Back in June there was discussion on CC regarding the 1965 Impala’s unusual, yet distinctive, taillight treatment. Please know that I am solidly in favor of the existing design; that said, I still wonder how a different treatment would look. I present, for your viewing pleasure, a possible “Plan B.”
Here we have my modified ’65, painted in iconic (or is that ‘polarizing’?) Evening Orchid. It reminds me a bit of a 1963-65 Buick Riviera.
Here’s the original picture, taken from the brochure for the 1965 full-size Chevrolets. As you can see, I swapped the SS’s matte black panel for full-width taillights, and then moved the back-up lamps to the bumper. Maybe this could have been an SS-only feature?
How about a wagon version? Same treatment, different body style. I think it looks pretty good.
And here’s a more basic treatment for the Bel Air sedan, with black molding replacing chrome trim across the center. I imagine that the taillights on this budget-minded Chevy wouldn’t fully illuminate end-to-end.
This is odd. The Evening Orchid example looks a little Lincoln like, the Wagon looks full on Buick and Bel Air hints at Chrysler.
My mom had one in this color with white interior and a white drop top.
The full-width taillights are sleek, but they strongly suggest 1965 Pontiac LeMans/GTO, especially if the lights are cut off at the trunk lid.
For the tail lights that you are thinking of, or for that matter, any tail lights that can be designed. You have to remember that the dreaded “bean counters” at GM always made them to include the least amount of bulbs. Even though the tail light clusters were large, they only held one bulb and were made to only light up a small portion of the red plastic lens. This is especially noticable in the Malibu and the later Impala/Bel Air’s.
Taking that into account, the full width tail lights above need to be able to fully illuminate all of the lenses to look good, if they only illuminate a small dot/square of the lens, then what will be the point of all of that effort to make the lights.
BTW, I really like the three light array of the original.
1968 Dodge Polara and Monaco had a full width taillight panel across the back, but only the corners lit-up. That makes it look less impressive when the taillights are on, but they sure look great in the daytime. 🙂
This is one of my pet peeves..being teased by a seemingly huge taillight panel…only to discover most of it is non-functional. The Torino GT is another example of this. Beautiful car despite that….
Similar to a ’65 Buick Skylark…
I loved these taillights on my 1965 Skylark
Two possible reasons why it never happened:
1965 Buick Electra
1965 Pontiac LeMans
One had the straight-across taillight treatment, the other had a tail end similar to your proposed Chevy. The most obvious reason, of course, is the way the four or six-taillight treatment became so tightly associated with Chevrolet branding.
Someone at Chevy was probably thinking along those lines, though. Just look at what they did for ’66.
Personally, I like the distinctiveness of the ’65. The ’66 looks kind of dull by comparison.
On the ’65 Electras, the middle of the tail panel was actaully the gas filler door, with red trim to match. Wasn’t a full panel of lights. My Grandparents had one.
Your design is nicely executed, but loses the distinct identity created by the three-per-side clusters the Impala was known for. However, this could have been a viable treatment for the ’66, perhaps just for the Super Sport as you suggest (and maybe also the Caprice?).
My family had a ’65 Bel Air wagon (turquoise) followed by a ’66 Caprice wagon (white) and I have always preferred the overall look of the ’65s, in large part because I like the ’65 tail light treatment so much better. And I think Evening Orchid is an awesome color for these cars.
I will ditto The Passenger. I really like the treatment, but just not for a Chevrolet. Actually, that would have made a really nice Chrysler rear end.
Chevrolets required 3 taillights per side. Just like Fords required one single large light per side, preferrably with a backup light mounted in the middle like a star. It’s in the rule book.
It Looks Like The VIP Plymouth put on Top of the Fury lll…
Also the 66… But You Have used The Imperial Chrysler had in The Early 90s
the 66 departed from the 3 segment taillights in a way, later repeated, but never again with chromed french bar look.
If They Are gonna Do It, Do It Right…3 Lights On Tail Of each side of Impalas
Then 67 looked like Bean counters had Their way
Interesting design study, but I like the traditional round tail lights, a Chevy tradition which I wish the modern Chevys would follow. And as an aside, I’ve read rumors in the past few years that the C7 Corvette is going to have tailights reminiscent of the new Camaro. Note to Chevy, er Chevrolet as they wish to be called: Don’t do it. Keep the Corvette tradition of 4 round tail lights, the late C4 and C5 models be darned!
Agree with Msquare: the 1966 Chevrolet rear tail light treatment was bland.
I hadn’t heard that about the Vette taillights, but I would welcome the change. I still remember the first time I saw a 1984 Corvette, with even larger, plainer round taillights than its predecessors. My first thought was that they looked like generic lights purchased from a transport truck supply store.
BigOldChryslers: Here ya go: http://blog.caranddriver.com/c7-chevy-corvette-front-and-rear-fascias-revealed-by-supplier-video/
A March 2012 article in Car and Driver had an artists rendering rear end shot of a car that has more in common with today’s Camaro then the traditional Corvette rear tail lamp stylings……..
I’m going to go against the majority of posters so far (and Zackman) with this one. I don’t like the original taillights, or round taillights on most cars. To me they express a lack of interest by the designers. (Notable exception: 61-63 Thunderbird)
Don’t even get me started about Euro/Altezza style taillights, putting round lenses into the taillight opening, no matter what shape the opening actually is.
I really like the full-length taillights that you’ve proposed. Actually, I think that the cats-eye taillights on the ’59 Chevy are some of the most beautiful taillights ever, but I don’t think they’d work with the lines of the ’65. Possibly they were trying to recapture a bit of that look with the ’66 Chevy taillights?
As another possible alternative, the shape of the fender corners might lend itself well to a taillight reminiscent of the 1955 Chevy.
I am so with you on this stupid round-circle-in-a-blob tailight fad. Just disgusting. it kind of flows with the Nissans, as they are externally hideous in all other regards but why GM, why did you do this to the Monte Carlo?
Another alternative to ‘draw’ would be rectangle-ish lights, as on the 1969-90 cars.
This treatment does look nice, but I still prefer the original. Plus, as others have noted, it looks far too much like the taillights on a 1965-67 Buick Electra, particularly on the wagon.
I like the 65 lights. This group of photochops looks like an extended version of the 66. Like others have mentioned, this looks more like a Buick/Pontiac.
Although the full length tail lights are attractive, I still like the original treatment the best. When I was in high school, even before I got my license, I used to dream of owning a 59 Coupe Deville and a 65 Impala SS Coupe.. Both cars in a silver blue metallic, with matching interior. I was more inclined to want the Impala, sportier to attract the chicks.
Well, I never got the Impala, few high school boys did. Funny, last Saturday, while looking at new cars for the wife, on the test drive, I did see a green 65 Impala convertible in very respectible condition parked at a Firestone tire shop. I remarked to the young salesman about it. He didn’t answer me.
By the way, the wife wants a 25K AWD Subaru Legacy. She’ll probably get it. I’d rather have my old 76 Royal Monaco.
Nice rendering of the ’65 Chevy! I find that beautiful. It took me awhile to get used to the round lights dropped upon the decklid of these cars but I did…and would love to own one.
GM did a slightly similar thing to the early 90’s Grand Prix sedans — they turned the cross-car reflex into a bar-o-taillights while turning the taillights themselves into giant amber turn signals. I really liked their intention with the super-long bar-o-lights but it never really looked right on that car.
Here you go
That’s total overkill!
I’d go w/ 4 on each side 😉
My dad’s first car was a ’65 Impala. Oddly enough, he’s told me that he liked the ’66 better. As much as I like the lights on the ’65, I think he has a point.
Still, the ’65 is one of the best-looking Impalas. No small feat, because every ’60s Impala was a looker.
Here is a picture of a different set of tail lights from the 65 Impala…
It reminds me of the taillight treatment on the second-generation Javelin, where it started out as a full-width light bar and switched to quad taillights. The latter, to my eye, looks much better.
I’ve never been a fan of the light-bar look on any car, it seems lazy. Can’t find something distinctive? Put a big bar on the back and light up a small portion of it, problem solved.
It Looks Like The VIP Plymouth put on Top of the Fury lll…
Also the 66… But You Have used The Imperial Chrysler had in The Early 90s
the 66 departed from the 3 segment taillights in a way, later repeated, but never again with chromed french bar look.
Then 67 looked like Bean counters had Their way
Looks good, but GM’s fourteenth floor never would have approved it. For starters, it does look like what Pontiac was doing at the time with the ’65 Lemans tailights.
But, more importantly, I think GM made a conscious effort to make sure that Chevrolet’s cars looked good, but not ‘too’ good and cannibalize sales from the other, more profitable division’s cars. Those Pontiac-style ‘strip’ tailights between the bumper and trunk lid instead of the six round lights mounted on the lid of the ’65 would have done exactly that.
The first car in my life was Dad’s ’65 Bel Air 2-door sedan, with the 2-light design versus Impala’s 3-lights. That said, I do like the full width light bar, but it would signify a more upscale car, a no-no in the GM pecking order, perhaps that’s why the ’68’s lights were completely separate again for a few years, after ’66 & ’67. The trademark 3-light design, and 2-light to a lesser degree, was a defining Chevrolet characteristic, used in differing incarnations throughout most of the Chevy line-up until the ’90’s. A full width lens bar (unlighted in middle) was incorporated into the new front-drive Impala of 2000, with a 2-light design, visible only when lights on, to my utter disbelief. Two lights?! What were they thinking?! It looked like a Bel Air! But they tried, because that ended with the truly nondescript, generic lights of 2006-up Impalas. Chevrolet needs something distinctive in their design, again. Better watch what wish I for, LOL!
Mulling over this for a day or so. I’ll take the three round lights as designed. Of course I’m biased toward anything Chevy in those years. Perhaps I grew up in that time, perhaps because dad owned Impalas, perhaps because I learned to drive in Impalas, perhaps because my avatar is an Impala. Perhaps all four points.
Yes, I wish the designers would have more influence and the bean counters would be more aware of distinction in a world of generic-ness.
My 2012 Impala does have lights-within-lenses alá earlier Altimas, and I like the overall look, but it doesn’t say “Impala” like three separate tail light lenses up through the 1996 models. Sigh…
What I always liked about the triple tail light setup on Chevrolet’s in the 60’s was, if you were into mild customs, there was a lot you could do with a simple screwdriver. My father’s used car manager had two sons, one three years older than me, the other (my best friend in high school) a year younger. For years older brother drove a 61 Impala 2-door hardtop with 59 Cadillac lenses in the tail lights. Such a simple change, but it worked by the custom standards of the day, and just another Impala hardtop really stook out.
Wow, never realized so much time could be dedicated to such minor visual differences. Of course, my love – and second car I owned was a 1957 four door hardtop Bell Air in seafoam green with off white top with a 283 V8 four bbl, later swapped the Power Slide for a 4 in the floor tranny. Truly a beautiful classic car. Hottest car I had was a 1965 GTO in blue mist slate with black naugahide top with 4 bbl 389 V8 with 4 speed in the floor that I bought myself as a college graduation present. Then a year later, I came to my senses, sold it when I realized how much it cost to own and operate it as a single car in a married household. Mileage was the big thing – 7 mpg city and 12 hwy. Now I’m getting 18 city and 26 hwy with my 2007 Chrysler 300 through a 4 speed auto and a 2.76 rear end.