a Mechanix Illustrated road test of a '62 or '63 Rolls said that it had about the same interior room as a Pontiac Tempest (which is obviously a shorter car).

and on top of that seating six on such benches with little or none lateral support can hardly be called comfortable... (unless of course you are looking for close contact with your fellow passengers)

The lateral support is fine unless the driver likes to go around corners on two wheels.

I would see four people with a large central armrest would be a more pleasant configuration

Oh, yes it would be more comfortable. Actually, I've always said that if I designed cars back in the '60s, I would have made them about 85" wide instead of the normal 80" to increase shoulder and hip room. But then again, some of the larger interiors of cars had 65-67" of shoulder and/or hip room.
And, cars with 4 passengers was/is more common than cars fully-loaded with 6 passengers.

[nota]

Yeah, I believe it. They have a lot of rear overhang, see:

"Does my butt look big in this?"

[Fleet 500]

"Does my butt look big in this?"

Lol. No.

[henk4]

never mind the caddies, I personally think this is much more convincing...both in terms of styling and the effective use of the space between the wheels...

[Fleet 500]

never mind the caddies, I personally think this is much more convincing...both in terms of styling and the effective use of the space between the wheels...

Styling? As Car & Driver said (about a '65 Mecedes 600), "From the outside, it makes no bones about what it is. It is a regtangular box, its flat sides and square corners compromised only where it was necessary to incorporate wheels and the engine and the luggage space."

Besides, the '74-'76 Cadillac limos are bigger and are 9-passenger (and have a smoother ride); the Merc is only 7-passenger.

[henk4]

Styling? As Car & Driver said (about a '65 Mecedes 600), "From the outside, it makes no bones about what it is. It is a regtangular box, its flat sides and square corners compromised only where it was necessary to incorporate wheels and the engine and the luggage space."

Besides, the '74-'76 Cadillac limos are bigger and are 9-passenger; the Merc is only 7-passenger.

C&D at that time was obviously a long way of from grasping the concept of functionality.

these are the front seats of the Merc...and I'd rather be there then on a caddy bench...even if you can take one person less...

[Fleet 500]

...And a larger luggage compartment...

[Fleet 500]

C&D at that time was obviously a long way of from grasping the concept of functionality.

They knew about function, they just liked cars that had styling!

these are the front seats of the Merc...and I'd rather be there then on a caddy bench...even if you can take one person less...

I'll take the Caddy seats... the ones on the Mercedes are too firm for me. I think a luxury car should have soft seats. (But I would like to go for a ride in the Mercedes 600; it would be fun to compare and just enjoy the ride.

[henk4]

I'll take the Caddy seats... the ones on the Mercedes are too firm for me. I think a luxury car should have soft seats. (But I would like to go for a ride in the Mercedes 600; it would be fun to compare and just enjoy the ride.

so without having tested yourself you already say the Merc seats are too firm.....is that coming from user reviews???

[Ferrer]

never mind the caddies, I personally think this is much more convincing...both in terms of styling and the effective use of the space between the wheels...

Fantastic, now a million more pages of discussion of why Cadillacs are great and Mercedes-Benzes are the worst cars to ever have graced the planet...

Me? I'll personally take something a little smaller, like a 300 SEL 6.3, a Quattroporte or an XJ6 4.2, even if it can carry less people. If I wanted to carry more than 5 people I'd buy an MPV.

[Fleet 500]

so without having tested yourself you already say the Merc seats are too firm.....is that coming from user reviews???

Everyone knows the seats in Mercedes are firm. From one magazine test after another and from the few I've seen in person (friend's cars).

[nota]

Styling? As Car & Driver said (about a '65 Mecedes 600), "From the outside, it makes no bones about what it is. It is a regtangular box, its flat sides and square corners compromised only where it was necessary to incorporate wheels and the engine and the luggage space."

I don't neccesarily see that as criticism. But in any case the styling of your pictured GM also fairly fits that C&D description

Besides, the '74-'76 Cadillac limos are bigger and are 9-passenger (and have a smoother ride); the Merc is only 7-passenger.

Altzheimers is right Lord, how many times ..

600s could be specified to individual whim, including seating requirements. Btw to my knowledge the Grosser was the only production vehicle to be factory-catalogued in four, five or six-door models

As you can see the Landaulet in pic #1 has a eight-seat capacity while the 600 in pic #2 is an seven seater .. along with six doors AND the folding roof! So big effing deal re the 9 seater tidbit. And while on the subject of that 'nine passenger' deal, it seems Cadillac expects the middle passenger in row two (4th pic) to sit with a bum-cheek perched on either seat - so more like what you'd find in a crowded train carriage, than from a true five-star limousine arrangement

[Fleet 500]

Fantastic, now a million more pages of discussion of why Cadillacs are great and Mercedes-Benzes are the worst cars to ever have graced the planet...

Now you got it!

Me? I'll personally take something a little smaller, like a 300 SEL 6.3, a Quattroporte or an XJ6 4.2, even if it can carry less people. If I wanted to carry more than 5 people I'd buy an MPV

How about something like a '69 Pontiac Grand Prix SJ, 428-cu-in engine/390 hp and 465 ft-lbs torque? Weighs 4,200 lbs, but with 3.91 gears can run low 14s 1/4 miles.

[henk4]

Everyone knows the seats in Mercedes are firm. From one magazine test after another and from the few I've seen in person (friend's cars).

and you also know that soft seats are causing more fatigue on longer distance trips?