Dad’s ‘63 Bel Air and Mom’s ‘64 Falcon
Some have opined that the dividing line between Detroit eras, old and new, was 1963. I find 1957 a more pivotal point for Detroit’s offerings, as it was the last time Chevy or Ford offered a full-size car that comfortably seated six and didn’t stretch two city blocks.
In 1963 my father was transferred from Mobil Oil de Mexico to Mobil Oil Caribe, in San Juan, PR. Goodbye Mercedes 190; hello, ‘63 Chevy Bel Air with three on the tree, the new 230 cu in inline six and manual everything.
The Bel Air was a nice looking car, especially in Ivy Green. It didn’t have the overdone exterior or interior trim of the Impala, but it did have full carpeting and was quite comfortable for our family of five. In my own private testing, it was quite capable of laying endless amounts of rubber from its Atlas Bucron tires (from a 230 six? -Ed). However, I preferred Mom’s Falcon. It’s doors closed with a thunk, and its unit body was far tighter than the Chevy’s, though my dates couldn’t have cared less.
Model year 1963 was probably the last year that the full-size Chevy and Ford offerings were seen as desirable performance machines by up-and-coming street thugs. The ‘64s had grown increasingly baroque, and the mid-sized offerings from Dodge and Plymouth had an advantage in the quarter-mile, spawning competitors efforts by Ford’s Thunderbolt and Mercury’s Cyclone–and of course, Pontiac, with the GTO. The biggies were closing in on the final curtain.
Aside from styling, the 1964 full-size lineups from both Chevy and Ford were pretty much carried over from the previous year; 1965 would see more meaningful changes as Ford abandoned rear leaf springs and introduced its LTD, the harbinger of the Brougham era.
This photo has been in my scrapbook a long time, although I didn’t take it and don’t know how I came to have it. In any case, this ’63 Impala SS makes for a good farewell picture of the full-size performance car. Nose-up attitude, no hubcaps, and some “in your face” name painted above the engine emblem that probably read “409.”
A Legend in His Time (photo by Malcolm Durham)
One of the drag racers who made his name with ‘63 Chevys was Malcolm Durham, a Hyattsville, Maryland transplant originally from North Carolina. Durham , an icon in the Washington, DC area, not only built this Chevy and others, but also drove them, beating such luminaries as Grumpy Jenkins and Ronnie Sox. The Strip Blazer shown is more than likely an RPO Z11 427, which was the apotheosis of the 409 “W” engine series and not the 427 Mark II Z33 Mystery Motor, with which Junior Johnson shocked the NASCAR boys at Daytona in ’63.
Durham, who ranks 48th among the NHRA’s top 50 drivers, has been referred to as “the Jackie Robinson of Drag Racing.”. He died in 2006.
I remember as a kid when the new Chevy’s came out my dad would say “if you like the Cadillac wait 2 years and buy a Chevy”. At least for ’63 he was right.
To me, the dividing line between “old” and “new” was 1957 as well, but with a buffer year of 1958, with the 1959 models – Chevy, of course, I’m talking about here – being the first of the “new”. 1958 really was an oddball. In Missouri, they rusted like crazy, along with the 1961 models.
As to the 1963 in question, I’m SERIOUSLY biased in favor of the 1964, for obvious reasons!
However, a buddy had a very nice 1963 sports coupe that I wouldn’t turn away from!
In any event, that was a very, very long time ago.
Thanks for another great read Kevin.Good taste in cars too.Dad had 2 Falcons,my parents liked American cars but found them too big and thirsty til compacts turned up on the second hand market.Both Ford and GM had some good looking cars for 63 and 64
I completely ignore the X-frame era. I know no old car is “safe” compared to our modern safety standards but the X-frame (with almost 60 years of hindsight) seems like an unnecessary risk even to drive around the block.
I should ask my Dad about his 1962 Bel Air sedan with the 283V8. I know he jacked up the leaf springs in the rear to put big tires on it, I should ask how well the doors closed after that.
“Jacked up the leaf springs?” These were coils all around . . .
I wasn’t there. This would have been 1973 and I was born in 1977. I still should ask him if it caused any panel alignment issues.
PrincipalDan;
I did some mods on my 1964 in early 1972 – a buddy replaced the old coils with new coils all around spec’d for a 409 wagon! Raised the entire car 2″. I had to get ball joint extensions and had to alter the center U joint geometry! What a pain. Wish I never did that, as it rode like a truck. Panel alignment never suffered, believe it or not!
The photo above was taken in summer 1970, shortly after I bought the car.
Fun times in the air force, for sure.
No more so than any unibody car from the same time frame;
Unlike the habitual body-on-frame design, X-frame cars did not rely on the frame as the sole supporting structure – they had a semi-unitized body, with side rails / sills integral with the body itself (picture below), and only the transmission tube and front/rear sub-frames separate from it. So, at least in theory, an X-frame car shouldn’t have been any less rigid torsionally than a comparably sized unitized-body car with a separate front sub-frame. Actually, more so than a car with a traditional ladder-type frame.
Perimeter frame shares the same trait, but does the same thing somewhat more efficiently, robbing somewhat less interior space – and still providing the economy of the body-on-frame construction compared with a fully-unitized body and keeping annual sheet metal redesign economically viable.
I had a fair amount of wheel time in a 62 Bel Air. It differed from your 63 in that it was the last year of the old stovebolt six and had a Powerglide. I hated that thing. As much rowing as that steering took (6 full turns lock to lock) I can’t imagine where you had time to shift gears in a corner too. I would imagine your later 60 Fury to be a much more modern drive.
At least it makes for a really amusing anecdote.
JP you stole my thunder. Before I read the comments I had to go to google. I would have told you that I drove all over Panama with an old white 63 with three on the tree and a 235. Kevin confused me with his 230 because I expected him to say 235. Sure enough the tail lights are the giveaway. I had a 62. Just about unkillable. A two door sedan that a sailor could put everything he owned in and drive away.
Memory is sometimes fragile. I spent over 40 years thinking I had driven a thunderbolt till this site set me straight. Not all big block fairlanes were thunderbolts. Memory just slipped a cog. Not all chevy sixes are necessarily as you remember them. My favorite was the 261 in my half ton.
That was the first car I ever drove, first in Mom’s lap and then behind the ferris-sized wheel. I was far below legal age, but quite ambitious. I’d read enough McCahill to feel confident pronouncing it “a boat.” The Bel-Air seemed to overhang both sides of the lonely two-lane road, and the broad horizon of its hood only accented the lists & leans it took around corners. Driving it was exciting, but it was not fun.
The best day of my young life probably came when she traded it for a first-gen Mustang, optioned to order, just in time for my learner’s permit. Thanks, Ma!
A Chevy and a Ford in the same family. And nice years/examples of both. Your parents had good taste in cars. We had a 63 Biscayne wagon. I believe it was beige with 283 powerglide. As I recall it didn’t stay in the family too long, the one I remember better was the blue 65 wagon. It must have been a more upscale version, as Mom used to complain the 63 was “too plain” and used quite a bit of oil. When the gas station attendant (remember those?) would look under the hood and say it was 2 quarts low, she would tell him to just put in 1 quart because it just “throws the other one”. Our first Ford was a 59 Galaxie, I was really young but I was transfixed by that tailfin with the backup lamp in it. The second Ford was, oddly enough a 67 Lincoln Continental. We got the 66 VW for Mom about the same time as Dad got the Lincoln, maybe he was mad at her. Later he bought a 74 Duster, the only Amercian car he never bought was AMC.
It is possible to lay large amounts of rubber with a short stroke Chevy Six and a stick. I high school acquaintance did it with his Dad’s C/10 ’69 Chevy Truck; 250 six and 3 on the tree. A lot of revving and dumping the clutch. Didn’t sound pretty . . .
Yep those stovebolts can lay rubber its more poor suspension design than outright power, quite a rare animal here though in 63 to justify the retail price charged most were assembled with 283s here, my Dad wanted a 63 Chev after his Vauxhall rusted away on him but couldnt secure one their entire quota was presold so he bought a63/64 PB Vauxhall similar in styling but only 3/4 size.
Good read. A ’62 Falcon and a ’68 Chevy full-size passed through our family. These cars were the ’60s experience for so very many families.
that red impala looks great.
I’ve never understood the enduring appeal of a ’63 Chevy?
The same year Ford or Plymouth was so much a better car.
GM was really near its peak of styling then. Those Plymouth’s were homely. You had to be a total Mopar fanboi to ignore that. Ford looked good, best big Ford of that era, but somewhat conservative. Better? Depends on how that is defined. Ford had a perimeter frame and rear leafs. Plymouth unit body, torsion bar front and leaf rear, Chevy X-frame, but coils all around. Chevy had the newest six. Small V-8, 283/327 vs poly head 318 vs 289?
’61 looks cool I think ..
It must be generational; I tend to think of “old” = 1977 and older and “modern” = 1978-up. I could try to justify that but it’s the purely personal threshold that my dad brought 4 and a half-year-old me around on his tire-kicking journeys and my car brochure collection started.
Does anyone else find it hard to keep up interest in modern cars? Anything up to about 1990 I’m pretty keen on and tend to remember details; certain models from ’90 to about ’05 I can remember, but anything newer just seems to be “a generic new car”.
Pete, I’m with you on this one. The only cars that interest me today are the pony cars, the Corvette, Porsche……I guess that’s it. I have no regard at all for the insect-like look of what passes as transportation these days. I seem to think we drew these things up in grammar and high school back in the 60’s and 70’s while teacher droned on and on.
For me, the 63 Impala was a benchmark design for everything that followed up to the 90’s…..be it the round rear tail lamps, the block chunk styling, to the egg crate grill. Not to mention; those SS badges. The 57 lives in an era when tail fins equated jet airplane flight. The 63 was on a whole different level of design think, leading the way to the great models to come.
You are right. When annual styling changes went away, it became very difficult. I would place it more like 1980. Modern cars are more like the old VW, where you had to be a geek enthusiast (like me) to tell the model year.
+1 I’m not really interested in new cars though I like the Mustang,Challenger,300 & Monaro
I agree most ‘new’ stuff is hard to ‘fall in love with’ .. lol
I saw a ’63 Chev coming around a corner at me recently. With that low belt line and boxy shape all I could think was it cornered like a billiard table on casters. In green like the one at the top it would have even looked like a mobile billiard table.
Without the weighty stability of a billiards table on a solid floor. More like a billiards table dropped into the sea, barely floating.