We’ve spent a massive amount of time on these pages praising the 1977-up B-Body Impala and Caprice. But 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 powertrains 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 in 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.
Note: a rerun of an older post.
1970 was also the last year where all the different divisions still had very different chassis in their full-size cars. The intermediates and compacts used identical chassis but varied their suspension tuning and drivetrains, but the full-size cars used very different suspension layouts, for example. Greater commonality began with the 1971 redesigns and continued with the 1977 downsizing. In both cases, each division used the same basic chassis.
I would have to dig it up, but there were comparison tests that pitted Buick, Oldsmobile, Mercury and Dodge together along with Chrysler (or Imperial), Cadillac and Lincoln. GM controlled half the market for a reason, but the other members of the Big Three also had their loyalists, again for a reason.
’64 was the last year for different chassis layouts for GM B and C body cars. Tuning, right down to rubber stiffness used, was still a divisional choice.
Always preferred the “69”, to the “70”. No real reason other than it’s more pleasing to my eye.
I’ll go with the “70”, because my dad once owned a “70” model. ^_^;
Still, Bel Air buyers in Canada are still lucky to get a 2-door model and as a 2-door hardtop after they dropped the 2-door sedan for 1970.
https://oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Chevrolet/1970-Chevrolet-Full-Size-Brochure/slides/1970_Chevrolet_Full_Size_Cdn-14-15.html
Is the man in the background of that Bel Air sedan picture kidnapping that woman, or what?
As my late mother-in-law liked to say, “It’s a different world these days.”
To which photo are you referring?
I see two photos of a four door Bel Air, but no man or woman.
Apologies – the photo I meant is the lower one on the brochure page Stéphane linked to, not one in the main article.
Thanks for that clarification!
Saw it – that’s a playful moment between suitor and suitee(!) Good quality images of some great cars.
Me, too. 69 is my favorite big Chevy – especially with the rare concealed headlights. That loop bumper and rounded rectangle lights just look right to me. The ‘70 is handsome, but looks like it should be an earlier vintage than the ‘69, a bit generic and retrograde. And that ‘70 face screams ‘Buick’ to me.
To me the styling of the 69-70 largely marked the turning point for full size sedans that lasted to the end of the Ford Panther platform cars. The styling is unquestionably cleaner than the 68 and prior but it remained in this state pretty much to the end of the line, consivertive and square, appealing to fleet operators and in the civilian market conservative middle age or older kinds. The 71-76s were hyper bloated but the styling was just as conservative as the 70, and for as much as a step back to rationality they were, I’m sorry but the 77s didn’t hold a stylistic candle to the 55-68 era big Chevys, and the 80 restyle sucked what little flourish they had right out of the design.
Substantively these (and the 77s) were improved but at what cost??? Give me a 68 with the big hips, triple round taillights and shark nose over this baroque box on wheels(I don’t actually dislike it, just comparatively speaking)
Yes. All of this.
The point at the bottom of the fender in back of the front wheel rusted in a couple of years of Boston weather. I remember seeing the rust and thinking it was a step backwards.
When I arrived on scene in 1970 as my parents fifth child they decided it was finally time to upgrade from their aging 1956 Plymouth sedan. My mother must have really twisted my rather austere Dad to spring for a 1970 Chevrolet Kingswood wagon with the mighty 454!
It was a beautiful deep red over black and no di-noc.
I actually prefer the somewhat retrograde grill treatment over the ’69’s loop bumper. More “continuity”, if you will. The slit style side marker lights integrated into the front bumper are a nifty touch too.
Dad eventually tired of feeding that beautiful beast Premium Leaded gas after the first OPEC unplesantness and traded the Kingswood in towards a 1977 Dodge Aspen sedan.
I can only imagine how that last trade must have played out.
I know these got some styling and other changes every year but I am surprised these had a 6 yr run before a full re do. Of course that is nothing compared to the Methuselah cycles that GM adapted in the last quarter of the 20th century.
The brown car pictured is a Caprice with earlier vintage hubcaps. I had a 1970 Impala. No complaints here. It was a sweet ride.
I often wonder how this vintage of Chevrolet Impala compares with the same vintage of Mercedes in terms of driving dynamics and quality/reliability. Does Mercedes have much more advantages? Or I just compare apple with orange? In my view, for regular driving today Accord is about the same as Audi and Mercedes. At least one thing Accord does better than other two is more reliable.
Once again: Paul and I agree on a car.
I am pleased; I am gratified.
I took Driver Ed in a ’68 Impala. Unusual in that it had the optional 327/PG instead of the 307/PG. It was a wonderful driving car. At the time, my only standard for driving comparison was the parents’ 1959 Rambler American. So there is that issue with a fairly low bar being set..
1970 models of any make depreciated to a level commensurate with my financial wherewithal by the late 70s.
Despite my past working in a Ford garage, I admit the 70 model wasn’t one of Ford’s more popular efforts. Even equipped with the 390 2v, the Ford wasn’t a match for the Chevy 350. The 390 did redeem itself in that a properly tuned one was very smooth and torquey. Ford bodies did seem to stay tight even with age. You could count on replacing the neutral start switch and rear axle seals every few years plus the radio position in the left was an unnecessary annoyance. Other than that, these cars seemed to age pretty well if you kept the frames away from salt.
Likewise the 70 Plymouth wasn’t one of Chrysler’s better efforts. I think the 65-68 versions were superior to the fuselages in almost every way. While the unibody never gave the isolation of the BOF GM or Fords, I think something about the fusies actually made things worse. Even when the bodies were tight, they had a hollowed out feel to them that just didn’t convery an impression of durability.
I agree with you that the powertrains were generally 1st rate. New ones might have lost their handling edge to Chevy, but as suspensions aged, Plymouth handling seemed to deteriorate less than Chevy. It may have been peculiar to the samples I drove, but it always seemed Chevy suspensions went south earlier than Plymouths. Since you could adjust torsion bars and re-arch leaf springs, fixing a saggy suspension was also cheaper on a Plymouth.
As a used car, Plymouths depreciated noticeably faster than Chevy or Ford. By the time I was in the market for these models, I was more likely to buy some model of MoPar due to my impression of the suspension and the lower used price.
What was good for me as a used car buyer was exactly opposite of what a new car buyer would look at in regards to depreciation anyway. I can see why these Chevies were so popular.
Replying to Rob re: trade-in of Kingswood for Aspen.
Ah, well… I think Dad was hoping the Aspen would retain the some of the Mopar KT Kelleresque attributes that appealed to him in the ’51 and even ’56 Plymouths he had previously owned. It seemed “rational” after the ginormous and thirsty 454.
Well, certainly to me as a kid it seemed like a letdown. It ate ballast resistors like clockwork. The front fenders never rusted out but they had to be replaced after an encounter with a deer and never quite matched the rest of the car thereafter.
The trunk wells rusted out by the time I inherited it with 155K on the odometer and I used chicken wire to keep things from falling out of the trunk. Nevertheless I’m convinced that thing would still be running if my cousin hadn’t convinced me to buy her clean looking… wait for it… ’81 Chevette. No THAT was really a letdown!
My seat-time on the frigid cold leatherette seat in a 1970 350 Impala is mostly summed up by the time my father drove me to school every winter morning in his blue 2 doors Impala with a white vinyl roof . After 4 years, it was completely rusted by our Québec winters.
Barely better after that,he acquired a colonnade ’74 Chevelle ‘taxi special’ (rubber floor mats) as if the previous Impala had signified too much opulence for my humble father. Same 350 but in ’74 it wasn’t the same pony anymore.
1970 was the last good year for GM’s full-size lineup styling….And the full size Chevy showed this to full affect…..From 1971 on GM started losing their way,especially Chevrolet…And that led to their eventual bankruptcy in 2009…..I know the “71 -up style is very popular as a “Donk”,but what regular person drives their car around on 30+ inch rims?….1970 full-size Chevys looked like mini Cadillacs and were the end of an era in motoring history…..My dad always had fullsize Chevys in the “60’s…..And he had a “70 Impala 2 door hardtop as his last fullsize Chevy…..When the ugly bloated redesign happened in “71,he quit Chevy altogether and switched over to Chrysler products.
Another good looking sweet driving home run for the Bowtie Division .
-Nate
’70 was also the last year for high compression engines.