Chevy Caprice wagons will always be remembered by me in my childhood days of the late 80s/early 90s as the king of school transportation, literally. From 1988 to roughly 1991 or so I would go to and from LCDC in Boston, MA in 1987-90 Caprice Classic wagons like this one, courtesy of Accept Transportation, before they switched to Dodge Caravans, and they of course featured the gentle 1980s GM chime that was also used on some mid 80s Pontiacs.
A revived Mega Cruiser should serve as a successor to both the Sequoia and Land Cruiser 300 either near the end of this decade or the beginning of the next.
Appreciate the review but it irks me when comparisons are made by today's standards rather than with contemporary cars of the day or what is still on the road at the day of release (still many 60's, 70's and early 80's vehicles) to put things into perspective more accurately. Because other than the simplicity that allows many to repair and maintain this will very little knowledge (compared to today's vehicles) and near zero product obsolescence, newer cars will on paper be much better than the concerto. In short comparing this to new cars or current expectations is nothing but ridiculing this car, which is is not doing it justice. 1:00 saying things are straight edge is misinformation as the interior on these were more curvaceous than what was the norm in the 80's and 70's cars that were still on the roads. 1:49 saying the engine makes a "staggering" 104hp without support as to how that is staggering at the time sounds more like a sarcasm. If it is sarcasm for comparison the same Hp is made by the 1988 Toyota Camry that had a larger engine of 2.0 Litre which was almost 25% larger. Also, the Concerto engine was a departure from the common engines of the 70's and 80's being Fuel injected (rather than just carburetor) and 16 valve (rather than just 8 for 4 cylinders), alloy head for reduced weight (rather than all iron). The transmission had 4 gears (a departure from the 3 speed automatics that was the norm for cars on the road at that time).
Appreciate the review but it irks me when comparisons are made by today's standards rather than with contemporary cars of the day or what is still on the road at the day of release (still many 60's, 70's and early 80's vehicles) to put things into perspective more accurately. Because other than the simplicity that allows many to repair and maintain this will very little knowledge (compared to today's vehicles) and near zero product obsolescence, newer cars will on paper be much better than the concerto. In short comparing this to new cars or current expectations is nothing but ridiculing this car, which is is not doing it justice. 1:00 saying things are straight edge is misinformation as the interior on these were more curvaceous than what was the norm in the 80's and 70's cars that were still on the roads. 1:49 saying the engine makes a "staggering" 104hp without support as to how that is staggering at the time sounds more like a sarcasm. If it is sarcasm for comparison the same Hp is made by the 1988 Toyota Camry that had a larger engine of 2.0 Litre which was almost 25% larger. Also, the Concerto engine was a departure from the common engines of the 70's and 80's being Fuel injected (rather than carburetor) and 16 valve (rather than just 8 for 4 cylinders), alloy head for reduced weight (rather than all iron).
