The day I sat down to write this, it was literally one degree Fahrenheit (-17 Celsius) outside at that very moment, with a predicted high of 5F (-15C). Maybe it was the frigid outdoor temperatures that had finally given me the nudge I needed to dust off decade-old pictures of our featured car which I had photographed in warm, sunny Tampa, Florida. It was a psychological need. I also had a virtual fireplace going on the television in my living room that day, thanks to the good people who upload such loops and livestreams onto YouTube. On very cold days, it seems to take the edge off by having even just the image of open flames in the background.
Fire has many connotations, with most of them being positive in my mind. As a property insurance underwriter, negative associations are with the peril covered by most basic homeowners contracts. No insurance professional wants their name on a file in which there has been a total loss. (Don’t ask me how I know.) When the weekends aren’t quite as cold outside, I may still be found taking an afternoon stroll through my neighborhood, often winding through side streets lined with both both multi- and single-family residences.
One of my absolute most favorite things while doing so is to catch a whiff of fireplace smoke from the chimney of one of these homes. There’s something about that smell that instantly brings contented thoughts of togetherness. People gather near a fireplace indoors to warm themselves as they play board games or just talk. Even in the cool of a summer night, it’s great fun to sit outside in a circle around a firepit, make smores, and sip on the beverage of one’s choice.
Fire and flame also have strong automotive connections, owing to the internal combustion engine and the revolution that ensued with the availability, affordability, and popularity of the personal private passenger vehicle (thank you, Mr. Henry Ford). According to a few sources, painting flames on cars had started around the late 1930s, but this didn’t become more popular until around a decade later. There were, of course, fighter planes that had featured flames on the side starting with World War I. With the public’s general fascination with airplanes at the time, it makes sense that such imagery would eventually trickle down.
Fire would become a buzzword among automakers, being incorporated into many engine and model names: the 331 cubic inch Chrysler Firepower V8, the DeSoto Firedome, the Oldsmobile Jetfire and Starfire, the Buick Fireball V6, the Chevrolet Blue Flame six-cylinder installed in the very first Corvettes, and the Cross-Fire fuel injected V8s installed in latter-day C3s, just to name a few. One could argue that the Renault Fuego continued this imagery going through the mid-1980s. (I was too physically freezing-cold at the time of writing the first draft to come up with more examples, but I hope most of you get my basic idea.)
The custom flames painted on the sides of vehicles were analogous to more power, much like the fake fireplace that was going in my living room was a symbol of more heat. Increased combustion meant greater force and speed. Applied within the context of this big, beautiful ’66 Impala Super Sport convertible, the image is one of a giant, roadgoing meteor. A meatier meteor.
This is a whole lotta car, stretching 213.2 inches from front to back on a 119.0″ wheelbase, 79.6″ wide (without mirrors), and 55.3″ tall. Its starting weight of just over 3,600 pounds doesn’t seem all that much compared to that of a new 2024 Camaro, which ranges from 3,400 to 4,100 pounds. It’s true that the base curb weight of the ’66 Impala SS didn’t include many popular or realistic extras that would push one much closer to the two-ton mark. Good luck trying to park a car like this without power steering.
The Impala Super Sport sub-model was hugely popular for ’66, selling over 119,000 units. This represented a sizeable 18% of total Impala production of 654,900 units. (Full-size Chevrolet sales would hit almost a million and a half units that year, including Biscayne, Bel Air, and Caprice.) If my 2003 edition of the Encyclopedia Of American Cars from the editors of Consumer Guide is accurate, and if this one isn’t a tribute, our featured car is one of just under 15,900 Impala SS convertibles produced that year. I have no clue as to what was under the hood, but it might be a 275-horsepower 327 Turbo-Fire V8. Given the wicked tats on its exterior, it might have something more potent up there.
This Impala on Cragars is pure Americana on wheels, and the kind of car that a non-car enthusiast born within the last decade might not understand at all. It’s a huge, rear-drive, two-door convertible, powered by a V8 combustion engine, and with flames painted on the sides. Once positively everything goes electric, will there be electric currents, lightning, or sparks painted on the sides of “vintage” Chevy Volts and Bolts in the future?
Nope, because those cars will all be scrapped after use due to obsolete technology and since cars occupy a different purpose and percentage of income today than they did when this Impala was new. I do think that a lightning-effect paint job (or wrap) would look cool, for the record. On the day I wrote this, though, I was content to stop typing just before I hit a thousand words to go wrap both hands around a cup of hot coffee and warm myself in front of the faux fire.
Tampa, Florida.
Friday, May 17, 2013.
The 1966 Chevrolet Impala brochure pages were as sourced from www.oldcarbrochures.org.
Hi,
Great article! Spring and summer seem a little bit closer when a 1966 Impala Super Sport convertible is featured.
The photo from above showing the car at its finest in shades of blue is hotter than the fire pin-striping.
Have you considered writing a thousand words about the precedent 1965 Impala Super Sport convertible in comparison?
Thanks,
Gary
Thanks, Gary! Yes, maybe subconsciously, I like featuring convertibles during cold-weather months for the reason you described. I haven’t had a chance to photograph a ’65 that wasn’t a car show, but I’m sure that if and when that happens, I’ll find some angle from which to write about it.
Hey, Dennis! 1 degree Fahrenheit!? Sorry, I wouldn’t trade places with you, that’s just TOO cold for me! In keeping with your theme though, here’s an old school music memory. Hope it adds to the fireplace illusion!! BTW, nice Impala, although I’d prefer a hardtop. 🙂
https://youtu.be/1xqMY8UAGgg?si=zkz9pFLudbRzafPo
I generally save commenting for the end of the day, and you may or may not believe this, but “Fire” by the Ohio Players was actually going to be my tie-in to this car when (one of them) when I had first considered writing it up a few years ago.
Again I learn something from CC. I was not aware of the Ohio Players. When I think of the song Fire, the Pointer Sisters’ version of the song written by Bruce Springsteen comes to mind. Robert Gordon also does a nice version with guitarist Link Wray, and it was released before the Pointer Sisters’ version.
I think the 3,600 lb figure is a shipping weight rather than a curb weight. The base curb weight for a ’66 Impala SS convertible with the 283 was 3,785 lb, or 3,852 lb with power steering/brakes, Powerglide, and an AM/FM radio. With the same equipment and a 327, it would be 3,899 lb at the curb. Air conditioning would add 110 to 120 lb on top of that. So, a fully loaded example would be around 4,000 lb all up.
Sounds right to me – thanks, AUWM. I just go with the numbers in that encyclopedia. Mine is from 2003, so it’s entirely possible some numbers were updated – or possibly that I misread the metric, though I’m sure I double checked.
For older Chevrolet and Cadillac models, the GM Heritage Center Vehicle Information Kits usually have the AMA specs, which include shipping and curb weights by model and the weight added by different major options. Some of the encyclopedias don’t draw a clear distinction between shipping weight and curb weight, I suspect because their editors don’t always grasp the difference.
The 66 is always overshadowed by the 65, with which it shares plenty, Not certain if the dark gray was a factory color. I notice some differences from stock, the black out paint on vertical grille bars is gone and it looks more standard Impala. Same for the blacked out areas on either ends of the lower grille.. Body coloring the front valance in 65 and 66 Impalas has been a thing for some time. in stock form they were argent, but I find it good either way. Also notice the trim is missing form the lip of the deck lid. Perhaps a temporary situation. The horizontal bar overlay on caprice taillights were I believe a option on the SuperSport. I saw a number of such when these cars were new. I was all of 14 when they came to market. The Cragars are a period teen touch. I considered them on my 64 Cutlass, but stayed with the Olds Spec wire wheel covers. A nice car. But personally, i would douse the flames.
Chateau Slate, a light gray, was the closest factory color.
I’m impressed with your level of detail recognition in differentiating the two years. Basic stuff I got, but my hat is off to you. Most seem to prefer the ’65, but it’s a push for me. I like the ’66 as much.
The 66 is one of my favorite Chevy designs of that decade, and I do love a big 60s convertible.
I remember the flames on hot rods when I was a kid, and I wonder if they were not originally meant to invoke the flaming exhausts of WWII fighter planes.
What a great subject to write about on a frigid day!
Thanks, JP! Not to take anything away from the ’67, but the ’66 makes no compromises in the interest of fads of the day and looks very purposeful. I like the ’67, but the fastbacks look a little tadpole-y in profile. The two-door ’66 (and ’65) are more to my personal preference.
I cannot even begin to imagine such cold. Even in winter. Okay, granted we’re ‘enjoying’ summer down here, but it’s been such a cool, humid summer that the cabbage moths are out in plague proportions. LIke living in a butterfly house. The weatherologists call it a La Nina or some such. Everything seems to need a flashy name or acronym these days, much like cars of the fifties and sixties had This-O-Matic and That-O-Matic – bit I digress (How did we get here?).
On Sunday we reached 38C (100F), but we’ve had few days in the thirties, let alone our usual forties. But to look on the bright side, there’s no chance of wildfires this summer. Doing a ‘seasonal flip’, the coldest I have ever experienced here has been -7C, which translates to 18 degrees American.
I’m sorry, but you can keep your One Fahrenheit. The last few days have only been in the low twenties C (seventies F), so I can’t really spare you any this summer – presupposing it was even possible to ship them to you. No wonder that subtly-flamed Chevrolet inspired your missive. Even if the flames were ice-coloured.
This might warm you up some, at least visually. 🙂
I always appreciate your perspectives from the hemisphere opposite mine, Peter! In the insurance industry, we pay close attention to things like weather patterns, and especially so when hurricane season starts in the U.S.
And you’re right – those flames are ice-colored! That just have gone right over my head when I wrote this with chattering teeth.
This Chevy was peak GM, at least for big car fans like me. It’s such a handsome, clean design. It’s kind of amazing that GM could offer such a desirable car at the bottom of their big car price structure. It looks pretty big today, but it was almost ten inches shorter than a ’64 Cadillac.
One of my cousins bought a black ’65 Chevy fastback in the early 1970’s. It had chrome Moon wheels with thin line white walls, and dual pipes. I thought that it was the coolest car that I’d ever seen.
Later in the late 70’s I bought a ’65 Impala SS convertible with the intention of making a Lowrider out of it. I replaced the convertible top myself, but eventually lost interest. It was only a Chevy, after all, and I ditched it and bought a Cadillac!
Jose, I like that you point out just how high-style the ’66 Chevrolet was (or even appears today) relative to other big cars from the other, higher-up GM makes. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I see it. The ’65 and ’66 have an enduring style, which has remained constant decades after they were more common.
I also love the smell of a wood fie. Until about 5 years ago 2 of my neighbours heated with wood, so there was always a whiff in the air. Then my next door neighbour decided it was too much work, and put in gas. Then 2 years ago the other neighbour, who lives 2 blocks away, put in a heat pump, partly for cooling, and more because she broke her shoulder and could not not carry firewood, so no more wood smoke during the winter.
It’s such a great smell, Mike. And I hadn’t really considered that many people still use wood burning stoves as a primary heat source. I think that’s great.
Wood smoke is prolly very bad to inhale but I too love it so much and the memories of times spent around fireplaces, camp fires and the like .
This certainly is a beautiful car but at < 4,000# it's too heavy for my taste .
-Nate