John Lloyd spotted and shot this very fine ’69 Caprice coupe at Blackie Spit, in Surrey, B.C. Its sporting a “427” emblem on the front fender, and the ubiquitous but appropriate Rally wheels, which were optional on this car, although not as wide as these. In 1969, this is how I would have ordered my Caprice coupe, right down to the color. Please don’t anybody say: “it needs whitewalls”.
It’s not easy to spot a “perfect car” like this… I wouldn’t add or take anything… Congratulation to the owner!!!
That Chevy dark blue is one of my favorite car colors of all time! But back up the model-year clock for me by one, maybe two, please.
It needs whitewalls.
You’re all class.
Well he had to live up to his name; I’m just saying…lol
But, this is one beautiful car, one of my dreams.
That one has enough tasteful chrome trim, along with the black vinyl roof, hidden headlamps, rallye wheels, and dark blue color, that it looks good without them.
Now, a light-color stripper with wheel covers and zero chrome trim might be a different story.
Excellent reasoning, rudiger – I agree 100%.
+1
Agree with everything above. Those concealed headlamps are dope (Did I say that right?) and so rare!
Cool car, love the hidden headlamps, color combination, everything about it. Nice find!
Although a nice car, it’s easy to see why Ford beat them out in this market niche. Other than the hideaways, which very few had, this could easily pass for an Impala on first glance. The LTD was not likely to be confused with a Galaxie 500.
Ford was sort of cheating with its market numbers for the LTD by 1969. They debased the name by lowering content and making a simpler base interior. You had to buy the “Brougham” interior package to bring the car more in-line with the Chevy Caprice. The base LTD was priced only slightly higher than Chevy’s Impala V-8.
Impala sales were simply trouncing Galaxie 500 sales in 1969, 777,000 vs. 359,000. Ford was hawking enough low end LTDs to beat the Caprice 417,000 to 167,000. Chevy handily outsold Ford with the high volume trims 944,000 to 776,000. .
Right about the decontenting of the ’69 Ltd. I was excited in 1969 when dad said we were getting an Ltd, thinking of the luxurious ’65 a friend’s father had. Then it arrived and it didn’t even have a clock and the steering wheel was the same as on the cheapo Custom 500. At least it had a 390.
It absolutely does NOT need whitewalls. Beautiful car.
Whitewalls were very common at the time, even on Corvettes. Blackwalls were considered budget tires, for fleet duty or commercial use.
This Caprice would like nice with redline tires, even if they weren’t an option.
A thin whitewall would be appropriate.
Ooh. Redlines would be a nice touch actually.
+1
No Whitewalls and no White Letters!
She’s perfect as-is.
I think that putting whitewalls on this beauty would be a [deadly] sin. This car is just drop dead beautiful just as it is.I can`t believe its 46 years old, loooks better than most of today`s cars.
I love the optional hidden headlights. They were only offered on the Caprice and SS for 68 and 69.
This car is all class and just a little edgy. Love the ’69s. This one needs nothing, and it’s awesome to see that someone appreciates that. Reminds me of one of my all time favorite car commercials, for a ’69 Impala, featuring the Fifth Dimension: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEZpbyyxQXo
It is wild how the commercial spends so much time showing the Fifth Dimension and so little showing the car. I guess with Impala in 69 everyone knew what it looked like so it was more about setting the mood.
A high school friend’s parents had a two-door ’69 Chevy, Impala not Caprice, more basic than this (307, no vinyl top) with Rally wheels and 60-series blackwalls which was pretty sporty for the early seventies on an American full size car. Of course, their other car was an Alfa Spyder. So blackwalls are totally OK even by era-appropriate standards.
I think everyone has already said everything I was thinking, but just to chime in that really does look fantastic just the way it is. Jimmy Likes.
Sorry, but I’d rather have a 67 Caprice coupe, or maybe a 70, but to me this body style was looking a bit tired by 69. (And, yes, I know the 70 is pretty much the same car again.)
For me, the most obvious “flaw” with the styling on the 69 is the treatment of the rear bumper/tail lights. The front bumper is a “loop” style, while the rear bumper is a thin “blade” style which forces the tail lights to be horizontal blocks. The other thing I don’t care for is the (borderline) too severe side body sculpting (?). It takes a body that is almost voluptuous and puts it on what looks like a diet.
And I agree with a previous poster, this car would look terrific on redlines.
Perfect…just the way it is. I never, ever liked White Walls, and I like” raised white letters” even less.
I’ve always liked the 1969 Chevrolet, and this one’s nice. Just wish it wasn’t lowered with standard width wheels; stock would’ve been perfect.
I agree
If it really is a 427, stock it might be a little undertired. I guess all Caprices were big blocks, but I wonder if a 300-325hp 350 might be a more sporting choice with the lighter weight of the sixties body.
As a rule, I don’t care for vinyl tops, but this just works.
My grandmother had one of these. It was gold, with cloth interior, A/C, AM /FM, and the 2 barrell 396. I was lucky enough to drive it quite a bit as a teenager. Grandfather’s 71 Impala with the 350 was faster, but it was a stripper model with crank windows, no A/C, vinyl seats, and an AM radio. The Caprice was definitely a nicer place to be.
My enduring memory of the Caprice was taking it on a sweeping turn one time when going to the airport. The road was designed for a 70 MPH limit, and banked accordingly, but the speed limit at the time was 55, and as a new driver with my grandparents in the car, 55 was how fast we were going. It was a left turn, but the handling was such that I had to turn the wheel to the right to avoid sliding down to the inside lane. Handling was not its strong point. The thing was huge, but the sharp fender creases were easily viewed from the drivers seat, and you knew exactly where the edge of the car was.
They were proud of their Chevies, and ran them up until the late 90’s at which point the garage they had been going to for 30 years started struggling with how to maintain a vehicle with points and a carburetor. The younger techs were baffled by it. When the older guys stopped working there and grandmother was too old to drive, my grandfather bought a mid 90’s buick. I had hoped the Caprice would come my way, but it was not to be. They had been so proud of those cars for so long that I was saddened by the purchase of the buick, but my grandfather was in the end a pragmatic man (hence the stripper model being his), and when grandmothers health slid to the point that the classic cars were no longer a focus, that was it. The grandparents and the cars are all gone now. RIP.
That is a good looking car.
My avatar is the owner’s manual from my Grandfather’s 1967 Caprice coupe, his was black vinyl over a lighter blue known as Marina Blue. It was a sharp car, and to this day I have a thing for blue cars with black tops.
Between the ’69 and ’70 Chevy which used the same body, I’d pick the ’69. The rare covered headlights are too cool to pass up.
When I was a kid, I’d have probably chosen to equip this car with either the standard wheel covers or the very nice and well built stainless and chrome wire wheel covers Chevy offered back then. I know, I was weird.
But, with 2015 eyes that are used to seeing EVERYTHING on styled wheels these days, these wheels do look perfect.
I too would have made the covered headlights standard on the Caprice, and the Impala SS. And, Ford did have standard covers on its higher trim cars in ’69.
But, you have to recall that covered headlights started popping up 🙂 as a style element in the mid / late ’60s. A lot of folks in snow county were very wary of them as “they’ll get jammed with ice Martha, we can’t buy those damned things.” The “one more thing to go wrong” camp was still alive and well as well. Chevy tended to make its big cars in flavors for every taste, so not a big surprise that they were optional – the low take rate probably says something.
This car appears to be in wonderful condition. I was thinking that I would not have wanted the 427, but, looking at the old brochures, I see that the 396 (note B72’s comments above) was a regular fuel 2 barrel, while a base 427 was rated at 335 hp. This makes it a large but more of street engine than previous 427’s.
Nice find, but I never cared for the Caprice formal roofline. At least it looked better on the ’69 body compared to the earlier years.
Here’s what I would have picked in 1969:
http://www.schmitt.com/viewimage.asp?ID=4385
Me too! But I did limit my question to “Caprice” 🙂
I suppose if I had to be limited to the Caprice I’d agree with you. Although this particular car seems to be sitting lower than stock (I am not sure if it’s the angle of the photo). I’d prefer mine with a factory ride height, but definitely sans whitewalls.
Perfect as is, right down to the color and the black wall tires. I’ve been seeing a red ’69 Impala convertible in our neighborhood lately with 327 badges on the front. Also nice – red works well for the convertibles.
Nice car except for the squareback roof, why did they do that. I does not need whitewalls, over here factory whitewalls denoted automatic transmission and were actually quite a rare fitment.
Nice ! .
All it needs is suspension up grades and a full tank of gas……
-Nate
If I had to pick, I would get it in either this color or red, without a vinyl top. And I’ve never liked the Rally Wheels, I think they look bad, really cheap. A friend of mine bought an old Camaro and he sold the decent looking aftermarket wheels it had and bought a mint set of Rallys and between them and his unfortunate choice of color to paint it, “chocolate milk brown”, I didn’t like it at all. All the people who looked at it asked him, “So what color was it originally?”. It was dark blue, but the car came to him an odd light green, so chocolate milk was an improvement. After he sold the car, it soon showed up at some classic car event in it’s original color, and looked much better. New wheels too.
Needs RWLs, not whitewalls.
There’s only ONE thing wrong with this car.
It isn’t parked in my garage!! 😉
ME WANTY!!
As it is, it looks great with blackwalls. If it had stock ride height and stock rally wheels, it would look better with the whitewalls, as that is how it would have been equipped originally. Really lovely car!
Perfect. The ideal color, hidden lamps, 427, rallys…needs nothing, zero, not a thing at all. No whitewalls. And for ’69 I actually prefer the Caprice roofline–just works better with the more square-jawed body. My parents owned a ’69 Impala coupe in triple white, and though it was gone before I was born, I’ve always thought it one of the better years.
I’ll never understand the white wall hate. Stripes painted on a car body are “cool” but stripes on a tire aren’t? Blackwalls look cheap to me unless they are on modern dreck with low profile tires.
I’m obviously in the minority as I cannot find any place that sells 14 inch whitewalls for a ’79 Camaro project car I’m screwing around with. And yes, it has ZJ7 body color rally wheels and yes, it came with whitewalls originally. Frustrating…argh.
Yes, I agree. Growing up in the 50s backwoods Minnesota; there were no whitewalls and when they started showing up in the 60s they were on highend “fancy pants” luxury cars, the better off people drove and when I finally got a decent car; it wasn’t dressed right till it had a set of whitewalls; even if it was a semi-sporty car like a 1968 Cougar XR7. Some modern cars would look foolish with them on; but ones from the 60s and 70s with vinyl roofs need them to look right, in these old eyes.