Talk:Chevrolet Caprice

Strange assertion

The assertion that the design of the 1991-1995 generation Caprice was influenced by the ovoid Taurus is odd, because the ovoid Taurus did not come to the market until 5 years later.Eregli bob 01:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably referring to the '86-'95 Taurus, though I must agree that the use of the term "ovoid" is a bit odd, because neither the original Taurus nor the '91-'96 Caprice are really ovoid in design. Perhaps "aerodynamic" would be a better word to use there. -- 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weight?

I have some doubts about the weight given here for the mid-70s model. 5800 lbs. is too high, I think. About 5000 would account for even a Cadillac or Lincoln of that era. RivGuySC 02:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Chrysler big block?

Chrysler was phasing out their big blocks in the late 70's, but they continued producing M and R body cruisers well into the 80's with small blocks.Cheezydee 17:21, 31 December 2005 balls

Engines

We need more material on engines in the 1977-1990 section. Remember, the GM B-bodies were at the heart of the controversy that erupted when GM began installing various divisions' engines in various divisions' cars. There were class-action lawsuits and quite a bit of a kerfuffle. Scheinwerfermann 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I updated the engine history for this model run. Remember, the engine controversy was with a 350 Chevrolet being put into a 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88, so it doesn't apply to this article. Chevrolet prettty much only ever used Chevy engines, with a few exceptions (the Olds Diesel, Olds 307 V8, and Buick 231 V6). Caprice 96 (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I added engines to the thew old table and i have deleted a small table with 2 engines ( moved to ) User:95.176.139.190 —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC).

Impala

Is all the information regarding the Impala really necessary for the Caprice article? I know that the two are closely related but it just seems that there is too much information about the Impala in this article. AndreniW 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many images

The 1977-90 section has way too many images. A gallery shouldn't take up two rows. I tried reshuffling and dispersing them through the section, but apparently people don't like that. So that being the case, some of those images MUST go. --Sable232 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

H'mm. I'm not sure there's a rule that galleries shouldn't take up two rows, or even a guideline to that effect. If there is, I'm interested to read it, so please direct me to it. In either event, there was image duplication, but your picks for keeping and discarding seemed pretty random. I've reworked the mix to try and achieve some balance amongst the different body styles and variants with minimal duplication. We now have a one-row gallery but good overall representation of the early and late 3rd-generation sedans and coupes, including a close look at the wraparound backglass unique to the '77-'79 cars, and one image of the wagon, which didn't change much at all through this whole model year range. --Scheinwerfermann 02:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule against multi-row image galleries. (If there were, I don't see why the formatting would make it so easy to do.) Toyota Corolla has many, because there are many different versions to illustrate. But if people decide that there shouldn't be more than four gallery images, I feel they should be a different set than was just put up, and ordered to illustrate design changes. IFCAR 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't a rule. But it is an awful lot of space to take up. It makes it look like someone just threw a bunch of pictures in as an afterthought. Do we really need two pictures to show different color turn signal lenses? Do we even need a picture for that at all? Ideally, there should be a front end shot for all three styles, and a rear shot of the early coupe to show the rear window. These images should also include the sedan, Estate, and later coupe. There is no reason why these images can't be dispersed throughout the text, at least enough to bring the galley down to one line. If someone is looking for more pictures, that's what Commons is for. --Sable232 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm...okay, "there isn't a rule, but it takes up a lot of space" means it's your personal preference, which I'm afraid I don't consider an appropriate standard of what goes and what doesn't. The photo of the red '79 and that of the black '81-'85 just happen to be particularly clear pictures of cars that just happen to be export models. They're there to show the cars, not specifically to show off the turn signals, though to my mind the unusual signals add value to the photos. I think the changes IFCAR has made are probably a good place for this issue to rest for awhile. --Scheinwerfermann 04:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Sable232 - gallaries are ugly, they accumulate cruft. If you can work an appropriate number of pictures in to illustrate the text - that's good - more than that is horrible. Galleries give you no control over the size of the image - they don't adapt to wide and narrow screen widths - in short, they are terrible. IFCAR wonders why there are galleries provided if we aren't supposed to use them - the reason is simple - the MediaWiki software which Wikipedia uses is built for a wide variety of applications beyond writing this particular encyclopedia - the gallery feature is handy for all sorts of other applications. Here it's ugly as all hell. SteveBaker 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One guideline I see about image placement and galleries is Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images. It says:

"If an article has many images, so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself..., you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template...and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded."

The strong implication being that a gallery is a means of last resort. SteveBaker 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1977-1990 generation of Chevrolet Caprice has three versions (77-79, 80-85, 86-90) three bodystyles (sedan, coupe, wagon), design features (the rear windshield) and an export model to illustrate. Particularly with facelifts, when it can be difficult to see changes, it's convenient to have the photos side by side.

I also recall a guideline that says that a gallery is preferable to "flooding an article with images". These various cars ought to be illustrated, and a gallery is the best place to do it. Much better than sending people off to various different pages if they want Chevrolet Caprice information. IFCAR 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

SteveBaker, the language in the guideline you found does not constitute a "strong implication". Please read it again. It says ...the ideal solution might be.... This isn't a rule, and it doesn't even appear to be an almost-rule. It reads as the opinion of whoever wrote the guideline. Now, that individual's opinion happens to be similar in principle to your own, but that does not necessarily imbue it with force or correctness. Nowhere is there a quantification of what constitutes too many images. Certainly there's a valid concern to be mindful of if a gallery would grow large enough to overwhelm or interfere with the rest of the article, but that's not the case here, and it doesn't seem likely this gallery will grow to that point. --Scheinwerfermann 23:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Turbo 250 transmission

Some Caprices came with TH250 transmissions. I would enter it if I knew the start/end years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.233.59 (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

International Versions

There have been a number of International Versions of Chevrolet Caprice based on US Eurpoean and Australian GM products. Need some references and content. --Gcrispin (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)User:gcrispin 01:52, 17 Jul 2009 (UTC)

Excessive length

It's becoming clear that this page is heavily edited by fans and enthusiasts of the car. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but the level of detail makes it excruciating to read. You're welcome to post this information on the web somewhere, but the Wikipedia article should be a summary, not an end-all-be-all reference manual or history book. There should be fewer tables (EPA ratings for 1977 cars by engine? really?) and engines and options/trim should be more summarized. If you truly feel that this much detail is important in summarizing the car, and all of interest to a general audience, then I would at least suggest splitting the generations into separate articles, similar to the Honda Civic or Ford Mustang. --Vossanova ^o< 20:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I didn't revert that gas milage comparison table on sight... it's ridiculous and is basically just a copy of the source. I'm going to remove that, and start evaluating the rest of the article. --Sable232 (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1977 Did Not Increase Usable Space Compared to 1976

Here are the usual facts for four door models (which can easily be found in sales brochures and data books):

1971-1976

Headroom f/r 38.9/38.0

Legroom f/r 42.5/38.8

Shoulder room f/r 63.8/63.8

Luggage cap. (cu. ft.) 18.9

1977-1979

Headroom f/r 39.0/38.0

Legroom f/r 42.2/39.5

Shoulder room f/r 61.1/61.1

Luggage cap. (cu. ft.) 20.9

The EPA has published annual fuel economy guides since 1978. These guides categorize cars based on "interior space" which is defined as the sum of passenger volume and trunk or cargo volume. For example a midsize car has 110 to 119 cubic feet of interior space and a full size has 120 or more. Passenger volume is computed by finding the product of headroom, legroom, and shoulder room for both front and rear, converting each to cubic feet, rounding to the nearest cubic foot and then summing them.

For example the 1977-1979 Chevrolet Caprice has 39.0x42.2x61.1 = 100,558.4 cubic inches of passenger room in front. Dividing this by 1728 cubic inches per cubic feet yields 58.2 cubic feet of front passenger room. It has 38.0x39.5x61.1 = 91711.1 cubic inches of passenger room in rear. Dividing this by 1728 cubic inches per cubic feet yields 53.1 cubic feet of passenger room. Rounding to the nearest foot and adding them yields 111 cubic feet of passenger volume.

Now turn to any post EPA fuel economy guide and what you'll usually find is this for a downsized 4 door Chevrolet Caprice:

BODY TYPE/INTERIOR SPACE PASSENGER/TRUNK OR CARGO(CU.FT.) 4DR-111/21

EPA fuel economy guides obviously did not exist in 1971-1976 but repeating this calculation for a 1971-1976 Chevrolet Caprice yields 115 cubic feet of passenger volume. Thus the interior space of a four door 1977-1979 Chevrolet Caprice is 111 + 21 = 132 cubic feet whereas the interior space of a four door 1971-1976 Chevrolet Caprice is 115 + 19 = 134 cubic feet. The 1971-1976 Chevrolet Caprice is clearly roomier than the 1977-1979.

The main reason for the difference is shoulder room and the difference between 64.3 inches of shoulder room and 61.1 inches is dramatically obvious to anyone who has seen both cars. Furthermore the only interior dimensions that increased in 1977 were rear seat legroom and trunk space.

This also underscores the fact you cannot shorten a car by 10 inches, make it narrower by nearly 4 inches, loose 600 pounds and not lose interior room.

I know that the GM ads of the time pushed the idea that the 1977 full size cars were just as roomy despite the drastic downsizing. This usually involved mentioning (often trivial) increases in headroom or legroom from the previous year. (Interestingly, by odd coincidence, most full size GM models experienced correspondingly small decreases in headroom or legroom in the two years before the downsized models were unveiled.)However, nobody took it seriously then because anyone could see that there was a substantial decrease in room. And besides all of the interior dimensions were published in the sales brochures and data books for anyone to see.

Let's not keep promoting 33 year old sales propaganda. It is a vain hope of mine that wikipedia will someday be a source of factual historical automotive information.

Sadowski (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How is "Caprice" pronounced? I have heard "Kuh-Pree" and "Kuh-Preece". Is there a proper way to pronounce it or is it just personal preference? Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

RWD Impala?

Isn't this an Impala with rear-wheel-drive rather than the usual front-wheel-drive? 2602:306:CDB2:4130:5850:9BFC:F6EB:D9F7 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No do they look the same? OSX (talk • contributions) 05:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do look the same. :D --2602:306:CDB2:4130:8C55:787D:CC2:2421 (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I suggest you urgently get your eyes checked. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

End of production for the B-body car

GM's own passenger car VIN decoders (http://service.gm.com/dealerworld/vincards/) do not mention the Caprice or any other B-body car for 1997 or 1998. There IS mention of a 'B' code in the light truck and incomplete vehicle VIN decoders, but other than that, GM appears to have been done with the Caprice and the other B-body cars. The reason I ask because the infobox for the 91-96 cars says that production continued until November 14, 1997 for the Mexican market, yet everything I've read says that, as I said, the car ended production in December 1996 (and that no cars built at Arlington in 1996 were VIN'ed as 1997 cars). Is there any proof that production of the B-body car continued for the Mexican market, and if so, where was it built? If no proof exists, I'm going to move that the remarks in the infobox for the 91-96 car being continued in the Mexican market be deleted. Carguy1701 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Located the edits in question, and judging from the other edits of the person who made them, I think its safe to say this was just trolling. Don't know how no one caught these before. Deleted the info about Mexican-market continuation. Carguy1701 (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

And I still have dyslexia. Carguy1701 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion of separate pages for each generation

Since this article has gotten big I thought it would be time to split the entries into seperate pages for each generation built in America while the 5th & 6th generations should be merged with the Holden Caprice & Holden Caprice (WM) pages.

Louis Marinucci 00:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)