(First Posted August 8, 2013) We’ve spent a massive amount of time on these pages praising the 1977-up B-Body Impala and Caprice. But given that today we’re considering whether the new 2014 Impala is the best big car of today, let’s turn the time machine back to 1970. That was the last year of the generation of big Chevys that first appeared in 1965, and unlike nowadays, when new cars better get it right from the start, the 1970 Chevrolet was the culmination of six years of improvements and refinement. And it showed.
Stylistically, we could spend a lot of time and comments debating the best year for this generation of Chevy. But the 1970 undoubtedly was the “cleanest” of the genre, having lost the swollen hips and flowing fastbacks of the 1965-1968s. They had, and still have their appeal, but it had become old by 1968. The 1969-1970 Chevy was a bit of a welcome break from their excess, and the resulting look made them look surprisingly trim and clean, if perhaps a bit generic. That certainly applies to a comparison with the all-new 1969 Fords and the fuselage Dodge/Plymouths.
There’s no doubt that both the Ford and the Mopars had some very positive qualities to bring to the gunfight for top dog big car. The ’69-’70 Fords built on the existing Ford strengths: quiet and soft rides, and good interior material quality. But their handling suffered for that, which would be a family trait that only got progressively worse versus the competition all through the seventies. And their powertains seemed to consistently under-deliver against the competition, with typically longer acceleration times and worse fuel economy. Perhaps it was the C6 transmission, that was generally considered to be less efficient. And the FE 390 V8 certainly fell in that category.
The Plymouth (and Dodge) have a lot of appealing qualities, mainly under the hood. But the fuselage cars struggled with some quality issues, and they didn’t offer the degree of quiet and isolation that the BOF Chevy and Ford did. And although they were often considered a “driver’s car”, the Chrysler power steering was notoriously numb, which along with the excessively expansive body and somewhat restricted visibility made them less than ideal in that regard. And their once-vaunted handling superiority was no more: most, if not all contemporary tests gave the nod to the Chevy in that category. Time does not stand still, even for torsion bars and leaf springs.
I had a fair amount of seat time in all of these 1970 big cars, and the crucial difference was in GM’s attention to handling, something they started to take seriously in the late sixties. The degree to which these Chevys improved during this generation inn that regard was quite dramatic. Whereas the 1965’s were still coming off the lines with undersized little 14″ tires and drum brakes, by 1970 the Chevy sported beefy 15 inchers, and disc brakes. And GM’s variable-ratio Saginaw power steering had the competition beat hands down. For the first time ever, a big American car had a reasonable semblance of steering feel.
image: r0b0tr10t
Combined with the Chevy’s well-sorted out suspension, these cars felt more modern behind the wheel than the competition. Their relatively trim and solid bodies only enhanced that feeling of confidence they inspired. And if the optional sport suspension was ordered, the Chevy was untouchable in that regard. This was the beginning of a new era, unfortunately interrupted by the oversized 1971-1976 GM cars, but taken up again with a vengeance with the excellent-handling downsized B-Bodies of 1977 on.
The evolution under the hood from 1965-1970 was at least as dramatic as in its handling. The base small block V8 was increased in size year by year (307 in 1968; 327 in 1969; 350 in 1970), and combined with the excellent THM-350 automatic, made a combination that was unbeatable, and would be for quite a while. The refinement from this fortuitous pairing, even in base 250 (gross) hp two-barrel version, was as close as perfection as one could expect, equaling anything in the world at the time. And of course, more power was available in lots of additional steps: a four barrel 300 horsepower 350, a two-barrel 265 hp 400 CID small block, and 345 and 390 hp versions of the big block 454. Pick your pleasure.
My seat time in several 1970 Chevys all happened to be four door sedans, and their build quality was on a very high level, for the times and for a domestic car. They all felt solid and tight, even the 1970 Biscayne taxi that probably had a half-million miles on it. Well, relatively so, compared to the 1971 taxi I also drove at the time. The difference after six years of constant abuse was very telling.
image: r0b0tr10t
My appreciation for Fords and Mopars of this vintage has only grown over the years blogging about old cars. I’ve come to acknowledge that JPC’s claims for the Ford are true: it was a solid and quiet car, but its dynamic qualities just weren’t up to snuff, especially the handling. And the Mopars always tug at the heart. But for all-round qualities, in terms of what the big American car stood for: a refined, comfortable, attractive, balanced all-round car with unbeatable dynamic qualities to boot, the 1970 Chevrolet Impala was unbeatable.
Growing up in Chicago, I saw millions of these – probably just in this color too!
My dad, however, had a 1970 New Yorker, covered last week. The Fuselage Chryslers looked the most modern of the Three, but GM had very nice brougham-ish touches already cascading through their full size line up and it seemed that most families on the block I grew up on, had some version of this car.
They were gone by the time I was ready to drive, and it seemed that all the excitement in the auto industry by that time was going to Japanese and small US cars. Small cars were the hot new thing and these old family haulers took a back seat to what the Boomers were ripping up the streets in. By the time I was ready, driving for fun was replaced with driving and being told to feel bad about it. 55. Stop smiling when you accelerate, because you are killing our environment, polluting our air and raping our wildllife. The only trips allowed during the Malaise years were guilt trips.
And most said Z Frank or Nickey, if I recall correctly. I spent many summers in Chase Park playing baseball or sneaking into the side door at the Uptown Theater. When feeling really risky, we’d try Aaron Russo’s club Electric Theater. Or just wander in Piper’s Alley after which we’d take the El back north and see who was hanging at the Aragon. Summers in the 60’s in Chicago – some of my happiest memories. Thanks for the reminder. Oh, and the 1970 Impala seemed bank vault tight to me, and really discouraged my Dad when wandering the introduction nights in our little town. I fondly recall spotlights and being open late while everyone in town made the rounds to see the new cars. Where did the industry go so wrong and lose all this goodwill and positive momentum? I used to rail at RF thinking that GM could never go bankrupt – what’s good for GM is good for America, remember? And we were Chrysler Plymouth Rambler, yet still believed this to be a given. It baffles me where the powers that be got their unlimited hubris and sang til the ship sank. They killed the golden goose.
I thought most said “Celozzi-Ettleson” where, of course, you always save more money. I remember seeing these beasts, plus plenty of the 1971-1976 versions running around the northern suburbs. By the time I was fully aware of cars, the last few were slowly returning to the earth by oxidation.
Those excellent photos really show off the beautiful lines of this amazing example. The Rally Wheels are absolutely perfect on this (and the ’69) Impalas. I like the triple taillight design of this year, louvered side marker lights, and awesome concave rear window of the Custom Coupe.
I can’t get over how cherry this car is, to be in the middle of a busy sloppy parking lot. it’s incredible how much more solid these cars are as compared to the later ’71-’76 cars.
I’ve seen a few 400 small-block cars but never a 454-equipped one.
I prefer the ’69 front end, especially with the optional concealed headlamps, myself. But yes, decent cars. My dads 69 had a lot of problems, but it was built during a UAW strike.
Might have been built in Tarrytown, NY. This was one of the worst plants they had.
Hi, Was wondering why Tarrytown, NY might have been one of worst plants it was?
Thanks,
David
I agree with the sentiment, re: styling of this era. They’re fairly clean and crisp – unpretentious, mostly.
Car “fashion” seems to march back and forth between severely plain and overly ostentatious. Hopefully we’ve seen “peak bling” and are headed back toward saner styling (although I much prefer the previous generation Impala to the new one from a purely styling standpoint).
“Hopefully we’ve seen “peak bling” and are headed back toward saner styling”
Memo to Ed Stembridge of 2013: Bless your innocent little heart! 🙂
I’m sure for that time it was a nice car, but if I had been of driving age in 1970, I think I would have longed for some early 60s iron. To me, the 70s were the beginning of the end, for automobile design.
It’s amazing how popular green was in the sixties and early seventies. Today only rarely seen and devaluing the car it is on. The 1970 Coupe is a real beauty.
I suppose it depends on the green. A nice British Racing Green has its appeal and is far less contentious, resale-wise, than, say, bright yellow. The Fiat 500 comes in a sort of minty pastel light green that fits the retro design theme; I see that color a lot around these parts and it’s not bad. On the other hand, there are a fair number of greenish-gray and grayish-green shades that are pretty dismal (when I bought my car, I told the salesman most emphatically that I didn’t want a car that color) and I’m not fond of the bright lime green metallics that some of the B-segment cars have started offering.
So true. I’ve always loved green cars, but you can’t get a decent shade of green on any new car today. The only greens available are sea foam or moss shades. I miss a nice emerald green car.
Looks like 45 code Green Mist, my ’70 El Camino was originally the same color.
Green lasted up into the mid 90’s and then suddenly evey new car buyer wanted biege. Now all gray scale, B&W.
Since the sixth-generation Legacy platform launched in 2015, Subaru’s had a very ’68-72ish sage green (“Autumn Green Metallic”) as the featured color for the Outback.
Great writeup, Paul. I always favored the ’67-68 body but you’re right that Chevy refined this generation of the big Chevy right along. I knew a guy in ’89 who still drove his ’69 Impala coupe, bought new, with more than a quarter million miles on it. The paint was dull and there was a little rust, but otherwise the car was straight and ran smoothly.
Well, seems to me that you posted Henry’s Chevy when it was brand new !
(I did mention the movie before in another CC Chevrolet item)
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=453171
My favorite serial-killer car, as well, especially with the Chrysler AM radio.
Psychopathic murderer transportation aside, the 1970 Impala was really the peak of the full-size Chevy. It was all downhill after that. Fortunately for GM, the (domestic) competition was always worse. Chevy remained king of the big car market until the onslaught of well-built Camcords finally got GM’s attention and the last BOF, RWD ‘bubble’ Impala rolled off the line in 1996.
You could see full-size Chevrolets quite regularly here in the seventies.
In those days the Nijmegen region, nearby the Dutch-German border, was infamous for its illegal contractors. These guys often bought a full-size Chevy at the GM dealership in the city of Nijmegen. Of course the cars were always paid for with a pile of cash. And, as they say here, they traded them in for a new one “as soon as the ashtray was full”.
Later on the Mercedes W116 became the “spiritual successor” of full-size US cars. (Let’s say with the same breed of clientele…)
The front-end sheet metal (not the grille) looks like a cleaner ’63-’64 Cadillac.
@62Skylark: It’s interesting how colors come and go, especially green. Near impossible to find now, but IIRC, as recently as the mid 90s green was the second-most popular color, after white. Our 98 Grand Voyager was almost this exact color. But it’s replacement 9 years later was a “slate green” Odyssey which was actually grey, with only the very very slightest hint of green in bright sunlight. Like Churchill’s martini, where he opened the vermouth in the same room, I think all they did was leave a can of green paint on the floor of the paint booth.
Nice,they don’t make them like that any more!
Completely agre. The 350/350 combo was in a class by itsself and I believe 1970 was the first year you could get the small block on a non-Corvette Chevy without a Powerglide.
A ’68 Impala in my past was originally equipped with a 250-horse 327 and Turbo 400 transmission. Most 327 cars had the powerglide but some had the THM400.
My dad bought a ’67 Caprice wagon new; it came with a 327 and THM. Great car…
I spotted at http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-ViewAdLargeImage?AdId=498351912
this picture of a 1970 Canadian Bel Air hardtop with the body in good shape and I thaught to post it here. It’ll be a good companion to the Impala. 😉
I uploaded the picture just in case if it’s disseapear from this website.
That body style gives me wood LOL! Sexy!
Hi,
I have a 1970 Impala 2 door, where do you go for parts? your car is really nice in the green. I need drip rail trim and window trim.
I bought one for a cheap $250.00 back in November of ’80, a 56k four-door hardtop in that exact color combo. Saw it sitting on the back line of Merrick Chevrolet in Berea Ohio… it was love at first sight. Very little rust, and not a dent or scratch on it. It did, however, have a 350 that had the infamous soft cam that plagued many Chevy smallblocks back around ’69-’70, which was why it was on that back line. Still had my first car at that time, a ’74 Pinto that had a blown transmission (nobody told me you couldn’t powershift a 4 cyl stick Pinto LOL), traded the Pinto for a sweet running ’69 327 and performed my very first engine swap. Sold it a couple of years later and have regretted it since. Would love to find another just like it.
I just bought a 1970 four door Impala single barrel carburetor I’m looking for a place to get parts for its in pretty good shape just needs restored
I liked the look of the 1969 Impala much better
The Impala Custom coupe gets a lot of love — and I like the distinctive roofline myself — but my favorite is the crisp, sleek roofline of the 4-door hardtops like that ’69 above.
Agreed – much better front clip.
Me Too! I like the 69 better especially with the concealed headlight option.
Proof positive that a four door can be sexy.
I slightly prefer the rear bumper and lights of the ’69 to the ’70, but I find the ’70’s front end nicer looking than the loop front bumper of the ’69.
But for the tail lights, the design does look very well integrated – a nice car. And the green, outside and inside, is attractive to these eyes that barely notice the bland cars of today.
In my work back then for a flower shop during high school and college, I drove ’67 Ford Country Sedans, ’69 Ford Country Sedans, ’71 Plymouth Suburbans and finally ’73 Plymouth Suburbans. – but never a then current full sized Chevrolet. And I’ve never driven one since, so I don’t know about these claims of the good handling. The Fords were durable and very reliable; the Plymouths were pigs but had a lot of interior volume. I don’t know the Chevys but this green coupe looks very inviting.
Ummm… not for me. By that time, I was into mid-sized Chevelles, smaller Novas and Camaros.
The last big Impala I really liked were the 1967 models.
Looking at the 1970 model now, I do like it much better than the loop-bumpered 1969 models.
The next Impala I fell in love with was the 1972 sports coupe for reasons I still don’t know. Next, the 1977 bent-window coupes.
I don’t think there was one bad looking American car built in 1970, and certainly the big Chevy is a handsome car, but I think the ’70 Chrysler C-Bodies were much better looking.
If you got a ’70 Mopar that was built on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, you got a good car.
Nah… Unfortunately, the Chryslers of that era were made out of papier mache’ – not that the others were much better, but they were better.
That’s too bad, because they were much nicer-looking than anything Ford offered during those years. It’s hard to beat a 1973 Satellite Sebring coupe!
The 1970 Impalas were nice cars. It’s good to see the sedan body styles but I really admire that green Coupe. I have the issue of Road Test Magazine where they did a comprehensive test on a 1970 Impala Custom Coupe. Paul, IIRC, their conclusions were much like yours, both on the car’s abilities and quality, as well as how it stacked up against the Big Ford and Plymouth. When I get home this weekend, I’ll dig out the issue and try to scan it in.
I don’t much care for these. The nose is okay, but the tail seems fussy, with a lot of detailing over a not very cohesive or pleasing shape. The bumper treatment, particularly in back, also strikes me as Exhibit A for why the feds wanted 5-mph bumpers. It looks like even a minor tap in back is going to take out at least half of the tail lights. I don’t like the Custom Coupe roofline, either — really not my bag — and I hate the interior. Looking at the slick vinyl seats and plastic wood appliqué just dredges up vague, mostly bad childhood memories.
The ’65 had a lot more character stylistically, even if it had more dynamic flaws. For the 1970 big cars, I find myself more partial to the Ford Galaxie, at least from a design standpoint. It’s not my kind of car either, but it has fewer of the fussy qualities that make me frown at the Impala; the Ford is just big, straightforward and imposing. The LTD is even more so. Again, not my thing, but a black LTD four-door hardtop has a kind of budget limo look that at least makes sense to me.
Then again, I’m the sort who would have shook my head, waited a few months, and bought a BMW Bavaria instead.
Dude, you really need to learn to not hold back with your criticism. Holding it in like you do isn’t healthy! 🙂
I should say for the record that I learned to drive on a four-speed Volkswagen Rabbit in a household that had a decidedly jaundiced view of cars of this kind both for practical and aesthetic reasons. My early firsthand experience with big American cars was mainly limited to cars owned by older relatives and involved fun things like getting carsick from floaty suspension motions, burning myself on black vinyl seats, and the strange knack of certain cars’ air conditioning for giving me nosebleeds.
When I was actually old enough to drive, my dislike of the look and feel of these cars was compounded by their road manners, which were at best amusing and at worse openly terrifying (the brakes in particular). At this point, I have a better idea of what to expect, so I’d be more likely to be amused than frightened, but it’s not something I’d want to do on a regular basis.
These are not the sort of things that predispose one to have positive feelings about this kind of car…
Ate, your argument makes a lot of sense to me. I’d add that the Chevy’s “clown pants” wheel cutouts look contrived and the v-shape to the headlight area was neither attractive nor practical for a bumper.
In contrast, the 1970 Ford had a nicely balanced brougham look that deteriorated into caricature in later years (e.g., the 1971 was downright ugly).
I also find the 1965 Chevy most appealing, at least stylistically. At that point the big Chevy was still allowed to be sporty, e.g., some of the styling cues hinted Corvette.
But when it comes to an all-around car, I’d eschew the BMW Bavaria for the 1961 Ambassador.
It’s not that I necessarily think of the Bavaria as the ultimate car or anything like that; I was just thinking, “Toward what other sedan of this time period would I be more favorably disposed?” (The Bavaria actually arrived for ’71, but I figured it was close enough, particularly since its price was not all that far off the sticker price of a loaded big Chevy or Ford.)
I think 1963-1967 was really the high point for GM styling in this era. The 1960-1962 cars aren’t bad — I have a real soft spot for the 1960 Cadillac — but the ’63-’67 models exude such confidence of line. There’s often a lot going on in terms of surface and detail, but it’s all going in the same direction and even if it isn’t exactly to your personal taste, it’s impressive. I wouldn’t want a ’65 Impala, particularly, but looking at it in profile, I can’t help thinking, “Damn, that’s a handsome piece of work.”
The ’69 and ’70 big Chevrolets don’t have that confident aura. I’m not a designer, but I’ve worked with designers (not in automotive fields) quite a bit over the years and there’s a sort of fatigue that sets in when you’ve asked designers to tweak the same basic pieces too many times or, worse, when you tell them you want the thing to look different without specifying what you want it to say. That’s the feeling I get here.
(I have no idea if the designers of these cars actually felt that way; I’ve probably read something about the development of these cars at one point or another, but I don’t remember anything specific at the moment. I’m just talking about my critical reaction to the finished product.)
My first car was a 1971 Bavaria, that I purchased for $1,500 in 1980. Virtually no one in South Dakota even knew what a BMW was at that time, but that car must have sold 25 BMWs to the family and friends that experienced a quality ride for the first time after years of driving poorly made and floaty American barges. The speed and sound of that straight six are still etched in my mind, and 25 mpg on the highway was very helpful on a student budget – too bad the rust proofing wasn’t up to today’s standards as I would probably still have it.
Aaron, it’s fun to hear your undiluted opinion. Your articles and research are so immaculate that I have a hard time imagining an off-the-cuff conversation. However, I think you forget a Bavaria cost as much as an Impala with every option and a C-10 for the weekends, and six months insurance. Just like the Cobra’s, that people lust over today, couldn’t be given away in the showroom. The prices were just too high for the average customer who came to these stores in those days. My memory is that they were $7000 – which would buy you a Chevelle SS 454 and leave you $2000 to drive it with. Now how about a little Facel Vega write up?
This is why I specified the Bavaria rather than the previous 2500/2800 sedans. The 2800 did indeed cost nearly seven grand, but the Bavaria listed for less than $5,000, almost $1,200 cheaper than a 2500. By that point, it was not uncommon for the sticker on a loaded Impala/Caprice or Galaxie 500/LTD to approach the $6,000 mark, so the comparison isn’t as ridiculous as it would have been two years earlier. Now, with a little dickering you could probably have gotten the gotten the Ford or Chevrolet for less than sticker, while finding a Bavaria that was not festooned with a grand worth of extras might have been a little tougher, but on a straight MSRP basis, they were fairly close.
Admittedly, the BMW would have been a stripper by comparison; I don’t think some things like cruise control were available at any price at that point. The Caprice and LTD would have given you a lot more toys for the money and probably had much more effective air conditioning, but at least the Bavaria didn’t make the driver feel like he or she should be wearing a sailor’s cap.
Sailor’s cap? That’s a classic. Haven’t laughed that hard all day. And, your right about the Monroney’s. Of course transaction prices were much different and my memory of the BMW stores is that they were almost quarantined in those days in some bizarre corner of town, dualed with Fiat or Citroen. Have they ever risen. Wish I had the Quandt’s ear back when Lutz first went to work for them.
Well we did buy a 2 yr old BMW 2800, the luxe version of the Bavaria, and it was one of the best driving but also unfortunately the most unreliable, expensive to maintain, and fragile car we have ever owned, 2 top-end rebuilds in 2 years… wish I had bought the Chevy!
If you’re talking Chevy, then you’re talking my true Heartbeat.
However, that blue ’70 Fury III is the car I learned to drive in. My older brother’s car, only in dark green metallic, w. a tri-tone green vinyl interior. 383 2-bbl & Torqueflite. IIRC, He bought it some time in ’75 and only paid $400 for it. No major issues, either. It served him well for a couple of years, including a trip he & I made in ’76 from SE Ohio to Phoenix, AZ. He was going to college, and stay w. my aunt & uncle. My mom let my 15 year old self go along for the ride. She provisioned me w. some travelers checks and a plane ticket back to Ohio.
The only bad thing that happened on the trip was when the exhaust system decided it had enough and was getting off somewhere in NM. From there until I think, Albuquerque, we had only the Y pipe & the straight pipe going back to where the recently departed muffler was. That 383 alternated between mellow & mean, but what a sweet sound it was! No worries, b/c this was August & there was no A/C so the ventilation was “4-60” or thereabout. Dark Side of the Moon on the Craig under dash FM / cassette!
We got to see the Merrimac (?) caverns in MO, plus a side excursion through the Painted Desert to the Grand Canyon and then down through Flagstaff to Phoenix.
Ennywho, fast forward to the spring of ’78. Brother & the Fury were back in Ohio. Me, learning to drive in that boat! Bias plies & the twisty turny parts of route800 in SE Ohio. The joys of parallel parking in a Fury… Hallelujah for the Mopar P/S!
The big day comes and I pass the test!! Bro lets me go solo in the Fury. I pick up a bud and we head to the local soda / ice cream hangout. Trip there, fine. Leaving (this was a mud & gravel parking lot) back SQUARELY into a HUGE chuckhole. RR tire up to the axle! Made it out, but nice green car now an ugly, muddy brown one! Must’ve spent $10 in quarters getting it clean again. Told bro about it when I got home & he was pretty cool about it. No harm to the car, no foul. WHEW!
This would be the least favorite of this generation for me. The peaked fenders over the headlights ruin the front end to me. I’ll take the 65 as my top choice of this generation and the 69 isn’t too bad either.
The 1970 was, in my opinion, the last great Impala. Sure, the 1977-79’s were really good cars, but they just didn’t have the quality of materials and finish the 1970 cars had. Have a look at the interior of the example here: really nice stuff and so refreshing from the the black plastic holes so many cars of today have become.
The 350/350 powertrain is the best GM ever did. I drove a 1970 a couple of weeks one summer and it had the 350 4bbl and was a box stock 4 door hardtop. It could lay rubber right up the block. It never felt short of power or breath. The disk brakes were excellent for the day and the handling was surprisingly good. It came for sale and like a fool I didn’t buy it. I was too cool for it at age 24 or so.
Chevy vs Benz
Stylistically the first one of the line, the ’65, has the ’70 beat, hands down,
As good as these would have been I think stylistically they’re the low point of the generation, not ugly at all but quite dull.
I’d probably take the ’69 because I like the front clip better, but the ’70 is still a handsome car. A friend of mine has one of these but it stands in line behind two Blue Ovals (’57 Fairlane period rod and a ’63 Ranchero with a built 302) and a ’63 Merc wagon. Shame, the ’70 could make a nice driver. He’s trying to finish the Ranchero…it’ll be a long time before he gets to the Imp. I’d make him an offer for it if it weren’t for the two projects I already have. (’57 Handyman and ’68 C-10)
Yes the ’65-’66 are prettier…my personal fave from this era is the ’67…but this generation Impala was noted back in the day as the best-sorted full-size Chevrolet and a superior choice to Ford or Plymouth. Just be sure you have the F-41 sway bar package and you’re good to go!
Wow, memories- my first car was a 70 Impala sport coupe in the same green. I would agree that the 350/350 powertrain in these was superb. But from experience I can tell you that even with 15 inch rims many of these went out the door with drum brakes all round, which were very grabby and really not up to the task at all. Further issues with these 70 Chevs included severe frame rust right behind the front wheel wells, because you couldn’t mount splash guards very well on those reverse-angle wheel openings. Alot of those cars had tell-tale rust at the bottom of the front fenders, which led directly to rust on the frame.
Interior quality from experience was so- so: try and find one without a cracked dash pad and trim bits broken off.
So I’d agree that these were good solid performers for full-size cars, but actually I don’t think they were as good as you might think, certainly not the peak of the Impala IMHO. I know you don’t like the 71-76 models but most of the ones my friends had held up better than my 70 model over time….
1970’s were the last big Chevy that young Hot Rodders would tinker with, in my area. Also last year used by dirt track racers. The 71’s were were too big and didnt catch on, except for demo derbies.
I can’t see why the ’65 gets so many top-choice votes. The tail lights sprinkled on the trunk lid always make me think the cars reached the end of the assembly line and then someone yells, “hey, we forgot the tail lights. Find a place to stick some on!”
Did it eventually occur to GM that every time a body panel has a hole punched in it that creates another opportunity for rusting and leaking?
Let’s not get overly nostalgic about the cars of that era. Oh, they could be beautiful and great cruisers. But the quality was awful by today’s standards. My ’68 Impala had a half-dozen glitches fixed under warrant within 90 days, from the minor (wrong spare tire installed) to the irritating (heater didn’t work) to the strange (an extra coat of paint had to be applied). Buyers of Detroit Iron put up with a lot back then.
“Let’s not?” Uhh, when did this site focus on practicality? I come here to escape today’s world of bloblike appliances, not to compare their “vast superiority” to these older machines.
Amen to dat, man! & BTW, I had a ’70 Monte Carlo that I drove for years & years. Absolutely the best car of ANY make that I’ve had, & it never needed more than maintenance & replacement of normal wear items. I believe GM had a “7 years/ 70,000 miles” warranty that year as well.
Jerry, your ’68…that’s two years and a completely different body design and a whole lot of incremental improvements removed from the ’70.
Respectfully, apples and oranges.
Good looking car, but somewhat dowdy compared to the 1969 that preceded it. If the model years had been inverted, it would have made more sense. The 1969 was definitely “newer” looking.
You missed my point: it wasn’t its looks that made it the best car of 1970; it was the fact that it had been made so many years, as well as the bigger wheels and tires and engine for 1970 that made it the best car of 1970.
Even though I note elsewhere my agreement that the ’69 is better-looking…Paul’s point is spot-on.
1) IIRC, you could still get a ’69 with 14-inch wheels and drum brakes.
2) There were period quality issues that, while not major, still tarnished the ’69 a bit.
As a full-size CAR YOU CAN LIVE WITH, the ’70 “Big Chevrolet” – that’s what the cover of the sales brochure said – was a home run, a reminder that when the General put their minds to it, they could build the best mass-market cars for the dollar.
Consider the 2014-present final-gen Impalas, particularly in Premier trim, the ’70 Chevy of today.
My first car ride was in a ’70 Caprice. Sorry I don’t remember the details of the trip.
I currently own a 1970 Impala that my grandfather purchased new in March of 1970. He bought it so my Grandmother would have a reliable car because he passed one month later. Little did he know she would drive it 28 yrs. until she reached the age of 92 and then it remained garaged for another 10 yrs. and that’s when she passed it along to me. The car has 57k actual miles. L48 300 HP 350 cid. It still rides as good as some luxury brands I’ve had such as Lexus and Jaguar. I hope to pass it along to my Grandson one day but for now I think I will enjoy it!
Engine from above
In response to the comment above of cracked dash pads, not a single crack in this 45 yr old dash. All original too.
Thanks for the write up! I enjoyed it!
I’ve never seen a ’70 Impala with rubber floor pedals. Most had a very Buick looking stainless steel surround with rubber inserts. Even the emergency brake got it. The brake pedal even declared “Power Disk Brake”. Maybe yours has non assisted brakes? That uncracked dash is a treasure. Mine looked like target practice at 6 years old.
Theres a nice tidy blue 70 Chevy 2 door on a local lot, a recent immigrant but complied and registered so it should be quite sound and absolutely rust free, no idea how much they want but it will be expensive.
I seem to have missed commenting on this one the first time around. At the time I felt that much of the character had seeped out of the design by 1970, but I can now look back and see the attraction. I tend to like the 69 better – but not because of the loop bumper everyone else likes but because I never liked the 70’s taillight treatment as well.
I vividly remember one of these my father got as a rental over thanksgiving weekend of 1969 when we had taken a train to Philadelphia. It was gold inside and out and even though I was hard into Fords at that stage of life, I had to acknowledge that it was a nicely done car.
That rented 70 Impala also compared favorably to my Grandma’s low-trim 69 Catalina. The dash and interior seemed more nicely done – a total turnabout from most of the prior 20 years when Pontiacs had been a huge interior upgrade from Chevys.
I have to agree with PN’s assessment of the three. The Mopars seemed more crude and while the Fords seemed more refined they did not handle nearly as nicely as these. I would have chosen one of the others, but nobody could be faulted for picking one of these. Chevy really made tremendous advances in the previous 5 years.
My experience with one of these was in 1984.First serious girlfriend’s Dad had gold coupe with the 400 he bought new. He loved it and often compared it to his 55. Smooth, comfortable runner with ice cold air. Big rust issues though- ran it though the body shop every other year for touch up.
I frankly wish Detroit never made these cars. They were too successful to the point that the US market turned away from their own auto industry. I wish they flopped a decade sooner, forcing the Big Three into a revolution of change before they got wiped out by global competition in our own home market. These cars branded Detroit as producers of inferior products that three generations of Americans still believe. These cars put Detroit into a coma of comfort and easy profits that rusted away as fast as these cars did.
These 1970 Chev’s earned a lot of respect from their styling, durability, and sales achievements. They were nice looking cars, as were the 1969s. They seemed better proportioned than the Plymouths and Dodge full sizers that seemed to be too long unnecessarily. A Rare find these days.
I owned a ’66 and a ’69 and still own a ’68. As with anything, it’s good with bad. I never considered any of them to be particularly good handlers though they rode well and were all generally reliable. Rust did plague the ’69 as it also does the ’70 model and of course the ’65-’69’s were afflicted with separating engine mounts, which in the case of the ’69 almost proved disastrous. The workmanship on the ’69 was poor too, though not so on the ’66 or ’68.
In order of preference it was the ’66 then the ’68 with the ’69 bringing up the rear. No denying how well these sold however, the numbers were enormous.
P.S – The four wheel drum brakes on the ’69 were atrocious!. They faded and pulled right or left endlessly. Same set up as on the ’66 & ’68 but no real issue with either of those. The ’68, in particular, works better in the stopping department than you would think.
Wow, I’m flashin’ back, man.
A girlfriend of mine drove a new one of these, exactly like the one in the lead photo.
I was born in 1980. My generation grew up with the Citation….cavalier…celebrity…corsica…lumina…fwd malibu….oh how the mighty have fallen. Even still today i dont consider chevys cuz or the bad taste left in my mouth by the 80s and 90s cars.
Don’t really get the love for these. IMHO the last great Impala was in 1967. A nice 10 year run, but everything has to end. Four door, 283 Powerglide Impalas were bought by families in droves and the coolest guys in town tooled around in 327 and 396 coupes. The car appealed to everyone. Over a million of these went out the door in 1965 alone, a staggering amount when 400K Camcords is now considered a great year. Then the bloat and conservative styling started in 1968. It got worse in ‘69 and ‘70, and then totally out of control in ‘71. The ‘77 downsizing was welcome and got the families back, but the cool guys were gone forever.
This car brings back fond memories of drivers-ed back in 1973. I grew up in Lakin, Kansas and you could take drivers-ed in the summer or during the fall semester. As I wanted a restricted permit as soon as I could get one (at 14 years of age) I elected to take the summer session.
Lakin Motors, the local Ford dealer, furnished cars to the high school drivers-ed training which consisted of a new Ford for the fall session but a used car for the summer training. For the summer of ’73 the Ford dealer furnished a red ’70 Impala Sport Coupe with a 400 under the hood.
I took the dare regarding who will “floor” the car as the students I rode with loved the Impala. We switched drivers after pulling off on a side road of a state highway. It was my turn to drive and I was asked to safely back onto the highway then accelerate to 60 mph. I let it get moving a bit then floored the accelerator. I was impressed with the rate the car reached 60 as our family car was a ’67 Ambassador with “only” a 290 V8. Needless to say the instructor asked me to back off but he wasn’t too upset about it.
Drivers-ed was required to graduate at Lakin High back in the day…..
One thing I’ve mentioned before in other posts about the “too big” 1971-76 GM full-sizers: the featured car here was almost identical in size to the generation that followed—which is quite contrary to what most posters here on CC always seem to claim. And here’s the evidence: screenshots of the specs of both a ’70 and ’71 from automobile-catalog.com. In summary, the ’71 is only 0.8″ longer than the ’70, and is in fact 0.4″ narrower! And, the ’71 is a couple hundred pounds lighter than the ’70, as well. Just the facts!
Interesting comparison, although I get 3781 for the 1970 6 cyl curb weight, which would make it lighter by about 100 lbs. But your overall point is a good one. I am continually surprised at how perception can be separated from actual measurements, a point Vince has made about the interior room on the 70s Gran Torino, another car that gets a bad rap for being too big outside and too small inside.
Looks like I can only attach one screenshot. Here’s the specs for the ’70 Impala.
Ahh, that’s it – you compare a 70 V8 with a 71 six, thus our discrepancy in weights. Still, an interesting issue to ponder.
Ah, right… My bad for not comparing apples to apples engine-wise!