POLL: Does a 1965 Impala look 50 million times better than a 2014 Impala? Is it just me, or does a 1965 Impala look 50 million times better than a 2014 Impala?

Shutter Bugger

Is it just me, or does a 1965 Impala look 50 million times better than a 2014 Impala?

Togs unknown
Togs unknown...

jmizera Loc: Austin Texas

Shutter Bugger wrote:

Is it just me, or does a 1965 Impala look 50 million times better than a 2014 Impala?

I am with you there! Wind tunnels have made modern cars all look just about the same.

Billbobboy42 Loc: Center of Delmarva

Shutter Bugger wrote:

Is it just me, or does a 1965 Impala look 50 million times better than a 2014 Impala?

IMHO, almost all modern autos look either dumb, stupid, or a style of no historic value. Having said that, a 1958 red convertible Impala would look even better 8-)

hopthecop Loc: salisbury md

Billbobboy42 wrote:

IMHO, almost all modern autos look either dumb, stupid, or a style of no historic value. Having said that, a 1958 red convertible Impala would look even better 8-)

that 58 impala was the last decent auto Chevrolet made....
gm now stands for garbage motors....

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Billbobboy42 wrote:

IMHO, almost all modern autos look either dumb, stupid, or a style of no historic value. Having said that, a 1958 red convertible Impala would look even better 8-)

Agree, but I like this '41:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-214717-1.html

Cars started degrading in the 50's and have been on a downward spiral since, as far as looks go.

Mechanically, I think they have to design in failure, else cars would last forever these days.

Shutter Bugger

I'm pretty sure the first Impalas (RHD) imported to Australia
were 60s models. So until I googled 58 Impala a minute ago I had not seen one. I know when I saw a mid 60s Impala for the first time as a 10 year old, I wanted my father to get one.

The 58 models do look great but kind of dated; where as the 65
still looks kinda modern imho

I could see the 65 to about 68 Impalas being resurrected the way
Ford has resurrected the old Mustang.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

It is not modern automobile design, it is the former designer for Kelvinator that General Motors has designing their cars.

Robert Graybeal Loc: Myrtle Beach

As far as Impalas go ... the 1960 was the best looking.

Shutter Bugger

Robert Graybeal wrote:

As far as Impalas go ... the 1960 was the best looking.

That shape were imported Australia too.

But the question asks for your opinion; 1965 v 2014

Not your opinion of "The best looking Impala"... of all time

;)

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

Shutter Bugger wrote:

That shape were imported Australia too.

But the question asks for your opinion; 1965 v 2014

Not your opinion of "The best looking Impala"... of all time

;)

I do miss the styling of those cars (although the '57 Impala was the best and the '59 Impala the most iconic). Have you driven one of those old boats lately, though? I much prefer the starting, steering, braking, general suspension and long life of today's cars.

Shutter Bugger

PrairieSeasons wrote:

I do miss the styling of those cars (although the '57 Impala was the best and the '59 Impala the most iconic). Have you driven one of those old boats lately, though? I much prefer the starting, steering, braking, general suspension and long life of today's cars.

:thumbup:

No I havnt. The closest thing Ive driven to it is a 68 Pontiac Parisienne that had the 327 CI power plant.

Nice car in a straight line on a smooth road. :-)

Having said that, the "long life" of todays cars is yet to be proven. AND! rear wheel drive is far more rewarding ( fuel efficiency notwithstanding) than the front wheel drive of the new Impalas

I reckon front wheel drive especially on an Impala or the like is a travesty.

Front wheel drive has its place... on cars like Hyundais.

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

Shutter Bugger wrote:

:thumbup:

No I havnt. The closest thing Ive driven to it is a 68 Pontiac Parisienne that had the 327 CI power plant.

Nice car in a straight line on a smooth road. :-)

Having said that, the "long life" of todays cars is yet to be proven.

I don't recall a car lasting 100,000 miles for me until the past fifteen or so years. Now 200,000 is common.

I had a 64 Bonneville convertible with dual quads on a 389. You could watch the gas gauge move on that thing.

Shutter Bugger

PrairieSeasons wrote:

I don't recall a car lasting 100,000 miles for me until the past fifteen or so years. Now 200,000 is common.

I had a 64 Bonneville convertible with dual quads on a 389. You could watch the gas gauge move on that thing.

My old mans 65 Valiant went for well over 200,000 miles,
It had acres of rust but it was still burning rubber when he
got rid of it.

I remember him bragging "it's done over 200,000 miles and the
head hasn't even been off it". :twisted:

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

Shutter Bugger wrote:

My old mans 65 Valiant went for well over 200,000 miles,
It had acres of rust but it was still burning rubber when he
got rid of it.

I remember him bragging "it's done over 200,000 miles and the
head hasn't even been off it". :twisted:

I agree. There were even rare cases of a million miles on a car. 100,000 wasn't common then, though.

mlkddk Loc: Colorado

yes, and the 65 would do 140 mph--and felt like only 60