10th Feb 2013, 01:29

As for interior leg room, and interior room overall in these older cars, I don't trust specs entirely. For example, in my 78, the manufacturer states that front seat leg room is 42 inches long, and rear seat leg room is 41 inches. There's is no way on god's green earth that the rear seat legroom is only 41 inches long in a 70's Continental!! It looks and feels more like 45 or 46 inches long. Even with the seat all the way back, my 6'1 tall friend knee caps aren't even close to touching the front seat backs.

This goes for the same up front; there's more front seat leg room than what is being advertised in the books IMO.

Another good example of my observations is that I also own a 94 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, and the specs on that car for the rear seat legroom is 43 inches. No way is the leg room that much in my car, it doesn't even feel nor look like it. From looks alone, I would guess 41 inches max, but not 43. The 78 Lincoln with the lower specs printed, has much much more leg room up front and in the back seat than my Fleetwood. I've sat in both cars just to see and feel which car is bigger inside, and overall the 78 Continental blows my 94 away in interior space, it feels gargantuan in comparison! But the books would say otherwise. You can't believe everything that is printed, especially on some of the older cars, just like curb weight; the manufacturer might state this or that vehicle weighs 4500 lbs, when it really weighs around 4700-4800lbs on a scale so they can sound modest. So sometimes manufacturers can exaggerate, underestimate, and find ways to fool the consumer. The human eye ultimately dictates what's real and what's not real.