(first posted 2/17/2016) All the new 1965 Chevrolet full size cars boasted excellent styling, but the standout was the stunning 2-door hardtop, offered as the Sport Coupe in the Impala and SS lines. This car gave everyday Americans the chance to add some real flair to their driveways. The beauties were still Chevrolets, however, so pragmatism had to be a big part of the mix. For most drivers in the segment, that meant the ease-of-use offered by Powerglide, coupled with one of the V8s on offer. But which one to pick?
1965 was an incredible year for car buyers, as each of the Big Three introduced all-new full size cars (the last time that would happen in fact—major redesigns would never line up the same way again). So the first step was actually to take a look at each of the revised offerings, which Motor Trend did in December 1964.
The road test was extensive, with each of the cars being picked up from the factory in Detroit, and then driven cross-country to California. The cars selected were all hardtops from the best selling full size nameplates at each of the Big Three—Impala, Galaxie 500 and Fury III,. Other than the Ford, which was very lavishly equipped for the segment, the cars were quite representative of the popularly priced cars that many Americans would have parked in their driveways in 1965.
The Impala tested was about as average as it could be, with the smallest available V8 and Powerglide. But with the sleek styling, it was knock-out good looking for the class. The new chassis with its wider track was praised for offering reasonable handling—not perfect but certainly good enough. Performance was decent if not spectacular, with 0-60 mph taking 12.4 seconds. However, economy was exemplary, and the 283 was praised for being a reliable workhorse.
Plus with an as-tested price of $3,448 ($25,944 adjusted), the Impala was a good buy as well. Like a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry today, the Impala garnered high resale value at trade in, taking a bit of the sting out of the initial sticker price.
The Galaxie 500 was also all-new for 1965, with its crisp-edge styling offering a striking contrast to the more rounded forms from the prior year. In the start of a big trend for Ford, the ride was tuned to be softer than ever. Handling was still OK though, and the performance of the 390 V8 was strong, with a 0-60 mph time of 9.6 seconds as well as the ability to effortlessly handle the A/C and power accessories. The big engine burned more oil (3 quarts) and gas (12.8 average mpg) than the smaller-engined Chevy or Plymouth.
Where this particular Galaxie 500 was a surprise was in the as-tested price. Carrying an option load more befitting the new topline LTD, MT’s test car priced out at $4,373 ($32,904 adjusted). This was far higher than the average transaction price for a Galaxie 500, and made the car more of an “apples to oranges” comparison with the other two cars in the test.
After the disastrous downsizing of 1962, Plymouth finally rebounded with a “real” full size car for 1965. The new Fury gained about 3 inches in wheelbase, overall length and width, making it fully competitive size-wise with Chevy and Ford. What was unchanged was the Plymouth’s handling abilities: the torsion bar front suspension and unit construction helped it out-handle the other cars in the test. Ride comfort was not quite up to the standards of the Chevy and Ford, but added sound deadening materials and a separate front subframe for the engine and transmission did make the new Fury quieter and smoother than the previous generation.
The new size and weight did have drawbacks however: the 318 engine was overmatched for the car. Motor Trend surmised that many buyers would step up to the 383, which at just $81 more than the 318, was still a good buy. Overall, the Plymouth was aggressively priced, with the Fury III test car coming in at $3,250 ($24,454 adjusted).
While Motor Trend didn’t really pick a winner (How could they? All those ad dollars at stake…), reading between the lines it was clear that they liked the style and capability of the Chevy, the comfort of the Ford and the handling of the Plymouth.
Buyers were more clear-cut in their assessment: Chevrolet was the victor. Chevy sold a phenomenal 1,647,614 full size cars for 1965 (Ford was in second place with 978,519 full size sales). Of those Chevrolets, an impressive 558,472 were hardtop sport coupes (Impala and SS), making that the most popular single body style in the line. To put it in perspective, Chevrolet sold more of that one 2-door hardtop body style than Ford sold of all Galaxie 500s (458,369 including XLs but excluding LTDs) and Plymouth sold of all Fury models (329,959—though to Plymouth’s credit, on a percentage basis, the Fury was up an unbelievable 185% year-over-year).
So the stylish Impala was a winner, but was it more than just a pretty face? Pragmatic Road Test took a look at 2 different 2-door hardtops, a 300hp 327 4V Impala and a 340hp 409 4V Super Sport, both with Powerglide. Their comprehensive review covered a lot of data, though oddly barely mentioned engine performance.
Given that the 409 was about to be replaced, Road Test’s editors did not discuss the performance of the Super Sport so-equipped at all. The only performance test results listed were for the 327 4V, and they were pretty good for the time: the car did zero-to-60 in about 9 seconds.
Road Test liked the new location for the fuel filler, located behind the license plate in the rear bumper, noting that it prevented the hazard of spilling gas on the paint. Of course it introduced the danger of leaking gas after a rear end collision—but in 1965 that was still left unsaid…
All in, Road Test was very enthusiastic about the new full size Chevrolet, concluding that it backed up its good looks with good handling and proven powertrains. In music to a Chevrolet dealer’s ears, Road Test also noted that the higher priced Impala was a better buy than the cheaper Bel Air, since the Impala was likely to enjoy higher resale value.
While Road Test paid minimal attention to the 409 equipped Super Sport in their comprehensive write-up, Car and Driver conducted a full road test on the “lame duck” big engine. Either way, any ’65 big Chevy with a 409 was an ultra-rare car—only 2,828 full size Chevrolets came equipped with either the 340hp or 400hp version of this motor for the model year. Plus, the 400hp version only came with the 4-speed, so just the 340 hp version could be had with the 2-speed automatic as well as the 4-speed manual. No matter how you slice it, these Powerglide 409 magazine test cars were as rare as proverbial hen’s teeth.
Car and Driver noted that the nose-heavy 409 was a decent handling car for its size, but really built more for interstate cruising. Braking was roundly criticized however, though it was in keeping with Detroit’s philosophy of providing only minimally adequate stopping abilities. Heck, if you crashed, assuming you weren’t maimed or killed, you’d just have to get a new Impala, right?
In spite of having the bigger 409, Car and Driver’s test Super Sport was only one second quicker from zero-to-60 than the 327 Impala reviewed by Road Test. Given the added weight and $102 additional cost, that extra 40 horsepower over the 327 really didn’t seem worth it.
Nonetheless, the Super Sport driven by Car and Driver was still a great buy, with an as-tested price of $3,724 ($28,021 adjusted). The magazine praised the value offered by Chevrolet, especially given that prices stayed pretty flat in spite of the comprehensive redesign for 1965.
Ultimately, no matter which review you read, the new 1965 Chevrolet was an impressive car, well designed for eating up the miles on the highways and byways of America. Especially in the 2-door Sport Coupe body, it made for a really compelling package.
So if you were shopping in early 1965 for a full size car, 2-door hardtop with automatic, from the “low price” Big Three, which one would you pick? And if you’re picking Chevy, assume you can’t wait for the 396 with the 3-speed Turbo Hydramatic, so your choice is Powerglide with a 283, 327 or 409—which would it be?
For me, I’d have gone for a Super Sport with the 327 4V 300HP V8. With the money saved over the 409 ($102) I’d have splurged for power windows. It would have been the perfect car for suburban cruising. Mine would have been Danube Blue!
Related reading:
Me, I’m not fancy enough for an Impala. Make my ’65 a Biscayne, with the 300hp 327 and a four-speed, please.
Great article. I’m a Ford guy, but these ’65 Chevy Impalas are indeed beautiful – in fact all the GM line of full size cars looked great that year – Bill Mitchell at his best.
While the 390 in the Galaxie used three quarts of oil, I’m really shocked it didn’t overheat on the cross-country trip………
I can still recall the bemused look on my Father’s face when the “factory Rep” assured him that my Mother’s one year old FE390 Ford Country Sedan’s oil consumption of a quart every 500 miles was “within specs”.
I like the styling of the 65 Chevy, and the 65 Ford, I prefer the engineering of the Plymouth Fury, with the torsion bar suspension system. For some reason, I don’t see anything safe about the interior of either cars.
One of my wife’s friends in college had a tangerine yellow ’65 Impala SS which she still remembers fondly.
A grey one came up for sale a couple miles away, about ten years ago. I couldn’t act on it due to having two project vehicles at the time. Today I only have one – my ’57 Handyman – which brings me to the part I glommed onto reading these reviews:
“…a great number of mature purchasers still have a great deal of Chevy indoctrination in their systems based on the ‘vintage’ years of 1955 and forward when these cars were, indeed, the Hot Ones.”
Anyway it’s good to read about how the all-new ’65s fared against their Ford/Plymouth competition. Although…if I were to own one today, it would automatically get bigger brakes and tires.
Yep best looking chevy in a long time but nobody sent us the two door hardtops for local assembly they had to come in built up in very small numbers or turn up later as used cars. Powerglide transmissions infested all lower priced GM cars for the 1965 model Vauxhalls and Holdens both now came with the two speed and retained it untill the THM 180 became available on low priced local assembly cars, Automatic cars on NZs market could easily be identified because whitewall tyres became a standard fitment with auto as were disc brakes.
“To ensure a fair comparison, we used the same guide in specifying equipment for each car, except in one-third of them we did something completely different.”
Or something like that.
Great article, but it was no secret even then that Chevrolet test cars were “doctored” 409 with a Powerglide? show me one in the wild. We won’t even talk about Jim McFarlands ’67 Camaro
There were two very different 409s. This is the mild 340 hp version, which was not all that uncommon to see, and was typically teamed with PG. It was not a “hot” engine; comparable to so many other mildly-tuned big block engines of the times.
The 400/425 hp versions were quite another thing, and PG was not available with them. Lumpy cam, mechanical lifters, etc. People tend to think all 409 were this version; in reality, the overwhelming majority was the 340 hp version. The myth of the 409 is a bit out of sync with reality.
I’ll second the order for an SS 327 / 300 hp. Since Danube Blue has been spoken for, make mine black with a blue interior.
My name is PRNDL and I approve this message! 😉
Even today, my love of Fords would make it difficult to choose between the big Ford and the big Chevy. The Ford seems to have an air of masculinity to it’s styling while the Chevy is feminine curves, but where push comes to shove, the Chevy (IMHO) edges the Ford with a better interior design. From dashboard to back seat, the Chevy JUST tops the Ford.
And having briefly owned a ’66 Impala wagon with a 2 barrel 327 and Powerglide, I concur that a 327 with 4 barrel would be a good balance between power and economy.
My favorite full size Chevrolet in the ’58-’76 time frame. Too bad they didn’t offer the 327 in the 340 or 350hp versions in ’65. I like the ’65 the best of all the full size Chevrolet offered until the downsized ’77’s. They just kept on getting bigger and uglier each year after ’65. They should have left well enough alone, but I understand they had to come up with the annual model change which GM pioneered and which partly contributed to the demise of the “old GM”.
Black with red interior, bucket seats, 4 speed muncie, power steering. 300 HP 327. Station wagon wheels, poverty caps and the widest redline tires that will fit. Metallic brake linings. Order disc brake parts in late ’66 for ’67 Impala if no disc brake is available in ’65 that will fit and 86 the drums asap.
But only if I can’t have the beautiful dark blue color shown. I’d run Goodyear blue streaks in this case.
1965 is my favorite tied with the 1967. I fully agree with this being “Peak GM” and Bill Mitchell was an excellent car designer. Make mine a Sport Sedan in Willow Green please?
Thanks for a great article, I appreciate being able to select the magazine pages and zoom in to read the text. I always wondered what my first car’s 0 to 60 time was – probably around the 12.4 seconds done with the ’65 Impala. Mine was a ’67 Caprice with the same drive train, My parents had a ’67 Impala SS – 327 with dual exhausts. I used to love driving that car – at around 40 – 45 flooring it would throw you back in the seat as the transmission shifted into low. Not quick off the line with the Powerglide – but great for passing. I remember the stereo radio had a relay to illuminate the FM Stereo broadcast indicator light, it would click frequently when reception was marginal. Somewhere on this site there’s an article of the almost identical car, tan with a white roof.
Not quick off the line with the Powerglide – but great for passing.
This. I had a ’67 two door Malibu with a 283/PG and flooring it at 45mph would result in quick passing of a slowpoke on a two lane road. This powertrain is the equivalent of last decade’s Toyota 2GR-FE/U660E. Powerful and reliable with acceptable fuel economy.
Before the end of the 1965 model year the 409 V8 was replaced by the 396, which also could be had with the Turbohydramatic.
I’ve only been around for almost 40 years but this quote:
“coming from a colussus like General Motors that is under steady attack from some quarters for its supportedly heartless attack of the automotive market”
Makes me think there were some Deadly Sins that even predate what’s in this site. And the early 60s GM cars were among my favorites of all time. (Ahem, ’63-65 Riv.)
Anyone know the context of that quote?
Although several years too early, all of the “Big 3” full sized cars would had greatly benefited from the addition of radial tires.
Anyone who drove or rode in my Mother’s 1966 Ford station wagon, after the addition of Sears & Roebuck’s Roadhandler/Michelin X catalog ordered tires, marveled at the car’s handling and stopping, esp in the rain.
Those rayon ply tires of 1965 gave you a soft ride and abbreviated longevity.
I haven’t owned, or driven a car with anything BUT radials since the early early 80s. The only car I ever drove with radials, and bias tires, was a 77 Honda Civic. I was feeling poor, and put bias ply retreads on the back, had worn-out Sears radial retreads on the front…that thing would oversteeer like crazy with the bias tires on the back…like driving a 911….only slower.
Functionally, was the PG really a bad thing? Would the average driver have cared whether they had 2 speeds or 3? Would a PG have been more reliable than a more-elaborate transmission? Would a rebuild have cost more for a Torqueflite or a C6 (or whatever Ford was using at that time?)
What is missing with the Powerglide (and Buick’s dynaflow) is a passing gear.
I drove and rode in my friend’s ’65 Impala 2 door fastback, 327 4-BBL engine and 2 speed Powerglide automatic transmission.
In the mid 1980’s he had a 3 speed Turbohydramatic automatic transmission swapped out for the still working but slow Powerglide.
The peppiness, the difference in performance AND gas mileage was outstanding!
Aside from the lack of passing gear, Powerglide also had a taller (lower numerical) breakaway ratio — 1.82 or 1.76:1 in low times a stall ratio of around 2.2:1, compared to 2.48:1 or 2.52:1 in low for Turbo Hydra-Matic times a generally similar stall ratio. That’s a pretty big difference.
With a 409 or 396, it didn’t matter that much because the engines already had more torque than the stock rear tires could really handle, but for the smaller engines, that cost something compared to a three-speed C4/C6 or TorqueFlite. The 283 and 327 were pretty flexible and willing to rev, which helped, but they were still starting with a handicap.
Impala is beautiful, but I’d have the 2 door Biscayne with 6 and manual trans. In that pale yellow that was offered.
Normally I prefer Fords, but for 1965 give me the Impala. Since I like bench seats and column shifters, make mine a standard model, not an SS. How about a white hardtop coupe with cool blue upholstery, fitted with a 4 bbl. 327 and Powerglide? Sounds like a serendipitous Sixties ride to me.
I’m kind of a minimalist when it comes to engines, so I would go with a 283 (naturally!) with a 4bbl and the Powerglide in a ’65 Impala 2 door hardtop. Not sure if the “Power Pack” option was still available for the 283 in ’65, but a straight 6 just won’t do for me in a fastback sport coupe!
Nice article with straightforward statistics and analyses you don’t see nowadays.
I recall reading similar comparisons of the Chevrolet-Ford-Plymouths in other car magazines. The general consensus was the Chevrolet was handicapped by the 2-speed Powerglide transmission, especially in highway passing. I’ve driven a Chevrolet with Powerglide and found many times it was either in too low a gear or too high a gear. The 3-speed Turbohydramatic was a more flexible transmission, IMO.
Is this the same PG fitted to Race Track only Camaros a few years age. The one Mr. Rawlings from Arse Monkey Garage brought and sold….
The PG in a ’65 Chevy is like the recent [up to 2012?] Corollas that still had 4 speed automatics. The core buyers want reliability. To an adult with clear memories of the Great Depression back then, any automatic was a “luxury”.
But, yes, time has to move forward.
Love the 1965 “Low priced 3”! Was the Zenith of full size car kingdom. They were the Full size Pickups of the time. Up until then, mid-size cars were ‘kids cars’, but eventually adults started buying them in bulk.
Looking at the photos of the Plymouth Fury in the Motor Trend article, it’s striking how much better that car looks WITHOUT fender skirts.
Gah, I hate Powerglides. With the exception of the 409 I’ve sampled about every powertrain option a ’65 Chevy (or the equivalent Cheviac) offered. My first car was a roached ’65 Impala 4 door hardtop with a 396 TH400, faded and rusty Evening Orchid. I also had a ’65 Pontiac Laurentian with a 230 and 3 on the tree, and driven all the rest.
No matter what was under the hood, the Powerglide was awful. Maybe Ok in the flatlands, but here in the mountains of BC it had the wrong ratio for every occasion. They were tough as hell though, every one I hauled to the dump after replacing it with a TH350 was still working. We had a lengthy discussion about this here a few years back, and I still feel Chevy waited 10 years too long to dump that miserable contraption. Geuss they blew the budget on the Turboglide…
Since the question was which engine I’d saddle with a ‘glide, I actually found the 250 horse 327 better than the 300. The 250 had smaller carb, valves and manifolds borrowed from the 283 power pack and was quite a bit more responsive in the low end. The 300 would suck the headlights out of the 250 on the highway though, and it was great with a 4 speed.
Make it an Impala SS in that pale yellow for me, and I’ll need to borrow a tranny jack. Got a dump run to make too….
I’ll take an Impala SS with the 300hp 327 in Madeira Maroon with black interior. Power windows would be nice.
Beautiful cars.
From the perspective of 2016, the brakes terrify me; I really appreciate that modern cars with this much power and weight have powerful sophisticated disk systems.
Chaz, I feel ya. I got into my brakes hard enough to engage the ABS(which I had never done in this particular old Volvo…wasn’t entirely sure the ABS even worked) when I came around a corner the other morning to find a Hyundai Elantra rolled over on a little bridge I cross on my commute…I guess that would account for the City of Cincinnati cop sitting near the last intersection with no lights on, making no effort to warn anybody about the wreck. I thought he was up there to catch people who roll the stop sign at that intersection…sheesh.
Anyway, discs and ABS can be a godsend in certain conditions.
The ’65 Impala was not only beautiful, but one of the best selling models in history. I,046,500 Impalas were sold this year, a number incomprehensible for a model today. And this doesn’t include about 520,000 Biscaynes and Bel Airs. To put this figure in perspective, Camry and Accord might sell 400,000 in a good year. GM just about at its peak .
These were everywhere and most had the 283 with Powerglide. One in particular I recall was owned by a neighbor, an odd yellow coupe with a painted black roof. Dog dishes, Powerglide, and a 396 with single exhaust.
Great memories of my aunt having a 65 Impala SS, my mother and her would spend summers going on Thelma and Louise road trips with my brother and I in the back seat. The car was about 7 years old by then but I thought it was a beauty, her car was white with the 283 PG, buckets and console. The back seat had a grill with the Impala leaper dividing the seats, real metal, don’t remember if it was a speaker grill.
All the new 1965 Chevrolet full size cars boasted excellent styling
Meh. I’ve always much preferred the ’64 from every angle. And since I’m a form-follows-function guy, the 2-speed excuse for an automatic “transmission” would’ve sunk the ship without further consideration in ’65, and still does today. For crumb’s sake, a 2-speed in ’65? Why not a DC generator and vacuum-operated windshield wipers, too, since we seem to be foisting 1950s technology on buyers? Not that I entirely blame GM; nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. In ’65 that meant people threw money at GM for technically obsolete junk like 2-speed Powerglides when they could’ve had vastly superior 3-speed Torqueflites from Chrysler. Two decades later, they were throwing money at GM for garbage like Cadavaliers…and a decade after that, they were still doing it…and another decade on, still.
The old PG cliche strikes again… GM knew what they were doing because the vast majority of drives didn’t know or care. Clearly you never owned one or drove one to any extent. These cars were, 90% of the time, basic family transport, and the 2 spd was more than adequate in daily use. This was true of my ’67 Belair 283/PG driver’s ed car in 1967, my later ’68 Caprice Sport Sedan 327/PG, my ’69 Malibu 6, my ’65 Olds 88 convert, as well as the 2 spd JetAway (Buick Super Turbine 300, a different trans, not a PG) found in my current ’69 Cutlass 350. All of the GM 2 spd trans were bullet-proof (the one in my Cutlass is 53 yrs old and totally original), perfectly functional and suitable for the typical GM buyer, and were even sought after by drag racing due to their stoutness. Chrysler’s PowerFlite was equally stout. Of course the TF and THM350/375/400 were inherently superior for the few who really needed needed them for towing or sought maximum performance/speed, but they were also more expensive to buy, maintain, and rebuild.
And ’64 over ’65?… really? TEHO, but the ’64 Chev had to be the absolute dullest of any of the ’61 to ’64 GM full-sizers, whether viewed from the front, rear, and side.
I owned for my first car which was handed down to me a1965 Danube Blue SS Chevy Impala with a 283 2 Barrel powerglide. It had over 100,000 miles on it and it showed but it was an awesome first car. When tuned up you couldn’t even feel it idle…..many passengers thought it stalled at stoplights, that’s how smooth and quiet it ran! Would have been nice to have a four barrel but at the time money was tight….I’ve had many more chevys since then (mostly Novas) but what I would give to have that 65 back again…one of the best cars I’ve ever owned.
1965 was the year of the all new designs for ’65 but, you could also apply that to the ’69 full size big three cars. Ford totally redid their big cars, no more vent window and “Front Room” dash. Though the GM full size cars were the same frame as the 65-68 their sheet metal seemed fresh and brand new. Even third place Chrysler restyled. The year the vent window started it’s death march to oblivion.
My second car was a very used ’65 Impala wagon I bought at a used car dealer for $475 in 1975 when I was 16. Had a metallic aqua blue interior and no third seat. I stole a ’66 Caprice steering wheel center deco hub from junkyard because mine was trashed.Drank gas like a thirsty marathon runner drinks water. It had a 396 (someone told me that was the “towing” package), a Rochester 4 bbl, and AC. Towing package or not, it sure moved my package around my home town pretty darn quick and my girlfriend liked it a lot, too. Great fun with that car driving my friends to the beach. One time the LAPD caught me and girlfriend in back seat watching the submarine races at make out point.
Married in 1964, I ordered a 1965 SS Impala from a local dealer. With 396/325 hp, 4 speed, duals, rear antennas, black buckets and interior. Exterior paint was glacier grey. Two years later with a small daughter, who wanted to stand between the buckets and end up in the back seat, I sold it. I kick myself every day since..
I first saw the 65 Chevy when I was in Germany 1964 to 1967 and thought that was the
best design at the time – When I got back to the states in 1967 I bought a 63 pontiac tempest 2 door and enjoyed it for a year or more – when one day i drove by this ford dealer
that had a beautiful 65 chevy 283 SS with wire wheel covers and maroon in color with a black vynle top-I drove and bought it with out question. It was the best car I ever had and had I had the money and place to work on it I would have never traded it in. its was easy to take care of, ran like a top and when waxed & polished always looked great – wish I had it today
The Plymouth ad: Did someone drop the key?
LOL! Had to look back at the picture before I got it.
In 1965, I was a Chevy “man” (9 years old) through and through. I thought the Impala was gorgeous, especially in the rear quarter view. All that said, the side shot of the three cars makes the Impala look awkward in comparison to the Ford. In fact (and I almost never say this) of these three particular cars, I think the Ford is the most handsome.
Motor Trend paid three guys to drive cross-country and got THAT little copy out of it??
Love Daniel Sterns rant, looks like something I might have written, except his is likely far more polished.
Seriously though, as someone who has never liked GM products, I’ve got to admit the big 2 door Chevy was the best looking by far, even if it was absurdly large. I even hold the 327, an engine not used in this article, in some regard, and if it had a 327, even the lowly 250HP one, even with a PG, it might have been respectable performance wise. But 0-60 in 12.4 and 19.7 in the quarter? With a V8? My god, the 6 cylinder cars must have been afraid of running into a 40HP VW bug at stoplights fearing they’d suck the headlights right out of them, not knowing they were being raced.
Different times, and not quite as glamorous as many seem to recall, but 2 speed autos were just the devils work, the PG was lacking, but Fords FordOmatic was even worse. A car can be slow, but still feel ok with enough gears and good ratios, or it can be not fast, but not that slow, but feel glacier like with bad gearing.
Its all to do with the correct gear ratios. My car is a 0.9 ltr with a 5 speed.Foot to the floor it doesnt feel like the engine is going to blow up. Yet I can take off in 2 gear with out baulking.
The ’65 Impala remains my favorite of the decade. Make mine an SS convertible in Evening Orchid, Powerglide and any V8. Might be the curves that make it more appealing to me over the pointed slabs of the Galaxie, although I also thought either the ’65 Galaxie XL two door hardtop or convertible was always pretty cool.
It was really neat how Chevrolet posed that guy wearing a hat, to look like he’s shading the sun out of his Apple iPhone! It is like they just knew what our daily technologies would be like sixty years into the future!
They could have gone with a guy lighting a cancer stick, but those GM marketing guys were really on the ball and knew that no one would be smoking cigarettes in the future.
If GM made Conestoga wagons like Studebaker did before the US Civil War, their ads would have shown a model using a spittoon?
Honestly, my kids couldn’t figure out what Frosty the Snowman had in his mouth, so they would be completely stumped by what that guy was doing in that cover photo!
Why car would I have chosen?
The Mustang – LOL.
My grandfather had a 1965 coupe in willow green. He purchased it brand new and really only drove it to the grocery store church and back. He lived in Pasadena. He was the little old man from Pasadena.
My parents also lived in Pasadena but drove a Mercedes. To a little boy the austerity of a 1970 Mercedes 280SEL sedan to the chrome-y glitz of an American 1965 Impala was a real dazzler to me.
I loved the brocade upholstery. I was always admiring the ostentatious impala logo in the back seat. All the interior chrome, and color matching. I found it beautiful.
My grandfather passed when I was 14 and the Impala took up temporary residence at our house. My father allowed me behind the wheel of this massive beast, and it was the first car I was ever allowed to drive. The power steering and power brakes scared the crap out of me, they were so responsive. I was in love. I’ve never owned one myself, but maybe one day.
In 1980 my parents sold his car in a few hours for $300. I think it had 45,000 miles on it. I’m sure it was turned into a low-rider.
Lots of information, and plenty of surprises as well. The 390 was the most popular engine in the big Fords? I wouldn’t have guessed. And then there’s the inability to make 15mpg, even on highway cruises–yikes!
Kansas Turnpike had an **80mph** speed limit? I had no idea anything was higher than 70mph back then…
There were a number of states in the Midwest and West that had a 75 mph speed limit, Iowa included.
I remember well driving our family’s ’65 Coronet wagon on the Kansas Turnpike returning from a family vacation in Colorado in 1970. My father, who wasn’t feeling well, sat in the passenger side of the front seat and kept checking my speed to make sure I wasn’t going any faster than exactly 80.
Until the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, Nevada and Montana had “safe and proper” limits, which meant no actual speed—just “safe and proper” for conditions. I know people who got nothing more than a smile and a wave from a trooper while doing 100+ in between Reno and Las Vegas.
We drove to Mount Rushmore from Pennsylvania last summer for our annual vacation. South Dakota has an 80 mph speed limit on interstate highways, and most people were cruising along at 80-85 mph. One person passed us at about 90 mph (in a Toyota Corolla!), and he was pulled over about 10 miles up the road.
I’ll take a ’65 Biscayne, with a 409 and 4-speed, radio delete. Taihitian Turquoise.
I’ve read dozens of road test of full size Fords through the years but have NEVER seen a Galaxie with the standard 390 4bbl and automatic with a 3:50 rear end.
That’s unusual…
They were almost always 2:75, 2:80, or 3:00…
Love my 65 SS