I have a 92 with over 300,000 miles on the engine and she still runs strong. Been in our family for 30 years and has been the least troublesome. She has been very reliable over the years.
12 liters per 100km :D I had one as my daily driver from 2009 to 2020 It was a great and really dependable car, I loved it! The fuel economy was 8 liters per 100km on the highway and 15-18 liters per 100km in the city. It is sad that they only made them from 91-96... They could have made them as long as Ford made the Panther Platform cars...
These were great cars. My father owned several Caprices and I learned how to drive on the 1984 coupe he had. I still wish a vehicle like these were available.
I with gm would bring back the full-size sedan and luxury personal coupe. Don't you think it's ironic how people pull the gas guzzler tax and cafe standards out their ass whenever they see a rwd v8 sedan, yet, people are driving full-size trucks and SUVs?
I had a loaded 91 Classic. It was reliable and when something did break, it was easy to repair. I did not like the cheap low quality parts used for the interior. My back windows fell off track, all my dash vents broke, my drivers power window express switch would stick down, my BOSE amp went out and caused a horrible shrieking noise from the speakers. I had to wind up bypassing the amp because GM no longer offered replacement amps for this model. Undercarriage rust protection wasn't that good from the factory. My horn buttons were difficult to use and wound up breaking off in the steering wheel. The plastic gas tank was poorly engineered which caused the engine to stall if it dropped below 1/4 tank and you turned left too hard or sat on a hill too long. It wasn't a terrible car but I felt the older models were built better. I'd rate it 3/8 of a tank.
@@gulfstream7235 : If they brought it back and priced it in the same playfield as the Colorado, and still kept similar gargantuan dimensions, I'd buy one today. I'd pay a little extra if they called it 'Estate'
THIS EXPLAINS IT, I've been baffled as to why my 91 Caprice stalls when doing a hard turn. I do very much enjoy the car but its fuel consumption has gone up to awful numbers, and the thing is only marginally faster than arctic erosion, not giving that thing up anytime soon though :D.
@@E34Benzin Its due to Americans building engines that were inefficient as hell and then having to play catchup when they learned we had to be concerned about emissions and resource consumption.
@@nativepoint14 Nobody cares about emissions since everything surrounding it is bullshit. They had very strict regulations. American spec European models also made very little power in comparison to the Euro spec version, so it's not a matter knowing how to build engines or not.
@nativepoint14 that's when a group of geniuses who worked from a company known as SLP came and fixed that problem. Funny how an '82 camaro had better handling than a porche of the same year
It is so funny how all the automobile journalists gushed about how great this car looked when it was 1st released to the public. Within a year or so, it wasn't mentioned anywhere unless it was being put down condescendingly as a horrible looking ancient design.
@@MintyFreshTurds I know, but it's not that they struggled to make power, but they were deliberatedly designed that way for stupid reasons. Apart from that, no matter how much power you can get from a 4 cylinder, it'll never feel or sound as good as a V8.
That's exactly how I feel about New 2000s small space cars; i hate everything about them, Ugly, front wheel drive, wear eater engines, uni-body structure, a lot of road sound, seats are hard as a rock and only 1 person fits (Mister Bean)... Jajaja
![[ไฮไลต์] ฟุตบอลชาย ญี่ปุ่น vs ปารากวัย รอบแบ่งกลุ่ม | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X_BeGaAv1oM/mqdefault.jpg)
I have a 92 with over 300,000 miles on the engine and she still runs strong. Been in our family for 30 years and has been the least troublesome. She has been very reliable over the years.
Terry Bradshaw & Jeffrey Dahmer both make some great points.
😆
😆😅😆😅
I find it ironic that they praised the Caprice, but lambasted the Roadmaster, which is based on the same platform.
12 liters per 100km :D I had one as my daily driver from 2009 to 2020 It was a great and really dependable car, I loved it! The fuel economy was 8 liters per 100km on the highway and 15-18 liters per 100km in the city. It is sad that they only made them from 91-96... They could have made them as long as Ford made the Panther Platform cars...
Love caprice 😍
These were great cars. My father owned several Caprices and I learned how to drive on the 1984 coupe he had. I still wish a vehicle like these were available.
I miss these full-sized RWD cars today we now have these boring crossovers .
I agree with you 100%. Cars like this are still good for families. Not everyone wants a crossover.
I with gm would bring back the full-size sedan and luxury personal coupe. Don't you think it's ironic how people pull the gas guzzler tax and cafe standards out their ass whenever they see a rwd v8 sedan, yet, people are driving full-size trucks and SUVs?
ABSOLUETLEY BEAUTIFUL!!!
The Caprice actually dates back to 1966
*1965
too bad these are so hard to find nowadays
I have very clean 1991 Caprice
do not agree
1:31 Pretty cool how that hood open up.
I had a loaded 91 Classic. It was reliable and when something did break, it was easy to repair. I did not like the cheap low quality parts used for the interior. My back windows fell off track, all my dash vents broke, my drivers power window express switch would stick down, my BOSE amp went out and caused a horrible shrieking noise from the speakers. I had to wind up bypassing the amp because GM no longer offered replacement amps for this model. Undercarriage rust protection wasn't that good from the factory. My horn buttons were difficult to use and wound up breaking off in the steering wheel. The plastic gas tank was poorly engineered which caused the engine to stall if it dropped below 1/4 tank and you turned left too hard or sat on a hill too long. It wasn't a terrible car but I felt the older models were built better. I'd rate it 3/8 of a tank.
Gotta say have a bit of a fetish for the station wagon...
@@gulfstream7235 : If they brought it back and priced it in the same playfield as the Colorado, and still kept similar gargantuan dimensions, I'd buy one today. I'd pay a little extra if they called it 'Estate'
THIS EXPLAINS IT, I've been baffled as to why my 91 Caprice stalls when doing a hard turn. I do very much enjoy the car but its fuel consumption has gone up to awful numbers, and the thing is only marginally faster than arctic erosion, not giving that thing up anytime soon though :D.
For those wondering why they're using kilometers and dollars, this show is Canadian. Driver's Seat to be exact.
Sometimes I feel bad about my cars low power. Then I remember that my 4 cylinder makes as more power than a V8, and I feel better 😂
Congrats, you've reached where V8s were 30 years ago.
@@nativepoint14Some V8s from GM in the 60s were making over 400hp. This low power figure is due to stupid regulations.
@@E34Benzin Its due to Americans building engines that were inefficient as hell and then having to play catchup when they learned we had to be concerned about emissions and resource consumption.
@@nativepoint14 Nobody cares about emissions since everything surrounding it is bullshit.
They had very strict regulations. American spec European models also made very little power in comparison to the Euro spec version, so it's not a matter knowing how to build engines or not.
@nativepoint14 that's when a group of geniuses who worked from a company known as SLP came and fixed that problem. Funny how an '82 camaro had better handling than a porche of the same year
It is so funny how all the automobile journalists gushed about how great this car looked when it was 1st released to the public. Within a year or so, it wasn't mentioned anywhere unless it was being put down condescendingly as a horrible looking ancient design.
It was as big as its predecessors but not as powerful, in the 60’s you could get a 350hp 396 in it.
Plus, they came with the more powerful 427 big block and had a 2 dr option
@@johnnysalazar5399 that too.
“ a respectable 170hp”….from a 5.0 V8 …..
yeah shit horse power I had the 92 it was a gutless fuck they should have slammed the 350 lt1 in there
V8s struggled to get over 100hp just a decade prior.
@@MintyFreshTurds That's not true. They made around 300-400hp until the early 70s. Then they were downpowered for stupid reasons.
@@E34Benzin I said a decade prior to 1991, not talking about before 1981.
@@MintyFreshTurds I know, but it's not that they struggled to make power, but they were deliberatedly designed that way for stupid reasons.
Apart from that, no matter how much power you can get from a 4 cylinder, it'll never feel or sound as good as a V8.
That's exactly how I feel about New 2000s small space cars; i hate everything about them, Ugly, front wheel drive, wear eater engines, uni-body structure, a lot of road sound, seats are hard as a rock and only 1 person fits (Mister Bean)... Jajaja
I never liked this body style, and after 30 years I still don't.