The CC – Car Life time machine is a bit stuck in 1961, so let’s take a look at what they had to say about America’s favorite car for quite some years. But in this case, it’s equipped with the ill-fated Turboglide, an ambitious automatic transmission that had no less than three turbines in its torque converter, creating essentially a hydraulic CVT; a seamless flow of power from standstill to top speed.
Presumably the Turboglide’s smoothness was a contributing factor to Car Life’s calling it “a triumph of contemporary American car design”. Nowadays, we might tend to apply that more to the ’61 Chevy’s styling. Actually, Car Life said very little about that aspect of the Impala.
I am not going to try to describe the actual complicated workings of the Turboglide (and very similar Buick Flight-Pitch Dynaflow, renamed “Triple Turbine” in 1959); instead I will direct you to Ate Up With Motor’s most excellent treatise on the subject. And I will admit now that I cannot absorb and retain all of the details, which are many. But in a nutshell, it’s sort of the ultimate Dynaflow/Powerglide, inasmuch as the triple turbines allow for an extremely wide range of torque multiplication (4.30:1 to 1.00:1) without any actual mechanical “shifts”. That quite strong torque multiplication at stall was more than the Powerglide in Low, and the result was that the 348-powered Impala had lots of wheelspin in the acceleration tests.
That’s not to say that with the very mildly-tuned 250 hp version of the 348, the Impala was a rocket. 0-60 came in 10.8 seconds, and the 1/4 mile came in 17.2 @79 mph. That was a well-powered car for the times, but not a hot rod. That would call for one of the “hot” 348s and the four speed manual transmission.
Car Life mentioned that the power (drum) brakes in the Impala were the exception to the rule in not being over-boosted. More typically, the power steering was “devoid of road feel”. Car Life recommended skipping it “for anyone intending to exploit this car’s high-speed cruising ability.”
As to handling, Car Life as with its numb power steering, it simply did not encourage high speed driving in curves, to the point where CL just plain refused to push it to its limits, as they didn’t want to possibly wreck it. “With the Chevrolet, you can go fast enough without exceeding this margin…your own intestinal fortitude (or lack of it) becomes the limiting factor long before the twistiness of the road”. Well said, for a Chevy of this era without suspension upgrades. And CL pointed out that those are available, starting with wider (6″) wheels to help the soft tires of the times from rolling under, an all-too common issue back then with the narrow wheels and undersized tires.
A feature of the Turboglide was the “Grade Retarder”, to provide engine braking which was previously just not a thing with these. But it came on very aggressively, but only at speeds below 40 mph. Very much recommended in the mountains.
CL points out the wide range of engines and transmissions available on the ’61 Chevy, having been a pioneer in offering a 4-speed manual. In addition to the narrow ratio (2.20:1 first) version as used in the Corvette, a wide ratio version with a 2.54:1 first was now also available (it became available in the Corvette too). It was a better choice except for more serious competition work.
As to quality of fit, finish and general workmanship, CL felt that Chevrolet “has been able to reconcile mass production better than many of its competitors.
The result, combined with all of the power accessories, “gave the impression that, unless you noticed the the nameplate before entering, you could just as easily be riding in one of GM’s more expensive offerings instead of one of the least”. That does explain better than any other single thing, the huge popularity of the big Chevy. It was a lot closer to a Cadillac than Cadillac would like you to think.
Postscript: The Turboglide was available from 1957-1961. In addition to its complex system of three turbines, it also had an aluminum case, which made it lighter than a Powerglide. This case turned out to be one of the various issues that led to the TG’s demise, along with other internal problems that resulted in a high rate of warranty claims. But the aluminum case would reappear in 1962 in the PG with success, and there were other elements of the TG that would appear in subsequent GM automatics. But the TG and Buick Triple Turbine would be the end of the road that started back in 1947 with the original Dynaflow, in using torque converters as the sole means of torque multiplication. The future was clearly in three-speed automatics with a torque converter.
Related reading:
Ate Up With Motors “Turboglide and Flight Pitch Dynaflow”
The Chevrolet “W” 348 (and 409) Engine – First Of A Long Line Of Big-Block Chevy V8s
Now you are talking! I simply love the timeless classic styling of the 1961 / 1962 Chevrolet Impala Sport Sedan. That 4 door pillarless roof styling is simply ‘second o none’.
Its a shame so few have survived. Lovely car that’s unfortunately not appreciated by the mass market who seem only value cars with just two doors.
It would be nice to see some these 4 door pillarless Impalas featured at car shows rather than endless rows of now common 2 door models.
Agreed. I’m a sucker for hardtops be the two or four door.
It is a lovely car, but I’d have to give the nod to the bubbletop as my favorite ’61 full-size Chevy.
The same could be said about station-wagons. 1961 was the final year then the Nomad nameplate was used for full-size wagons until it return later as a low-trim Chevelle wagon, same for the Brookwood monicker who came back for the 1969 model year below the Kingswood and Townsman.
To my eyes, the simplest, prettiest styling and proportions of all the GM big cars that year. Nice instrument panel and steering wheel too. One thing I hated though was how the radio buttons spell out “CHEVY”. It’s a ‘Chevrolet’, not a Chevy van or Chevy II! Luckily that was a one-year-only thing.
Agree totally. A Chevrolet should never be referred to as ´Chevy’. Even worse is that in Australia Chevrolets are often referred to being ´Chevs’.
There was actually a car called the Chevrolet Chevy sold in Mexico and Argentina (and Brazil?). Redundant, though not as redundant as Australia’s Chrysler by Chrysler.
The Chevrolet Chevy you refer to was a Nova made in Argentina from 1969. It was a copy of the American 1968 Chevy II Nova (for instance, it never had the column ignition interlock, the ignition stayed in the dashboard and the heater and defroster controls stayed on the left of the driver for the duration of production, up to 1978). I remember there are many mentions in CC, including some good articles. Some interesting little comments, the typical car was a coupe, all were 6 cylinders, no power steering or integrated A/C available until very late in production. A very common option in coupes AND sedans was a 4 on the floor, which was also the giveaway of the more expensive versions, automatic being available but not much taken. I think there never were power windows available from factory. Some descendants (i.e., same cars, different bodies, chassis and engines 🙂 ) are still being used for competition. A slightly upscale model was called the Malibu, which was nonetheless a Chevy Nova with different light bezels and indicators.
This is a coupe being driven off the line in 1975
https://www.infobae.com/autos/2019/09/20/de-fruto-prohibido-a-icono-del-turismo-carretera-hace-medio-siglo-aparecia-el-chevy-en-la-argentina/
It looks like these never got the updates that the US/Canadian cars got in 1973 and again in 1975. Steering wheel looks like it’s from a Pontiac or another division.
But “drove my Chevrolet to the levy” doesn’t quite work, does it. Chevy is just plain more ‘merican.
Chevrolet does. “Chevy” is often used in print, commercial, and even Diana Shore sang the famous song, calling it a Chevy. It’s like Target wanting everyone to use “Tar-shay” when talking about its stores. Pretentious.w
I’d have also hated if Cadillac had “CADDY” written on the pushbuttons, or “STUDE” for Studebaker. It’s just cheesy. Slang is one thing, but as a badge on the make, no thanks.
The radio buttons spelling out CHEVY was likely in anticipation of the new for 62 Chevy ll. The radio buttons let you know that this was the big Chevy.
Not as revolutionary, influential, or clean as a ’61 Continental, or even as simple a shape as a ’61 Ford, but the big Impala still had a solid, uncluttered, less-huge shape after the wild but more impractical ’59-60 models. But there was some residual ’50-ness that GM wasn’t quite ready to give up – the mini-grille on top of the main one, the hint of the fishbowl windshield and rear window, a hint of the batwing 1960 rear treatment, and little things like the uneven, triangular cutline where the lower front and rear doors meet. These would all be gone by 1963. In contrast to either GM or Ford’s 1961 efforts, Chrysler Corp. ’61s still looked mired in the previous decade’s styling excesses.
I’m completely unfamiliar with the Turboglide or Triple-Turbine automatics – they seem like winners from this road test that would operate smoothly, so will have to read up on why they didn’t last.
They had various issues with internals as well as with the new aluminum case, resulting in high warranty costs.
Conceptually, the triple turbine automatics were not a huge departure from the late Buick Variable-Pitch Dynaflow/Twin Turbine/Turbine Drive transmission, which worked pretty well and was less troublesome. However, the extra complexity, the manufacturing issues with the aluminum housing, and losing the conventional Ravigneaux gearset with its low and reverse gears created more problems than benefits.
After all my new premium vehicles, just give this thing back to me, albeit with rear sway bars, F&R dics, perimeter frame, enhanced rust protection, fast ratio steering, stability control, locking torque converter, heated memory-foam seats and perhaps accent lighting and an OLED display. Damn the ultimate “handling”. I want to bask in happy colors, lovable styling, smooth ride and nearly-free replacement parts. Leave the upholstery just the way it is. Don’t wish to taint it with horrible (modern) leather, Nor heavy-duty shocks, springs and (yikes) soy-insulated wiring. I don’t expect anyone that hasn’t rode in one, when new, to understand. Before the rattling of loose jack parts, coins in ashtrays and stiff springs & shocks, droning exhaust system, completely destroying the experience.
It only lacks A/C to be my perfect daily driver. I only drive 4000 miles per year, so I might be able to afford triple my fuel bill….
I’d probably have had mine with a less powerful engine and a simpler automatic, but nonetheless…
That’s what the 283 + PowerGlide was for. Most came that way.
Even today that would be an advancement over my Latin American 1.6 with a 5 speed manual 🙂
They don’t say if the power steering was that “power assisted” unit in my buddy’s 62 Bel Air, which added a hydraulic ram to the standard 6 turn lock-to-lock manual steering box. I don’t know my Chevrolets well enough to know if there was a better PS system available then. If I am right, the problem was more than just a lack of road feel.
I also find it interesting how they are so complimentary of the Turboglide – wasn’t 61 its last year? It must have developed enough of a reputation after 4 years that everyone knew what a problem it was, but nothing about that in the article. I wonder what percentage of Turboglide cars are still using that unit – I’ll bet its miniscule.
Also, I know those bubbletop 2 doors get all the love, but I really love the 4 door hardtop version of this car.
Finally, if CC is taking requests, I would love to see the 61 Ford test they refer to. It would be a really interesting contrast. Actually, were there two cars in a segment that were more unlike one another in almost every way than the Ford and Chevrolet of 1961
I just checked the stats and see that the system was 5.2 turns lock-to-lock, which must be from a different unit than the one I experienced. Still, for a guy steeped in the Mopar systems (3.5-ish turns lock-to-lock) of that era, that is still some really slow steering.
My 1960 Impala (4dr hardtop, to boot) is 5.75 turns lock to lock with its non-assisted steering. Having driven similar cars with factory power steering, they have a much faster ratio. Power brakes also had less brake pedal travel. I think the setup you experienced was added at the dealer level, but I’m not 100 percent sure.
I have always liked the way you were able to option cars of this era. My 1960 is equipped with the high compression 283 and 4bbl, but with single exhaust. Originally a Turboglide car, it came to me with a dead Powerglide. Also has a Positraction rear end, radio, but no power steering or brakes, and single speed wipers. My 1962 V8 Lark is similarly oddly equipped: the person who ordered it popped for factory A/C and a handful of other niceties, but armstrong steering and legstrong? brakes.
All the power steering systems on these Chevrolets used a power steering cylinder that acted on the linkage, rather than an integral power steering system like more modern cars. This was pretty common practice in the era and lasted well into the 1970s for certain cars. The ’61 Chevrolet with manual steering had a 24:1 steering box which was 5.8 turns lock to lock. With power steering, a slightly faster steering box was used, with a 20:1 ratio and 5.2 turns lock to lock. So even with the power steering it was horribly slow by today’s standards. It’s possible too that the dealer or mechanic may have converted the car you drove JPC, and if they didn’t change the steering box, it would have had the slower steering.
Yes. Turboglides were well known for high failure rates and high warranty costs, especially behind the bigger engines. Conversions to Powerglide were the recommended solutions for upset consumers.
And yes (again), 1961 was the last year for Turboglide.
And yes (finally), the 1961 4 door hardtop Chevrolets (and SWB Pontiacs) were nice designs, smaller, lighter, and simpler than the prior year’s models.
I find this article a fascinating read, especially on the transmission choices, seeing that dad’s company car, every year, was the top of the line Impala with the biggest smallblock engine/two-barrel carburetor/Powerglide combination. Because that was the easier combination to sell the following winter once the next year’s company car arrived.
Except for one year: I can’t remember which, but one time dad did the 348/Turboglide combination. I do remember it was probably the worst dog of a Chevrolet he ever owned, and I’m not certain it lasted the entire year.
(And, at this point in time, as a not terribly business conversant 10/11 year old, I actually believed that dad was buying two new cars every year, his Impala and mom’s station wagon. It was probably about the 1963 model year that the concept of ‘company car’ registered with me.)
GM’s full-sized line for ’61 was nearly a revolution in pure design. Very sheer and fleet compared to anything else on the road at the time. To me, all the divisions models looked good. Made the competition look old and out-dated at once.
I’d have a hard time deciding between this hardtop or a post sedan, themselves quite attractive with their toned-down “flattop” rear window, but the ’61 Chevy always struck me as quite attractive in its’ step back from 1959 excess without quite embracing the skinny-tie/International Style minimalism of the early ’60s. By 1964 the Impala looked like the box a ’61 came in.
While the ’59-’60 Chevy gets (deservedly) lambasted for the Batmobile tailfins, the one styling feature I kind of wish they’d carried over to the 1961 car was the ‘flying wing’ roof. I thought it looked good not only on the full-size cars, but gave the Corvair sedan a big of flair, as well.
I remember my grandparents’ 1961 (probably Biscayne/283/PG, though) as seeming very modern at the time. Interesting to see writeup talking about Impala reaching into Pontiac (and Cadillac-ish) territory!
I know little about Turboglide or its demise, but here’s PM’s take at the time:
Good summary, except for the weight issue. TG had an aluminum case, the first, IIRC, and it was substantially lighter than the PG at the time, which still had a cast iron case. In 1962, PG switched to an aluminum case, undoubtedly using the same casting equipment.
The 1956 version of the Packard Ultramatic had an aluminum case. I think that was the first. Of course that was for a dead-end.
The Turboglide and the Flight-Pitch Dynaflow really seemed, as the article says, to be the idea system, but I guess this was when GM (and everyone else) just stopped innovating. Fuel Injection, multi-speed automatics, tripe turbines,, overhead cams, aluminum blocks, lock-up torque converters, all would have to wait until the fat profit margins were seriously threatened.
Well, the aluminum V-8 arrived as Turboglide was on its way out the door, the (short-lived) experiments with turbocharging followed the year after that, and the Pontiac OHC six debuted for 1966 models, so the divisions were still trying novel things throughout this time. However, the teething pains were frequently great and the cost-benefit ratio not so hot.
It should be said that the technology GM settled on wasn’t necessarily bad or primitive. Sometimes, there’s a strong argument there (brakes, for instance), but the reason Turbo Hydra-Matic eventually replaced all the multiple-turbine transmissions and the older four-speed Hydra-Matic was that it was a better transmission in essentially every respect, and represented (in the sixties and early seventies, at any rate) the state of the art on a global level.
Almost like the 1977-90 ‘sheer look’, huh? 😉
The cleanest brand new style of all full size GM car of ’61 is for me the Olds 98
What a beauty!
I think I agree with you.
I didn’t fully appreciate it at the time, but our garage back in the day housed both a 1961 Olds Dynamic 88 “bubbletop” and a 1961 Chevy Bel Air 2-door sedan. The Olds belonged to my aunt, who lived with us when she was still single. The Chevy was my mom’s.
I was enamored with the space-age 1959-60 models from GM and thought the 61s were a retrograde design, especially losing the cool wraparound windshield of the 2 prior years.
Today, all of GM’s 1961s look like a breath of fresh air.
The mention of the easy to service instrument cluster caught my eye. First, as modern dashboards become ever more complex (though with far fewer moving parts), such serviceability would be nice for engineers to keep in mind today. But second, this was a reminder of the day when every auto repair neighborhood had at least one “speedometer shop”. Along with brake shops or muffler shops that really only did those specific jobs, the speedo shop is a dying breed. I just checked and this shop, already an institution when I moved to the area in the ‘70’s, is still in business. They repair Smiths, Veglia and VDO but also reprogram modern digital clusters. http://www.paspeedo.com/
You can really see why the premium brands were already struggling for relevance. Here we have a $3,300 Impala and when compared to the $6,600 Lincoln from yesterday, the Impala is quicker (with not even the hot version of the 348), more economical, equally roomy or more, probably handles better, and available with all the luxury options of the day. The Lincoln at twice the price has no doubt finer interior fittings and is screwed together with more care, but it the only thing you are really getting for twice the money is more exclusivity. Move ahead to 1970, and even the advantages in fittings and workmanship are largely gone.
These are my favourite of the ’61-’64 generation.
Interesting reading. Their review has a different tone about it, neither overtechnical nor riddled with errors. I’ve always wondered about the Turboglide – next stop AUWM’s article you’ve so kindly linked.
Into my ’61 Impala SS409 and off I go…..
The ’61 is my favorite also of the 4 years, and our Chevy was almost the same color as your model. My aunt though was the one with the bubbletop with her ’61 Oldsmobile.
I remember reading a 61′ Galaxie test not long ago and it did 0-60 in 9.9 seconds with a 2.91 axle and Cruise-O-Matic..
I’d take the Galaxie because that TurboGlide was going to fail out of warranty and the 390 with Cruise-O-Matic combo was an excellent-reliable setup for MANY years.
What a great looking Chevrolet.
Too bad you ended up sitting on the floor while driving them. Poor driving position. Wow. It was as though the committee designing the front seat didn’t meet with the other committees.
Longer, lower and wider was the order of the day. When sitting on the floor in the car was what people did, I scored a ride in the backseat of a 1950 Packard. What a revelation that was. How did the industry get away from that level of luxury? It was like riding in your living room. Think! It was one ride. Over 50 years ago. I still remember the ride and the make and year of the car. That speaks volumes.
Mind you I will take “sitting on the floor” as you call it, any day when compared to current fashion trend of people wanting ‘sit in clouds’ in their ‘top heavy’ truck based SUVs and four wheel drives.
The mind set is that they can see ‘over’ the vehicle in front of them, but of course this is at the expense of every other diver who’s view has been totally blocked.
In the 1960s, cars had styling. Today cars are for the most part, ‘shoe boxes’. Big ugly square blocks that lack any form of style.
One minor point: The GR position on the quadrant wasn’t a new feature (and the text just says it’s a feature, not that it was new); all the triple turbine automatics had a GR or HR (Hill Retarder) position from the start. It was however a poorly understood feature, and anyone who tried it without having a clear understanding of what it was for might well have assumed the transmission was about to self-destruct. (Not an altogether unjustified fear, since using it at too high a speed might overheat the converter.)
Here’s a page from the 1957 Chevrolet Engineering Features booklet describing what was then called the Hill Retarder:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Chevrolet/1957-Chevrolet/1957-Chevrolet-Engineering-Features-Booklet/slides/1957_Chevrolet_Engineering_Features-078.html
Oops; don’t know how that mangled, but it’s fixed now. Thanks.
Wondering what was “under the hood” of our neighbors “61 Chevy wagon”? H’mm.Also, the neighbor lady, one house up the hill, had a “61 Impala Sdn”. (door post/window frames.
That car almost never was driven.
The fuel mileage is almost unbelievable, 14-17 mpg. with a 348 and automatic? If that is accurate, that is amazing, most six cylinder big cars only got around 15 mpg. at best.
My Dad bought a new ’59 two door hardtop Impala. As a 5-6 year old kid I thought that it looked fabulous. My Dad did not like the low seating position or the big back window, which let in so much sun the tops of the back seats were scorched. He put a Venetian blind shade in the back window. He had traded in a ’55 Chevy, which he actually preferred over the new car.