'64 Chevrolet Impala

rooster628_99rooster628_99 Member Posts: 1
edited March 2014 in Chevrolet
Own 4dr '64 Chevy Impala with about 25,000
original miles. Nothing has been done to it. With
a very little work, it will run again. Everything
in pretty good shape except paint. Really was
owned by old lady. What can I expect to get for it
and how is the best way to sell it here in S.
Texas? Thanks for the info.


  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    As a non-running 4-door needing paint, not a whole lot, as compared say to a hardtop coupe or convertible, but I do think someone might want it either to play with or use for those rare original parts...I dunno, maybe $2,000 or so? You could start with an ad for $2995 in Hemmings Motor News and work your way down until someone bites. As for the low miles, the car would have to "show" those low miles for that factor to add a premium (such as a like new interior).

    Here's the Hemmings site (you probably know this publication, of course).


    Also, hanging a sign on the window is also a good way to sell a car like this. Anyone who calls is semi-serious because they've already seen the car.

    good luck selling it!

  • oscarawiggyoscarawiggy Member Posts: 4
    my dad had a 63 impala (awesome car), my mom had a 64 Biscayne. looked similar to the 64 impala, what was the major differances??
    anyone know?
  • jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    Didn't I read in one of the posts that you should take proper precautions before starting an engine that hasn't been run for awile? Aren't you supposed to remove the intake mainfold, and spray some kind of lubricant on the cylinder walls, to minimize the chances of cracking a piston ring (or worse) during start-up? I would appreciate a reply, because my brother-in-law hasn't started his '68 Olds 442 for about 2 years (it's been sitting in my mother-in-laws' garage).
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    hi jp,

    Yes, you do have to be a bit careful with an engine that hasn't run in a long time, but I think if you just removed the spark plugs and squirted some light oil in there ( a few teaspoons) and let it sit for a while, then turned the engine by hand for a few turns (grunt!) and then with the starter with the coil disconnected (so it won't start right away), until you have a little oil pressure---then you'd be okay. I'd start it up and once it smoothes out, run it ad idle for 1/2 hour and then change the oil and flush the radiator.

    An oil ring can break if it's rusted to the cylinder wall, and if it's rusted hard enough, you're kinda screwed no matter what you do...but that would be unusual unless maybe the car was outdoors with the hood up and the air cleaner off (people do this, for some reason!).

    But I don't think you have to take the manifold off unless it was some very rare and delicate aluminum engined car, in which case you'd probably pull the engine anyway.
  • prophet2prophet2 Member Posts: 372
    As I remember, those full-size Chevys of the '60s were in general descending order Impala, Bel-Air, and Biscayne. The differences were in body-styles and trim levels. For example, you'd never find the entry-level Biscayne in the no-pillar hard-top or convertible configurations, only post sedans. The Bel-Air used to be the top dog until the Impala line. Biscaynes were devoid of chrome trim along the belt-line and body edges, came with the small hubcaps (no full wheel covers), and did not offer the "big" motors. Very plain-Jane. The Bel-Air was the "tweener" model.

    Impalas had one distinctive feature in those '60s models: triple tail lamps (two stop, one reverse) on both left and right vs. double lamps on the others. My favorite Impalas in that era were the '60 and '62 models, 2-dr hard-tops. Convertibles are cool, but it rained too much in my area (140" annual rainfall).
  • oscarawiggyoscarawiggy Member Posts: 4
    thanks a bunch. reading your info helped me to remember a lot anout my dad's old 63... you are exactly right.. it did have 3 lights on each side. i wish he still had that car, i think he had the 327 in it becuase he always told us that he had the V8 in the impala and my mom had the 6 in her biscayne.

    thanks again - oscar a wiggy
  • prophet2prophet2 Member Posts: 372
    They also had the "V" insignia on the side of both front fenders to indicate V-8 motors. A plain "V" stood for the 283 cid "small block," the "V" with the checkered flags for the 327. I don't recall if there was anything additional for the 348, 396, or 409 engines beyond the flags.

    I got to see a lot of them since I was a part-time gas jockey in my student days. Just talking about them brings back warm memories about cheap gas and when Chevy really was the "spirit of America."
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    Prophet, these were, indeed, available in the lowly Biscaynes. Back in those days, you could order any engine/transmission in any full sized Chevy. Above the "V" emblem with the crossed flags, the numbers "409" appeared.

    When I worked in the Mobil Station, we had an old lady customer who drove a yellow '64 Impala SS. It had A/C which was rare in a Chevy at that time, in our coastal area. But, alas, it also had the six cyl engine with powerglide.

    Later, she traded it in to the local Chevy dealer on a 68 Malibu. The Chevy dealer sold it to a Mexican guy who promptly lowered it to the ground, etc.

    Usually, people ordered the SS Impalas with the 250 HP 327 engine although the 195 H.P. 283's were also popular. The 300 H.P. 327 with a four speed was my favorite.

    Years later, I owned a 400 H.P. 409.
  • prophet2prophet2 Member Posts: 372
    I worked at Union 76 (UNOCAL) in the mid-'60s and our minister drove a Biscayne. I suppose that it makes sense that Biscayne buyers (the church board in this case) wouldn't be likely to spend the extra $$$ on the big motors on a budget-buy car, especially for a man-of-the-cloth. Never saw any Biscaynes with anything bigger than the 283.

    A co-worker raced his '60 Impala (348 w/trips, 4-speed Hurst). He had a '66 Nova SS (???) for a brief spell, then ended up with a GTO (389 w/trips and the close-ratio 4-speed), after which he got married and his racing days were H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.

    Regarding that Impala SS with the six-banger: what a waste! :>)

    A lot changed when Chrysler offered the Roadrunner and its 383 in what was basically a stripped-down Satellite 2-dr hard-top. I had a Sport Satellite hard-top (318, white vinyl-top) and yearned for the "beep-beep" muscle-car version.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    I once saw a 1962 Biscayne Station Wagon with a 409 engine from the factory. I don't know what horsepower version it was, but it had a three speed stick on the column.

    I seem to recall the guy telling me that he had ordered it that way because he planned to pull a trailer or something.

    The Roadrunners were a hell of a lot of bang for the buck! The 383 torqueflight was no slouch.

    But...you brought back a memory...

    Back in around 1970, I was a very young guy working for Sears. a co-worker sold me a VERY wierd Pontiac that had been special ordered from the factory by his best friend who sold it to him when he was sent on an all expense paid trip to Vietnam.

    It was a 1964 Catalina 2 door hardtop. It had the 421 engine, with (what a waste) a 3 speed on the column. It took forever to shift, but MAN, could that Pontiac haul!!

    And, it looked like such a sleeper! Only the "421" emblems gave it away.

    One night, on my way home from work, a cocky young guy from our sporting goods dept pulled up along side me in his 1969 Roadrunner and smirked at me.

    Well...Even with some 90,000 miles on it, that old Poncho SMOKED the Roadrunner!

    He never spoke to me again...
  • prophet2prophet2 Member Posts: 372
    Served him right! He deserved every smoke he got being dusted.

    A tour company had some '64 Catalinas in service (non-stretchout versions), but with the normal V-8s and 3-speed automatic. They had nice lines for those days and were very roomy.

    By the way, was it the Malibu (Chevelle) that was like the Roadrunner (stripped muscle-car) when GM put out the "Heavy Chevy" back in the early '70s?
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    As I recall, the "Heavy Chevy" was a very basic Chevelle with the bigger engine.

    But, I think it came out around 1971 or 1972, after the smog regulations gelded all of the power away.

    Mr. S, do you remember?
  • badgerpaulbadgerpaul Member Posts: 219
    I think you're right Isell, I only recall them in 71 and 72, I seem to recall they had a minimum of trim and a plain bench seat.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Yes, the Heavy Chevy was produced in 1971-72, but I don't have specs on it right now...given its rather low value in the marketplace, I'd expect it was not a car with SS engine options.
  • badgerpaulbadgerpaul Member Posts: 219
    I'm just going on memory, but I seem to remember that he offered the big engine, but none of the ornamentation (buckets, chrome trim) of the SS. It may have been a way around the insurance company since it would have registered as a Chevelle rather than a Malibu SS, but that's just a guess.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Okay, I did dig into the extensive Shiftright Memorial Library, and found out a little more...says you could order ANY engine with the Heavy Chevy except the 454, and that the car was built as a competitor to the Road Runner. So I'd guess that with the larger engines the car would be worth more than is showing in the current Price Guides.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    I think it was in 1971 when they really got into emissions. They dramatically lowered the compression ratios and went to net horsepower.

    At least in California. Then, a couple of years later, we got cataytic convertors and all of the other smog equipment that killed the muscle cars.

    The most pathetic sight of all was a 1974- 1974 smogged up Tempest with a tacky "GTO" decal stuck on it.

    As I recall, the "Heavy Chevys" weren't much of a performance car.

    How about a 375 HP 396 '68 Camaro? HANG ON !!!
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    To say 1974 - 1976 phoney GTO's. Really, I would just as soon forget that some idiot at Pontiac would do such a discraceful thing!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    But now muscle cars are back...see? It wasn't that emission controls were a bad concept (it really improved the breed using Darwinian principles---adapt or DIE). What WAS bad was the application of early emission controls...god awful bolt on, make-do, jury-rigged engineering.

    To get somewhat back on topic...remember that embarassing incident when GM complained that they couldn't get their big V-8s to meet emission standards for the early 1980s and then Honda took a Chevy V-8 and made it conform to Federal standards, even without an air pump? Oohhh, that must have caused a stir in Detroit. Now, of course, Detroit does a pretty good job of it.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    Sorry, had to put in a plug!

    Yes, muscle cars are back (kinda) but it's just not the same, at least to me!

    It's the way they sound! NOTHING like an uncorked big block 427 Chevy!

    Or even better, the sweet sound of an old Chevy six cylinder with a split manifold. A pair of "pipes" with 18 " glass packs!

    Take it down a steep hill, put it into second gear, and let out the clutch!

    Try that with a choked up cataylied car of today... Not even close...!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I hear that the Ferrari 360 Modena sounds REAL nice when it's sucking air into those twin intakes on the rear fenders, especially when the variable intake runners kick in...and it has that good old american V-8 kind of torque, too.

    I don't like the sound of V-8s myself, except maybe the old Maseratis...too uneven and burbly, like a Harley, kind of "messy"...I think a straight 6 with twin pipes is just about right...the old Jags sounded great, too.
  • prophet2prophet2 Member Posts: 372
    Those '60-'64 Impalas with the V-8s were among my favorites. Chevy kind of lost it with the '65 and later editions, although the Malibus and Camaros were still stylish to the end of the '60s. I'm going to a party Saturday night where one the the guys who will be there used to have a tricked-out Dodge Dart with the 273 V-8 and trips.

    The Caprice that was Motor Trend's Car-of-the-Year a few years back was an ABOMINATION! I have yet to see the 2000 Impala, but after the re-introduced Malibu, I'm not expecting much.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    The Impalas seem to be glued to the showroom floors these days.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    And, I'm not kidding, it looked like an overgrown Hyundai!
  • 225dodges6225dodges6 Member Posts: 1
    ...And it always Rode like a "Reliable Tank." Those cars had much more STYLE-instead of this "Wind Tunnel" effeciency nonsense-which is making all cars LOOK far too ALIKE, nowadays! I have an 81 Dodge Mirada-about 80,000 ORIGINAL(REALLY!! No, REALLY!!) Miles on it, with the slant 6, gold interior and exterior-it's a GOOD, reliable car-with DODGE's BEST engine-ever made, (looks about like the 80-83 Dodge Magnum-only NOT a V-8, and it hasn't had the &$*! run out of it by a fast young guy!)...it's GOT so much more STYLE and "personality" than any car made today, that I can think of-UNLESS we're talking Bentley-Turbo-Rolls Royce, etc. THIS "2000 Impala" has the right color, which is a start, but it still looks to be, and appears to handle like a "Pontiac Grand Am for The New Millineum," but NOT with the original CHEVY-Hot-Rod style of the 60's Impalas-It's STILL a great-looking car-the 65, better than anything today, BUT how the ____ do you get parts for it?, and Do you need to be a millionaire to keep it in good running/cosmetic condition?
  • badgerpaulbadgerpaul Member Posts: 219
    Actually, there are all kinds of places that offer parts for mid 60's Chevy's. I recently replaced a clock in a 66 Impala with a NOS one fresh from the blue and white GM box.
  • leonna1leonna1 Member Posts: 2
    We bought a '64 in '71, when my husband was at Ft.Bragg, NC, from one of his sargents. In driving to Indiana to visit family, the coil went out, about 200 miles from our home and 500 miles from where we were headed. It was a experience, getting enough speed up going downhill through the Smoky Mts in order to get UP the next. We got it fixed, and it ran like a charm for years after. It was black with black interior. Nice car.
  • jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    The Impala SS is rumored to be returning for next year with a V-8, but with FWD. This should be OK, because the Cadillacs and Olds Aurora both have V-8s, with FWD. A couple of posts in the SEDANS conference (2000 Impala topic) say that Chevy is presently testing an Impala, with a V-8 engine, at their Arizona proving grounds. Hope it happens.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    It won't be the same!
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    It won't be the same!
  • jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    I agree with you. The older Impalas are certainly eye catching and beautiful. The classic big-block V8 engines (409 and 427) will probably never be replaced. Even the '94-'96 SS is a great looking car. I too love nostalgia, but we have to be realistic, and move on to the next millenium. Hopefully, Chevy will make some big improvements in the designs of any future Impalas. I hope so.
  • pomy11pomy11 Member Posts: 23
    Glad to find this page, I'm old enough to have had a 64 Impala new, was white over blue, with the flame throwing one barrel six, stick on the tree. Car did what they are trying to do today, went 90,000 miles without a tune up, never failed me, only problem car ever had was the linkage for the stick shift would get stuck. Take any car bracket, style, comfort etc. that car was tops. I know we need to move on, but, if I could make a reproduction of any car the 64 Impala would be my choice, I love those cars. Thanks for the posting whoever started this one. Pomy11
  • poindexter2poindexter2 Member Posts: 3
    The old Impalas were great. They were built tough and would run forever. The small block V8's were the best engine GM ever built.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    Anybody remember how these would ALWAYS leak oil from the rear main? Not a major problem, but they would all leak after 50,000 miles or so.

    Valve stem seals would also bypass oil. The real "fix" was to pull the heads, do a valve job wile you were in there, knurl the guides, and install Perfect Circle seals.

    Other than that, they were great engines! My favorite was the mighty 327!
  • pomy11pomy11 Member Posts: 23
    I agree with the mighty 327, wife had one in a 64 wagon. Did have one problem, for a small engine it drank gas like crazy...oh well.
  • lweisslweiss Member Posts: 342
    Boy do I remember the oil leaks from '60's cars. My first car was a Chevy II Nova SS with the anemic 230 cid 6. An automatic on the floor, the most slippery vinyl bucket seats. Blue hardtop, looked cool, rusted out in Buffalo winters (everything did back then)- but leaking rear main seals and around the rocker arm covers was a recurring problem. Mileage was not great either, considering the moderate engine power.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    Most old cars used a "rope" type of rear main seal. The slang term was "dog turd" which is what they looked like. No shop liked taking on a rear main reseal job because they were tough to do.

    Pulling out the top portion of this rope was tricky. There was a company who made a tool called a "Chinese Finger" that would grab a corner of the rope and pull it out.

    The tough part was getting the new rope in place properly. Even when all went well, it usually wasen't long before they would leak again.

    When I managed an auto center for Sears back in the good old days, Sears sold and installed rebuilt engines. due to the high PITA factor, they got out of the business later on.

    I remember an old man ( he was probably 50, my age now) who had an engine installed in his 1954 Chevy. He would put cardboard under the car at night, looking for oil leaks. After numerous attempts at stopping all leaks, including another engine, we ended up refunding his money!

    He would come in, carrying the stupid sheet of cardboard with him and would point out a quarter sized spot..."IT STILL LEAKS"!!!

    We suspected he had an oil can...oh well!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    The good old days...he'd probably be attacked with a tire iron if he tried that at Sears today.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    Sometimes it was much easier to just give a customer their money back.

    He got a rebuilt engine for free! Something tells me the oil leak didn't bother him a bit after that!

    We also gave refunds on brake jobs sometimes. I think we guaranteed the lining/pads for something like 40,000 miles. Some abusive drivers would be back in our face once a month demanding we do the job over. After about the fourth time, I would refund their money and ask them to go elsewhere...anywhere!

    Then we had the people (like my dad) who would buy a lifetime muffler. The next weekend their punk kid would borrow the car, go through a tunnel, turn the ignition off for awhile, turn it back on...Back to Sears!

    Of course, in later years, I had to take a young punk aside a couple of times and let him know that we were tired of replacing the muffler!

    " One more time, and I'll tell your dad what is causing them to fail!"

    Worked every time!
  • burdawgburdawg Member Posts: 1,524
    By 64 the main seals were rubber, but still were not the quality that is available today. I had a 62 Impala with the "mild" 409/340 and cast iron powerglide. It wasn't the original engine, it came out of a 63. I bought it for $100 with a bad trans, and then bought a used trans from a friend for $25. The cast iron powerglide handled it OK, but I considered putting a TH400 in it. It was relatively easy to do I was told, with a few mods. Never got around to it. As I rememeber it the car was used for many years this way, even after I sold it. Also had a 61 Bel Air wagon with a 283, that I used for everyday driving. It just went and went. These cars were very simple by todays standards, but also were rust buckets in snow country, and didn't have much in the way of safety features.
  • chevyck1chevyck1 Member Posts: 37
    283, and 327, Gm will never make anything to even match these timeless engines. BEST EVER MADE.
    283 was Maintenance free, 327 was a real evil engine due to the short stroke.
    I still have a 327 Corvette block in my hot rod, and boy does that thing scream like nothing I've ever had. Puts 350's and YES even some big blocks to shame.
  • valjovaljo Member Posts: 2
    I need a luxurious looking car for business. I
    love the Monte Carlo but I am think it is more male oriented car. So, the Impala could be an alternative. Is it a reliable and comfortable car? Is it luxurious enough to drive high level corporate management clients? I know I should buy a Cadillac but this is too much money and I would like to stick in the Impala price range but still get somehow the luxury of the Cadillac.
  • valjovaljo Member Posts: 2
    I need a luxurious looking car for business. I
    love the Monte Carlo but I think it is a more male oriented car. So, the Impala could be an alternative. Is it a reliable and comfortable car? Is it luxurious enough to drive high level corporate management clients? I know I should buy a Cadillac but this is too much money and I would like to stick in the Impala price range but still get somehow the luxury of the Cadillac.
  • jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    If you're still considering a luxury car, I'd go with the Regal GS, even over an Impala LS (much as I love Chevys). The Buick is more comfortable and has the same engine as the Impala LS (3.8 liter) except it's supercharged (240 hp). The Impala LS costs less, but the Buick is a much better buy than other luxury cars such as a Camry or Olds Intrigue. I test drove both the Impala LS and Regal GS a few months ago (before the snow fell) and the Regal went like a bat out of hell! The Impala was also fast, but the Buick really flew.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    some fun stuff in this topic! A friend of mine has his mother-in-law's '64 Impala SS-195 horse 283, with 49,000 original miles. Black interior. He just had it re-painted the original color of light mettalic green. The paint was done right, and very expensive. There's one nice car that brings back memories of the brand new 62 SS my Dad and I brought home in 62! Anyway, this guy's son is a senior in highschool, and has taken an interest in the 64. Seems as though the 2barrel carburetor was leaking, so, "Dad, yasee" the remedy was to install a big 4barrel and manifold. The manifold, though has no hole drilled for the oil filler tube-so-the only solution for that will be...some aftermarket valve covers with oil filler tubes. The're aware that modifications lower the value of this very nice original Impala, but it's fun to watch the kid take to it and recall my own fun chroming up the 327 in my Dad's 62...
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Regarding an affordable corporate-type car, anything with the supercharged 3.8 is going to be extremely quick and extremely thirsty. I average 16.9 mpg from my '98 GTP, and that's not much fun when the normally-aspirated 3.8 gets in the low 20s (I think). Yes, the blown version makes for some serious excitement in a straight line but, as someone pointed out above, the normal version isn't exactly a slug--plenty torque. If you're on the road a lot, and on a budget, go with the unblown engine. I've got a heavier right foot than most, but even I hardly ever use enough of that 240 hp to justify paying a premium for it.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    I had a '62 Super Sport that started life as a 327/300 with 3-on-the-tree. Nephew of original owner acquired it, built the 327 nicely and installed a 4-speed with (what he said were) 4.11s. They probably were, or maybe they were 5.13s, because the speedometer would be at around 75 as I trundled along in the slow lane--and the slow lane was where you wanted to be, with that gearing. That car also taught me that short gears and a wide-ratio 4-speed really aren't the hot set-up, unless it's a Fiat 850 Spyder that revs to 7000 without batting an eye.
  • prophet2prophet2 Member Posts: 372
    Went to an appointment yesterday and while waiting at the traffic light, a white '64 2-door (no post) hardtop drove by in full regalia. Made me realize how "big" that "boulevard cruiser" is compared with today's "full-sized" cars, especially the length of that trunk lid. It looked longer than the engine hood. And, it had "white-walls," which I didn't think were still being manufactured (they didn't appear to be "slap-ons").
  • mmcswmmcsw Member Posts: 29
    And oh yes' it had the small "V" emblem on the front fenders which was just so cool. It used to be that you could almost always tell what was under the hood by subtle(and sometimes not so subtle) exterior badging. Ah, the good ol' days....
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,338
    The 195 horses began in 1963 and not 1964.

    Also the 283 and 327's used different heads.

    The 300 HP 327's had what we called the "double bubble" heads.

    Great cars...!
This discussion has been closed.