The moment I saw this Impala coupe up in the air, a certain ad from my childhood popped into my head:
Not quite the same year, but close enough.
My Google search for ’63 Chevy ads did bring up a couple of others that are share-worthy.
Exciting stuff, eh?
I was gobsmacked and hornswoggled by the use of the term “doggonedest” in the ad with the blue convertible. So I Googled the word, and the first non-definition use I found was a 1954 usage, featuring a CC of sorts. I assume it’s a Taunus?
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/Life/5-1954/doggonest.jpg
Don’t forget these Body by Fisher ads…..
I always wondered who they contracted the front fenders and hood building to.
(I’ll show myself out.)
From the documentation I collected restoring a ’57 Chevy, everything forward of the firewall was not Fisher’s responsibility. So, it was either Chevrolet or GM Assembly Divisions that would have fabricated the “front clip”.
B-b-but that was my joke answer!
There was another that came to my mind – a whole series of floating Fisher Bodies. But the ad agencies were smart enough to not show the ugly exposed firewall. This red 58 strikes the same pose.
Ooooh, that 63 Impala. My left brain screams that it was inferior in almost every way to the Plymouth or Ford that year. But my right brain gushes over the almost perfect styling – lean and crisp. And that is enough. Maybe it has been too long since I have been behind the wheel of one of these, and maybe 15 minutes would send me scurrying back to my Plymouths, but – – – isn’t is just gorgeous.
Sex appeal trumps steady and solid…..
I might be a cynical ol’ wag, but my first reaction to that first ad, the ’64 Looks Like This / Feels Like This, was “So…it feels like nothing’s going to happen if you turn the steering wheel or step on the brake, then.”
““So…it feels like nothing’s going to happen if you turn the steering wheel or step on the brake, then.””
Just like in real life. 🙂
Yup. Having grown up driving tractors, with their direct mechanical connection to everything, this was my reaction when I got my Learner’s Permit and the first car I drove was Dad’s 62 Bel Air. You turn the wheel, and nothing happens for about a step and a half. Just long enough to make you wonder if something is not connected and you did something wrong and are going to get hurt. And you step on the brake and it takes about two beats for something to happen. And you think something is definitely not connected and you are going to die. By then you realize, Holy Buckets, I have got to keep on top of this thing-you have to anticipate any move, because this thing is so floaty and disconnected that you cannot depend upon it to quickly respond to any input. I hope the smooth-riding jets of the time had better controls.
Ok, I grew up driving tractors too. And all the various ones I drove had even slower and sloppier steering than the Chevys of that time. Maybe the only thing thta could outdo them in that regard. 🙂
Oh, yes, as they got older and the gears wore down. I think maybe it was the slowness of the manual steering ratio-just about six turns lock-to-lock-with the amount of apparent play in the steering that shocked me. It really felt more like steering a boat than a car. I guess they were trying to keep steering effort down, while insulating the steering from any sort of shock, just as the suspension was trying to insulate you from any sort of road harshness. I had been so looking forward to getting to drive a real car, and this part of the experience kind of let me down. The 283/Powerglide combination did not, however, that felt more like taking off in a jet; just a smooth application of power all through the range.
I know. I’ve driven plenty of old Chevys.Pretty bad. I’m not sure they were really much worse than the other cars of the era. It was one of the more serious weaknesses of American cars then. I guess they needed to keep steering effort low for the folks that still weren’t ready to shell out for PS.
Chevrolet had built an image and had backed it up often enough that the cars were simply a better value, if only because of their higher trade-in value.
As far as actual driveability, it would be at least 1965 – if not 1970, when they went back to 15″ tires – before the full-size Chevy finally surpassed the Tri-Fives for handling and balance. It wasn’t just their good looks that made them icons. (Yes I know 14″ was introduced for ’57 but those cars were hundreds of pounds lighter than their successors.)
But back in that time frame, even the el cheapo models carried enough style that one need not have been ashamed to own one.
How did they ride? I’ve never been in one. The closest was a ’71 Impala I was test driving ($800 in 1984 dollars!) and it was pretty nice. I wish I’d bought it now.
The last ad shows the “corduroy road” that was a staple of Chevy’s 1963 illustrations.
I suppose the only place you’d see a 4-door Biscayne with blackwalls and hubcaps is a fleet-sales ad, but here you go. Fortune magazine, so with luck reaching someone who’ll authorize a purchase of hundreds:
Love the ad in French – everyone drives a convertible with the top down in winter! Ads that depicted winter scenes always showed hardtops (and convertibles) with all the windows down.
I recall a story in Collectible Automobiles that when Ford designers where working on the Mustang II the engineers told them that a crease in the rear quarter panels was nearly impossible, so the designers went to a junk yard and brought back a ‘63 Chevy.
Dad & mom bought a 1963 Bel Air wagon, brand new. I remember it, was a small kid in those years. Had a 283, 3 speed column shift, power steering, maybe power brakes though I don’t know. I am sure it had power steering because I also remember the 1959 Chevy wagon that did not, and I remember Mom pig-wrestling that thing, and that the 1963 was much easier for her.
This video features a drive and tour of a 1963 Bel Air wagon equipped similarly. It’s been altered a little, but still tickles my recollections. https://youtu.be/ZNNPUZmub-k . The two comments there are mine.
Here’s a question a bit off-topic, though arguably that’s not easy to define in commenting upon a post centered around the jet-smooth ride of half a Chevy. (My suggestion, btw, is that it’d be only half as good, but that’s a little obvious).
The question: just when did auto ads stop using drawings, or drawn paintings of cars? So much had been learned about photographic trickery by, say, the 1950’s, that any setting deemed necessary for the marketing of a given car could surely be met by the application of that black magic in one way or another?
There seems to be a cut-off point in the late ’60’s when it suddenly disappeared. Was it driven by consumer laws, as plenty of the pics were blatant distortions? Consumer awareness, as TV took over? The new demographic of baby boomers, perhaps a bit less likely to take any note of what were essentially fictional representations?
Perhaps the why and when of this change is a post of its own.
It was a just change in taste. It started in the late ’50s, and then took hold in the early ’60s. By 1965, renderings were passe, except for the Fitzpatrick-Kaufman renderings for Pontiac, which hung around (in limited use) until about 1971 or so.