Car Lust--1971-1976 Chevrolet Impala
Like the dinosaur, the massive rear-wheel-drive American full-size sedan once had a long run as the master of all it swurveyed--only to fade slowly into obscurity and disappear entirely, succumbing to competitors more suited to a changing environment.
But, also like the dinosaurs, the big sedans enjoyed a long, glorious run. For decades, the large rear-wheel-drive sedans were at the top of the heap; for many years, the Chevrolet Impala was the runaway sales leader, the most popular of the behemoths.
And why not? Impalas, like their slower-selling bretheren, were large, attractive, soft-riding sedans that offered palatial accommodations and cavernous cargo room at a reasonable price that many families could afford. In those hazy, nearly forgotten days before minivans and SUVs burst onto the scene, Impala wagons carried large quantities of people and cargo, serving as the trusty backdrop for countless family vacations. As a bonus, the Impala's massive hood and trunk lid could double as a helicopter landing pad in case of emergency.
With the smooth burble of a sweet, low-compression V-8, long-limbed freeway cruising ability, and vaguely nautical ride and handling (bring the Dramamine!), the Impala and its optioned-up Caprice twin brought to the freeway all the comfort (and agility) of your living room. The Impala was a freeway cruiser nonpareil.
The 1976 model was the last of the truly leviathan full-size Impala/Caprice. The 1977 model year would bring the revolutionary downsized sedan, a great car in its own right that lived until 1990. I continually keep an eye out for a classic 1971-1976 Impala to pick up. I prefer the styling of the 1972 and 1976 editions, ideally unmodified with all of its original flavor intact. Unfortunately, these are getting harder to find in inexpensive, unmolested form. Thanks to the popularity of Impalas in the lowrider and hip-hop scenes, many of the original low-mileage grandmother-owned Impalas seem to have been snapped up and made into "donks."
A couple of years ago, I found a beautiful original beige 1976 Impala for $1,100; but I quickly realized the true cost would involve divorce proceedings. I believe I've mentioned in this space before a '75 burgundy Caprice coupe that's for sale near me. It's possibly the largest two-door car ever made, and I'd bet each door has roughly the length and mass of a plate of battleship armor. It's gorgeous, but at $6,000, I think I'll pass.
What would I do with an Impala/Caprice? My wife asks me that, and I'm not sure I have a great answer. Since the Impala can easily take both small- and big-block Chevrolet V-8s, the temptation is there to drop in a mild big-block and make a pleasant old cruiser into a paradoxically fast pleasant old cruiser. I'd probably only do that when (if?) the original engine gave up the ghost.
Today, the Impala is a front-wheel-drive sedan, primarily powered by a V-6, and the Ford Crown Victoria is the closest thing one could call a survivor of the Age of Automotive Dinosaurs. Like the rogue dinosaur cloning efforts of Jurassic Park, Chrysler has brought large, powerful, rear-wheel-drive sedans back to life in the dangerous and unpredictable form of the Chrysler 300C Hemi, Dodge Charger, and Dodge Magnum Hemi, but they are too rapacious and aggressive to be part of the same genus as the old Impala.
The top three photos here are all from an excellent Impala page at How Stuff Works.com; the top image is a '76 coupe, the second is a '76 sedan, and the third is a '72 coupe.
The fourth photo is from StillRuns.com, which is a hilarious tribute to the glory and wonder of beaters. The '72 Impala pictured here has more than 300,000 miles on it, has been in no way restored, and boasts the fine, authentic patina of age and abuse. The Impala is as yet unbowed. If you are at all a fan of these cars--or beaters in general--StillRuns.com is worth a read.
--Chris H.
Mochi Mochi on May 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM
The helicopter landing pad option on these land yachts is definitely worthwhile. The surviving crown vic seems to remain in favor with many state police - they are... remarkably fast.
Steaming Pile on May 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Dad had a '80 Impala wagon. With the back seat folded, it could hold an entire 4x8 sheet of plywood FLAT in the back with the tailgate closed. It might not have had the exterior dimensions of the previous generation of dinosaurs, but it was plenty capacious in its own right.
In the mid-70s, we had a first-gen Ford Grenada, which was FoMoCo's answer to the 1973 gas crisis. It might have gotten 18 MPG or so on the Interstate at 55 MPH with a 30 MPH wind at its back. It also sucked donkey balls. The cold starting procedure was to pop the hood, remove the air filter cover, flick the butterfly valve on the carbuerator (because you know it's gonna stick, and the car won't start), put everything back, and THEN turn the ignition key. Letting the car warm up for a couple minutes didn't hurt, either.
Stopping procedure was similiarly ridiculous. Put the transmission in PARK, pump the gas, and turn the key before the RPMs go back to idle. It's this, or the car will treat you to a concert of knock-knock-knock-kaCHUGGGGGG for nearly a minute. Dad hated that car, and got the '80 Chevy the day after the check for the last payment on the Ford cleared.
The problem, or virtue, of the 79-90 Impala/Caprice/Caprice Classic was that they were boring as hell. Forget about styling. The 80s were around the corner, and you couldn't have an 80s car without sharp corners. So the next to last generation (before the "Shamu" Impala of the early 90s.) of rear-wheel drive GM and Ford cars were bricks on wheels. Also forget about most of the problems the Big Three had with nearly all their cars in the early catalytic converter era before the gasoline companies rolled out super unleaded, which also solved the knocking, pinging, dieseling, and general performance problems with these cars.
OldCarGuy on May 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Ah, the Impala...
We were an Oldsmobile family, so we ran Delta 88s instead. But my friend's Dad had one and it would haul his entire large family and the heavy family boat to the water every weekend without complaint. There's a lot to be said for the trusty old GM V-8.
Boring? I guess so. But when they were filled with high school students, as my friend's wagon frequently was, they were anything but. ;-)
MC MAX A/C on May 12, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Truly great cars. Through my high school and college years, I took great pride in never spending more then $100 for a car. A significant percentage of them were Impalas of this vintage. Not only were they hard to kill and a pleasure to drive, but the back seat was very "accomodating".
One '71 two door I owned had been hit from behind, driving the trailer hitch into the gas tank about an inch from the bottom. While it might seem surprising to some that it survived such a blow, those who have owned these cars know they have an almost supernatural ability to keep on truckin'. Anyway, since the car could only hold about 2 gallons of gas without leaking out, and the mileage was mid to high single digits, the total range of the vehicle was about 20 miles. Over time, I developed a map marked with every local gas station so that I could generate a flight plan for any trip beyond my range.
I've had a long list of fantastic cars that would be the envy of many, but if I tally up the adventures and memories accrued, that was the the best vehicle I've ever owned.
Anthony Cagle on May 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM
These don't really blow my skirt up for some reason. I kind of like the 2-dr at the top, but these never really fascinated me.
An old college roomie had a Bonneville of similar vintage. Christalmighty was that thing big. Me and two friends helped him install a stereo in it and three of us fit easily in the trunk to wire up the speakers. Lengthwise, that is, with our feet at the back.
It's not that I think the styling is boring or anything, it just doesn't do much for me. In contrast, I still like the simplicity of the 1977+ gen. They really were a breath of fresh air at the time, when GM and everyone else was doing heavily sculpted body work (which I also really liked and still do).
I can see how it would be hard to justify getting one these days, though as with nearly all of the CL cars it's not like 'justification' is really applicable. Can't imagine what the mileage would be. Still, I'm glad that they're being re-modded. I've even seen a few of the '77-'90's tricked out with massive low-profile wheels.
Doug on May 12, 2008 at 01:00 PM
I agree about the 1972 styling, as a 4-door example was my first car. Although it had more than its share of troubles, I still miss it greatly. Once, in college, we got nine people into it for a ride to dinner...
Steaming Pile on May 12, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Egad, I farked up. Dad had a 1978 Impala wagon. The Granada was a '75, and yes, he paid off the POS Ford and bought the wagon on the same September afternoon.
DaveFla on May 12, 2008 at 01:04 PM
In 1984 or so, I bought a '72 coupe (with the 'siamesed' 400cid 2bbl) for $175 with the understanding that the tie rod ends were shot and could give at any time. 12,000 miles and at least one freeway run that averaged 13 mpg later, one of them did, and that was that.
I've seen unrestored convertibles on eBay for $5 to $8k, but until this entry, I didn't think anyone else would understand... ;-)
Cookie the Dog's Owner on May 12, 2008 at 01:12 PM
This is my father's type of car: the big, cushy (but not truly flashy) Detroit battleship. As I've related in other threads here, I like small and agile. The thought of going back to an immense rear-driver like this makes me shudder.
That said, it it's your cup of motor oil, have fun with it!
Big Chris on May 12, 2008 at 01:15 PM
I'll continue my campaign for the '75 4 door Impala (in burnt-orange of course) as the PINNACLE of Impala styling. I drove one all through high school and part of collage. I installed a 12 inch sub in the rear deck using the trunk as an air chamber. Air shocks made it tow well. The 350 small block, after some work on the heads and other fun go parts, made gobs of power, and TH350 shifted smoothly every day, no matter how hard you towed or climbed. When we did the top end overhaul and ported the heads, we removed the radiator and fan/water pump and stood in the engine bay to work on it. The burnt orange covered the rust well. Mine saw 125mph, but at those speeds, with that soft steering, it became spooky - wanting to drift farther than I was comfortable with on a narrow stretch of open road. But it had more in it :-) And the bench seats...oh how I long for that space and the fun to be had there! Though I can live without the scorching vinyl seats.
The heads (and possibly the engine block) still sit in my father's garage. The body became a wreck'em up derby car, and from what we heard, the guy got second place. A tragic end to a car that served me so well.
Big Chris
Jim in KC on May 12, 2008 at 05:31 PM
I have six brothers and five sisters, but, for some odd reason, my dad never bought a van. He was a carpenter, and in 1968 he bought a blue Chevy wagon. With a full carpenter's toolbox at the very rear, the car had all the snow traction you could ever need. We could drive a thousand miles to my grandparents' house, with arguments over who got to be in the VB (very back), which allowed you to lie down, and occasionally stick your feet out of the open rear window. When that car finally died, Dad bought a brown wagon with the rear-facing third seat. To get that seat, he had to buy two other things he swore he'd never own - power steering and power brakes. He never owned another car without them. My mechanic brother-in-law and I decided to replace the (original) rear brake pads at about 135,000 miles. The right rear suspension had partially torn and twisted away from the rest of the car, which explained why, driving behind it, you could always see the whole left side of the car. We sledgehammered it sort of back in place and carried on. My first Christmas home from college, the oil light had started blinking, but I didn't get to it; at Easter, it was still blinking . . . at summer break, I changed the oil. No more than a couple of quarts were left. It didn't seem to make any difference. A couple of years later, long after the odometer broke at 220,000 miles, Dad traded it in on an Impala sedan. The wagon quit as my brother drove it onto the dealer's lot, and it never moved again.
David Drucker on May 13, 2008 at 05:34 AM
Hi, I'm back! And, wouldn't you know it, I owned a couple of examples of that generation of B-body (along with one of the subsequent generation). I bought a '71 Olds Delta 88 in 1974, and still remember it as having truly great air conditioning. I was especially fond of the vent under the steering column. It had the 350 2-bbl engine, which I thought was plenty powerful until I bought a '72 Delta Royale equipped with the Olds 98's 455 4-bbl. This was in the mid-eighties, but even with 150K on the clock that engine pulled like a freight train.
In my opinion, this series can serve as a textbook example of how a good-looking design was made a little bit uglier with each year's changes. The '71s had no crash bumpers or opera windows, and were sleek and -- especially in the case of the Olds -- well-integrated from stem to stern. (Note the nautical allusion!) The '72 didn't suffer too badly from being saddled with a somewhat larger front bumper, but things got really sad in '73, and grew successively worse. By '76 the various B-bodies were a hodgepodge of tacked-on tackiness. Under the hood, a similar situation prevailed, as increasingly onerous emission requirements sapped power beyond GM's ability to compensate. (No offense meant to those who, inexplicably, like the '76.)
By any rational criteria, the downsized '77 represented a quantum leap forward. Equipped with the F41 handling package, a '77 Caprice could be surprisingly agile in the twisties, and the body structure was dramatically stiffer, making for a quiet, rattle-free ride. But using the far-more-important irrational criteria, I's still rather have a 71 or 72.
Rob the SVX guy on May 13, 2008 at 06:21 AM
Chris, the Dodge Magnum is already dead. :(
PS: The agility of your living room. Classic! Hahhahaha. :D
Chris Hafner on May 13, 2008 at 08:13 AM
Rob the SVX Guy: "Chris, the Dodge Magnum is already dead."
Yeah; I'm still angry with Chrysler about that. It's the most in-love I've been with a Mopar car in years. I guess the Magnum will be just another extinct dinosaur now, which is a shame.
Glad you liked the living room line ... :-)
Chris Hafner on May 13, 2008 at 08:18 AM
Lots of comments on here supporting the 1977-1990 Impala/Caprice--I'm glad to see that, because that's another of my favorites.
I'm planning to lavish that car with all appropriate honors, but it'll probably be after a reasonable delay so as to not deluge you all with Impala overload.
Adam Maas on May 13, 2008 at 10:11 AM
The Magnum died to make way for the Challenger. I'd have rather seen the 300 die instead (Ugly blingmobile) but the Magnum never sold as well.
Chris Hafner on May 13, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Adam Maas: "The Magnum died to make way for the Challenger. I'd have rather seen the 300 die instead (Ugly blingmobile) but the Magnum never sold as well."
But why must this be? Yes, they all share a platform and engine selections, but the Magnum, as a big, sporty wagon, is a totally different car from the two-door muscle car Challenger.
If anything, the 300 and the Charger are most duplicative, since they are both four-door sedans--but why must one exist at the expense of the other?
Rob the SVX guy on May 13, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Yeah, I don't know about that. The magnum was the most 'useful' Chrysler product in a while.... whearas the Challenger is somewhat the opposite.
Speaking of the challenger, I'd like to declare my hatred for it. Before I do so, I will again state my first car was a 1968 Dodge Charger with a big block, and I do love musclecars. However, I hate the challenger. Yes, it's cool looking, and it is fast, so why do I hate it? Because it achieves about the same performance as a 1970 Challenger R/T, and about the same MPG. So in 40 years of progress... there hasn't BEEN ANY. I'm sure it's probably safer, and more reliable, but come on. Detroit's old musclecar motto was stuff the most POWERFUL engine in a fairly small car. Now somehow that idea has morphed into "Huge thirsty V8, RWD, and big heavy car". What the hell happened? As the big three sees it's marketshare dwindling, and sits scratching their heads why they can't attract the younger crowd, I only need to point to such huge successes such as the Evo, the WRX, the STi, the Mazdaspeed3, and even Dodge's old SRT4. Small cars, turbo power, decent MPG if you aren't on the throttle, safe, fairly affordable, and fun to drive.
THAT is what is needed. Not a 4,000+lb barge with a huge V8 and musclecar styling.
David Drucker on May 13, 2008 at 01:32 PM
Rob the pooper-on-hoods wrote:
"I only need to point to such huge successes such as the Evo, the WRX, the STi, the Mazdaspeed3"
Do these vehicles have the sales numbers to support a "huge success" claim? Granted, they get plenty of print and web coverage, but I sure don't see very many on the road.
As to the weight differential between the old and new Challengers: a lot of the old one's lightness can be credited to Chrysler's willingness, in those days, to use the minimum number of nuts and bolts needed to keep the car from falling apart too badly during the warranty period. (Long sentence, eh?) I drove more than my share of Challengers and their ilk back then, and all of them seemed to be about one oil change away from the junk yard. Slam a door on one of those things and it sounds like you're shaking a box of spare parts. If an extra 1000 pounds is what it takes to a) deliver 21st-century safety and amenities, along with 2) a solid, quiet body structure, so be it.
But dropping the Magnum to make way for the challenger? That's just nuts.
Brian on May 14, 2008 at 01:20 AM
Looking through the Howstuffworks page, this caption for the 1977 Impala struck me:
"The 1977 Chevrolet Impala downsized the model but increased interior space."
My mother had a 1972 Impala that had been wrecked and repaired. There's no question as to the relative reliability and durability of the model, but the only part of the design that changed significantly from 71-76 is the styling and emissions requirements. You ought to be able to pick them up dirt cheap, yes, and find plenty of cheap parts but what you'll pay in fuel and repairs is unconscionable. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think they're a brilliant example of what can be done, even from a styling perspective, though the originals early ones were beautiful works of automotive art, the later ones at the end of the '70s were bloated gas guzzlers that had a decline in performance over time.
Now, a 1992 Buick Roadmaster, there's a cruiser for you.
Steaming Pile on May 15, 2008 at 09:34 AM
@Brian - the point of the 70s land barges was that if you couldn't sell cars on the basis of performance anymore because the EPA said you had to cut emissions, and you could only use 87 octane unleaded gas that made high-compression engines ping, detonate, etc., and so on, you had to find some other way to make people want them, and that usually meant amenities (and a cushy ride - lots of engineering effort went into the suspension and chassis in the 70s). So sure, these were not the fastest cars the Big Three ever made, the Beach Boys never wrote songs about them, and they did indeed eat a lot of gas, but even the basis models were VERY comfortable.
Art Smith on May 15, 2008 at 03:14 PM
I had both a '76 Olds Regency coupe and a '76 Regency four-door hardtop, with the quad 455. They always went where I pointed them, and never minded snowy roads. Real Interstate cruisers, and gas used wasn't too high.
Tim Luby on May 18, 2008 at 04:43 PM
My first car was a 73 Impala 4dr sedan. It was 5 years old when I bought and gas was 50 cents a gallon. I remember the first time I put gas in it $5 got me 10 gallons and I remember thinking I was getting ripped off. Once in high school I crammed 13 kids in it. It was also great for Chinese fire drills. Ah the fun I had with that car. No it was not a Chevelle or Camaro but it was mine and that's all that mattered. For a long time the 73 was my favorite Impala for stylying, however I always liked the 72. Last year I purchased a 72 Impala 4 dr Sport Sedan (no post) on ebay for a reasonable price. This car is a time capsule. It is a completely unmlested survivor. Approx 63 K miles.
After a good tune up and replacing the carb it runs like a new 72 Impala. It has a 400 small block with the 400 tranny. This car will never be worth big money even though it is getting harder to find one that has not been turned into a donk but I enjoy it for it's originality.It's funny how we take the cars today for granted. Just get in and go. These old behemoths take a little longer to warm up but the ride is worth waiting for.
PMC on May 23, 2008 at 08:27 PM
I remember driving a '75 Impala. What I remember most was the HUGE "Fasten Seat Belt" light. It was about the same size as the fuel gauge. Always thought the 4 door HTs with the opera windows looked good.
John J on June 04, 2008 at 08:27 AM
I had a '73 Impala Custom Coupe when I was a senior in high school (1978). It had the 400 V8,AM/FM radio (not stereo) and AC. It was a nice looking car - medium blue with a white vinyl roof (which caused rust to form underneath). We called it the Behemoth! Eight relatively skinny high school kids could ride in it with room to spare! The vinyl bench seats were massive, reasonably comfortable, and could inflict second degree burns in the summer if you wore shorts! Wind noise was an aggravating nuisance in the car - I managed to quell it somewhat with electrical tape over the bare-edged door glass. The doors were so heavy that they tended to sag somewhat on the hinges. You had to slam the doors hard to get them to latch. The sheer size and mass of the doors guaranteed the occasional leg trauma - gashes and bruises to shins were common. I always thought the oval shaped steering wheel kind of funky, but not overly so. In short - it was a great car that handled like a battleship, got atrocious gas mileage, and could haul my friends with ease. I have very fond memories of my Chevy!