Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Congratulations on your priorities, and a job well done in terms of your children. My wife and I have similar priorities, and we also drive two well maintained older cars, plus a 2013 Fiat 500.
Thank you. Sadly, I'm not into sports at all so my car hobby, really about my only one, is largely gone without an old car.
'65 was the year they dropped the 425HP 409cid. Also first year for a new perimeter frame.
Which engine was better...the 425 hp 409 or the 425 hp 396? My Dad had one of each. First was a 1963 Impala SS hardtop that he sold when he got drafted. Second was a 1965 Impala SS hardtop he bought when he got out of the Army. Late one night, around 1971, it threw a rod and left him stranded on a desolate country road, and he simply abandoned it.
I'd imagine either car would be worth a bit today, if it was in good shape.
Oh, and '65 was also the year of that infamous engine mount, that would prompt a recall a few years later...the one where the engine would tilt over and take out the brakes, jam the shift linkage, mess up the steering, and IIRC, jam the throttle wide open as well. Or something like that... I think it was just the smallblock V8's that had that "feature".
A friend of mine who worked on the cars back then said the '64 is stouter and even though it had the X-frame, he thinks they cheapened the frame for thickness in '65. I don't care. I love the '65 styling.
I think the 396 is a more modern engine design and that's why GM ditched the 409---the 409 wasn't tooled up for mass production, and so GM couldn't justify such an expense on an old engine design---hence the 396 and its derivatives.
Boy, it didn't seem like that recall made many people stray from Impalas. They were ubiquitous as America's favorite family car, well into the seventies. In fact, I want to say that from '59 to maybe '74 or so, they were the best-selling American nameplate, continuously. We first got one in '74, and it was well-built, comfortable, fairly attractive, and reasonably priced. They were like the Camry or Accord of today, except available in a lot more body styles.
And vastly bigger
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I think the bodies might have been built a bit sturdier on the '64 as well, to account for the fact that they used an X-frame. At least, I remember reading that Chevy beefed up the body in '58 because of the X-frame, so I'd presume the '59-64 would have been stouter, as well? Also, they might have thinned out the sheetmetal for '65, who knows? On my '67 Catalina, I don't think it feels particularly thick.
According to Consumer Reports, in their 1965 auto issue, build quality was going down across the board, and they were counting record numbers of defects in their test cars. Possibly due to the fact that it was a record year, so they were slamming the cars together extra fast, but also because a lot of new cars were introduced that year.
119" wheelbase (Prius for instance is about 100"), plus of course lots of overhang on both ends.
The '65 Impala is a really big car when you're standing next to it.
...and it was the shortest wheelbase of any full-size GM car that year!
That Evening Orchid 1965 SS Impala is just beautiful! Yep, a one year only color that actually sold pretty well. This one has factory A/C too!
I once owned a 1964 Impala SS with the 400 HP 409 and a four speed.
The only modification was a set of glass packs that gave that car such a wonderful sound.
When I was a kid, the people across the street from us bought an Evening Orchid '65 Impala SS.
It had a 327/Powerglide. A couple of weeks later the people next door to us bought a matching one only it was yellow/black. Ford could NOT compete in those years!
'74 Impala (Caprice). That was our Driver's Ed car..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
isellhondas, you've no doubt seen this clip before, but being a sentimental old fool, it still gets me...very nice yellow '65 Impala SS:
Our hometown Chevy dealer--one-family ownership for 55 years--was the best place. Even salesmen worked there for years, unlike today. Everybody was so darn nice there. Their advertising slogan was "Big Enough to Serve You; Small Enough to Want To". Ahh, nice memories.
Now you got me curious, Andre - do you have a set of old CRs? Or how do you access their car info? I wish they'd collect all their car articles, maybe by decade, and sell them...I'd buy a set.
I used to thumb through old ones for sale at Carlisle, etc. The reliability charts were interesting although could probably be challenged as much as they can be today. I used to also look at old ones in my college's library. I'd like to see them too. One thing I remember seeing, that I remember fondly, is how styling overcame practicality--they showed a guy's hat getting knocked off climbing into a '63 GM compact of some kind, while the same guy climbed into a '63 Lark without incident. I do remember, though, them reviewing a '64 Studebaker (my favorite), advising against it among other reasons for it being an 'orphan', and telling prospects how to tell a U.S.-built one from a Canadian one on the dealer's lot (although the window sticker would have told that).
When I was in college, I used to waste a lot of time going through the old CRs at the library at the University of Maryland, and a lot of that useless information just stuck in my head!
I do have a few issues scattered here and there. One was a 1955 issue that had a test of a DeSoto Fireflite, an Olds Ninety-Eight, and one other car I can't remember...except that it had a 6-cyl engine. A big Nash, maybe? One of my neighbors found it somewhere, years ago, and gave it to me. My stepdad bought the April auto issue in 1984, and I kept it for years, but it's been packed away for so long I don't know where it is anymore.
And yeah, if they'd do a repro of their old car articles, I'd buy them, too!
As for 1965, I remember they were being a bit sarcastic, by printing a brand's slogan, and then underneath listing a bunch of defects found with one of that brand's cars. For instance, I think it was Ford who had the slogan "We're Going All Out to Win You Over This Year. All Out!" but then when they listed a bunch of defects, it seemed that Ford wasn't going as all-out as they said!
Once you get used to them though, they don't feel that big. FWIW, a '65 Impala is about 213" long, on a 119" wheelbase. Those old cars tend to have pretty good visibility too, with their narrow roof pillars, corners you can see for the most part, lower decklids, etc. So that in part makes up for their cumbersome handling. I think Mopar products tended to be the best with visibility, because they were so boxy. Or, with my '57 DeSoto, when I drove it regularly, the peaks over the headlights and the tips of the tailfins were great for judging distance when parking or maneuvering in tight corners.
A Toyota Prius is on a 106.3" wheelbase, about the same as a 1965 Valiant (106.5"). It's shorter, though, at 176.3". I'd guess a Valiant was around 188".
My '67 Catalina, at 121" and 215" long, doesn't seem too horribly cumbersome. Oddly though, my old '69 Bonneville, which was around 225" long and on a ~125" wheelbase, felt a lot more nimble. I'd imagine GM did something to the suspension design, maybe the power steering as well, between '67-68 and '69-70? The Bonneville also had 15" wheels compared to 14" for the Catalina. However, I have 15" Rally II's on the Catalina now, and I don't think they improved handling all that much.
Regarding the 1965 model year, you had to be there to understand how advanced GM's full-size cars in general, and the Impala in particular, were perceived in the marketplace that year. Bill Mitchell & co. designed bodies and interiors that looked light years ahead of Ford and Chrysler for the most part. The Impala looked like it jumped ahead about 5 years from the boxy '64. Ford was all-new for '65 but I always thought the styling took a step backwards that year (I always liked the '64 Ford better), while Dodge and Plymouth introduced the slabside bodies that year which were extremely boxy. The big Chrysler was the only one of their designs that year that still looks good today. Add to that the GM interiors, which were always better than Ford or Chrysler back then, and it was no contest.
But I do remember hearing that the build quality of the Impala, at least, was not good. Not just assembly issues, or the motor mount debacle, but materials quality issues. I recall hearing stories of premature frame rust-out, and also many complaints about the inset hood being a very expensive thing to repair properly after even a low-speed collision.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I recall thinking that GM had it over the others for interiors in the '60's too, although it was probably a function of what you were used to. I always thought that things inside like armrests, door handles, window cranks, even the gauge numerals and lettering, seemed more expensive even on a Chevy than Ford or Chrysler cars sold against them. The lock buttons, too...just little stuff. And I thought the crank-operated vent windows seemed like a touch of quality, as opposed to the others' 'turn the knob and push out' operation.
My grandpa owned a Chrysler dealership in the mid '50's to mid '60's and he gave my mom that '55 Chrysler but in a wagon...a big vehicle as I recall. Remember getting my hand closed in the front door and it hurting like a son of a [non-permissible content removed]! We were a Chrysler family until the business got successful and they leased my mom a Caddy in 1960, a monster Sedan Deville and ditto for the next 10 or so years, switching between Cadillac and Lincoln here and there.
The late '50's, early '60's are still my favorite years for the American automobile. Where can I go to see all the different models from the big 3 online? Now that would be a cool site!!!
The Sandman
2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2025 VW GTI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)
A dove gray Tempo in pretty good shape on the highway keeping up with traffic.
Ford had winders for wing windows, at least in Galaxies. My fintail has a round knob.
Neighbors here where I am visiting have picked up a new beater since I was here last - Daewoo Leganza.
a mid-60s Nova. white roof and light gray/blue body. Looked very clean. Must be restored, but looked like a solid, clean used car. Oddly, it was a 4 door. weird thing to restore.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I didn't know that about Fords, fintail. I know GM's midsizes had the push-and-pull vent windows, but the big cars had the cranks. We had a '67 Chevelle and my grandparents had a '67 Impala and I remember that difference.
For '68 the midsize GMs went to crank-out vent windows. My Cutlass has them.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Nice touch; I didn't remember that. Thanks.
I think my dad's 68 Fairlane might have had push and pull wing windows - I don't remember. But I remember the "baby" winders in the Galaxie. I don't remember the 60 Ford either, but I suspect they were push and pull. I agree, it seems cheap compared to the alternative.
Econoline vans had push/pull, at least into the '90s
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Sandman, that's interesting about your grandpa owning a Chrysler dealer but leasing Cadillac's and Lincoln's. Word on the street back then was those Imperials back then were very well built cars. But since he was a dealer, he probably knew more about the truth back then???
Old car websites are all over, but some interesting stuff is googling old car brochures. A very neat old car website for me at least.
Yes, the "Old Car Manual Project", where you can peruse brochures, is excellent IMHO. Lots of 'buyers guides' and such are riddled with errors, but for a hard fact I usually go to the brochure.
Lincoln and T-Bird interiors could match GM, but certainly not the run-of-the-mill product line.
I think by the 1970's, some Ford products started having nicer interiors than competing GM cars. At least in some respects. For instance, I thought the '72-76 Torino/Montego could be decked out pretty nicely. One area where GM cheaped out, IMO, was those two-piece door panels, where the upper part was vinyl, or a combination of vinyl and fabric, and the lower half was plastic with a built-in armrest, and a spot to glue on carpet for the nicer models. GM did this in '71-76 on the big cars and '73-77 on the intermediates. They abandoned it in the big cars for '77, but the downsized '78 intermediates continued it.
The Fords, though, used a piece that was all vinyl though, with a bolt-on arm rest, and the nicer models would add carpeting at the bottom, and maybe a cloth insert at the upper part. I thought that looked a bit ritzier than those 2-piece jobs GM was using.
Now, to GM's credit, they offered a wider variety of interiors. On the '73-77 intermediates, for example, there were something like five different dashboards: Malibu/Monte Carlo, Cutlass, Century/Regal, LeMans, and Grand Prix/Grand LeMans/Grand Am. Ford used the same dash, with little variation, on all of their intermediates from '72-79.
I did like GM's integrated armrests at the time though, better than the tacked-on look of the others.
Well, Andre, I don't know. Here is a '76 Gran Torino door panel and a '76 Cutlass panel (I couldn't find a good image of one from a Malibu, but the Cutlass was GM's best-selling midsize anyway).
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Although the bottom half of the Cutlass panel is hard plastic (except the armrest), I think it looks more expensive.
I drove by where that old Chrysler is parked - still there of course.
Also saw a nice Porsche 914 and a host of 80s era cars that were off the road 15-20 years ago elsewhere, once one leaves the city, the fleet gets older.
I found a '76 Monte Carlo door panel which looks very stark and plain in white. Made me think of stackable plastic patio chairs.
And that is actually the optional Custom vinyl interior! I like it in white and I know that color combination pretty well. The cloth Custom interior is the same pattern, but in a corduroy-and-velour type material, so this exact door panel would have cloth in that area all around the strap.
The cloth custom interior sounds like something I'd like.
And in that particular car, the dashboard and carpets would have been a medium green shade, with white seats and door panels. I think the headliner would be green also though I can't recall for certain. Ah, the ' 70's!
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Omarman, here's a rendering of the two Custom cloth interiors from the '76 Monte Carlo brochure. I only ever remember seeing the "velour cloth" interior on real cars. I'm surprised I didn't remember that plaid knit cloth as being available on '76's--I definitely remember it being available on '75's.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Chevrolet/1976_Chevrolet/1976_Chevrolet_Monte_Carlo_Brochure/1976-Chevrolet-Monte-Carlo-05
That interior was well over $300 optionally, I remember that...and I think the Custom vinyl was even a little more than the Custom cloth!
It lacks a center armrest like the upper B-O-P coupes had, but also had a reclining feature that those didn't.
IIRC, the Monte had the longest wheelbase of the GM specialty coupes at 116", although the extra four inches was entirely wasted space as it was all in the hood. The Monte had the cheapest instrument panel of all four though IMHO.
Hmmm, maybe it's just me, but "nimble" when applied to a '69 Bonneville seems like an oxymoron, even in comparative terms. Well, okay, maybe compared to a '69 Cadillac hearse or a Mack truck the Bonne was nimble.
"Leganza" always sounded like a luxury name from yesteryear to me, denoting elegance. It takes me a moment or two to equate Leganza with beater, even though it was just a lame attempt to assign a luxury sounding name to a failed model.
Another misnomer that comes to mind is "Achieva." I can picture some empty marketing suit getting a bonus for that one. I must admit, though, that the Achieva coupe looked pretty good to me, even if the car was mediocre, at best. I could say the same about the mid-late '80s Chrysler LeBaron coupe.
Or the Korean knock-off of a luxury name.
Out this evening, saw a VW 411 and a yellow Pontiac Astre fastback - maybe not atypical for being in a small town in this area.
Like a Kia Cadenza.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Makes me think that the strippo version of the Cadenza could have been called the Crudenza, and the more upscale version - you know, the one that you bragged about to your neighbors - Cadilenza.
An old Packard friend says since they called their luxury sedan "The Patrician" (car actually had 'The' in the nameplate), they should have called their low-cost Clipper Deluxe model "The Plebian". LOL
I had forgotten that GM used a slightly different pattern for the plastic part for the intermediate models that used carpeting. That was a nice touch. And putting the ahstrays in the back part of the armrest of the coupes was a thoughtful touch as well, as it made them easier to get to, to empty out. Simply take it out of the door, rather than climb into the back seat. And, now that I think of it, the Grand Prix used a different door panel entirely, as the armrest was full-length, and swept upward at the front. So both the plastic lower and vinyl upper would have been unique.
As for which armrest is "better", though, I guess I'm still a bit torn. I agree that the built-in armrest is a nice touch, but I'm still not crazy about that huge slab of plastic on the GM cars. Looking at the Gran Torino and Cutlass side by side, though, I think I'll concede to the Cutlass, despite all that plastic.
I had forgotten that GM used a slightly different pattern for the plastic part for the intermediate models that used carpeting. That was a nice touch. And putting the ahstrays in the back part of the armrest of the coupes was a thoughtful touch as well, as it made them easier to get to, to empty out. Simply take it out of the door, rather than climb into the back seat. And, now that I think of it, the Grand Prix used a different door panel entirely, as the armrest was full-length, and swept upward at the front. So both the plastic lower and vinyl upper would have been unique.
As for which armrest is "better", though, I guess I'm still a bit torn. I agree that the built-in armrest is a nice touch, but I'm still not crazy about that huge slab of plastic on the GM cars. Looking at the Gran Torino and Cutlass side by side, though, I think I'll concede to the Cutlass, despite all that plastic. I think overall it does look more stylish.