(first posted 2/21/2016) Paul recently chronicled one of the all-time high points for the full size American car with his extensive write-up on the 1965 Impala. However with cars, as in life, change is continual and not always for the better. 1967 and 1969 refreshes of the 1965 Chevrolet design added more inches and pounds, but the 1971 redesign ushered in truly gargantuan dimensions along with a correspondingly large weight gain. Just two years after favorably reviewing a 1970 Impala Custom Coupe, in April 1972 Road Test Magazine took another look at the Impala Coupe—a car still right in the heart of the American market, but with the newest generation, flaws were more pronounced than before. Not that the Impala was a bad car, in the context of the times, but somehow the magic had faded a bit.
Looking at the 1965 Impala and the 1972 Impala is a bit like looking at pictures of Elvis from those same years. Even though he was always a “big guy” (6 feet tall), Elvis had the moves and a sporty flair in the mid-1960s. But as 1972 rolled around, he’d added more than a few pounds and a great deal of rather tacky glitz. Yeah, he was still “The King” and still hugely popular, but things just weren’t quite the same…
Even in the age of “bigger is better” the Impala seemed mighty big. Compared to the 1965 Impala hardtop coupe, the ’72 was 6½ inches longer, on a 2½ inch longer wheelbase, yet interior roominess was basically the same. Far worse, however, was the weight gain: the 1972 Impala 2-door hardtop weighed a porcine 668 pounds more than its 1965 predecessor. By 1974, the 5-mph bumper requirements had added still more length—about 3 inches, and another 116 pounds of weight. These Impalas were whoppers…
Given the size and weight gain, naturally engines had to get bigger as well. In 1965, buyers seeking a reasonable blend of performance and economy could opt for the “middle” engine, the 327 V8. To replicate that “middle” engine option in 1972, the buyer was looking at a 400 V8. However, the increased displacement couldn’t offset the Impala’s heft and the output strangulation caused by meeting stricter emission regulations: 0-60 times dropped noticeably, from 9 seconds for the ’65 to 11.2 seconds for the ’72.
Of course, the Impala’s big size and big engine displacement took a toll at the gas pumps. In city driving, the ’72 Impala would deliver about 10 miles per gallon. Even before the first oil embargo, this was problematic. In 1972 gas was hardly free: the average price was $0.36 to $0.52 per gallon, which on an inflation adjusted basis works out to $2.04 to $2.95 and is basically the same as what we are paying for fuel today. For a driver averaging 1,000 miles per month, that Impala would have sucked up the 2016 equivalent of $200 monthly in fuel costs. Then or now, a fuel tab of that magnitude is tough to swallow for a regular family/commuter car.
One area where Chevrolet deserved a lot of credit was pricing. The nicely equipped ’72 Impala Custom had an as-tested price of $4,743 ($26,883 adjusted), including A/C—these prices were very much in line with the equivalent car and optional equipment costs in 1965. Plus the Impala’s historically strong resale value further enhanced its reputation as a good buy.
Reading this review, it’s clear that Road Test’s editors weren’t enthralled with some aspects of this Impala, most specifically its ponderous size and lack of efficiency–both common criticisms from the press and buyers alike. Therefore it’s hardly surprising that GM saw the writing on the wall, even before the first oil shock, and knew that its biggest cars could no longer get bigger, and actually needed to return to a more reasonable scale. The resulting 1977 downsizing of GM’s full size fleet was unquestionably a bold move, but in reality it was a very measured response to market feedback that had been building for years.
Sadly, 1977 didn’t turn out as well for Elvis as it did for The General: the iconic pop culture legend passed away August 16 of that year in his Memphis home at the young age of 42.
A neighbor down the street but one of these coupes, and a 72 Suburban brand new in a package deal. They still have them. Been garaged all their lives, and still look new.
So what happened to Road Test magazine?. Its great to read roadtests of these 70s barges as it was as if R&T and MT had an embargo on domestic “non sport cars” and never tested them untill the downsized 77 models.
Interesting how EPA emission requirements made all cars less fuel efficient than before. Hardly the right idea was it?. Previous comments said how they were lucky to get 18mpg from say a PInto, the British Cortina with the same engine would do 25+.
Cats do not work well witha carb feed engine thats why Europe stayed away from them until 92-93 when EFI was perfected enough .
It didn’t help that they were testing a California car, I wonder what was done to it that wasn’t to the 49-state version of the same engine.
MT did a comparison of the ’73 Caprice and LTD that model year. But, yeah, seems like the buff books were all about Pintos and Vegas, until the quality woes came to light.
But is that Cortina’s 25 MPG imperial? If so, it’s more like 20 MPG (which is still good by the standards of the time).
Not exactly true: the annual King Of The Hill road tests with the Eldorado and Mark series or the Cadillac/Continental/Imperial, Granada/ Monarch, Seville, Mustang II, Aspen/Volare Car of The Year. Plenty of “non sports cars”.
There were so few changes on the big boats aside from bumpers and emissions tech, there was little point in testing warmed over 1965 offerings when others were more up to date and worthy of a report.
The ’72 did have some advantages over the ’65. 1. Improved quality – despite the new styling and engineering (optional 396 V8 and Turbo-Hydramatic transmission), the ’65 Chevrolets had horrendous quality build compared to their ’61-64 predecessors, an issue that would not be addressed until at least 1969. 2. Stronger motor mounts, 65-69 models still used the 1958-vintage motor mounts which had a high failure rate in later years, particularly as larger engines had a higher take rate and the 3-speed Turbo-Hydramatic replaced the 2-speed Powerglide – issue was finally addressed with the new mounts introduced for 1970, but GM was ulitimately forced to recall millions of 65-69 Chevys to address the issue, not with new motor mounts but adding a chain and lock to keep the existing unit in place. 3. Better ride and handling thanks to variable-ratio power steering, improved suspension system (though the ’70 that preceded the ’71 design was very good) and standard front disc brakes. 4. More standard equipment for the money: the ’72 Impala Custom coupe cost several hundred more than the ’65 sport coupe but it was a better value as many items that cost extra in ’65 were now standard including automatic transmission, power steering and brakes plus a much larger V8 engine (350 cid vs. 283 cid) and the Turbo-Hydramatic used in all ’72s was far superior to the Powerglide that went into almost all ’65s with automatic. 5. All engines were designed to use lower-priced regular or the new unleaded gasolines in 1972, in 1965 only the 6-cylinder and small 283 V8s ran on regular – the optional 327, 409 and the new 396 required higher-priced premium fuel. But there were also downsides for the ’72 model: 1. More real estate both in length and width without any appreciable increase in passenger and cargo space. 2. Greater weight which cut into performance and gas mileage though much of that was not only due to larger size but also federal safety and emission regulations that only got worse, particularly the former with the 1973 5 mph front bumper followed by a similar for the rear in 1974. 3. Fuel economy much lower thanks to the low compression engines laden with emission controls plus the increased size and weight of the car – and just in time for the 1973-74 energy crisis. 4. The ’72s interior not as nicely trimmed as the ’65s and certainly not the ’70 model thanks to GM’s “cost-cutting” mentality at the time – more plastic and less metal particularly on the dash though much of that was due to the safety regulations – but Chevrolets were even worse than cars of other GM divisions in one particular area – the use of black steering wheels and columns in all models from the Vega to the Monte Carlo and Caprice (Chevy did go back to color-keyed wheels and columns for the ’73 Caprice and Monte Carlo and then other models in ’74).
Both you and Road Test highlight something I can’t see the point of: the extra bulk over the ’65 for no advantage in space. To me, it just beggars belief that the high-ups at GM thought this was a good idea. Why make a car bigger with no benefit to the driver or passengers? Especially given the extra wheelbase over the ’65.
I guess it’s just a case of “You had to be there to understand…”.
It persists even today. Some folks just like to be driving the biggest thing on the road, though it’s more commonly seen today with jacked-up crew-cab pickups that are not only long and wide, but also absurdly tall.
A good example is the langauge Ford used in advertising for the ’78 LTD after being caught short by Chevy’s downsized ’77 models–they touted its “road-hugging weight” and attempted to make a virtue of its massive size.
I realize this is an old post, but I want to point out that Ford was not anywhere near that retrograde in its 1978 advertising.
Quite logically, they promoted the advantages they had, which included certain larger interior measurements, larger trunk capacity, and greater towing capability.
I’m not discounting the advantages of the new Chevrolet, the ’76 LTD and ’78 Caprice were side-by-side in our driveway, and I drove both regularly.
Both had their charms, but the Chevy was definitely the more practical car 95% of the time. We did tow with the LTD, and both Ford and Chevy were both touting SUVs and Trucks for towing with greater urgency every year during this time. Because they had to!
Good question about emissions in the 1970s. The emission controls that strangled engine output may have decreased emissions by percentage, but with the accompanying and appalling increase in fuel consumption, was the actual overall quantity of emissions really decreased all that much, at least at first? Was EPA measuring the wrong thing? Of course the engineers finally did manage to design around the bungling politicians and the bumbling bureaucrats (or is it the other way around?).
EPA set the standards for pollutants in grams per mile. So regardless of fuel consumption, these engines were in fact cleaner. Often people will state that car companies added “pollution controls” to engines, when if fact many of these engines had few actual emission control devices added. Even when they did, they often only affected part throttle driveability. This made the engines feel more sluggish when chugging around town, but at WOT weren’t much different than an engine without the devices. Most of these standards were met by retuning the engines with lower compression, leaner carburetion, conservative ignition timing and mild camshaft profiles. It was these things that had more of a significant affect of the performance of these engines.
FWIW, the Chevrolet 400-2bbl was a poor performer in stock form. It was only really intended to be an engine with strong low end horsepower and torque, but really had very little performance beyond the mid range. The 4-bbl allowed these engines to breath an perform a bit better, but by the time it was introduced there was little to no performance left in the heads and cam.
+1 pretty much the only “pollution controls” one could delete are PCV systems, EGR, and AIR pumps in some cases. While there is a minuscule parasitic loss with the latter, the only gains you’d see disabling the formers would be more fuel consumption and more frequent oil changes – not exactly an improvement. The real problems you stated, compression(which often coincided with redesigned ports and combustion chambers in the heads as well), cams and timing. Smog controls were more like condoms, smog engines were castration .
“the only gains you’d see disabling the formers would be more fuel consumption and more frequent oil changes”
Pure nonsense. You obviously were not there to experience it yourself. Removing all that crap, and then re-jetting the carb, was a very popular alteration for a very good reason…it improved performance.
The engines ran cleaner but when looking at the complete picture you also have to factor in emissions from producing and transporting more fuel due to the increase in fuel consumption. It was a win in terms of moving emissions away from problem areas such as the L.A. basin.
Although I fully understand its shortcomings, I’m a sucker for a ’72 Custom Coupe; it’s probably my favorite full-size car of the ’70s. I’ll take mine in the most ’70s green imaginable, preferably with a white vinyl top.
Until last year, a guy had a totally stock ’71 just like my “dream” Impala, so maybe that’s why I like the color combo. I prefer the ’72 grille, however, to the ’71 model’s.
+1 on the ’72 Custom Coupe. Those are my hands-down favorite of the 1971 – 76 Chevies.
Friends of our family had one of those in dark metallic green that was a real looker. At the same time, they also had another dark green Impala that was between a 71 and a 73, but I think it might’ve been a 4-door. As of a couple of years ago, the son still had the coupe and it still looked pretty sharp.
+3, definitely
My dad had a ’72 Impala Sport Sedan (which is what Chevy called the four-door hardtop) as a company car, in brown with a cream cloth interior.
Not a bad car and from what I understand, better than the ’71s, which suffered from problems with the redesigned ventilation system.
I only recall two issues: When the rear windows were raised, they didn’t always want to sit on the correct side of the weatherstripping, and the small stop placed in the top of the door jamb. The other was a broken fan belt when it was approximately one year old, suffered on US61 when all seven of us were on the way to my grandmother’s funeral in New Orleans. Fortunately we broke down just a few miles from the Chevrolet dealer in LaPlace, Louisiana (this was not long before segments of I-10 opened between Baton Rouge and New Orleans).
I would be very surprised if there was actually a 668 lb difference between a 1972 Impala and a 1965 Impala. Although I am sure that the author quoted figures from reputable sources, often times the numbers listed for these old cars are shipping weights for the lightest possible model. I could see maybe a bare bones stripper Impala with a six and a three speed weighting in at about 3600-3700 lbs. Take a 1965 Impala with a 327, Powerglide, A/C (this alone added a lot of weight) and similar options to this 1972, and I’d be surprise if when you drove it on the scales it was not near 4000 lbs. Look at some of the real world weights of near stock muscle cars running 1/4 miles these days. They weight in at the track on scales. It’s not uncommon to see a lot of these intermediates weighting near 4000lbs when they cross the scales.
A good portion of the weight difference, if both cars were weighed in stripper form, is the ’65 was 6 cyl 3 speed standard. The ’72 had automatic, V8, power steering, and power disc brakes standard. That alone has to account for at least 300 lbs.
Still, the car was bigger and had added weight to the body/chassis as well.
Good questions about the weight. I did cross reference several sources, including the period buff books, J. Kelly Flory’s “American Cars 1960 – 1972”, “The Standard Catalog of Chevrolet 1912 -1990” and George Dammann’s “75 Years of Chevrolet” to come up with the weight difference on the Impala hardtop coupes (base V8 to base V8), and I actually picked the smallest number. But of course there were equipment differences between the years that contributed to the gain.
So to try to get closer to a real “car-to-car” delta, I just pulled the numbers for the “strippers” to see what difference that made. To adjust for equipment and make things as close as possible, I picked a 1971 Biscayne 4-door sedan, the last year that still had 3-speed manual with 6-cylinder, manual steering and brakes (discs for ’71), carpet and door armrests, which was basically the same standard equipment as the ’65 Bel Air sedan. The weight difference between these cars was 354 pounds. One additional calculation is needed for ’72, mainly since the bumpers got more reinforcements–so comparable cars weighed 138 pounds more in 1972 compared to 1971.
So the total “pure” weight difference between ’65 and ’72 was 492 pounds. That’s a lot of car 😉
That sounds a lot closer to the true weight difference. ’73 was when the bumpers grew to 5 mph front and 2.5 mph rear, and also got door side beams, then ’74 bumpers were 5 mph front and rear. ’72 bumpers probably weigh about the same as the ’71.
I was thinking the same thing, but actually that’s the real weight difference between comparably equipped cars for ’71 to ’72–I’m guessing it was primarily the bumpers, since they did beef them up (and marketed stronger bumpers) in advance of the 1973 standards. Chevrolet added another 41 pounds for ’73, and then still more weight (~75 to 100 pounds) for ’74. The side guard door beams were already in place from the start of the generation in ’71.
The side guard door beams actually began in 1969, or so I thought.
I think I wasn’t too clear about the point I was trying to make. These factory quoted weights are not really useful as few cars weight what is being quoted. Some magazines from this era did actually weight the cars, while others quoted factory numbers, while others used test weight. Often times it’s not clear what method they used. I know today that Car and Driver weights every car they test. Further with the large number of options cars from this era could fluctuate significantly in weight. The point is, there is so many variables in how the weight was determined that it’s very difficult to compared.
Here is a good article on weight that I dug up and may be of some usefulness.
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/additional-how-to/1308-classic-muscle-cars-weigh/
Included in this article is a list of cars that were supposedly weighted back during the actual magazine test. Interestingly a 1972 Caprice shows up on this list, with a 400 engine. It shows a weight of 4360 lbs, not far off the Road Test Magazine weight, so perhaps it is accurate.
To quote the article
“We recently took Project Nova – our 1968 Chevy II – to Ride Techs weigh-in and got the numbers. With a full tank of fuel and no driver, it was 3419 pounds, with 1857 on the front (54.31 percent) and 1562 (45.69 percent) for the rear. That’s a far cry from the 2995 pounds of advertised curb weight for an “average” 1968 Chevy II V-8 coupe as published in Consumer Guides’ Encyclopedia of American cars, a tome that’s often quoted, but in this case was way wrong.”
Further Ride Tech archives actual weights of cars it has scale in the past and documents the information.
http://www.ridetech.com/tech/coiltech-2/#tabs-2
They actually do have a 1965 Impala in their archives, with a SBC and a TH700-R4 transmission. It weighted in at 4028 lbs, which is more on par with what I figured these cars would weight. They also have a 1967 Impala with a 355 SBC and a 5 speed weighting in at 4068 lbs. I know these are completely stock cars, but it gets us in the ball park especially since both cars are close in their weights.
I can remember folks compaining about not being able to shut the fan off in 1970’s GMs. We used to sell a lot of blower motors and most GMs used the same part number.
My dad had a ’74 and a ’79 GMC pickup with the un-turn-offable fans. I wonder how long that “feature” lasted?
So there were two “400’s”? A 400 and 402 offered?
Yes.
The 400 w. 2 bbl (as in the feature car) was the largest displacement member of the small-block family. It used a “siamese bore” which meant that adjacent cylinders had no water jacket between them.
The 402 w. 4 bbl was a big-block – related to the 396, 427 and 454 engines.
For marketing purposes, both were advertised as “400” engines.
Except in Chevelle SS’s where the 402 was touted as a 396.
I guess SS400 or SS402 didn’t quite have the same ring.
Anything less than a 454 in a car this size is just plain silly. It is an attractive car. The Italian Cypress trees in the background are gorgeous.
My experience with Detroit products of this era is that there was often little MPG difference between the smallest and largest offerings in any given lineup.
If it was big, American and a V8, it was going to guzzle gas, no matter what.
Even it wasn’t so big, same story. To wit, ’77 Granada 302 that got around 10-12 city, and couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding anyway. Or the ’76 351 Granada before that which was hard pressed to do better than 17 (Imperial gal mind you!) on the highway.
Friends parents with 400 LTD getting around the same overall mileage, especially in the city. Yet, our ’76 Elite 460 could pull 21-22 (Imperial gal mind you!) at legal speeds. So there is something to be said for checking the box for the big honker. Check out this spec sheet. If you wanted more suds than a 2-barrel 400, you COULD move up to a BB 400 (or is it 402?!). But then, you have the extra front end weight anyway. Might as well go all the way to the 454. If you were worried about economy, get a Corolla. Or maybe a Volvo if you had the wallet for it. And if you could swing an Impala, you did!
It was a known fact back in those times that if you ordered a 4 BBL carb on top of your V8 and didn’t dig into the secondaries highway mileage could actually benefit. A perfect example was my dad’s 1974 Malibu with the 350 2BBL small block V8. It consistently got worse mileage than my uncle’s 1974 Cutlass which featured the Rocket 350 4BBL engine. We would take many trips together taking both cars on the same exact route. My uncles would always average about 2 better MPG better than dads and it would blow the doors off it in a race too, not surprising considering it made 185 horse instead of 145. That was always an eye opening revelation considering both cars were mechanically the same underneath.
I have to dissent from popular opinion on this one primarily due of the advantages noted by Mark Potter above. I always liked the early GM B and C cars of this generation. I thought all of them were quite handsome inside and out (an exception perhaps being the nose of the ’72 Olds). All of them could be optioned up or down to the preference of the buyer. They were comfy and, with the right power trains, acceleration could be quite smart.
20.5 seconds at 81 mph is incredibly slow for the quarter mile. It seems slow for a car that reached 60 in 11.2 seconds, like the car hit a wall of air on it’s way to highways speeds. It seems odd that such a heavy car would have its acceleration fall off so drastically. It should be slower to 60 if it is going to struggle so much above 60. I suppose it’s a reminder that early efforts at aerodynamic refinement in the late ’70s often involved reducing drag coefficients to figures like .42. I wonder how close to the estimated top speed this car could really achieve on a level road.
What you are seeing is the effect of a 2 bbl carb. 4 bbl carburetors did not add any performance at low RPM so zero to 60 would be affected less than quarter mile times by having only a 2bbl carb.
Adding a 4BBl carb and intake and having the engine in proper tune would probably have shaved off more than 2 seconds off that time.
the 400 SBC was designed for low-end torque. Smooth and powerful around town, but quickly ran out of breath. And, as you note, the brick-like CoD didn’t help.
Five mile bumpers may have been heavy, but as someone who owned several beater full size 70’s tanks when I was in my early 20s, those bumpers did their job. I was rear ended twice, once in a 77 Cordoba, and once in an LTD, and both times their was zero damage to my ride, ask me how the Corolla and Sentra fared.
There is much truth in that statement. My ’79 Malibu has been rear-ended three times, with only a small kink in the lower bumper to show for it. I wasn’t in the car for the first two, but the W126 Benz that hit me the third time needed new lights, grille, and bumper cover at minimum. (Admittedly some of that is due to dive under heavy braking.)
I don’t care for the look of the big bumpers, but they certainly did their job.
I prefer the 1971 grille and front end yet I thought the 1972 taillights were an improvement over the 1971’s, I do wish they went for the grille used in the 1973 full sized Chevy’s for the 1972 model instead of the 1972 grille.
Everyone wants to complain about the weight and size gains of these cars over earlier generations. But we live in 2016, and that is from where your perception comes. What did the 1972 new car market have to say about these bigger-than-ever full sizers?
Yes, they were big. Yes, space efficiency was not a priority. Yes, gas mileage was not good. Maybe not even in the context of the time was this a fast car. But it was the just-right car for 1972 new car buyers.
Though plenty of full size cars were still sold in 1972 and they did satisfy a lot of buyers, there’s no question that back-in-the-day the press and customers saw them as getting too big. The buff books as well as the consumer guides–even general market magazines like Look–all noted that the full size cars had grown to overly large proportions. As for marketplace acceptance, the full size share of the total market was declining pretty significantly even before the oil embargo. For example, as a percentage of the volume for the division, in the mid- to late-1960s full size Chevrolets accounted for around 60% to 70% of the division’s yearly output, but by the early 1970s that had dropped to around 45% annually. The same trend was evident at the other GM divisions, as well as Ford and Chrysler, as buyers increasingly flocked to mid size (or smaller) cars.
Chevy needed to put some distance between Impala and Malibu which was a very attractive value proposition so Impala (and Caprice) got bigger to give the illusion of “more value”.
Don’t you think that the some of that loss of full-size sales can be explained by the rise in sales of A-body cars from what were then seen as the “medium price” makes (Olds and Buick)?
At the time, it seemed that it was more prestigious to drive a Cutlass than a Caprice, never mind that they both cost about the same.
Mid size cars got more plush, and the cost was less. Olds Cutlass got sales by being “An Olds for less than a Chevy”
Exactly.
“Olds Cutlass…the little limousine!”
I was in college at the time, and lots of us watched cars get bigger and bigger at this time. And I read enough magazine articles to know that the paid “experts” were none too happy with the increase of mass and reduction of power in the early 1970s. It was a big deal in the 1972 model year that the method of advertising horsepower ratings changed from gross to net; it probably helped disguise somewhat actual power reductions as ALL engines were made capable of running on unleaded regular. There were plenty of big cars sold, though; if you needed a full-sized car, you didn’t have a lot of options besides shelling out for a bloatmobile. Ford’s redesigned Torino came out for the 1972 model year; don’t think that bloat went unnoticed.
At all levels of reporting on the auto industry, there were complaints about the ever-increasing evidence of driveability issues as pollution controls tightened, and it would be many years before fuel injection became commonplace, along with reliable computer controls.
As we know, everything changed in 1973 with the first gas crisis.
A lot of it seems to have been caused by the Mustang’s success leading the industry to apply long hood/short deck proportions to EVERYTHING including full-size four door sedans.
Wasn’t part of the Mopar A-bodies’ appeal that their older, boxy architecture allowed for better space utilization? At least, they didn’t have a foot of wasted space between the grille and the radiator support, and when you went from a short- to a long-wheelbase version (especially from the pre-74 Valiant sedan to a Dart/74-6 Valiant sedan) you got the extra length in the form of rear legroom rather than hood length.
Excellent point. In looking at the limited domestic choices back then, I would have been a Valiant guy back then, or maybe a Colonade sedan if I needed more room.
In 1965, 70% of Chevrolet’s sales were full-size cars. By 1973, that share had been cut almost in half , to 39%. 1965 was the peak year for full size cars in the US, and they went on a long slide downwards from there on. The market did speak; quite clearly.
Sales came up some again after they were downsized in 1977, but nothing like they had been in the early sixties. The market had changed in too many ways.
Like all domestic cars of the early to mid seventies, these were cars that had issues with engines that were choked with pollution gear. If that wasn’t enough , most had terrible rust issues before there 3rd birthday. Owning one of these if you lived in the rust belt was a recipe for disappointment.
What was the axle ratio on this one? They barely provide any info, unlike the C&D articles …
“Vast” is indeed the correct term to describe that trunk. It wasn’t very deep though, my 72 Matador’s trunk was significantly deeper than my friend’s 71 Impala. And you did just about have to climb in to get at the spare.
Several rear gears were available, 2.73:1 highway gear was very common. With a 20.5 second quarter mile time I’ll bet that’s what this one had. For the record my friend’s 71 ran 15.7 with a warmed over 350 and 2.73 gears..
This article has some things in common with today’s full size sedans. Three examples being the current Taurus vs the 2000-2007 generation, the current Impala vs the W-body and the current LaCrosse vs the W-body from 2005-2009. The prior examples weighted in around 3400-3500 LBS and provided reasonably roomy interiors and trunks and visibility around the side glass was decent. These cars got by just fine with there 155 HP Vulcan V6’s, 3500 211 HP Impala engines and Buick 3800’s with 200 horses. Styling is subjective but all three of these were hardly considered ugly and blended in rather well with what else was being offered at the time.
Enter the replacements. Your average 2010-2016 Taurus weights in well over 4000 LBS, struggles to get much over 21 MPG in combined driving, is very hard to see out of, is very tall, ungainly and very portly looking and interior space utilization is poor. But the new version also drives much better and offers a larger trunk. Next up is the Epsilon Impala. It too has gained weight, is a tad narrower, is harder to see out of and the front seat feels a little tighter due to the wider center console. It’s base 2.5 4 cylinder also is a whopping 3 seconds slower to 60 and yet despite this it can only muster one better highway mileage figures. The V6 corrects this issue but mileage suffers a little. Thankfully the new design Impala also vastly improves road manners and the already large trunk stays large on the new car. Then there is the Lacrosse. It too gained a lot of weight, looks very pudgy and bloated and worse lost a bunch of trunk space with it’s stubby tail. Interior space suffers much like the Taurus with the fat center console but rear seat riders benefit from a China spec back seat. As with the Impala power either disappoints or mileage suffers from the weight gain.
As with the 70’s safety gear, technology advances, larger tires and portlier bodies have taken there toll on weight and interior space utilization hence I think for today’s decrease in full size sedan sales. Low gas prices I think are helping here too.
So many enthusiast go all ‘cluck cluck’ over big cars of the day*, but many have fond memories. Many will go “wow, my folks had one we went all over the place in one”.
Can go on and on about not being “sporty enough” and all, but they were designed when gas was cheap. And pickups were for work or farming, not family cars. Sure, the 77’s were “more like it”, but a ’72 without the heavy 5 mph bumpers was a classy ride too.
*Why do big trucks and SUV’s get a pass by buff books/ enthusiasts/etc?
Fat Elvis or not, I’ve always liked these Impalas, except as I said in a post the other day, I’d prefer my ’72 with the rear bumper of a ’73 as I prefer its taillights… (I’m sure they’d bolt right up ;o). Make mine a bright red convertible with a white top and white interior.
Reading the Road Test review of this car and of the ’70 Sport Fury GT almost back to back, a mundane detail jumps out at me – they complained the Fury’s doors only had a single stop, at full extension. This Impala has three! The Fury was almost certainly the better-engineered car, but that kind of touch is the sort of thing that probably got Chevy quite a number of sales.
And what happened to three-stop doors, anyway? I’ve never seen one, though the oldest car I can remember in our family was a ’79.
I’d actually take a door with any working stops. The driver’s side door on my Crown Vic is worn enough that the stops are completely gone, and it falls closed on even the slightest incline. I have to hold the dang thing open with one foot half the time when getting out, and have to get my leg in before the door falls closed on it when entering.
I have to say one of my favorite parts is the small C Pillar.. One thing I hate is when cars have large pillars, makes me feel kinda claustrophobic.
I’m one of those who enjoys these for their sheer bigness, fore, aft, port, and starboard. As some of you know I have a ’75 Olds 98 and am continually impressed by how smooth it is, and how well it handles for such a boat. It is no harder, other than actual length of parking space issues, to parallel park than any other car, and the visibility from all corners is truly fantastic. I don’t think I have ever used full throttle other than to see what it was like (the rumble that emits from the 455 V8 as the secondaries open and you are shoved gently into your velour seat is a sight, sound, and feeling to behold).
But I do get review’s complaints. The dash is really unnecessarily deep on my Olds as well and I’m not sure why it was designed that way. Although I’ve never had any difficulty resting my arm on the doorsill, the locks are too far forward, meaning they come into contact with the elbow. And of course, the mileage just isn’t so hot, I have a 26 gallon tank, 11-12 mpg is not an uncommon figure if traffic is at all stop and go. And that’s on the further detuned for economy 1975 model. And there’s definitely less rear leg room than in the downsized ’77+ models, even though the ride in these is smoother and in my view a bit less buffeted/wallowy due to sheer length and weight.
Fortunately, by ’75 they had also reworked some of the emissions plumbing. And they are dead-on with the wind noise. Mine is a 4-door hardtop and 41 years old. I have driven only one car with less wind noise at highway speeds above 60 mph–my former ’93 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, which was far more aerodynamic in shape.
My grandma had a 73′ LTD with the 400m and it was no faster than this Chevy.
BUT
It would smoke the tires right off of it if you wanted to !!
My ’73 Galaxie 500 with a rebuilt 400M, SP2P Edelbrock intake, aftermarket cam, Pertronix ignition and dual exhaust got 16 on trips. I averaged 12 in daily use. I never dyno’d it but it hauled a fully loaded U-Haul trailer at 90 mph and still had some throttle left. It had a weird rear-end, like an 8.75 inch with 2.73:1 gearing and I had trouble finding parts when it was rebuilt.
And yes, I could burn the tread right off the rubber if I loaded the motor and then let off the brake a little. But only the right side.
‘Heavy” 400 V8?
IIRC, the full-size cars got the SBC version. If you wanted the big-block 402 – which was heavy, you bought a Chevelle, Camaro or a pickup.
People originally thought the SBC 400 was just awful but time has proven it to be a torque monster for what it was.
If I’d been shopping Chevy during that year, I’d have looked at a Malibu or Chevelle instead of a Impala or Caprice.
The bulk of these are why Oldsmobile did so well with the Cutlass. It was just as plush and better in all respects. The average purchase price for one in 1972 was $3181. The average price for a full size Chevy was $3936 and the Chevelle line averaged $3080. For $100 more, a Cutlass was a bargain. And you could spec a 455 over a 350 for $188.
“I’d have looked at a Malibu or Chevelle”
The 1973-77 Colonnades hit a long-term sweet spot for middle-of-the-road American cars in terms of their overall size. My mother looked at a Delta 88 in 1974 to replace a trio of F-85s/Cutlasses (1961, 64 and 72). She took one cruise around the parking lot and said “nothing doing.” She went elsewhere for a Luxury LeMans.
A decade later she fell head over heels for a 1985 Crown Vic – considered a big car by then, but all of those post 1978 GM B bodies and Ford Panthers were in this same general size class of what she had been driving since her 1953 Chevy.
I remember these very well. I think it was spring break of 1972 that my father took us on a family trip to Florida. We flew, but got rentals at our destinations. We got an Impala coupe for an overnight stop in Atlanta, and I recall it as very “establishment”. We also got a Fury III sedan at our 3rd stop. I really liked the Plymouth, but then I was becoming a Mopar fan then. We should have ended up with a Galaxie 500 (the trifecta for a perfect test) but my stepmom thought a Pinto would be fun to try out for the trip from the airport to Disney World and back. What a horrible idea, with two adolescents, two adults and luggage. A Galaxie 500 would have been great.
I was certainly not a GM fan by the late 60s, but then my bias was against the ultra-successful monolith (or “the Man”) that turned out good, solid cars that appealed to boring people without souls. By the time these were common, my bias found some support in the cars themselves. I have never warmed to these because of the floppy structures and cheap interiors. Mopars had cheap interiors and solid structures while big FoMoCo cars had floppy structures but nice interiors, so you picked up at least something by going one of those directions.
I have to say that the styling on these cars has held up well, and the running gear had a lot to recommend it. GM’s suspension designs of this period were a massive improvement over what had come before.
Neighbor , across the street, drove one home in fall of 1971. Was a 4door hrttop; med blue/black top//blue vinyl inside.
I rode in it several times. Seemed comfortable and quiet. I remember he traded it in 1974 for a dark Green Nova.
That one was a pretty basic ride with the “hounds tooth” checkered interior.
It did have wheel covers/white stripes. His nephew (school friend) learned to drive in the Nova.
Looking at the price. The options are really expensive if inflation adjusted using the ratio for the gas costs. (Interesting here to see that the suppsedly cheap gas costs weren’t if cost adjusted. They just look cheap to us!)
am/fm radio $1320 equivalent! Aircon $2,450!
Example of changing tastes, neighbors had a ’71 Impala 4 door. By 1982, new car was a 2 door Cutlass Supreme.
People who did stick with Big Chevys went to Caprices with more flair.