(first posted 5/7/2015) Oh right; it was spelled Catera. But when I came across this delicious ’57 Caddy rear end posted at the Cohort by paulvaranasi, I couldn’t help but notice the coincidental name painted on the driveway. It must belong to Catarra, and he obviously loves it. Let’s check out the (long) side view.
Even with the rude interruptions of those two posts, this is quite a sight. When I was a kid, I used to think that the whole center section of these Coupe deVilles was shared with the 1958 Impala.
Well you can see why.
But then I learned about GM’s A, B and C bodies, and how different they were (or were supposed to be). Which of course essentially all ended in 1959. But looking at these two now again makes me think that maybe I wasn’t so far off the mark. Did Chevy just “borrow” the ’57 Cadillac coupe greenhouse?
Yes, there’s a few minor detail differences, like the length of the front vent window. But given the slight difference in camera angle, these are mighty similar.
So I headed to automobile-catalog.com, which is a terrific resource, and compared some dimensions. Of course the Caddy is longer, in wheelbase and overall length. But that’s a game always being played by GM. The center section looks roughly the same length. Critically, the Caddy is wider, 80.0″ to 77.7″. And in key interior dimensions, it’s also wider, with the Caddy’s shoulder room (65″) and hip room (65″) wider also than the Impala’s (56″ shoulder; 62/63″ hip). Well, maybe they just widened the roof structure a bit?
Either way, I had never really thought about this crucial life-or-death issue since I was maybe nine or so. And now that I have, and almost resolved it, I’m ready to move on. But isn’t it fun to be able to re-examine one’s crucial childhood observations and mysteries? Even if there’s no absolute definitive answer some 50 years later?
Wow, I had never actually noticed this before. For some reason, neither the 57 Caddy nor the 58 Impala ever really pulled me into their orbits, so they were always kind of background cars to me. A very interesting observation. Perhaps, though, it was merely theft of a styling idea by the folks styling the 58 Chevrolet. It is not as though Chevy lacked the budget for a hardtop roof and had to share stampings with another division.
A couple of other examples:
link to 1958 Buick
1958 Pontiac
That thing will most certainly zig. It’s what happens after that zig that’s the problem.
And man, that back end really is big. Beautiful, but big. Like a Kardashian.
(A) Big, Bad, Funky, Boo-tay – Spin Doctors
Sir Mix-A-Lot’s car?
At least you didn’t say Nicki Minaj… 😛
My Anaconda don’t…………..oops couldn’t resist. ..
I have to pass on a piece of advice I heard just a few nights ago: “Never trust a big butt and a smile.” 😉
In good Misterl form, familial in appearance, different in dimensions. Fisher was the master at mass-production metal-forming. Although the width and length of the C-body roof is likely larger, some of the stamping operations and ancillary parts likely are the same.
Interesting–I think you are onto what was done by Fisher. There are many subtle differences here like the wing window length, the length of the bottom of the rear window before it kicks up into the C pillar and it looks to me like the impala rear window has a more raked slope. I wonder if they used a few common stampings, but it sure looks like most of it is just subtly different.
Obviously as the 60’s wore on, GM would move to the same exact structure for the big C body center sections, but it looks to me like the Caddy is pretty much a different body here.
The Fisher Brothers left General Motors at the end of World War Two. Fisher was own by GM, and after WWII is really GM body.
By this time, yes, Fisher Body Division of GM, the Fisher brothers were long gone. The A-B-C body sharing program was firmly in place: A-bodied Chevys and Pontiacs; B-bodied Olds 88 & 98, Buick Special and Century; C-bodied Buick Roadmaster and Cadillac. Complete segment coverage tailored for each, economies of scale amortized over thousands of units, worked perfectly while the rigid Sloan price/nameplate step structure was still strong. Only later was it unraveled in the splintered market the developed from the ’60’s onward.
Remember: “So Much of The Buy is In The Body” Fisher Bodies slogan of the early ’60’s.
And you wonder why the ’58 Chevy stomped Ford into the ground? With golf shoes?
I remember dad having a really good year in 1958, which made up for a rather mediocre ’57, and the 1959 which had him wondering just what the hell Chevrolet was doing. After the ’58’s, it was 1961 before he felt he had an attractive car to sell again.
And I still remember his silver blue Impala coupe from that year. Without fender skirts, of course. Fender skirts were a very seldom seen option on cars back when they were new. VERY seldom. But, admittedly, still more common than continental kits, bolt on fake exhaust ports, fake (or real) spotlights, fake second rear fender antennas.
Actually, the only popular bolt on option from the Chevrolet catalog was the under dash tissue dispenser.
It kills me how the current restorers feel a need to bolt on everything that was in the catalog. Just like the first owners didn’t.
I prefer cars that are not festooned with fender skirts, continental kits, spot lights, etc. Usually it is late 1950s and early 1960s Ford and Chevrolets that are equipped/afflicted with these “improvements.”
Agreed with the entire statement.
What is truly gag-a-fyingly bad is the person who has the ’65 Bel-Air sedan with fender skirts and continental kit.
You are most definitely correct. Watching the Mecum and BJ auctions and seeing all of these beautiful late fifties cars with all of the gingerbread none of us saw back in the day is sickening. Almost as bad as how Chip Foose ruins perfectly good muscle cars.
Totally agree. There’s a reason why all those rare accessories didn’t sell back in the day. It’s called ‘taste’.
It’s interesting–’58 is generally considered to be a “bad” year for GM styling. And certainly the Pontiac, Buick, and Olds of that year all have their issues. But Chevy came out by far the best of the bunch (Cadillac wasn’t too bad either but it was basically a refresh of ’57). And Ford’s changes for ’58 came off as ill-conceived too, at least to me; I like the ’57 and ’59 Fords but ’58 does nothing at all for me.
Chevrolet was the one car in ’58 that could have carried over into ’59, and probably be a much more attractive design with just the usual new-model-year facelift. It certainly would have competed better with the ’59 Ford than the bat-winged monster did.
GM’s problem with the ’58’s is that the most of them were just overchromed re-hashes of the 57’s, while the Chevrolet was a complete improvement (not that difficult seeing the ’57 is the homliest of the tri-fives by a large margin, Americana be damned). The Cadillac lost a little to the ’57, but not much, while Buick really went into the toilet.
And then had had to do that crash program for ’59, replacing everything, including the one car that didn’t need it.
I first saw a new 58 Impala in the coral color on display at the county fair when I was a kid. I went crazy over the beautiful roofline, and all of the nifty trim details. My grandfather’s new 58 Bel Air in two-tone blue was a beauty, too. Never have understood the love for the 57.
I’ve always thought the 58 Buicks and Oldsmobiles were the ugly ducklings of that year, in good part due to the poor chrome detailing (mostly too much) but also rear styling (both) and the hideous Buick grille. The Chevrolets, Cadillacs, and Pontiacs had much better styling and detailing.
In my opinion ’58 was a pretty bad styling year for almost all of the US Automakers. The Chrysler products weren’t too bad, but also weren’t much changed from ’57.
I’ve always wanted to see a fantasy ’58 Ford, that is just the ’59 front clip on a ’57.
GM weren’t the only sinner in 58,the monstrous Lincoln and the strange looking toilet seat Imperial could give them a run for their money in the ugly car race.The dual headlamp craze didn’t help,trying to cram in an extra pair of lights while using as much of last years car(in a lot of cases) was also a factor.The Imperial’s front end looks like a home brewed effort with some missing headlight trim
1958 was a ugly duckling year for most American cars.
I was ten years old in 1958, and the ’57-58-59 Imperial styling was considered by most people to be miles above Cadillac and better than Lincoln. The ’57 Imperial sales show a lot of that. I loved them when they came out and disliked the Olds and Buick of ’58 short deck models. After owning all of them I still don’t like the short deck models as well , but generally love them all, the more we can save the longer our hobby may last.
I’ve seen a beautiful coral pink and slate grey 55 Chevy at shows spoiled by fender skirts,Continental kit,sun visor(not needed much in the UK) and a strange fender/headlight guard which looks to serve the same purpose as a motorcycle crash bar
Nothing wrong with fender skirts on a ’55 in my opinion, as long as we’re talking about the factory pieces. But the sun visor/continental kit/guard bar would certainly spoil the look. Especially bad considering that the coral/gray was perhaps the best color scheme for ’55.
Sun visors were very common in Australia back then, and needed in our climate. But they often looked very awkward with a wraparound screen.
Skirts are a ‘yeah, maybe’ thing on fifties cars for me. But Continental kits, no way. Extra weight cantilevered off the back where you don’t need it. Scrap metal.
Agreed. That stuff is probably so popular on restorations because it was all sitting in dealer and warehouse parts inventories gathering dust, so it was probably a NOS bonanza. It may also have been an extension of the habits of early Ford V8 restorers who liked to load their cars up with accessories. The difference being that accessories in the 30s sort of served the same purpose as options lists did in the 50s and 60s.
It looks like the Caddy’s doors step out more below the door handle, which could account for the extra width which works out at only just over an inch each side. If you can swap the rear screens between the two then that would settle the matter.
The inner curve of the front screen’s dog leg has a larger radius, but is that a decorative feature covering more of the glass?
Yeah, but the interior is 7-9 inches wider. That seems hard to believe given the exterior dimensions.
I wonder if the 56″ vs 65″ shoulder room is a typo? Especially when the Chevy is supposed to have 56″ shoulder room but 62/63″ hip room, that just does not make sense!
Despite the excess of chrome, the `58 Impala does look a lot nicer than the Cadillac. Probably an early example of GM “parts sharing”.
I never much cared for the 58 GM cars but the Chevy was better looking than the more expensive models.The 58 Buicks and Oldsmobiles are very ostentatious.
Especially the Buick Limited with all that chrome all over the rear fenders. Excessive to the max.
Oh c’mon. Those 30 chrome slashes
(15 per side \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\)
are what make that car!
I am one of the few who agree thoroughly with you. The ’58 Buick Limited was a fabulous car. Look up Kris Trexler’s website, http://www.kingoftheroad.net for perhaps the finest ’58 Limited Riviera coupe in existence, a tour de force that, along with the other cars in his collection (including a pristine ’58 Pontiac Bonneville sport coupe) are a mind boggling trip through a long ago automotive world.
Thank you and Don W I had a set of three ’58 Limited’s, silver with pigskin red leather interior and black convertible top, blue with white top Riviera coupe, and black Riviera sedan with grey cloth interior. I loved the extra touches on the Limited’s
Actually, the prettiest of the ’58 line was the Bel Air 2-door hardtop. Take the Impala, remove one pair of taillights, and simplify the sides.
Overall, as you went down the line, from the sides descending models got prettier, although the DelRay kinda overdid the simplicity look. Unfortunately, under the Bel Air, they were all pillared bodies which didn’t look as good as the hardtops.
I was told that I was….er…manufactured in a ’58 Biscayne, So I guess I’ll take that version. And as for the “Tri-Fives” the ’55 is the best looking, But I guess “pop culture” insists that the ’50s HAS to be guady so “everyone” wants the ’57.
Well, the ’57 was a better car as well because the bugs in the platform were better worked out by then.
Bernard Taylor:
I think you are on to something. Look at the leading edge of the door, it appears the Cadillac’s door is shorter or the leading edge is further back on the fender. I suppose it could also be the camera angle, but the Chevy’s door seems to start a bit closer to the front bumper.
Interesting how both cars use nearly the same design “add-ons” but the Cadillac is more elegant looking. Both have that fake vent/scoop (?) in the rear fender….the Chevy’s almost shouts “here I am” while Caddy’s says “oh, yes, I’m here” but with a very demure voice.
Like others here, I never noticed how similar these cars look.
BTW, while the Cimmaron was a 4 door sedan, I would think a title that used the similarities of the Cimmaron and Cavalier instead of the Catarra might have been more appropriate.
That is an interesting question. GM was the master at reworking various body components to fit different car lines, and then artfully disguising any similarities.
During the 1950s, GM also offered separate bodies with very discreet differences that were only noticeable upon close inspection. A good example is Buick – the less-expensive models used the corporate B body, while the Super and Roadmaster used the C body, which was shared with Cadillac. The differences between the two bodies are subtle.
Your theory makes me think, but I it would be more convincing if this roof ended up on a Buick or Olds. I think that GM was trying to lead the industry in the “next big look” by starting on Cadillac, then having it filter down to the Chevy to give it some class. The problem was that the 1957 Mopars blew up the plan, and turned out to be the real source of the “next new look”, at least through 1959
Cadillac and Chevrolet had long enjoyed a big brother-little brother styling relationship, going back to the ’32 Chevy.
The ’57 Cadillac is a perfect example of an old industry axiom that says you can trickle down styling from an expensive car to a cheaper one, but never, ever do it the other way around. Chrysler learned it the hard way with the downsized ’62 Mopars, and again, decades later, with the ill-fated TC by Maserati (although the latter can’t really be blamed on Iacocca). Of course, GM had to give it a go with the Cimarron.
Did Ford ever try something similar?
First gen Lincoln Versailles!! Fooled almost no one, but you can imagine a few were shocked the first time they parked their new Lincoln next to a Granada…
The other one that GM did this with was the first gen Cadillac Seville, that even as a kid I noticed looked a LOT like a tarted up Nova–this is, of course, because that is pretty much what it was
I’d forgotten about the Seville. IIRC, it’s a CC ‘Deadly Sin’, primarily because GM sort of got away with it, which led directly to Ford’s Versailles, then came the ultimate ‘let’s make an expensive car out of an obviously cheap one and see if people will be dumb enough to buy them’, the Cadillac Cimarron.
But here’s the thing. Parts commonality is nothing new in the auto industry. Indeed, if done skillfully, it’s a superb way to keep costs down. One of the biggest auto success stories, ever, was the rebodied-Falcon Mustang.
It’s just that the manufacturers (particularly GM) were so much better at disguising it in the past and, in the seventies, seemed to have gotten downright lazy about it. Cars like the Versailles and Cimarron were truly insulting to the intelligence of American consumers (which is really saying something).
Just imagine if the Versailles had come out first, even by 6 months, followed by the cheaper Granada/Monarch versions – the outcome would have been quite different.
Having said that, I remember looking at the Versailles and the Monarch at the local Lincoln/Mercury dealership when I was 14 and thinking how much nicer the Versailles was, it really did have an expensive “vibe” to it from the front 3/4 view, until you compared the side views.
The Ford “aero” look first debuted on the 1983 Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar. Those cars were followed by the 1984 Lincoln Continental Mark VII, which sported a similar design theme.
Interestingly, the aero Continental Mark VII had actually been designed first, but corporate leadership decreed that the design would be applied to the Thunderbird and Cougar, and that they would debut first. All three cars received good reviews from the press, although Continental Mark VII sales weren’t that great.
Actually, I can think of a few vehicles where “trickle up” worked shockingly well. The Lincoln Navigator (tarted-up Expedition) and the Cadillac Escalade (Tahoe/Suburban in tacky trim) are perfect examples of how, in certain vehicle segments at least, people will gleefully pay for bling. Perhaps people are too oblivious or cynical now to care, or maybe it’s the fact that these chrome beasts indicate you paid more money for the same goods, therefore making them status symbols for the “show off the money” crowd.
BL tried it with predictably disastrous results with the 3 litre, a RWD jumbo sized version of the land crab.The land crab was no oil painting and neither a popular or very good car compared to the opposition and was already an old design when the 3 litre was launched.
This two door hardtop style was also used by Pontiac and Buick. I am not sure about Oldsmobile, but probably not.
I have tried to make the point before that the basic body styles after WW2 all seem very similar for Chevy to Cadillacs. I think the basic body structure was the same for A, B and C bodies which results in similar looking bodies. The basic difference is overall size.
Wikipedia says that the 58 Impala is an A-body, not a B until 1959. But there seems to be some difference of opinion on this depending on which wiki page one looks at. The 58 Chevy may have moved to the B body and then got the all new B in 59 again. This seems like poor planning…
The ’58 Chevy was a completely redesigned car from the ’55-57’s. I’m pretty certain that the low end Pontiacs used the same body, although I don’t have any photos to back myself up.
If I remember the chronology properly, the B bodies were new for ’54 (definitely look at a ’54 Buick compared to a Chevrolet – the Buick looks almost ten years newer) and would normally run through ’56. A bodies changed in ’55 thru ’57 (the tri-fives), back to a B body upgrade in ’57 to run thru ’59 (oops!), meanwhile the A body changed for ’58 to run thru ’60 (double oops!). Can’t remember how the C bodies fit in, as I never followed Cadillac that closely.
Yeah, Chrysler trashed a very set system.
The A and C bodies were new in 1949 (if my Buick history book is correct). The B bodies were new for 1950. The 1954 model year got new B and C bodies (don’t know about the A).
C bodies 1948, A bodies 1949, B and D bodies 1950 (I think, YMMV!) Then new “A” 1955.
Best way to check without pictures being available: ’48 Cadillac was the first with the tailfins, predecessors were pre-WWII. That’s the C’s. ’49 Chevy was completely new, 46-48 were redone ’42’s. That covers the A’s.
B’s are a little harder for memory. I know the ’54 Buick had the same basic styling as the ’55 and ’56, that would also carry over to the larger Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles. I think (repeat, think) the earlier iteration of the B would have been ’49, when the 2-door hardtop was introduced, first as the Buick Riviera.
For the A bodies, 49-52 Chevrolets were identical except for a decent grille change in ’51. ’53 and ’54 Chevies were different (no fastbacks anymore) but I believe were still basically the ’49 design reskinned. Tri-fives, of course, were a complete generational change.
Now, if I weren’t at work and had the time to dig up a load of pictures, I could track it down more exactly.
My Cadillac history book agrees with you on the Cadillac’s at least.
The doors, roof, windshield, backlight and vent panes all look exactly the same to me. A clever sharing of body panels, or a blatant rip-off? You be the judge!
GM had been cleverly sharing body and mechanical parts throughout its range since the 30s a look through the replacement panel parts book tells the story though unless you were a dealer there was no access to that information.
A friend has a 57 Coupe De Ville. Not this nice, but I saw it on a hoist and noticed it has the X frame like 58-64 Chevies. However, it has leaf springs on the rear not coils and trailing arms. Maybe Cad was the lead on all these designs.
Juniper, Paul has an outstanding discussion on all the frames used between ’58-’64 elsewhere on the site. Google search should bring it up.
IIRC the Caddy was a combination X-ladder structure, unlike the X-frame Chevy used that rendered the car all but undrivable in anything but a straight line.
I wouldn’t malign the X-Frame so strongly. The bodies that used the X Frame had compensating strengthening of their bodies, especially at the sills, so there’s no reason to actually say that these were worse than the perimeter frames some GM divisions used during this time. Is there any evidence that a ’59 Buick handled any better than a ’59 Cadillac or Chevy? I strongly suspect not.
The issues of handling were the result of soft and rather primitive suspensions, weak shocks, low tire pressures, undersized tires, etc. Undoubtedly, a stiffer overall structure would have theoretically helped, but not unless the suspension was up to the task of taking advantage of it.
The issues of the X-Frame are more in the realm of whether they were less safe, and the fact that as the bodies rusted in the sills, it became a weaker structure overall.
A Buick Riviera GS was considered a quite capable handler for its time, and used the X Frame all the way through 1970.
Good points Paul.
I just remember reading multiple accounts – including here – about the amount of flex in at least the ’58 ans ’59 Chevies, especially compared to the Tri-Fives which were known for handling well in their day. (but certainly not by current standards)
My ’63 Electra convertibles and ’64 and ’65 Rivieras have the X frame and are rock solid. One Electra convertible has over 450,000 miles on it and has been hit front, side and rear over the years, always repaired correctly and still solid
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-an-x-ray-look-at-gms-x-frame-1957-1970/
I have to think that while the doors and the other body panels that interface with the roof are all different, the basic stamping of the roof…the largest single panel in the car…is very likely the same. Even the rear window could have been made different with the same basic stamping, witness what GM did in the 1963-4 Cadillac coupe, sharing its roof stamping with the 1963-4 Chevrolet 4-door hardtop…even though the rear windows were different.
I suppose they could have used the same roof on the wider cadillac body if they had wider ‘sills’ to transition to a wider lower body, but I bet that the roof is wider by the same amount as the body.
It doesn’t zig, but still shares its tail with an Opel, sort of –
Glad you liked the photos.. That’s my “daily driver” in the background. (The bike.)
San Francisco is full of fabulous old automobiles..
Yes it its. And thanks for making this one mine.
These two do not the share the same roof; because it is not the same stamping. The Impala actually had its own roof this year. Note how much longer it is with a different radius for the downward curve of the back is when compared to a Bel Air coupe.
1958 Impala:
http://www.the-blueprints.com/modules/vectordrawings/preview-wm/1958_chevrolet_impala_sport_coupe.jpg
1958 Bel Air:
http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot/cars/chevrolet/chevrolet-bel-air-sport-coupe-1958.png
The whole A/B/C designation was forced on the respective car divisions by Fisher in the 30s when the one piece ‘Turret Top’ was introduced. The huge expense of the press forced the car lines to share three or four (there are a few D-Bodies) variations of the same design. The size of the roof stamping is what determined the body type. For decades the top, and later, the one piece floor pan were the only components that were interchangeable, and even then only within so-called body designations. Right up to the very end, the 96 Fleetwood has a 5-6 inch longer roof then the 96 Caprice.
In this case the similarity is more an example of Harley Earl ripping off his earlier work, as the basic design is lifted right out of the 53/54 A-body coupes.
http://www.1953chevrolet.com/images/53_POST_2_Z.jpg
The ’58 Impala hardtop shared its body with only the ’58 Pontiac Bonneville Custom Sport Coupe. Misterl knew how to get the maximum use out of every body stamping to create sales.
That ’58 Impala sure looks like it has a looooong trunk, much longer than the Caddy’s.
It even looks like the trunk is longer than the interior of the car.
I am always so pleasantly surprised when the cars of my youth show up here periodically, along with such interesting analyses and comments. These two cars, at opposite ends of the GM spectrum, inhabited the driveway of the family of one of my elementary school classmates. The dad was a successful insurance executive, and he had just taken delivery of a brand new ’58 Impala when I was in the sixth grade, while the mom drove a ’57 Cadillac Coupe de Ville, in a similar pink and white color to the one pictured above. My friend was over the top about their new Impala, but whenever I went to their house for an after school play day, I was intensely interested in the Cadillac, which to me was the pinnacle of motordom back then. My dad at the time had a ’58 Bel Air 4-door sedan, which seemed like such the mud hen compared to my friend’s dad’s snazzy new Impala. An interesting juxtaposition of these two models, I was keenly aware of the similarity in the greenhouses, especially since my mom’s best friend had a ’57 Buick Super Riviera coupe, which of course shared the same roofline. But knowing little of the body types and designations at age 11, I just chalked up the similarities to a GM family shared design element.
The design was shared, not the components. The Chevy borrowed this design feature, GM would later apply it to the Camaro and the Firebird. On the Caddy especially, it contributes to an airy greenhouse with excellent visibility. This is one of my favorite model years for Cadillac. The hood was now flat, as was the decklid, the tops were all hardtop designs. The flat topped, canted forward fin just gives the car a look of athleticism and motion. The twin fin hood ornament was probably terrible for pedestrians, but had been used earlier on Motorama show cars. 1956 marked the last year of the anthropomorphic Goddess/ Jet Airplane hood mascots, ( which were kind of terrifying if you look closely at them!) as the 57; and ’58 sported the twin shark fins. I had both a ’56 and ’57 hardtop Sedan de Villes over the years. The ’57 was just the sportiest looking of the two. The pictured example is just gorgeous!
Thanks for the reference to automobile catalog dot com. Looks like an excellent source of info and specs.
According to The Art of American Car Design,(C. Edison Armi) the completely redesigned ’58 Chevy ($400 million) embodied the new aesthetic direction by Harley Earl. The idea was to put ” shape in the sheet metal vs adding moldings”. This was to have been carried thru the entire GM line, but the appearance of the ’57 Chryslers changed things at GM. Bill Mitchell was given more freedom to shape the ’59s. These cars had Earl’s bold surface styling but Mitchell’s influence is seen in the lean sharp forms- the beginning of the Sheer Look of the future.
According to my Hollander interchange book, the 57 Cadillac rear windshield is only shared with the 58 Cad series 62 and 57 & 58 Eldorado 2 door hardtops and the 1957 Buick Super and Roadmaster Riviera Coupe.
The 1958 Chevrolet Impala Sport Coupe rear windshield is only shared with the 1958 Pontiac Bonneville Sport Coupe.
I imagine that nothing of significance interchanges between the roofs of the 1957 Cadillac H.T. and the 1958 Chevy Impala. That probably applies to any significant parts interchange of any kind between the two.
Speaking of parts geeking, If left to my own devices I have been known to amuse myself for an hour or hours looking up random interchange information just to find some really obscure or unexpected interchange tidbits. Fortunately I have other important responsibilities to keep me occupied these days.
Oldsmobile got left out of the one-piece wraparound rear?