Chevy Impala - 60 years of progress

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
15,858
13,396
2,415
Pittsburgh
For those who ponder such things, the dramatic improvements over time of the American automobile are not terribly visible. The engines are better - more powerful, more efficient, requiring far less maintenance, more durable, and so on. Transmissions are infinitely better; today's automatics are generations ahead of the old 2-speeds and are better in every way than even the stick shifts of old, driven by the best drivers. The tires are worlds better, rust and corrosion resistance are immeasurably better. The cars are much, much safer in every situation, especially in accidents, despite the loss of full-frames on full-sized cars. Braking is much better, handing is much better, and they are hugely better in snow and ice, even with all-season tires, thanks to ABS and traction control. We've gone from basically everything being front-engine, RWD to most cars being FWD, lots being AWD, and only a few being RWD. Engines are still in the front. You could write a book.

But it is still interesting to look at the more obvious stuff, so I have compared below a basic 1959 Chevy Impala with a 2019 Impala, based on all of the gross measures of automotive stuff. 60 years of evolution.

Engines: The base '59 Impala was powered by the old "Blue Flame" in-line 6, with displacement of 3.9L (235 c.i.), pumping out 135 HP and 217 ft-lbs of torque. The 0-60 time was about 15 seconds with the faster stick shift and fuel economy was estimated at 20mpg on regular leaded gas (from my experience that would have required a very light foot on the gas). The 2019 Impala is powered by GM's ubiquitous 3.6L V6, rated at 305/264 in this application, and delivering a sprightly 0-60 time of a shade over 6 seconds, depending on whom you ask. Fuel economy is 22/19/28, with the wonderful transmission largely responsible for the high highway figure. Regular, unleaded gas, of course.

Dimensions: The '59 had a wheelbase of 119" and an overall length of 211", while being 80" wide. The new one has a wheelbase of only 112" and is 201" long, and is 73" wide. (The extra width is why it was possible to put three kids across in the back seat of a 1960 sedan). The '59 had a curb weight of 3,880 lbs, while the '19 tips the scales at 3,662 lbs.

That '59 Chevy, with its ridiculous lateral fins had horrible aerodynamics and would probably not make it to 100mph on level ground, while today's Impala would easily hit 120 if the driver were foolish enough to do so. But still, we live with 70mph speed limits on superhighways, not much more than in 1959.

If you could give a 1959 car nut a glimpse of what we are driving today, he would be amazed at the number of SUV's, mini-vans, and pickup trucks on the road. The terms "SUV" and "Mini-van" had not even been conceived in 1959, although there were some vehicles out there that were the prototypes of today's SUV's (Chevy Suburban, International Travelall, etc.). As for sedans, he would be disappointed that we don't have flying cars or at least auto-pilot cars by this time.

But given a chance to own one of today's cars for a while, he would quickly learn to appreciate the reliability and durability, the lack of concern about rust, the fuel economy, the absence of flat tires, and the absence of having tune the damn things up every year.

Today's cars are fucking great, all things considered.
 
But they have also came with unintended consequences. I got my Trailblazer stuck in the sand and would have been able to get it unstuck fairly easily if it were not for the traction control stepping in and preventing me from getting unstuck. No way to turn it off on that model.
 
But they have also came with unintended consequences. I got my Trailblazer stuck in the sand and would have been able to get it unstuck fairly easily if it were not for the traction control stepping in and preventing me from getting unstuck. No way to turn it off on that model.
engaging the emergency brake half way didn't stop the wheel spin enough to get both wheels pulling?
 
I was given my family's old 1962 Impala by my parents when I turned 16 and got a drivers license. They had bought a new car.
I drove the wheels off that car for 3 years. It never dawned on me to change the oil, I just added oil when needed. I put mag wheels and cherry bomb mufflers on it, and thought it was the coolest car ever. Kept a couple of may-pop-tires in the trunk for the inevitable flat. Because the tires on the car weren't much better than the one's in my trunk. (yes todays radial tires are a great improvement over the old bias ply tires).

Cars were simple to work on in those days. Most anything could be fixed with simple hand tools in your garage.

I had the fuel pump go out on my 62 Impala and it cost like $12 for the part and 5 minutes to replace using a screwdriver and a wrench. Today the all the fuel pumps are inside the gas tank. So it's half a days work to drain and drop the gas tank and replace the fuel pump, and will cost close to a $1,000 to have an auto repair shop do the work.

Even though my car had a jillion miles on it. Never had a problem with the 283 engine or the transmission. Those were the good ole days when life and living were simple. ... :cool:
 
Last edited:
I was given my family's old 1962 Impala by my parents when I turned 16 and got a drivers license. They had bought a new car.
I drove the wheels off that car for 3 years. It never dawned on me to change the oil, I just added oil when needed. I put mag wheels and cherry bomb mufflers on it, and thought it was the coolest car ever. Kept a couple of may-pop-tires in the trunk for the inevitable flat. Because the tires on the car weren't much better than the one's in my trunk.
Cars were simple to work on in those days. Most anything could be fixed with simple hand tools in your garage.
Even though my car had a jillion miles on it. Never had a problem with the 283 engine or the transmission. Those were the good ole days when life and living were simple. ... :cool:
Yep. Nowadays a computer turns your headlights on.
 
But they have also came with unintended consequences. I got my Trailblazer stuck in the sand and would have been able to get it unstuck fairly easily if it were not for the traction control stepping in and preventing me from getting unstuck. No way to turn it off on that model.
engaging the emergency brake half way didn't stop the wheel spin enough to get both wheels pulling?
The traction control stops the spinning.
 
Most all of my Ford made 100,000 miles and more. I even had a 41 chevy 1 ton flatbed that lasted about 200,000. Now there were the hot rods that did very little road time and they just wasted Cheap Heaps Every Valve Rattles Or Leaks Exhaust Too!
 
The cars looked a lot better back in the day. A lot more was spent on style. Sure, a 59 Caddy realistically doesn't hold a candle to a modern Lexus LS, but it doesn't look that way.
 
My oldest brother and brother in law both had twin 1963 SS396 impalas. Two door hardtop, Burgundy with black bucket seats. Floor shift. One of them even had an FM radio. New cars are much better for dependability, safety, and just about everything else, but they can't compare to the thrill of driving a classic like that down the beach at night.
 
But they have also came with unintended consequences. I got my Trailblazer stuck in the sand and would have been able to get it unstuck fairly easily if it were not for the traction control stepping in and preventing me from getting unstuck. No way to turn it off on that model.
engaging the emergency brake half way didn't stop the wheel spin enough to get both wheels pulling?
The traction control stops the spinning.

Yes, I know, but the emergency brake does it in a way that tricks the computer into thinking that wheel still has traction. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself next time.
 
The family that lived down the street from me had 4 boys.
Their dad gave the oldest boy his 1962 Dodge Dart when he bought a new family car. It had the slant-six engine and push button automatic transmission, and was passed down from son to son as they graduated high school, and went to college or into the military. All 4 of the boys were pretty wild and drove the heck out of that car. I remember a couple of times one of them let the engine run completely out of oil. He just added oil and it started right up and ready to be driven. The poor car received zero maintenance, yet kept going and going.
The old Dodge slant-six was one tough bullet proof engine, and when the last boy left home, their dad sold the still running car. ... :cool:
 
Last edited:
The family that lived down the street from me had 4 boys.
Their dad gave the oldest boy his 1962 Dodge Dart when he bought a new family car. It had the slant-six engine and was passed down from son to son as they graduated high school and went to college or into the military. All 4 of the boys were pretty wild and drove the heck out of that car. I remember a couple of times one of them let the engine run completely out of oil. He just added oil and it started right up and ready to be driven.
That old Dodge slant-six was one tough bullet proof engine, and when the last boy left home, their dad sold the still running car. ... :cool:

My first was a 1963 galaxy. I paid 150.00 for it. That car, and the teenaged memories from it are priceless.
 
In my area (Pittsburgh), rust killed most cars before they failed mechanically. It wasn't unusual to see rust on a three-year old car.

My family always had a junker because it was all we could afford, and with four teenage boys it would have been foolish to buy something better. Replacing mufflers was a normal part of maintenance, as was a full tuneup (points, plugs, condenser, timing). Flat tires were common and brakes required new shoes at almost every state inspection.

Gas was cheap. You could put a dollar's worth of gas in the car and ride around all night. When we left the tank empty (for my dad) there was hell to pay.
 
For those who ponder such things, the dramatic improvements over time of the American automobile are not terribly visible. The engines are better - more powerful, more efficient, requiring far less maintenance, more durable, and so on. Transmissions are infinitely better; today's automatics are generations ahead of the old 2-speeds and are better in every way than even the stick shifts of old, driven by the best drivers. The tires are worlds better, rust and corrosion resistance are immeasurably better. The cars are much, much safer in every situation, especially in accidents, despite the loss of full-frames on full-sized cars. Braking is much better, handing is much better, and they are hugely better in snow and ice, even with all-season tires, thanks to ABS and traction control. We've gone from basically everything being front-engine, RWD to most cars being FWD, lots being AWD, and only a few being RWD. Engines are still in the front. You could write a book.

But it is still interesting to look at the more obvious stuff, so I have compared below a basic 1959 Chevy Impala with a 2019 Impala, based on all of the gross measures of automotive stuff. 60 years of evolution.

Engines: The base '59 Impala was powered by the old "Blue Flame" in-line 6, with displacement of 3.9L (235 c.i.), pumping out 135 HP and 217 ft-lbs of torque. The 0-60 time was about 15 seconds with the faster stick shift and fuel economy was estimated at 20mpg on regular leaded gas (from my experience that would have required a very light foot on the gas). The 2019 Impala is powered by GM's ubiquitous 3.6L V6, rated at 305/264 in this application, and delivering a sprightly 0-60 time of a shade over 6 seconds, depending on whom you ask. Fuel economy is 22/19/28, with the wonderful transmission largely responsible for the high highway figure. Regular, unleaded gas, of course.

Dimensions: The '59 had a wheelbase of 119" and an overall length of 211", while being 80" wide. The new one has a wheelbase of only 112" and is 201" long, and is 73" wide. (The extra width is why it was possible to put three kids across in the back seat of a 1960 sedan). The '59 had a curb weight of 3,880 lbs, while the '19 tips the scales at 3,662 lbs.

That '59 Chevy, with its ridiculous lateral fins had horrible aerodynamics and would probably not make it to 100mph on level ground, while today's Impala would easily hit 120 if the driver were foolish enough to do so. But still, we live with 70mph speed limits on superhighways, not much more than in 1959.

If you could give a 1959 car nut a glimpse of what we are driving today, he would be amazed at the number of SUV's, mini-vans, and pickup trucks on the road. The terms "SUV" and "Mini-van" had not even been conceived in 1959, although there were some vehicles out there that were the prototypes of today's SUV's (Chevy Suburban, International Travelall, etc.). As for sedans, he would be disappointed that we don't have flying cars or at least auto-pilot cars by this time.

But given a chance to own one of today's cars for a while, he would quickly learn to appreciate the reliability and durability, the lack of concern about rust, the fuel economy, the absence of flat tires, and the absence of having tune the damn things up every year.

Today's cars are fucking great, all things considered.
One small tid-bit: The '59 will get you a much better parking spot at the car show...
 
1958 Bel Air Impala
Base price $2,600.00
2015-12-02_13-33-26.jpg

1958_Chevy_Impala_at_the_GM_Tech_Center_GM_Archives_1.jpg



1959 Impala
Base price $2,700.00
1959-chevrolet-impala.jpg

1959-chevrolet-impala-rear.jpg



1970 Impala
1970_chevrolet_impala_1571940501e7bebd2b9a60dec12aIMG_8234.jpg


1980 Impala
Which was the same thing as the Caprice Classic.
7bd3380aae7dd7644c6d48fc40f3753f.jpg


1996 Impala/Caprice
1996-chevrolet-impala-SS-promo.jpg


2000 Impala
3202-2000-chevrolet-impala


2010 Impala
2010_chevrolet_impala_sedan_ltz_fq_oem_2_1600.jpg


2020 Impala
Last year produced
Base price $32,000.00
1623984686400.jpeg
 

Forum List

Back
Top