In another CC post a while back, I charted the decline of the stripped-down full-size Chevrolet throughout the 1960s, as more and more buyers ordered V-8 engines and convenience features that made these cars mid-price luxury sedans rather than low-buck basic transportation. In this May 1967 road test of a 427 Impala, the editors of Car Life confronted that trend and asked the big question: “Is a Chevrolet worth $5000?”
The editors began:
NOT SO MANY years ago a motorist shopping for one of the “low-priced three” knew that no matter which make and model he elected to buy, he would drive home a car instantly recognizable as basic, no-frills transportation. His neighbors were aware that here was a man who was putting practicality ahead of ostentation. that this was a man who demanded—and got—a means of transport at minimum cost. If his thinking was reasonably advanced he probably included a heater, and if he was especially daring, he may have ordered a true luxury accessory—a radio. For better or worse, that era is gone, and the fact that it’s not coming back soon was brought forcefully home while testing the Impala SS 427.
In 1967, you could still order a modestly priced full-size Chevrolet: The cheapest two-door, six-cylinder Biscayne started at $2,442, and you could have a reasonably nice Bel Air sedan with a V-8 and a few extras for less than $3,000 out the door. The Car Life test car, a V-8 Impala Super Sport two-door Sport Coupe, had a starting price of $3,003, but adding the biggest available engine, automatic transmission, air conditioning, power steering and brakes, a really fancy stereo sound system, and a few other niceties brought the tally to a sticker-shock-inducing $4,903.
This was a lot of money in 1967. Adjusted for inflation, it’s almost $47,000 in 2025 dollars, but MeasuringWorth estimates its “relative value” (in proportion to the goods and services a typical household would buy) at about $52,480. In 1967, it would have put you into a decently equipped Pontiac Bonneville or Oldsmobile Delta Eighty-Eight. As CL noted, the test car wasn’t even fully loaded: It had air conditioning, but not Comfortron automatic climate control (an extra $79); power brakes but not the optional front discs (an additional $79); and no power seat ($69.55 to $105.35) or power windows ($100.10). Also, customers willing to spend this much money on a full-size Chevrolet might be more apt to order a Caprice, whose two-door Custom Coupe started at $75 more than an Impala SS.
(Incidentally, according to Automotive Industries, Chevrolet buyers were still reticent about power windows and power seats: In 1967, only 11.6 percent of full-size Chevrolets had power windows and just 1.7 percent had power seats.)
The editors were quick to note:
CAR LIFE liked the Impala. Ride was good, handling fair to good, braking barely passable. and the acceleration/ speed exciting. Turn on the air conditioning, tune in the FM multiplex stereo (or, if out of FM range, push in a tape cartridge and listen to Lorne Greene narrate “Songs of America”), and the sensation is pure luxury—the approximate equivalent of the most expensive automobiles available. Note the qualifying word “approximate”; no production Chevrolet ever will match the richness and fine detailing inherent in cars where base pricing starts $1000 above the Impala’s delivered price.
Younger readers may be puzzled by the Lorne Greene reference. People of my generation are more likely to remember the Canadian actor for his role as the patriarchal Commander Adama on the original Battlestar Galactica, but in the ’60s, he was starring as Ben Cartwright on the NBC Western series Bonanza, which was then the most popular TV show in the U.S. — and, notably, sponsored by Chevrolet. Greene and his costars did various ads and promos for Chevrolet, like this one:
Section of a 1967 Chevrolet ad showing Bonanza star Lorne Greene (right) with costars Dan Blocker (left) and Michael Landon (center)
Moreover, when you ordered the $128.50 stereo tape system on a new Chevrolet in 1967, it came with an RCA Victor 8-track tape, narrated by Greene (and actually entitled Music of the U.S.A., featuring “more than 30 outstanding examples of American music—grand opera, country and western, pop tunes, marching bands and many others.” (Here’s the track list — an interesting selection, but a tad square for 1967, although I suppose the context demanded a broad brush.)
Chevrolet Music of the U.S.A.. 8-track / The 8-Track Tape Store
CL‘s test car had the optional Turbo-Jet 427 (6,996 cc) V-8, with gross ratings of 385 hp and 460 lb-ft of torque, mated to the three-speed Turbo Hydra-Matic and a Positraction axle with a 3.07 ratio (the standard ratio with ratio with air conditioning). While you could get the same engine as a stand-alone option (RPO L36) on 1967 full-size Chevrolets, the Car Life car had RPO Z24, which included the big engine, a special domed hood with its brushed-chrome simulated velocity stacks, SS 427 emblems, red-stripe or whitewall tires, 14×6 wheels, and the F40 heavy-duty suspension, for a list price of $403.30. If you could live without the special emblems and the chrome gewgaws on the hood, you could save $10–$15 by forgoing the Z24 package and ordering the engine and other pieces separately.
The SS 427 package has become a weird point of near-religious fervor among the Chevrolet faithful, who continue to insist that a real SS 427 was not technically an Impala at all, but rather a completely separate model. This dubious contention seems to be founded on the fact that the RPO Z24 package deleted the normal Impala exterior identification, and that the word “Impala” didn’t appear on this page of the fall 1966 brochure “The ’67 Super Sports by Chevrolet”:
To the extent that it matters to anyone other than auction sellers trying to puff up their cars’ Rare Highly Collectible Iconic Muscle Car bona fides, there’s no indication that Chevrolet regarded the Z24 package as a separate model: It’s clearly listed as an RPO, it didn’t get its own model number or VIN code, and the full-size Chevrolet brochure describes it as a “special identification/performance package [that] can be specified on Super Sport models when you order the 427-cu.in. Turbo-Jet V8 with 385 horsepower.” Rare, yes — Pete C. Sessler’s Chevrolet SS Muscle Car Red Book reports that only 2,124 full-size cars had this option in 1967 — but a separate model, no.
While I’m swinging bats at hornets’ nests, I can’t help but noting that Car Life was unusually apologetic about their SS 427 test car’s mediocre performance. By most standards, a 0 to 60 mph time of 8.4 seconds was certainly not bad, but it was disappointing given the huge, expensive, very thirsty engine (which sucked down super-premium at a rate of 9.5 mpg). Moreover, the Chevrolet was, with one curious exception, significantly slower than the 1966 Ford Galaxie 7-Litre Car Life had tested a year or so earlier, which they had taken to task for its disappointing acceleration and “dismal performance.” Of the Chevrolet, they said:
While the showroom-stock quarter mile times were reasonably impressive, this is the kind of car in which acceleration could have been improved with minor alterations. For one thing, tires with more bite would have cut elapsed time and improved the speed. The SS 427 package calls for Nylon red stripe tires, but for some reason CL’s test car did not have them. And Superlift or equivalent shock absorbers would have aided in delivery of power to the ground. Indeed, an extra 6–8 mph are available without touching the engine or exhaust system. The optional performance axle ratio, 3.31:1, also would prove an asset.
Given how much trouble they had getting a clean launch even with the mild axle ratio and Positraction, it seems to me that making good use of the 3.31 axle would have required a major upgrade in the tire department. Fatter G70-15 tires would have been a good start, but Sessler says they were ordered on only 1,030 full-size cars in 1967.
Here are their comparative acceleration times:
| Acceleration | Chevrolet | Ford |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 mph | 3.6 secs. | 3.3 secs. |
| 0–40 mph | 5.0 secs. | 4.7 secs. |
| 0–50 mph | 6.5 secs. | 6.2 secs. |
| 0–60 mph | 8.4 secs. | 8.0 secs. |
| 0–70 mph | 10.7 secs. | 10.2 secs. |
| 0–80 mph | 13.6 secs. | 13.3 secs. |
| 0–90 mph | 17.2 secs. | 16.8 secs. |
| 0–100 mph | 22.3 secs. | 21.4 secs. |
| Passing, 30–70 mph | 7.1 secs. | 6.9 secs. |
| Standing ¼ mile | 15.75 secs. at 86.5 mph | 16.40 secs. at 89.0 mph |
Looking at these figures, the listed quarter mile ET for the SS 427 immediately stands out as suspicious. The other acceleration times indicate that the Chevrolet was a bit slower than the Ford in every speed range up through 100 mph. Its quarter mile trap speed was also a significant 2.5 mph slower, indicating an inferior power-to-weight ratio. Yet, the figures claim the SS427 was 0.65 seconds quicker through the quarter mile lights — a substantial difference, in drag racing terms — which doesn’t make much sense.
A relevant point here is weight. Car Life listed the 1966 7-Litre’s curb weight as 4,118 lb, which sounds about right for a 428 Galaxie hardtop without air conditioning. However, the 3,835 lb curb weight this test lists for the SS 427 is clearly wrong: According to the AMA specifications for the 1967 full-size Chevrolet, the base curb weight of a Impala Super Sport hardtop with a 283 was 3,800 lb. The 427, Turbo Hydra-Matic, air injection, air conditioning, power steering and brakes, and AM/FM radio added 511 lb to that base figure. That means the actual curb weight of the CL test car was at least 4,311 lb, not 3,835 lb, with the stereo tape system and other miscellaneous options probably adding a few more pounds.
Also, the text claims that the drivers manually shifted the transmission between 5,200 and 5,500 rpm to stay out of the red zone, but the listed shift points on the spec panel are over 6,000 rpm. If the data panel is accurate, it suggests that Car Life drove the SS 427 test car a lot harder than most owners would have dared, and still got only average times.
15-inch wheels and front discs were optional in 1967, but were not fitted to the Car Life test car / Mecum Auctions
Brakes were another sore point with the drum-braked CL test car:
IN SPITE OF M. [Ettore] Bugatti’s low opinion of the importance of brakes (“I build cars to go, not to stop”), most people like to stop safely and quickly every time they apply pressure to the brake pedal. On this point the SS 427 is deficient. CL’s standard 80-mph maximum deceleration stops revealed two things: rear wheel lock-up and significant fade. The latter was quite pronounced on the second stop. The option book reveals a $79 cure—front wheel disc brakes, which are part of a package that includes 15-in. wheels. The fact is, normal, low-effort stopping is quite good, so deceptively good that a driver would surely be unaware of the problems revealed instantly in a high-speed panic stop. A lesser option that should prove helpful is sintered-metallic brake linings, priced at $36.90.
Both front discs and metallic linings were extremely rare in 1967: Only 6,351 full-size Chevrolets got front discs (about 0.5 percent of production), while just 1,588 customers ordered metallic linings.
The photo caption on this page reads, “CLEAN OF line, the Impala SS 2-door displays fewer than average bits of chromium trim, with one exception—the dummy induction ports mounted on the hood. Basically, the car performs, but does so in an unobtrusive manner.”
Strato-Bucket seats were standard on the Impala Super Sport and optional elsewhere in the line. They earned good marks from the CL testers:
Up front, the Strato-Bucket seats are comfortable—firm and with reasonably good support for back and thighs. There were headrests in the test car, and frankly they appeared more decorative than functional. They are adjustable upward, but their flush position in relation to the seat plane makes them more suitable as whiplash protective devices than as something designed for passenger relaxation. An infinitely adjustable seat recliner would have been a welcome addition that could have made the headrests of genuine value for a passenger, and would have given the driver a welcome change of position.
Their test car also had the U14 special instrumentation package, a fairly rare but very desirable option providing full instrumentation, including a tachometer, for $79.00, and of course they also had the fancy audio system, which included the stereo tape system as well as an AM/FM multiplex stereo radio.
U14 special instrumentation / Bring a Trailer
Car Life had been disappointed with the stereo tape system in their 1966 7-Litre, which had suffered poor sound quality and clumsy ergonomics, but they found “the equipment in the Impala offered magnificent reproduction and reception,” undoubtedly aided by the Impala’s “exceptionally low” levels of engine, wind, and road noise.
Stereo tape system / Mecum Auctions
While the text says their test car had head rests — a $52.70 option with Strato-Bucket seats in 1967 — you’ll notice that there’s no sign of any headrests in any of the photos where the seats are visible. (Also, it looks like the car in the photos has the optional 15-inch rally wheels rather than the 14-inch wheels described in the text and data panel.)
The likeliest explanation is that the car shown in the B&W photos (credited to Paul Hansen Photos), which has Michigan license plates, was not the California car Car Life actually tested, but rather a different car drawn from Chevrolet’s Detroit press pool, with similar but not identical equipment. Sessler indicates that the “Strato-Ease” head rests were extremely rare in 1967, so it wouldn’t be surprising if the photo car didn’t have them. Such discrepancies aren’t uncommon in magazine publishing, but it can be perplexing to realize the text and photos don’t match.
As for the car’s road manners, the editors reported:
Ride was medium-firm, not harshly so, but not feather-soft either. It was, in fact, fairly good, though the tar strips could be felt and, at one point, a back-slapping resonance. known to Detroit engineers as “freeway hop,” was encountered. It seems there are freeways in certain areas which have regularly spaced concrete joints, and at just the right combination of speed and suspension the result is most unpleasant. … Power steering, at four turns of the wheel lock-lo-lock, seemed a bit slow. The impression of nimbleness and agility aren’t created by this car. Rather, it offers a sort of average aim-and-go handling quality, about what is expected from a large Chevrolet with a large V-8 engine.
The editors didn’t comment on interior room or trunk space except to describe the ordeal involved in trying to wrestle the spare tire out of the trunk.
Unlike some full-size Chevrolets tested by other magazines in this period, the CL SS 427 displayed a decent level of quality:
In the main, assembly, paint and trim were good. There weren’t any glaring gaps, the vinyl roof cover appeared well installed, paint was smooth, and things which were supposed to operate, did.
Car Life concluded:
That’s the SS 427—a family car for a swinging family, or possibly a good choice for a traveling swinger without a family. Because Chevrolet’s image of practicality has persisted through several decades, no one will accuse the driver of a Chevrolet 2-door hardtop of extravagence [sic]—unless shown the pricetag. Which returns us to the original question: Is a Chevrolet worth $5000? In this case, on basis of performance and included features, it is. Those who shake their heads in wonder are old enough to remember when the low-cost three really were.
On the whole, the SS 427 didn’t seem terribly convincing as a sporty car. A well-optioned Impala SS looked sporty, with bucket seats and the optional gauge package, but the SS 427 ornamentation was gaudier than the engine could back up, at least in anything like stock form, and the car was too big and too heavy to handle or stop well. Adding front discs, 15-inch wheels, and the optional F41 suspension (which included a rear anti-roll bar) might have helped some, but perhaps not enough.
427/385 engine with California-spec Air Injection Reactor / Mecum Auctions
Discounting the 427’s obvious value among modern collectors, I think the smarter choice on these cars was the Turbo-Fire 327, which saved over $220 and a similar number of pounds of curb weight, much of it off the front end. In 1967, you could also order Turbo Hydra-Matic with the 327, which seems like the combination to have. Skipping the SS 427 package and choosing a regular AM/FM radio rather than the fancy stereo tape system would have made for a somewhat less stratospheric price without sacrificing much of the car’s other virtues.
Buyers seemed to reach similar conclusions: According to the AMA, Chevrolet built 1,141,833 full-size cars for the 1967 model year; of those, Pete Sessler reported that only 4,337 had the 427 engine, while 340,347 had the Turbo-Fire 327. The 327 wasn’t as fast, but it was a lot more sensible.
Related Reading
Vintage Comparison Test: 1967 Chevrolet Impala SS, Ford Galaxie 500, Plymouth Sport Fury – Sampling 2-door Hardtops From The “Low Priced Three” (by GN)
Curbside Classics: 1967 Chevrolet Impalas – A Study In Off-Color Contrast (by Jim Grey)
Want A 1967 Chevrolet Super Sport Six Cylinder Convertible? Ask For Model #16767, But Hurry, It’s Your Last Chance (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1967 Chevrolet Impala – Buy You A Chevrolet (by Joseph Dennis)
Automotive History: How Common Were Stripped-Down Full-Size Chevrolets In The 1960s? (by me)
My fellow Americans:
I have very very important information for you.
Those things you call “head rests”? Well you’re a few letters short of what they really are:
Head restRAINTS.
They’re not for your comfort they’re for your safety.
LOL! To this day, I never thought of that.
I’ve been saying this forever. I finally came to the conclusion that if even the car journalists can’t get it right there’s no hope or purpose in me continuing to offer a correction. Even the article cited states that the ‘headrests’ are better suited as whiplash protection than passenger relaxation. Yeah, no kidding. That’s the intent. They weren’t mandated in 1969 because regulators wanted to improve comfort. Ok, I’m done now. 😉
That’s true, few of them were things on which to “rest the head”. Best I remember were the two-piece units on some Jensen Interceptors; they were most welcoming.
I take your point, but as the brochure illustration I included notes, Chevrolet was advertising them as “Strato-Ease headrests,” so that was how the manufacturer was representing them. The federal head restraint requirement (FMVSS 202) hadn’t yet taken effect (and one could argue — paging Daniel Stern — that even when it did, many domestic head restraints still provided neither rest nor effective restraint), and Detroit was very leery of describing any optional equipment as safety devices, lest the FTC come down on them for it.
The relevant info is here.
The steering with 4 turns lock-to-lock was slow? Car Life must not have remembered that about 4 years earlier Chevrolet’s power steering was 5 turns lock-to-lock. Unless you got the dealer added “power assisted” steering, which was 6 turns. The steering in this big Chevy was positively sports car like in comparison.
The music selection on the tape cartridge – I would argue that it was not “square” at all for 1967. My mother would have been 34 years old then, and my father was 32, probably at the lower end of the demographic buying new cars (especially new cars that came equipped with an expensive stereo tape system). These people got out of high school before the onset of Elvis Presley and the rock and roll that revolutionized popular music in 1955-56. If my mother was at all representative, she would listen to top 40 on the AM radio, but any records she bought were by people like Al Hirt, Jack Jones or the scads of others who were crooning to those whose tastes were formed before the mid 1950’s. And I absolutely remember Lorne Greene singing “Ringo”!
I don’t remember how many turns it took lock-to-lock [edit: the internet sez “four”], but my old ’66 Tempest – with ‘Wondertouch’ power steering – could be piloted, if vaguely, with the lightest pressure from one’s pinky. If memory serves, the ‘Wondertouch’ moniker was also used for the power brakes in the car.
Yep, and John Gary, Robert Goulet, Andy Williams Herb Alpert… I clearly remember the folks’ station playing stuff like “Red roses for a Blue Lady” and “Dominique” and the like. They sure weren’t listening to Elvis or Country.
My aunt who was 3 years younger than my mother, and turned 36 in 1967, was a big fan of Andy Williams.
210delray:
Today’s thirty-somethings would be into Harry Styles and hip-hop.
My how things have changed!
In the very first episode of Bonanza and only the first episode, the theme song has WORDS to it! Sung rather well by Lorne Greene even though it’s an almost impossible song to sing. It can be found on youtube.
Adam Cartwright/Pernell Roberts isn’t in that picture, he said he was starting to feel like an incell and was getting too old to still be hanging around home unmarried with Poppa Ben Cartwright, so he left the show… and they apparently weren’t meeting his salary demands, either… not enough to change his mind…
It’s the artists, as much as or more than the actual track list, that makes me find it kinda square. That was a interesting and sometimes schizophrenic transitional period for pop music, as you say, and obviously I wouldn’t expect a sampler tape in a full-size 1967 Chevrolet to have Jefferson Airplane or Otis Redding, but Florence Henderson and Hugo & Luigi’s Children’s Chorus?
As for the steering, I don’t know what they were comparing it to. Four turns was still pretty typical for American cars in 1967, so I tend to see it as a subjective judgment based more on the big block Impala feeling fairly cumbersome generally.
Factory demo tapes are a world of their own.
A 1975 Mark IV had a very pompous military march like the background score to a scene of the Roman Army, and a Dean Martin-ish “to be young and rich and free” cut
Great article, but it’s important to stress that the 1967 Chevrolet SS 427 was ‘not’ an ‘Impala’. Road & Track were wrong in calling the test car an Impala but its a common error many by many.
In 1967, Chevrolet offered a 2 door hardtop and convertible trimmed as an Impala, Impala Super Sport or a SS 427. The 67’ Chevrolet SS 427 does not feature Impala body badges anywhere as it was not an Impala.
Otherwise a great article
This article is from Car Life, not Road & Track, and the text explicitly deals with the argument you make. The SS 427 was an option package for the Impala SS, not a separate model or trim series, and the absence of Impala badges doesn’t make it not an Impala.
My father ordered a 1968 Mercury Montclair 4 door hardtop for my mother with an AM radio and Stereo-sonic tape system. It came with a complimentary tape titled The Ford Family of Fine Music. We wore that tape out. My favorite song on it was the Hawaiian War chant by the Norman Luboff Choir. I can still sing it to this day.
Tahuwai la a tahuwai wai la
Ehu hene la a pili koo lua la
Pututui lu a ite toe la
Hanu lipo ita paalai
Tahuwai la a tahuwai wai la
Ehu hene la a pili koo lua la
Pututui lu a ite toe la
Hanu lipo ita paalai
Au we ta huala
Au we ta huala
That same tape came with our ’67 LTD. I remember it was mostly instrumental stiff, like Herb Alpert and such.
Paul wrote a post several years ago that bears repeating here. It borders on criminal negligence that Chevrolet would allow a buyer to purchase a ~400hp, 4000 lb car with 8.25×14 bias-ply tires and manual drum brakes.
Actually, back in the day, I wanted nothing to do with the tiny weak disc brake setup that would fit inside 14″ wheels in a mid size car, and definitely not in a full size car… give me the heavy duty drum brakes… apparently Chevy felt the same way and they upgraded you to 15″ wheels on this car if you wanted discs.
If going discs brakes, I wanted the biggest setup that would fit inside 16″ wheels… the brakes on my ’04 Crown Vic were really great… so smooth and powerful, I always described them as feeling like I had run into a giant marshmallow… one day when it had a flat tire somebody tried to steal it… I don’t know why they didn’t just pump up the tire but apparently they went to a junkyard and grabbed a wheel/tire that looked the same style… but it was 15″ and wouldn’t go over the brakes on that car… so they gave up and just left the 15″ setup there… prolly figuring too many people had seen them monkeying around by then…
I have never been much of a fan of Big Block Chevrolets. The extra weight on the front wheels made the cars understeer even more than with a Small Block. Added to this Big Blocks are infamous for outrageous fuel consumption. Like Aaron states, a nice 327 with THM would have made a much more compelling package, especially of it was equipped with F-41 and disk brakes.
Speaking of brakes, it really irks me that the Big 3 were so slow on the uptake with disk brakes. Two ton cars with very heavy engines need more stopping power than the pathetic drum brakes could offer.
I don’t buy the narrative that it took eons for Detroit to adopt discs.
Perusing my 340,000 image brochure archive, the earliest Euro-Brit cars I could find as examples were a ’59 Jaguar and 61 Ferrari 250 GT. These high-end had discs when they were far from common. Even most Mercedes had drums at this time, even the 300SL Gullwing. Rolls-Royce didn’t have them until the Silver-Shadow was launched in 1965.
There may have been other disc-equipped cars in this era, but, as I pointed out, I’m just citing examples.
Now let’s cross the Atlantic. Studebaker had discs standard on the Avanti and optional on others, also at a time when they were far from common. Only a 3 or 4 gap. Ford had them standard on the 65 Lincoln and T-Bird, optional on Mustang. The very next year, Chrysler and Ford had them optional on many, but all models. Chevy, as the article points out , had them optional on Big Chevy, Camaro and Chevelle. Strangely, it took BOP and Cadillac a couple more years past that. In 1968, Ford made front discs standard on any car with factory power brakes. Also, don’t forget even some low-end Euro cars like the base VW Golf had drums standard in it’s first couple of years, to about 1976. This was right at the same time Detroit expunged them for good. The latest car I could find with standard drums was the ’75 Maverick. In 76, it got standard disc.
Yes they might have been optional , with a low take rate in many cases, but they still available. If individual buyers were too cheap to spend the extra 90 or bucks to get them, well, that was on them.
If Detroit was guilty of anything it was advertising low base prices for completely stripped units with manual everything, 3-on-the-tree etc that made unsafe to drive. There were a lot of people who hadn’t gotten the memo that you weren’t actually supposed to order them this way.
I think the ’68 refresh was much better looking. The front and rear styling made it look lighter. The ’67 always looked fat to me.
Maybe a 1967 Impala (or Caprice) 4-door hardtop might have better balanced lines compared to the hardtop coupe and paint it black so it’ll look just like “Metellicar” from the tv series Supernatural. 😉
https://imcdb.org/vehicle_58758-Chevrolet-Impala-16387-1967.html
The SS badge looks odd at the top of the grille. I can’t imagine why anyone would want that thingie on the hood.
Another Car Life test of a Chevrolet Super Sport turned up some rather “interesting” performance numbers—specifically, unusually slow 0–60 times. The quarter-mile time itself is fairly consistent with other tests from the era, but the trap speed is noticeably low.
What really stands out is that the Ford 428 reportedly delivered better performance in this test. That’s surprising, considering virtually every other period test shows the 427 Chevrolet to be significantly quicker.
Below are other performance times I’ve gathered for similar cars:
Car and Driver
1966 Caprice 427 (390 hp)
0–60 mph: 7.6 sec
1/4 mile: 15.7 sec @ 90 mph
1966 Ford LTD 428
0–60 mph: 8.1 sec
1/4 mile: 16.5 sec @ 83 mph
Tom McCahill
1966 Caprice 427 (390 hp)
0–60 mph: 6.6 sec
1/4 mile: 14.9 sec
Motor Trend
1966 Caprice 427 (390 hp)
0–60 mph: 7.9 sec
1/4 mile: 16.3 sec @ 88 mph
1968 Caprice 427 (385 hp)
0–60 mph: 8.0 sec
1/4 mile: 16.2 sec @ 89 mph
1968 Ford LTD 428
0–60 mph: 9.3 sec
1/4 mile: 16.8 sec @ 84.1 mph
Car Life
1969 Caprice 427 (390 hp)
0–60 mph: 7.7 sec
1/4 mile: 15.5 sec @ 89.6 mph
In the mid 70’s, my ’66 Biscayne Wagon ran a 16.23 in the quarter at 83.5mph with a stock 250HP 327, TH400 and 3.55 gears at 4550 pounds (0-60 was 7.8 sec). Later on I swapped a stock 385HP 427 in with just headers and it went 15.06 at 90mph a 4700lbs. (no limited slip) Seems like the tuning (and driver technique) is way off in those test cars.
It last ran a 14.40 at 97mph with that 427 in the 90’s. Haven’t had it on a drag strip since.
I found the stats for the Ford 428 that Aaron reviewed and used here in his comparison to be better than expected and what I’d read in the past. Who knows why. The speed through the traps (89 mph) especially seems quite high for that car.
My point remains that even with the better-than-average times (which are, as Vince notes, closer to what other road tests recorded for the 427 Impala), the Car Life editors spent about half the text of their 7-Litre review complaining that it was an awful stone and urging people to order the R-code 427 instead. Even the better times recorded elsewhere for the 427 Impala were still not very fast by muscle car standards — which of course was why muscle car buyers had switched to intermediates and compacts — and yet there was a tendency to give the Chevrolet a pass, I guess in anticipation of some shade-tree after-purchase hop-up job that by this point Impala and Caprice buyers were unlikely to care about.
I still think the Car Life test numbers are questionable—particularly that the Ford was quicker than the Chevrolet. As you pointed out, the Chevrolet’s acceleration and quarter-mile times don’t jive, which raises my doubts. However, Car Life calling the Ford a “stone” in the write-up—despite the favorable test numbers—does seem to match the performance seen in other tests of 428-powered Fords that I’ve posted. I have no doubt that a 428 Ford would generally be a notch below the 427 Chevy in terms of performance. The Car Life test results for the Ford appear to be clear outliers.
That said, I agree that the SS427 didn’t offer true muscle car performance. Quarter-mile times in the high 15-second range are significantly slower than what the intermediate-sized cars of that era were capable of. Tom McCahill did record some impressive numbers in his test of the 427 Caprice, but that seems to be an outlier on the opposite end of the spectrum. Still, for a full-size car from the mid to late 1960s, there were few—if any—that could outrun a 427-powered Chevrolet.
The 7-Litre test was a full year before the Impala SS 427 test; I’m comparing the acceleration times from this road test from the 1966 7-Litre test I ran the other day. Maybe the 7-Litre was a ringer with the P-code Police Interceptor engine CL suggested it ought to have. Who knows?
Either way, this is not at all germane to the point I was making, which is that contemporary reviewers were prepared to give Chevrolet a pass for mediocre performance in a way they weren’t Ford. Even if you presumed that due to some kind of bizarre time warp, the editors writing up the 7-Litre in 1966 accidentally transcribed the real numbers from this SS 427 test a year in the future, they still thought those numbers were poor, whereas the inferior numbers in this test were accepted as pretty okay with lots of “potential.”
Was it possible to get more power out of a 427 rat motor than a non-CJ 428? Sure, but even the best of the other numbers you posted for the Chevrolet still aren’t any better than the numbers CL had scoffed at. Their complaint was not that the Ford 428 was inferior to the Chevy 427, but that it wasn’t very fast, period, at least by the standards of latter ’60s Supercars.
I agree with you, Aaron, that Car Life definitely gave this particular Chevy a pass and was overly critical of the Ford. My point was that, while the Chevy’s numbers aren’t especially impressive, they were about the best you could expect for a vehicle of that era and class. And although the Ford’s numbers were surprisingly strong for whatever reason (especially for a 428), the commentary was in line with what other magazines had reported when testing the Ford. In Car and Driver’s 1966 comparison, it’s clear that the Chevrolet was a step above the Ford in terms of performance.
I’d also argue that Car Life did the opposite with the 1970 Chevelle SS396 and the SS454 we recently discussed. In that case, both cars posted lackluster times—though not far off from what was typical of the vehicles of that class and era. Yet despite the well-known potential of the Chevy big block, Car Life seemed pretty underwhelmed by the Chevelle as a serious supercar. As I mentioned in my commentary on that article, the SS454 in particular was praised by other magazines as a well-rounded performance car—contrary to Car Life’s assessment.
Very handsome car. Inside and out.
I agree that the 327 V8 was the one to get, especially since it could be paired with the Turbo Hydramatic. The Mecum Auctions car is especially handsome in Marina Blue with the optional 15-inch rally wheels.
I think all this speaks to all test cars weren’t the same, and many weren’t stock. Some were worse than others, I remember a lot of Ford 390s like that. And this is one of them. Plug it into some modern online calculators and it’s not much over 200HP net. OK, 225.
Some were of course, but an awful lot of the so called muscle cars weren’t all that fast or powerful. Some were even sleepers, but most were just “good power” nothing really impressive.
The Turbo-Jet 427 didn’t have anything like its 385 gross horsepower rating, but it had more than 225 hp. Keep in mind that the curb weight in the data panel is wrong. Assuming they calculated the test weight by adding the weight of testers and equipment to what they (mistakenly) thought the curb weight was, the actual test weight of this car was in the realm of 4,765 lb. Using Roger Huntington’s trap speed equation (MPH = 224 * (HP / LB)^1/3), it would take around 275 net horsepower to get an 86.5 mph trap speed with a car this heavy.
I put my ’66 Wagon on a chassis dyno and the 250HP 327 put 165 to the ground at 4200 RPM. I figured the net at the flywheel was in the 200HP range. For small valve heads and stock cast iron manifolds, it was a strong little engine especially 83.5 mph at 4550 pounds.
I know how to tune so maybe that’s why my 427 was stronger than any of those tests figures.
Chevrolet actually published a net rating of 210 hp (at the flywheel) for the 250 hp 327, so your guess was very close.
Excellent article.
Cripe, that’s a lot of money for a ’67 Chevy Impala, even one as loaded as this. I mean, that price is on par with the base MSRP of the “down market” Cadillac Calais (which didn’t exactly set the sales charts on fire, either).
The thought that an Impala with a 327 and some judiciously selected a la carte options could be had for way less and, thus, a better value, makes a lot more sense.
Quite the contrast from the GM-H assembled ’67s here. 327 4bbl, Powerglide. Power brakes & steering standard. Optional underdash A/C and the dash was the RHD version of the ’65s.
The only real choice was between the sedan and sport sedan (pillarless). At least we got the 15″ wheels.
Had a 4 dr hardtop that a previous owner had cut down into a 4 dr convertible. Good times!