Where did it go?

[occupant]

Let's go down the list of 4-door sedans with 6-passenger seating STANDARD

Ford Crown Victoria

Lincoln Town Car

Mercury Grand Marquis

and the list of OPTIONAL 6-passenger seating

Buick LaCrosse

Buick Lucerne

Cadillac DTS

Chevrolet Impala

So with the Crown Vic possibly going fleet only, a redesign in the mix for the GM and TC, and the fact that GM makes a front split bench optional, who will be left with a true 6-passenger full-size sedan that you don't have to pay extra, special order, or search dealer lots for weeks to find?

And why did GM make a split front bench OPTIONAL on full-size cars? Isn't the whole point of buying a full-size car to get 6-passenger seating?

And don't get me started on wagons with 3rd seats...

[pow]

Cause currently, both are dangerous: no shoulder belt for the center passenger and a seat in the crumple zone.

[occupant]

There is no reason a center front passenger seat couldn't have a shoulder belt.

Look at the trucks with the front seatbelts mounted on the seat. If that's safe enough for the outboard passengers, then there is no reason why they can't put one more on for the inboard passenger.

[Intrepidation]

I find the 6-passenger seating in a sedan more gimmicky than the 3rd row seat in a compact SUV. Intrepids had it as an option, but I wouldn't want to give up the center console and floor mounted shifter for a practically useless seat...hence why I have the buckets and the console...plus it makes the interior look better IMO.

[Croc]

Because putting a seat there is:

a) very uncomfortable for the poor sap stuck there

b) is dangerous due to the airbags (or lack therof) and the dash being just in front of them

c) cramps the driver who really needs the most room to drive safely (and needs a lot of peripheral vision for side mirrors)

d) dramatically decreases the ergonomics and storage space

e) is extremely low-demand. People who need to seat 6 trade up to an SUV, crossover or minivan. Why? Because people who routinely need to carry 6 passengers generally want them all to be comfortable as well as need to fit all their stuff in the vehicle.

[occupant]

And those of us who carry 6 or 7 daily, 8 on the weekends, and 9 when the mother in law visits at least monthly, what do we do? The only 9-passenger vehicles out there are the Suburban, Tahoe, and Yukons. Maybe an Expedition or Excursion. All of these are DIFFICULT to find in a 9-passenger configuration. Maybe a 12-passenger full-size van? those roll over when fully loaded.

I guess my family is just stuck with driving used cars forever. Clamshells for us.

[balthazar]

>>"Because putting a seat there is:

a) very uncomfortable for the poor sap stuck there"<<

No moreso that the center rear seat position, yet we don't see a strong trend for rear seat consoles....

>>"b) is dangerous due to the airbags (or lack therof) and the dash being just in front of them"<<

The dash is in front of the driver and RH passenger also, isn't it? A center air bag (or an enlarged RH airbag) could easily be installed for this position.

>>"c) cramps the driver who really needs the most room to drive safely (and needs a lot of peripheral vision for side mirrors)"<<

Peripheral vision WRT sideviews is no more obstructed due to a center front pass than a RH passenger. 'Over the shoulder' vision would be tho, tho I do not believe this is a regular criteria for seating layout. I do not see 'driver room' as a valid reason except in the compact class; large cars should not dangerously cramp the driver.

>>"d) dramatically decreases the ergonomics and storage space"<<

Any cubbyhole for CDs can be located elsewhere, likewise any features/controls that are 'ergonomically' paced in the front center seating position (the console).

>>"e) is extremely low-demand. People who need to seat 6 trade up to an SUV, crossover or minivan. Why? Because people who routinely need to carry 6 passengers generally want them all to be comfortable as well as need to fit all their stuff in the vehicle."<<

This is true (6 passengers need cargo volume)- but a full-sized car should be able to accomodate as much cargo as a comparitively-sized SUV. Many 7-pass SUVs have a disproportionally small & compromised cargo areas.

IMO, the primary reason for the disappearance of the full-sized 6-passenger car is that

2) the true full-size car is almost gone itself and there is far less room in the midsize car for this layout, and the #1 reason:

It's percieved as 'old fashioned' and 'not sporty'.

I too wish there were more bench seat options available- in the mid-size class I find the ubitquitous console intrusive and a waste of space. It's fine in a full-sized car however.

[Flybrian]

6-passenger cars today have bench seats usually designed for comfort or convenience. I will quickly attest to the convenience of a bench seats in many situations, and not just the one you're thinking of now you sick, sick, correct people.

As far as all these exaggerated safety issues, that doesn't seem to stop foreign-market cars like the Multipla from having two-row six-passenger seating.

[CARBIZ]

Ok, let's look at my father' s '73 Parisienne: it had a solid bench seat across the front and it was at least a few inches wider than any vehicles on the road today. Sitting in the middle was not that bad. Nobody wore seat belts back then (funny, how we are still around today?), so the difficulty of use of the middle lap belt didn't matter.

Seatbelt laws and the shrinking size of cars are what killed the 6 passenger car. I remember 9 of us sitting in my father's '69 Chrysler 300, even with front buckets and a console. The cars were so much bigger then and people were not so anal about safety laws.

Also, modern contoured seats aren't comfortable for a person in the middle - even in the back seat in many cars.

[Satty]

Front benches are rare for the same reason casette players are rare in new cars. There isn't enough demand to bother. Most people who need room to carry 6 people spring for a van or SUV, you can blame the Caravan for the start of this trend if you'd like to. I've had two bench seats in my lifetime, a 1987 Dakota and a 1996 Century The Century was pretty narrow and with the armrest folded up there wasn't much room for that middle passenger. That space could have been put to better use by having a real armrest/storage space that could have included real cupholders and maybe a floor shifter for that rare occasion when I had to take it out of "D". Want to know why the bench seat is dead? Its not the 50's or the 60's or the 70's anymore. Its 2006 and the MAJORITY of new car buyers dont want bench seats.

[balthazar]

>>"Front benches are rare for the same reason casette players are rare in new cars. "<<

They're not making bench seats because buckets provide better sound quality???

[Satty]

No, because most people see the alternative as being better. They'd rather have the added storage of a huge console in between the seats than a dinky fold down one on a bench seat and real cupholders instead of some put in some random place because they wont interfere with the middle seat.

[Intrepidation]

And those of us who carry 6 or 7 daily, 8 on the weekends, and 9 when the mother in law visits at least monthly, what do we do?  The only 9-passenger vehicles out there are the Suburban, Tahoe, and Yukons.  Maybe an Expedition or Excursion.  All of these are DIFFICULT to find in a 9-passenger configuration.  Maybe a 12-passenger full-size van?  those roll over when fully loaded.

I guess my family is just stuck with driving used cars forever.  Clamshells for us.

223386[/snapback]

See now, with those numbers, a 6-passenger car wouldn't even help you. In order to carry that many people you'd probably need one of those full-size vans. Or just drive 2 cars. If people hauling is the name of the game, get an SUV or a Minivan like the Outlook or the Caravan. The Grand Caravan gives you unmatched versatility with the seats, and the Outlook (or any Lambada) is an excellent choice for people hauling.

[ehaase]

I guess my family is just stuck with driving used cars forever.  Clamshells for us.

223386[/snapback]

What type of clamshell do you drive? GM last built that type of station wagon in 1976.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

I'd still like to see more front split-bench seats-modernized of course, that is, having actual room for the center passenger (i.e. its time for GM to stop offering such narrow cars), if not for that traditional American feel. The cupholders-in-doors is a good trend too, started by Honda Accord, Ford Five Hundred, and the Chrysler Sebring-makes sense, right? And if Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac continue to offer a front bench (which I hope they do-and for STANDARD or no-cost option, not extra, which is just stupid), then I hope there is some innovation put in, such as a small headrest, higher backrest, and a detachable/seat-mounted shoulder/lap belt offered as well.

[Croc]

I guess my family is just stuck with driving used cars forever.  Clamshells for us.

223386[/snapback]

Two vehicles? When we have all of our family members in town for holidays, we carpool with multiple vehicles. You should try it--it's safer and more comfortable.

[Croc]

>>"Because putting a seat there is:

a) very uncomfortable for the poor sap stuck there"<<

No moreso that the center rear seat position, yet we don't see a strong trend for rear seat consoles....

Even in our 1980 Sedan de Ville, the front passenger seats are wider than the rear. The front and center seat is very narrow...to the extent that only a small child would be comfortable there, and small children should NOT be in the front seat.

>>"b) is dangerous due to the airbags (or lack therof) and the dash being just in front of them"<<

The dash is in front of the driver and RH passenger also, isn't it? A center air bag (or an enlarged RH airbag) could easily be installed for this position.

The driver has a steering wheel in front of him/her, and the passenger has the (usually) soft dash top. The center passenger has a lot of protruding knobs made of not-soft plastic in front of them.

>>"c) cramps the driver who really needs the most room to drive safely (and needs a lot of peripheral vision for side mirrors)"<<

Peripheral vision WRT sideviews is no more obstructed due to a center front pass than a RH passenger. 'Over the shoulder' vision would be tho, tho I do not believe this is a regular criteria for seating layout. I do not see 'driver room' as a valid reason except in the compact class; large cars should not dangerously cramp the driver.

Actually, having someone RIGHT NEXT TO YOU versus being several feet away would hinder right side mirror vision. You should be able to turn your head quickly to see the right mirror without having to lean forward. Drivers should be able to have room to their right also in case of an emergency situation so they can react quickly and steer/swerve without jabbing someone's face with their elbow.

>>"d) dramatically decreases the ergonomics and storage space"<<

Any cubbyhole for CDs can be located elsewhere, likewise any features/controls that are 'ergonomically' paced in the front center seating position (the console).

What about cupholders? They can get in the way of stalks if located on the left-hand side. Also, with a sixth passenger front-center, how do you operate climate controls and audio controls? Their knees are often in the way due to the drivetrain shaft, which is STILL in FWD cars (knees aren't an issue with a small child, but again they should NOT be in the front seat).

>>"e) is extremely low-demand.  People who need to seat 6 trade up to an SUV, crossover or minivan.  Why?  Because people who routinely need to carry 6 passengers generally want them all to be comfortable as well as need to fit all their stuff in the vehicle."<<

This is true (6 passengers need cargo volume)- but a full-sized car should be able to accomodate as much cargo as a comparitively-sized SUV. Many 7-pass SUVs have a disproportionally small & compromised cargo areas.

So you're saying a 6-passenger sedan would have more cargo space than a 7-passenger wagon? The integrated interior with connected cargo area is the most space-efficient design because it is essentially a box. SUVs and wagons have the same overall shape. Also, you're comparing a 6-passenger sedan with a 7-passenger SUV/wagon. The SUV/wagon would have more space if in a 6-passenger configuration (split third row is offered in many minivans and crossover SUVs, including the lambdas).

IMO, the primary reason for the disappearance of the full-sized 6-passenger car is that

2) the true full-size car is almost gone itself and there is far less room in the midsize car for this layout,

Measured by...exterior size or interior width? I don't think the interiors have gotten dramatically narrower, I think the decreased overall size is due to much better packaging. I DO think automakers are making the front buckets with better side bolsters so the driver isn't sliding all around while driving around curves.

and the #1 reason:

It's percieved as 'old fashioned' and 'not sporty'.

I too wish there were more bench seat options available- in the mid-size class I find the ubitquitous console intrusive and a waste of space. It's fine in a full-sized car however.

223387[/snapback]

I think people just got tired of sliding around while driving in front benches with no side bolsters.

[FAPTurbo]

I guess the minivan entered the ring and kicked it in the bawls.

Auto companies are pretty good at knowing what the public want, and if six seat cars were a priority, they would still be kicking around.

And families are getting smaller these days...

[ocnblu]

I factory ordered my Colorado with a split bench even though I'm the only one in the truck most of the time. With the stickshift, I'd have to be plenty friendly with the center passenger if the need arose. It has a center armrest with storage. If I end up with this new Sierra, I'll be glad to have a bench seat with fold-down center storage/armrest.

With a fullsize car, I think it is a shame split bench seats aren't more readily available. The local Buick dealership usually keeps 2 or 3 Lucernes with benches.

Dash knobs have been crash-safe for decades, but I do understand that with the lack of a front center shoulder belt, and no airbag directly in front of the center passenger, that there might be concern.

[occupant]

As it is now, we have a 1998 Lumina (6-passenger sedan) and a 1989 Celebrity (6-passenger sedan). When the oldest daughter comes to visit, and when mother-in-law is here, as it is we will be taking both cars around.

I'd love to get a Grand Caravan with Stow and Go. Problem is that still caps us with a 7-passenger seating limit. Even the 8-passenger Sienna leaves me hiding in the floor behind the 3rd seat when the mother-in-law is here (and I actually WOULDN'T MIND being that far away from her...)

As for clamshell wagons, I'd love to have one come springtime. There are plenty around in the $1500-$3000 range that would suit us just fine. My biggest problem with that is finding one with three rows of seats, a small-block V8 (350 or MAYBE a 400, but no 454/455, that's too much motor), and WORKING air. If I could have my way it'd be a 1973 Impala Kingswood, 3-seat, no woodgrain, silver or black, 2-barrel 350/350. Then I can drop in a 700R4 later and get even better mileage.

I just don't see the point in driving a Suburban when we'd have to park it outside. Suburbans are too tall for the garage. Heck, even a Venture is 72 inches tall and I'd be scraping the door as I pull in and bounce over the little minicurb at the end of the garage floor. I'm 5' 11" and I have to duck slightly walking into the garage even when the door is as high as it goes.

I also believe a Suburban may be too long for the garage. Then again, a clamshell wagon probably is, too. I'll have to take some measurements. With the Lumina in there (201 inches long) I have roughly two feet to spare when it's touching the wall.

[NOS2006]

Two vehicles?  When we have all of our family members in town for holidays, we carpool with multiple vehicles.  You should try it--it's safer and more comfortable.

223531[/snapback]

My thoughts exactly.

[Intrepidation]

That's a short garage o_O.

[Intrepidation]

You could get an Intrepid with a 3.2 or with a bench seat if the 2.7 scares you. I've heard some bad things about the 2.7...but so far at least it runs smooth as silk in mine.

[Satty]

The engines may sucks balls but its the transmissions you have to worry about in FWD Chrysler products.

[aaaantoine]

My answer to the question posed by the thread title:

SUVs ate them. SUVs are natural predators of the six-seat sedan. This is why they have become rare. The only remnants are the Crown Vic Trio, because they are extremely abundant and reproduce like rabbits, and the G/W body benches, which optionally install a center console to confuse seat-hungry Tahoes and Sequoias.

[balthazar]

...a small-block V8 (350 or MAYBE a 400, but no 454/455, that's too much motor)...

I would not want to haul 5000 lbs (6200 loaded??) with only 145 HP.

I also believe a Suburban may be too long for the garage.  Then again, a clamshell wagon probably is, too.  I'll have to take some measurements.  With the Lumina in there (201 inches long) I have roughly two feet to spare when it's touching the wall.

Clamshells are right about 229-230"- real monsters.

[Intrepidation]

The engines may sucks balls but its the transmissions you have to worry about in FWD Chrysler products.

223742[/snapback]

So I've heard, but *kock on wood* the engine and tranny in my car is smooth as silk. And the Shadow, with over 210k miles on it...still keeps on going.

[NINETY EIGHT REGENCY]

Years ago Pontiac sent me a letter in 1985 saying the purchasers of six passenger fullsized cars are slowly diminishing. There may be some truth to that. I prefer the 6 passenger car myself. There are not many left sadly..

Yet...

There are still buyers for these types of vehicles.

It is interesting:

Mercedes Benz S Class and BMW 7 Series have the gear shift on the steering column the way it was in most American cars.

Ford had the right idea with the flipping seat to console package that was in the Taurus.

The Honda Civic uses digital gauges.

Too many cars have the same thing and they do not stand out. This is why styling has become more important to stand out.

Almost every car on the market has:

has analog gauges

bucket seats

floor shifter

trunk spoiler

leather or cloth interior

a V6 engine.

So what makes a car desireable when most of them are the same in a sea of sameness???

Toyota and Honda sell reliabilty. They offer appliances.

What do GM and Ford and Chrysler and Ford offer??

Most car makers think this is sporty. What really happened is the Americans tried to create the perfect japanese car and failed at the attenpt and lost 20 years trying.

They realize now you do not have to out "Toyota" Toyota.

Americans realize style is important as functionality.

Back in the 1960's you could get fullsized cars with bucket seats. The 1963 Ninety Eight sports coupe had bucket seats and a floor shifter.

The Chevrolet Impala SS showed that a fullsized car can be sporty and desirable. People were not complaining about the size of the 1995-1996 Impala SS.

Buick just started again using floorshifters in its fullsized cars with Lucerne. The Park Avenue and LeSabre last generations 1991-2005 did not offer them. They offered bucket seats with consoles. The Deville just got bucket seats and a floorshifter with the Deville Concours in 1997.

The Holden Caprice and Statesman have always had them except in the 1970's.

You can buy a Ford Crown Victoria LX Sport with bucket seats and a floorshifter for about $32,000. The Grand Marquis offered it on the Limited a few years back and on the Maurader.

The American companies want to be sporty and international. When the American car makers dominated the market, they dictated style. The times have changed. They now are following instead of leading. Should they regain their lead again, they can dictate style. This is what they are trying to do.

I will add Cadillac is missing a true fullsized long wheelbase production car. DTS is not it. In Cadillacs case, in order to lead and stay in the game, they could not continue to make cars like the 1997 Deville, 1996 Fleetwood or 1993 Seville. I like those models, but that is not where Ultra luxury is today.

Just my opinion.

Edited December 5, 2006 by NINETY EIGHT REGENCY

[avro206]

Because putting a seat there is:

a) very uncomfortable for the poor sap stuck there

b) is dangerous due to the airbags (or lack therof) and the dash being just in front of them

c) cramps the driver who really needs the most room to drive safely (and needs a lot of peripheral vision for side mirrors)

d) dramatically decreases the ergonomics and storage space

e) is extremely low-demand.  People who need to seat 6 trade up to an SUV, crossover or minivan.  Why?  Because people who routinely need to carry 6 passengers generally want them all to be comfortable as well as need to fit all their stuff in the vehicle.

223359[/snapback]

you hit the nail on the head. With E especailly. Very, very few people want them. Its from a by-gone era so the few who complain just better realsize this and get used to it.

Edited December 6, 2006 by avro206

[Carguy]

I wish GM would build a sedan body off of a lowered GMT 900 platform. If they did they could do it with RWD only while useing a higher CAPRICE LIKE axel ratio and DOD GMT 900 Engines. This would be a TUFF FULL FRAMED sedan with RUGGED TRUCK SUSPENSION for TAXI's--POLICE--RESCUE and people who like to buy a new car every TWENTY YEARS!----BRING BACK the AMERICAN CAR!! FULL FRAMED--RWD--BENCHED SEATS and ALL!! :wink:

Edited December 6, 2006 by Carguy

[2005 EquinoxLS]

I wonder how efficient that would be?

[Intrepidation]

What is interesting to me is that for Dodge intrepids with the buckets and center console, there was a console shifter, yet they spent the extra money to move it to the column if it was order with a bench. I wonder if that costs a lot to do?

[AM6_Cutlass]

As most of the regulars on here know, I'm a big fan of front bench seats. Many of the excuses for not offering/having them are poor, and it all comes down to the fact that many Americans are just stuck with the vision of the old vinyl one piece bench seats. Today's modern split benches offer all the comforts and versitility of buckets: individual driver and passenger adjustment, center armrest, and most of the 40/20/40 designs are actually buckets with a center seat stuck in the middle so there is no excuse for saying benches don't offer the support or comfort that bucket seats can. As far as storage, a storage armrest, center seating portion that can flip uo to reveal more storage and a storage bin under the center of the dash can provide just as much storage as a full center console. And safety... Cadillac came out the the airbank system (larger passenger airbag)back in the 90s to protect all three front seat passengers. I don't know if GM or Ford are using such a system today, but if they aren't there really is no excuse. A center shoulder belt could be attached to the side of the passenger seat back like some pickups already have. I've actually used the front bench to capacity a few times in my Impala and my old Cutlass. I just don't carry that many people frequently enough to compensate for the drawbacks of owning a minivan or tree row SUV/crossover. I really wish there were more options, or at the very least hope the ones we do have stick around in the future. What I really like is the open feeling of the interior without a console. Makes it feel more spacious...

Edited December 9, 2006 by AM6_Cutlass

[Intrepidation]

As most of the regulars on here know, I'm a big fan of front bench seats.  Many of the excuses for not offering/having them are poor, and it all comes down to the fact that many Americans are just stuck with the vision of the old vinyl one piece bench seats.  Today's modern split benches offer all the comforts and versitility of buckets: individual driver and passenger adjustment, center armrest, and most of the 40/20/40 designs are actually buckets with a center seat stuck in the middle so there is no excuse for saying benches don't offer the support or comfort that bucket seats can.  As far as storage, a storage armrest, center seating portion that can flip uo to reveal more storage and a storage bin under the center of the dash can provide just as much storage as a full center console.  And safety... Cadillac came out the the airbank system  (larger passenger airbag)back in the 90s to protect all three front seat passengers.  I don't know if GM or Ford are using such a system today, but if they aren't there really is no excuse.  A center shoulder belt could be attached to the side of the passenger seat back like some pickups already have.  I've actually used the front bench to capacity a few times in my Impala and my old Cutlass.  I just don't carry that many people frequently enough to compensate for the drawbacks of owning a minivan or tree row SUV/crossover.  I really wish there were more options, or at the very least hope the ones we do have stick around in the future.  What I really like is the open feeling of the interior without a console.  Makes it feel more spacious...

225645[/snapback]

Those are some really good points you make. Still, these days demand isn't strong enough for many automakers to carry they option. Must people just opt for an SUV/CUV/Minivan. I personally, am not a fan of bench seats but much bigger a fan of buckets/console. Still, for those of you who prefer the bench, hopefully the few vehivles that have it will stick around.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Front benches are rare for the same reason cassette players are rare in new cars.  There isn't enough demand to bother.

And yet somehow both of those items wound up in our last car: a 2004 Chevy Impala.

[Satty]

I wish GM would build a sedan body off of a lowered GMT 900 platform. If they did they could do it with RWD only while useing a higher CAPRICE LIKE axel ratio and DOD GMT 900 Engines. This would be a TUFF FULL FRAMED sedan with RUGGED TRUCK SUSPENSION for TAXI's--POLICE--RESCUE and people who like to buy a new car every TWENTY YEARS!----BRING BACK the AMERICAN CAR!! FULL FRAMED--RWD--BENCHED SEATS and ALL!! :wink:

224711[/snapback]

Or, instead of putting all of that money into development, setting up a plant, etc, why not just buy a Tahoe?

[gm4life]

Opitional seating for six is enough any more. I said I would NEVER get a floor shift but uhh my Bonneville SLE is and I love it. I don't think I WILL EVER go back to bench unless its a truck on fullsize SUV. Having said that my 2001 Impala Sedan is a bench and sadly so is my GP. There is not a huge market for cars with benchs even the Lucernes I have seen have been 50% bench and the other 50% floor shift. And general speaking more mature buyers get those, what is that saying? That even older people don't want a bench anymore and a younger people are buying them both GREAT things. In fact there is a great white gold 2006 Lucerne CXL V8 at a local dealer that I try to get my cars from. The car has a V8 and if the Lucerne this had a floorshift it would have sold. I had thought about getting it (great price!) but its a bench although the extra seat is handy and it has the EXACT features I want except for cooled seats. I am just going to wait to get my wife her SUV, I am thinking a Enclave CX FWD with driver confidence package would suit her great. She still wants a whimpy Torrent (if it had a 3.6L or 3.9L I would get it) but I want another gear and 270hp plus extra style! *YES I HAVE SAID I WANT A BUICK!* The last car I had that was the powerful was my 1971 Bonneville 455ci. H.O. 4bbl. hard-top in Aztek gold! ((It was a cherry car!))

Edited December 10, 2006 by gm4life

[The O.C.]

As most of the regulars on here know, I'm a big fan of front bench seats.  Many of the excuses for not offering/having them are poor, and it all comes down to the fact that many Americans are just stuck with the vision of the old vinyl one piece bench seats.  Today's modern split benches offer all the comforts and versitility of buckets: individual driver and passenger adjustment, center armrest, and most of the 40/20/40 designs are actually buckets with a center seat stuck in the middle so there is no excuse for saying benches don't offer the support or comfort that bucket seats can.  As far as storage, a storage armrest, center seating portion that can flip uo to reveal more storage and a storage bin under the center of the dash can provide just as much storage as a full center console.  And safety... Cadillac came out the the airbank system  (larger passenger airbag)back in the 90s to protect all three front seat passengers.  I don't know if GM or Ford are using such a system today, but if they aren't there really is no excuse.  A center shoulder belt could be attached to the side of the passenger seat back like some pickups already have.  I've actually used the front bench to capacity a few times in my Impala and my old Cutlass.  I just don't carry that many people frequently enough to compensate for the drawbacks of owning a minivan or tree row SUV/crossover.  I really wish there were more options, or at the very least hope the ones we do have stick around in the future.  What I really like is the open feeling of the interior without a console.  Makes it feel more spacious...

225645[/snapback]

Of the remaining ("modern") 6-passenger cars available (all GM) I've never found the center position in an Impala/LaCrosse or Lucerne/DTS as even remotely comfortable....even for a short trip. It's totally pointless.

In FACT, in the Impala/LaCrosse, if you try to sit in the center position, your butt sits right on top of the seatbelt connectors for the driver and passenger (and I do NOT have a "big" butt.) So explain to me #1) How that is comfortable? and #2) How is the driver and passenger to be able to latch their seatbelts?

I don't even find the interiors that more "spacious" without the center console.

The other points made in this thread as to why they are going away/have gone away have already been well made.

[Robert Hall]

I wish GM would build a sedan body off of a lowered GMT 900 platform. If they did they could do it with RWD only while useing a higher CAPRICE LIKE axel ratio and DOD GMT 900 Engines. This would be a TUFF FULL FRAMED sedan with RUGGED TRUCK SUSPENSION for TAXI's--POLICE--RESCUE and people who like to buy a new car every TWENTY YEARS!----BRING BACK the AMERICAN CAR!! FULL FRAMED--RWD--BENCHED SEATS and ALL!! :wink:

224711[/snapback]

It would probably be horribly heavy..not to mention the GMT 900 is a ladder type frame, isn't it? A BOF car would need a perimeter frame..

[2005 EquinoxLS]

Opitional seating for six is enough any more. I said I would NEVER get a floor shift but uhh my Bonneville SLE is and I love it. I don't think I WILL EVER go back to bench unless its a truck on fullsize SUV. Having said that my 2001 Impala Sedan is a bench and sadly so is my GP. There is not a huge market for cars with benchs even the Lucernes I have seen have been 50% bench and the other 50% floor shift. And general speaking more mature buyers get those, what is that saying? That even older people don't want a bench anymore and a younger people are buying them both GREAT things. In fact there is a great white gold 2006 Lucerne CXL V8 at a local dealer that I try to get my cars from. The car has a V8 and if the Lucerne this had a floorshift it would have sold. I had thought about getting it (great price!) but its a bench although the extra seat is handy and it has the EXACT features I want except for cooled seats. I am just going to wait to get my wife her SUV, I am thinking a Enclave CX FWD with driver confidence package would suit her great. She still wants a whimpy Torrent (if it had a 3.6L or 3.9L I would get it) but I want another gear and 270hp plus extra style! *YES I HAVE SAID I WANT A BUICK!* The last car I had that was the powerful was my 1971 Bonneville 455ci. H.O. 4bbl. hard-top in Aztek gold! ((It was a cherry car!))

225762[/snapback]

As my name says I have a 2005 Equinox. The point I am trying to make is that the specs be damned I think mine is a pretty darn good performer. The 5 speed automatic is a big help. The Enclave though looks like a real winner.

[Sixty8panther]

>>"Front benches are rare for the same reason casette players are rare in new cars. "<<

They're not making bench seats because buckets provide better sound quality???

223423[/snapback]

No, because if you prefer 6 passanger cars it means you like bands

from the 1980s like Devo, Frankie Goes to hollywood, Cinderella,

The Cure, Duran Duran & Blondie... we all know that those bands

are almost impossible to find on CD, they were from the era of

"auto-reverse" double tape decks and gheto basters.

[Sixty8panther]

They realize now you do not have to out  "Toyota" Toyota.

223918[/snapback]

YES! I'm glad that DMX has realizerd this with the LX cars

and now GM seems to be finally making this realization

themselves... except for the Buick lineup.

Americans realize style is important as functionality.

Back in the 1960's you could get fullsized cars with bucket seats. The 1963 Ninety Eight sports coupe had bucket seats and a floor shifter.

The Chevrolet Impala SS showed that a fullsized car can be sporty and desirable. People were not complaining about the size of the 1995-1996 Impala SS.

I will add Cadillac is missing a true fullsized long wheelbase  production car. DTS is not it. In Cadillacs case,  in order to lead and stay in the game, they could not continue to make cars like the 1997 Deville, 1996 Fleetwood or 1993 Seville. I like those models, but that is not where Ultra luxury is today.

223918[/snapback]

THANK YOU!

A B-I-G rwd (zeta based?) sedan along the lines of the

Fleetwood Brougham is needed and if it was up to me

it would be BOF so that Cadillac would capture a good

50% or so of the professional car market again. I think

it would also sell very well to the public & I don't care

how much you bombard me with the "only 4 geriatrics"

theory.

If asked many "Sheeple" would have said an all RWD

Chrysler fullsize car lineup of two sedans & a wagon

would flop miserably in 2004.

[thedriver]

Bench seats can be done well, look at the full size pickup market. A nice bench, well padded for all, plenty of storage, all that is missing is the shoulder belt. If there were any cars being made that are wide enough for such an arrangement that is. .

[K.C.]

Those "bench seats" are designed for two passengers (one in each bucket) and one person so sit on a flat piece of padded material that is mostly designed for the armrest to sit on it. Sitting in that spot is uncomfortable. So there really are no real bench seats anymore, only split bend seats with two buckets and a center panel that will occasionall accomodate a person in that narrow space. I also have to agree with ocnblu and whoever else stated that there are safety concerns as there is no shoulder belt and the airbag no longer covers the center passanger. I recall the last gen big rear drive Fleetwood having an airbag on the passenger side that was big enough to cover the third passenger. I think the Caprice and Roadmaster, and even the DeVilles of the time having that feature. Anyone else remember those?

[balthazar]

The point is: design a bench with a comfortable center section, design an airbag to cover that middle passenger, design a dash that is more impact-friendly, and stuff it in a full-sized sedan. No one is advocating simply putting a bench in a knob-festooned, no-center-airbag, existing model!

And the trucks do a bench very well: My Silverado has a flip-up center storage/armrest, and below is a relatively comfortable seat- not just a 'rest for the armrest'. The '07 goes one step further with yet another storage compartment concealed under the center bottom- I don't how comfortable that one is. Trucks have more vertical height for springs & padding, but sedans today are no lower than cars of the '60s & '70s, who's center seat were easily as comfortable as the outer positions.

thedriver makes the crucial point, tho: modern cars are --with a very finite number of exceptions-- too narrow for true 3-abreast comfort.