(first posted 7/11/2013) 1967 was the last year the six was available on both the Impala convertible and even the Super Sport, which was a separate model (for the last time). Yes, if you specified Model 16767, you would be the proud owner of a ’67 SS six convertible, and you’d be in very, very rare company. How rare?
My Encyclopedia of American Cars says that 400 1967 SS coupe and convertible sixes were built, but doesn’t give a breakout between the two. I bet it’s about a hundred or so, making it a mighty rare beast indeed. Wonder if any still exist?
A year or so ago, there was a ’67 Impala Super Sport SIX Convertible on E-bay. It looked to be a nice survivor car with original gold paint and black convertible top. Options were power steering and brakes, am radio and console shifted Powerglide. While it is definitely not something I would have ordered new, I found myself strangely drawn to it all these many years later. I can imagine the looks on the faces of enthusiasts when taking a look at that little six in such a big, sporty car.
Mister Bill
Hamlet, NC
By 1967, the idea of a six cylinder full size Chevrolet went out with Father Knows Best. If you wanted something similar to what Jim Anderson drove back in 1954, your 1967 option would have been more in the line of a Chevelle, which would have been similar in size and engine.
What GM needed to do was ensure that there was a good selling six cylinder car for fleet sales, if any were left by this time. A six cylinder Bel Air or Impala did the trick until 1967.
Additionally, 1967 was the year that Ford kicked the full size market up a notch with their LTD. Full sized cars by this time were focused on delivering air conditioned luxury eight cylinder cars to the masses to meet the competition. Six cylinders were perfectly fine for imtermediate and compact cars.
Cars couldn’t get bigger, more luxurious and pull along an A/C with a six cylinder. This market needed a standard eight cylinder by this time. With the eight as a standard within this size of vehicle, the vehicles grew even more heavier and larger, that is, until 1976. Buick Electras by this time, especially the wagons, were a good 1500 pounds or more heavier than the 1967 Chevrolet. A six couldn’t do the trick under all that bordello luxury.
Associating the full sized US cars of that era with their eight cylinder engines was one of the problems US manufacturers had to contend with. When the full size cars downsized and lightened up enough for a six cylinder again, a lot of buyers were skeptical that it was enough engine for decent performance. It took a decade before the US manufacturers were able to once again provide a flagship model with seating for six, air conditioning, automatic transmission and a six cylinder engine.
Without looking up any figures, I’m guessing that sixes were still fairly common in 1967 in Biscaynes and Bel Airs. It wouldn’t surprise me if six-cylinder Biscaynes approached or equalled 50% of total Biscayne production, and if six-cylinder Bel Airs were around 25%. By contrast, sixes in Impalas were probably 10% if even that, and sixes weren’t available in Caprices at all.
By 1967, Biscayne and Bel Air sales had been in decline for years, and were much lower than that of the Impala, but were still fairly substantial. I believe that both were still over 100K in 1967.
Both the Biscayne and the BelAir did very well in what was then infamously frugal Canada. Before 1967, getting a car loan took at least 20% down and no more than 36 months. People spent a really long time until they got their first new car and then nursed it as long as they could. Before the Auto Pact we even had the pleasure of paying much more for the same car as in the USA.
Since these cars rusted to dust (and they all did) in like three years (hence the loan terms) the extra money for a higher model was skipped by most Canucks. Even until the mid-1970’s the lower end models were everywhere in Canada.
Which is of course why you guys got the Chevy Bel-Air and Ford Custom models longer than we did in the US.
Though remember, lots of those cheapie sedans also had the small V8 too, a 2bbl 283 or a 307 later, there were probably more Biscayne/Bel-Airs made with the small V8 and a Glide than the straight 6.
In Canada, based only on personal observation, the Stovebolt took 50% of the lower line models. Of these, half were three-on-the-tree and the rest Powerglide. The 283 took the rest, always with Powerglide.
I have never seen a ’65 with PS/PB, although my brother had a ’67 with it. That car also had factory air; not surprisingly, the car was a US import!
Full size sixes were still popular with taxi fleets back then. Does anyone else remember the ads in the back of Popular Science and similar magazines for $995 late model Chevy, Ford, and Plymouth sedans? By the mid 1960’s, the final generation Big Three straight sixes were durable, reliable, (for the day) economical, just not very “sexy”. A decade later, saddled by crude early emissions controls, small V-8’s were lucky to put out similar horsepower. Yes, I am aware of the change from gross to net ratings in ’72. That 155hp gross 250 was rated 125hp net (from the truck brochure).
When my brother and I were “bad”, my father would tell us he would buy one of these el strippos if we didn`t behave. That got us to behave-FAST!
A friend of mine’s dad bought one, not to punish them, but because he was cheap. It annoyed him so much, as he did a lot of highway driving, that he suddenly traded it for a ’69 Impala with a 350, I think. It was just too sluggish and freeway mergers were too “dramatic”. The way he said “dramatic” was just plain odd for someone born in Toledo. We used to ask him to say it all the time. His last car was a stripper St. Regis that he special ordered. I thought it was a sad car to have as a last one.
My father bought a 1965 Impala 2-door with a 230 six and powerglide in 1966 with something like 9000 miles on the car. He liked the car, but hated the powertrain. But he was used to sixes, as he replaced his 1960 Dodge with this Impala and also had a ’55 Bel Air with a 235 six. To this day, he still talks about how much he liked that car, but wished it would have at least had a 283. He said the six made it a “dud.” He did keep the car for about 10 years though and it proved to be reliable. After 10+ Northern Ontario winters though the body was getting a rusty and the old 230 six with 100+ K miles was starting to get tired. That said, my father who owned three fullsize six cylinder cars in a row, only ever bought V8 powered cars afterwards (until recently), which proved to be a better purchase. He only bought sixes due to cost in the earlier years, not out of preference.
With looking up numbers, from the U.S. Centric Standard Catalog of American cars, the six was down, but definitely not out in 1967.
Biscayne
92,800 total cars
54,200 sixes = 58.2% of production
Bel-Air
179,700 total cars
41,500 sixes = 23.1% of production
Impala
575,600 total cars
18,800 sixes = 3.3% of production
Caprice
124,500
0 sixes = 0% of production
Wagons, All Models
155,100
11,400 sixes = 7.4% of production
Total Chevrolet Full-Size
1,127,700
125,900 sixes = 11.2% of production.
For all this talk about the rarity of sixes in the full-size Chevy models, I’m just amazed they were available in SS trim! Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
Great commentary and accurate analysis of the times Dude. Just one thing: LTD came in ’65. Or did LTD become a separate series in ’67?
And yes I admit…MY ideal ’67 would be an SS427 with the NEW 427 otherwise known as the 7.0 small-block, good for 505 HP, backed by a T56 tranny. F41 suspension package and a set of Rallys and I’d call it good.
Ok, maybe aluminum 5-spoke 16-inchers…beyond 2″ over the stock wheel is asking for trouble if you ask me.
BTW, the way the drive-by-wire is set up, this combo’s traffic manners are perfect. Only when you put your foot in it does it become apparent you have 505HP, then it’s Katy bar the door. I drove a friend’s ZO6 Corvette with this combo. Best of both worlds.
Look closely at the front fender badge in the picture…it’s a 396. 427s had the “427” designation over the flag that year. Or at least you could order it that way.
Full size I6’s were still in demand, though declining, by some elders born in the 1890’s-1900’s. But, by the dawn of 1970, V8 was it. Many old timers switched to stripped compacts by then.
My Great Uncle, born in 1901, bought a rare 1972 Ford Custom [not even the C-500] with an I6 for his last car. Maybe the last big Ford with a six built!
My Uncle bought a 72 Chevy Bel Air Powerglide and a six. Must have been horrible, and probably the last year offered, since he traded it with in a year for an Impala with an 8. The 72 replaced a 63 Bel Air 6, so he was not prone to changing out cars every year. My Dad went V8 on his 67 Fury II. Before then he had always had a 6.
“…by the dawn of 1970, V8 was it.”
If you look at the fullsize Chevy model lineup in the ’60s, the base V8 above the six was always an SB that came with a 2bbl carb, usually the smallest displacement SB that Chevy built. From the time the 327 was introduced for 4bbl applications in 1962, a larger displacement SB was also offered. From 1962 the two engines were the 283 and 327. In 1968, the 307 replaced the 283. In 1969, the 350 replaced the 327, but the fullsizes began using a 327 2bbl in place of the 307, as the Camaro had been doing since its 1967 introduction.
For 1970, though, the 327 2bbl was dropped, leaving the 350 as the smallest V8 offered. There was now a hole in the engine lineup between the six and the 350. Coupled with the fact that the six was available on an increasingly smaller list of models each year, I think at this point the six became a de facto credit option. (Because Chevy technically considered the six- and eight- cylinder versions to be two distinct models, there was offically no base/option relationship whatsoever between them.) Chevy was no longer offering any V8 smaller than the 350, but the six apparently remained on a few models for those customers who insisted on a fullsize car with a six.
Funny thing about the 307 was that it was a 283 (same 3 7/8″ bore) with a 327 crankshaft. The 302 was a 327 block (4″ bore) with a 283 crank used to get under the five-liter limit imposed by Trans Am.
The 350 maintained the 4″ bore of the 327 but with a stroked crank while the 400 went up an eighth of an inch in bore, enough to mandate siamesed cylinders. Since the cylinders were no longer surrounded by full water jackets, the 4″ block remained the most popular for modification.
My relatives in Missouri; those born between 1900-1918 were just the opposite; as big as an engine and as many goodies as they could afford. So as a kid, there were Mopars with 383 four pots; New Yorkers with Police/TNT 440s . . . . or, if they were smaller engine cars, they were loaded to the gills with options.
That was my dad’s deal too, he had a ’68 Imperial with a cammed 440 that ran really good. His next and last car, a ’69 Caddy, had similar work done, but wasn’t nearly as good sounding as the Imp was. It did have a neck snapping “hit” off the line though, and could smoke the tires really well, just like the Imp, but it had that “whooshy” exhaust note that just sucked.
My mother was obviously an outlier then! She was born in the late 20s (and is still alive today with a 2011 Camry), but to my embarrassment, bought a stripper 6-cylinder Bel Air 2-door in 1967. Turquoise, 3-on-the-tree, no a/c, no power anything. I learned to drive in that car.
The odd thing is she expressed some interest in the top-line Caprice before purchase, and I couldn’t figure out what was wrong with the Impala that everyone else seemed to buy (even Consumer Reports by that point).
I was kind of exaggerating about 1890-1900 age bracket.
But base BelAirs/Biscaynes were plentiful in Chicago, until about 1969, when more thrifty buyers swtiched to compacts/middies.
Buick dealers sold lots of 60’s Specials saying “you can get a Buick for the price of a Chevy!”, and we know where that led.
I believe the LTD was a subseries of the Galaxie 500 at first, then became a distinct model in either 1967 or 1968.
This is one of my favorite CCs all about the LTD. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1965-ford-ltd-revolutionary-it-singlehandedly-launched-the-great-brougham-epoch/
The LTD became a separate series for the first time in ’67; the previous two years, it was technically a Galaxie sub-model.
I’m drooling… excuse me…
I should think there are few survivors,sadly hot rodders will have stuffed V8s in as the car passed down the food chain as rebuild time came round.On the other hand rare doesn’t always mean good,a full size car with a 6 will be a bit of a slug
“…a full size car with a 6 will be a bit of a slug.”
Not really. Dad had a gorgeous red 1966 Impala Sports Sedan (4 door hardtop) with a 250 cu. in. six cylinder Powerglide. Power steering, am radio, cloth & vinyl interior and that was it. No a/c, just lots of windows to open.
It got along very well and was a good highway cruiser, too. I got it up to 103 one fine morning! Of course, I have no idea how accurate the speedometer was, but I was passing everyone at a rapid clip!
That car was a fine one and I enjoyed driving it every chance I got. Now, I’m not a hot-rodder, so perhaps my viewpoint is different from most.
I’ve written before about my uncle’s buying habits – a new yellow 60 Biscayne 2-door with the six and three-on-the-tree, and a factory-ordered white 63 BelAir 4-door sedan with the same combination. In the fall of 65 he factory-ordered a new 66 red Impala 4-door sedan with the six and three-on-the-tree and his usual single option – a radio. All three cars, including the Impala, had blackwalls and dog dish caps, manual steering and brakes. I too remember the 66 as having adequate power – I drove it a few times as a teenager and it could cruise very well on the highway. That was a strong six cylinder and this car – without all the power equipment and not much in terms of safety equipment – was lighter than a comparably sized car would be today. The 66 also was a good car – my uncle kept it about 10 years, put a lot of mileage on it driving back and forth between the midwest and Florida, and finally traded it for a new Monte Carlo that at last included V8, A/C, auto, ps, pb.
I think the growing popularity of A/C (not as efficient in those days and definitely took away some power), the added weight of safety equipment and the power- robbing nature of some of the early anti-smog devices helped to kill off sixes in big sedans. Ironically in later decades OPEC and CAFE would bring them back.
Typically, the six-cylinder cars have a lower ratio gearing in the rear end to compensate for the lack of power up front. The gearing itself makes a bigger difference than one might think.
For example, I replaced the 2.73 rear end in my (ex) ’73 Delta 88 Convertible (455) with a 3.08 unit out of a ’74 Delta sedan (350) and the difference was very noticeable: the car was a lot quicker and could lay a lot more rubber afterward.
Years ago, I ran my stock ’89 Camaro RS 305 5-speed up against another kid’s stock ’91 Camaro RS 3.1 5-speed car from a dead stop. My car had about a 30hp advantage but he stayed ahead of me well into my third gear (maybe 40mph?) before I eventually overtook him. My crappy driving probably played a factor but still it surprised me how well his car accelerated.
Third gear at 40 mph? That’s not a race, it’s a leisurely tour. No wonder the guy was ahead of you with a 3.1.
Well, it must have been maybe 50-60mph then… I do remember closing the gap somewhere in 3rd gear though. It’s kind of embarrassing to note that a current Hyundai Accent might be able to outrun them both.
Also, the cam and carburetion of most domestic sixes of that era was designed for low-speed torque at the expense of outright power. Except for something like a Mopar Hyper-Pak or Corvair Corsa, the gross torque peaks were usually 2,400 rpm or less.
I dunno. My ’68 Camaro with the 250/Powerglide was nothing to crow about on the road. It wasn’t horrible, but certainly not “sporty”
It’s on the rotisserie now. . . And it’s getting another 6-banger in the form of an 4200 Vortec. I’ve never once felt compelled to swap in the typical (and boring) 350 or LS3.
noxioux,
That’s pretty interesting – and unique – that you’ll be putting a 4200 Vortec six in your ’68 Camaro. How long have you owned the car?
Also, just a suggestion – have you considered putting the 4.3 V-6 in there?
It is enlightening, though, to look at the 0-60 figures from old road tests. IIRC, a lot of the six-cylinder intermediates CR tested back then were running times in the 11-15 second range. Which would certainly feel slow today, next to your typical Toyota Avalon’s 6-second run. Whether the latter needs that, of course, is something else…
The funny part is, 10 – 11 seconds to 60 really isn’t all that bad. Most mid-size cars such as the Avalon and lets say Turbo Malibu and V6 Accord are really needlessly powerful. Most people with that kind of power never ever use it, and wouldn’t know what to do with it anyway.
I suspect is has more to do with economies of scale than it does bragging rights. Kind of like when GM put the LT1 into the B-bodys 94-96…did a Roadmaster really need to be as fast as the Impala SS? Did the 99% of the Roadmasters ever really get driven hard enough to appreciate the 260hp vs the 180 hp former engine? No, but it made sense to use the same engine over the entire platform to save a few bucks over having multiple options.
Yep, and the popularity of heavy, V6-powered SUVs has likely accelerated this trend in the last decade. If you’re Toyota, and you’re selling bajillions of Highlanders and Lexus RXs, then it makes sense to put the same V6 in the Camry and Avalon and make those cars screaming quick as a bonus. Not too hard to find analogies in the 250+ hp V6s from Nissan, Honda, GM, Ford, etc.
I remember, on my first drive of a recent Camry V6, when I first gave it the boot on an on-ramp–the neck-straining acceleration and ripping-silk noises were a rush, no joke. But I remember thinking I’d lose my license in a week if I owned one. The rest of the car was so flavourless–like most new family sedans–that you’d be tempted to go around flooring it all the time to keep yourself interested. No thanks.
I can relate, I don’t think I’ve driven a Camry (or Aurion) V6 from 1998-2012 that didn’t have trouble putting its power to the ground. Perhaps it was just tyre spec? One of the Aurions (aka Camry V6) must have had worn suspension bushes or tie rods at 60k because it would weave all over the place under hard acceleration – very amusing an a freeway on-ramp for example!
10-11sec 0-60 is adequate – faster acceleration than you typically experience in rush-hour traffic, but a bit more grunt is always nice when overtaking on 2-lane roads as it opens up more opportunities.
My Acura TL is a prime example of this. Even with 225 hp there are very few situations one can use it.
Tomorrow, however, I will take the family into the mountains, a five hour drive in hot weather and steep grades. Then I will appreciate the extra power, the cold a/c and cruise that old cars don’t have!
The ’66 Pontiac Tempest 4-door my grandparents had (OHC 6) was always spoken of in hushed and awed tones by my Dad and Uncles – it had a/c and power steering and brakes, and would as effortlessly cruise at 90 as it would at 70.
Took a while to get there with the 2-speed slush box, though.
Had a friend who in 1960 was deciding between a Renault Caravelle convert (!) or a Ford Sunliner. He chose the Ford, but with a 6 and 3-speed, as I recall. Must have been very very slow!!!!
Sweet ride…and rare.
This is exactly the car I think of when all the Chevy guys piss and moan about how something like a 4 cyl Cobalt or 6 cyl Malibu shouldn’t have an SS trim because it isn’t a tire smoking V8.
“Um excuse me Chevy guy…do you even know that there were 6 cyl SS’s available from the very begining that the new 4cyl and 6 cyl models will blow out of the water??”
The same thing I thought about the people bitching about how the 04-06 GTO looked…Just roll my eyes and understand they “don’t get it”.
The 283 SS’s and Powerglide 327’s would be left in the dust by today’s fours and V-6s. I recently acquired an ’07 Mustang 4.0L V-6 (five speed), and although some folks in this forum call the 4.0 Cologne a “boat anchor”, driving it says otherwise. It has some pretty good scoot to it. Looking up reviews of this same car, it routinely would post 0-60 times of 7 seconds; the quarter in 15. Not bad. Would certainly outperform a 1st gen 289 210 2-bbl just as a smaller engine car of today would outperform the six and SBC Impala SS’s of yesteryear (and with today’s safety equipment, they weight about the same, if not more for the newer machinery!)
Offering the inline-6 with the “Super Sport” package doesn’t make much sense to me, except so dealers could advertise a low base price then up-sell to a V8 once you get in the door. Basically this option meant that the SS was just an appearance package at heart.
Until the 80’s it essentially was just an appearance package, heck even post 80’s it moved back to being just an appearance package on things like the cobalt.
‘Twas ever thus, the Monaro GTS was the same here in Australia.
It also makes a point of difference between these and ‘real’ muscle cars like the GTO & similar where they never did build a sticker-special.
No, the Cobalt and HHR SS models were tested and proven at the Nurburgring in Germany. They did rather well…
The Cobalt SS was one of Car & Driver’s surprises at their annual Top 10 test at VIR. It smoked some far more expensive cars. Briefly, the HHR SS held some sort of class record at the Nurburgring (I think based on size or style of car), which very few other contemporary cars could boast. For almost any price range…
One could argue that the Malibu SS of the time was a tape job, but came with a lot of great equipment. It just wasn’t enough to merit the SS badge (IMO), they really should have been RS designations…
Geozinger
They made a non-turbo cobalt ss as well, I believe only the years that the turbo engine was offered, not the supercharged engine.
The only way to get the 3.9 V6 was in the Malibu SS. I would think that would fit people’s perception of what a SS model “should be”.
+1 – as I recall, the forced-induction versions were badged and referred to as the ‘SS Supercharged’ and ‘SS Turbo’, respectively.
‘SS’ by itself indicated the appearance and equipment package.
IIRC, there was a “Sport” edition that had the SS-style wheels, the spoiler and fog lamps like the (either the supercharged or turbocharged) SS model. From 50 feet it’s hard to tell and until you’re absolutely on top of it you don’t realize it’s not an SS model. The badges used on the doors are similar in size and shape, which adds to the confusion. I like to think I’m a pretty good car spotter, but I’ve been fooled a few times, even in encounters as close as a crowded parking lot.
As a side note,when the contemporary top of the line Pontiac G5 Sport was released, it was the same spec as the Cobalt Sport; no supercharging of any kind available. (The “big” 2.4L motor helped, though). That was one of the real head scratchers to me as a Pontiac enthusiast and a Delta chassis fan as Pontiac was the “performance” division.
I guess it should have been a signal…
Philhawk: I had a standard model Malibu Maxx, and when test driving the cars I tried an SS model. It was more lively than the standard one, but not enough for the huge increase in price GM was asking at the time. Of course, at that time I was still prime child-raising mode; every dollar counted…
I drove another one about a year ago, naturally being a used car, it had a few miles on it. But it reinforced my memories from 2006, it was snappy driver and combined with the early Epsilon chassis, it made for a sweet ride (IMO. YMMV.) I ended up passing on that one, too, as the dealer thought that a car used to haul (apparently) large dogs (the rear cargo area had a large number of scratches) still commanded a high retail price…
When the Cobalt SS came out initially, there was only one “SS”, and it was Supercharged.
The following year, GM decided to try to make more money by having an “SS” and an “SS Supercharged”. They basically cheapened the SS moniker.
I have read of dealers ordering one or two six cylinder Impala SS models with nothing more than standard equipment for the very reason you mentioned which was to actually have available such a model that was advertised for a very low price. Once the customer was in the door, an up-sell was attempted to get the customer into a V8 with other goodies. A base, six cylinder Impala SS was a very unappealing model to most buyers, but dealers could count on someone eventually taking one home.
During the 1960s, Chevrolet dealers typically stocked Impala sedans and sport coupes with V8 engines, automatic transmissions, power steering and brakes, radio and heater. Tom McCahill in the February, 1965 issue of Mechanix Illustrated tested what was considered the best-selling Chevy – an Ermine White Impala Sport Coupe (not the SS) with a 283 V8, Powergilde, power steering and brakes, radio and heater. The test Impala had the standard suspension, but “Uncle Tom” said if he was ordering a new Chevrolet, he would get the optional F-41 suspension and 327 V8. Few Chevy dealers had 6-cylinder full-sized cars in stock and those that did, had Biscayne or Bel Air 4-door sedans with the six and 3-speed manual transmission along with manual steering and brakes, and maybe a radio and heater. A buyer wanting a full-sized with a six usually had to special-order such a car (normally a Bel Air or Biscayne, though an Impala/SS with a Stovebolt was also possible) with that engine and then decide on either a 3-speed manual or Powerglide transmission, and then add any other options – which meant a wait of several weeks, for which the salesman countered that he could drive home today in a V8 Impala with Powerglide and other options – and was also informed it would have a much higher resale value than an el cheapo 6 Biscayne or Bel Air. Furthermore, in most years if you wanted air conditioning in a full-sized Chevrolet – you had to get at least the 283 V8 as A/C was not offered with a 6 in most years – particularly after the mid-1960s.
The Impala SS, Chevelle SS, and Nova SS all originally could be ordered with a six, and did not offer any engine that was unique to them that couldn’t be ordered on any other Impala, Chevelle or Nova. The 1966 Chevelle SS was the first SS to specify a high-performance V8 as standard, not available in other models of its kind, in reaction to the GTO. The new ’67 Camaro SS followed suit, and the Nova SS and new El Camino SS also adopted the concept in 1968.
For its last year in 1969, the Impala SS came only with the 427, because the SS 427 package was the only version of the SS offered. While it was no longer available with any old fullsize Chevy engine, I don’t think the 427 was unique to the SS, but could be ordered in any fullsize Chevrolet. The relatively unpopular 1970-71 Monte Carlo SS had a similar arrangement.
By the early ’70s, things were going back in the other direction. The Chevelle and El Camino SS dropped down to a 350 (4bbl?) as their base engine in 1971, to a 307 2bbl in 1972, then a 350 2bbl for the Chevelle SS’ last year in 1973. From 1973 on, the Nova SS (which lasted until 1976) and the El Camino SS (which lasted until the end of El Camino production in 1987) were available with the same engines as any other Nova or El Camino. The Camaro SS avoided such a fate only by being dropped completely after 1972.
The ’70-71 Monte Carlo SS came only with the 454 V8 and getting that engine in a Monte required the “SS” option – just as in the Chevelle with both 396 and 454 in 1970 – 400 big block was top engine in non-SS Chevelles and Monte Carlos that year. For the ’71 Chevelle SS, there was a standard SS (like the pre-66 models) that came standard with the 350-2 with the 350-4 and 400-4 optional, along with the SS 454 which now offered only the 365-horse LS-5 option as was the Monte SS. The same engines were carried over to the ’72 Chevelle SS but the 307-2 was now the base engine. For ’73, the final Chevelle SS (now the Malibu SS) was offered with three engines including standard 350-2 or optional 350-4 and 454-4 (the latter now the LS-4 engine shared with Caprice, Impala and Monte Carlo). The switch to smaller standard engines and bigger mills relegated to the option list was necessitated by the “Great Insurance Wrath” of 1970 when insurance companies jacked up premiums for musclecars to unbelievable levels and sales of the musclecars began to decline and further hastened for 1971-72 first with (GM) engines getting lower compression ratios to run on low-octane unleaded gasoline to meet tougher emission mandates then in 1972, on paper horsepower ratings went over a cliff thanks to emissions, lower compression – and the big switch from “gross” to “net” horsepower measurements which made the ’72s much weaker performers than the ’71s even though actual performance was pretty much the same for a car powered by the same engine in both years.
It is true that the Super Sport was essentially the top trim level Impala, until Caprice took over. The biggest sales year for Impala SS was 1965 and then downhill fast.
Chevy’s true muscle car was the big block [396/427/454] Chevelle SS.
Pretty much the better equipped six cylinder full-sizers of the day (SS Impalas included) were around to for low-sticker window dressing. This practice continued through the eighties as even Ford admitted the slow-selling Tauruses with HSC 2.5 Litre fours were built and marketed just for “price point”. I briefly had a ’92 Tempo with the 3-speed automatic and four . . . . that thing would scream at 65mph. Not a fun driving experience.
The Impala SS’s with sixes (I’ve only seen TWO in my lifetime in person) were nicely equipped Impalas built and marketed to a price point. Same thing with the early Caprices having a 3 speed stick, no P/S or P/B and radios – same with Monte Carlos in ’70 (350 2-bbl, 3 speed stick, Powerglide at slight extra cost, etc.)
The most ridiculous example of a Chevrolet marketed to a price point was the base 1973 Monte Carlo, put in production by John DeLorean to “placate” the 14th Floor and other Chevy executives who rejected his plan to make the ’73 Monte Carlo standard with Turbo-Hydramatic, power steering and brakes, variable-ratio power steering and uprated suspension with radial tires. Since the “base” Monte as is was really intended as a back-lot special, this car came with the 3-speed manual transmission, straight-ratio power steering and the base Chevelle Malibu suspension with Polyglas tires. But if you wanted a Monte Carlo with the Turbo-Hydramatic transmission which virtually everyone did, you were upgraded to the Monte Carlo S which included the automatic, and Chevy threw in lots of other stuff free including the variable-ratio power steering and tuned suspension with radial tires. Plus the Monte Carlo S was offered with many options not available on the base stick-shift model including the swiveling Strato bucket seats and console, air conditioning, power windows, optional 350-4 or 454-4 V8s, or the Landau package that included the rear-quarter vinyl roof, color-keyed sport mirrors and Landau nameplates. Although DeLorean was gone from Chevy (and GM altogether) and the stripped base Monte Carlo was out for 1974, Chevrolet’s accountants still insisted on offering the 3-speed manual transmission as standard on both the Monte S and Landau for 74 and again in 75 though Chevrolet records showed that exactly “zero” Monte Carlos were built with manual transmissions in both of those years. They finally made the Turbo-Hydramatic standard on all Monte Carlos (and V8 Chevelles) for 1976 – which should have been done in 1974, if not way back in 1972 when THM was made standard on all V8 big cars (actually that change was made late in the ’71 model run).
A six cylinder Impala SS would be kinda cool with a three speed and overdrive combo. The overdrive could justify a decent rear axle ratio for at least tolerable acceleration. Stick that damned antiquated Powerglide behind the six, though, and you would have a world-class slug. An attractive slug, but a slug nonetheless.
Anecdotally, it always seemed like we saw more nicely trimmed-out Fury IIIs with a six than you did Chevys or Fords.
And Plymouth’s real competition to the Impala SS, the Sport Fury, came standard with a 318.
“A six cylinder Impala SS would be kinda cool with a three speed and overdrive combo.”
Hello! No it wouldn’t. It would still be a huge, slow-assed slug.
What? This from the guy who has repeatedly told us of his ’63 Chevy six’ near-miraculous abilities to lay streaks of rubber for blocks at a time? So which is it?
Hello there,I jst wanted to ask anyone out there if my 66 ss impala convertible with a 6 cylinder is worth keeping it original?It is automatic with powerglide. I was planning dropping in a LT1 engine out of a 1995 Impala that i got for a good deal.
In my opinion, yes. I can assure you that you’re going to get ten times as much attention with its six than with another predictable V8 at a car show with the hood up. Who wants to look at another Imapla with an sbc? And the trend to folks appreciating original cars with sixes is clearly growing.
I much prefer to look at old cars with their original engines. If I saw a ’66 Impala SS with a humble 6-cyl motor under the hood I’d give a good look over. What’s the fun in looking at a ’66 Impala SS with a 30-years-newer engine in it? It’s pickled.
Did you say ’66 Impala SS, as in genuine Super Sport? Do you realize how few (if any) ’66 impala SS convertibles there likely are left? Maybe only a hundred or so ever made in the first place. Now you really shouldn’t consider it…
BTW; send us some nice pictures of it, and we’ll do a post on it here, and ask all the folks here what they think you should do.. Send them to curbsideclassic(at)gmail.com.
Yes, 66 SS impala convertible VIN#167676T266996
I found this car on line It was for sale In Boston Mass.
I flew over and bought it for 6500 and had it shipped
back home Washington state.Long trip but worth it.
My friends say it cant be a SS because of L6.Will
post pictures as soon as I can.
Our local assembly Chevs were all V8s optional 6 cylinder engines were not on offer
I learned to drive in Pop’s bought-new ’67 Biscaine wagon with the 250 six and the 3 sp on the tree
Oddly Buick did offer the 231 V6 in the 1976 LeSabre – last year before the downsizing.
I can only imagine how glacial the LeSabre’s acceleration must have been. My father had a medium blue ’76 Regal 2-door with that engine. It was a very smooth, quiet, comfortable car and I enjoyed driving it but it was underpowered.
I’d be very curious to know what kind of rear axle ratio those V6 LeSabres had. They may have had 3.42 gears in them. If one ever shows up at the scrapyard, I’ll be pulling the inspection cover for sure.
I’ve only seen a picture of one, but I have never seen a 76 LeSabre with the V6 in person, it was something that was added mid year too, becasue the 1976 Buick owners manual that I have only lists the 350 and 455, they printed an additional owners manual just for the V6 LeSabre. Those things have to be dog slow. Pretty rare too.
There were TV ads for the V6 LeSabre going on about its “20 MPG Highway”!
Local Buick dealer in summer ’76 had a few LeSabre V6’s on front lot. Still remember a navy one that family almost got.
My Mom saw them one day riding her bike. We had a ’72 Caddy and she was sick of its 8 mpg city, and got exicted “Buick V6’s, lets get one!”
I said “No, they will be too slow”. Dad didnt want to get brand new cars then. Instead, Mom got a ’75 Skyhawk as a 2nd car. We kept the Caddy til 1979, and got a used ’77 LeSabre for ‘1st car’.
I hardly saw many v6 76’s on the street though, after the 77’s came in to that dealer lot.
How could you tell they were V6s? Did they have a badge, or was it because the front end was riding high 😉
They had a little chrome Buick V6 badge on the front fender.
Itty-bitty V6 emblem over the parking light. The ’82-’83 S10s used almost the same exact emblem. LOL on the idea of optional Road Wheels on the pictured LeSabre. Why?
I would not be surprised if these cars did not even have front stabilizer bars. I know the V6 Specials from ’75 to ’77 did not have them. (If any did, they were extra-cost).
Back in the day, I knew a family that had one of the LeSabre V6 models. I went to middle school with one of their sons. He was not a motorhead, so I never really breached the subject with him. But the family was rather large, Mama alone must have been a good 275 lbs. Daddy and the other two kids were little porkers, too.
That Buick must have groaned a sigh of relief when the whole family got out of it at our church parking lot. OTOH, it probably screamed in terror when they all got back in!
I can’t imagine that the car got all that great of fuel mileage carrying all of that human cargo around. It was a real low-spec model, IIRC it may have been a post (non hardtop) LeSabre. Nor were they careful with the car. I can remember when it was about 2 or 3 years old, it looked like it had never been washed, several dents, broken turn signal globes… All of the typical signs of neglect you would expect to see.
I don’t think the car made it to 1980.
I remember driving a downsized 77 or 78 LeSabre with the V6, and considered it to be miserably slow. I can’t imagine driving one of the 76 porkers with that engine. Remove one of the decent larger V8 engines from that platform and you have removed any possible reason to live with one.
I once saw a ’76 LeSabre V-6 at a gas station, hood up. The fan shroud was as long as a rain barrel; the radiator hoses looked as long as a rain gutter spout!! Tucked waaayyy up against the firewall was the little, blue colored 231 V-6. Itty bitty air cleaner and all (engine would be very familiar to me in a ’78 Skylark Sedan . . . .)
Sort of like how Pontiac offered the Iron Duke in the Ventura in 1977. They threw in a five-speed with it…but you could also get an automatic.
Here in the great white north we are known as a frugal bunch, and full size cars from the 60’s with 6 cylinders were not at all unusual. You didn’t see many Impalas and the like so equipped but Bel Airs, Biscaynes and so on were common. On the Chevys and Pontiacs they were OK if equipped with a 3 speed manual, and dogs with a powerglide. Ford and Mopar fared better because their automatics were better.
One of the best winter cars I ever had was a ’65 Laurentian (think Pontiac with Bel Air level trim) that had a 230 6 and 3 speed with a 3.07 rear. A buddy had a ’62 Pontiac with a 261 Chevy engine, normally used only in trucks but standard in Canadian Pontiacs of the day. With a 3 speed it would keep up with a lot of V-8 powered cars, though it was a thirsty beast. I knew of a ’67 Pontiac convertible with a 250 6 and powerglide, and it was slowwwww. The guy that owned it claimed they only made a few dozen that way, it was an oddball for sure.
The 261 was a torquey beast. I’d like to have on old Chevy with it, warmed over a bit.
I drove a 62 Pontiac 261 cu. in.,three on the tree,from Oshawa Ontario, to Vancouver and back. A water pump in Moose jaw. A fuel pump in somewhere in Sask. A six quart basket of spark clubs. Maybe three gallons of oil. The Poncho drank gas like it was water. My Dad said “you won’t get out of Ontario,with that pos”.
Two weeks after I got home, the Dept of Transport yanked the plates. I guess the snow tire on the front,and the lack of a floor pan,made for an unsafe vehicle.
Man, Mikey, I thought my buddy and I drove pieces of junk back in the day!
Shows just how wrong I was.
IRT my below post; I heard the 261’s spun bearings and timing gear teeth were weak . . . .
I would love a refurbished Canadian Pontiac. For the unusual (in the U.S.), I’d thought about the 261 six . . . . however, Aubrey Bruneau (the guy in Alberta who will build you a NOS Canadian Pontiac) recommended against it; he recommends the 283/327 with stick . . .
Philhawk – not sure what you’re talking about with the Cobalt SS. The original version had a supercharged I4 with 205 hp, and the later models had a turbocharged I4 with 260 hp. The latter was quite a rocket!
Joe L
The supercharged and turbo Cobalt SS models are rockets, and the turbo model years are some of the best handling fwd cars made, and very quick.
They also made a cobalt ss that wasn’t a turbo, it was basically an LT with the larger wheels of the supercharged model and had the 2.4 instead of the 2.0 or 2.2
basically an SS appearance package.
A few notes:
–In this era, Chevy production figures seem to have typically been reported at the series level only (not broken down by body style), broken out between sixes and V8s (which Chevy technically considered to be distinct models), rounded to the nearest hundred. That 400 figure therefore represents Impala SS six cylinder production, not broken out by body style, rounded to the nearest hundered.
–In 1968, the Impala SS was downgraded from a model to an option package. Impala convertibles were no longer available with sixes, so there shouldn’t be any ’68 Impala SS ragtops with six-cylinder engines, but the SS coupe could still be ordered that way.
–For 1969, the only version of the Impala SS offered was the SS 427. All examples of the ’69 Impala SS built were therefore obviously V8s. The Impala SS was completely dropped after 1969.
The copy to the right of the first photo says “Two Chevrolets are tagged with ‘Super’ “. What was the other one? There were more than two models that came in SS form, but I take it that some were techincally “SS”, not “Super Sport”? Or is this a question of distinct models versus option packages?
The other one? The SS hardtop coupe.
“Two Chevrolets are tagged with ‘Super’ “.
This was when full sized cars were still tagged as the division name for the series. AKA ‘Standard size Chevrolet’. On old full line brochures it says “Chevrolet, Chevelle, Chevy II…”
Also, the “Chevrolet Power Team Chart for 1967” refers only to the full sizers.
And remember in 1977, the tag line was “The New Chevrolet” meaning new biggies.
I got it now — thanks for the explanation.
When we were discussing the ’78 Malibu a while back, I was looking at the 1978 and 1979 Chevy brochures online, and had noticed that at that point the brochure for the full-size line still said just “Chevrolet” (or in full, as Chicagoland pointed out, “The New Chevrolet”) where the other brochures showed the model name.
Looking at the brochures year-to-year, the first year that the fullsize brochure was billed as “Caprice Classic and Impala”, as opposed to just “Chevrolet”, was 1981. Chevy began listing the individual fullsize models on the cover in smaller print beginning in 1974, however. The 1977 through 1980 brochures all refer to “The New Chevrolet”.
Yes, this was something I had grown up around. When someone described a car as a “67 Ford”, you knew they were talking about the full-sized model (Custom to LTD). Otherwise, they would describe a 67 Fairlane, or a 67 Falcon. I think it was around the late 70s or early 80s when that started to change. I no longer describe my car as a 93 Ford. It is a 93 Crown Vic.
Good point, i remember this clearly. Full-size (AKA “standard size”) cars were commonly identified only by their make name, not model name. Everything smaller, such as the Chevelle and Nova, were called by their model names.
And yes, the term “standard size” was still in use in automotive publications in the early years of my career (1979-82 or so).
Now, it laughable to think of the largest size cars as “standard,” since they comprise such a small share of the market.
The tradition carries on though for us old guys with classic cars, where it’s always a ’59 Chevy while the younger crowd will say ’59 Impala (or Bel Air or Biscayne) as appropriate. Going back farther, the lower line models had no identification other than make, such as the ’55 Chevy 210 and 150 — there were no 210 or 150 badges anywhere on the car
The ’57 Chevy did have “One Fifty” or “Two Ten” script on the horn button, but only the Bel Air had model identification on the exterior.
I was aware of this usage, but it didn’t dawn on me that this was what the brochure copy meant by “Chevrolet” until Chicagoland’s post.
I was born in 1970, and I can’t say I really remember hearing people refer to contemporary new cars in this manner. I remember seeing model-by-model production breakdowns in reference books from the ’70s or early ’80s that were organized in this manner, and the edition of the 1946-1975 Standard Catalog that I have has calendar year production figures laid out this way.
Today, I think people refer to cars from the ’60s or earlier this way, but it kind of breaks down after about 1970. I would understand “1958 Chevy” or “1965 Chevy” to refer to the standard fullsize model. I would be less sure of what was meant by “1973 Chevy” or “1980 Chevy”. (A better way to put it might be that you just don’t typically hear people say things like “1973 Chevy” or “1980 Chevy”.)
There was always little doubt in my mind that the ’60 Chevy referred to in the lyrics of Bob Seger’s “Night Moves” and the ’65 Chevy referred to in Motley Crue’s “Dr. Feelgood” were fullsize cars (the latter confirmed by the song’s video). How about the ’69 Chevy with a 396 referred to in Bruce Springsteen’s “Racing In The Streets”? I have always thought that he probably means a fullsize, but the fact that the 396 is more famously assoiated with (and would seemingly be more impressive in) the Chevelle than the fullsize line makes me wonder. It seems like one would more likely speak of a ’69 (fullsize) Chevy with a 427 than a ’69 (fullsize) Chevy with a 396.
I can identify with that. If I said I owned a ’64 Ford the person I’d be talking to wouldn’t think ‘Falcon’. They’d be thinking Galaxie or Custom.
Here’s a ’67 Impala Super Sport Convertible with the 6/Powerglide combination.
Underhood of this same ’67 Impala SS 6/Powerglide
And, an interior…
As far as Detroit products of this era go, if it’s bigger than a compact & it ain’t a V8, it ain’t sh–. Taxi level Biscaynes, OK, but high-trim hardtops, instant fail and complimentary ticket to Dorkville! There was a certain Parisienne Custom Sport on my daily walk to school, buckets & console, one day the hood was raised and there was that six. Being told there was no Santa Clause as easier to take. I was only six but even at that age, I knew that was wrong!
After all, my Dad’s Ford XL had buckets & console too, and it was a 390, so why was this Pontiac a six?
When I lived in Turkey during the 60s and 70s , they seemed to get a lot of American cars with the basic powertrain . I remember being surprised when I rode in a mid 60s Chevy Impala , with a 6 cyl, 3 on the tree.
A six-in-a-row-that-don’t-go engine, handicapped with the 2 speed “Slip-n-slide” powerglide transmission, in that heavy convertible body, had to be an irritatingly slow cruiser.
I’d be happy with a regular Impala coupe equipped with a 327 4-speed, like my friend had back in the 70’s (red with red interior).
I’ve often wondered how many of THOSE were built?
I’m guessing not common. By the mid to late ’60’s an automatic was the norm for these cars. I think I heard somewhere that today electric cars by percentage outsell manual transmissions cars in the US.
I’m too young to have experienced the glory days of a la carte car ordering, but I think I would have liked it. The same system that allowed for an I-6 SS convertible also allowed you to order a Biscayne 2-door post with a 427 and a 4-speed.
Back then a la carte was quite expensive for options. My had ordered a 1973 Olds Custom Cruiser 3 seat wagon. A rear seat radio speaker for the AM radio was $80 extra in the US in 1973! I miss a la carte options as well, but less variation on the assembly line did bring down prices.
Also unlike then car companies now have to have an EPA certification for every conceivable engine and drive train variation. And the car companies have to pay that fee, so they only offer what they think would be the most popular features.
Honda offers a 5 or 6 speed manual transmission in the current CRV but you can’t get one in the US.
Gramps bought a new ’65 Impala coupe with pwr. steering, 2-spd. powerglide, Delco-AM, heater, whitewalls & wheelcovers.
Meaning, it had a std. Six, non- power (“manual”? “podiatric”?) brakes, and no AC.
The new ’65 hardtop styling with whitewalls looked spectacular.
But underneath…. it was as sharp as a Checker cab.
Not that common in some export markets, many were so optioned in Israel because just owning an American or Canadian vehicle was prestigious enough, and when your average road speed was 40 MPH a V8 was not really needed.
Does the pictured car have ANY engine in it? I ask because the front end is sitting so high above the ground.
In Europe most American cars had the smallest engine available, cars equipped like this were a lot more common than in the states. My red white Fairmont Futura had the 2.3 with a 4 speed and my black Chevelle Malibu classic had a 250 with a 3 on the tree.