Whoever special-ordered this Impala Sport Coupe placed a lot more importance on outward appearances than inner qualities. They not only picked a top-tier model, but also splurged on the full wheel covers and white-wall tires (presumably). But that’s as far as it went in terms of indulging themselves, given the very long list of options available. Unlike the overwhelming majority of Impala Sport Coupes that came with V8s of various sizes, they insisted on the 230 cubic inch six, which made all of 120 net hp (140 gross), as well as the three-speed manual transmission with column shift. Given that it doesn’t even have a radio, I can almost guarantee that it also lacks power steering or power brakes.
This was a rather unusually-equipped Impala Sport Coupe back in 1964. In 2016, it’s practically a unicorn, given the scarcity of any original ’64 Impala coupes, never mind a six. And to think I almost didn’t stop for it.
Why wouldn’t I have stopped? Well, other than the fact that I was in a bit of a hurry, the ’64 Impala long ago became an icon, and not often the kind that has a lot of appeal to me.
But it certainly does to others.
Original ’64 Impalas are just not that common anymore, as most of them sacrificed their originality on one kind of altar,
or another.
They’ve been attracting undue attention (and molestation) to themselves for a very long time, as a particularly desirable canvas upon which to express their owners’ automotive dreams and nightmares. Why?
Well, it was America’s apple-pie sweetheart, prior to the arrival of those usurpers like the ’65 Mustang. The 1964 and earlier big Chevys always had a more loyal and intense following than their more flamboyant and all-new ’65 successor. They represent a more innocent era, one that started to fade right about the time the ’65 appeared, along with Vietnam, psychedelics, and the Rolling Stones. And the resultant fragmentation.
For those that came of age before 1965, the ’64 Chevy represents a culmination of sorts, as well as a symbol of a time when just about everyone could agree on a number of commonly held values and ideals, including that a Chevy Impala Sport Coupe was pretty much the most desirable car in the affordable segment. One just couldn’t go wrong with one, in more ways than one.
Not only did it confer maximum social acceptability, but its high resale value made it a pragmatic proposition too, as long as one didn’t order an Impala like the owner of this one did. Resale did not factor into this one, which was clearly intended to be a long-term keeper. The Impala’s clean, innocuous styling, rather outdated by 1964 like the crew cut, oozed of squeaky-clean mainstream and Main Street acceptability.
The ’64 was really just a ’61 (above) with some tweaked skin, along with that convertible-style coupe roof that appeared in 1962. And the ’61 was really just a ’59, with a body tuck. And the ’59 sat on the ’58’s chassis. Which means that the ’64 was getting a mite long in tooth, especially for GM’s and America’s best-selling car.
But then between 1959 and 1964, Chevrolet had been busy developing and introducing no less than four lines of all-new cars, so the big Chevy had to be content with an annual facelift.
One suspects that Chevrolet was being a bit defensive in calling its X-Frame “Safety-Girder Frame”, given that the lack of side rails was specifically implicated in making this frame design more vulnerable in side impacts. 1964 would be the X Frame’s last outing, except for the Buick Riviera. But unlike its reputation, the X-Frame was actually very stiff for the times.
Yes, the Chevy had a smooth ride. But when it came to handling, an analogy with a tug boat rather than a jet would have been more apt. The Chevy’s steering was very slow, sloppy, and dull. And its handling, such as it was, was equally plodding. But for a lot of Americans, it was – good enough. Never mind the drum brakes and undersized tires (7.00 x 14, 2 ply rayon bias ply doughnuts). But the ride was smooth, which was of course the important thing.
I was running an errand at Home Depot in a bit of a rush when I spotted this Daytona Blue coupe from some distance in a nearby parking lot. And I was already well past it, not feeling inspired, when it called out to me: Hey; CC has never had a proper curbside ’64 Impala! True that, which is practically a crime, considering how common and popular they were, and still are. So I heeded its call, and turned back, hoping it wouldn’t disappoint me. It didn’t.
I was a bit suspicious when I noticed the distinct lack of a V8 emblem on its front fender, but then these cars are often not original. One look into its front seat area confirmed it though: this is not only a six, but it’s a three-on-the-tree Impala Sports Coupe. And look at what great shape the original upholstery is in. And no radio; just a blank expanse of polished aluminum, or whatever that blank plate is made of. Who would buy such a nice car equipped like this?
And how did it come to be so well preserved?
Seeing that long gearshift lever hanging there and that rather sparse instrument panel brought back memories of a ’64 Bel Air sedan that one of my high school girlfriends had; a hand-me-down, and a bit tired and saggy by 1970. It too was a six, three-speed, with manual steering and brakes. That wasn’t really all that unusual at the time, except for Impalas. Yes, one would occasionally see one without the V8 emblem, but rarely so.
This Bel Air had the sloppiest steering I’d yet ever encountered, except perhaps for the Farmall tractors I used to drive in Iowa. Going down the highway, one could swing the steering wheel a good quarter of a turn without any noticeable response from those distant little tires out front. Not very sporty. And the polar opposite of the steering in my brother’s MGA. That was sporty. Of course my ’66 F100’s steering isn’t really any better, and I still do that sometimes at speed, just to prove it to myself. But then it’s a truck, not a Sports Coupe.
I always drove every GF’s car; it was essentially a condition of any possible relationship. Well, there was one exception, but it didn’t last, obviously; control issues. Actually, this one didn’t last very long either; maybe it was the Chevy. Anyway, there were often a half dozen or more of us kids in it when we would head off somewhere after school or on weekends, usually out to the Gunpowder River or such, in North Baltimore County. The drive there involved the kind of winding, hilly narrow country roads sports cars were designed for, not the Chevy.
The wheezy moan of its tired 230 inch six, the balky shifter, and the bobbing, wallowing Bel Air are all coming back to me; not in a really good way, although it did afford us some good times. And it never let us down. But remembering its ways makes me wonder again: why would someone order such a lovely Impala Sports Coupe equipped this way?
There were so many better alternatives. Never mind the brawny 409s (full story here). How about just a 327 backed up by the four-speed floor-shifted manual? And throw in the HD suspension and oversize tires, for good measure. Doesn’t one deserve a wee bit of fun with their new sweet-looking Impala Sport Coupe? Ok; at the very least the 283 V8, even if it wasn’t exactly a rocket in these bigger Chevys.
Was its buyer a cheapskate, or just a lover of sixes? They might have at least ordered it with overdrive, which also came with a lower 3.70:1 rear axle, for somewhat brisker take offs as well as a slow-turning engine on the highway. But no…good thing these cars weren’t all that heavy yet; the Impala six had a listed curb weight of just 3265 lbs. Without seven teenagers aboard.
The debate over which ’61-’65 Chevy is the most appealing is an old one, going right back to 1964. Frankly, as much as I was a Chevy man at the time, I did think that the new ’64 was a bit of a modest effort, especially its front end. Unlike its predecessors, it was flat as a board, and rather dull and cheap looking. This came from Bill Mitchell’s vaunted studios? The same place that gave us the ’63 Corvette? It looks like it belongs on a Dodge; like the ’63 Dodge 880, actually. The designers must just have run out of ideas. Or they were too tied up with the all-new ’65, which had a very daring front end. Actually, my theory is that they purposely gave the ’64 a dull and boring face to set folks up for the ’65.
One of the highlights of my childhood was going to the 1964 NY World’s Fair. At the GM Futurama exhibit, I ogled the various concept cars on display. But there was also a large sampling of current GM production cars, and I remember thinking that the disparity between the far-out concepts and the ’64 Impala was getting to be mighty big; a genuine leap of faith even for a true acolyte of the Church of St. Mark of Excellence. Only a month or so later, when the ’65s were unveiled at our hometown Chevy-Buick-Cadillac dealer, did my niggling doubt evaporate.
I had just spent too much time obsessing on the ’61-’64 Impalas, feeding my endless internal debate about their stylistic strengths and weaknesses. Truth is, none of the ’61-’64 Chevys had a very compelling front end; it was their rear ends that much more caught my attention at the time.
In these debates, the 1961 won most often, thanks to its originality, ‘lightness’, and of course the bubble top on the Sports Coupe. Its Corvair-inspired rear end though, was a wee bit off in some regards; its wrap-around effect was starting to look a bit dated by 1964.
Speaking of ’61s, I had a special obsession on the Impala 2-door sedan, the only year one was ever offered. They were incredibly rare too; seeing one was cause for a celebration.
The ’62 ushered in that close-coupled convertible-style roof. And its rear end was now more self-contained, with a contrasting bright panel on the Impalas, to really draw attention to itself. Which it did. It’s actually very nice, and although sparser than the ’63, it’s less contrived too, and as such, the best of the bunch. For the moment…
The ’62 Ford’s rear end looked heavy in comparison, as if the tail lights were melting into the bumper.
The ’63 refresh brought a more chiseled look all over, including at the rear end. It has more depth, but it’s also a bit self-conscious; trying a bit too hard to be different from the ’62.
The ’64 reflected the change to the front end: flatter. And trying to look a bit different than the ’62 and ’63. And succeeding in that, if not in overall appeal. But no matter; it still caught my eye, and in particular it was of course the Impala that caught it the most, what with its three tail lights per side and the inevitable bright/white accent.
Of course, the Impala Super Sport, which was now a distinct series of its own, always one-upped the mere Impala in that department, with this machine-turned-effect accent band. Not that it was actually any sportier in the true meaning of the word, since the SS was strictly an appearance package, except for the 1961 original. Super Sportless. Now if this Impala six coupe had been an SS, it really would have been a find.
But I’m quite happy enough with this one. The ’64 Impala Sports Coupe was a car that was bound to make it to CC eventually. It was just a little slow getting here, thanks to its six cylinder engine.
(a revised version of a post that originally ran in 2016)
Related CC Chevy Love:
CC 1963 Impala SS 409 – Giddyup, Giddyup 409 PN
CC 1965 Impala Super Sports – The Peak Chevrolet Experience PN
COAL: Gary Dulude’s 1964 Impala – Updated and Still Driven Regularly
Automotive History: A X Ray Look At GM’s X Frame PN
It would only have added a touch of spice to this event had you been able to talk with the owner of this amazingly pristine UNICORN! 🙂
The 63 was my favorite of the series. Whether it was objectively more attractive or because my father’s 63 Bel Air wagon imprinted on me at an early age is hard to tell.
I agree that the 64 always seemed a mite dull compared to the earlier models, and I always wondered what it was about the 64 that appealed in some unique way to the low-rider crowd.
The neighbors across the street owned a navy blue 66 Impala 4 door hardtop as their main car. One day they bought a used 64 Impala, a silver-blue convertible as a second car once their teen sons started driving. It was a good looking car and I got plenty of time to study it. It was a V8/PG car, and I vividly remember it backing out of the driveway, then emiting the loud “clack clack” from the shift linkage being moved from R to D.
The ’64 Impala is a attractive, very well-proportioned car yet I never understood why it gets so much love from various customizing cultures when the ’62 and ’63 are about as attractive and mechanically similar. Maybe it’s just because it’s the last of its type and thus may have a few items that were improved since the earlier models, kind of like the ’57 compared to the ’55 or ’56.
Besides the Riviera, there was one other GM car that continued to use the X-frame in 1965. Let’s see if anyone remembers it!
Hi,
Thanks for this great article on America’s 1961-1964 Chevrolets.
We had a 1961 Impala blue/blue bubbletop, a 1961 Parkwood black /red 9 passenger wagon, a 1962 Impala white/red convertible, a 1963 Impala azure green/green Sport Sedan and a 1964 Impala Impala dark green/green
9 passenger wagon. All had the 283/Powerglide drive train. We were so fortunate to have lived in this era.
We have 1996 Roadmaster LTD Light Driftwood Beige/tan 8 passenger wagons now.
Thanks,
Gary
The 1959-64 Chevys were a big part of my early “car spotting” experiences–after learning which year was which, and differentiating between Impala, Bel Air, and Biscayne–it was fun! I thought all models were good-looking in their own way. Up through the 1980s, they were still commonly seen; I remember quite a few in my local area at that time. For unknown reasons, the big Chevys were much more common than the big 1959-64 Fords.
To my surprise, the manual steering on my ’59 is really tight. It glides on the interstate rock-steady–virtually no play at all. Doesn’t wander. (But yes, the manual steering is too slow and heavy in town.) I found that modern gas shocks, ball joints, new idler arm, and radial tires make a BIG difference on these cars. Before I replaced these items, the response was loosey-goosey to the point of being unsafe. I think that when these Chevys became older used cars, the front ends wore out, the shocks were bad–and bias-ply tires are generally crap. But that’s how everyone remembers them, hence the poor reputation.
There were reviews of Chevys equipped with police-spec suspension and brakes and bigger tires that quite transformed its handling when new. But the steering was inherently slow, even with power assist. And yes, the stock ones didn’t exactly get any better as they got old, especially with seven teens on board!
But yes, it’s not hard to remedy all of those issues and nowadays modern fast steering boxes solve that issue too.
The ‘65 is my favorite, and has been from the first time I saw one, presumably in late 1964. Then I’ll take the ‘61 and ‘62; both have their strengths. The ‘63 and ‘64 tie for last and the ‘62 Ford is a non-starter. For Fords of that era, ‘63 and ‘65 are the winners. I’m glad to know that I’m not the only one that has had opinions on these things … for the last 60 years now.
Sounds like a Impala with loosy steering, wheezy 6 cylinder, balky gear shift, is just a worn out car that needs some repair.
If I were to rank the 60-69 Chevy from 1-10 in my personal opinion on looks the 65-69 would take the top five spots. The 64 would be down near the bottom. It just seemed to box like. Of course, as low rider material in Southern California it was unsurpassed and why I haven’t seen a original one since 1973. Like, Paul, it was used by two sisters I knew at SDSU while they were there. Same as the Biscayne above just can’t recall if Impala or Biscayne. I do recall doing an oil change for them. If this is the original owner I love to meet him as he seems very much like me. If owning it from the beginning it would stay pristine under my care no matter how old.
The ’61 will always be my all-time favorite style for Chevy.
My grandfather was one who might have ordered an Impala like this —
In June, 1965, he accepted delivery on his brand new ’65 sky-blue Impala 2-door hardtop.
Options ordered:
— white-walls
— full wheel covers
— 2-spd. powerglide
— AM radio
— (if heater was optional, he got that too)
So, he puttered around in a sharp looking 6-cyl. cruiser, with 7.35 x 14 tires, until he replaced it with a ’73 Chevelle, similarly equipped.
By that time, I was in college, and the Impala came into my possession.
The 1961 Impala bubble top is not only my favorite Impala, but one of my favorite cars period. Lithe and athletic with perfect trim bits. What an improvement from 1959-60.
Second favorite of the sixties would be the ‘63. Love the chisled look. ‘65 would be third, followed closely by ‘64, ‘66 and ‘67. Trailing far behind was ‘68 and bringing up the rear was ‘69. The bloat and decontenting was taking hold and the Impala lost whatever sporting intentions it had after 1967.
In the early 1970s a friend of my father’s had a 1963 Pontiac Parisienne sport coupe with a six cylinder three speed manual. A very nice looking car with a strange choice in power train. I don’t know much about the history of the car other than he purchased it used for a good price and that he replaced it with a new 1973 Ford LTD sedan with all the toys. Speculating on who would own such a car (the Impala or the Parisienne) I suspect that it may have been someone of retirement age purchasing their final new car. They had always owned six cylinder cars and didn’t trust automatic transmissions (one of my grandfathers was this way, he refused to drive my fathers car as it had an automatic). Compared to their 1954 Chevrolet 210 sedan that 1964 Impala was a real step up.