(UPDATED FROM 12/26/2020)
General Motors had one of those “be careful what you ask for” problems. In 1962 the automaker captured three-fourths of the premium-priced, big-car market. This was a key reason why GM sold roughly half of all passenger cars built in the United States. Despite the introduction of compact and mid-sized cars, traditional premium-priced big cars consistently generated around 20 percent of all U.S. automobile production throughout the 1960s.
In the first-half of the decade, the Ford Motor Company and Chrysler Corporation struggled to maintain even a foothold in the premium big car field. That raised a question for GM: Should the automaker press its advantage even further? While that could lead to greater sales, it might also result in antitrust action against GM, which was then the world’s largest automaker.
GM apparently decided to hit the gas pedal. The automaker’s full-sized platform was substantially redesigned in 1965 with trendy coke-bottle shapes. In addition, GM’s three premium-priced brands were given more latitude to deviate from the corporation’s standard body architecture. This would presumably cost more money but enhance each brand’s unique identity.
This story will explore how well that paid off for GM. I can’t offer a definitive answer but can deepen the conversation by analyzing production data.
GM’s premium brands increased stylistic differences
The 1965 models were a big step away from those offered even three years earlier. For one thing, each premium brand — Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick — offered a completely different look. This was in contrast to 1961-62, when Buick and Oldsmobile had similar side sculpting. Buick even ditched its traditional sweepspear.
In 1965 no one would confuse a Buick from an Oldsmobile. Although Buick waited until 1967 to bring back the sweepspear, the side creases of the 1965-66 models displayed a family resemblance to the first-generation Riviera.
By the same token, the 1965-66 Oldsmobiles echoed the rounded wheel cutouts and slab-sided styling of the Toronado. Oldsmobile’s top-of-line personal coupe would be introduced in 1966.
Less obvious were the ways that the divisions got more creative in mixing and matching body components from GM’s so-called B- and C-bodies.
The B-Body had been used on all of GM’s lower-priced full-sized models. This included the full Chevrolet and Pontiac lines as well as the Olds Eight-Eights and Buick LeSabre/Wildcat series.
The C-Body was a stretched version of the B-Body that had traditionally been used by the high-end Olds Ninety-Eight, Buick Electra 225 and Cadillac line. The C-Body was distinguished by a three-inch-longer passenger compartment, a more formal roofline and a longer deck (OGPI, 2013). Beginning in 1963, the rear of the Ninety-Eight and Electra had different sheetmetal and taillights than their lower-priced siblings.
Buick deviated from GM’s standard approach
From 1965 to 1968 Buick deviated from the norm in two ways. The division gave its entry-level LeSabre and mid-level Wildcat series the C-Body’s three-inch-longer passenger compartment but kept the B-Body’s more rounded rooflines and shorter deck. And rather than having all of its full-sized cars share the same front end like its sibling brands, Buick gave the LeSabre a three-inch shorter wheelbase ahead of the cowl than the Wildcat and Electra. This is an obscure fact I learned from Paul Niedermeyer (2018).
The end result was that even though the LeSabre and Eighty-Eight shared a 123-inch wheelbase, the former had three extra inches in the passenger compartment whereas the latter added it to the wheelbase ahead of the cowl.
This presumably was intended to better differentiate each brand. The Eighty-Eight had a sporty, long-hood look whereas the LeSabre exuded a roomy family car vibe.
Pontiac was the first to mix and match bodies
Buick’s approach may have been inspired by Pontiac, which in 1965-68 carried over from previous years a two-tiered lineup that used the standard B-Body for its lower-priced Catalina and Ventura series and a stretched body for the upper-end Star Chief (renamed the Executive in 1967) and Bonneville.
The high-end Pontiacs were a mash up of the B- and C-bodies because they had the C’s longer passenger compartment but kept the standard B’s doors and rooflines. Although the deck was stretched four inches, it did not offer unique styling like the Electra and Ninety-Eight.
During the 1960s Pontiac ads used images with distorted proportions. Nevertheless, the pictures below show how the rear door on a 1968 Ventura four-door sedan was almost flush with the wheel cutouts whereas the Executive had space between them. That’s how Pontiac added to the wheelbase without changing the roofline or the doors.
Buick was more ambitious than Pontiac when it stretched the passenger compartment of the LeSabre and Wildcat three inches. On four-door hardtops and sedans, the standard GM roofline was used but the rear doors were redesigned. Their length was extended to the wheel cutouts and the side windows at the C-pillar were given a deeper slope.
Among the premium-priced brands, Oldsmobile was the only one that did not deviate from GM’s standard body architecture. So perhaps we might consider the Eighty-Eight as the closest thing we have to a “control group.”
The sheetmetal differences between GM’s three premium brands helped each present a unique persona. But did they matter much from a functional standpoint?
Wheelbases may have little impact on roominess
You’d think that the roominess of GM’s full-sized cars would vary as dramatically as their wheelbases. As Niedermeyer (2018) has noted, this was apparently not the case.
Let’s get nerdy and drill down into the numbers. The table below uses data from the Automobile Catalog (2018). The premium-priced GM car with the shortest wheelbase and length — the Catalina — had only 2.8 inches less legroom than a Ninety-Eight. That was despite the top-of-line Olds having a five-inch-longer wheelbase.
By the same token, the Bonneville’s three-inch-longer wheelbase translated into a meager 0.4 inches more rear legroom than a Catalina. Even the Cadillac Calais — whose wheelbase was 8.2 inches longer than the Catalina’s — had only two inches more rear legroom.
The Eighty-Eight reportedly had a half inch more rear legroom than the LeSabre despite the latter’s longer passenger cabin. However, we should keep in mind the potential for data errors. For example, the figures for the Eighty-Eight four-door hardtop may have been mistakenly drawn from the roomier sedan.
Since we’re talking about dimensions, note that the Pontiac’s much-advertised “wide-track” amounted to only an extra 1- to-1.5 inches in rear track compared to other GM full-sized cars. The Wildcat and and Electra actually had a slightly wider front track than the Pontiacs.
The moral to this story: As with wheelbases, a GM car’s track was more of a marketing gimmick than a big functional advantage.
Did all that differentiation lead to better sales?
How you view the market success of GM’s 1965-68 premium-priced, full-sized cars depends upon how you slice the numbers — and what meaning you give to them.
Raw production totals suggest that the 1965-68 generation did okay but not stellar. In 1965 volume surpassed 1.2 million units, which represented a healthy 34 percent increase from 1962. However, output dropped almost back to 1962 levels in 1966-67. Even in 1968 GM fell short of the 1.14 million units produced in 1964.
The stacked graph below shows the relationship between output for individual brands and the total premium-priced, big-car market. As we will discuss in more detail below, GM maintained its dominance of the field but saw its market share vary — both overall and with its individual brands.
GM market share fell in second-half of 1960s
Between 1962 and 1965, GM’s market share fell 6 percent — and then another 6 percent the following year. The main culprit was the Chrysler, whose market share increased by almost 10 percent between 1962 and 1966.
Was that cause for panic? No — at least if you view GM’s 75.9-percent market share in 1962 as a product of a perfect storm. Both the Chrysler Corp. and Ford Motor Co. were still reeling from big setbacks in the late-50s and early-60s.
Chrysler’s once powerful premium brands were damaged by weird styling, quality issues and a problematic dealer reorganization. Meanwhile, Ford’s massive attack on the premium-priced field was a flop, resulting in the death of its fledgling Edsel brand and a radical pruning of Mercury’s big-car lineup.
By 1965, both Chrysler and Ford had rebooted their premium offerings. In 1966 and again in 1968, Chrysler racked up more than 25 percent of the premium-priced, big-car market. Ford’s growth was more modest, rising from a low of 7 percent in 1964 to roughly 10.5 percent in 1965-66. This was arguably a more “normal” market than 1962.
GM’s overall standing in the premium–priced field was also impacted by the success of its individual brands. Whereas Buick saw output of its full-sized cars soar by 54 percent between 1962 and 1968, Olds fell 26 percent. In 1969 Buick passed Pontiac as GM’s best-selling line of premium-priced, full-sized cars.
The market share of each premium-priced brand was usually rather different for its entire lineup compared to its full-sized entries. This is most obvious for Chrysler and Dodge.
Also see ‘Data suggest 1969-73 Chrysler was neither a disaster nor a success’
Chrysler was the only premium brand that only offered big cars. Thus, its total market share in the premium-priced field was roughly half that of its share of the full-sized market. In contrast, during the 1960s Dodge tended to be quite competitive with Oldsmobile and Buick in total market share but often ranked lowest of the full-sized entries.
Big car sales were likely impacted by smaller siblings
One could argue that Buick’s deviation from GM’s body architecture proved to be more popular that Oldsmobile’s conformance. Even so, other factors could have played a role, such as a market shift toward more luxury-oriented family cars — which was Buick’s forte.
Model proliferation also impacted each GM brand in different ways. Just as Buick eclipsed Oldsmobile’s big car output during the mid-60s, the reverse occurred in the mid-sized market.
Meanwhile, only 20 percent of Pontiac’s growth between 1962 and 1968 came from full-sized cars. Of the 910,000 Pontiacs that left the factory in 1968 — close to an all-time high for the brand — half of them were mid-sized cars and Firebirds.
In contrast, Buick’s full-sized cars comprised almost 58 percent of its total volume in 1968. In the late-60s, Buick was more dependent on its full-sized models than any other premium brand except for Chrysler, which (as mentioned above) did not produce any other type of cars.
Let’s take a more granular look at Buick. The stacked graph below shows how smaller cars added meaningfully to the brand’s volume even though they were less dominant — particularly compared to Dodge, which was lucky when big cars reached a quarter of its total output after 1964.
Premium-priced class bifurcated along price
How individual GM brands did sales-wise may have also been influenced by their price points — albeit in sometimes unexpected ways. As you can see from the bar chart below, the premium-priced field tended to bifurcate into two groups.
The bottom end of the field included Pontiac, Mercury and Dodge. These brands were a step up from their low-priced siblings (Chevrolet, Ford and Plymouth, respectively).
A second tier of brands competed in the higher reaches of the class: Oldsmobile, Buick and Chrysler.
Although prices at the bottom-end of the field increased between 1962 and 1968, the relative positions of the brands were fairly stable.
There were two exceptions to that pattern. Mercury was steadily moving back up into the higher reaches of the premium-priced field. That would culminate in the expansion of the Marquis nameplate in 1968.
Meanwhile, Chrysler cut the cost of its Town & Country wagon between 1962 and 1968 but also shifted its Newport upmarket. This gave Chrysler the highest entry-level prices of the premium brands.
Higher-priced brands did better in second-half of 1960s
As the 1960s wore on, the brands with a stronger presence in the higher reaches of the premium-priced market did best. Buick’s eclipsing of Oldsmobile in the full-sized field was partly driven by the success of the Electra, whose volume grew 101 percent between 1962 and 1968.
Mercury achieved the biggest sales increase among high-end nameplates in 1969. Perhaps the key to the success of an expanded Marquis line was a well-executed “brougham” look that evoked the high-priced Lincoln.
In contrast, Dodge’s full-sized offerings fell to last place once Mercury sales took off. This was despite a corporate effort to reduce direct competition by soft-pedaling Plymouth’s high-end VIP (go here for further discussion) and increasing the Chrysler brand’s entry-level list prices (go here).
Pontiac’s high-end models fell off in sales beginning in 1967. This may have reflected a market shift where buyers seeking a sporty look gravitated to the brand’s mid-sized and pony cars. An indicator of this trend was that two-door hardtops and convertibles represented 62 percent of Bonneville output in 1965. That percentage dropped to 35 percent by 1968 — and would fall another 10 percent by 1971.
Mid-series Buick lost altitude to Oldsmobile
Buick’s mid-level Wildcat did not bust the sales charts despite its longer front end in 1965-68. As you can see from the graph below, output jumped to more than 103,000 units in 1965, but then settled into the 70,000 range for the rest of the decade.
Oldsmobile appears to have had the better approach. Instead of trying to maximize distinctions between its low- and mid-level premium offerings, Olds went in the opposite direction. Trim levels were designated by different names, but all were offered under the Eighty-Eight umbrella.
For example, in 1962-63 the low-end series was called the Dynamic Eighty-Eight and the mid-level dubbed the Super Eighty-Eight. From 1966 onward the mid-level series, then called the Delta Eighty-Eight, regularly outproduced the Wildcat and its successor, the Centurion.
Experimentation may not have helped sales much
Bringing all this data together, one could reasonably argue that GM’s experimentation with body architecture diversity may not have impacted sales all that much.
Buick’s use of the C-Body’s longer passenger cabin may have helped it solidify the brand’s leadership in premium large car sales, but the Wildcat’s longer front did not. In addition, the Pontiac Bonneville’s mash up of the B- and C-Body saw declining sales in the late-60s to the point that it was eclipsed by the C-Bodied 1971 Grand Ville.
You could reasonably argue that none of the experiments paid off all that well — except, perhaps, for the LeSabre using the C-Body’s longer passenger cabin. But even in this case, how many people really noticed given that the extra three inches apparently did not translate into a whole lot more legroom?
GM brands increasingly copied each other
The experimentation ended when GM’s big cars were reskinned in 1969. Big Buicks would now share a common front end. This meant that the LeSabre and the Eighty-Eight would have the same hood-to-cabin proportions.
Pontiac continued to base its top-end nameplates on a stretched Catalina body for two more years. But then the brand essentially copied Olds and Buick by giving its new high-end nameplate, the Grand Ville, the same formal roofline and 126-inch wheelbase as the Electra and Ninety-Eight.
Meanwhile, Buick eventually copied Oldsmobile’s two-tiered nameplate structure. For 1969, the Delmont Eighty-Eight was eliminated in favor of Delta Eighty-Eight (in base, Custom and Royale trim) and the top-of-line Ninety-Eight. In 1971 the Wildcat name was changed to Centurion, but only two years later was killed in favor of an expanded line of LeSabre and Electra trim levels.
GM big cars shared sheetmetal with 1977 downsizing
GM’s big cars offered distinctive sheetmetal until 1977, when a downsizing coincided with partial sheetmetal sharing. Buick and Oldsmobile used the same doors, as did Chevrolet and Pontiac.
The growing conformity on matters of styling corresponded with reduced division autonomy regarding engineering innovations. Historically the divisions had often developed their own engines, frames, suspensions and even transmissions. However, in the mid-60s GM started to standardize the mechanical underpinnings of its entire product line.
Also see ‘1971-78 Cadillac Eldorado: Collectible Automobile tells only part of the story’
Niedmeyer (2016) noted that with the 1965 redesign, all B- and C-Body offerings started to use the same chassis. That was a big step. However, Buick still offered what it described as a “unique forward engine mounting system and a 2-piece drive shaft,” according to a 1965 brochure. “In practical terms it means that a Buick is one of the few cars that can actually seat six people comfortably.”
Reducing the size of the transmission hump strikes me as a valuable attribute for a family car, but over the next few years it was only mentioned in the small print of Buick brochures. It’s unclear how long this feature was maintained.
Consolidation eventually backfired
GM’s gradual shift toward consolidating its engines would blow up in its face in the later-half of the 1970s. An owner of an Oldsmobile Delta 88 sued the automaker for substituting a Chevrolet-produced 350 cubic inch V8 engine in place of an Olds “Rocket” engine. Legal settlements would eventually reach $40 million (Cray, 1980). However, the biggest damage may have been to GM’s carefully constructed public image of each brand offering products that were meaningfully distinctive.
To make matters worse, in the early-70s GM also centralized control over its assembly plants. This put to a halt the long-standing practice of the Fisher Body Division building all car bodies and transferring them to assembly plants managed by individual car divisions. John Z. DeLorean argued that shifting management of the assembly plants to the GM Assembly Division ended up reducing quality and increasing labor strife (Wright, 1979).
Fears of antitrust action spurred centralization
A major motivation for all of this centralization was to make the corporation’s operations so tightly interwoven that they could not be easily broken apart through antitrust litigation (Langworth and Norbye, 1985). That effort proved successful, but at what cost?
The steady erosion of stylistic, engineering and manufacturing individuality among GM’s brands served to undercut the whole reason for having such a large number of divisions in the first place. This helped to set up the corporation for an eventual implosion.
The 1965-68 models may not have been as functionally distinctive as they could have been, but they hinted at how General Motors could have continued to give its brands enough room to offer car buyers meaningfully different choices.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Dec. 1, 2018, expanded on Dec. 26, 2020 and updated on July 21, 2023. Product specifications were from the Automobile Catalog (2018), John Gunnell (2002) and auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006). Production figures were calculated from the latter two sources; data was mixed and matched to address discrepancies. The list price graph does not include low-volume halo cars such as the 1962 Chrysler 300H, Mercury Monterey Custom S-55 and Olds Starfire because they were priced well above the rest of their brand’s line up. Prices for the 1962 Dodge include the Custom 880 nameplate but not the Dart standard and 330 series, which were targeted at the low-priced market. Images from the Automotive History Preservation Society were drawn from its previous website and may not yet be accessible on its new one.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Automobile Catalog; 2018. “Search Automobile Catalog.” Accessed November 25.
- Cray, Ed; 1980. Chrome Colossus: General Motors and its Times.McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1985. The Complete History of General Motors 1908-1986. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
- Niedermeyer, Paul; 2016. “Curbside Classic: 1965 Chevrolet Impala Super Sport — The Peak Chevrolet Experience; The Peak Full-Size American Car Experience.” Curbside Classic. Posted Feb. 11.
- ——; 2018. “Curbside Classic Lite: 1967 Buick LeSabre 400 Sedan — It Does Not Mean a 400 Engine, Oddly Enough.” Curbside Classic. Posted Oct. 28.
- OPGI; 2013. “Decoding General Motors Body Style Designations.” Original Parts Group Incorporated. Posted May 28.
- Wright, J. Patrick; 1979. On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors. Wright Enterprises, Grosse Pointe, MI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Chrysler (1968); Mercury (1969); Oldsmobile (1968); Pontiac (1963)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Buick (1965, 1968); Dodge (1970); Oldsmobile (1965); Pontiac (1967)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick (1962, 1968, 1977); Oldsmobile (1962, 1969, 1977); Pontiac (1968, 1971)
Hi,
I enjoyed reading this very informative article. I was disappointed that the1965 Chevrolet Impala design story was not included. The stylistic and engineering innovations of the 1965 Chevrolet line up under Bill Mitchell transformed the car industry.
It is interesting that the 1965 Impalas are so sought after now by collectors in comparison to the other GM full size cars.
In terms of design bookends, the1965 Impala convertible and 9 passenger wagon B Body design began an incredible legacy which culminated in the 1996 Buick Roadmaster LTD sedan and wagon and the Caprice Sedan and wagon and the Impala SS.
Has Paul Neidermeyer considered writing an article to explore this Chevrolet design legacy?
Made my day!
Thanks,
Gary
Gary, thank you for stopping by — and sharing your thoughts. I’d agree that the 1965 Chevy was an important design. When I was writing this article it was already sprawling rather far and wide, so I left the Impala for another day. If you look in the “RE:SOURCES” listing under Niedermeyer you’ll find a link to an interesting article he wrote about the 1965 Impala.
While there are some good points made in this article there are some big mistakes. In no way did the 1961 – 1962 Oldsmobile and Buicks share doors or any sheet metal. I dare you to place two real car next to each other and prove that point. They may look similar but this never happened. And although that image of the 1968 Oldsmobile 88 looks like it was a “pillared hardtop sedan” it was not! The C-bodies of all makes however did have both pillarless and pillared four hardtop sedans. This article really loses credibility when so much is focused on something that never happened. The Eighty-Eight never switched to a pillared four-door hardtop sedan. Please search for images of 1968 Eight-Eight sedans so you can see for yourself. I know this because my dad owned and Oldsmobile dealership for over 50 years and know this stuff from first hand experience.
Welcome to Indie Auto, Jay. I took another look at the 1961-62 Buick and Oldsmobile brochures and you are right that the doors aren’t interchangeable. Thank you for the feedback; I will the change text accordingly. I would still suggest that the two cars had side creases so similar that their individuality was reduced. This contrasted with the 1965-68 models, which were highly differentiated.
Regarding the 1968 Oldsmobile Eighty-Eights, the brand’s full-line brochure shows two types of four-door models: a Holiday Sedan (which was a full hardtop) and a Town Sedan. I have included an image of the latter in the story. The way this and other images look to me is that the 1968 Town Sedan has a fairly thin center pillar similar to the Ninety-Eight’s pillared hardtop and chrome around the windows, but they did not have the thick door-window frames used on the full sedans in 1967.
The Standard Catalog and the Encyclopedia of American Cars only list these two body styles. However, when I searched Google images I came across a full sedan with a roof treatment similar to the 1967 models. Might an Eighty-Eight sedan have been brought back later in the model year, perhaps in response to customer demand?
Meanwhile, for 1968 Buick appears to have only offered the pillared hardtop on the Electra, with the Wildcat and LeSabre fielding full four-door hardtops and sedans. If you think I’m off base, please share links.
Do not rely on what artistic images created for the brochures to enhance the design of the autos. Please google images of the real cars. GM was very consistent about this for decades, Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, and Buick all sported full frame door glass post sedans for their B-bodies throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s but a pillared hardtop sedan was never available on any GM B-body ever! Pillared hardtop sedans were available side by side with pillarless hardtop sedans on Buick Electra, Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight, and Cadillac from 1965 through 1970. Oldsmobile offered three B-bodies in 1967 and 1968, the Delmont 88, Delta 88, and Delta 88 Custom, all three were available as a Holiday hardtop sedan(pillarless) and Holiday hardtop coupe and the Delmont 88 and Delta 88 were also available as Town Sedan model that included a center post and wide window framed doors. These were available at the very beginning of each year. I looked at my copy of the Encyclopedia of American cars and see the models listed just as I stated. Only the Delta 88 Custom was offered in just two hardtop body styles. What you may be interested to know is the regular Delta 88 was available with an interior option like that of that of the Delta 88 Custom. Once equipped this way the only real difference in a 1968 Delta 88 and Delta 88 Custom was simply the “Custom” emblem.
Jay, your point about artistic images is well taken. I can find photos of sedans and hardtops but nothing like the images in the 1968 Olds brochure. As a case in point, here is a 1968 Delta 88 four-door sedan. It has fairly thick frames around the door windows and no exposed center post.
Here’s where I went astray. Notice how thin the Delta 88’s door-window frames are compared to the Cutlass Supreme’s in the 1968 Oldsmobile brochure. Good catch — I’ll restructure the text accordingly.
No problem. I can easily see how looking at those enhanced artistic images can be deceiving. They’re beautifully done but often exaggerated. A good focus for your article here is justified when you focus on the variation of wheelbases and the name game changes that occurred during this time period.
The 1965-1966 Oldsmobile 88/98 carried on the continuity of style of the 1963-1964 Olds, but the 1967 “refresh” was in my opinion, butt-ugly in details. The 1968 Olds 88/98 was a vast improvement. The 1961-1969 full-size Pontiacs showed remarkable styling continuity, but perhaps the full-size styling was wearing thin with buyers, although the new Grand Prix for 1969 was likely for some sales diverted away from the full-size Pontiacs. The 1962-1970 Buicks also had styling continuity, although the 1967-1968 Electras were in the tradition of the big Roadmasters. I also think that Buick bungled branding the mid-trim Wildcats by rebranding them as Centurions.
The 1965-1966 G.M. cars represented the high-point of Bill Mitchell’s corporate design fleet. A Lincoln-inspired Mercury was simply outdone by the G.M. B-and-C-bodies and Chrysler had new full-size designs for 1965, which were impressive given where Elwood Engel took over for Exner in 1961. Sadly, Dodge embraced it’s “delta” theme for 1967-1968 with the Polara / Monaco.
There is one other factor that affect this analysis, although the 1968 vehicle prices touch on this: Lyndon Baines Johnson’s domestic “guns and butter” policies stated an inflationary spiral that would not get under control until the mid-1980s.
The 3″ extra wheelbase was on the Buick Wildcat to make the hood longer. The Lesabre, as your own table shows, had about the same rear legroom as the Olds 88 and even the Chevy Impala B ‘shell’ or inner body shell. Lesabre was only 0.3″ shorter than the 88.
I will still say our point stands about the wheelbases being more about ‘prestige.’ If you want to get really confused look up the rear legroom on the ’68 Tempest sedan. It’s listed at 33.8″ while the 2 door Tempest is 32.4″ even though 4 door has a 4″ longer wheelbase – and the Cutlass and Malibu 4 doors listed 35.1″ or rear legroom.