Talk:Chevrolet Caprice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law Enforcement  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Strange assertion[edit]

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)


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?[edit]

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


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: —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC).


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[edit]

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[edit]

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

International Versions[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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


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


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:


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)


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)

A bit late to the party, admittedly, but are you sure you're not conflating the Ford Capri (kuh-pree) and the Chevy Caprice (kuh-preece)? I honestly don't know how anyone could ever pronounce 'caprice' any other way but the latter. (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

RWD Impala?[edit]

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 (talkcontributions) 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 (talkcontributions) 23:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

End of production for the B-body car[edit]

GM's own passenger car VIN decoders ( 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[edit]

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.

Red Polar Bear (talk 00:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chevrolet Caprice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chevrolet Caprice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

1973 Caprice Classic[edit]

The text of the Caprice article states that the Caprice became the Caprice Classic for 1973 but this does not seem to be supported by the 1973 US Chevrolet sales literature that I have been able to locate on the internet. Example here. The Canadian brochure on the same site does however reference a Caprice Classic. Is the statement correct for the US market? GTHO (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Beltway sniper attacks[edit]

I added a brief mention of the Beltway sniper attacks, which famously used a 1990 blue Caprice. I only added two citations, but there are countless mentions in reliable sources, some focusing specifically on the car. Felsic2 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that you are active in a similar discussion related to the Ford F-650 article and on the Project Automobiles page [[1]], it would have been better to let that discussion pan out before trying a similar article addition. I will add this article to that discussion so more people can weigh in. Springee (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
That's just stonewalling again. Why can't we just as easily say, "Better keep the new content where it is until the discussion plays out"? The idea that we must delete new contributions because some editors object contradicts several policies, most notably WP:PRESERVE. By having it out there where people can see it, they will notice it and comment if they have an opinion. By deleting it, it all but ensures nobody but previous page watchers will even know about it. The only case where it is almost always "better" to remove something if it is about living people.

If you actually want "more people to weigh in", then put it where more people can see it. If you really want more people to weigh in, then leave it out there and tag it to call more attention to it.

You are not the gatekeeper and nobody has to win your stamp of approval before adding to Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland, please stop with the accusations of bad faith. The onus is on those adding the material to show that it belongs in the article. This is an article that covers several generations of a vehicle with fifty years of production. Adding a trivia list section, not just a single sentence but a section, to mention the beltway shooters is a problem of WP:Weight and WP:Trivia. Furthermore, the basic issue is still under discussion. Springee (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Are there any less...notorious owners that could be mentioned? If not, I suppose it could be included, but otherwise, I think a mention on the Beltway Sniper page would suffice. Just my $0.02 though. Carguy1701 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree the text added belongs in Wikipedia, WP is more than a car catalog, and with WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTCENSORED and the text is not Trivia.CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The material does exist in Wikipedia [[2]]. The material as added does qualify as trivia, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. A number of articles contain lists of isolated information, which are often grouped into their own section, labeled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections that store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information", etc. This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia." A section with a list of "famous owners" is trivia. Additionally, we have a weight issue. What do outside editors/writers talking about the Caprice have to say about the beltway attacks? We also should ask does this enhance the article? Per WP:ONUS, " Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." Again,I would suggest we seek outside views for this edit. I will add that when I searched for Chevy Caprice vs Chevy Caprice Beltway Sniper the latter returned about 1.6% as many hits. That would suggest that perhaps in the real world there might be sufficient weight for a minor inclusion. Perhaps a better solution is simply to have an also see link. A full section for "famous owners" with just one criminal story is not the best way to do this. Springee (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Springee, I disagree with your opinion and intrepretation of Trivia, I consider the text important, and is relevant in the article. CuriousMind01 (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Springee: Are you using Ghits as a measurement of appropriate weight? If so, it's a very crude and inaccurate metric. For one thing, what matters are actual sources, not that little number that Google returns. For another, how would other facts in this article fair in that test? For example, how about this unsourced text? The fuel gauge, placed next to the speedometer within its own pod in the base models, was moved to its new place next to the speedometer. A tachometer took the place of the fuel gauge in the large opening left by the fuel gauge.
Another aspect of weight is the quality of the sources. Many of the sources for this article appear to be mid-level websites. The sources for the Beltway material are high quality mainstream newspapers, like the Washington Post. Many reliable sources report on this information.
If the objection is to the section heading, then we can find something besides "famous owners". Maybe "Historical significance". Another option would be to include it in the appropriate model year section. While "See also" is not optimal, I could accept that as a compromise. Felsic2 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC Notice: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles[edit]

A RFC posted at Project Automobiles is discussing the following question related to this article:

Here is the specific addition in question: [[3]].

Springee (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If the RFC concerns this article, why isn't it being held here? See WP:Local consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Because we have two related additions. Rather than ask people to comment at two locations both topics can be addressed in one common location and this talk page is notified via the link. The same applies when someone asks a question at say WP:NPOVN. Your link doesn't really apply in this case. Springee (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Still seems off. Felsic2 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No... I object to and oppose the addition of said information.--RAF910 (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
RAF910 I think the commenting is being done in the project page stated above. But what are your encyclopedia reasons for your comments? Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be under the mistaken belief that I have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the person adding the information. And, there is NO Encyclopedic value to adding a gratuitous body count to this page or any other page on Wikipedia.--RAF910 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
What do I need to prove and how do I prove it? Felsic2 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

9C1 Police model[edit]

The material in the "9C1 Police model" section has no sources, like most of the other sections. In the case of that section, the material has been tagged since December 2015, nearly ten months ago. Was this article just written from someone's memory? Specific claims need to be cited. If we can't find sources for this and other material perhaps it's time to whittle this article down to what's verifiable. Felsic2 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)