Once upon a time in the 1980s, my birthday came along and I was allowed one really expensive 1:24 Die Cast model. So I walked into the Hobby Shop, bypassed all of the sports cars and fixed my eyes on the bewilderingly finned wonderment that was a Bright Red 1959 Impala.
To my adolescent eyes there was so much going on even in the scaled down die cast version of this 35 year old beast that was so out of the ordinary. Even now, I can’t really make sense of what GM’s designers were thinking in response to the Forward Look Chryslers. There’s just so many themes going on in all five GM cars that year, like that healthy dose of Harley Earl’s love of compound curves and (except for Pontiac) wheels too far away from the corners of the bodies. I know the X-Frame chassis was modified for 1959, but part of me thinks they just hung the extra width and length over the 1958’s narrower frame and didn’t push the wheels out. But there’s a bunch of crisp points, especially in the rear that point to the well-tailored look that would grace most GM products within 2 years.
The most eye catching element of the 1959 Impalas was this: that rear end view. Even today I can spend hours poring over the details of this view alone. Some people find it ugly, campy, over the top. Only second in automotive excess that year compared to the 1959 Cadillac (for whatever reasons, the 1959 angry Buicks escape such criticism). To me, it’s more pure in detail and less fussy than the 1960 model based on the same bodies. The fins rise, dip (into the creatively inserted Chevrolet Crest) and rise again in one unbroken line, where the 1960’s fins just drop and melt into the body, looking all the less graceful for it.
It’s an awesome piece of metal working. It’s also amazing to think that more than a million people drove away in this whimsical piece of work (albeit not as many that drove away in Fords that year).
Another weird thing is how the faux-sport aspect of the 1958 Impala was translated to a full line of full-sized cars for 1959. It’s kind of odd to think that something this large (and in the case of the still available 235 Cube “Blue Flame” Inline 6 and Powerglide Automatic combination) and possibly slow could have a checkered flag emblem placed on a piece of trim on the rear doors.
But it was just the beginning of Chevrolet putting “faux” on its full sized offerings. The “Sport” era lasted quite a bit shorter than the “Brougham” epoch as performance moved to smaller, more reasonably sized cars. You could say that the 1959 Ford Galaxie hinted where American tastes were headed, with the thick Thunderbird “Exclusive” C pillar and restrained styling. Even when the 1960 Fords pulled their own winged look, they kept that “privacy” C-Pillar look for their 4 Door Hardtops.
Even in the interior Chevrolet made one last stab at “sport” before plunging head long into Horizontal Speedometer “speeding is somewhere by the radio” land. There’s something that makes your more aware of gaining momentum where an orange needle swings across a dial rather than leaving your field of view.
You have to give it to the 1959 Chevrolets though; something about them does provoke thoughts of forward thrust in their design. In their forward leaning stance they seem closer in concept to those Forward Look Mopars they sought to dethrone. You can also say that this was the first time since the 1955 models that Chevy didn’t try to look like a baby “Cadillac” or “Buick” despite the fact that all GM cars in 1959 shared the same basic body shell and so many details, including that awesome panoramic rear window. Of all the design details, that’s my favorite from this era of General Motors cars.
Admittedly I planned to work viewing the 1959’s from back to front because there’s a weird emotional change in the design as you progress. Notably the face of the 1959 is quite; well, if you assign emotion to the faces of cars, quite humble, quite friendly. And despite the amount of chrome and aluminum trim, it doesn’t come across as overblown as the 1959 Fords and Plymouths, or a host of other 1959 cars that seemed to be so heavily into angry eyebrows over the headlamps that looking across the dealership looked like the dueling eyebrows of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? Only the 1959 Oldsmobile’s rather dopey wide-eyed look comes across as less aggressive than Chevrolet’s.
But the juxtaposition of friendly face and tumultuous everything else is probably a great automotive metaphor for the 1950s: The social change rumblings surrounding Race, Women, and Sexuality in general were (and in retrospect still are) given a friendly face that America was at its peak during this era. Everyone was happy, and bought shiny new things from cars to tract houses to washers and dryers in an endless proliferation of products. And consumerism was key to happiness. The fact that there were two nasty recessions in 1953-54 and 1958 aren’t really well known today, other than people that can explain to you why the Edsel failed and why there’s no 2011 DeSoto. And the countless representations of women selling these chromed beauties were ironically in one of the few respectable positions for women to work in during that era.
There’s a friendly haze of “Pleasantville” aspect to everything we associate to the 1950s, but behind the rose colored glasses, there was a well of anger, frustration and drive to change the status quo with a variety of things from the Pill, to The British Invasion to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that would define the 1960s. Just as this friendly face tries to put a happy spin on the transition from Harley Earl’s influence of exuberant rotundness on GM Styling while the anger of the rest of the design staff of being upstaged by Chrysler and ready to overthrown the regime is evident in the rest of the body.
No other line up of cars proved to be the zeitgeist of the moment like the 1959 General Motors Line. The 1959 Chevrolets just happened to be the populist voice.
I agree about the striking rear end , and diecast toys. I had, and may still have an early 70s Corgi dog transporter that was based on a 59 El Camino. I never enjoyed this exuberance myself since the only American cars of my childhood were a sober grey Plymouth Valiant and some Ford station wagons.
A great article!
That is the Impala Sport Sedan the top of the line 4dr that year, the 283 V8 was standard across all lines, but could be deleted. More likely to find the 6 down grade in the lesser Bel Air or fleet special Biscyane.
Actually, like in all the years back then, there were two base models of all Chevys: six or V8. Of course the V8 cost a bit more. But they were both considered the standard engine in each of those two models. The other higher-powered V8s were optional on the V8 model.
I’ve seen quite a few Impala sixes in my time. As a kid, I felt slightly nauseated every time I saw an Impala six.
Australia didnt get V8s untill 60
I guess I didn’t mean to imply *this* Impala was a Blue Flame Six, but they were common enough, my next door neighbors growing up had a 1962 Impala with the combo I mention. It wheezed a lot, to say the least, even if it was a 25 year old car by that point. I guess that’s the other question for people here: who knows which V8 this Impala has/had. I know you could tell from the different trimmed V emblems which.
Shield: 235 inline 6
Shield with V: 283 small block 8
Racing flags with V: 348 big block 8
I remember one time as a 6-year-old walking home from school on my usual route, the 1966 Pontiac Parisienne Custom Sport 2dr hardtop I regularly walked past ever day had it’s hood open . It was a 6! I couldn’t reconcile the fact that it was the bucket and console model, with that, that 6! Even at that age, I knew that this was somehow deeply wrong! Especially since my dad had a 1966 Ford XL (Ford’s competing bucket and console model) and it had that funny looking little flag thing that said “428” . I knew that that was a lot better.
My best friend had a ’65 Custom Sport with the hi-perf 327. It was a bullet.
Take a look at the brochures from the time the V8 was “standard” across all lines and you had to “delete” it to get the 6. http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chevrolet/1959_Chevrolet/1959_Chevrolet_Brochure/1959%20Chevrolet-20.html At the time a lot of mfgs played the standard V8 that you could downgrade to a 6.
Sorry, but I’m familiar with that brochure, and there’s nothing about it that supports the idea that the Impalas all had eights except for a delete option.
The Encyclopedia of American Cars lists two distinct manufacturer’s model numbers for the Impala 6 Sport Hardtop Sedan (#1739) and the Impala 8 Sport Hardtop Sedan (#1839).
I assure you that the Impala came in two standard but distinct models; the six and eight.
You are correct. My great aunt and uncle had a 1960 Impala Sport Coupe with a 235 inline 6 engine. It was a base model with dog dish hubcaps and non-power brakes and steering. The body was solid light blue with the contrasting blue houndstooth interior. They splurged on a rotary dial, AM radio and Powerglide transmission. The antenna was mounted on the front passenger side front fender.
The car had no cross flag badges. The side rocket had a running impala where the cross flags usually go on the V8 models and the rear trunk emblem was the standard Chevrolet emblem that once again had no cross flag emblem.
I too have been fascinated with the “batwing” Chevys. A friend’s family had the 1960 version of this car well into the early 70’s, which was something of a feat in the rust belt. We traveled many miles for fishing and hunting trips with both families in that old Impy. At the time GM cars were better built than most anything else on the road, and these cars proved it.
I guess the other reason why I like these is that we had a corner gas station where the owners raced a ’55 Chevy 150 two door (gasser style, with a straight axle in front!). The shop car/tow vehicle was a ’59 El Camino painted the same root beer brown metalflake and sporting similar Cragars as the racer ’55. To say the least, the pair of them made a huge impression on me as a small boy. That and I’ve always found the styling futuristic without being too campy, contrary to popular opinion.
Always liked this Chev one odd cthing I noticed in aussie was the little orange light hanging under the wing on this model there had to be a orange rear indicator light and that was where the factory put it.blinking red light no go
Nothing quite says the fifties like a pair of big-ole, tasteless tailfins, and the ’59 Chevy has ’em in spades. The most fascinating thing about the styling is how badly it fouled-up the aerodynamics of the cars. Evidently, those batwings really got the rearend light and unstable at high-speed.
Actually there’s a Motor Trend Classic Article from about 4 or so years ago where they disprove that rumor: http://motortrend.automotive.com/video/01/feature-1959-chevy-impala-wind-tunnel-test-video/4775/index.html
Here’s my contribution to 1959 week: a right hand drive 1959 Chevrolet Impala in Australia in 1984/1985. Note the turn signals hanging underneath the fin. This photo is also on the Cohort Flickr site.
Was a nice car until Toecutter and his gang chopped it to pieces 😉
In this day and age when it seems unacceptable for cars to have any rear overhang to speak of, it is amazing how much that sedan, in profile view, seems biased towards the rear. From the trailing edge of the rear door to the taillights is definitely a longer distance than from the leading edge of the front door to the headlights.
I knew that 1959 week would eventually come to this. A great write-up on one of my least favorite cars. PN has the 71 Fords, and I have the 59 Chevy.
I guess in its favor, the new Chevrolet buyer would come as close as ever (until the early 70s, anyway) of getting a junior Cadillac. I guess this was a good thing, although the 59 Cadillac is not far behind this car in my hierarchy of dislike. Both of these are best knowns as icons of the final excesses of 1950s styling than as great examples of the brands they represent.
The fact that this car sold so well was a testament to the juggernaut that was GM in the 50s. Dealers were everywhere and Chevrolets were the choice of more buyers virtually every year going back to the early 30s. This car is proof that when you see something wierd often enough, it ceases to be wierd. This car became normal.
I will acknowledge that Chevy probably provided a better assembled car than the competition, and the odds of getting a bad one were probably somewhat lower than if you went with the competition. But what, exactly, was the new Chevrolet buyer getting?
The 283 V8 certainly had its virtues, as did the old Blue Flame 6. The Powerglide was relatively durable. But both Plymouth and Ford were offering 3 speed automatics by now, with engines at least as good. The Chrysler A block was a great engine, and Ford was at the beginnings of the FE engine era with the 332 and 352. (We will just move beyond the 292 without further comment).
My biggest problem with these cars is that horrid X frame. I need to do some reading on this. I am sure that there was some engineering rationale for it, but I certainly cannot think of it. I once knew someone who reported an experience with 60 Impala convertible. The owner parked in a gravel lot at work, and had to be careful about where he parked. If the ground was not level enough, the doors on the car would not open. These were not tight cars.
I guess I have to concede that Chevrolet came into 1959 with a proven drivetrain, and a good reputation. I will also concede that these cars weathered the midwest road salt better than Ford or Plymouth. So, as with the 57 models before them, these cars were often the last ones on the road as they aged. Not because they were so great, but by the rusting tendencies of the competition. But we have to face it: no american company was building cars of particularly high quality in this era.
I conclude with this thought. This car provided us with a great service: it helped the american public to get the wretchedly bad taste out of his system by the necessary evil of ingesting massive quantities of it. This allowed us to move on to the much more attractive offerings of the early 60s. (Although Chrysler would not get this memo for a couple of years.) Thanks to my fellow curbdwellers for allowing me to vent my spleen on this difficult subject. Please now resume your enjoyment of this unique vehicle.
Excellent commentary. Fair and balanced, which is not exactly what this car inspires, typically. But you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Regarding the X-frame. I don’t know for sure either, but I suspect it was a way to help achieve these cars their lowness. Again, I’d have to get out the ruler or old stats, but the GMs seemed to ride a bit lower than the competition. Look at how high the ’59 Fury rides in your CC.
The X-frame had these very deep wells for the feet, and maybe its construction allowed that to all happen a bit cheaper than any other solution. Speculations…
J.P. managed to articulate what I’ve felt about styling of this era. AFAIC the great Detroit styling era began in 1965.
I think for sure 4 door hardtop to 4 Door Hardtop the Plymouths (and definitely the Fords) of 1959 were taller than the Impala. People did complain about how low to the floor they sat in 1957 Mopar cars, and they made some adjustments in particular to the rear seat height of the 2 and 4 Door Hardtops, just as General Motors went to the extreme of low seating. Again I can think of a series of Mercury Ads I think I saw in Collectible Automobile where they had ease of entry comparisons between a Montclair and and Electra 225. The Mercury 4 door hardtop was looks easier to get out of, even with the acting of the model. Wish I had a standard catalog of American Cars handy to prove this though.
In regards to the creaky X-frame, doesn’t that just seem to be a consistent issue for Chevrolet until the 1977 downsize? It doesn’t seem, other than maybe the 1961-64 models (and the reason why they’re so popular) that They really rode on solid foundations, I heard the 1965s were particularly willowy. Also, the new for 1958 All Coil Suspension was notoriously soft, I doubt it was any better for 1959, and although they don’t have as much visual weight as the 1958 cars they were still an additional 50-150lbs heavier.
The 1965s may have been willowy, but not due to the X-frame: That year, Chevrolet returned to a “New Girder-Guard Frame” featuring “full-length side rails joined laterally by four crossmembers,” according to the brochure.
My late father once told me of a frame problem that surfaced not long after buying a new 1959 Impala Sport Coupe. At highway speeds, the hood would try to fly open, and no amount of adjustment fixed it. Finally, the dealer’s body shop placed the car on a lift, loosened the body mounts, attached a chain and “persuaded” the frame into shape…problem solved. Either the car was damaged in its first few miles before my Dad took delivery, or more likely, it was delivered with a bent frame.
On the other hand, Dad always said that the ’59 had low operating costs and held its value well when he traded it in after a few years. He received a car allowance from his employer, and said it was the only car he drove for practically free.
The first time I saw one of these cars I was about eight years old and even then, I was flabbergasted that such excess could even exist. Really, it spoke of exactly what the 50s were all about. As my dad said about the era, “Those were different days.” Excess really did exceed in 1959 but by that time, the Eisenhower recession was biting deeply and cars so over the top as these GM models were soon gone.
I never drove a ’59 but I did spend a fair bit of wheel time with a 1960 Biscayne, with Blue Flame 6 and three on the tree. What was mentioned about the X frame was right on the money. Even the most modest bump would have the entire car shuddering and shaking. The car was owned by an old gentleman I went fishing with and when I asked him if such quaking was due to age he replied, “Hell, it did that the day it was new!”
In a straight line it was fine, drove smoothly and straight but any bump or corner unsettled the car to a degree that I thought positively dangerous. The non-power steering was like a jillion turns lock to lock and the unassisted drum brakes good for like one stop from 80 km/h before the pedal hit the floor. The best way to drive the thing was to get into high gear and motor as smoothly and sedately as possible, all the while looking far ahead as possible in order to avoid any kind of sudden control input. In fact, I still drive like this most of the time but it is nice to know that in my daily driver (an Acura TL) I have the brakes, tires, suspension and structural rigidity to get me out of something I could not anticipate.
I never really understood the love so many people had for 50s cars, since they were, for the most part, over styled, poorly assembled death traps. But style they certainly had but all that over the top styling meant that the structure to make them safe was missing. Have a look at the You-Tube video of the 1959 Impala crashing into the 2009 Malibu. The real irony here is that when I was a kid, everybody and his dog was telling me that cars of the 1950s were actually safer than cars of the 1970s.
The 59 Chevy destroyed in the offset crash was a 6 cyl. I worked on many of these in the early 70’s and 6 Cyl cars had lighter duty components. Less engine weight, smaller brakes. ect.. ect. A more honest crash test would have been a 348 equipped model. But the windshield rake and the X frame still would get it into the death car club. As a side note I have read many of your postings and enjoyed them:)
Red indicator lights were illegal under Australian law, so all of the ’59 Chevrolets that were assembled in Australia had bullet-shaped amber indicator lights attached to the underside of the fins.