Today’s post covers two related Car Life vintage reviews. The first one from June 1969, where CL tested 4 full-size sedans, each powered with the largest available factory engine. A group they referred to as ‘Powercars.’ Of the group, CL was most impressed with the power and handling of the Chevrolet Caprice, enough to name it ‘Best Family Car’ in September of 1969. That’s our second review, where CL briefly resumed their favor for the Caprice and the reasoning behind their awards; cars that delivered on their intended mission and provided good performance.
CL’s Caprice carried Chevrolet’s 427-cid V-8, tuned to 390bhp. More importantly, it came equipped with option F-41. The $22.15 factory option provided handling enhancements, thanks to additional front and rear stabilizer bars. Being Chevrolet’s top model, CL’s Caprice also carried extra trim and interior appointments. With the 427 and the F-41 handling package, the car was a six-passenger cruiser with remarkable performance.
Along the Caprice, a Dodge Monaco, a Ford LTD, and a Plymouth Fury III were tested in the June issue. Each carried the best their carmakers had to offer. The four Powercars were a formidable lot, with performance numbers close to Supercars; regardless of heft. What made the Caprice distinguish itself from the group was the outstanding handling provided by option F-41.
With the F-41 enhancements in place, the Caprice was a ‘big, powerful, comfortable family car that becomes a handler when pushed.’ The setup’s stiffer springs and control arms provided rather flat cornering that impressed all testers. The Caprice came with a 3-speed Hydramatic, which suited the 427’s temperament nicely, and it carried a 3.07:10 final drive, meant to keep revs down and offer better fuel consumption (10-12 mpg in normal conditions).
The F-41 optioned Caprice left a positive impression. As stated, in September of ’69, CL named it the ‘Best Family Sedan’ in their ‘Best Of’ annual issue. CL made note that the F-41 option was something of a secret, since Chevrolet made little effort to promote it. For those who studied the options list and knew what they wanted, an F-41 optioned Caprice offered performance above the norm in the full-size field.
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: 1969 Chevrolet Caprice – All Hail The King
Very nice car for the times. But, too big. I liked the later 1977-78 Impalas much better.
GM cars from the mid-to-late 60s were really something – engineering, style, and lots of power. Even handling.
Yeah, all GM full-sizers used the new chassis platform that came in for 1965 and ran through 1970. Granted each division may have had some differences in the frame, suspension etc, but the gist is that all GM divisions full-sizers were pretty darn good cars in the 1965-1970 time period.
A friend I know who is a Chevrolet mechanic has one. Built in Oshawa, Ontario. Canada 🇨🇦 on October 15th, 1968. Delivered to Jenner Chevrolet, Oldsmobile in Victoria, British Columbia November 1st, 1968 and was purchased on December 10th, 1968. A fully-load car and has bucket seats up front.
This was around the time when GM really started paying attention to suspension design. Chrysler had been way out front a decade before, but basically did little to improve their designs after that, with a 1959 version that drove much like the 1969. The difference in suspensions between a 59 and a 69 Chevrolet was massive.
The key factor is that this had the new F41 suspension option ($22), which included a rear sway bar, among other things. The F41 should have been standard.
I’ve run across some vintage tests of Chevys going back to 1958 that had “Police equipment”; including HD suspension, shocks, bigger brakes, etc.. These were deemed to be formidable handlers, a drastic improvement over the stock suspensions, which were set up to be way too soft in those years.
The reality is that there was nothing intrinsically magic or superior about Chrysler’s suspension; they simply chose to have a somewhat firmer standard suspension, which obviously makes a big difference. GM’s ’58-up suspension design was fine in principle; it just needed the right springs, shocks, sway bars, etc.
Chrysler chose to soften all of their standard suspension settings in 1966 (IIRC), and in several comparison tests we’ve posted here that took away any advantage they had. Even the standard suspension Chevy was typically deemed somewhat superior in handling from that year on. The F41 completely changed the game. It’s a bit of a head scratcher why the Big 3 didn’t just offer a touring or sports suspension package like the F41 back in the late 50s or early 60s. One could specify HD springs and towing packages, but they weren’t as optimally tuned as the F41 for all-round handling, especially the rear sway bar, which made a big difference.
I would argue that there were some significant advances in Chrysler’s original “Torsion Aire” system – probably most of it in the rear. The springs were moved outboard of the frame, closer to the outsides of the car, and were also of a design that combined a heavy front 1/3 of the leaf spring which provided stability to the axle with a long, softer rear 2/3 that allowed a softer ride. These are fairly elemental things, but they were things nobody else in the industry were doing at the time. Period road tests confirm that they seemed to find the holy grail, which combined smooth ride AND good handling.
Both Ford and GM made great advances from their 1957 designs but Chrysler did not. Before 1965 Fords were typically praised as being pretty good handlers, but were hard riding. GM tended to soft suspensions which bottomed frequently. You could get HD options, but those came at a cost of ride comfort. Both GM and Ford improved their systems a lot in 1965, with much improved geometry, while Chrysler stood still and gradually fell behind.
The main impact of shifting the axle forward on the leaf springs was to provide better axle location on launch at the expense of an increased tendency for the axle to hop on hard braking. It was a no-free-lunch tradeoff, which is likely why GM divisions didn’t follow suit, and even then, any handling benefits were directly proportional to rear spring rates.
(In the early ’70s, Motor Trend did a number of group tests of the smaller Chrysler models and found the Hemi versions had better braking despite the extra weight on the nose, almost certainly because the Hemi engine included a stiffer rear suspension with an extra leaf or two relative to models with lesser engines.)
Paul raises a good point about there being nothing fundamentally wrong with GM’s suspension design before the late 1960s. Chryslers did have some slight advantages from a little better geometry in their suspensions but the torsion bar doesn’t work any better than a coil spring. Chrysler typically used stiffer spring rates, which helped with handling. Most of the difference was from GM being focused on an ultra smooth ride at the sacrifice of any handling. Ford fell into this trap in the late 60s through the 70s. A good example is this Impala, which in 1965 was not a particularly good handler, especially in comparison to this 1969 Impala. With the Fords that have bad reputations for handling, one has to look no further than the Police Interceptor version to find a competent handling version. Again it was about execution rather than fundamental design flaws. Even the much lauded 1977 Chevrolet Caprice/Impala didn’t have spectacular handling with the base suspension, one had to step up to F41 to get the handling the buff books raved about.
JPC you raise a good point about some changes, like the moving of springs to outboard location to help improve ride and handling. This would allow for a similar roll stiffness to a car with stiffer springs mounted more inboard. However, as Ate up With Motor cites, the relocation of the rear axle to be forward of center was to reduce wheel hop under acceleration, and didn’t really have a drastic effect on handling. As many test reports from this era show, and some old test videos, under braking the longer rear section of the leaf spring made Chryslers much more prone to the spring warp or axle hop. This of course is exacerbated by softer springs. GM used a different approach for it’s leaf sprung cars, by using stagger shocks. FWIW, today many pickups use stagger rear shocks, but I don’t know of any that use asymmetrical axle mounting like the old Mopars.
GM could make cars that handle but in this part of the world understeer was considered a safety feature after market kits could fix that though.
Radial Tuned Suspension on GMH products from 1976 addresses some of the server under steer of the HQ thru HZ series, and Ford made major changes to their suspension on the XC series.
I think it started with the Z28, but GM, especially Chevy, really knew how to market their RPO numbers as desirable, and in many cases cheap. Within a few years of the Z28 we had F41, and WS6 for the TransAm (wider wheels, urethane bushings, bigger sway bars, “high effort” steering), then 9C1 (police options) and many others. These codes were known to all car buffs who read the magazines. Of course, I always wondered why some of these weren’t standard. Maybe a base Impala didn’t need F41, or a base Firebird didn’t need WS6, but by the time one ponied up for a Caprice Classic or a TransAm, why not provide the best ride/handling package that GM could offer?
Hard to believe that a 390 h.p. 427 could only do a 7.7 sec. 0-60 with a top speed of 126. And this was in pre-emission controls days. A new Accord or Camry would blow the doors off of this thing.
This was a quite a brisk acceleration time for a full-size car from the mid to late 60s. I have this road test, it was a top performer among its competitors.
I put a rear stabilizer bar in my ’64 Impala 20 years ago, and the improvement from that one change was remarkable. I also installed high-quality gas shocks with firm damping that prevents floatiness. The car still rides beautifully but feels much more controlled that when these cars were new.
Took it out on the highway yesterday for the first time in a while and marveled at the smooth serenity cruising at 70 MPH. I’ve been daily driving the Miata for the past month, and for a lightweight sports car, it rides very well, but nothing like big Detroit iron
I think firmer suspensions were a natural evolution process, with better roads and engines providing much higher travel speeds, compared with the pre-war period.
Until the mid-Seventies or so, Chrysler had powertrains and some suspension discipline, Ford had great interiors and better perceived build quality, while GM had best-balanced virtues of all of the above. Add dealers and divisional marketing strength and that’s why the Impala/Caprice led the sales and profitability pack for so long.
I recall my father’s good friend had a 1969 Caprice, although it was only a 327, it was really nice inside, a smooth performer, but could use the F41 suspension. I still have my father’s 1966 full size Pontiac 2-dr. and the overall driving dynamics of those GM 1965-1970 B-bodies were superior to the other makes. I had a 1969 LTD, whose ride was smooth and quiet, but the steering was slower and lacked the same feel; although some of it could be attributed to the weight of the big FE 390 motor.
I agree that the police package on all brands made them better driver’s but remember : in those days most sales of big cars were for comfort not tearing up asphalt .
I disagree that the MoPar’s torsion bars weren’t better, they’re adjustable by design, far easier than changing out too soft coil springs .
Most Hot Rodders & Enthusiasts I remember in those days changed out the soft rubber suspension bushings too .
Way back in 1947 Chevrolet added a front sway bar to the 1/2 ton “Advanced Design” panel tuck when it was fitted with side windows and rear passenger seats to carry passengers as a “Suburban” .
I have never seen a sway bar not improve handling significantly .
One hasn’t lived until one has hustled a big American land yacht through the serious high speed curves and had to drift the entire heavy barge like thing to prevent flying off the road……
I’ll keep my little bitty European cars thankyouverymuch =8-) .
Let’s not forget that IIRC these and other boats came with decidedly poor bias – ply tires, not radials as does everything today .
-Nate
My uncle bought a new ’69, dark brown with a vinyl roof, 327 std. engine, think the HP was 235 or 250.
My inspiration for my first car, a ’70 Caprice coupe.
I wonder how much GM paid for a favorable review?
Too bad GM cars of today do not dominate the market like they did in the 60’s. Now they are all pretty much 3rd rate in comparison to the competition. The dismal Chevy Malibu is probabally 5th rate behind the competitors in its class. I drve a 69 SS 427 4 speed Impala when they were new, and it handled well for such a large car. 390 horse engine never ran out of steam, but was really high geared, would run 120 in third gear.