If it weren’t for that demure little Prius peeking out behind this big, flashy Impala coupe, one might well think this to be a genuine vintage shot. Well, the “Capitol Cider” really dates it too. But fifty years separate these two cars–chronologically, that is. Length-wise? The ’58 Impala looks to be half a football field longer. Part of that can be explained by the big Chevy being in front, but still I wouldn’t have guessed that the Prius ends in the Impala’s back seat. runningonfumes caught these two at an intersection somewhere, and the picture makes quite a statement of how much cars have changed in a half-century.
runningonfumes posted two versions of this shot, so here’s the cropped and “vintage-ized” version. I can’t resist being drawn to this car now any more than I could resist one that parked around the corner from our house in 1962 or so. (and it also was black). A handsome sort of beast, if a bit overdone, and plenty big–a bit too much so, actually. In many ways, its bloat beyond the trim tri-fives was excessive, and I’ve made that point pretty clear. But from the side, the Impala has those delicious Motorama curves and chrome trim and details that sucked me right in as a kid.
My favorite part was that fake vent over the rear window. Oh, about the size difference: the Prius is 175″ long; the Impala, 210″–almost exactly three feet. Still, it looks more like six feet. And now that the light has changed, the Prius is widening the gap. That wouldn’t be hard to do, despite the Impala trying with its 283 motor inevitably backed by a Powerglide. And the Prius’ gas motor probably hasn’t even kicked in yet. Fifty years on, some things have changed. And fifty years from now, the Prius will be an anachronism, one of those rare old cars still driven by the driver, if they haven’t outlawed that by then.
Very nice Impala, one of my favorites. They were large, but they wore the size well, especially the Impala’s which were a little more low slung. The 58 Chevy’s had a notorious reputation in law enforcement circles as having terrible brakes. The new big size and all coil suspension gave a soft ride, but it sure wasn’t a handler either. Regardless, still a beautiful car, especially in black.
Well, it all comes down to whether you want to save the planet, or just want to motor in style. The Impala’s style may not be for everybody, but at least it’s not the frumpmobile next to t.
When a trunk was a by god trunk (or a boot was a by god boot for our friends across the pond.)
What a terrible year to buy a low-priced car. The 58 Ford was massively uglified from the attractive 57. The Plymouth had been proven (by its quality-challenged 57 model) to be a leaking, rusting, shaking pile of excrement. And this was what you got at the Chevy dealer – a 57 Buick with a smaller engine. No wonder they sold so many Ramblers.
I’m with you on the ’58 Ford…not a high point for FoMoCo. And I can follow on the ChryCo argument…good looking, but prone to many maladies. But boy oh boy, “a 57 Buick with a smaller engine”? That’s harsh!
Yes, I see the C-pillar resemblance to a ’57 Roadmaster or Super. But beyond that…the ’58 Chevrolet was its own car. Sure, it isn’t graceful from every angle, and it is definitely polarizing stylistically…but to write it off as a year-old Buick with some kind of inferior engine? You’ve gone too far!
Ramblers sold well in ’58 because they were new and novel in their sizing. I wonder how many folks cross-shopped Impalas and Ramblers? (No offense to Rambler—it was the right car at the right time)
JP, yup. And in those days the Rambler wagon sold almost as well as the sedan.
I never took to the 1958 Impala; it was too overdressed. Yet its styling was less excessive than that of the Oldsmobile and Buick. Odd that Pontiac would be the plainest of the bunch.
It’s particularly interesting to compare the shape of the trunk; whereas Chevy paid no attention to space efficiency, Pontiac had an old-fashioned upright design.
The Chevy always looked nicer than it’s more expensive relations in the 58 GM range.
Always liked 58 Chevs and there are several plying local roads but they do seem to be shrinking or is bloat setting in on modern cars tyhat badly? I shot a Caddy coupe recently and it was hard to credit how small it really was especially inside.
The ’58 was always my favorite vintage Chevy. You can tell where its maker’s (and buyer’s) priorities were back then. So much style compared to the Prius. These were made to make statements as its main priorities, where the Prius are not. Or it is too, but a totally different kind of statement.
The other night I pulled into a spot at the grocery store with my wife’s Accord. Pulled up next to a 56 Ford Customline fordor… The Ford and Accord were very similar in dimensions! The hood on the Ford was a little longer but the windshield more upright and looked to be comparable in interior space. But it was night time.
The featured Impala looks identical to one that my uncle had for over 40 years. He bought it new. When it was 10 or 15 years old, people were bugging him, asking why he didn’t get rid of that old piece of junk. A few years later, the same people were offering to buy it from him. I always thought it was a cool car, but you had to wonder about the missed opportunity: what if he’d bought a year-old 1957 Bel Air instead of the black bulgemobile?
Heck, since that picture was taken in Seattle, and my uncle lived in Vancouver, WA, it might actually BE his old car. That would be something! But if memory serves, he sold it to a collector in California in 2001 or thereabouts. This makes me think of how much some people resemble the cars they drive. My uncle was a big, broad-shouldered longshoreman, and he and that ’58 Impala simply made a perfectly-matched set. No wonder he kept that car so long.
That black Impala 2-door hardtop reminds me of the identical car that lived across the street from my Grand View College dorm. Not only did those people have a brand new black Impala, but they also had a white one just like it except that it was lowered 3 inches. This was definitely conspicuous consumption for 1958 in that part of Des Moines, Iowa.
One of my fellow students also had a brand new beautiful wife and a similarly new and beautiful 1958 Plymouth Belvedere convertible that may well have been the model for the one I subsequently owned for 32 years.
The wife, or the convertible? Maybe both? Well, maybe not the “owned” part.
I’ve possibly come complete circle on GM’s full sized offerings in ’58. I’ve come to appreciate all of them in some way (even the Buick and Oldsmobile). But as sexy I find the volumptous ’58 Impala, it wouldn’t have been as fun a long term car to live with compared to its “right sized” forebearers.
Oddly, if you get past looks, only The Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs were really in philosophy what they had been since the mid 50’s.
Love these.
Someday I will add a 58 Bonneville coupe to the collection. I need to own one before I die.
I once had my 2000 Nissan Sentra that I used to drive parked in my garage next to my 65 Mustang project car, and was shocked to realize that they were about the same size. Mustang is a few inches longer, but the Nissan was a few inches taller. In my mind, the Sentra was always a small car, but in reality they are both compacts and very similar (with the exception of the Mustang’s lack of rear seat utility). In the case of the 65 Mustang coupe with a 6 cyl, they weigh close to the same also.
A Prius is also close to the same length, but weighs a lot more. A 65 Mustang convertible V8 and AC probably is still lighter than the Prius.
My mom’s youngest brother was about 25 years old in 58 when he bought a baby blue 58 Impala convertible with dark blue top. I was 14 at the time and thought it was about the coolest thing on the road. Enjoyed riding many miles in that beauty. He also bought a pristine 1948 Pontiac 2 door fastback for $150 to drive in the winter on our western PA salty roads. After the first winter he sold the still lovely Pontiac and bought one of the rounded Chevy pickup trucks like you see at Old Navy for his winter beater.
It makes me glad I live in the Bay Area where you can’t completely tie vehicle choice to stereotype.
Unless we’re talking hipsters and their damn Falcons….
A Ha! I knew there had to be something to the spate of Falcons I’ve been seeing around West LA lately.( probably the same few again and again)
How very true, LJ.
I did half my Navy time in the Bay Area…one of my fellow inmates was…an interesting guy. A borderline dwarf, who barely made the military height requirement, who was also a regular riot.
He wanted a car. Like most junior service members, he didn’t have much money. We, about five of us, helped him with shopping…and we all settled on a Geo Metro.
He loved it. He loved how it drove; he loved the 50 miles a gallon. He loved the ease of parking. And…THE GIRLS LOVED IT, TOO!! They all thought it was great that a guy had enough self-confidence he didn’t need to parade around in a vehicle suggesting personal power or endowment; something PRACTICAL.
It was more of a chick-magnet than any tricked-out truck or Ford Mustang could have been…and this on a guy who stood 5’3” and looked like Barney Rubble.
I’ve mostly had the higher performance spec cars, but I learned early in my dating career not to talk to women about them. They rarely know/care about the details anyway. Ultimately if they’re interested in you, they don’t really care if you even HAVE a car.
Now, if one was to swing the other way, I think you could do real well with a hot car.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that… (apologies to Jerry Seinfeld & Co.)
This is the only RWD Impala I never cared for. It’s bloated and too overdone for my tastes. I do like the vent over the rear window though.
It’s interesting, the damning comments here on the Prius’ styling. Now I’m no fan of the Prius as a package; but frankly, I think it looks pretty sharp in a New-Age kinda way.
This Impala, by comparison…”Bulgemobile” fits. I never thought much of the 1958 models…the grilles too high and cluttered…no coherence, looked not even fierce, but sad. And the rears…the opened clams on the rear corners; how wide the clams depended on how many light pods which depended on what series (wagon/Bel Air/Impala). That must have cost; and with zero benefit to the purchaser. Any perceived status from having a wider-open clam quickly disappeared.
Yes, it had a trunk. It also had too much glass and not enough air conditioning. And I was never a fan of the wraparound windshield and reverse-angled A-pillar; and with the 1958s, Chevrolet turned it into a visual parody (yes, Ford did the same thing earlier; didn’t make it clever).
I look at a car like that…and think, Oh, what fools we were; and how far we’ve come. If the General could have just taken the engines of those years and put them in something like the 1977 Caprice…PERFECT.
There is a subtle similiarity between these cars, and that’s that each has a unique roof design. It’s rare that a car’s roof is anything but completely flat, but both of these cars have non-flat roofs (the ’58 is just for style but the Prius’ roof is supposedly designed for improved fuel efficiency).
Another good old car comparison using the current Prius is with the tailights of a 1960 Chrysler:
I love these. We had a ’58 Impala convertible when I was a kid. With 283 and Powerslide, I thought it was fast. Of course, that may just have been the way my mother drove it. She was a pretty competitive driver, and didn’t like to be passed.
I saw it at the stop light on Broadway and East Pike, Capitol Hill Seattle. I was walking down the street and caught it before the light changed. It sure was pretty.
It was most definitely not being driven by a CapHIll hipster. It was too nice.