We probably did this one before some years back, but it’s good once in a while to see a big American car from “The Golden Era” get wrung out a bit. Yes, they don’t make them like they used to. Although these cars were hardly built for the race track, it does graphically show how they handle extreme demands placed on them. Needless to say, a new Impala would do quite a lot better.
I love these old reviews, especially when Bud roasts that 396 2bbl with his two pack a day voice. People don’t sound like that anymore.
I honestly can’t think of anything more fun than ripping around a racetrack in a stock 60-70s land barge.
Great video. The interesting thing about Chevies of the day is that the capabilities of the car were really determined by how much research you were willing to do about the available options at the time. The base chassis was exactly that- the bare minimum to be safe and handle well on the way to the grocery store and church. Chevy offered not one but three suspensions at the time- base, F40 (HD), and F41 (Special performance). The F41 package included beefier springs, stabilizer bars front & rear, and required the optional wider wheels and tire upgrade. There was a wide variety of tires available for the car, ranging from “round and hold air well” to “will hang on to 4500 lbs on the track reasonably well.” Disc brakes were an option, along with HD Cooling system (a must with big blocks and Factory A/C). Then there was a variety of axle ratios available, with and without the optional Positraction, to go with three possible Automatic transmission choices (depending on engine selection). Most of these options were reasonably priced, and the right combination made a HUGE difference in what the car could/could not do.
A 427 equipped Impala or Caprice with the F41 suspension, positraction, and the right wheel/tire combination could surprise many smaller vehicles with it’s track abilities. Not a shocker to Police Agencies at the time- this was the std. setup for the B07 Police chassis. The standard setup, like the one tested, was an overweight wallowing barge. Reliable and durable mind you, but no fun to drive.
You bring up a good point about the suspensions. Around this time that the US car makers started to have quite a bit more variety in the suspension setups. While early cars form the late 50’s and early 60’s had little variation in suspension and spring rates, this changed by the late 60’s and early 70’s. Some cars had spring rates that would double from the base suspensions to the stiffest options.
These ’69 Chevrolet’s are a good example of this. While the base suspension was very soft and poor handling, the F40 was better, and the F41 was actually a pretty darn good handler for its day. While a 427 F41 car was a strong car, even a 350-4bbl with F41 suspension was a good all-round performer. MT tested a 1970 Impala (pretty much identical to a ’69) with a 350 and F41 suspension. It was considerably quicker than the larger displacement competition and had the best handling.
Wow, 13+ seconds to 60 with a 396? And this sure brings back memories of driving on bias ply tires that would scream like crazy when they would hit their (low) adhesion limits. The good old days weren’t always so good.
As a counter point, Car Life ran a 427 Caprice through @ 7.2 sec. 0-60 and a 15.5 1/4 mile. That 2 bbl 396 was a notorious dog back then. Sucked gas and a 4BBL 350 could outrun it.
Something must have been wrong it, it couldn’t have been THAT slow!
As they noted in the brake test section of it pulling to the left, “we don’t adjust them we run them as they are”. Which could mean this car left the factory with the ignition system not quite adjusted to spec which can in extreme cases make a huge difference. There was a reason that the whole dealer prep thing started and that was for the dealer to do the final quality control and adjustments as needed before delivery.
Yes, there was something not right with this test car. Popular Science tested a 1969 Chevrolet Impala 396 2-bbl as well. It had 2.56 gearing and ran 0-60 in 11.3 seconds. No rocket, but PS also tended to get considerably slower 0-60 times than other mags (they likely just hit the gas from a dead start).
FWIW, they also compared it to a Ford 390-2bbl, Plymouth 383 2bbl and a Pontiac Catalina 400-2bbl. The performance times were as follows:
Chevrolet:
0-60: 11.3 secs
0-80: 19.4 secs
Ford:
0-60: 11.6 secs
0-80: 19.6 secs
Plymouth
0-60; 11.0 secs
0-80: 19.8 secs
Pontiac:
0-60: 10.6 secs
0-80: 18.2 secs
All cars had very tall gearing ranging from 2.76:1 for the Plymouth to 2.29:1 for the Pontiac. Despite it’s gearing handicap, the Pontiac was the clear winner pefromance wise. While the 383 Mopar was second to 60 MPH, the 396 and the 390 surpassed it by 80 MPH.
You are right about that ’69 396. It was known as L66 and was a one year only option, full size car (B body) only, and the only big-block Chevy motor fed by a 2 bbl carb.
It was replaced in ’70 with the 400 small block – same horsepower and not much more go; both were lousy engines.
I came thisclose to buying a new 1970 Monte Carlo, but when I checked the sticker I saw it had the 400 SB. I was uneasy about such a big bore in a small block and wound up with a Cutlass Supreme. Turned out to be a good move, in hindsight.
I love these old Car and Track tests. Watch that front tire’s sidewall completely disappear around the 1:05 mark.. Yikes..
If you go over to YT look for Bud’s review of the 1974 Cutlass vs the Mercury Cougar. He really lets you know how he feels about Ford and that generation of Cougar.
“Someone must have put the suspension setting on ‘jelly’…”
The braking is the scariest part of these Car and Track tests, I’ve watched them all(the ones that made it to YouTube) and every single car, big or small, behaves like an utter death trap on the high speed stop, though this one may take the cake. Every other performance measure is pretty expected, nobody is driving new Impalas to these limits 50 years later either, but at least the 69 car had varieties of flavor and didn’t look exactly the same as a 4 year old one.
They also don’t do it right. Lock ’em up and slide was their way, but I think few people would do that on dry pavement.
I’d say it would be very representative of a ‘panic stop’, unless you practiced emergency braking regularly.
To Sean’s note about the sidewall, somewhere I should have a VHS tape with footage of my old Sigma running around a large roundabout with the front wheel rim a fraction of an inch off the bitumen. It had a steel belted 70-series tyre that was on the edge of losing traction at the time.
Yeah I’d say the stab’em and hang on method would be what you would expect the average driver or the era to do. You couldn’t expect grandma, grandpa, or the little missus to have the skills or presence of mind needed to properly modulate the brakes in a panic stop situation.
Hoogeeze. Listen to those miniature tires squeal! Lookit that marshmallow suspension bobble and jiggle like a not-very-fresh tomato aspic. Grab for the Pepto-Bismol as the body leans way over!
(Er, sir. Sir? You said “convex”; no, the backglass is concave. Also, they’re not “headrests”, they’re head restraints, and no, these all-but-useless ones weren’t “as good as any”, but even so, I have difficulty caring about your ignorantly scornful dismissal of “headrests” writ large.)
Nah we don’t need head restraints, whiplash is way cool!
Interesting watching the car plow (understeer) through the curves. I’m surprised the front tires didn’t break their bead the way they were folding over, could’ve slung a least one trim ring for effect’s sake, however. I’m wondering if the understeer would’ve occurred with a wagon or even with a smaller, lighter engine. Almost 20 seconds to run a quarter mile with a 396? Wow.
That was a pretty well-optioned car, even if not loaded to the hilt. That was the first year of the upscale “Impala Custom” coupe with the concave back glass; always liked it better as a kid, still do, but the standard coupe profile gets better looking with age; but in 1969 (and ‘70?) a 2-door sedan was available also, albeit on the BelAir and Biscayne. Was it the first year without vent windows, too? laughed when he mentioned how he disliked the headrests, another 1969 “first”.
Gawd, how I miss those rolling couches, everything is cockpit styled, now; which I detest; a center armrest great, but I can do without the confining center consoles in today’s cars.
For what it’s worth, another great shot of a land barge pushing its limits is the bad guy’s ‘73 Grandville in the signature chase scene in the movie “The 7-ups”.
“Fear is the Key” with Barry Newman is another car chase that comes to mind in that regard.
Also I think it is the opening shot from “Gone in 60 Seconds” where Toby Halicki is floating his Cadillac out to a crash scene at high speed, that it starts to really wallow around on the suspension. Could you get a H41 package for a Cadillac?
Actually the Custom Coupe body style debuted in 1966, on the Caprice, minus the concave window. It was first offered on the Impala in 1968, also sans concave window. 1969 WAS the first year of the concave window, however.
This motif was kept thru the end of 1976.
WRT spitting a tire off the bead, C&D did just that to a 1985 Front-drive Cadillac deVille they tested.
The 1968 Caprice coupe had no vent windows, whereas the ’68 Impala Custom Coupe did have them.
(After the personal luxury coupes – the 1966 Riviera/Toronado and ’67 Eldorado – the first “ordinary” GM car to omit vent windows was the ’67 Grand Prix coupe.)
First year without vent windows for the full-size line-up as well as the 2-door Chevelle hardtop while the Camaro dropped the vent windows a year earlier. Chevelle sedans/wagons and Nova kept them until 1972.
That headrest comment reminds me of an early Lark commercial touting it’s then new-fangled, individually reclining bucket seats in the 1960 model, “if you like that sort of thing”.
And in reality, they were two bench seats shortened to fit across half-the car. And that same head-rest. Yup, I guess the Chevrolet versions in 1969 were ‘as good as any’ provided by an American manufacturer. At least ’til when they were required in 1970, along with front shoulder belts.
1969 was the first mandated year for them, 1968 was the first for shoulder belts.
I like the rally wheels on this Impala; never saw one with those before. But “the engine that could barely punch its way through a wet Kleenex!” What would he have said when the emissions regulations came in a few years later? This is Clarkson’s dad!
He says it was a quiet ride, just as the car is pushing through a corner with 4 wheels a screeching! LOL
They might have thought about a different angle of sunlight to get those interior shots, the shadows were pervasive.
I was surprised that the tires were completely flattened on the right turn cornering and the car looked like it was riding on its rims. This must have been well over 2 tons of sheet metal. Bias ply tires took a beating from the soft riding suspension I take it.
The video reminded me of reading car mags back in the day (and recently here on CC) about safety items such as the headrests / restraints and seat belts, and describing them as something they hoped would go away.
Very enjoyable, more of these would be most welcome if available.
Here’s a playlist of every one that’s been uploaded to YT…great stuff.
I haven’t watched them all yet, but the one of him thrashing a ’69 Dodge Charger 500 with the 426 hemi was incredible. A very rare car driven very hard. I wonder what ever became of it?
This reminds me of my old 1970 Impala at quitting time when someone would say “See you at the bar!”
What a Quadrajet and 5 psi more in the tires would do for this sled. Nice looking though.
Nice video. It reminded me so much about the German TV auto tests by Rainer Guenzler. They tried to be very objective and consistent by following a strict protocol.
https://youtu.be/XUjkyb4CCEI
Not only are the wheels and tires tiny by our standards, the narrow track and short wheelbase for that huge longer-lower-wider body make me think of a very flat elephant on roller skates.
Even a 1972 Chevy Impala with the 400ci 2bbl has faster acceleration in the 0-60mph run according to one of the magazine road tests that I’ve read, I can’t believe that a more powerful and lighter weight 1969 Chevy Impala has a slower acceleration time in the 0-60mph run, that’s something I expect out of a smog era era.
The 396 2bbl was marketed as an economy version of the big block. 2BBL carb, regular gas, and an extremely long-legged 2.56 std. axle ratio. 265 (Gross)HP in an almost 5000 lb car is asking a lot, and that gearing only worked in Iowa. A 300HP 350 with 3.23 gears would’ve run circles around it.
Considering the tall gearing and small carb, I’ll bet this car was an excellent highway cruiser, and thrifty considering it’s sheer size and big block displacement.
Even today in 2018 with full emission gear and points, my 74 Impala 350/2 bbl does 0-60 in 14 or so. It does help that it has a 3:08 rear gear.
This clip definitely was a strong argument for checking the F41 box on the order form.
That poor Impala looked like it handled like a wet sponge.