From: plumpe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (David Plumpe)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Caprice,Crown Vic/G Marquis or Buick LeSabre?
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: plumpe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (David Plumpe)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.autos, jleung@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (A St. Xavier alum) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.162434.4286@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoe
>lect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>>>Now, Mr. Mortensen, In the event that these two automobiles would be
>>>involved in a major mishap, I would prefer to be in the automobile that
>>>displays fine Swedish safety engineering, NOT Detroit style "Lets build 'em
>>>like the QE2" Caprice!  Would you like to comment on that, Mr. Mortensen?
>>>I should hope that you would be more wise in assuming that a garangutan
>>>excuse me, gargantuan, piece of pot metal shit is "safe."
>>
>>But at least the Caprice ads were not faked like the Volvo ads... (in
>>which the volvo was reenforced with 2 x 4's and the pillars of other
>>cars were deliberately cut...
>
>Alas, this was the fault of Volvo's ad agency!
>But, this still does no account for the fact that the caprcies are one of
>the worst cars on the road for head-injury protection!

Gee, I don't know about this Volvo vs. Caprice stuff.  I think the post
which got the Volvo into this discussion involved a '79 Volvo 242DL
and a '77 Chevy Caprice.  Just for fun, I looked at some old Consumers
Reports (yes, I know - take their advice with a shovel of salt).  The
April '80 issue includes results of NHTSA 35mph barrier crashes.  The
242 wasn't tested, but the 244 was, along with the Caprice 6 cyl.  Both
killed the driver and front seat passenger, but the Caprice had the
lower head-injury force indices, meaning the mess was easier to clean
up?  The indices for driver and passenger were 1277 and 1254 for the
Caprice and 1782 and 1889 for the Volvo.  BTW the Caprice entry noted
the car had the inline 6.  The Olds 98 V8 (different engine) rated at
910 and 1734 - the driver survives but the passenger gets killed as
bad as in the Volvo.  Of course, these are statistics based on samples
of one, but still - - .

Looking at CU's ratings back then, I see nothing to recommend a Volvo
over a Caprice.  Actually, CU liked both pretty well, but the '77 Caprice
V8 (2/77 issue) had both slightly better acceleration and fuel economy
than the ('78?) Volvo 264GL (9/78 issue).  Handling, comfort, and reliability
were very similar.

Should someone ask - yes, I have a '77 Caprice wagon and I think it's
a great car, considering its vintage.  It has not quite 100k miles,
but those were half to and from the grocery and half as the Family Truckster,
hauling a family of four and a 3,000 boat to and from Florida at speeds
somewhat below that of sound.  I've had to replace the radiator and
A/C evaporator (hmmm) and I'm now repainting it, 'cause that's finally
going, and it needs valve stem seals (it uses no measurable amount of
oil, but it puffs when started), but I think that's okay for an old 
car.  I do have to keep a sharp eye out for rust and do some touch-up
each Spring, but I don't think Volvo used galvanized sheet steel back
then, either.  It's not as pleasant as my '90 Accord, nor the fun of my
'55 MG, but it's still a great car, and certainly better than either 
for towing a boat!

-DaveP