The 1959 Impala Hardtop Coupe CC stirred up some comments doubting that the Impala,and all full-size Chevys came in two distinct models, a six and an eight. They did, ever since the eight appeared in 1955. It’s an old tradition too; once Ford came out with a V8 in 1932, Fords were available in two distinct models; the four cylinder Model B and the eight cylinder Model V8. And thus it set a pattern for pretty much all full-sized American cars, until the early seventies: two base models; a six and an eight, each with a distinct factory model number. Including even the legendary Super Sport:
Here’s the close up of the 1965 SS brochure shown above: “depending on the model you chose”. Six or Eight. The V8 SS Convertible was Model # 16667. The exception was the Caprice; except for the ’65, when the Caprice was an Impala trim option, subsequent Caprices were not available as a six. The Encyclopedia of American Cars does come in handy at times. But it also raises some questions; like which year was the last for the six cylinder big Chevy?
It was a gradual phase out, for one thing. The last year for six cylinder wagons was 1969. Beginning in 1970, sixes were limited (1970 powertrains above). But after 1971, things start to get confusing. The Encyclopedia still lists six cylinder Biscayne, Bel Air and those same two Impala models (hdtp coupe and sedan) for 1972, although with very low production numbers: 1504 for the Biscayne six sedan, dropping to 289 for the Impala hdtp coupe. But the 1972 Chevrolet brochure doesn’t list a six at all. So the sixes by 1972 must have been fleet order only, or if you really begged you dealer.
And the last six: the Encyclopedia lists the Bel Air sedan (Model K69) as the last and only (the Biscayne was dropped for ’73). And all of 1394 of them were made. End of the road. And again, the ’73 brochure (above) makes no mention of the six.
One more factoid: the Powerglide was still listed along with the THM as late as 1971 in the full size Chevy catalog. But I already knew that: I drove a ’71 Chevy cab with the six and Powerglide; a wonderful combination indeed!
And the final bit of six trivia: the Encyclopedia does not have production breakouts for the 1965 SS six convertible, but in 1964, all of 316 buyers opted for the SS six convertible. Undoubtedly, even fewer did as the sixties went on. The last relevant numbers are that in 1967, a total of 400 SS six coupes and convertibles were sold. And that was the last year for the SS as a distinct model line. Anyone know how many of those were convertibles? Probably rarer than a Hemi Cuda convertible.
So my question is, were any ’65 (or any at all) 6-cylinder SS convertibles actually made, and if so, do any still exist?
Our neighbors at the end of the street were known for frugality, and their family cars were a succession of basic Chevy full-size sedans–Mr. G. would get a new car about every five years, the Mrs. would drive the previous one until he bought the next one, and then drive his next hand-me-down. They may very well have had a Bel Air 6 from ’72 or ’73 (but never an SS).
I just updated the post; I don’t have ’65 production numbers, but 316 SS six convertibles were sold in 1964. Probably somewhat less than that in 1965.
Thanks for the update!
When I was a kid, my dad had a 1965 Belair with 283 V-8 and Powerglide. A close family friend had a 1965 Biscayne with six cylinder and Powerglide, so the sixes did exist. I am pretty sure that, proportionally, more sixes were sold in Canada as Canukistanis tend to me more conservative in auto choices and they amount they want to finance. At least they were in the past. The banking laws in Soviet Canuckisan prior to 1967 made getting a car loan with less than 30% down almost impossible.
Mr. Big!
Turns out they phased out the sixes just in time for the ’73 gas shortages. Brilliant.
What kind of mileage did that ’71 cab get, do you remember Paul?
The way I drove it? Flat out, all day?
Actually, I don’t know; it was an old school cab operation (Yellow) where the cabs were all owned and serviced by the company. We got paid a percentage of the fares (55%? or 45%?). And they gassed them.
I’ll do a whole story on that…
“Turns out they phased out the sixes just in time for the ’73 gas shortages. Brilliant.”
Yeah, great timing. But this makes me wonder…why is it assumed that a six will be inherently more fuel-efficient than an eight? After all, as an in-line engine, the block will be heavier per-cubic-inch; that weight will suck performance and fuel.
On the other hand…I have a well-used Dodge van with a V-6, and fuel economy is rather disappointing compared to a carbureted Slant-Six van I had fifteen years ago…same basic body, same series, entirely different engine.
So…wouldn’t it have been good for sales and also economy-statistics, to have made a small-bore, long-stroke V8 for these full-size cars? People wanted V engines; and there were practical reasons for them as well. Why not set up an eight to have the same torque and economy characteristics associated with the six?
I had a 68 Holden 3litre 6 with powerslide horrible car either it didnt want to move or revved its guts out in the low range and still didnt move fast.
Didn’t the six return with the 1977 downsized models? I seem to remember it..
Good point; it did. But they weren’t really “big” anymore.
Hmmm…I remember a discussion, not sure if it was yours…of how the 1977 A-bodies eerily resemble the 1955-57 Chevys, in dimensions and curb weight.
Granted, things were getting bigger by 1965; but they were still closer to 1955 size than to 1972′s.
Not that it detracts from your theme. The car was getting bigger in that era; and the demand for correspondingly-big engines was growing also. And just around the corner were the strangling first-gen smog-regulations and implementation.
I think you would find that the Chevelle was the approximate equal to the mid-50′s Chevy in size and heft. Over at Mopar, the 1965 Belvedere/Coronet was exactly the same size as the 1964 Fury/Polara. Upsizing was on a roll. BTW, I just saw a ’65 Malibu 4-door sedan for sale, original 230ci six and Powerglide. I was thinking that the person that would buy top-line trim with that powertrain and bodystyle would have to have been over 55 years old. Ill post pictures on the flickr site soon.
I never once saw a straight six in a 1977-79 B Body and I bought dozens of them. There were a few 229 V-6s in the 1980 and later Chevys and more than a few 231 V-6s in the Oldsmobiles but the cars were underpowered dogs. Added to that GM put motor mounts that were too small and they constantly broke. You had to drive with the pedal to the metal all the time which negated any fuel economy advantage the smaller motor may have had.
They eventually upgraded the Caprices by the mid 1980s to a Fuel Injected 4.3L pre-Vortec V6 that put out 130-140hp. I would assume those weren’t too bad, probably far better than the 267 V8 could ever hope to be, but they weren’t offered for the Station Wagons which were V8 only.
I think the 1977 Downsized ones were dimensionally closer/or a bit larger compared to the 1961 models than the 1955 models (at least in length and somewhat in weight, but probably narrower). If I can remember off the top of my head the 1961s were 209 or so inches for sedans and coupes and a quick glance at WiKipedia quotes the 1977-90 generation at 212 inches.
The 4.3 was less of a dog than the 267 but they were very rare; I only ever saw one. The 267 was pretty common in the 1980 Chevrolet B Body but the motor was so cheapened out that it didn’t last long. Cast crank and camshafts, fibre timing gears and poor gaskets, along with the thing being basically underpowered, made the the engines die at around 80,000 km.
The 1977 B Bodies were closest in size and weight to the 1964 Chevelles. The frame configuration is practically identical. Have a look here:
http://www.chevellestuff.net/1964/misc/dimensions.htm
The extra equipment of the 1977 such as 5 mph bumpers and side impact beams made the 1977 car about 300 lbs heavier in all instances.
So the 267 is the third member of the unholy trinity otherwise composed of the Ford 255 and Olds 260. All of these engines were late-’70s-early-’80s answers to a question that seems to have been lost in antiquity.
Actually, I was giving the 267 credit for being the only one of the downsized V8s to be any good.
Incidentally, I had some friends who tried to upgrade a 255 with 302 parts, same as people combine Chevy smallblock parts to make 377s, 383s, etc. They didn’t allow for the fact that while Chevy smallblocks are internally balanced, smallblock Fords are externally balanced, and the resulting conglomeration of parts just about shook the fillings out of their teeth.
Yup, the 255 was the ultimate dog. The real issue here was the domestic makers were doing everything possible to avoid switching to fuel injection. Doing so would have given a 305 at least 20% better economy and 20% more power.
I there as also a 4.3 V-8 available in the 1991 Caprice, which was injected, but I have never seen one.
Actually the 4.3L V8 was available from 94-96 in the Caprice Sedan only. It produced, ironically the same 200HP as a concurrent Vortec V6 as I remember (there was a GMC Safari Vortec and a base Caprice in the family at the same time) but it was far smoother. I think there was some tie ins that the new base Caprice V8 was the same displacement as the original 265 V8. Didn’t help sales much tho. Think it was probably good for mid 9 second 0-60 times and 22mpg highway cruising.
My dad bought a beautiful 1966 Impala sport sedan (hardtop) in February, 1968. The car was red with black cloth and vinyl interior. 250 ci. in. six, power glide, power steering, AM radio. That was it.
That was an amazingly gorgeous car! It ran great, had a surprising amount of pep for a large heap with a six and I loved it! My neighbor gave me some “mag” wheel covers, so I took off the factory covers and snapped them on. Of course the wheels were body-color red, but that didn’t seem to matter, as those covers looked good even with the red wheels showing through – at least to us back then, so I just let ‘em alone.
In warm weather, I used to wash and wax that car every Sunday and take it out for a cruise. Man, I loved driving that car! I got that car up to 103 mph on the highway one morning – on a slight upgrade! Never tried that again.
My mother had a ’65 Bel Air 4 door sedan (not the one pictured) with the straight six and three-on-the-tree. It was a really nice car for such a low-end offering, and the six was peppy enough for normal driving which was surprising given the heft of the car.
And it looked good, painted a very nice medium blue color with matching 2-tone blue vinyl and cloth upholstery.
IME many of the older American cars with straight sixes are pretty good choices for DD duty, since less weight on the front end helps handling considerably. It doesn’t cost much to increase the output a bit, too.
Btrig, that’s a beautiful car. Tell us about it.
Oh, I just found that one in a google image search, trying to find one like my mom had. It is quite a beautiful car. Not sure if it’s exactly the same blue, pictures tend to change the color a bit, but I think hers was a bit lighter and had no aqua tone. That could be the lighting though, hard to say.
The ’65 was the first car my mom ever bought. Prior to that she had always made do with what my dad bought without consulting her, and she was fed up with that and ready to finally choose her own car. The times really were a-changin’, even in sleepy, rural PA.
She found the ’65 at a local dealer in Berwick, PA. I believe it was 1969, might have been ’70 — but it was a pretty cherry low mile car at the time, and it cost her $700. I remember her sitting on the bed counting the cash from a shoebox before we went to go get it. She was so excited, and the car seemed really modern and glamorous to me at nine years old. We were (are) working-class country people, the newest car I’d ridden til then was our ’59 Bel Air., and just two years prior we had a ’46 Chevy for mom’s driver!
So, in light of all that it’s entirely possible that the real car today wouldn’t quite stand up to my memory of it. Still, I think it’d be a pretty satisfying ride in 2011. Except living in GA as I do now it’d have to have A/C.
That car was *hot* in the summer time, and while the cloth part of the seats was pleasant enough (woven nylon-like stuff), those wide, vinyl borders around it in hot weather wearing shorts or a skirt were just horrendous. That vinyl can almost take your skin off if you’re not careful!
GM hadn’t yet adopted the cheap “rubbermaid knock-off” interiors, so the ’65′s door panels, window cranks, armrests, and door handles all felt suitably solid. Tasteful chrome and aluminum accents were evident in what I considered just the right proportions.
It’s funny that at the time the marketing made us all feel the Impala was better and prettier, or maybe that was just our style then. But looking back, it’s interesting how often the “lesser” models are actually more tasteful and handsome, like in that rear shot of the blue Bel Air. The taillights just make the car look much more sleek somehow than the Impala with it’s trio per side. Of course that’s just my opinion, not everyone will agree…
That car was a smooth highway cruiser, and we took a number of 300-mile or so trips in it over the years. It was pretty agile on the back roads, too, for a car with a column shifted three-speed and no power steering or brakes. It would be really interesting to find a way to hook up a 5 or 6 speed manual to that six and still have it column shifted… And convert it to R&P steering and power disc brakes. Wow, I’m surprised how much I like the idea, now that you’ve got me thinking about it…
Mom finally traded the faithful Bel Air in on a ’71 VW bug in ’73. Rust was taking its toll, as it usually does in the salt belt.
That bug (and the bug that followed) is a whole other set of memories, not unlike some of Paul’s early Coronet experiences.
The Mennonite family I stayed with during my summers in Iowa bought the exact same car: a turquoise-blue Bel Air sedan with the six, three speed, and nothing else. They had at least six kids, who all fit in when it came to go to church. It served them well for about ten years or so of hard service. And it was a big deal for them too; it had been a demonstrator, so they got a break on the price. But they loved that car, and the girls kept it washed and clean for Sundays. Thanks for reminding me…
Except that the seven main bearing big six was heavier than the small block V-8 and extended its mass forward of the front wheels, degrading handling by a small amount. I swapped out the 250 I-6 for a 283 V-8 in a C-10 Pickup. Handling and fuel mileage improved marginally. The little three-speed was lighter than even the two-speed aluminum-case automatic.
That I didn’t know! I have experienced that just tweaking the timing and mixture for better performance on many of the old sixes easily erases any mileage advantage over the V8. Here all along I thought the V8s were significantly heavier…
I really like the 4.9L straight six in our (5 speed) ’90 F150 though. Not great mileage, but pretty good low-end torque which makes it fun to drive.
The 4.9 litre Ford straight 6 is practically indestructible. It is still sold as a stationary engine for pumps, etc. Great motor, better than anything that replaced it.
Your pix of the 65 Bel Air made me laugh about an incident that happened to me in high school auto shop. A buddy of mine had one of these (6 cyl/3 spd) and it needed new lines to the rear brakes. In our high school train of thought, we used a body jack to lift the whole passenger side of the car so we could access the brake lines. When we couldn’t get to some of the areas, we decided to lift it higher and poof! The Bel Air rolled over onto it’s roof in the auto shop! We got several people and managed to roll it back onto it’s wheels. Once righted, it seemed nothing was wrong with the car. We finished the brake repairs and drove the car home that afternoon, like nothing had ever happened, outside of the strange scratches on the roof!
Geozinger, it’s actually kind of charming that I remember that story now that you recall it. Makes me feel like I am with old friends, Thank you.
I like the 71-76 big Chevy even less than I like the 59. At least the 59 has that out-there styling. I could be convinced to own one of the 70s models, BUT ONLY if it has the 6 and the 3 speed on the column. I think I could enjoy the offbeat pleasure of a huge strippo 73 Bel Air.
The idea of a 6 in an SS – it is just hard for me to fathom GM doing such a thing. This sounds like the kind of obtuse marketing that Chrysler specialized in during that era.
“The idea of a 6 in an SS – it is just hard for me to fathom GM doing such a thing.”
You mean like sticking “SS” on most everything Chevy put out in the mid-2000′s? Sad, but true!
Truth be told however, If my ’64 had a six instead of the 283, I would’ve been happy, as I was (and am) cheap! Whether true or not, the perception of better fuel economy is what I looked at. Everything else was just for looks.
I remember reading the Popular Mechanics owners’ reports on cars and pickups in the 60′s and 70′s, and iirc the reported fuel mileage difference between the 6 and V8 never seemed to be more than 1 or 2 mpg.
It isn’t surprising that the 6-cylinder engines became unavailable in the full-size car lines in the 70′s; after all there were Novas and Chevelles for the more economy-minded folks.
I remember being disappointed by the mileage of the 250 Six in my ’68 el Camino, I saw 18 mpg at most with a three speed standard transmission and averaged 12-14 in daily driving. The six cylinder Mustang I had before returned 17 in daily driving and 21 on the highway with the 200 Six. The Chevy only got 18 with careful compliance to the speed limit (back in the days of the 55 mph speed limit, too!) on that long interstate commute to college.
Yes. My average in my ’64 was a pretty consistent 16 mpg. I rarely drove like a maniac except on occasions when I was “feelin’ it”!
Mostly semi-rural driving to-and-from base to town. That was about all you expect back then. At 24.9¢ per gallon in those days, it still got expensive, as Uncle Sam didn’t pay too well.
I had a similar experience with a Ford Maverick. The car came with a six, and had pretty awful fuel mileage. I thought it would be fun to put a V8 in the car, so a buddy of mine found an old 289/4 bbl for sale and swapped it in. The motor had been rebuilt to stock specs, nothing fancy. A week after the swap I realized I was getting better gas mileage with the V8 than I was the six!
…And the stories continue!
These get better and better, whether here or on TTAC!
I always had suspicion of this myself, that a 4 would have to work so much harder to move the same amount of metal, that it wouldn’t get much better mileage than the 6 when both are offered. Is that a correct assumption generally?
No. This is a very complex issue. Some of these experiences may not be comparing apples to apples. Depending on certain factors, it may sometimes have been the case. But not generally. There was a good reason taxis all used sixes…they counted their nickles and dimes pretty carefully.
If a heavily “smogged” six was replaced by an unsmogged V8, it would certainly be the case. The ignition was retarded during the those days, and made engines run much less efficiently. Sixes really struggled during that era (seventies).
I worked for a Chevy dealer off and on from ’72 until ’74. As I recall, the last full-size “B” body that came with a six was ’72. There were absolutely none in ’73, that I am sure of. Also, the six was not available in the Caprice or Impala Custom but was in the standard Impala, Belair and Biscayne (which was dropped after ’72.) The six cylinder models were distinguished by a tailpipe positioned on the driver’s side of the car. The V8′s were positioned down the passenger side.
Also, there were no six cylinder engines available in Impala convertibles (SS or not)
after ’67.
Sounds Right. My Uncle traded a 63 Bel Air 6 with powerglide for a 72 Bel Air with a 6. Do not remember if it was powerglide or not. Must have been awful since he got a 73 Impala with an 8 a year later. Back at this time some were concerned about the cost of those 2 extra plugs at tune up time.
Great post. I always assumed that the Impala was a V8 only! So how about Galaxie and LTD — were they available as sixes anywhere along the way?
Same basic story. I have vivid memories of riding in my best friend’s family car, a (top of the line) 1965 Fury III with the slant six. It did moan a bit on the hills…
In the case of the Fords in 65-67 the Galaxie 500 XL and Galaxie 500 LTD had the Challenger V8 (289) as the base engine while a “regular” Galaxie 500 and lesser models could still be had with the 6.
If you look at the engine pages picture you posted you’ll see at the bottom of the page * standard 6 not available with Caprice models or Impala Custom Coupe, Sport Sedan, or Convertible. It certainly is possible that mid way through the year Chevy issued a new ordering guide with numbers for a 6 cylinder version. Or the opposite that part way through the model year they noticed they had sold enough to justify keeping it available and it was quietly dropped from the top line models with that little * in the second printing of the brochures. I also seen cases where things that were shown as “available” in the brochure weren’t there in the first or second edition of the ordering guide. Likely a case of the bean counters overruling the marketing people.
I never said that 6 cyls weren’t available in the 59′s just that the advertising and brochures claimed the V8 was “standard” across all lines, purely as a marketing ploy. I also said that it was more likely that you’ll find a V8 in the Sport Sedans and Coupes for the 59′s being that they were the top of the line models, not that it was impossible to get a 6. If the buyer sprang for the top of the line model they likely weren’t looking to save a few dollars with the lower purchase cost of the 6 or the difference in MPG. In the case of the 59 the term “sport” was just how Chevy chose to market the hardtop version.
After reading this for the umpteenth time, I eerily remembered something I had totally forgotten about. How relevant this is to this discussion, I don’t know. In the 1970s after I got out of the service, I tried restoring a 1957 Chevy Bel-Air 2 dr. sedan. I blended two cars, because the body on one was shot and the body on the other was great. Of interest to note: The car with the rusted body was a V-8. The car with the good body was a 6. DIFFERENT FRAMES! The 6-cyl. frame was much smaller in size compared to the V-8. Just throwing that out there.
Unfortunately, I never did finish that project. Naively, I thought I could do a body-off-frame restoration on the cheap – ha! I was too young, eventually got married and sold it in boxes in 1979 for $400 bucks shortly after our son was born! It was finished by the next owner!
Do the 1977+ 6-cylinder Impalas and Caprices count, or would they not be considered “big” Chevys?
Back in 1995 my husband bought a 1965 Impala SS Convertible 6 cylinder that was in storage for many years. The car was covered in pigeon dirt but it cleaned up nice. We’ve taken good care of it the past 17 years. Always garage kept. The VIN starts with 16567 produced in Tarryville, NY. Based on the information we’ve found there was 399 produced in 1965. We’ve talked about selling it several times but haven’t been able to get an accurate value. Any suggestions?