(first posted 6/12/2011) I vividly remember this pretty objective comparison when it arrived in my mailbox in the fall of 1965, and it has colored my perspective ever since, along with my own later experiences. So a little scanning, and here it is: Popular Science writer Jan Norbye takes on the Big Three, gives credit where it’s due, and then in the end tells them all to go back to their workshops and get it right. Which they did, about ten years later, when GM’s excellent B-Bodies came out. Let’s face it, the ’77 GMs really were the first properly sorted out big American cars, ever. But let’s check out the state of the art in 1966 (click on the pictures to enlarge, and use Control + to enlarge further)
The Chevy’s 396/325 hp THM combo creamed the Fury’s 383/325hp Torqueflite and Ford’s 390/315 C6 power trains, with a 0-80 time two to three seconds faster (15.1 seconds). The Chevy’s 0-60 was 8.9 seconds, and although quicker than the others, the gap was not as wide. This supports the Chevy’s better breathing ability at high engine speed.
The Chevy also (barely) wins the ride and handling test “greater handling precision under all conditions”, although with other qualifications “wheel hop on certain washboard surfaces”. For all you predictable arguers of MoPars’ vaunted handling superiority, time stands still for no torsion bar. And keep in mind that Chrysler substantially softened the suspension specs of their big cars, to assuage complaints of noisier and harsher rides compared to Chevy’s Jet-Smooth version. Still, the Plymouth “has the best rough road ride, and is faster than the Chevy on a twisting country road”. The Ford’s wandering front end came in for serious criticism.
The power steering came in for criticism all the way around, as did the power-assisted drum brakes, which were finally approaching the end of the road. Norbye goes on to suggest that serious drivers buy theirs with manual steering and brakes. Not bad advice, if you don’t do a lot of parking. Power drum brakes were atrociously over-sensitive, and ultimately no more powerful.
Norbye’s recommendation? Forget all three, and buy a Malibu, Fairlane or Belvedere instead. So now we can move on and argue which of those three mid-sizers was the best.
So Norbye didnt think much of these in hindsight canr say I blame him but new these were flash The Impala was top othe pile here but we only got the 283 so it couldnt actually outrun GMs Vauxhall Cresta nor did it have as many features as a Viscount or the OZZY Holden Premier it was bigger and that was it Both the Holden and Vauxhall had taken the backward step of fitting powerslide trannys but were not [popular most cars here were manual This about the time people began to realise the OZ built cars were as good or better than the big Mericans more suited to local conditions Chevvy was not even allowed the 123 turn signals in OZ and had little orange lights installed out side the outer tailamp no blinking red lights permitted NZ took em as built but these were very expensive cars My father bought a new 66 Holden man wagon and a Chevvy was double the price they appealed to wealthy farmers and businessmen and were quite a common sight covered in cowshit and mud in my home town, Saturdays at my dads work there was usually a Chev in the workshop having something done and I seemed to be allowed to prowl around out there facinating stuff to an 8 year old havent learnt better yet still mucking about with old cars.
Uncle Ted bought a ’66 Bel Air new, and ran it for about five years. He was a successful butcher who had his own farm and raised his own stock. Many of the businessmen and farmers we remember driving Chevs had probably bought a new Chev every few years since the thirties or so, and may not even have considered a Holden. Any American car was considered very upmarket in those days. A Holden just would not do – that was what the shearers drove!
Hmm, this article does make it seem like a few hard choices. The Fury dashboard seems so much more logically laid out compared to the Galaxie, and less cheap looking than the Impalas. But the rest of the interior of the Galaxie looks more plush. You also forget how aged the V8s in the Ford and Plymouth were at this point. You don’t think of the American V8 evolving that much but the freer breathing, more willing elements of the 396 bring the point home.
But more likely a majority of buyers went home with 283/327 equipped Impalas backed by a Powerglide. That sounds like relative hell compared to a 318 Fury with a Torqueflite, or even a 289 Galaxie with a Cruise-O-Matic. So if I were really logically looking at one of these 3 my choice goes back to the Fury because it’s base V8 combination seems the most liveable.
But most likely in 1966 I would have loaded out a Buick Skylark Four Door Hardtop for about the same money (even with the Turbine Drive 2 speed automatic), or (Being Oldsmobile faithful) really reached deep into my pocket books/weasel a better finance deal for a Dynamic 88 Four Door Hardtop. These 3 were for commoners….
It’s unfortunate that the 327 wasn’t available with Turbo Hydramatic in ’65. If it had been, that would probably be the best combination.
It was ridiculous that General Motors still offered 2 speed automatics past 1965 in every car it would have been better to engineer the Turbo Hydra Matic in different sizes for. Not only the Powerglides at Chevrolet, but I lump in the Jet-a-way especially in its use in the Jetstar/Delmont 88 and the Super Turbine in LeSabres.
It’s not like GM didn’t have the wealth. I think the only GM car that had somewhat of an excuse to still hold onto a 2 Speed automatic was the Corvair, because it was pretty much a lame duck by this point, and they had a better Manual take rate than any other GM car save the Corvette.
But, if I remember correctly, 2 speeds were gone completely at Ford and Chrysler from all cars by 1966, right? You couldn’t get the 2 speed FordOMatic in the Falcon anymore.
You could get from GM a 4speed with over drive for the big Vauxhalls and even Holden had the crap Opel 4 speed on offer but auto boxes lagged behind everyone else for 66
I think 1964 was the last year for the two-speed Fordomatic in Falcons, Fairlanes, and Comets, and 1962 was its last year on full-size cars (I believe it disappeared from the big cars at the same time the 289 replaced the Y-block 292, although compacts and intermediates with the 260 still used the two-speed transmission). Chrysler dropped the two-speed PowerFlite in ’61 or ’62.
GM’s usual argument in favor of the two-speed automatics was that they were lighter, cheaper, less complex, and consumed less power, making them better suited for inexpensive cars. They generally felt that torque converter multiplication (particularly on the Buick and Olds units with the variable-pitch stator), the two-speeds had adequate flexibility — which in proving ground testing was probably true. (The corporate transmission groups, which still set the pattern — if not the production specifics — for most of the divisions’ automatics, were still not that far from the ill-fated Turboglide/Triple Turbine Dynaflow, which had tried to forgo reduction gears entirely.)
I suspect, although I don’t know for sure, that part of the issue was the fact that the divisions using either the earlier four-speed Hydra-Matic or Turbo Hydramatic essentially had to buy the transmissions from Hydra-Matic Division. By contrast, Chevy developed and made Powerglide in house, and the two-speed ST-300 was a joint venture between Buick, Olds, and Pontiac. Aside from divisional pride, it’s possible that buying THMs was expensive enough to make division managers uncomfortable. (That apparently happened from time to time; when Buick made the semi-automatic Automatic Safety Transmission for Olds in 1938, Oldsmobile’s official history says they reportedly charged Olds more for each transmission than Olds felt comfortable passing along to the customer.) My recollection is that the smaller TH300 was jointly developed by Chevrolet and Buick — if I’m remembering that correctly, it would support this theory.
Ford and Chrysler weren’t organized like that, so it wasn’t really an issue for them. Some divisions got engines the others didn’t, and certain items were introduced to some divisions first (TorqueFlite was first introduced on Imperials and Chrysler 300Bs, if memory serves), but it wasn’t quite the same thing.
Don’t think Chevy had anything to do with the 2-speed Super Turbine 300 as they already had the Powerglide. The Turbo-Hydramatic 350 that came out in 1969 was definitely a Chevrolet/Buick effort to offer a much-needed 3-speed automatic for the smaller engines (sixes and V8s up to 350 cid) and was often referred to in engineering circles as the “3-speed Powerglide.” There was even a Corvair version of the THM 350 considered but since that car was nearing end of production, it was not released. Since Chevy built Powerglides, they did not want to use the Turbo-Hydramatic 400 because they would have to actually buy it from the H-M Division, so that transmission was only offered with the larger extra-cost engines (396, 427) through 1966 and then the 327 in big-car and truck applications starting in 1967 and Corvettes in ’68. Besides the PG tooling had long been paid for and it cost $30 less than the THM and competitors 3-speed automatics. Super Turbine 300 was dropped after 1969 while Powerglide lasted until 1973 as an option in 4-cylinder Vegas and 6-cylinder Novas.
In 1964, Buick did offer the 3-speed Super Turbine 400 in the LeSabre with both the 2- and 4-barrel versions of the 300 cid V8 (and the 2-speed ST 300 with the 2-barrel engine) and the Wildcat and Electra 225 with 401s and 425s, while Olds only offered the Jetaway (ST 300) in the Jetstar 88s with the 330 V8, but continued Hydramatics in other big cars with the 394 V8. For 1965, Buick only offered the ST 400 in the LeSabre with the optional 300 4-barrel high compression premium fuel engine (as a package deal called the LeSabre 400) while the standard 2-barrel 300 engine got only the 2-speed ST 300. Over at Pontiac, the Turbo-Hydramatic 400 (ST 400) was offered on all full-sized cars regardless of engine while Oldsmobile offered it on Dynamic and Delta 88s, Starfires, Jetstar Is and Ninety-Eights with the 425 V8 while continuing the Jetaway with the 330 on the Jetstar 88. Thus the best value for an entry-level (above Chevy) full-sized medium-priced car in GM’s stable was the Pontiac Catalina in 1965 as it had a larger (389 cid) standard engine than LeSabre and Jetstar 88 and got the 3-speed Turbo-Hydramatic rather than a 2-speed, as did the competing Mercurys with 3-speed Merc-O-Matics and Dodges and Chryslers with 3-speed TorqueFlites – plus the Pontiac had a lower base sticker price than LeSabre or Jetstar.
Mark, are you sure? According to the brochure, in 1964 the ST 400 was available on the LeSabre Estate wagon, which came standard with the Wildcat 445 (401) V8. But I’m not so sure it came with the 300.
LeSabre Estate Wagons for 1964 did come with the 401 engine rated at 325 horsepower and the Super Turbine 400 transmission – only LeSabre sedans and coupes got the 300 engine. And Buick would drop full-sized wagons for 1965 to concentrate on the stretched-intermediate, raised-roof Sport Wagon.
I don’t have it anymore, but Norbye’s test of the 1965 models came with smaller engines. The Chvy’s 327 (250 hp) Powerglide combo still managed to cream the Ford 352/250 hp C6, and got much better mileage. The Chevy engine had such a wide rpm band that it overcame much of the Powerglide’s limitations. That part I remember vividly; I think the Fury had the 361, and acquitted itself well.
Good point, Paul. I don’t think the average buyer gave two hoots if his Chevy had Powerglide or not. In fact, he probably loved it, because in my entire life I have never even heard of a Powerglide failing. Taxi guys told stories about how indestructible they were.
I grew up driving in the back seat of Powerglide equipped GM cars and I don’t ever recall a driver complaining about it. What we are arguing about is hindsight; sure, multi-speed automatics we have now are better but the cars we have now do not produce the torque of a big V-8 (or six for that matter) and need the extra ratios to keep the motor in the powerband. A 327 V-8 and loads of torque right off the line and right to the 65 mph cruising speed the cars were designed to run at. Sure the three speed was better and it came more into use as the cars got heavier.
Something worth noting is that the Powerglide was immensely popular with drag racers. You would have thought that it would have been the Turbo-Hydromatic but the bullet-proof reputation of the Powerglide made it the choice among the 1320 set (at least the ones using GM products).
The Powerglide was more popular than TH400 in some classes because of its lower power consumption. The TH400 consumed something like 40 hp, while the Powerglide took perhaps 20-25. Highly tuned drag racing engines didn’t necessarily require the extra reduction gear (off the line, it would just produce wheelspin), so having only two speeds wasn’t a particular detriment, and you could add a higher-stall converter to suit the engine tune.
It’s important to note that racing Powerglides were beefed up considerably to withstand that kind of punishment, though. You couldn’t just stick a drag-tuned 427 in a Chevy Nova 6 and expect the stock Powerglide to survive without modification.
POWERGLIDE: I burned up a ’67 Chevy (283/PG), doing a long, ambitious freeway trip (easily over 70mph) in “Low”–wondering why the hell the engine seemed to be working so hard, but too mentally conked to figure it out. The trans was very slippy even the next day, and I had to pony up a few hundred $$ for a semi-rebuild, after which it worked perfectly, and forever.
BODY RUST (Great Lakes): Holes started poking through in the usual spots around 6-7 years. FRAME RUST (= broken frame) killed it at age 11-12, but I was able to drive it to the boneyard (think I got $75 for it).
MEMORIES: Ahh, that’s the car I learned to do a tune-up, brakes, oil change, carb rebuild, etc. on—so basic and simple, and enough room under the hood to reach everything easily.
I first legally drove in a 327/PG Impala wagon. It was quicker than grandpa’s lighter 318/Torqueflite Belvedere, but in the mountains, two speeds and drum brakes had definite limitations. Dad did not order power brakes, but it did have power steering, not nearly as dead feeling as the Plymouth’s. The coil sprung rear axle in the Chevy (beefed up wagon version) actually handled well, even off-road.
Paul, is this the article you’re looking for?
http://books.google.com/books?id=WCYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
Then again, maybe not…looks like the Impala in this one was a 283.
Strange…The 352 equipped Galaxie posted the same 0 to 60 time as the 396 Impala.
Google Books has the entire Popular Science library on file, free.
The test was done by someone named James Whipple; apparently Norbye hadn’t yet hired on or was still working as the European correspondent. That surprised even me; because Norbye was a fixture at PS for, what, nearly 25 years.
I found the 1965 full-size test in the December 1964 issue..The Chevy tested had a 283 V8 and PowerGlide. As for the rest of the test, it was a typical write-up for the era…somewhat more informative than Tom McCahill but not as colorful
URL to the Google Books file is a long one:
http://books.google.com/books?id=WCYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=popular+science+december+1964&hl=en&ei=HLz2Tc6tPMibtwe857yoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=popular%20science%20december%201964&f=false
One problem there–the ’65 did not have the C6. It was new for the ’66 model year. My father used to buy rebuildable wrecks, fix them, drive them awhile, then sell them. He bought a ’65 Galaxie with 390/auto, just like the black one featured recently, but gold with black roof. It got horrendous mileage, something like 8 mpg. Even in the ’60s with 30-cent gasoline, that didn’t cut it with my old man. He next bought a ’66 Galaxie 500 XL with 390/C6. It almost doubled the mileage, to about 15mpg. We kept that car until ’72.
The C6 was definitely available in ’65, I recently aquired 1965 LTD with factory C6.
I think the test 1965 Fury had the 318 engine. I have both the 1965 and 1966 road tests from that magazine. I don’t believe the 361 engine was available in the ’65 Fury… it was 225 6-cyl, 318, 383-2 bbl, 383-4 bbl and 426-Wedge. The 440 was first offered for the 1966 model year.
Make mine a Plymouth VIP with everything and I’m there. The only thing I don’t like about it is the cartoonish dash. I wonder how many mail boxes I could take out with that rear overhang while pulling out of a tight driveway?
How about a Dodge Monaco then? Better-looking outside in my opinion, and they had a beautiful twin-pod instrument cluster.
I guess that begs the question: How much of a better deal were Dodge Polara/Monacos and Pontiac Catalinas compared to the next step down? At least I’d think with the Pontiacs you got better styling, better interior materials and no choice but a Turbo Hydramatic as your Automatic choice.
Well, Mr.Tactful was talking about a Plymouth VIP. While clearly a dressed-up Fury, it was priced to compete with more luxurious cars, so price-wise probably not much of a “step up” to a Monaco. I remember reading a good article on the VIP and its competition. I think it might have been over at AUWM.
EDIT: Ah yes, here it is.
http://ateupwithmotor.com/family-cars/239-plymouth-fury-vip-history.html
The VIP shared showroom space with the Chrysler lineup, and cost almost as much as a Newport. The VIP came standard with a 318. The Newport came standard with a 383. Tough sell on the VIP.
Another factor for some buyers when these cars were new was resale values. The Impala had meaningfully higher resale values than the Ford Galaxie (if not the LTD), and the Galaxie topped the Fury. (I don’t know what VIP resale values were like, but since VIP sales were not great, I dunno that it commanded much of a premium as a used car, although the LTD and Caprice did.) If you bought a car to drive it into the ground, it didn’t matter, but if you traded every two or three years, that was a concern.
The difference was because Chevrolet’s reputation at that point was still of being the higher-quality car, while Plymouth’s reputation was still shaky (a holdover from ’57-’58). A lot of period reviews complained incessantly that mid-sixties Chevys were no longer very well assembled, but I think if you asked the average buyer, they would still have told you that the Chevrolet was the safer buy.
I owned both a 67 Galaxie and a 66 Fury (though about 10 years apart) but not an Impala. As to the Ford and the Plymouth, I would have to agree with Norbye. The Ford was quieter and a smoother ride. The Plymouth was tighter, handled better and gave me an ammeter and a temp guage (although the Ford used a “cold” light that went out when the engine reached operating temp).
It is true that 1966 was the year that Chrysler softened the spring rates to improve the ride. If you want a torsion bar Mopar that was the real deal, stick with 1965 and earlier, or else you needed the HD suspension option.
What Norbye was too timid to say was that the Impala had a fairly shaky structure. This has always been a “thing” with me. I just don’t like cars that you can feel bending, twisting and shaking.
The real winner, of course, was created with the optional equipment list. It would have to be a Sport Fury with the 440, HD suspension and disk brakes. Ford couldn’t match the engines and Chevy couldn’t match the brakes, handling or structural rigidity.
The real winner, of course, was created with the optional equipment list. It would have to be a Sport Fury with the 440, HD suspension and disk brakes. Ford couldn’t match the engines and Chevy couldn’t match the brakes, handling or structural rigidity.
I would agree completely on the Sport Fury ordering options for the best performance, except that, in 1966, HD suspension and the Budd disc brakes were mutually exclusive options on Mopar C-bodies. At least an antisway bar came standard if you ordered a big block, even without the HD suspension.
I actually was not aware that the standard torsion bars were a larger diameter in 1965 than 1966, since I have no torsion bar data for 1965. I’ll have to look that up.
EDIT: Having read the article closely, they state that softer REAR (leaf) springs were fitted for 1966, so I suspect that the (front) torsion bar specs were unchanged from 1965-66.
You may be right that the 66 torsion bars were unchanged. The Oct 65 Popular Science new car roundup refers to softer rear springs on the 66 Fury, along with re-valved shocks for a softer ride. I just recall reading a road test in one of the magazines that the 66 Fury was a softer handler than the 65 model. Maybe it was just the rear leaves and the shocks. I just knew that the 66 Fury that I had never felt quite as sure of itself as the 59 Fury I owned some years earlier.
In our family we had use of a 1966 Impala (“company car”) and two 1968 Galaxie 500s (one a company car to replace the Impala; the other our own, based on experiences of the other.
I don’t recall what the engine/transmission setup was in the Impala. It was certainly a THM and not a PowerGlide; we’d used it a lot as a family and a neighbor had a BelAir with a PowerGlide…a herky-jerky setup. So, whatever the engine, it had the state-of-the-art automatic.
That said…the Chevy was cheap erzatz chrome everywhere and assembly problems. A divider actually came loose on the dash behind the plastic cover…a metal bar that was part of the division between the speedometer section and the clock. Just hung there, twisted somewhat…vibrated out of place and pinched.
My old man was NOT impressed with that car. He had run the roster…GM, Ford, and AMC. Rambler was a joke – when he got the Impala, he owned one. Fords, from his memory, rusted faster than he could pay for them. MoPar was slap-and-dash, ever since he first entered into the new-car market in the 1950s.
The Galaxie was quiet, soft-riding, with an interior that suggested someone actually looked at the design before signing off on it. That it wasn’t a corner-cutter, that it wallowed in the sweepers, wasn’t really a concern for him. Or most people.
He gambled that Ford had beaten the rust problem. As it turned out, he lost; the Galaxie he bought, rusted through on the frame in five years.
All I can offer is my personal experience.
In February, 1968, dad needed another car – our 1960 Impala was about done for. We went to the nearest Chevy dealer to look around and he found a beautiful 1966 red w/black interior Impala sports sedan. He bought it. Of course, back then, it was pretty much “you pay your money, you take your chance”. Well, I noticed the temp gauge going up, up, up on the way home – someone forgot to put coolant in it at the dealer! I took care of that real quick, no problems. It needed a brake job immediately, too.
After those issues, this was one very fine car. It had a 250 cu. in. six with powerglide, power steering, AM radio and that was it! As I said, it was a beautiful car that I took good care of for dad by washing and waxing it, making sure all fluids and everything else was maintained and he let me take it out and cruise almost whenever I wanted.
To this day my buddy back in Missouri and I refer to it as “the red heap” quite affectionately! In fact, the first question he asked me when I bought my 2004 Impala was: “Is it red?” When I told him “no”, he called me an idiot, shoulda got a red one! Maybe next time!
Dad had that car until the day he retired in Oct. 1973. By that time, the car was shot – he really didn’t take good care of it while I was in the air force for four years. Rust had taken its toll, he let it run out of oil and had to get an engine. He got lots of car washes when they used those spinning brushes and the paint was shot. Well, I made a deal with him and mom. When I got out of the military and came home a couple of months earlier, I bought a 1970 Duster that was not a great car, but with the oil “shortage” going on then, smaller cars were fetching a dear price. The day I picked dad up at work for the last time, I happened to stop at that same Chevy dealer and found a gorgeous 1972 Nova. Well, I gave them my Duster and took the Imp and traded it for that Nova. I think I got $250.00 for it! Anyway, all were happy and after dad died in 1978, mom drove that Duster for a few months until she bought her very first new car – the 1979 AMC Concord.
Long story, but that 1966 Impala was the inspiration for the Impala I drive now. It is, in my opinion, the closest I could come to buying and owning “my dad’s car” which I loved so much! A great car through-and-through!
Zackman, you remind me of another gripe I had with GM cars of this era. GM continued to use laquer paint into the early 80s. A friend who was a body and fender guy at the time told me that laquer went on smoother and was easier to blend in repairs. However the tradeoff was that it was comparatively soft. This is why GM cars weathered badly. A local funeral home ran its silver cars through the carwash almost every morning. The paint finishes looked like crap by the time the car was 2 years old because the carwash brushes had beaten the soft finish so badly.
Ford, Chrysler (and I believe AMC) all used enamel. It was less forgiving when sprayed on initially (which explains a lot of those bad paint jobs I saw on Mopars back then) but it had a much harder finish and stood up to weather and carwashes much better
GM finally went to enamel some time in the 80s, IIRC.
Also, are you sure that your dad’s Impala had a temp guage? The only guages I ever saw on the dash of a 60s GM car were for speed and fuel. Idiot lights for the rest.
And the irony here was GM advertised their lacquer paint as “Magic Mirror” and actually told customers that it never needed to be waxed!
Remember the plethora of car repainting places in those days? I also remember said paint shops advertising all over TV at the time.
I grew up in Quebec and in those days, a five year old car was ancient. It would have holes in it (big ones) and frame rust was infamous for Fords. There was an enormous industry in fixing rust and repainting these cars and it didn’t matter. A year after you had you car “fixed,” the rust would bubble up from under the Bondo anyway.
@JP:
W-a-i-t a minute…you’re correct – sorry if my 60-year-old brain doesn’t recall all the details – the temp idiot light did come on about a mile and a half from our house. I pulled the car over near a gas station, walked across the street to it and borrowed a container full of water to refill the radiator to get us home, then took care of the rest.
Yep, just a gas gauge and speedometer. All idiot lights! Chrysler still had a few actual gauges, I believe. My ’64 had a cold idiot light – gree, a hot idiot light – red, an alternator light and another can’t-remember-light. Four total all in a row, vertically displayed. Stupid.
High beam warning light?
@JP: you are aware that the silver (really any metallic paints) of the time actually had metallic flakes in it that helped to break down the paint (particularly in bright sun), yes? My father had a 1968 Mercury Montego with a metallic green finish that didn’t live to see it’s fourth birthday before the paint was dull and flaking. Admittedly the environment near the steel mills was pretty corrosive between acid rain and the ferrous dust in the air. But we took pretty decent care of our cars, it wasn’t like this car (and the ones to follow) weren’t waxed or garaged. We had a similar problem with our 1972 Mercury Montego (see a pattern here?) with metallic blue paint. My brother’s 1971 Charger SE had a nice metallic gold paint; same problem. Solid non metallic paints were the only ones that held up well.
This problem only worsened when the mfrs went to the two stage paints, the metallic heated up the clear coat and helped to bake it from both sides. By the late 90’s it all got sorted out (mostly), but even my 2009 Pontiac, with midnight metallic blue clear coat, sits in the garage when we’re not driving it…
Geozinger, my bodyman friend told me that the problem was the amount of clear that was used in the paint formula. Colors with a lot of clear had less pigment to block the sun from getting into the paint, which would heat the aluminum particles in metallic colors and sort of cook the paint from the inside out. Colors like silver which used a lot of clear were the worst. The more pigment in the paint the better the finish would last. Dark blues, greens and browns, even though metallic, generally held up pretty well.
He told me this before the days of base/clear coat finishes, but this explanation would seem to square with the breakdown of clearcoat finishes that spend too much time in the sun.
I think I know the green you mean. A light silvery-green? We had a ’67 Falcon in that colour. Looked lovely when new, but we lived by the sea and it was only garaged sometimes, so it weathered badly. It didn’t flake, but did lose its shine early, as you say. I remember washing it every weekend – it was only nice and shiny when it was wet!
JP, Are you sure of that?
I had a 74 Chevy Nova and it had the owner’s manual and by then, the cars used acrylic enamel. It was the latest paint back in the day, has been in use since the mid 60’s as you say to replace the older lacquer enamels as it was soft and discolored easily with certain chemicals such as spilled gasoline.
Also, lacquer required it be buffed out to gain its shine, Acrylic (resin) enamels don’t and go on shiny, which was the paint dujor from the mid 60’s and through the 80’s before the advent of clear-coating and later water based paints found on cars today, and it’s this later types of paints that has allowed cars today keep their shiny finishes for a very long time, as long as 20 years with reasonable care.
I did the research on automotive finishes for my online journal in Dec of last year.
My parents bought a 1965 Chevrolet Bel Air wagon with the 283 V-8 and Powerglide. It was bought as a used car in 1968 from the local Dodge dealer – it had been owned by someone my father knew, so he felt comfortable buying it.
Even as a kid, I thought that the Chevrolet was cheap. The plastichrome on the door panels and armrest base started peeling off within a year or two. The car wasn’t especially reliable, and it was later recalled for the infamous motor-mount problem in the early 1970s. By 1972, the car was essentially shot, with a little over 100,000 miles on the odometer.
Perhaps it was because of impression left by this car, but I was never impressed with mid- and late-1960s Chevrolets. Chevrolet seemed to be riding on laurels won in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The styling, however, was great – particularly the 1965 and 1966 full-size cars.
Regarding the trade-in value comparison – in his book, On a Clear Day, You Can See General Motors, John DeLorean claims that, at the beginning of the 1960s, a used Chevrolet brought $200 more than a comparable Ford. By the end of the decade, the gap had been closed. A retired Ford employee who worked in the field told me the same thing, and that Ford worked hard to close this gap in the 1960s. I’ve also had a few “oldtimers” tell me that while we may laugh at the ads now, the “Quieter than a Rolls-Royce” theme for 1965 really got people’s attention, and made them take another look at the Ford.
Post-1964 Fords had rust problems with the frame, but I believe that Chevrolet had rust problems, too. And the motor-mount recall, which affected all V-8 equipped Chevrolets built between 1965 and 1969, was a HUGE story – easily as big as the Toyota unintended acceleration fiasco story. I wasn’t even 10 years old in 1971, and I can remember my parents talking about taking the car in to have it checked.
I also agree with posters that handling wasn’t a big concern with car buyers at this time. They wanted a smooth ride and a low level of interior noise. That is why Ford’s all-new 1965 big cars made such a strong impression, and why Chrysler’s better handling with the torsion-bar front suspension could only take sales to a certain point. The people who bought these cars simply were not interested in taking their car to the race track or driving it fast on a two-lane back road. They wanted luxury, quiet and refinement in their daily drivers.
geeber, ALL cars back then had rust problems. Fact is, if you bought a car new, if it lasted two years without any sign of rust, you were doing well. True. As far as Ford “closing the gap” with GM, all I can relate to is the 1968 Ford Torino 2 dr. hardtop mom, dad and I looked at before buying the 1966 Chevy – it was very nice – he just couldn’t afford ANY new car, but that would’ve been the one if he could!
Zackman,
Despite the experience with the Chevrolet, my parents stuck with GM cars. In June 1972, they bought a neighbor’s 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 Holiday sedan with 19,000 miles on the odometer. He and his wife were retired, and they never had children. The car was never even driven in the rain. (He drove a Chevrolet pick-up as a daily driver, and his wife had never learned how to drive.)
That car was tough as nails, and had no rust on it when they traded it in April 1977 with 113,000 miles on the odometer for a slightly used 1976 Delta 88 Royale hardtop sedan. Which was also a good, reliable car (even though the body was willowy).
After that Bel Air, my mother wouldn’t let my father even look at a Chevrolet for the “good” car (which was the one that she drove). It had to be either an Oldsmobile or a Buick.
geeber, you get what you pay for. The Olds cars were always much better than the Chevrolet products. The quality of the interiors in particular was far better but you have to remember, they cost a whole lot more.
100,000 miles was the end of the line for any 60’s car, by the way.
100,000K? Yes. You were ahead of the game if you didn’t have major issues at 50K!
Also, the GM divisions were still independent and still offered better quality the higher up the ladder you went.
EXCEPT for the stupid carburetors and “automatic” chokes regardless of all makes and models!
Zackman,
As I recall, the Oldsmobiles went 100,000 miles without any major issues. They were very tough cars. The Chevy…not so much. About a month before my parents traded the 1967 Olds (when it had about 113,000 miles on the odometer), I remember my mother saying, “This car just isn’t the same; the power isn’t there anymore.” Looking back, I believe the transmission was starting to slip.
Allowing the different divisions more autonomy did increase costs, but it also helped the corporation by limiting potential quality problems to one division. A good example is the motor-mount recall…Chevrolet was affected, but the rest of the GM divisions were not, as they had all switched to a stronger motor mount by 1965.
Even with all of the bad publicity surrounding Chevrolet, my parents had no qualms about buying an Oldsmobile in 1972.
Of course, the beancounters saw an easy way to cut costs by eroding the autonomy of the divisions, so they did, and GM ended up paying a very heavy price in the long run.
Yes, they certainly did. They are still paying for it today, too, ever since the Chevy-engine-in-everything 1980’s!
My 66 LeSabre 340 was still running good at 150,000 miles without a rebuild and with the original transmission. I parked it in 1992 when frame rust made it unsafe. It’s sitting at the cottage, and the interior is still perfect except for a tear in the seam in the front seat.
@Zackman & Geeber: There was a reason why car loans were only 36 months back in the day. The only cars that held up well in steel country were the GM’s. Well, not counting the Vega… And yes, 100K miles on a car back then, it was done. I have a 14 year old Chevy Cavalier as a daily driver. At 249,000+ miles, it’s still mechanically sound enough to take on long drives. 30 years ago, if you had a 15 year old car, it was usually a garage queen of some kind, not a daily driver, for sure. If it had 200,000+ miles it was probably blowing smoke and leaking all of it’s fluids. We’ve come a long way, baby.
I came from a Ford family, my wife’s people were mostly Oldsmobile drivers. Once I started driving them, I became aware of how much better they were than the Fords of my childhood. It’s a shame the oldest manufacturer in the US didn’t survive, but the game has changed so much in the last 10 years, that what was once a cheap Chevy is now a car that is the equivalent of the dear departed Oldsmobiles. In the last 10 years or so, the best running cars I’ve had have been middle of the road Chevys. We’ve come a long way baby…
You’re not kidding, geo! So right.
Although my dad’s ’66 Impala was still beautiful after 4 years until I entered the service – car was 4 years old at the time, it deteriorated rapidly after that, as my dad didn’t maintain anything, as noted earlier. So sad, ’cause I loved that car and hated to see it in progressively worse shape every time I came home on leave.
Leaded fuel did nothing for engine longevity unleaded engines last much better
Geozinger: If it had 200,000+ miles it was probably blowing smoke and leaking all of it’s fluids.
It would help if most people weren’t so lazy about doing oil changes and other regular maintenance. My dad’s 66 Chrysler still has 50psi oil pressure at idle, compression is in spec, and doesn’t blow any oil smoke. It has at least 150,000mi on the engine (hard to say, the odometer was broken for awhile) and has never been apart aside from the valvecovers. It was burning oil at startup for awhile because the valve seals had disintegrated, but he fixed that about 8 years ago with an on-engine valvespring compressor to remove the valvesprings and replace the seals.
EDIT: In all fairness, I forgot that he did drop the oil pan and to replace the rear main seal a few years ago because it started leaking oil.
Our 78 Olds diesel is similarly all original. As you surely know, these engines were notoriously bad for self-destructing, and this one is an early example of its kind. We do 3000mi oil changes with diesel-grade oil. The rocker pivots needed to be replaced a few years ago, but other than that the engine internals are all original. This car is daily-driven all summer.
@Bryce: I didn’t see anyone mention leaded versus unleaded fuels??? You’re making a large generalization. Leaded fuel has very little to do with engine longevity, with one notable exception. Lead was originally added to gas to stop the exhaust valve seals from burning. The lead provided a sacrificial coating on the valve faces. Engines not designed for unleaded gas will eventually need their cylinder heads overhauled and hardened valve seals installed to accomodate unleaded gas. Engines built for unleaded gas had hardened valve seal inserted installed in the heads from the factory.
A more important point is the removal of zinc or “ZDDP” from newer motor oils. Earlier motor oils had a lot of zinc in them, which provided a sacrificial coating for cam/lifter faces, piston ring-to-cylinder wall and bearing surfaces, for protection when starting and momentary loss of oil pressure. Modern engines cannot run oil with much zinc because any zinc that gets burned will foul the catalytic converter. New engines have roller cams, moly rings, etc. so they can live happily without zinc in the oil. These newer oils are not good for older engines though.
With the removal of lead from gas and zinc from oil, older engines are victims of planned obsolescence.
You’re also making an unfair comparison because newer engines with EFI can self-tune on-the-fly to operating conditions, keeping combustion chambers and spark plugs cleaner for much longer periods. Now combine that with platinum-tipped spark plugs, which have electrodes that don’t burn away nearly as fast as copper electrodes, so they don’t need to be removed and regapped. Those kind of advances have pushed scheduled service intervals much farther than in the past.
Basically a lot of engine longevity comes back to doing proper maintenance; if owners of cars “back in the day” performed the maintenance that was required for the engines of the day, those engines would have lasted longer than they did in practice.
Your story reminds my of my buddy’s dad’s 1963 Buick Electra 4 door hardtop!
I’ll save the story when we repainted it for him for another time. You and geozinger will love it!
My first car was a ’66 Impala convertible, 283/Powerglide, Artesian Turquoise with Turquoise interior, bought from my sister in ’71 when she got a new Charger. I loved the independence that having a car gave a 17-year-old, but right from the start hated the drivetrain. At highway speeds there were two choices of acceleration. Either give it a little gas to avoid tripping the kickdown and accelerate slowly because there’s not enough throttle, or floor it, have the transmission kick down, accelerate a little quicker, and have to listen to the screaming of the 283 (not a pleasant scream, either, more of a “why are you torturing me?” scream). Luckily the small block was a strong little engine and withstood my youthful indiscretions.
Oh yeah, I had forgotten about the engine mount recall. I was amused when the car came back from service with the engine tied down with some pretty stout cables. It was like “Yeah, that’s not going anywhere even if the mount does break.”
You have to think of what a 283 was in today’s context. It was rated at 190 hp but that was gross, not net. The net would be somewhere around 150 or even 140. In a big heavy car, you are never going to get big acceleration out of it.
I finally got around to reading the magazine article, and was surprised at how critical (both in the sense of objective analysis and negativity) Norbye’s report was. I thought that PM and and PS car reports would be more like “puff pieces” than the road tests in R&T or C&D. Maybe Norbye still had fresh memories of European cars … he was Swedish, no? At the time a Volvo 122S or Peugeot 404 handled and braked a sports sedan compared to a full-size Detroit car.
We did have a ’66 Impala with the 396/THM combo in the family, my uncle in El Paso. It was light yellow with a black interior, sharp. I still think the ’66 is the most cleanly styled big Chevy of all time. The 396 ate up long stretches of desert highway, but I dont think it handled as well in the twisties, as the engine was heavier than the small block.
Interesting cars in this test: The Impala sedan with a 396, TH transmission and further equipped with the tilt/telescope steering wheel (usually a Caprice ordered option), air conditioning, power windows, and an am/fm & multiplex stereo as indicated by the bank of control knobs under the dashboard. The Galaxie sedan appears to have air conditioning and the 8 track stereo player mounted under the dash. In contrast, the Fury appears rather plain, no air conditioning or any other significant options.
I would have preferred the Impala equipped this way. Both the Ford and Plymouth could be optioned similarly except the Ford didn’t offer a tilt wheel. A tilt/telescope wheel called Tilt-a-scope was available on Plymouths.
My grandmother bought a used 66 Biscayne in 1969–250 with glide and drove it untill 1985 with a repaint done about 1979.
Call me prejudiced, but I’ll take the 1966 Ambassador DPL–unitized construction, coil spring seats, Temperature Guage, Deep-Dip Rustproofing, Sensible size (116″ wheelbase) and beautiful Dick Teague styling.
That was my initial thought too, but then I think I’d wait a year. The ’67 loses the “old lump” 327 and the torque tube. I think either one, ’66 or ’67, would outdrive the Big 3 offerings. My biased opinion, of course.
One car blog, maybe this one, ran an article on how under-tired all of these cars were. To save a nickel, GM put their full-size, 4,000 lb cars on skinny 14″ tires. I suspect all of these cars would have ridden and handled better with decent-sized tires, but profit was the name of the game.
That and cheap shocks. American carmakers evidently had no desire to get ahead of their typical customers in improvements to roadholding, unless they forked over the dough. That PS article suggests to me that the Malaise Era started before the ’70s; the field was ripe for picking by Japan.
The 1970 Conti MkIII was the first American car with Michelin X radials standard. Of course, it was already a high-profit model, no sweat.
Now much better-handling is available as std., but few people drive like they care about it.
Buick used 15-inch wheels on its ’66 full-sized cars and Rivieras. Only Ford and Mercury used that same size wheel on all its big cars at that time.
That was us right here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/how-gm-nickled-and-dimed-americans-to-death-part-1-undersized-tires/
I got a lot of blowback for that, but it was true. And by 1970, the tires and wheels were much beefier. I attribute the change between 1965 and 1970 directly to Nader’s Book “Unsafe At Any Speed” as well as folks like Norbye and others who were always complaining about the bad handling of big American cars.
Especially GM cars after about 1970 started to have bigger tires, wheels better brakes and improved handling. It was a big change from 1965.
Even today, I notice German cars have larger-diameter disk brakes than typical. Having seen German driving (not just Autobahns), this is unsurprising.
My neighbor just bought a 2013 MB SL550.
I have no doubt what you say is true. I also recall as one of GM’s internal mandates, that all cars must have sufficient clearance for tire chains through full suspension travel and full right and left hand turns. This may have limited tire and wheel sizes as well.
Bob
My ’68 Impala had the extra-cost optional 15 inch wheels. First time I had the tires rotated, the shop called to tell me the spare was a 14. Cars were so sloppily made back then.
I recently changed out the optional Infinity speakers in my 2002 Durango that were starting to blow out. Of the 6 x 6 speakers in the four doors, three had very large magnets and were clearly marked Chrysler / Infinity. The driver door speaker was the lower cost standard speaker. Who says things don’t stay the same?
My Dad had a ’68 Impala, I think it was a rare dealer or customer who specked the 15 inch wheels that year. Chevy literally stamped out about four million Impala wheel covers that year, finding one that would fit a 15 inch wheel would be a needle in a really big haystack.
My Grandma had a 66 Biscayne with 6cyl powerglide and never complained about performance–she wouldn’t have known what trans and engine if you asked–and thats who these cars were built for. I was going to ask what that panel under the heater controls were but I think someone said it was radio controls–anyone know what each knob did? I do remember it had a cold light in the dash so you knew when you could crank up the heat. I’ve seen 66 Chevs with bucket seats and console—the console has all the missing gauges just like an early Camaro.
“–anyone know what each knob did?”
That unit is the Stereo Multiplex Adapter. The AM/FM head unit was not Stereo unless you added this option.
The radio controls were used to turn the set on and tune the station.
The under dash knobs from left control Volume, Tone, Balance (left right) and Front-Rear.
A small plaque between the Tone and Balance knobs says “Stereo” and a small Chevy Bow-Tie logo lights up when tuned to a stereo station.
This unit is not the eight track player. That under dash unit had the same controls, but added the eight track player as well. The eight track may not have been available until 1967.
Source: 1967 Owners Manual. The cover of which is my avatar. My Grandfather had the eight track in his 1967 Caprice. I have the option marketing materials as well that promote these options.
The featured Impala is one seriously loaded sedan. Some Caprice hardtops had this level of equipment, but Impalas rarely had this much in one car. Chevy sent a loaded Impala to this test, and Plymouth provided a Fury II (equivalent to Chevy Bel-Air level trim) with few options. The Ford Galaxie 500 is the right trim level equipped a bit heavy for the average production car in this class in 1966.
From the manual……
Most owners then, didn’t care about whether it was 2, 3 or 4 speeds, just that it was “an automatic, no clutch!”. To many middle class grown-ups in the 60’s, an auto trans was a luxury that became newly obtainable, like a TV or A/C.
The comments on Ford’s power steering in ’66 could apply just as well up to ’83 at least. I remember absolutely hating driving my brother’s ’83 T-bird for that exact reason. He had it all over my then ’82 Olds 88 for the “cool” factor, but as far as handling went, there was no contest.
It seems almost bizarre that these cars were within reach of the average american in the 1960s, while europeans where puttering around in Ford Cortinas and Opel Rekords… And those were nice cars, alot of people used beetles and such as family cars.
I think part of this was because Americans had really cheap gas and no tax on engine sizes like Europe. Also the cars tested were far better equipped than typical Fords, Chevys and Plymouths I recall in that day.
This is still somewhat true today. In Europe a Ford Focus would be considered a “midsize” car. Here in the US a Fusion would be.
Bob
America has always had a higher median income than Western Europe, and back then the difference was even greater. And gas was cheap, taxes low, and credit was very readily available.
Even today, a car such as the Mustang GT 5.0 is much more “affordable” in America than in Europe, for initial purchase, taxes and licenses, and fuel.
The Chevy looks like my Vauxhall PC Cresta scaled up.They were all great looking cars despite being a Ford fan I’d be hard pressed to pick a favourite.
Also, don’t forget the Ford was “Quieter than a Rolls Royce” as proven in TV ads.
The first road tests I ever read were in Popular Science as well. There were no car magazines at my school’s library, PS was as close as it got so that’s what I read.
I also remember old road test articles, one of my favorite being a comparo in PS between a Peugeot 504, Citroen DS and I believe a Volvo.
I’ve always been of the opinion that 60s Chevys were better than 60s Fords and Chryslers in the ride and handing department. It’s nice to see an article confirm that since I’ve never driven any of them! That was for sure the case in 70s and I just assumed the 60s were the same.
The thing I’ve never liked about American cars of the 1960s is that they had plenty of acceleration, but couldn’t stop worth s—. It’s as if people of the time cared more about the ability to go than to stop. That has never made any sense to me. What good is driving any vehicle if you cannot control its speed or direction?
Supposedly Ettore Bugatti said, “I builda my cars to go, notta to stop!” Thus his cars having mechanical brakes, like Fords of the day.
“Never mind them brakes” — Jerry Reed, “Eastbound and Down”
They didn’t corner or handle well either. In America in the ’60’s handling meant ease of parking.
In those days 0 to 60 (mph) and 1/4 mile times were king for performance. Otherwise just a smooth quiet ride.
I agree with Bob G concerning handling. Just look at the pictures above. The Galaxie is about to roll over.
Also, drum brakes were the norm back then. We had to wait till the early ’70s just to get discs on the front end.
Honestly, they just are not that bad as daily drivers. I had a ’67 Galaxie 500 coupe 390 with PS and manual drum brakes. It rode, drove, and stopped quite adequately 95% of the time, and looked spectacular doing it 100% of the time.
Handling, braking and ride could have been better with even the technology of 1967, but keep in mind that Grandma could usually get these cars to church and back without landing in the neighbor’s hedge.
In the ‘good old days’ and ‘muscle car era’, it was “bad luck” to talk about car accidents. So, makers bragged about HP, 0-60, and comfort.
What is constantly forgotten is that US-made cars could be customized in a way not comparable in Europe, that is, the same body style could be ordered with practically anything in the way of equipment. In Europe, there were maybe two or three equipment _packages_ with not many options, you had a given engine to go with a given suspension set up and that was it. So if you were prepared to spend some time with the option books, you could have (say) an Impala with hi-po 396 or even 427 ci engine, TH400 or 4 sp manual, disc brakes, heavy duty handling package and so on. Externally the car would look like aunt Agatha’s Powerglide 250 six but, dynamically, you would have had something which could go head to head with a Jaguar Mk ix or a Mercedes Benz 300 SEL in so far as overall performance was concerned. Nothing like this was possible for the equivalent Opel; if you wanted a fast Record, you had to order an Admiral or a Kapitan, both of which were one or two classes above the Record and FAR more expensive, on relative terms, than my fully-optioned Impala would have been when compared with the base model.
The 396 Impalas with the THM were the stars of the police departments where I grew up; they could rundown and outrun pretty much anything on the road at the time.
I question the state of tune in the 383 Fury. Hard to believe the BIG difference between acceleration times of the Chevy & Plymouth!
I’ve driven several 383/TorqueFlite full sized Mopars; “slow” never came to mind!
Also, “regular guy” availability of the test Chevy is questionable? An Impala with a 283 or 327 and 2 speed PowerGlide would had been more likely than the test car’s 396/3 speed TurboHydramatic??
They tested the 1965 versions with the smaller V8s, so for 1966 they specifically specified larger V8s. It’s not like it was a 425 hp 427.
Somthing seems strange regarding the Chevrolet’s performance to me. How could the Impala hit 80 in 15.1 ticks and then cross the quarter mile at 17.0 when the Fury takes 17.2 to reach 80 and then only .01 seconds later finish the quarter mile? What gives?
At my advanced age (60), I recall LOTS of: 289/cruise-a-matic Galaxies, 318/TorqueFlite Furies and 283/327 2speed PowerGlides on used car lots and being schlepped around town as hand-me-down family cars….but I cannot honestly recall EVER seeing/riding in a hand-me-down 396/TurboHydramatic Impala.
Mark, it took a very special person to order such a combination on a 4 door car (see my post above)… But it happened, these cars pop-up from time to time for sale, to command a lot more money than would be the case for a bread-and-butter 4 door sedan.
You have been in my driveway again. My first car years ago was a Boring Beige 66 Bel Air 4 door. 250 inline 6, Powerglide, power steering and manual brakes. 55 in L then lug in D. Not a bad get around car but not very inspired either.
I had a 66 Dart GT with the torsion bar suspension. It was a great handleing car. It didn’t stop so good. (seat belts were even an option) The rear leafs were installed by my brother by adding an additional main spring with the ends cut off. I one time had it flying Dukes of Hazard style and looked down at a state police car. The car made a perfect 4 point landing and bounced 3 times and kept going. No damage. The springs sucked it all up. The police were not happy and felt the Dukes had come to town. I drove it for 498,000 miles before I sold it as I was tired of fixing rust. In the end, it had been updated with Rack & pinion, McPherson struts, and disk brakes.
Nice to read a car test with some criticism besides piddly things such as trim or hard to use navigation. Navigation in these cars was folded up in the glove box. The 9 second 0-60 and 17 second 1/4 mile with big blocks and 3 speed auto’s are slower than many today with 4 cylinder engines and automatic trans. And of course fuel economy is at least double from what these cars would do. At least mid size cars are capable of this, though these are full size cars. All were 4 door post cars, interesting. Probably a little tighter without a hardtop. But these 3 are great looking cars, that’s one area where many newer cars are lacking. Love reading these old road tests.
2014 Ford Fusion S 2.5L [3.07:1] | 0-60 MPH: 8.9 sec | 1/4 MILE: 16.6 sec
1966 Ford Galaxie 500 [3.00:1] | 0-60 MPH: 9.2 sec | 1/4 Mile: 18.0 sec
———————
2014 Chevrolet Impala LS 2.5L [3.23:1] | 0-60 MPH: 8.4 sec | 1/4 MILE: 16.3 sec
1966 Chevrolet Impala [2.73:1] | 0-60 MPH: 8.9 sec | 1/4 MILE: 17.0 sec
Both the 2014 Chevrolet and Ford are both 6 speed automatics
———————-
I would imagine these are as mainstream as the ones tested, was not sure for the Fury so I left it out, those were also done on skinny bias ply 1966 rubber, I would be shocked if the new versions have any better gearing. I’m not knocking the new ones at all btw.
Good catch on the rubber – fit the older cars with modern, sticky rubber and see those times tumble.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Most current Impalas have the V6, which is decidedly faster. You need to compare the four cylinder Impala with a 1966 six cylinder, or the 283/PG.
Same thing applies to the Fords.
I can’t find the sales numbers, but I was researching both of these before and iirc the 4 bangers were supposed to edge the v6s out in sales numbers.
Either way they arent that far off from your run of the mill 4 banger Impala/Fusion.
The 14 and up V6 Impala is 6.7 to 60 and 15.0 in the 1/4 with 245/50/20s, and shockingly a 2.77 fdr. And the 13′ and up Fusion dropped the V6 in favor of a ecoboost 2.0 i4.
And the Impala I am mentioning is the current (10th?) gen version, the prior 9th is still in production until 2016 from what I understand.
Anyways, this is a very cool find, I really like these old reviews/road tests and videos.
Two interesting things about this test. First, these are mainstream models – no LTDs, VIPs, or Caprices here. Second, the Fury II is a surprising choice, as the Fury III is the model comparable to the Ford and Chevy:
Ford: LTD / Galaxie 500 XL / Galaxie 500 / Custom 500 / Custom
Chevy: Caprice / Impala SuperSport / Impala / Bel Air / Biscayne
Plymouth: VIP / Sport Fury / Fury III / Fury II / Fury I
Fury II’s were actually kind of rare, either Civilian III’s or fleet/budget I’s were seen often. Cousins family got a ’69 Fury II used, and I was like ‘wow a II’.
I liked reading the posts with actual owner experience, instead of the usual brand loyalty bickering.
While a fan of old Chevys, I see the limitations of the cars, instead of just thinking ‘well they looked better back then’. I see why my Grandparents bought Buicks instead of Chevys, and see why some other relatives got Fords and Plymouths.
Used to read back issues of Popular Science, Pop. Mechanics, and Mechanix Illustrated at library in HS/college. They had unbiased road tests, and no fan boy-ism about 0-60 and ‘handing limits’. Evaluated cars for daily driving, without uppity attitudes of buff books.
That’s odd they all have the exact same wheelbase, 119.0
The Plymouth looks like it has the most inviting back seat of the three !!!
Norbye’s work was okeh, I guess. It would’ve been better without his penchant for sloppy fact-checking (“The Torqueflite lacks such refinements as … water cooling” — wrong!) and bozo opinions snappishly defended as fact (“Many of today’s drivers prefer warning lights rather than gauges” — not from this particular article).