Sedans, hatchbacks and wagons.
Am I the only one who thinks the move away from sedans is premature and ill advised. Those who think an SUV is the the only choice might want to think about it unless the space and height are really i...
Forum Discussion
Lessmore wrote:Groover wrote:Lessmore wrote:
Losing the Impala is drastic to me...the front legroom is much better than the Malibu. I'm 6'3" +, 240 lbs...broad shoulders and the Malibu is cramped. In the Impala I can put the seat all the way back, great comfort for me and the Impala at 45 + inches legroom fits me well. The trunk space in the Malibu is less than the Impala , we need lots of trunk space on holidays.
You are making me miss my '72 Chrysler Newport. Once I opted to take the '70 Impala (before downsizing at all) and my wife wanted to know why we took the small car, she wanted more space.
'73 Newport
In 1971 I worked for a guy who owned a small company. He had a 1970 Chrysler 300, with the 440 V8. I drove it once of twice...huge car, but it was beautiful and great seats, very comfortable. Same green colour of the Chrysler as in the link you posted. They were huge cars.
My brother worked in a service station and one of their customers was a little old lady that had a Chrysler 300 Hurst edition. The problem was that she bought it for looks but didn't like to go fast and the engine kept loading up on her. After taking the heads off and cleaning them a couple of times they figured out that all the had to do was get the car on the highway in second gear with the pedal on the floor and after about 20 miles it would be running great. They loved seeing her come in every few months.
My own grandmother had an early '60s Pontiac with I think a 389 in it and had the same problem. Eventually my Dad arrived at the same solution. She thought that the car was pretty and had no idea what was under the hood when she bought it. Their next car was a '64 Belair with a 230 inline 6. No troubles with that one fouling.
