CC Cohort Blue387 has captured the essence of the Chevrolet mystique. Has there ever been a time when even the most prosaic Chevy two-door sedan from this era (as well as going back decades) was not cool? Well, maybe a for a few years around 1965 or so, when it looked a bit old-fashioned. But almost from the get-go, a Chevy two-door has had a connotation: it was intrinsically cool, and the perfect blank slate upon which an endless variety of personal expression could be expressed, real or imagined. Of course, in the eyes of some it wasn’t as cool as a ’62 Impala coupe, or even the rare Bel Air bubble coupe, just it as long as it wasn’t a four-door sedan. But omitting two doors made all the difference. And that has never changed through the many decades.
Today a ’62 two-door Ford Custom has a decided appeal for Blue Oval lovers as wall as contrarians, but where are they all? Will there ever be a time when a ’62 Chevy Bel Air two door is not cool? Maybe when folks simply will refuse to ride in an un-airconditioned car?
The first thing I noticed was the Islam Fashion store since I live in one of the less diverse parts of New York where such sights are few and far between.
Well that sure is a swell looking (restored) vehicle, but I bet the owner kind of wishes they had AC for the hot Summer days in New York City. By the way, what is that strange upright silver mark on the rear fender just behind the rear wheel?
An accessory trim piece that fit around the fuel filler door.
Ahh, so it is. Guess that is so you do not scratch the paint while opening the door. I just realized the knee bashing A-pillar dog leg was on the way out by 1962 on these Chevys.
“Islam fashion”? Really, how fashionable could it be?
Sort of the opposite of the Chevy? Where the inner qualities might well be better than outer appearances?
Clearly you didn’t see the fully-clad athletic suit of one of the female Muslim athletes at the olympics? I had wondered how you could style a burka…they did it and it was quite complimentary.
The female Iranian athletes are almost as representative of Muslim women as Jemima Khan. The burqa is also supposed to hide the *shape* of the body, not just cover skin. The Saudis are the foremost authorities on this.
I live in a country with a lot of Muslims (probably the largest Muslim population in a secular country) and most of the middle-class folk live and dress as others do. None of this `Islam Fashion’ stuff. Fashion is fashion, and religion is religion. Muslim sportspersons here dress the same as their Hindu counterparts (google Sania Mirza for an example). Of course, there are large numbers of burqa-championing ultra-conservatives too, but they’re there in every religion.
OK. Enough OT!
No US Flags to spoil the view this time.
Certainly an attractive car, but I bear the burdon of actually having driven one of these.
My college roomie had one just like this, only white with red interior and dog dish hubcaps. The Blue Flame 6 and a Powerglide. To me, it was one of the most miserable driving experiences of my young lifetime.
I have kvetched before about the driving position – low seat and high steering column. Maybe the designers thought this would make the car more like a Corvette. Au contraire. Then there was the power steering with 6 full turns lock to lock. Like piloting a damned riverboat. Just as well, though, because the way the thing leaned in turns, it did no good to be able to turn quickly.
My problem was that I had recently owned my 59 Fury, and had graduated to a 71 slant 6 Scamp. To me, the Chevy felt more like 1952 than 1962. But I will agree that one thing the car did extremely well was look good. Even the lower level 2 door sedans were attractive cars, which is something that 62 Fords (and certainly Plymouths) could not say.
Are you trying to pop the bubble of Chevy cool?
Yes, the driving dynamics were a bit less than brilliant, eh? Especially the steering.
Sounds like you are describing what it was like to drive my 87 Caprice Estate. Despite the drawbacks I still liked it.
My ’68 el Camino had the same worm gear steering with six & 1/2 revolutions from stop to stop. It was a huge score in my favor if I started a slow turn onto another street with just the right amount of preparatory wheel cranking prior to the apex of the turn to where the wheel precisely centered itself just as the car’s turn was completed and going exactly in the direction I wanted it to go. That was highly satisfying, but not common. There was usually a correction at the end of a turn as I usually over or under cranked a bit. I still liked it better than the numb overboosted power steering on an earlier ’69 Camaro.
Jim, is this not an attractive car?
Ford! (Chevy!) Ford! (Chevy!)
Yes!! I like the ’62 Ford.
6 turns with power steering??? How many turns did the manual steering have – 17?
I believe that at least some of those old Chevys used a manual steering gear that had some kind of external power assist on it. I remember a transversely mounted hydraulic cylinder at the front of the car that was for the power steering. Probably an inexpensive way to put power steering onto a car without a dedicated power steering gear unit. Like the Powerglide, a great idea – but way before 1962.
A transverse hydraulic cylinder…. could it have been the steering damper instead?
I did a little reading after that comment. The Chevrolet system (up to at least 1964, possibly later in trucks) sensed wheel movement at the pitman arm, and transferred the hydraulic force to a slave cylinder that mounted transversely and either pushed or pulled the tie rod for steering assist. Quite unlike other power steering systems. I have never seen anything like it on any of my older Fords or Mopars.
Tata was using this system in their smaller trucks through the nineties. Not so sure about now. I had no idea it was originally a GM design. Seemed simple and elegant (from a manufacturing POV) to me: as most trucks would be ordered w/o power steering anyway, it made no sense to develop a new unit. However, these units sapped power and were leaky and generally difficult to maintain. Most of them were disabled later. These units are now used for retrofitting into older vehicles (esp. Jeeps) without PS. Turns out they’re quite reliable if not used in overloaded vehicles. The telltale is a transverse horizontal cylinder in the front of the chassis, easily visible in Jeeps.
This ’62 Plymouth Savoy looks good to me too, though I agree it’s a love-it-or-hate-it situation. (Make mine a Fury hardtop, please.)
Carnut.com says Chevy built 1.4 million 1962 Biscaynes, Bel Airs and Impalas (inconceivable today), while 618,000 1962 Ford Galaxies and a mere 183,000 1962 Plymouth Savoys, Belvederes, Furys and Suburbans hit the roads. 1962 was a good year to be a Chevy dealer.
Yes it was. My father smiled the whole year through. And Christmas 1962 was especially good for the Paczolt children.
I like the Plymouth now, back in the day, not so much. Make mine with a 413 and 4 speed, looking just like that.
Au contraire, monsieur! One of the neatest cars I have ever seen was in 1962 in Mexico City. It was a ’62 Ford Galaxie Club Sedan with just simple stainless sweepspears on its flanks. It was desert beige (ugh). But it had 406 engine badges on the front fenders and American Racing Torque Thrust Ds shorn in Pirelli radials. Inside was a four speed and bucket seats taken from a Galaxie 500-XL. Even the rear seat was out of a 500-XL. My little 13-year old mind was blown.
The 1963 Bel-Air wasn’t much different form my 1961 Bel-Air coupe except for the roof.
Driving dynamics? These were cruisers, which is what I am – it fit me perfectly! I’ll post a photo of my ’61 when the time comes – Camaro Rally Green paint and all – yeah, I really did that a long, long time ago!
As far as how low you sat, the 1959-60 Chevys were worse – I recall the tops of the cushions of the seats less than 10″ off the floor. That was the era of longer, lower, wider.
I had a 62 chevy two door in Panama. I enjoyed it but, as usual, someone beat me up with money so I sold it. Had the same thing happen to a 67 Chevelle there. I enjoyed both chevys and most everything else I drove in Panama. Sorry, I can’t help it. I was a sailor. If it started and ran, I liked it.
Nicely styled Chevrolet after the fins of ’59 and ’60. I also like the 1966 model year Ford wire wheel hubcaps with blue centers.
I learned to drive in a 64 Biscayne 2 dr sedan. Six cylinder, three on the tree, no power anything, no radio. In azure aqua, it was still a pretty car. Holes in the front quarters in a year, rust and holes everywhere soon afterward. My Dad had it until 72, when he bought a new Dodge Polara 2 dr HT. Even stripped down, it was like a limo compared to the Chevy.
Although I really had nothing to compare to the Biscayne, until the Polara, I always thought the Chevy rode pretty well and the power adequate. Sometimes, I’d skip a gear, 1 to 3, or 2 to 3. The six seemed to have enough power. I’d go up a long winding hill in high gear, if I got a good enough start. And as someone said, a 2 door Chevy always looked good. I polished that car for my Dad, even in its dilapidated state. I’d get a can of matching spray paint, and spray over the rust and decay after the wash. At twenty feet, it looked good.
But the Polara was a much better car in all ways.
Interestingly, I learned to drive a stick – 3 on the tree – in a friend’s dad’s 1966 Bel-Air sedan!
We had this car’s near-twin, a ’61 Bel Air 2-door sedan, in turquoise, with the six, 3-on-the-tree, and options including deluxe heater (4 sliders instead of 2), backup lights, and outside rear view mirror (driver’s side only). It didn’t have a radio.
The ’61 had the canopy roof used on the 1959-60 GM 4-door hardtops (and on the first generation Corvair sedan). With a boxy body and thin pillars, you could see all 4 corners of the car from the driver seat. The back windows rolled all the way down — I’m sure you remember this Zackman!
I recall rust starting to form on the front fender tops just behind the headlights after about 5 Pittsburgh winters.
I learned to drive in this car’s successor, a ’67 Bel Air 2-door, also a six with 3-on-the-tree. Yes, that manual steering required upteen turns from lock to lock!
Oh, and that photo is so typical of commercial districts in New York’s outer boroughs — shops of every description and the ubiquitous “school crossing ahead” street sign.
It could be interesting to know how many of these Bel Airs got the 327 V8 or even the 409 engine under the hood? They could be a perfect sleeper like the later (1965-70) Bel Air/Biscayne.
“just it as long as it wasn’t a four-door sedan”
The one 62 Chevy that I wouldn’t mind owning is Norm Beechey’s 62 Bel Air hardtop (four door). This was specially ordered with the top 409 and a 4 speed for racing, but also as a hardtop and with electric windows so it would be easy to sell once he had finished racing it. The car was competitive but even after a lot of development it still ate a gearbox after if not during each race – if it finished it won against the Mark 2 Jaguars. Years later Norm traced the car down, and has restored it to its former glory. It is a turquoise car with a white roof.
I, too, take exception to the “Chevy Cool” revisionist history.
I lived through that era, too…too young to drive, but Chevys were ubiquitous. My old man had a 1963 and 1964 “company cars” – both Impalas. Not sure why the ’63 was replaced so quickly when the usual turnover was two years; but both of those cars were pretty similar.
And pretty pedestrian as drivers. It was the Great American Blandwich; junk-food for the road.
Why were they popular with the performance crowd? Because, of course, the engine fundamentals were sound, and similar over a long period of years. But before we start tying images like “cool” on these cars…we need to remember how so much of America bolted for the Mustang, a rebodied Falcon!…the moment it was offered.
Obviously, the Mustang had what was missing on the Chevy. Different styling; a promise of a more sporting experience. The Bel Air was raw transportation; the Mustang was IMAGE.
By the time I got close to driver’s-license age, the early ’60s Chevys were owned by the near-indigent. I remember a universal trait of the 1964s was for the front right-side floor pan to let go; two friends had 64s in their families, and just about every one I’d see, was trailing frayed carpet fibers along the front door sill, underneath.
Today, of course, a 1962 Chevy is “cool.” Like a 1959 Rambler is cool. Like a 1966 Studebaker would be uber cool.
But of course that’s just a function of age. I remember July 4 parades, where there’d be Model Ts and As in the parade. Those were squaresville cars when they sold; then they became the kewel treasures of collectors. Now, they’re priceless museum pieces.
I think my mind is changing on this one. At the time I also remember thinking low-end Chevy’s just looked cheap, with their painted cheaply-folded front ends – you could almost hear the marketers daring any self-respecting buyer not to upgrade.
I also remember two-doors in the 50’s & early 60’s as being the ultimate marker of cheap, at least to small boys – the automotive equivalent of a tarpaper-clad house with four kids sharing a bedroom :). At that time everyone desperately wanted to be upwardly mobile, and a brand new 2 door Biscayne would have been a clear and very public admission of failure.
But looking at this photo, there is a real athleticism to the overall line of the car. The simplicity works, especially in black. It looks fast and strong, not a bad combination. The Ford looks like a brick on wheels by comparison, an image probably amplified by having seen so many of them as police cruisers.
It may take a few more years for the Plymouth to grow on me – it still looks like a secret biology experiment gone terribly wrong, although it’s certainly lean and aggressive. Thank God they were sterile…