(first posted 1/6/2012) Why was and is the ’64 Chevy so commonly loved? Well, it’s not because of its willowy X-frame, crappy drum brakes, Powerglide, undersized tires, funky seating position, vague and slow steering, wallowing handling, or any other objective quality. Let’s face it, by 1964, its 1958 underpinnings were obsolete. Yet who doesn’t feel emotions well up when confronted with one, even a battered old survivor like this one? It’s America’s sweetheart, and it’s not polite to talk ill about her. Nobody’s perfect. Maybe that’s its secret.
Chevys were embraced for decades, because…everyone else drove one. It’s like kids; we may all think we want our kids to grow up to be President, but deep down we just want them to fit in, be well adjusted, and most of all, be loved. Despite their inevitable lack of perfection. And ours. So folks just got a Chevy wagon, and half the battle was won right there. Nobody spoke ill about a Chevy, so that was hopefully going to rub off a bit.
Well, life isn’t quite so simple anymore. In 1964, a Chevy wagon could be driven by anyone, whether it was a pinko college professor with a couple of kids, or a John Bircher with half a dozen. The prof would trade it in a couple of years for a VW Squareback, to his kids’ annoyance. But this was 1964: the last year before the sixties really kicked into high gear of the old Interstellar Powerglide.
Of course it’s iffy to pick 1964 as the exact watershed year. Obviously, things had been brewing for years. But it exploded in 1964. The Beatles arrived, and so did long hair. The youth culture now become the predominant one; a passing of the torch (song). And how many Chevys were traded in for a brand new Mustang? The kids will survive somehow in its cramped rear seat.
Coincidentally, or not, the 1964 Chevy was the end of one road, literally. And no, it’s Jet-Smooth ride wasn’t going to fly anymore. It was grounded; the world was changing too quickly.
Instead of “See The USA” it was “See More Skin”. The times they were a changing, quickly.
No, Chevy love didn’t magically disappear in 1965. But those bulging hips…there was a suggestion of overt sexiness that hadn’t ever been there before; the new Chevy was literally busting out of its formerly chaste suit.
The ’64 reeks of the “good old days” as if that mythological place really ever existed. But myths are often more powerful than reality, and the ’64 Chevy is an icon of it. Or more like an altar to it.
The myth, that is. Just don’t look to closely, because like all myths, it’s full of holes. But we don’t really want to see them or hear about that. Bring on the love, of a time when we all rode happily in our ’64 Chevy wagons, or our neighbors’, or Grandpa’s. Or just imagined we once did. Or hope we once will. But before it rusted out.
Does the kid who owns this one have memories he’s preserving? Or is it just cool, because it is? Which it is, and always has been.
Isn’t the ’64 Chebbie the original low-rider? It was a natural for the role, given how those Jet-Smooth coil springs were notorious for losing about a half-inch of their ride height every year. Every ’64 Chevy was a low rider, after a couple of seasons. And why do you think low-riders have such skinny tires?
It’s a love affair, anyway you look at it. Never has a dashboard offered such a sweeping vista, yet with so little content. A fitting metaphor.
But in a sea of little Japanese cars near the campus, this wagon stands out proudly, a survivor of another epoch. An era about which this kid has heard plenty about, but can’t begin to grasp its full reality. One either lived during the time of the ’64 Chevy’s reign, or didn’t. But the allure is still there, presumably. Love transcends all. Even crappy GM starters.
Love the dash toy version reminds me of a mates Kombi he had a matchbox split window van in the ashtray.
You boyz don’t know car it called restoration to build the you want to look like
I like the look of this old wagon but the thought of driving such a massive vehicle with drum brakes is less than appealing.
Drum brakes if properly adjusted will work as well as discs they only fade after repeated applications if you are constantly using the brakes while driving you quite simply do not know how to drive properly. I drove a non assist drum braked 63 model car from 1995 thru till 2003 towed trailers with it did city and country driving never wore out a set of brake shoes never had problems pulling it up oh and it was automatic not manual.
I totally agree Bryce. Same goes for distributors. There is no need for any of that computerised ignition timing malarkey. I once had a Falcon with a twin point Mallory disy and if I adjusted the points once a day I got 875 horsepower and well over 42 mpg on my daily commute. Some may question this but I say those people clearly don’t know how to drive.
So true…..getting’ tired of ppl bad mouthing drum brakes. With drum brakes (especially manual drums, you have to focus on your driving) no daydreaming or any distractions. Really, it’s just that simple. It amazes me how many of us have gotten SO spoiled. Wow!! Appreciate the vintage cars for what they ARE, not for what you want them to be. Maybe I’m asking too much from ppl. Ha Ha!
In coastal British Columbia, drum brakes can, and often were, a death sentence.
Folks from here were not that much of a problem. We got used to downshifting on steep grades. The problem was flatlanders, with campers and trailers. I can recall some pretty nasty crashes coming from smoked out brakes.
It used to be common to see wrecks in run-off lanes. Not anymore.
Hey Niedermeyer! Could you possibly put up a full length picture showing all the dash?
Said in jest, or?
Said in both jest and request. Hey that’s a punny rhyme!
Here you go!
I think it’s a nice styling. Clean, organized, and easy on the eyes.
Still with nothing much to say.
I have always loved the ’63-64 full size Chevy dash; and much better than the ’65 ‘pods’.
It would work with the two lane blacktop that I predominently use. Would hate to take it downtown.
Love the body hate the drawbacks (especially the x frame.)
Well, I’d hate to be the one to p**s on the parade, but allow me to state the obvious: This car is so bad you can’t buy worse. This is probably the worst mainstream car of 1964 across all American makes, love be damned. It is the result of so many compromises that there is no overarching motif remaining at all. This is a common characteristic of last-year cars before a platform change. There is no need to damn it by faint praise in this article. Damn it outright.
However, lets not forget that it was designed for an era and a market very different from, and not exactly comparable to ours, although the general principles remain the same. It offers:
-> Space for large families, friends and their luggage,
-> Excellent, soft ride quality that can effortlessly travel on straight highways,
-> Good noise and vibration isolation so that the family has less tiresome journeys,
-> Reasonably powerful but thrifty engines, and most of all a
-> Price so low that almost anyone who needs one can afford one.
Considering that this is what most folks of the time wanted, it is no wonder that this car is a legend. As for its underpinnings, yes they were too long in the tooth, and the X-frame was a safety nightmare even when new. Crash testing would have sorted this out immediately, but we didn’t have it then. Well, except Mercedes-Benz. Some will find a soft, cushioned ride wallowy, while others will find drum brakes insufficient, but stop for a moment to consider that this was a car for people who sometimes could not afford a home, to prosperous upper middle class folks with large families. It is not particularly fast, pretty, powerful, luxurious, or safe, but it is wrong to say that it was `wallowy’ or `unsafe’. It was not so relative to its competition, market, and expectations of its customers. It is rather the Everyman of cars. None of the cars available today can tick all of the positive points of this car, but that is besides the point.
This car is Americas sweetheart because it represents the last generation of American automobile that was truly egalitarian, practical, and well loved across a whole range of society. This car is a reminder of the era of large families with one car. In some ways that era had already ended when this car was introduced, and the next years Chevy models reflect that. The personal car was truly upon us. Everybody had Seen the USA by then right?
Wow, what a great comment. My feeling exactly. The 64 was perceived as a good value and it also looked good, better than anything else being offered that year, in my opinion. Like I have posted before, driving styles were different then, speeds were lower and these cars suited their time. Also, was their really anything better available?
The safety issue was already in the news at this time. The death rates of the era were shocking; the cars were not exactly strong and people drove around while hammered all the time. Ten years later and cars had made leaps in safety. The drunk driving thing took a little while longer.
CarCounter, thank you. Allow this son of a Chevrolet dealer, who was fourteen at the time this car was on the market, who lived, ate and slept cars (and made a major nuisance of himself at the dealership) . . . . . . and above all can remember what made a good car back in 1964.
What’s been pissing me the most about a few of the threads here in the past couple of days is not the slagging of Chevrolet. It’s the cheap insistence of grading a 1964 automobile by 2012 standards. Yes, we know what’s acceptable in an automobile today as we’re reading these words. And by our standards, today, everything made in 1964 is unadulterated crap.
Build quality? Only Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz build cars that would even come close to a current Toyota Camry. And that Volkswagen was totally deficient in performance to 90% of the cars sold back then. And that Mercedes cost more than a Cadillac.
Performance? There’s nothing built back then (even the vaunted split window ‘Vette) that can run with any good sports sedan in the under $35k category currently available. So I guess the old split window was a piece of garbage, too?
The 1964 Chevrolet was the best built car available in the United States in that price category, and the sales showed it. And the 1964 Ford and Plymouth were bloody close in quality. Yeah, quality was a bit different back then, and cars drove a bit different back then. And could GM have put together a much better car than what they were producing. Possibly. And if someone came up with a competing product that was significantly better, GM would have had to match it, or start watching their sales go down the toilet. Like what happened 15-20 years later – once the Japanese finally learned how to make a good car, and not just a well-built lousy one.
I’m nastily amused by the pronouncements from on high (and 50 years later) about what these cars should have been. Back in the 1960’s I drove a stock 1937 Buick. And yes, the difference in build quality, performance, handling, etc. was about as great as between a ’64 Chevy and something reasonably new. But you know what? That Buick was a good car – for 1937.
Hindsight is cheap. Real cheap.
Well written. Thanks. I know, in 2012, the deficiencies of 1964 cars. However, in 2012, I wouldn’t drive a 1964 car like a 2012 car, and not “gently” because it’s old, but because I’d know it’s limitations. Drum brakes for average stopping are OK; just start slowing down a little sooner in today’s traffic. Much like how one would drive a 1920’s or 30’s car in 1964 traffic.
Back then, people went slower. An Audi can go over 100MPH today without breaking a sweat. You wouldn’t do that back then. This is the speedometer of a 1970’s Matador.
Notice the Speed Warning starts at 55.
Life was simpler and calmer back then. I think that’s why this car is so loved- if you were around, you fondly remember the time. If you weren’t, you long to know about it.
Are you sure that’s a 1970 AMC Matador? It looks like a 1974-78 Matador. 🙂
Speed warning? That rectangle was for the light that showed you at nigh that you had switched from low to high beams…
Thank you, dear readers. I am not a GM (or Ford, or Honda, whatever) apologist. I simply love cars and speak plainly. I strive to maintain a clear perspective without either unnecessary nostalgia or baseless criticism. Every man is the product of his surroundings, and the same applies to cars.
So wait, “the X-frame was a safety nightmare” but “it is wrong to say that it was … ‘unsafe'”?
There were crash tests for those cars, and people from that time period still dressed up the dummies, even made them wear glasses and hats, plus drew super goofy looking eyes. But it usually ended up in a huge mess though
As a kid (and I haven’t changed my mind yet), I always thought the ’64 was one of those so-all-the-designers-just-gave-up cars. Boring as can be on the outside, an awkwardly narrow track, and the nice (must have been a completely different design team) dash was it’s only saving grace besides the engine compartment. It’s not an ugly-duckling that turned to a swan as some cars do with time. It’s an ugly duckling that now has wrinkles and a wart.
Exactly! The ’63 design was so much more cohesive, and the ’64 looked like “generic car” What a flat, ugly, boring face!
The ’64 was a ‘marking time’ model. Everything GM had going on with the big Chevy was being put into the 1965’s. Dad was even told this at the dealer’s meeting introducing the ’64’s. Plus, GM’s attention on Chevrolet for ’64 was the Chevelle, an entirely new line.
I must confess that I never really felt the 64 Chevy wagon love either. I hated every one of this generation I ever drove, primarily because of the seating position: a really low seat and a really high steering column. We all remember little old ladies driving these by peering through, rather than over, the steering wheel. However, this car brings back some fond memories, as my father for a time drove a company-supplied white 63 Bel Air wagon with red interior, just like this one. Your observation of the dashboard was so true – all that space for a speedometer and a gas gauge!
Also, I will happily admit that this series of Chevy was very, very attractive. Although I prefer the 62 and 63, the 64 is the cleanest of the series. It was always a mystery, however, why Chevrolet chose to abandon the round taillights that had always been adapted to the wagons before. The single rectangular lights just looked completely out of place for a 1960s Chevrolet.
Please permit a contrarian’s view on another point: Chevrolet may have been America’s choice across most of the model lineup, but in 1964, Ford was America’s wagonmaster. I looked up some production figures and found that Ford’s full sized wagons handily outsold those from Chevrolet in 1964 (just over 119,000 for Chevy vs. nearly 141,000 for Ford.) Although Chevy had a good sales year, the wagon sales were down by a lot (from over 198K in 1963). Maybe it was the taillights. 🙂
Ford was pretty much always the Wagonmaster, as their advertising reflected, until the last Taurus Wagon rolled off the line. In the late 90’s Ford had about 50% of the wagon market share, Subaru about 25% and everyone else fought over the remaining 25%.
Ford generally won the wagon race, but after the 1977 B-bodies came out, Chevrolet beat Ford in the full-size wagon Category until the Ford dropped them in 1991.
I don’t think that production figure for the full-size ’64 Chevy wagons is correct — my copy of the “Standard Catalog of American Cars 1946-1975” shows about 192K, which is actually slightly higher than either ’63 (about 189K as stated above) or ’65 (about 184K). In fact, it appears to be the highest total the full-size wagons recorded in any year after 1960, which was the last year before Chevy and other other GM divisions began introducing wagons in other product lines.
In 1964, Ford’s full-size wagons also had their best year since ’60. Looking ahead at Ford’s figures for the second half of the ’60s reveals that their wagon production went up substantially, however, at a time when the general industry trend for full-size cars was slightly downward. I didn’t check years beyond the end of the ’60s, but Ford actually built more than 200,000 full-size wagons in both 1968 and 1969. So the point about Ford being more competitive with Chevy with its full-size wagons that it was with its full-size cars generally is well taken, although this would be more true later on than it was in 1964. Wagons already accounted for a higher percentage of Ford full-size production than they did over at Chevy, and it looks like this disparity would widen significantly over the next few years.
You could be correct – I was in a hurry and pulled the Chevy numbers from an unfamiliar website. In the same site (348-409.com) a different table gives a higher number for wagons, that is more in line with yours. I had wondered why the 64 wagon production dropped so much – maybe it didn’t.
I think that Ford started to walk away with wagons starting in 1965 with the Magic Doorgate and the dual facing rear seats that could accommodate up to 10 passengers (not all of them comfortably, however). The GM clamshell rear end was not much of an answer, and Ford continued to sell a lot of wagons. I knew one family that were diehard GM buyers, but always bought FoMoCo wagons because of the dreaded clamshell.
“And no, it’s Jet-Smooth ride wasn’t going to fly anymore. It was grounded; the world was changing too quickly.”
On the other hand, feeling high in your car would become literally true for a lot more people as the 60s went on! 😉
Cheech and Chong certainly thought so
There’s another way to do it these days without drugs: Jacked-up pickups, vans, & SUVs. You’ll feel high up over the road for sure! No pictures of it yet, but my dad’s ’97 Jeep Wrangler is a prime example.
UPDATE: Finally got a good picture with it parked under the shed at my home. A perfect example of what a true SUV should be.
And with it stay the Wells Cargo Trailer, a jon boat behind all of the firewood, and another trailer for transporting the firewood to the house to fuel our wood heater when outside temperatures get below freezing. THIS is why I have to leave the Nissan Trailer & the Astro at my grandmother’s place for the time being.
I guess my tastes were set in stone by growing up during the “Great Brougham Epoch” as I don’t really have any interest in the 63 or 64 Impalas. They just seem too bland to me. Give me a “fastback” roof 67 or 68 Impala or “formal” roof 66-70 Caprice and I’m happy.
At the risk of stating the obvious, that Chevy ad is for a 66 Caprice. The 65 Caprice was a trim level for the 4 door HT Impala.
Yep, and the 65’s had the surface mounted round taillights for both the sedan/coupes and the wagons and that WAS a one year design element too.
Personally, the ’65’s are my fav’s of this model.
I remember each September I’d go down to Syd Smith’s showroom and look at the new Chevys before any other cars. I loved the 61’s, 62’s and 63’s when they first came out, and of course the 65’s and even better the 66’s were favourites. But the ’64?… meh. I never really liked the flat surfaces. The Pontiac over at Reid Motors was my favourite that year.
Our family had the ’63 Bel Air wagon as a kid. 327 Powerglide, light metallic blue.
Every newer car we had I was old enough to drive. But this one I never drove.
I had great memories of family cross country vacation in it. I can remember the 327 was smooth and the AC was cold. The high compression 327 got relatively good fuel economy. Referring to the post on the ’65, I can agree these cars were driven fast, my mom would hit 85-90 on our cross country trip. It had a green cold temperature light which lit for the first few minutes after a cold start. Our Bel Air had metal dash.
Problems: Rear end sagged (and soft) and it scraped every time we pulled in driveway. It burned a quart of oil at nearly every gas stop since new. I can remember the hood up and adding oil all the time. Tiny tires wore quickly and needed to be replaced on cross country trip. I don’t recall my dad or mom really liking the car, just accepting it for what it was, a family station wagon.
Personally I thought the ’63 was nice looking car.
Pre-radial tires wore out shockingly quickly on all cars, like 10 or 15 thousand miles, not 40 or 45 thousand.
You can always drop a small block Chevy engine into it.
My youngest daughter, who is also a student at the U of O, had to have an “ironic” car too. She chose a ’76 AMC Pacer. I couldn’t afford to keep it running. Now she wants a Volvo station wagon.
I’d love to read a history/analysis of the x-frames. I know they’re hated for their flexibility and lack of side impact protection. But surely there is more of a story there? Why did GM go down that path? Did anyone else follow? Is the design inherently flawed or just poorly executed? Why did GM return to normal frames?
Knowing very little about them, I find them intriguing. Sort of the opposite of a step-down Hudson, yet still allowing for gorgeous, low-slung bodies (though maybe with worse space utilization?)
http://www.carcraft.com/junkyardcrawl/ccrp_0910_x_framed_chevys/index.html Here’s a little reasoning “why” but give me a choice today to drive across country and I’ll take an early 50s Hudson to trust with my life.
Searching online I haven’t been able to find much. I’m sure in ONE of the many histories of GM there has to be something about it. But I litterally refuse to buy an X frame GM as a classic project. And I’m not paranoid about safety usually.
Why sis the Wagon only have One light on Each side? Not 2 Or 3? It always Bugged me.
Even the 66 had 3 or 2 piece per side .
Was wood siding even available?
I think wood siding came out in the ’66 Caprice wagon. I remember we had one, kept it for about 6-7 years (very long for our family).
I never understood those taillights either. As for the Wood, Ford was the Wood Wagon king back then, all the way back to the very first all steel bodies. The top line Country Squire always had the wood trim. I don’t think Chevy did wood trim on a wagon until maybe 65?
Ha ha ha! Hate all you want, but I provide exibit A above, my avatar.
1. “X” frame? I didn’t care.
2. Soft handling? That’s why I drove an Impala. For the nice ride – I’m a cruiser, remember?
3. Not sporty even for an “SS”? I didn’t care about that, either – my car was the sharpest car on base.
4. Lousy brakes? Well, yeah, most cars had lousy brakes back then, which I was scared out of my wits one day when I didn’t stop coming down a hill in San Francisco until I was halfway through an intersection on Van Ness avenue! I learned to deal with it.
5. Build quality? Far superior to its contemporaries by a long shot. ‘Nuff said.
My 1964 was one great car which I still miss today and I don’t apologize for my sentiment at all, but I can only speak for myself. Would I want a car like that now? No. My current impala would out-perform that one by a wide margin, I think, but I never cared much about carving corners although I do in my MX5, but that’s what they’re built for.
Zackman, your convertible is probably the best of the lot. When I was a kid, we had neighbors with older kids, and the dad would go out and find nice older used cars for them to drive. Probably about 1970 or 71, they found a silver-blue 64 Impala convertible. It was a beautiful car. The one strange thing I remember about it was how loud the Powerglide linkage was. They would back out of the driveway, then I could hear the loud “clack clack” shifting from reverse to drive. They kept that convertible longer than most of the kidcars, and the parents spent quite a bit of time in it as well, although the mom was pretty short and had to sit on an extra cushion to see over the steering wheel, IIRC.
JP, admittedly my recollections of my avatar was 40 years ago and I was a young man and my car was a California car to boot, so perhaps mine was the exception – it was beautiful and in very good shape, though. Mine had a 283 2 bbl. powerglide. PS, PB, AM radio and padded dash.
What I do remember is that it was very reliable – it started every time and never stranded me, anytime. You mention linkage. Mine wasn’t bad, but my dad’s 1966, on the other hand, had loud linkage that I actually liked. The turn signals were very loud as well – that – my dad didn’t like, and he was hard of hearing, too!
The old sixties GM turn signals!! The loud, tink-tink, tink-tink, tink-tink. . . . .
I said above that my car was the sharpest car on base back then. Phooey on that, my avatar was the sharpest car not only on base, but in the Marysville/Yuba City area if not in the entire Sacramento valley!
I have to add when I got my car repainted in 1972, I put a set of 1961 SS emblems on the flanks in place of the SS-in-a-circle that were standard. Those were visible from the air!
While the Chevy outsold the Fords overall in this eara the Ford was the far superior car in terms of structural integrity and handling. There was a reason why the guys in Nascar running “Chevy” (and “Dodge”) started their build at the Ford dealer buying a brand new Ford stripping away the body, engine and transmission and wrapping their brand body around it and dropping the Chev (or Dodge) engine in it. http://www.canepacollection.com/detail-1967-chevrolet-smokey_yunick-nascar_chevelle-used-5117058.html
Of the 1961-64 block of designs, I’ve always liked the ’64 the least. (I tend to be a bit contrarian in general.) My family had, at various times, a ’65 Bel Air wagon, a ’66 Caprice wagon, a ’63 Bel Air four-door sedan, a ’67 Caprice two-door hardtop, and a ’66 Impala two-door hardtop. The last three were second cars my father drove before switching to pickups; my brother inherited the Impala and drove it for a while. (There was also a ’59 Impala before the wagons, but we won’t talk about that.) Maybe if there had been a ’64 among all these, I would feel more warmly toward them?
I Like The 61, then the 64 styling. Finally the 63 narrowly edges out the rather dowdy 62s IMO.
For some reason, the ’64 model (coupe or sedan, not the wagon) is one of the most desired for low-riders above all. Anyone have a thought?
I would guess that it is the Squared up lines.
There Is a lot of detailed Trim on the sides of the Impala – White sections with chrome outlining and Name emblazoned on it.
I can picture a 64 when I think Low Riders in music videos.
I remember my Dad trading in his 59 Biscayne for a new 64 2 dr post Biscayne for $ 1500 and the 59. That 64 was much more plush than the 59. Even as a strip down model with a 6 cyl and three on the tree, that 64 had carpet on the floor, and the interior seemed luxurious. No radio, no whitewalls, and dog dish hubcaps made for a cheap ride, although in blue/green azure aqua, that car looked good. Today, it would look even better.
My Dad didn’t drive the car to work for the first year, but by 1967, the car was a rust bucket. I remember as a teenager trying to repair the front quarters which had 5 inch holes on both sides, the rear fenders had pinholes and rust. The rest of the car looked like new. On a service visit, the manager of the dealership asked my Dad if he was in love with the then 3 year old car.
My Dad kept the car until 1972. Holes everywhere, including the trunk. It still drove well with 55K on the clock. Dad’s loyalty shifted to Chrysler, with a new 2 dr HT Dodge Polara. The Polara was a better car in all ways. He drove it for 15 years (108K) until he was rear ended by a kid driving too fast. Although the car had no back end past the rear seat, the car did not even stall, and Dad got out unhurt.
Don’t remember this time much as one, I was not born just yet (would be in early ’65 though) and two, my parents didn’t own one of the bazillion Chevy wagons that were sold, no, they went with Dodge in ’64 and bought the full sized 330 base wagon. It had ice cold AC, Torqueflite automatic and the venerable 225 slant six.
They bought it brand new in mid summer of ’64 in Jacksonville FL and drove it across country with 3 daughters and a full sized Collie in the back from Jacksonville to Washington St where my Dad was transferred (McChord AFB) for our first time out here.
That same wagon made it across country again, this time in spurts, first to Oklahoma in ’67, then Jacksonville in ’68 and then all the way back out here in ’69. Yes, 3 trips across country in 5 years.
We’d drive it a few more years yet before we handed it down to my older sisters and finally sold it in ’77 a “bit” rusty but “still running” at something like 140K-145K miles on the clock (after a transmission replacement with a used one in ’73 when the original one finally died).
Other than the ’76 Vega, that was the first and last full sized wagon we ever had.
“George, it happened again! I put the groceries in the back, came straight home, opened the tailgate, and they were GONE!”
Ah, the Bel Air — the discriminating motorist’s choice. Well, I had no choice. When my mom agreed to let me first take the wheel, a few years prior to legal age, I had nothing to compare it to, either. I remember being a little bit scared, because the car’s bulk seemed to cover the whole road, erasing the white lines. Fortunately, Mom took a fancy to the original Mustang when it arrived, buying one just in time for my learner’s permit. Now that was happy motoring!
Yes, I was a lucky guy, but I’m passing it on. With my daughter about to take her first drive, I just bout a new family wagon— an used Audi Allroad. How will that car be regarded in 40 years, I wonder?
To Me, this Looks Smaller than The Chevelle Wagons sold at the Time. Or did THIS become the Chevelle Wagon when the 65 Full size wagons came out?
A white-on-red ’64 Impala three-seat wagon with a 283 and a Powerglide was my original family car. As in the one my family owned when I was born and our only car (not counting my dad’s company cars) until the 1970 Buick Estate Wagon. It was the car in which I was taken from the hospital to my grandmother’s house. My five older siblings were down with chicken pox so my mom and I stayed away for a week or two. The result of that was that I didn’t get chicken pox until I was 15.
It was pretty well-equipped for the time with an AM radio and power rear window. The white exterior and red interior combo was rather spiffy but the vinyl on the front seat didn’t hold up very well on the driver’s side. And yes, rust was an issue even before it was 10 years old.
Never got to drive it but it was the first car I ever worked on. It went through three engines, though one install was stopped pre-emptively when the new motor’s mounting points didn’t match up. Turns out it was a pre-’58 block that needed front mounts. We still have the block.
Back in the fall of 1963 my folks traded their clapped out 1955 Ford 2-Door Ranch Wagon for a brand spanking new 1964 Chevrolet Bel Air 4-door 9-passenger station wagon. Silver Blue with a white top. I was either seven years old about to turn eight, or had just done so. Even then I was all into cars.
The Ford had become a bucket of rust by this time. The Chevy was purchased at Rodenfel’s Chevrolet in Columbus, Ohio. Long gone by now. Pretty basic I suppose. It came with the 283 Powerglide, wind-up windows, AM-Radio, black side wall tires, dog dish hubcaps, but it did have that rear-facing third seat, a power tail-gate window, and a speaker for that rear seat – the “way back” we called it. I always thought that speaker was pretty deluxe. The front seats had optional lap belts – nothing for the kiddies in the back. The folks, of course, rode up front, my older sister sat in the second seat, I rode in the way back, and my younger brother sat in the space between the seats. A good way to keep the peace it was.
On the way home from the dealer my mother stopped at the neighborhood Shell Station to fill up the tank and when she went to start it the battery was dead. That should have been an indication of bigger things to come. Maybe it was. I was only seven or eight so I really don’t know. I do remember how it was always back in the shop for one thing or another.
We traveled all over in that bad boy – summer vacations up to Lake Erie, trips down into the Hocking Hills, even a rather long road trip to Milwaukee. It must have been after that road trip at some point that my dad discovered some problems under the car. The X-Frame was rusting out. It was 1970 – the Chevy was only six years old.
I don’t know how he discovered the problem but the boxes on the X-Frame were full of holes. He took pictures with rulers to illustrate their size and sent them off to General Motors requesting some assistance. The General’s response was in essence, “Sorry about your luck.” I remember reading their reply – the car was out of warranty and there was nothing they were going to do. Soon thereafter the car was taken for a trade-in at a local Ford dealer for a 1969 Ford LTD County Squire 8-passenger wagon with the dual facing rear seats.
Years later while a manufacturers sales rep selling aftermarket automotive parts, I was talking to a mechanic at a large repair shop along Route 23 in Eastern Kentucky and was telling him of that 1964 Chevy wagon. He related to me how once he’d had a 1963 Chevy convertible up on a lift and the frame was so rusted out that the car snapped in half and dropped right to the ground.
I always did like the look of those ’64 Chevys, though.
A snap of the Chevy on vacation.
The one I asked for – and I was tied up when it got posted.
Anyway…I’ll try to catch up. DID this model have the X-frame? Somehow I had the idea the X-frame was dispatched with the 1961 redesigns.
If it did, or even if it didn’t…it would take a licking and keep on ticking. Sure, it would rust. Everything rusted in those days. But these would keep going…with the floorboards missing; with the frame twisted, with the muffler and tire-tread gone. Would even run without a key!…a GM idea they had second thoughts about. (not me; I’ve jiggered a number of my beaters to run “keyless.” I like!)
My old man had one, a “company car.” He was an industrial salesman for what’s now ExxonMobil; and often had to wine-and-dine prospective customers.
The Chevrolet Impala was perfect for the job. Professional without being gaudy or ostentatious; the right touch.
America thought so, too; in a more restrained and tasteful age. I don’t much miss Chevrolet or GM being on the top of the auto world; but I do miss the style and taste of that time.
I never liked the boxy wagons, but I love the early 60s Impala sedans and coupes, especially the four-door hardtop. I fully admit that I have a huge sentimental attachment to the ’64 Chevy. My parents bought a used ’64 Impala 4-door sedan when I was six months old in December 1966. Meadow Green, 283, Powerglide, factory A/C, PS and PB. I eventually learned to drive in that car, and my lifelong status as an auto enthusiast starts with that beloved Impala, which was reliable, trusty and drove beautifully.
I used to take it along a winding residential street near my home growing up at shall we say vigorous speeds, and while it would heel over on the skinny bias plys, it wouldn’t wash out, wallow or float. Chasing after a friend, I hit a notorious dip way too fast and may have bottomed out, but the old Impala took it in stride. It was, as a 1964 Motor Trend review noted, always responsive and willing.
It took 15 years after my Dad reluctantly sold that car before I bought my own ’64 Impala in 1999, a four-door hardtop in Meadow Green, with a 327 and factory air. I have made minor modifications to improve how it drives, namely wider tires and a rear stabilizer bar, but the car never did float or wallow. When high gear was going out on the Powerglide, I put in a 700R4, which dropped highway RPMs by 1,000. So mine doesn’t drive like it did back in ’64, but by the standards of the day, these were well-built, good-looking, good-driving cars.
I know I’m biased about these cars, so here’s a review a friend wrote when he got to drive mine last year. And he’s the kind of friend who would have said so if he thought the car sucked.
The Impala I grew up with:
The Impala I own now:
this is the story of my 1964 four door sedan Impala , bought it in 1986 , the car was loaded: 327 engine , power glide, Carter four barrel, double exhaust, AC, PS , … car was originally sold by a Fresno dealership in California , exceptionally fast car , I street raced it and showed tail lights to BMW’s , Camaros, Trans-Am’s and other pretenders ,
I suspect the car had 300 Hp corvette engine inside , not sure as I sold it in 1989
This car was exceptionally fragile too, lower front triangle fractured , coil springs sagged, Drum brakes wrapped , transmission shaft universal joints broke , the bearing housing inside X-frame broke , the front engine cradle cracked, voltage regulator burnt out, rusty engine plugs leaked ……etc
The engine was too powerfull for the transmission, clutch bands did’nt last long ,
Overall I can say that the chassis could not handle the engine power, that car might have been OK with a less powerfull engine.
In the fall of 1963, my parents went shopping for a full sized American station wagon big enough to hold their 4 rapidly growing children. The local Ford, Chevy & Plymouth dealers were visited.
According to my Father, the 352/Cruise-o-matic Ford Country Sedan huffed and puffed but just Slowly Slid away from stop lights.
My Mother, hardly a car enthausist, labeled the 327/PowerGlide Chevy Bel Air wagon one of the slowest, dullest “marshmellows” that she had ever driven.
After a long test drive, they both agreed that a 318/push button Torqueflite Plymouth Suburban station wagon was a car they both could appreciate & live with. And they happily did for the next few years.
Although I do admire the ’61 Bel Air “Bubble top” 2 door hardtop; ANY Chevy station wagon from this era affects me like OTC sleep aids. I can understand why so little good was said about this article’s subject.
My dad selected a ’64 Impala wagon over the BelAir wagon because the seats in the Impala were vinyl versus the cloth in the BelAir. With 6 kids and one in the oven, he knew the seats would take a punishment. The wagon was stripped otherwise (no A/C, no automatic, no power steering or brakes, no 3rd seat).
Being the caboose in the family, I would ride in the back with a 200 pound metal ice chest making sandwiches and handing out cokes on the long vacation rides with the rear window wide open.
The 64 has too much of a boxy Jeep Wagoneer look to it. This 65 has a much better sporty look ..
Agreed. The ’65 is light years better. The cars drove a lot better, too, since the X frame had been banished. My dad had a ’65 Biscayne that he absolutely hated. It was a 283 with Powerglide and for some reason he never like it. He much preferred his 1961 with 230 and three on the tree. He often said the 283 was no quicker than the Stovebolt and burned twice as much gas. Then again, he had no issue feeding hi-test to the hemi in his 1957 Plymouth.
No doubt GM wagon styling influenced the Wagoneer, which debuted in October, 1962 as a ’63 model and was produced until 1991 under three different corporate parents (Kaiser, AMC and Chrysler).
Interesting point about the six vs. the 283 2-barrel V-8. There probably wasn’t much difference in performance. My aunt had a ’66 Bel Air 2-door pillared sedan with the six and she swore by it, to the point she thought the six would be adequate for the 1975 Chevelle that succeeded old Elizabeth. That car she labeled the “Gutless Wonder.”
Back when I was driving Powerglide-equipped Chevys, I certainly didn’t realize how crappy they were, though the THM 400 in the 1970 Buick Estate Wagon we had was markedly better.
Another interesting point was how the ’64 Fords and Plymouths were much fresher engineering-wise, with full 3-speed automatics, strong, up-to-date engines and more advanced construction, be it the full-perimeter frame of the Ford or Chrysler’s Unibody.
Still, though, GM had the other Big Two beat on styling, the ’63 and ’64 Chevys remaining the smarter-looking choice despite being long in the tooth. And the ’65’s blew everyone away, their curves making the straight-edged Fords and Mopars look stolid.
I can’t look at the ’64 and the ’65 with an objective eye, though, based on my familial attachment to the ’64.
Still a handsome car, even if it is outclassed in the looks department by the Galaxie of the same year. (Specifically in the wagon version, it was much closer in other body styles). And my Dad’s family were Chevy People in the 60’s–don’t think there was a ’64 Impala but there were, between my Dad and his parents, 2 ’62s, a ’65, a ’66, and a ’70 Caprice.Mom’s family had a ’68 at one point and then when my parents were first married there was a ’69 too. So big 60’s Chevys are well represented in my automotive heritage, even if the only one of that whole group that I actually rode in was the ’68 Impala.
We had a 61/62 beige Bel Air stripper wagon 283 pg. It was not well liked and was replaced with a silver blue 65 327 auto wagon that was much better equipped, although it didn’t have AC. I remember many road trips with the family riding in the back with sleeping bags and pillows. They both used oil, pretty much a Chevy small block trait in those days. It was reliable for the 3 years we had it. The tail lamp on the 64 is cheap looking. I still remember the comment after the family watched The Beatles for the first time on the Ed Sullivan show “they have girl’s haircut’s!’
Loving these stories .
I like the ’64 full size Chevies but not to drive as I prefer smaller cars .
-Nate
America’s equivalent of the bad guys Jaguar MkX.All bad asses in American TV shows drive a 64 Impala.Nice but I prefer a 64 Ford
I learned to drive on a 64 Country Squire and a 49 Plymouth Deluxe. I drove my aunt’s 64 Plymouth Savoy and my uncle had at least 2 if not 3 different 60s Chevy wagons….but if I was buying a 64 full-sized wagon I would want a Dodge. You could equip it any way you wanted from slant 6 stripper to big block bruiser and I guess because it’s so “out of the mainstream” it would really appeal to me.
Like others here, I’ve often wondered why Chevy didn’t make a version of their “trademark” tail lights. At least differentiate the Impala from the Bel Air/Biscayne.
Station wagons, old RWD ones, are something else I love, just like personal luxury coupes and standard cab pickups. Where did all these wonderful vehicles go?
Of the sixties’ full-size Chevys, this is probably my second least favorite (after the ’66). Chevrolet did a pretty decent job making the big Chevy ‘look’ like it had been downsized, when it really hadn’t. But it’s still too much of a box for me. The formal roof just kills it and the later ’65-’68 big Chevy fastbacks are among the best looking of that type of roofline, getting back somewhat to the earlier ’61 (and then, ’62) ‘bubbletop’ cars. They’re all a whole lot more ‘swoopy’ (but still not quite as cool as the best early sixties GM car, the ’61 Pontiac).
They’re clearly still desirable. Witness this lyric from not so many years ago.
“I wish I was little bit taller
I wish I was a baller
I wish I had a girl who looked good
I would call her
I wish I had a rabbit in a hat with a bat
And a six four Impala”
Skee-Lo – “I Wish”
Paul, this comes over as just more GM bashing. As if the ’64 Ford & Mopars didn’t have “drum brakes, Powerglide, undersized tires, funky seating position, vague steering, wallowing handling”
OK, remove the Powerglide from the above quote. I never found the X frame ‘willowly’ on my long gone ’63 Belair Sedan.
Edit. Re the low seating position, have a read of Popular Mechinics owners reports of the era.
Many complaint about the ‘low’ seating postion
in many of the cars of the day.
Chris, have you ever driven a Ford or Plymouth of the same era? They all had vague overboosted steering butbonly Chevy gave you power steering with 6 turns lock to lock. Everyone else was 4. Also both Fords and Mopars outhandled these. Pre 65 Fords were not horrible handlers, though they were not as smooth as the all coil spring Chevy’s.
And both of them gave you a far better seating position. My 59 Plymouth drove like cars several years newer. My college roommate’s 62 Bel Air drove like something from the mid 50s.
I base my comments on a RHD, Australian assembled ’63 Bel Air I owned, back in the early 1980s. 5 turns lock to lock, power steering, feather light.
Driving position? I used to hop from my Holden Gemini, and the cars I drove as an apprentice mechanic to the Bel Air. Never noticed a ‘funky’ driving position.
I did drive a mate-of-a-mates ’62 Dodge Phoenix. Felt no better or worse than my ’63 Chev. A bit firmer on the ride front- not difficult to achieve!
Wasn’t my car so I didn’t push it hard. I didn’t push the Bel Air hard either.
Mind you all of the above is on cars that were 20 years old, 30 years ago.
Quite obviously, this particular piece isn’t an effort to be exactingly objective and offer a detailed comparison of the state of American cars in 1964. Frankly, I wasn’t too impressed with any of them, but by 1964, the Chevy does come off as the tiredest of the bunch. At least this one did, to me.
I have bi-polar feelings about cars like this. On the one hand, they were simple, rugged workhorses and could be quite effective in their typical role. On the other hand, the lack of ambition in their design, components, handling, braking, etc. could also be quite shockingly low. I remember driving a ’63 Bel Air, and being amused at the amount of play in its steering. And a few other qualities.
It’s all about the context; if one was also exposed to cars that were more ambitious, these American cars of this era could really came off as slackers. But they also provided cheap and comfortable transport for millions, and I get the love. Didn’t I express the love adequately in this piece?
As far as tire spec on the ’64’s were concerned, I was a little skeptical to read they were under-tired. Our Impala wagon always wore J78-14’s, equal to 225/75-14 today. Just shows how smart my dad was back then, because factory spec was 8.00 x 14, closer to 205/75-14, or F78-14. On a full-size wagon? Nope.
GM smartened up later on, because the ’70 Buick specified L78-15, the largest letter-sized passenger car tire available in what was then standard profile, equal to 235/75-15. Of course, you could get an L60-15 for the back of your jacked-up Chevelle, which was wider but similar in diameter.
Overall, though, tires were narrower back then across the board. The 1964 Corvette came with 6.70 x 15’s, upgraded to 7.75 in 1965. The Jaguar XKE Series I came with 6.40 x 15’s, Series II’s had 185×15’s, and those cars could hit 150 mph.
That under rear bumper trim panel has been damaged on every 64 full sized Chevy I’ve ever seen.
Ha, you are right. Fronts, too.
My dad’s ’64 Impala wagon had the same issue. The rear end would touch the ground due to steep curb drop offs or steep driveways versus the level street. The suspension was lightly sprung and would occasionally drag the ground with a full load ( 6 kids, set of parents, and tons of luggage on a vacation).
Air shocks would have helped, but they were rare at the time.
The damaged trim panel was common on both wagons and sedans
Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-in – A classic!
The “Camry Dent” of its’ day.
I have to confess the ’64 is not my favourite year for Sixties Chevys. The 62’s and 63’s were crisper looking and the ’65 was in a whole different league from its boxy predecessor.
Cadillac Eldo used the new X-frame in 1957–I did not know that:
Full details here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-an-x-ray-look-at-gms-x-frame-1957-1970/
Was that metal panel surround around the license plate sent from the factory all dented up and mangled?
Even as a child 60 years ago; I cannot recall seeing one undamaged.
What are they made out of? Reynolds Wrap??
Oops, should had pecked in 50 (not 60) years ago.
(Fat fingers, tiny i-phone icons….what can I say….)
This is a slightly upmarket BelAir wagon. Note the power rear window on the rear hatch. It requires the use of the key in order to raise or lower.
Most BelAirs and the majority of Impalas wagons had the hand crank feature.
Back then, you could order a car with a single option specific to your needs. Today, most cars come with a series of packages with a very select few individual options (ie: moon roof).
Dad had a Blue Impala wagon. Spent many a mile sitting in the cargo area with the back window down sucking in the dust and pollen.
IMO, the 1963 Chev wagon looked better from the back, as it had the multiple circular taillights. Two for a Bel Air, probably three for an Impala. However, both model years looked boxy in comparison with the much improved 1965.
Even though I loved my Matchbox taxi as a child, I’ve never quite understood the appeal of these 64 Chevys, At least to my eyes, it’s the least imaginatively designed and detailed full size Chevy of the decade, and sadly birthed its genes to the first Chevelle.
The ’64 Chevy was the box the ’61-63 came in.
The ’64 Chevy also seemed to somehow birth its genes to the new ’65 Mopars and Fords, which resembled ’63-’64 Chevys more than the current ’65s, and it would be years before they could ape GM’s new flowing look.
I had a real worn 64 Impala as a winter car in the mid seventies for 3 years. Very reliable spacious car with very little maintenance needed. Never noticed any seating issues. I think other comments regarding judging 1964 cars to today’s standards is very true. For the era, these were good reliable rides. Good memories they bring when seen.
I strain myself believing the platform and mechanical bits are basically straight from a 1958 model – it just looks so different on the outside, the ’50s look so completely eradicated, the last vestige which may have been the slight dogleg at the base of the windshield of the ’63s, It’s astonishing how much the look of American cars changed from 1958 to 1961. There’s been less change in the last 15 years than there was in those three.
The ’64 Chevy dashboard looks so modern; it wouldn’t have looked out of place in a Chevy from the ’90s.
Car advertising really did undergo a sea change around this time, replacing long text block description of mechanical features (always in over-the-top manner like “Jet-Smooth Ride”) with lifestyle marketing. Was the Mustang was the instigator of this?
oops, last year of the boomerang A pillar was ’62 not ’63
The 63 Chevy resembled the 61 Cadillac. The 64 Chevy resembled a rejected Oldsmobile. I have fond memories of a 64 Chevy but a thing of beauty it wasn’t.
My family had a 6-passenger ’64 Bel Air wagon in maroon that my father bought new in the spring of ’64. It came with the 283 V8 and had 3-on-the-tree plus overdrive. I particularly remember the durable red striped nylon fabric seats that were as durable as any vinyl, but still breathed. I also recall the enormous storage compartment underneath the rear deck. It extended under the rear tailgate into the area that was the inside of the rear bumper.
The car developed transmission problems at about 70,000 miles and my dad decided that it was not worth repairing so he traded it for a leftover ’69 Townsman in the fall of ’69 after the 1970 models had come out.
1964. The Beatles. Here’s a fun little tidbit too make you feel old…
Last week I spent a full day at a teacher training inservice. Sigh. Dullsville.
At one point the session leader, baby boomer aged gal, gave us all a handout with some fake student names on it:
John. Paul. George. Ringo.
I smiled, “look who the kids names are” I said to the young teachers at my table.
Blank faces.
“I don’t know what you mean” someone said.
It’s the Beatles I said.
A couple of them actually said, “who?” Some others knew who the group was but had never really listened to them. No one could name any of their songs.
Ancient history. As interesting to these young teachers as Byzantine politics in the 8th century.