Seeing that car spin sideways when they did the brake test made be want to comment on how much I love not having anti-lock brakes on my car. It's slightly more dangerous (if you don't know how to drive), but being able to slam the brakes and drift sideways like that is so much fun.
That car handles like crap !!! At 4:57 you can see the front tire just about running on the rim ! Not surprised, 395 2 bbl no better than 1972 Chevelle SS . Love how they hate headrests might of had seatbelts hope they like them.
Not so sure that it's nonsense inasmuch as the car was equipped with a 2.56 highway gear. Gear ratios are everything and I would bet that your 396 version sported a 4BBL Carb AND a 3.42 axle to push you back in the seat as you recall. It was a damn good looking car, but I suspect the cars performance was exactly as described in the review... pretty sucky.
This video is nonsense. We had this exact car and engine with the 400 Turbo Hydromatic transmission. It was a very fast car with and would put you back in the seat with 400 ft-lbs of Torque. The official time is 0-60 in 8.6 s and I can testify to that.
Actually, just a few years down the road, all the major American car companies would realize they could easily take advantage of the blind loyalty that had permeated the thought processes of their buyers. U.S. automobile manufacturers had successfully hooked their prey by baiting them with styling, quality and performance during the 1960s. Once the corporate bean counters ruled the roost, they devised ways to increase profits and decrease costs. Quality, choice and innovation were sacrificed.
@jeffersonianideal That's true. By the mid 70's US cars SUCKED. I should know as I have a minty Pontiac Bonneville just total factory all around, and the damn thing has always hesitated.
@PotatoGunsRule I had a 1973 Impala Custom coupe with a 350 2bbl. It was one of the last years for true durability and dependability. No pollution control devices except for an air pump which was easily removable. It ran on leaded gasoline and the Turbo-Hydramatic transmission was more solid and shifted smoother than most computer controlled automatic transmissions today. My Dad purchased a 1978 Caprice and its lightweight transmission overheated and burned up in less than 32,000 miles.
They did so many crazy things back in the day. I remember my dad had a 1971 Ford with a 429 with a 2 barrel carb! This was before the smog stuff and low compression engines, so hard to tell why that particular Chevy 400 was so pokey. I was just a kid back then but dad used to flip back and forth between Chevy and Ford for family sedans and truth be told, neither of them were all that great with regard to quality. The Fords seem to go faster when I would sneak out with one of them.
All the cars back then had build quality problems. My parents had a '68 Catalina that sagged in the back suspension after two years, had the usual leaky rear window and braking that could best be described as leisurely. The suspensions were tuned for ride comfort, not handling. I remember seeing a '69 Impala making a panic stop and the back end was way up in the air.
Wow 13+ seconds to get to 60 with a 396! Why would they put that huge engine in that car and only give it a 2bbl.
That car looked really crappy, horrible handling, horrible brakes, horrible acceleration and horrible styling. Its like people are about Toyotas now, they will buy anything. I'll take a 69 Chevelle any day over this ugly POS.
it wasstill a hell of a lot better than F O R D for 69! The Fix Or Repair Daily was a real piece of crap for that year--we bought one in Oct, 1968 --a real pile of junk---After 8 months we traded it for an Impala which we had for 8 years without half of the problems the Fix Or Repair Daily needed....
While I can't say I care for the handling, or the acceleration, I do like the styling and the looks. I only wish the instrument panel was more functional. Idiot lights don't tell jack about how warm or hot the engine is.
Holy Cow! Check out the front tire at 4:52-54... the only reason the car stayed on the track was because the rim was gouging the pavement. Nice job Chevrolet...
@deanmerc It is obvious that the tire is underinflated in 4: 53. He did indicate that the cars were driven as they were presented to them. They should have added air before doing this test. I've driven these cars. I know what I'm talking about. Also, this was Chevrolet's family economy car. I can't understand why this one was chosen for the test.
This is my favorite Car and Track. Who was the ninny at Chevy who arranged for them to test this PIG. ROFL. A six cylinder Nova would have out run that slug.
@IfByWhiskey This car was designed for the housewife or librarian who just wanted a spacious economical car to drive. I agree though that it was a poor choice for this test.
this car with a 350 4bbl amd 3.23 posi unit and dual exhaust with the turbo 350 trans would be good--oh yeah, redo the brakes and sway bars, front and rear.
@landyachtfan79 It was obvious that the brakes were out of allignment. Also, the driver locked all four wheels up. This is not the same criteria that is used today. Today, the object is to stop without locking the tires.
This car was ordered with the worst possible equipment: 396/2bbl, 2.56 highway axle, soft suspension. With a 350/4bbl HO 3.31 gears and the F41 suspension, it would have been a very different car!
Man, they didn't like this car at all.
Seeing that car spin sideways when they did the brake test made be want to comment on how much I love not having anti-lock brakes on my car. It's slightly more dangerous (if you don't know how to drive), but being able to slam the brakes and drift sideways like that is so much fun.
weewtrteert 4 months ago
Sidewall flex!
tocsa120ls 5 months ago
That car handles like crap !!! At 4:57 you can see the front tire just about running on the rim ! Not surprised, 395 2 bbl no better than 1972 Chevelle SS . Love how they hate headrests might of had seatbelts hope they like them.
Jim4575 6 months ago
My grandmother had one, it was useless by 1973.
glasscitadel12 6 months ago
Not so sure that it's nonsense inasmuch as the car was equipped with a 2.56 highway gear. Gear ratios are everything and I would bet that your 396 version sported a 4BBL Carb AND a 3.42 axle to push you back in the seat as you recall. It was a damn good looking car, but I suspect the cars performance was exactly as described in the review... pretty sucky.
gmerchant11 7 months ago
This video is nonsense. We had this exact car and engine with the 400 Turbo Hydromatic transmission. It was a very fast car with and would put you back in the seat with 400 ft-lbs of Torque. The official time is 0-60 in 8.6 s and I can testify to that.
curepddnow 7 months ago
The 0-60 times they report in this video is closer to the standard engine, the 6-cylinder 250 cubic inch engine..
curepddnow 7 months ago
Actually, just a few years down the road, all the major American car companies would realize they could easily take advantage of the blind loyalty that had permeated the thought processes of their buyers. U.S. automobile manufacturers had successfully hooked their prey by baiting them with styling, quality and performance during the 1960s. Once the corporate bean counters ruled the roost, they devised ways to increase profits and decrease costs. Quality, choice and innovation were sacrificed.
jeffersonianideal 7 months ago 2
@jeffersonianideal That's true. By the mid 70's US cars SUCKED. I should know as I have a minty Pontiac Bonneville just total factory all around, and the damn thing has always hesitated.
PotatoGunsRule 6 months ago
@PotatoGunsRule I had a 1973 Impala Custom coupe with a 350 2bbl. It was one of the last years for true durability and dependability. No pollution control devices except for an air pump which was easily removable. It ran on leaded gasoline and the Turbo-Hydramatic transmission was more solid and shifted smoother than most computer controlled automatic transmissions today. My Dad purchased a 1978 Caprice and its lightweight transmission overheated and burned up in less than 32,000 miles.
jeffersonianideal 6 months ago
13.7 seconds to get to 60. OMG my 4 cylinder Honda can do that in 10. LOL
PotatoGunsRule 8 months ago
@PotatoGunsRule he actually got it wrong...it's actually 8.7 seconds
chpman2013 5 months ago
There should have been a light to tell us we were moving. LOL!!!
PotatoGunsRule 9 months ago
Hes having fun.
1uneek 9 months ago
Is it just me or does this guy sound like a FORD man? LOL
TheBoomersdad 10 months ago
...and the music comes standard with the all new '69 Impala.
olmecbones 10 months ago
oh man sqeeling the tires on every corner
dicktwang 11 months ago
HOLY SHIT does that thing understeer!!!!!
durko83 11 months ago
They did so many crazy things back in the day. I remember my dad had a 1971 Ford with a 429 with a 2 barrel carb! This was before the smog stuff and low compression engines, so hard to tell why that particular Chevy 400 was so pokey. I was just a kid back then but dad used to flip back and forth between Chevy and Ford for family sedans and truth be told, neither of them were all that great with regard to quality. The Fords seem to go faster when I would sneak out with one of them.
gmerchant11 11 months ago
I'm surprised one could make a 6L v8 with so little pick-up.
charlesvan13 11 months ago
All the cars back then had build quality problems. My parents had a '68 Catalina that sagged in the back suspension after two years, had the usual leaky rear window and braking that could best be described as leisurely. The suspensions were tuned for ride comfort, not handling. I remember seeing a '69 Impala making a panic stop and the back end was way up in the air.
16924fps 11 months ago
Wow 13+ seconds to get to 60 with a 396! Why would they put that huge engine in that car and only give it a 2bbl.
That car looked really crappy, horrible handling, horrible brakes, horrible acceleration and horrible styling. Its like people are about Toyotas now, they will buy anything. I'll take a 69 Chevelle any day over this ugly POS.
tomsriv 1 year ago
it wasstill a hell of a lot better than F O R D for 69! The Fix Or Repair Daily was a real piece of crap for that year--we bought one in Oct, 1968 --a real pile of junk---After 8 months we traded it for an Impala which we had for 8 years without half of the problems the Fix Or Repair Daily needed....
2000cinders 1 year ago
While I can't say I care for the handling, or the acceleration, I do like the styling and the looks. I only wish the instrument panel was more functional. Idiot lights don't tell jack about how warm or hot the engine is.
Seattlecarnut 1 year ago
I had a 69 impala. what a piece of crap. The most amazing thing is that GM is still in business.
surfandsand2 1 year ago
And its fuel consumption how it was?
FURY1958 1 year ago
Maybe the slowest V8 Chevy ever. Embarrassingly bad handling; even for 1969. Yawn.
scdevon 1 year ago
looks like fun
BuBoNiCcHrOnIc91 1 year ago
Holy Cow! Check out the front tire at 4:52-54... the only reason the car stayed on the track was because the rim was gouging the pavement. Nice job Chevrolet...
deanmerc 1 year ago
@deanmerc It is obvious that the tire is underinflated in 4: 53. He did indicate that the cars were driven as they were presented to them. They should have added air before doing this test. I've driven these cars. I know what I'm talking about. Also, this was Chevrolet's family economy car. I can't understand why this one was chosen for the test.
cadrolls1 1 year ago
GM built this one for Fred Flintstone
biglinc1 1 year ago
Yea who ever decided to send em a 2 brl 396 should be forced to drive a prius for the rest of their life.
CSXRockford 1 year ago
This is my favorite Car and Track. Who was the ninny at Chevy who arranged for them to test this PIG. ROFL. A six cylinder Nova would have out run that slug.
IfByWhiskey 1 year ago
@IfByWhiskey This car was designed for the housewife or librarian who just wanted a spacious economical car to drive. I agree though that it was a poor choice for this test.
cadrolls1 1 year ago
@IfByWhiskey probably the president of general motors... He probably got a huge raise for suggesting this one... lmao
biglinc1 1 year ago
this car with a 350 4bbl amd 3.23 posi unit and dual exhaust with the turbo 350 trans would be good--oh yeah, redo the brakes and sway bars, front and rear.
BNforever2009 1 year ago
HOLY SHIT, CHECK OUT 1:14!!!!!!! I LOVE the Impala but I definitely would not want to drive ANY car that behaved like THAT under hard braking!!!!!!!!
landyachtfan79 1 year ago
@landyachtfan79 You can also see it at 4:16!!!!!!!!!!
landyachtfan79 1 year ago
@landyachtfan79 It was obvious that the brakes were out of allignment. Also, the driver locked all four wheels up. This is not the same criteria that is used today. Today, the object is to stop without locking the tires.
cadrolls1 1 year ago
I wonder why they did not test the impala with the 2 different 427 offers like the ss 427 geez this car is pretty fun if ordered right i guess
JAMESS30288 1 year ago
This car was ordered with the worst possible equipment: 396/2bbl, 2.56 highway axle, soft suspension. With a 350/4bbl HO 3.31 gears and the F41 suspension, it would have been a very different car!
ajp9478 1 year ago 2
what a plow machine.. give me swaybars please
tms870 1 year ago