All hail the King!
What you now see sitting triumphantly in front of you is the king of American cars from 1969. This Impala sprang forth during that historic year when man first walked on the moon and some long and wet concert was held in New York state.
1969 was also a time in which the full-sized sedan attempts at being all things to all people were starting to diminish. Infrequent has been the mention of any 1969 full-sized Chevrolet around here and we’ve never had a CC on one. It’s time to correct that.
This Impala is a descendant of the 1965 full-sized Chevrolet, a car that was a vast departure from the previous models by doing away with the X-frame and having a lot more curvaceousness. While we’re split on whether the ’65 is visually superior to the ’66, we could all likely agree these cars certainly had stamina.
Draped in more new attire for 1969 than had been the case the previous few years, the underpinnings were primarily unchanged with overall length being one inch longer than in 1968. The Impala was still a formidable contender in the perpetual sales race despite this being the fifth year of the same basic car.
For those inclined to think of successful sales volumes by present day parameters, where 400,000 units is a successful year for a Camry, full-sized sales from a half-century ago require some distinct mental recalibration. Chevrolet sold 777,000 Impalas alone for the 1969 model year. Expanding this to include the Caprice, Bel-Air, and Biscayne (perhaps the knight, bishop, and rook to King Impala?), all being trim variations of the same body, and sales were well over one million.
The closest comparison to such volumes these days is that lightning rod for internet commentators, the Ford F-150. Ford sold a comparatively paltry 909,000 of them in 2018.
For a comparison in better context, Ford sold 999,000 full-sized cars for 1969. Ford was doing well but Chevrolet was doing better.
It could be argued our feature car is the near stereotype Impala for that year – a four door sedan with an automatic transmission and an eight cylinder engine. The only way this Impala could be more stereotypical is if it were green. This is likely the most popular permutation of Chevrolet (sales aren’t broken down by body style, only model) and it was marketed as a comfortable and affordable people mover, which was the reason for Chevrolet in the first place.
Few people sought the Impala SS427, that big-boned, big-blocked quasi-performance car. Available only with the 427 (7.0 liter) engine, the car was on a mission for which demand was quickly diminishing.
To it’s credit, the Impala SS427 did advertise itself as being a hybrid, likely making it one of the first hybrid cars ever produced.
The availability of a three-on-the-tree manual transmission as an alternative to a four-speed manual does prompt some head-scratching. If any were produced as such the number would have to be minuscule.
A three-on-the-tree would have been more in the domain of the Biscayne, the offering most appealing to skin-flints and fleets. It was also the big Chevrolet most likely to be packing a straight-six under the hood.
Forty percent of Biscaynes required only six spark plugs for a tune-up.
Stepping up the Chevrolet hierarchy (perhaps a sub-Sloanian ladder?) got a person to the Bel-Air, a name that had been gifted with the full-debasement treatment since 1958. At first blush it’s hard to distinguish a Biscayne from a Bel-Air as both had two tail lights per side instead of three. The biggest indicator is the Bel-Air having some pretense of chrome trim on the sides.
A person also had much better odds of finding a V8 in a Bel-Air than a Biscayne as just over 88% of Bel-Airs had eight cylinder engines.
The only big non-wagon Chevrolet to have nothing but V8s in the arsenal was the upscale Caprice. The Caprice was still top of the heap at this point; its name debasement wouldn’t happen until the mid-1980s, definitely one of the longer runs of continued prestige ever seen by any model name on an American car.
But as often seems the case the name was too good to leave undefiled forever.
This leaves us with the bread-and-butter, baseball, and apple pie Impala of which nearly 90% were powered by one of four V8s in various states of tune. General Motors was leaving no stone unturned in trying to attract and maintain its share of the market.
Let’s talk engines for a moment.
The standard V8 was a 327 (5.3 liter) mill with an advertised 235 gross horsepower. It had replaced the 307 that was standard fare in 1968. From there one could get a 350 in two or four-barrel form, a 396 with only a two-barrel carburetor, and the previously mentioned 427.
There was also a straight-six, the same as found in so many Biscaynes, but the take rate was marginal. How marginal? Right at 11%.
The two-barrel 396 was an oddity. Rated at 265 gross horsepower, this was 10% less than the four-barrel 350. Even odder was this lower power 396 costing nearly $16 more than the 350. Torque output was no doubt a bit healthier – or was it?
Bud Lindeman sure didn’t care for the two barrel 396 powertrain. He was pretty critical of it, even going so far as to say their test Impala needed an idiot light to indicate it was moving. With a 0 – 60 time of over 13 seconds, it was a pretty pitiful showing for a 396 in a 3,800 pound car.
The brakes on their test unit really pulled to the left but it did make for great television. Cornering wasn’t this Impala’s forte either as tire squall and sidewalls scrubbing the pavement can be seen throughout this video.
Leaving no stone unturned also applied to Chevrolet advertising of the time. While finding commercials for most cars is often a crap shoot we have to remember this is Chevrolet. They had an Impala commercial to appeal to anyone.
One has to assume hiring The 5th Dimension at the height of their popularity cost some serious coin.
Especially when the group filmed multiple commercials.
Too bad they couldn’t find a voice actor that didn’t pronounce “Caprice” as “Cap-Reese”.
As an aside, I was rather captivated by the first commercial with The 5th Dimension and I know why. As a youngster during the 1980s I enjoyed watching Solid Gold hosted by 5th Dimension singer Marilyn McCoo. A little research revealed she is now 75 years old and looks fantastic. She has been married to fellow 5th Dimension singer Billy Davis since around the time of these commercials being filmed in 1969.
McCoo needed to sing more often on the show; her voice is outstanding.
But back to our Chevrolets. This ad shows a Cap-Reese with an intriguing sounding option – liquid tire chain. Costing around $23 when new, the Caprice in this advertisement is likely one of the most loaded Chevrolets produced that year.
The liquid tire chain was an effort to improve our lives through chemistry. A button inside the car activated two aerosol cans located in the trunk that dispensed a polymer compound onto the drive wheels. This can be seen in the video.
The liquid tire chain option was available across the entire Chevrolet line. With only 2,600 takers it was a complete flop and did not reappear for 1970.
Watching these commercials are a hoot. From watching this particular one Chevrolet sure made it appear people were lined up to buy an Impala. The “competitors” look really downtrodden, demoralized, and strung out.
It’s also interesting to see the production values of this commercial versus those of the other commercials.
To bring things full circle, when was the last time you saw a passenger car commercial that touted towing capabilities? Since that ability has seemingly evaporated one could argue that is part of why pickups have been gaining in popularity the last forty or so years.
After the blue Impala in the last commercial let’s talk more about our featured blue Impala. The Impala was sold as being capable of umpteen odd tasks and it seems this is still the case as it was found outside a big-box home improvement store.
The trunk alone could swallow several squares of shingles, many boxes of ceramic tile, or several bundles of hard wood flooring.
Taking out the backseat, the car could likely accommodate a copious amount of lumber. Perhaps if there’s a plumbing or electrical project, full-sized sticks of PVC or metal conduit could fit in the back of your Impala.
But I’m speculating. Given I’ve seen it elsewhere in town it might simply belong to a happy owner who enjoys driving a comfortable old Chevrolet in which parts are plentiful and it doesn’t break the bank to run it. This blue Impala’s mission really hasn’t changed in a half-century, has it?
Regardless, the 1969 Chevrolet Impala was truly King. It’s not difficult to see why.
Found April 2018
Jefferson City, Missouri
I recall reading a story about an early magazine test of a GTO where the car performed less than stellar. John Z. got wind of it and went ballistic. He swore that no Pontiac would ever get to be buff-book tested that wasn’t prepped perfectly, usually by Royal Pontiac.
As we know, Delorean took over Chevy in ’70. I’ll bet this sorry showing by the Impala in the Car&Track test wouldn’t have occurred on his watch. There was clearly something (or several things) wrong with that car. Brakes were obviously fugazy, tires were underinflated, and as for the engine, well… even a 2-barrel should do better than that.
Also, FWIW, better double check the engine lineup in that brochure.
The 2-barrel was the ONLY 396 in big cars in ’69, hard to believe as it may be.
It was effectively replaced by the 400 small block in ’70.
It’s amazing how a person can look at something repeatedly and still overlook prime information!
Text changed.
According to Aaron Severson at Ate Up With Motor, John DeLorean took over Chevy in February 1969.
https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/chevrolet-impala-1965-1969/
Throughout the years whenever they put tiny two barrels on big block powered full size cars and lowered the compression to make them regular fuel the result was almost always a car that did 0-60 in the 11 to 14 second range…
Picture this – My 75 yr old, 4’11” Aunt Gertie chose a 69 Impala coupe 427 for her ride. All you saw was the top of her blue hair, as she blew by you on her way to Ft Lauderdale from Delaware. She was a terror, and a favorite at the tire store. I miss her. Such gumption!
Well they could have pumped the tyres up for the road test that might have helped with cornering, that car would have serious problems staying in it lane on our roads and the other lane moves in the other direction, and its slower than I thought they were by quite a lot, nice enough car but I dont want one.
I have to say that I prefer the 70 Impala to the 69. Now, if I were buying just a 69 Chevy, I would love to own a Caprice coupe like the one pictured. That formal roof and those fender skirts…I really like that combination on this car.
And everyone SHOULD know that the 65 Impala is just a bit better than the 66. Those 3 tail lights on each side, protruding from the fenders/trunklid, great styling feature..
While I’ve warmed to the ’65*, I still prefer the ’66. I’ll admit a bias though, as my Dad bought one of these when I started to become car aware at the age of 5-1/2.
* I have to agree those taillights are awesome.
I still remember him pulling up in front of the picture window on a test drive with a yellowish-cream colored ’65 Impala-Caprice (I think the Caprice was just a trim level in 1965). It was the salesman’s ride for demos.
I excitedly asked my Dad if that was our new car, and he said, “No, we’re getting one a year newer in red.”
His looked something like this one. Pretty much everything you see right down to the colors and such (I recall 283 badges on the fenders though). Of course he didn’t have the Cragar S/S wheels. His had the popular wheel covers (most likely standard) that looked like a child’s drawing of a volcano….
Great, comprehensive piece – and tie-in with the Fifth Dimension. I’ve loved that commercial since it was included on a DVD of vintage TV commercials I had purchased some years back.
I recall having a BIG TIME crush on Marilyn McCoo at the age of 9 in 1969, and remember these commercials when they first aired!
Yup!
There’s a lot to like here, even in 2019. The 350/350 drivetrain combo was pretty bulletproof, the color and finish is nice but not too perfect, and I even like the wheels.
When you think back, these really were ubiquitous, weren’t they?
A great article. Hail the King, and hail loyal scribe Shafer for writing this up.
Thank you.
There’s another car I’m writing up for which we’ve never seen here before. Hopefully we’ll see it in a week or so.
I came across this video clip when reading the article in other website. If you can move the time stamp to 0:14, you can see the headlamp covers moving and washers squirting at the headlamps. I never knew that Chevrolet had that option in the 1960s and for the US market.
https://youtu.be/0hsbZa8uWtw?t=14
Of course even when they were sparkling clean, those Guide T-3 headlamps were dim as a candle
The 69 Impala was a very nicely done car. As I think about it, it is really the only one of the 1969 big B body cars that was attractive from every angle. The Olds and Buick had a really pudgy look to them and the Pontiac was just strange, especially in back.
I particularly like the “W” shape that was carried out both on the front edge of the car and on the back. That subtle W made the loop bumper work really well. The flat loop bumpers on the Mopars of the time looked a little too blunt compared to these.
It is funny that you mention the green ones as typical, as that was exactly what some neighbors bought. They were a 2 car family and had a “new car every three years” rotation, so that each one stayed in the driveway for 6. In 1969 the 63 Chevy II with the 3 speed that the Mrs had to drive was traded in on a new 69 Impala 4 door sedan in light green with a dark green vinyl roof and air. Mrs. Crist must have thought she had died and gone to heaven after that hair shirt Chevy II. The Impala was much more on a par with the 66 Bonneville that Mr. Crist drove.
Finally, I recall reading that Chevrolet’s most popular paint color in 1969 was white (just as it had been through every other year of the 1960s). An excellent treatise on a car that should have been seen hereabouts before now.
I remember you saying something Jim about Ford having a different green for every year of the sixties.
Since you are CC’s “Color Whisperer”, perhaps you can confirm or deny what I recall of the time. I think the same thing may’ve been true for Chevy.
My Dad’s ’68 Impala was Grecian Green (he traded in the aforementioned ’66 on it). I seem to recall the ’67 was different, as well as the ’69 (which was more olive/avocado), and then the ’70 light green got this goldish tint to it.
Annual color changes were probably quite common in the psychedelic sixties, but that Firethorn Red (pictured above on the ’66 I posted in response to Howard) seemed to be with Chevy FOREVER! My Dad would go on to purchase a ’77 Concours years later in the same color. I think that color continued well into the eighties, maybe even the nineties!
Yes, all you say is coming back to me, and a lookup confirmed it.
Grecian Green (GM code WA3763) was a 1968-only color. The light green for 1967 was Mountain Green (WA3561). Willow Green (WA3303) was used in both 1965 and 66.
1969 got Frost Green (WA3863), 1970 was Green Mist (WA4025) 1971 got Cottonwood Green (WA4115)
Gulf Green (WA4232) was 1972’s light green, which was followed by Light Green (WA4316) and Green Gold (WA4324) in 1973.
I chased them up through 1979 and never found any of the light greens (used on the big Chevy, anyway) that repeated for a second year after 1965-66.
Those people in charge of picking paint colors really had a full time job in those years. And I might be tempted to quibble on the long availability of that 1977 Firethorn Red. Paintref.com says that this one (WA4748) was used only across 1976 and 1977. I can recall similar colors going back to 73 but the maroons seemed darker before that.
I, too, noticed the similarity of the big Chevy’s loop bumper to the fuselage Mopars of the same year. It’s interesting since Chrysler was copying Pontiac’s bumpers from the previous model cycle, yet, here was Chevrolet coming up with their own version at the exact same time as Chrysler (maybe due to Delorean now being in charge?).
It was unusual for both company’s to have such a similar styling feature at the same time and I wonder if Chevy made a hasty retreat from the loop bumper for 1970 when they saw the new Chryslers.
It would have been even more apparent when Plymouth got its own loop bumper in 1970. I was struck looking at the front end of this Impala how similar the two were.
The 70 redesign feels more like a transition to the upcoming 71 models than a response, though. There’s a lot of foreshadowing in that front end.
Watching the vintage commercials, I wondered when was the last time a manufacturer was able to advertise that their car actually cost LESS than the previous year model yet still provided improvements over the previous year?
The 1969 Malibu/Chevelle was also very appealing in 1969. I’ll bet they took a lot of sales away from the larger Impala. Wonder what the sales figures and price differences were in 1969?
There are at least a few different sets of production numbers floating around (see my post below about the many discrepancies in Chevrolet production figures from this era), but I think it’s safe to say that Chevelle production was somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000. Chevelles were very popular, by far Chevrolet’s second most-popular line behind the full-sizes, and probably the best-selling mid-sizes on the market. But in 1969, the full-size was still king, and by a wide margin.
Couple thoughts…
I think you would have found the “small” big-block was most common in towing applications and 8-seat wagons. Those engines tended to be about torque for big loads.
I also wonder about the option cost of THM350 vs Powerglide. The THM was a far superior transmission, and the PG should have been rendered obsolete the moment the THM350 came out. I’d like to imagine the PG was only purchased by fleet buyers and other total skinflints, especially if the cost difference is somewhere around the $100 that I figure it must have been. Anybody got an options pricing list?
It varied according to the vehicle, and I’m not sure I understand why.
A screenshot from my copy of American Cars 1960-1972
Here you go:
Wow, thanks for those numbers; they’re even lower than I thought! And even though $60 was a lot more money in ’69 than it is today, I simply can’t imagine choosing the PG over the THM350!
I’m seeing a $10 price difference between the PG and THM with the 250 six. My guess is that would be at most a six-month payback in gas savings alone. It’s amazing that Chevrolet would drag that early-1950s transmission into the 1970s.
These cars were a bit before my time but I recall the ’69 Kingswood wagon from The Virgin Suicides.
IIRC the Impala SS was cancelled in February 1969.
The very first one I can remember seeing was in the Summer of 1987, just after we moved into our current house west of Pittsburgh. It was a 427 and in dark blue.
Wasn’t around here long. A true unicorn among top-selling Custom Coupes and 4-door sedans.
Turns out the ’69 Chevy was a fine car when equipped with the F41 suspension package and disc brakes. MILES ahead of Ford and better than Plymouth – whose torsion-bar suspensions had been retuned to the point where the softer ride was costing them the handling for which they’d been known.
It all went to hell in a handbasket for 1971 but the ’69-’70s were probably the best Chevies since the Tri-Fives…maybe the outstanding ’49-’52s, when Nicholas Dreystadt, who’d started at Mercedes-Benz and moved to Cadillac, was running the division and the cars had the build quality of a Swiss watch.
Random thoughts:
– I like it, but find the styling of the 1969 Impala a bit nondescript compared to earlier (or even later) iterations
– re: full-line commercial – they reeealy didn’t want you to know they still made Corvairs….
– the 5th Dimension were awesome
– I never knew Chevy offered headlamp washers way back in the late 1960s. Always thought only European cars had them, and not starting until years later
– the headrests in these cars look quite usable. By the ’70s, GM headrests were uselessly tiny, and too far back on seats with Brougham loose-cushion pillows
– Did that liquid tire chain thing really work? Can you still get the stuff to refill it? Are there any ’69 Chevys out there with that feature still working?
By the ’70s, GM headrests were uselessly tiny, and too far back on seats with Brougham loose-cushion pillows.
ABSOLUTELY TRUE! How NHTSA managed to allow this useless and dangerous headrests in the world’s most litigatious country is beyond me!
Yes, this. They were below the neck of taller people, could’nt be raised more than two inches if that, and were way rearward of the seat cushions themselves. Also, strangely offset to the outer side of the seat on some models
Heard a rumor that the bigger 1969-70 head restraints [they are not headrests, actually] made drivers use them as “pillows” and fell asleep driving. So, made them “less comfy”?*
My grandfather removed his, saying they are not for sleeping!
*Cost cutting more likely reason
Regarding the styling – by 1969, it was obvious that the youth and performance markets had moved on to the compact, intermediate or pony car segment.
The 1969 model comes off best in the Caprice-level trim, particularly when equipped with hidden headlights. These cars weren’t remotely “sporty,” or even particularly youthful, by this point.
I look at the 69 styling as transitional, loop front bumpers and taillights in rear bumper were solidly on trend with the sportier intermediates, and the bulges around the wheelarches seem sportier to me than its predecessors did. The rooflines, or I should say the lack of fastback roofline, is the key element that represented the end of youthful sporting pretentions. With the fastback the 69 would look sportier than the 66 and 68 IMO
1970 was when these fully committed to being a big generic Dad sedan all around. 69 just feels like midway through planning they decided to make it more mature.
Did the liquid tire chain work? Good question. The theory was to roughen up the tire surface via chemicals to gain traction.
A better option was better tire technology and traction control.
That said, do a Youtube search for “insta-chains” if you want to see a novel way of gaining traction.
From my understanding, the chemical was basically rosin, and it indeed did work if you let it set for a few moments.
Thanks for correcting the lack of ’69 Chevy full sizers on CC! It’s surprising there aren’t more of these out there on the road given the huge production numbers. It’s not like they are hard to keep running, parts and complexity wise.
It’s great someone is driving this car (hopefully not in the winter). I have to say, though, I am not a fan of big modern wheels on a stock old car. On a well done custom, ok. Vintage style and size aftermarkets, ok. But throwing a set of big wheels on a plain-jane sedan is pretty tacky, IMO. Like clashing architectural styles. OK, rant over.
The 69 Chevy has never been one of my favorites. The wheel opening arches look kind of awkward to me, and the overall look is heavy and ungainly. I don’t see that in the 65-66 at all and even the 67-68 looks more fleet and sporty. The bulges around the wheel openings are rather cool, though.
“The Caprice was still top of the heap at this point; it’s name debasement wouldn’t happen until the mid-1980s, definitely one of the longer runs of continued prestige ever seen by any model name on an American car.
But as often seems the case the name was too good to leave undefiled forever.”
I’m not sure I would agree the Caprice name was debased. The Impala model was dropped after 85, I think, when full size volumes weren’t justifying having multiple nameplates for the full size when they had so many model lines in the showroom. True, you could get a relatively stripped Caprice, like cop cars and taxis, but most civilian models where sold decently optioned and the biggest, fanciest sedan Chevrolet sold would remain a Caprice through the end in 1996.
You’ve hit upon my thought process. Suddenly the strippo version was a Caprice versus a more loaded Caprice Classic. That had not always been the case with the Caprice.
Perhaps it is diminished prestige instead of full-blown debasement?:)
Chevrolet did this for decades. In ’57, the top trim was Bel-Air. By ’75, Bel-Air was the fleet special.
Even when was pre-teen back then thought it was silly to still have Bel Air and Biscayne names sticking around on virtually same trim. Most adults had Impalas and Caprice was gaining. Elders looking to save $ were switching to compacts, btw. So why keep the two base names until 72?
Made more sense when was just Impala/Caprice, but eventually one name stuck. Impala SS return in ’90s helped regain luster, though.
A most excellent find! Albeit with a few signatures, this one is in outstanding shape! This was very much the prototypical sedan of America at the time.
I liked the 66 over the 65, then and now. I know the taillights were rectangular not round, but it seemed to be a better, smoother design overall. The 65 seemed a bit choppier, and the taillights stood out unnecessarily to my eyes.
I recall we had a government rep at our plant, and with only a couple of hours of work per day at best, he would be out in the parking lot cleaning and shining his 1965 Chev, despite the prevalent rust. That kind of left me with a bit of a bad taste I will admit.
> when was the last time you saw a passenger car commercial that touted towing capabilities?
The last car advert I recall themed around towing was for the 1990 Cadillac Brougham, which touted the optional towing package as the main draw. While some buyers may have been interested because they actually wanted to tow something, the real draw more likely was that the towing package was the only way to get the newly-offered 350 SBC rather than the underpowered Olds 307. I think the 350 became available on its own by the time the last ones were made in 1992.
In comparing sales number from back then to today, it’s good to keep in mind that the market now is about twice the size as it was back then. Meaning that the Chevy’s market share was much higher than say the F series or such; more than twice as high. Absolute sales numbers don’t mean quite as much as market share.
The market back then was of course much less fragmented then today.
Good point. We’ve obviously discussed it before but the fragmentation is incredible. The market is fragmented in not only the number of brands available but also the number of models. Not counting the Corvair (barely still on sale in 1969) and Corvette, Chevy had 4 car lines in 1969 while they have 6 in 2019, plus the Bolt and Volt if you count those separately and 4 lines of crossovers (which are basically tall cars).
Couldn’t you argue that from the manufacturers’ point of view, absolute sales numbers are the most important thing, since that is what profits are based on? They put a lot of emphasis on market share for prestige and marketing, but the bottom line is how many cars they sell year to year, regardless of how much other brands are selling.
Couldn’t you argue that from the manufacturers’ point of view, absolute sales numbers are the most important thing, since that is what profits are based on?
Absolutely. That’s precisely the strategy GM has been following in particular recently. It all depends on maximizing the existing production capacity, or being able to expand it with the confidence that it will be utilized at a high rate.
My point in my comment was simply to point out that a million or so units of one line was a lot higher share than it is today. Which of course explains why one saw so many ’69 Chevys at the time. Their presence was much greater proportionately than any single vehicle line today.
At that time, GM had a lot invested in Chevrolet Division being “USA-#1,” and the full-size Chevrolet being the best-selling vehicle.
It’s interesting to consider the massive changes in the U.S. auto market that would happen over the next decade. By 1976 the Oldsmobile Cutlass would be the best-selling car, with about 600,000 sold.
The full-size Chevrolet would be downsized for 1977, and regain the sales crown, but sales would only hit about 600,000. Yet the car was considered a huge hit by everyone at the time.
Impala/Caprice was #1 for ’78, again. But then, for ’79, it was Chevette and ’80 was Citation as #1. Escort a few years in early 80s, etc.
So big Chevy was king for 2 more years after Cutlass [whole line, not just 2 doors] dethroning of ’76.
Another myth thrown around the internet is “the Cutlass Supreme coupe was #1 selling car from 1976 to 86”. No.
Great writeup Jason. It’s amazing to see just how dominant the domestic 3 were in sales back then. I million sales of a single model to a population about half of current.
That Car and Track review is a riot. So much for RWD handling dynamics. I’ll go ahead and be an outlier and state that our boring anodyne 4-cylinder FWD sedans are in another universe of performance and daily desirability compared to that barge shrieking and sliding across lanes and waddling noisily down the quarter mile. Is the long gearing responsible for the terrible acceleration from 260+hp? As a child of the 80s, this car preceded me by long enough that I have no nostalgia from direct experience. Any well-kept throwback to such a different time is automatically interesting, but I can’t quite comprehend longing for the good old days if this is what they were like.
Well, on the 21st attempt, I was finally able to post my comment.
Well, keep in mind that many of those 260+ horses were make-believe, “measured” using a method called SAE brake horsepower. This measures the engine’s power without any of the accessories that tend to reduce power. Without the belt drive that spins the accessories (alternator, etc.) at the front of the engine. Without the air cleaner. Without the exhaust system. Not a very useful number for knowing how much power the engine might make in a car, but it generates nice, big numbers for use in advertisements!
And then for 1972 the “SAE Net HP” method was introduced. This measured engine output with some of the power-reducing accessories. The aim was primarily to bring published HP numbers down in a hurry because the insurance industry were making it expensive to insure cars with engines of nominally high horsepower, which in turn made those vehicles difficult to sell. The secondary (and straightfacedly nominal) aim was to provide HP and torque numbers more accurately reflective of the engine as installed in the actual vehicle. The Net number for a given engine was roughly 75% of the Gross number, so a “260 HP” (Gross) engine would be a 195 HP (Net) engine. That might help explain the disparity you’re seeing.
Gross horsepower figures are basically fairy stories. This is a Mopar table, but the numbers speak for themselves.
Goes to show how Mopar was sly with the Gross ratings of the 340 and 440+6 motors in the day; compare that 340 Net to the 383. Bigger tell, compare the Net of that 440+6 to it’s Gross relative to the Net; the increase is actually higher!
Could you clarify your point?
The proportional increase from net to gross was never consistent between different engines. There was a pretty wide variation of that. The changes in timing (gross allowed max timing advance, not the recommended one) and all the other changes (open exhaust, etc.) affected different engines variably. There’s no standard formula or prediction.
That’s not to say that gross (or net, for that matter) weren’t manipulated for marketing and insurance reasons. But I don’t see anything on this chart that jumps out at me. Perhaps the biggest one is that the gap between the 426 hemi’s net and gross rating is a bit larger than average, but even that makes some sense as it was probably not all that happy with the various constrictions (timing, exhaust, etc.) for the net rating.
Sorry if I was vague; the real power that 340 put out was a hair’s whisper away from the 383 4 BB-L. The 440+6 increase in power over the “regular” 440 is higher in Net, as claimed, than the Gross. Not only that, it’s dangerously close to the Net figure for the Hemi, but with more torque. My overall statement is this; Net figures flushed out a lot of BS propigated over perceived power figures.
It wouldn’t have been any better if it had a Toronado FWD transaxle with all else being equal. Big part of the RWD driving dynamics is being able to power out of understeer, which this 2bbl 396 clearly wasn’t able to do. Car and Track maneuvered other comparable behemoths around this track with significantly greater success, powering through corners, not spinning out when slamming the brakes, cornering on the rim etc. still laughable by today’s standards of course, but that’s progress. The FWD cars you mention have 40 years of superior chassis engineering in them, as do modern RWD cars.
I’m just astounded at how little tire is between the wheel and pavement on the right curve at the 4:50 mark. Wonder if they scuffed the rims.
Jacking up the tire pressure to 32 psi from the recommended 24 psi would undoubtedly have made a very substantial difference. The recommended pressures were to optimize that Jet-Smooth Ride.
This is a well-written article. Me, I don’t like any of the ’65 to ’70 (to ’76) Chevrolets; I find none of them attractive. Obviously they were very popular cars, successful in terms of sales figures. They also contained a great deal of careless, halfassed engineering, including very dangerous engine mounts.
My parents owned a 1965 Bel Air wagon with a V-8 in 1971. I remember them talking about the recall. The motor mount design was changed for the 1970 passenger cars.
My brother had a 1967 Biscayne. The broken motor mounts caused the transmission selector to pop out of the transmission case. Another friend of mine had the mount break when he was passing a truck, on a mountain road. It jammed the throttle open and it was a miracle he wasn’t killed.
Oh, the good old days.
In a 1998 “X-Files” episode (this one) Mulder commandeers some random gas station patron’s 1970 Caprice wagon because he’s got to drive an afflicted dude West so the dude’s head won’t explode. Later, Mulder gets in trouble with his boss, who accuses him of stealing a “1970 Chevrolet Cop-Reese”.
Funny! I used to own a Caprice and a friend’s sister called it a Capri, confusing the name with the old Mercury. I would correct her by saying “Ce” after her sentence. My friend and his brother would always give me a hard time after that by referring to my car as a Capri and I would be obliged to add the “Ce”.
“This Impala sprang forth during that historic year when man first walked on the moon and some long and wet concert was held in New York state.”
First day of school after that summer of ’69, my senior history teacher asked our class what was the most important thing that happened this summer. Half of us said “the moon landing, obviously”, the other half said “Woodstock, obviously”, and we all looked at each other like “what planet are you on?”
Too funny, yet those Woodstock kids are probably right. That event had huge cultural impact, and I’d argue it still does on a certain level to this day. The Moon Landing? Yes we won the space race! But the influence of that today? Not so sure… We don’t even have a space program for people on our own anymore.
Great write up on the 1969 Chevrolet – one of my favorite Chevys from the ‘60’s, and the first new car release I was aware of at age 6. The loop bumpers, elliptical wheel openings, slightly odd side bulges (a classic car reference?), and convex rear backlight made the 1969 Chevrolet very memorable. Back in the early 1970’s my Godfather/Uncle was a Chevrolet dealer and when I was 8 he gave me four 1969 Dealer Promo plastic models; a Corvette, Camaro, Malibu and an Impala SS convertible. Wish I was older when I received these as being only 8 I pretty much destroyed them all in an afternoon, today they are valued at $200+ a piece. The only Promo I replaced was the 1969 SS convertible.
Full sized 1969 Chevrolets seemed to be everywhere years ago, but somehow the 1970 blue 4dr Biscayne was be the most common beater-mobile when I was in high school. Never cared much for the ‘70 Chevy. The blue CC Impala is in remarkable condition, I’ve noticed the protective side trim always seems to remain intact, unlike most cars from the 1970’s. The 1969 road test car sure had sloppy handling.
“For a comparison in better context, Ford sold 999,000 full-sized cars for 1969. Ford was doing well but Chevrolet was doing better.”
In another recent post, Paul stated that Ford cleared a million:
“the ’59 Ford…was very successful, almost outselling the all-new batwing ’59 Chevy. In fact, it would be the last time Ford sold more than a million full-size cars until barely squeaking past that milestone in 1969.”
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-cohort/cohort-outtake-1959-ford-fairlane-500-galaxie-the-missing-1959-ford-cc/
So, which is it? Did Ford barely squeak past a million, or not quite make it? It depends on which source you consult. Adding together the figures for each individual model/body-style combination in the Standard Catalog, I get 998,796. Doing the same with the Encyclopedia of American Cars, I get 1,014,850.
The discrepancy is in the number of Country Sedan station wagons built. The Standard Catalog shows 36,287 six-passenger models and 11,563 ten-passenger models. The Encyclopedia shows 36,387 and 27,517.
And how did Chevrolet do? We’ve commented in the past about how there are often discrepancies in production statistics for classic American cars between different sources. These discrepancies are perhaps most widespread when it comes to Chevrolet between 1958 and 1970. The 1969 full-size cars are no exception. Perhaps due to having encountered some of this, Jason wrote things up simply as “well over one million”.
During this period, Chevrolet did not publish exact model-by-model, body style-by-body style production figures for most models (which Jason noted in the article). Most Chevrolet numbers you see during this era are for entire models/trim levels, rounded to the nearest hundred. Because Chevrolet generally considered different engine types to be distinct models, these figures are usually broken down along those lines (e.g., Six/V8). From 1958 to 1964, the Standard Catalog of American Cars also has exact body style-by-body style numbers at the product line level (e.g., all Chevy II four-door sedans, all full-size two-door hardtops), which I’ve never seen anywhere else. John Gunnell’s book “American Cars of the ‘60s: A Decade of Diversity” has exact totals for each product line (e.g., all Chevy IIs, all full-size cars) from 1960 to 1969, and the Standard Catalog has figures of this type for 1969 and 1970. Other production breakdowns seem to exist randomly. Sometimes these numbers are consistent with each other, sometimes they aren’t.
Here’s what these sources have for 1969 full-size Chevrolet production:
–The “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers in the Standard Catalog sum to 1,168,300. There is a major oddity with the numbers in the Standard Catalog, though, which is worth noting. For most years in this era, station wagons are not included with the model lines they were a part of, but have their own separate total, as if they were their own distinct model. Unlike other years, the Standard Catalog indicates that station wagons are included in the other model lines’ totals this year. It’s odd that this would been done for just this one year, and it’s especially odd that this is the year, because Chevrolet actually began marketing the wagons as distinct models this year.
–The “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers in the Encyclopedia sum to 1,227,600. The difference between the two is that, unlike the Standard Catalog, the Encyclopedia has a separate production figure for station wagons (59,300). While the Encyclopedia’s presentation of a separate production figure for wagons is consistent with how Chevrolet data is usually organized in this era, it seems implausibly low relative to other years. In 1968, both sources indicate that Chevrolet built 175,600 full-size station wagons.
–The notes in the Standard catalog present an exact production total for 1969 full-size cars of 1,109,013. This number also appears in Gunnell’s book.
Let’s just stick with “well over a million”…
Ever since Fall 1968, I have wondered who put the pontoons around the wheel cutouts on the 1969 Chevrolets… probably just to junk it up and make it different from the 1968 car.
Even as a Ford man, I can still appreciate the handsome lines of the 1969-1970 full size Chevys. Even the El Cheapo Biscayne was a looker in those years. Also, the quality of those cars was superb–it really fell off the cliff in 1971 with the redesign, what with all of that hard, thermo-formed plastic that comprised the interiors from that point. One of our parishoners at our church in my hometown of Ft. Collins had a very well-used 1969 Chevy Impala Custom Coupe. Even sagging on its springs from the sizeable occupants from that family; it was a good-looking car. As a kid in the 70s I had an all-steel Bump and Go version of a 1969 Chevy Impala Police Car. I could kick myself for letting me and my brother bang it up like we did–it would dent quite realistically. Also, it had actual hubcaps that could fly off.
I’d love to have a ’69 Impala Custom Coupe with all the goodies, especially the 427.
On a side note–Ford sold almost a million full-size cars in 1969!!?? Where the hell are they all? I sometimes can’t believe how few surviving cars exist from such a massive production number!
The Rustang’s lament was a hereditary disease. All of those old Ford’s rusted, and not just a little.
“… Ford sold almost a million full-size cars in 1969!!?? Where the hell are they all?”
Many big 68-78 Fords were derbied in the 70s/80s. With young car fans, Chevy was “USA 1” and used full size Fords were ‘uncool’.* 1965-70 Impalas were nearly as popular in HS parking lots as mid size cars. Just my old memories and observations.
*Ford fans mainly got Mustangs, and maybe Torinos/Fairlanes as their ‘hot rod’. Old pre-65 Galaxies were rotted away.
Using a black singing group as your spokespeople was a pretty forward move by Chevrolet, bravo to them.
Also, Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis Too was a great group name.
They were everywhere back in the late 60’s until the mid 70’s. Our next door neighbor was a photographer and he got a new one every two years as part of his job. By the end of the 2 years, the cars would usually have close to 50K miles on them, and still look great inside as he rarely had anyone with him in it, and most of the miles were highway miles. The trunk, where he stored all his work equipment, was totally torn up from all the cases and stuff bouncing around. A few of them he bought at the end of their “free” period, but most appeared on the used lot of a local dealer, bargain priced due to the high miles on them. On my street, there were at least 10, counting Caprices and Bel-Airs. I never saw a Biscayne until around ’73, when a neighbor, who was known to be cheap, bought a used ’69 one as another car to toss into his fleet. With 8 kids, 6 of whom were driving already, and the last ones rapidly approaching driving age, they needed a lot of cars to keep peace in the house. The Biscayne was hated by everyone, including the dad, due to it’s lack of power and so it wasn’t taken unless there was no other choice. We had a lot of families in that neighborhood with a lot of kids, 7, 8, 8, 6, and the whopper, 13, half of them born while dad was on dialysis! I think every single one had at least one Impala Caprice, sedan or wagon, and in at least one case, the 7 kid house, both. Mom had a medium blue Caprice Estate wagon, and the dad had a black Caprice. Back then, GM just ruled and if you counted all the big GM cars up in the neighborhood alone, there had to be upwards of of 70, with at least 30 Chevy’s alone. There were a number of Buick Electras, Olds 88’s and 98’s, Bonneville’s of all kinds, and 10 Caddys, including my dad’s ’69 Sedan De Ville. Not much more than 10 years later, most of those cars were long gone, and a lot of them were replaced with Toyotas, which seemed to dominate that part of town back then. Now if I go down those streets, pickup after pickup, almost all Big 3 branded, rule, with a lot of Tahoes and Yukons mixed in.
April 1969–the only option seems to be the automatic. A lot of car for little more than a Maverick; would have warmed my grandfather’s skinflint heart for sure:
I think this is the first time I have seen a dealer listing “Body By Fisher” as one of the features on the car, as if it was a coveted extra-cost option. Love it!
Some observations about the ’69 Impala/B Body Chevies:
1. I owned a ’69 Kingswood (Impala) wagon a long time ago, notable decline in workmanship from prior years models
2. Both 350 C.I. engines had four barrel carburetors, LM1 – 255 HP & L48 300 HP
3. Last year for bucket seats & center console
4. Last year for 4 speed manual transmission
5. Last year for SS model
6. Last year for L72, 427 CI – 425 HP engine – not advertised but approx. 546 units (Caprice, Impala, Belair & Biscayne) moved with this engine
7.1969 was first year for the 3-speed Turbo-Hydramatic to be offered with any engine – including the base 250 six and 327 V8. Previously the THM was only offered with optional larger V8s and the standard engines were only offered with the 2-speed Powerglide.
8. Only year for a standard 327 V8, which replaced the 307 of 1968 and then subsequently succeeded by a 350 2-barrel in 1970.
9. Only year for the 350 to be offered with two different 4-barrel versions. The 255 hp was a low compression that ran on regular gas while the 300 hp was a high compression mill requiring premium fuel.
10. Final year for Bel Air and Biscayne 2-door sedans.
11. Only year for wrap-around front bumper – similar to many of that year’s Chrysler products.
12. Last year for Strato bench seat option on Caprice models.
69 has always been BY FAR my favorite of the 65-70 big chevies. 1970 to me always looked both retrograde and too much like a Buick. If you lined them up and asked someone who doesn’t know to place them in order of year, I’d expect most would reverse the 69 and 70.