It’s natural and very common to assume that the new 1971 GM B/C bodies were significantly bigger than their 1970 predecessors, as they certainly look that way. But thanks to the magic of GM’s vaunted Design Center’s new fuselage styling, it’s an illusion; they’re essentially the same size as the ’70s. The ’71 Chevy was the same length as before, but actually a nip narrower; the Cadillac was the same length and width.
Let’s take a closer look at all of them and their vital statistics.
The 1970 Chevrolet is 216.0″ long and 79.8″ wide.
The 1971 Chevrolet is 216.8″ long and 79.5″ wide.
The 1970 Pontiac Catalina is 217.9″ long and 79.8″ wide.
The 1971 Pontiac Catalina is 220.2″ long and 79.5″ wide.
The 1970 Olds 88 is 219.1″ long and 79.9″ wide.
The 1971 Olds 88 is 220.2″ long and 79.5″ wide.
The 1970 Buick LeSabre is 220.2″ long and 80.0″ wide.
The 1971 Buick LeSabre is 220.7″ long and 79.7″ wide.
The 1970 Cadillac is 225.0″ long and 79.8″ wide.
The 1971 Cadillac is 225.8″ long and 79.8″ wide.
Of course they all gained length in 1973 and again in 1974, when the 5 mph bumper regulations took effect, first front, then rear too. But they were never the longest cars of their time; the ’73 Imperial has even the extended wheelbase Cadillac 60 Special beat.
More on the subject of big cars:
Automotive History: The Lowest, Widest and Longest American Production Cars
Who’s The Longest Mega-Coupe In The Land?
look at those narrow a pillars.
Amen to that. Although I appreciate the safer cars of today, I sure do miss the elegant looks and open-ness of those older cars.
I miss the visibility. More than once I’ve had near misses when a vehicle to the right was completely blocked from my view by the A-pillar. It’s particularly bad when the intersection is angled to the left.
A vehicle, yes, or a pedestrian. The pillars are extra-thick now for rollover roof crush resistance, and I think that’s been a really bad trade. Rollovers are rare; pedestrian hits are frequent.
It doesn’t help that there’s often a blacked-out triangle at the base of the front side window, plus a rearview mirror attached to that triangular insert, leading to a wide area with no outward visibility. I prefer the previous position of the outside rearview mirrors as on these cars, set back from the A pillar so there’s room to see things between them.
To me, the 71 Impala/Caprice looked the most attractive of the ’71-’76 Chevy full size design.
The classic eggcrate grille and simple taillights.
I did not like the front end of the ’72’s because they lowered the grille and put too much sheet metal above it.
The front end of the ’73’s looked too squared up and blocky.
How does the weight (‘70 -vs- ‘71) compare?
WIth the possible exception of the Olds, the 1970 models were all better looking than the 1971’s.
Tom. I was just about to post this same opinion with the following add-on to Paul’s headline:
“The 1971 GM Big Cars Only Look Bigger Than Their Predecessors, but certainly not better”.
You beat me to it!
I liked the ’71 full-size Chevys better than the ’70s, but greatly preferred the ’69s to either.
To me, the ’69 was was the pinnacle of that generation (’65 – ’70). GM felt obligated to make changes for the new model year (1970), and the result (to me) was not as nice.
I felt the same about the previous generation. (’59 – ’64); I thought the ’63 was the best of the bunch.
Even more so for Pontiac. I’d liked Pontiac styling through the sixties; if the ’70 was a big no, the ’71 was more like “You guys think we’ll buy that?” Awful.
I loved the ’65, ’66, and ’68 full-size Pontiacs, although thought that the ’65 was slightly nicer than the ’66. The ’67 was a evolutionary step, and would usher in the beautiful ’68.
The ’69 Pontiac was a big step down, and the ’70 – gah! I can’t say that I dislike the ’71 more than the ’70.
A bit of heresy now – I prefer almost all of these cars in 4-door.
Disclaimer: Bear in mind, this is all just my opinion, and I have no background in design. Like the common man in the art museum, I like what I like. Car styling is like musical taste – it’s intensely personal. I can’t explain why certain styles resonate with me, and certain others don’t.
DeLorean was gone, and new Pontiac bosses wanted to go for Buick/Olds buyers. So, Grand Ville added, on the formal roof C body. Far from the Catalina 2+2 and early 60’s full sized drag racers.
At least the Firebird survived, and Bonneville returned to top of the line eventually,
I would almost call the Pontiac for that exception, but the best I can muster for it is I dislike the ’70 design a smidge less.
The ’55 Chevy was the best darned car GM ever made, styling and mechanicals. Everything after that was a slow-death exposition. Except maybe the ’64 Chevy. The ’55 had it all: solid engine and transmission, and pretty as the belle of the ball. Definitely the high point.
Weight went up 101 pounds according to Hagerty
Increasing standard equipment and regulated strength, safety, and environmental features tended to drive weight increases in these cars more than design.
If I had to rank them, then yes the 1970 models all looked better than ’71. But to my eye, the ’71 Cadillac, Buick and Oldsmobiles all looked pretty good. The Cadillac in particular was still a very elegant looking car in ’71 and ’72. After this, all of the GM full sizers starting looking worse due to the new bumper standards.
I think the ’71s still sold very well, even though they weren’t as good a cars as they ones they replaced.
The 1971 Caddy just looks wrong. Cars with their headlights set apart (more often seen on Oldsmobiles) always seemed bugeyed and wrong to me. Plus there is that weird continuation of the shutline of the hood around the front fender, giving it the appearance of a clamshell hood. It would have been cool if it actually had a clamshell hood, but it does not.
The ’71 interior was an improvement, but at age ten, I was seriously bummed by the loss of the chisel tip fenders, and still am. The ’70 hardtops did need a little more greenhouse for the body mass.
Car designers are quite clever in using stylistic tricks to make a vehicle look larger or smaller than it actually is. In this instance, it looks like things like pushing the C-pillars out flush with the body sides, as well as rounding the sides a bit more. Then there’s the location and appearance of the front fender ‘blades’, as well as the toning down of creases and edges. It all combines to create the illusion that the cars look larger and more massive than their predecessors.
In fact, it reminds me of the difference between the 1970 and 1971 Mopar B-body coupes. The ’71 (particularly the Dodge Charger) looks larger than the 1970, but they’re actually the same size. In that instance, the effect was achieved by moving the cowl back, which lengthened the hood and shortened the rear deck. Then there’s the reduction of the C-pillar ‘shoulders’. But the overall length and width are the same between the two years.
People think cars of the ’50s are “big”, but they’re like compacts compared to these bloated 1970s mastodons!
A ’57 Chevy was 200″ long; a 57-58 Ford Custom 300 was 202″. The ’59 Chevy (which many considered “too big”) was merely 211″–6″ shorter than a ’71! A ’58 Olds 88 was 208″ and a ’58 Buick Special was 211″. All significantly shorter than their early ’70 counterparts.
I think fins were very successful at making a car look longer. 1950s cars wore their length well. Their ’70s descendents are rather blobbish and seem like uninspired overkill. What happened to the 1960s small car revolution in thinking which started with Rambler, the compacts, and the imports? I thought people were tired of “bigness”. Yet these early ’70s big GMs continued to sell by the trainload! Didn’t understand it then and don’t understand it now.
What happened was that there had always been a market for bigness, but in the late ’50s there was much grumbling from and few alternatives for those who weren’t in that market.
By 1971 compacts, midsize and ponycars were all well established and Ford and GM were entering the previously all-import subcompact class. Those who didn’t want big were relatively well served so they weren’t writing scathing social commentaries or shooting one or two practical alternatives to the top of the sales charts.
Our previous house was in an upscale SF Bay Area suburb with an attached two car garage. Built in 1954 or ‘56, I’m not sure when. The garage was surprisingly small, tight for our Corolla or New Beetle and very tight for our Land Cruiser, which was about 8” shorter than a ‘54 Chevy and 40” shorter than these cars. In fact, by 1961 domestic full-size cars wouldn’t have fit. Fortunately we had a huge driveway.
They sold by the train loads because Americans always liked their big cars and America is a big country, so a big car was seen as a “necessity” by many Americans.
Bigness in transportation has its beginnings with the Conestoga wagon, built by manufacturers such as the Studebaker Brothers, at 216 inches in length. Its lightweight compact model better known as the “Prairie Schooner” was on average 120 to 144 inches from stem to stern… not counting the four to six “engines” hitched to the front.
Fast forward 121 years when the GM cars illustrating this article were sitting in our driveways and I don’t see that much of a difference between the Conestoga wagon at 216 inches, which was the vehicle of choice for freight companies, or the Prairie Schooner at 120 to 144 inches, the vehicle of choice for the pioneers for their 2000 mile journey, and that ’70 Chevrolet Impala at 216 inches, the vehicle of choice for 606,300 Americans in the 1970 model year. I haven’t measured a yoke of oxen lately, but right off hand I’d say they were 72 inches in length. Four oxen yoked together would be another 144 inches, making the whole rig approximately 360 inches or 30 feet long; the extra two “engines” being necessary to climb the Rocky Mountains.
So, that’s why Americans like their big cars … it’s part of our history, but to look at it from a practical viewpoint … they needed a big vehicle to carry their “stuff.”
Today, the Big Three automakers are not in the “car business” … they are in the pickup truck business, but Americans still like their big rides, and the Big Three Automakers still make them.
A 2022 Ford F-250 4×4 is 238 to 266 inches long and has no trouble carrying our “stuff; ” The wonders of technology have rendered many items obsolete, from the 1849 Prairie Schooner to the 1970 Cadillac Sedan de Ville. The tricked out Ford Lariat or Chevrolet Silverado have taken their places.
Funny enough I was watching a Mecum auction with my dad last weekend and he referred to a 55 Chevy as a massive tank, he who had at one point owned a 1969 Caprice! He didn’t believe me when I said it was smaller in every dimension except height.
I think the blobbisnness applies even to 50s cars in that sense, 55 Chevys are way more reasonable dimensionally than they look but they have a similarly girthy stature with their tall slab sides and rounded edges I think, same with Cadillacs of the era, to my eye the 54 Cadillac looks bigger than the 59, despite its excesses, the fins accentuate length but height plays just as important of a role in a vehicles size perception IMO
Yes, an important thing to remember about ’50s cars was that while they tended to have massive or massive-looking rear overhangs (even without the loathed Continental spare tire add-ons), front overhangs were pretty minimal.
They may not have been bigger but I bet the price was.
Interesting! That doesn’t surprise me that length was only up a couple inches, but it DOES surprise that width was actually down slightly. I never noticed that. Chevy and Pontiac wheelbases went up 1-2.5 inches, but B, O, C were the same.
I think I always thought of the 71’s as bigger because they weigh more, making them more “massive”, though apparently not dimensionally much different. A quick look in my encyclopedia shows across all fullsize models:
Buick/Olds +130-200lb
Chevy/Pontiac + 50-100lb
Cadillac no significant change
Wagons were all +300 or so.
The side by side 70/71 pictures are illuminating. GM was clearly trying to make thhe new models look bigger, very successfully. That’s probably at least partly why they aren’t as popular today among collectors.
Surprisingly, the Cadillac looks to my eyes a bit LESS massive. The front somehow has a “lighter” look.
I seem to have a minority opinion bc I like the ‘71 GM’s much more than the ‘70’s. Guess I’m a homer since my Dad had 3 Buicks from that era and my fascination with cars was developing in earnest.
I think the Buicks were the best looking of the bunch. I always liked the line from the the grille, running across hood and gradually sloping to the rear end. That theme lasted through 76, when they were still the best looking of the bunch.
The 1971 wagons are significantly longer than 1970, and not just because of the retracting tailgate. The wagons use a C body sized rear door (framed instead of frameless) to allow side entry to the forward facing 3rd seat. This required tooling a C body size door for Chevy and Pontiac. Pontiac had true C body hardtop sedans in 1971 and 72 with C body sized rear doors.
Reading the comments above, it seems many like the looks of the ’70 over the ’71’s more. I’m the opposite. I like the looks of nearly every ’71 more, and especially the Buick and Olds. But my favorite is the Caddy’s as usual.
Your comment made me go back and look at the pictures again.
Well, while the ’70 bodies do look cleaner and less craggy, the front end lets many of them down for me. The Buick is the only one that really looks good. It’s a massive improvement over the awkward ’70. In fact the whole car has a lithe, fleet look. Gold medal award to Buick!
I agree — Buick for the win with the most improved styling over the ’70, and it’s the best of the 5 car lines.
The Pontiac is a complete miss for me, so matronly looking with those high-set headlights and beaklike grille. It’s worse than the ’70, which is saying something, because the latter also has a beak and those tacky exposed horns.
I always thought that most (but not every) Pontiac looked too busy and had too many things going on, making them look less clean and elegant. In many cases, Pontiac’s loved cladding and trim all over the place. But for me, the exception was the Grand Prix. One of my favorite cars off all time is the 76 and 77 GP’s and then again the 82-85’s. Just loved those, but have never owned one.
Wow. Reading and realizing this and seeing the numbers is like watching an old hotel get demolished. It will take a while for me to internalize.
Paul is starting to become an apologist for these cars!
Having grown up with, and having owned a few ’65-’76 era GM B / C bodies, I can say there are some apt criticisms of the ’71 redesign.
Despite similar size, trunk capacity was generally down, and less practically shaped and accessible. The Chrysler like fuselage styling, with a rather severe tumblehome, made made for a seat that fell several inches short of the doors. I had passengers complain about sitting half off the cushion with three across the front.
I still like a great deal about both generations, they are iconic American cars.
Wow! Had it been even a tenth of an inch wider—2.5mm—it would have required clearance and identification lights, front and rear; larger brake and turn signal lights, and other items required on vehicles over 80″ wide. The others clock in—79.9″, 79.8″—with just barely not quite so close a shave.
To my eye, of the ’71s, only the Cadillac has enough design rectitude to mention. The rest of them…eh…as I said the other day about the ’71 Olds, I guess maybe my scorn for them is less now because I seldom have to see them. And the ’71 Cadillac doesn’t have much design rectitude; it’s boosted along by my grandma having had one. On the other hand, it’s severely outclassed by the ’70.
I’m not sure how stringent the DOT regulations on clearance lights were then. IIRC some earlier full-sizers like the ’60 Ford line were nominally over 80″.
Even today, the “official” width of several full-size pickups and SUVs are something like 81.5″ and they still don’t have lights. I dunno how exactly they get away with that.
I’m glad I wasn’t alone in thinking they were bigger. Paul corrected me a few weeks ago, and I was genuinely surprised. Maybe we thought they were bigger because we’re so accustomed to seeing this generation wearing megabumpers?
I imagine that’s part of it. The tumblehome greenhouse and lower body is the bulk of it, pun intended.
I remember the first time I rode in one, an Electra, how the door seemed to fall away from me. It felt roomier than our ’68 Electra, but they could have made the seat wider if the body didn’t curve inward top and bottom, so it probably wasn’t.
Yes, it appears Bill Mitchell got his wish with that pronounced tumblehome, but it wasn’t space-efficient.
When you look at the cars directly from the front or rear, the extreme tuck-in of both the greenhouse and lower body is obvious.
Going OT – thanks for the link on the Ship of Theseus! Another internet rabbithole…..
In trying to figure out how GM achieved this slight-of-hand, one thing that all of the brands (except Cadillac) did was increase the center section of the hood with a long, wide, raised prow, while lowering the hood on both sides as it meets the headlights. This styling feature is absent on the 1970 cars, but especially pronounced on the lower tier cars and most mild on the Buick.
On the Caddy, they simply widened the front stance by inserting turn signals between the headlights on each side.
My friend had a Datsun 120Y back in Australia, he reckons there was more space in the back seat of that than the back seat of the 75 Delta 88 Royale that I owned in Canada in the late 90’s and he rode in.
For the full size Pontiac’s I actually thought the 1973-74 front end styling was a lot better than the 1971-72’s considering that for the rest of the 1971-76 GM biggies I prefer the 1971-72’s.
Of the 1970 biggies my favorites in order are
1. Cadillac
2. Buick
3. Oldsmobile
4. Chevrolet
5. Pontiac
Of the 1971 biggies my favorites in order are
1. Oldsmobile (I actually thought the 1971 Oldsmobile 88’s were an improvement over the 1970 88’s in the styling department)
2. Chevrolet
3. Buick
4. Cadillac
5. Pontiac
Since a lot of us are comparing the styling, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the Buick is the only one of these cars where I prefer the ’71 over the ’70. Sure, it’s plainer…but the side profile, grille, and bumper are much cleaner to my eyes, and I like how the upsweep and ventiports on the newer car seamlessly segue into the dome of the hood.
The 1970 Pontiac was the 1958 Edsel revived. Yet even so, I think it looks better than the ’71.
Totally agreed, I thought the 1973-74 Pontiac grilles were a major improvement over the 1971-72 grilles, this is coming from someone who likes the 1971-72 versions of the 1971-76 B & C cars the most.
It doesn’t help that there’s often a blacked-out triangle at the base of the front side window, plus a rearview mirror attached to that triangular insert, leading to a wide area with no outward visibility. I prefer the previous position of the outside rearview mirrors as on these cars, set back from the A pillar so there’s room to see things between them.
The exit out of our Y rises to the street, and twice I’ve not seen headlights behind the passenger mirror/fat A pillar and nearly collided with them. At least, I’m blaming the weird angle and not my carelessness. But the vast majority of these B & C cars did not have passenger mirrors, something we take for granted now. Soon enough, we’ll all be relying on sensors to keep us safe.
Weren’t the passenger side mirrors more common on the later versions of the 1971-76 B & C vehicles GM built?
More common in the sense of more than near zero. Looking at the ’75 GM full line brochure, maybe half the cars are shown with one, but they were still probably optional except on highest trim models. In the ’71 Impala brochure, one isn’t even offered.
http://www.oldcarmanualproject.com/brochures/GM/1975/1975GMFulllineBrochure/index.html
There was a big safety push about 1972-3, before the first gas crisis: GM and others built experimental safe vehicles for the car shows, sponsored by the US DoT I believe. But this was years before electric mirrors. I know Cadillac offered a cable-adjustable right mirror, because I found one in a junk yard to put on my ’76 Eldo, and I think Buick and Olds offered it, but I’m not sure about the lower B bodies. Manual adjustment can be more than annoying if headlights hit the mirror wrong for the driver or front passenger. My dad ordered a ’77 Electra without a right mirror, but I think our ’78 Century off the lot had a manual one.
I’ve seen a few mid 70’s Chevy Caprice’s and Pontiac Bonneville’s with the passenger side mirrors, they were the ones with the sport mirrors, I don’t think they were available on the Impala’s and Catalina’s, at least that I’ve seen.
Like the “1970 ,full size, Chevy’s”. Neighbors had a new “71”. Rode , big car, nice. Had (imo) a fair lot of rattles.
I have to admit, I was in it for short rides only though.
Addendum: SHOCK! I just looked it up–a 1973 Chevrolet Impala is 223″, a foot LONGER than a ’59! (Two feet, three inches longer than a ’55 Chevy, LOL). The wagons were 229″–1958 Lincoln size. And by 1975, the ’58 Lincoln was small–4″ shorter than a ’75 Continental.
The idea of a mass-market, “low-priced” car being this huge produces cognitive dissonance. I don’t know if CC has done this before, but I would ask, “What was the biggest, cheapest car you could buy [adjusted for inflation]?” My nominees would be the 1958 Studebaker Scotsman, the 1960 Ford Fairlane, and maybe a ’75 Chevy Bel Air or Ford Custom 500. We could calculate a “price to size” ratio.
Maybe it’s just cause when I was young these were all rusty beaters, but I don’t think any of these (with the possible exception of the Pontiac) look better than their ppredecessors. I always thought the 70s GM biggies looked bad. The 77’s were much better
.