Years ago, I owned two Chrysler New Yorkers with very comfortable seats however I seem to be outnumbered by those who owned Ford F100s. The Chryslers had pleated 6-way power seats, seems unlikely the work trucks are more comfortable.
My 93 f250 work truck was the roughest ride I ever had. Had a snow plow for it but 1st gear was so low never even used the granny gear. Actually I loved that truck in spite of the hard ride, and never lost a filling!
1 Like
My ‘59 Pontiac could carry six bodies crosswise in the trunk, to do that in my current car, the rear seat back has to be flipped forward and bodies loaded length wise.
1 Like
Same thing with my 66 Fleetwood. That vehicle would NOT fit in my garage.
1 Like
I love it. Its super comfortable. The most comfortable car I ever sat in was a 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Talisman. Which had acres of it.
As a teenager in the 60’s, I see a few things missing in this discussion. Tires back then were bias ply and bias ply tires were always smoother riding and quieter than belted tires, wether bias belted or radial. That was one reason cars back then DID ride smoother. Of course they only lasted about 12k miles, 20k max.
Another issue with cars of that era was the shock absorbers. The stock shock absorbers back the were only good for about 12k miles. If you didn’t replace them with HD shocks, then the car would ride like a criss craft in high seas. The Sears Roadhandler was a popular replacement shock back then.
My stepmother’s Cutlass needed new shocks, I talked her into HD Atlas replacements from the garage I worked at, she ended up unhappy with the rough ride. I liked the handling…
Space-wise, that’s true. Weight-wise… No.
While the land yachts of that era had a huge amount of trunk space, the placement of more than a moderate amount of luggage would have the rear bumper flirting with the pavement, and the headlights would be pointing at the sky.
Both the V6 Highlander and Outback would offer significantly better performance then a V6 Spirit/Acclaim/whatever the Chrysler version was. They are also roomier, and have far more cargo space, and AWD. In this case, you’re giving up alot for that extra 1 MPG. Also the Toyota probably isn’t going to starting burning oil after 60k miles… The Dodge very well might (the Mitsubishi 3.0L was known for it.)
When I was a teenager, my uncle bought a used 1959 Caddilac convertible. That was the one with the huge fins with paired bullet shaped taillights. It was THE MOST HIDEOUS shade of green I’ve ever seen.
Before I could drive, Uncle Johnny would pay me to wash it and vacuum the inside. I marveled at the electric windows and interior that seemed almost big enough to carry our entire wrestling team.
A couple years later I had the opportunity to drive it. By then, the convertible top rear window was discolored and not clear. Each and every time I looked in the rear view mirror, I was startled by the car driving so close to me. Each time, I realized it was those huge fins I was seeing, but even that knowledge wasn’t enough to stop my reflex reaction - when I checked the mirror - of somebody tailgating me.
If I could have any car right now, I’d get another 1995 Dodge Caravan with the 3.0L engine, or a Dodge Spirit with the 3.0L and 3-speed. Nothing sold today offers the same kind of performance, fuel economy, comfortable seats and driving position, and well thought out interior.
I’ve owned three Caravans, the first a '88 with the 3.0, followed by a '90 Grand with 3.3 and fake wood paneling on the sides, and '96 Grand with a different 3.3. Yawn. Each had names: Marge, Barnaby, and “the Avo” for its shape and dark green color.
I liked what they enabled me to do (road trips) and I loved the 2 way sliding sunroof in the '90. The '96 (The Avo) was truly boring… and doomed (head gasket). I’d bought it for $200 after it had been parked for about 4 years, and amazingly, it actually started up when jumped.
Before you get serious about looking for that '95 Caravan, I’d encourage you to take a drive in a first generation Toyota Sienna. Mine is '99, but I think they ran from '98 - 2003. There are plenty of them around, at least where I live.
It’s tight to a degree that makes each Caravan seem sloppy, wobbly, and loose by comparison. It’s also agile, comfortable, efficient, and durable. Mine has over 320k, and gets 24 mpg with a long kayak on the roof. On my latest trip, when I checked oil at about 1100 miles, I needed to add less than a cup of oil. And that came after driving all day in the 110F California heat wave last month, going up and down steep slopes, back and forth across the Sierra Nevada to national parks.
Yep, definitely Nixon. I was on the debate team, and going to debates in the university vehicle. Our debate coach was careful to stay just below the 55 mph speed limit.
When Tricky Dick resigned, I was fresh out of college, in Maine on my first road trip (on a motorcycle). Same week was when I stopped shaving… for keeps.
I remember the old 65 Malibu I had that had 4 drum brakes that was like that. I also remember sitting at a stop light one time and the brake pedal was going down more and more until it hit the floor and it lurched forward despite being depressed all the way and quickly putting the transmission into park in a panic to get it to stop moving so I wouldn’t rear end the car in front of me.
I don’t recall what car, had a disc symbol on the brake pedal probably 70s, they were incredibly sensitive and powerful compared to the drum brakes I was used to. 
Let’s think here for a moment. The 70’s were, give or take a bit, 50 years ago. I was between 24 and 34.
Now I’m 76. Everything feels very different these days, but different isn’t always bad. And I can still drive and even get in and out of my Miata.
All in all, I’m happy with today. It beats all the alternatives.
3 Likes