Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars Classic Cars - Archived Discussions '64 Chevrolet Impala 
58 messages, Last post on Jun 09, 2000 at 1:34 PM
You are in the Classic Cars - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost In The Town Hall... discussion.
| 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. | |
| 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... | |
|
|
| 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. | |
|
|
| 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. | |
| 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"). | |
| 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.... | |
|
|
|
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...! |
|
|
|
| Does anyone know difference's between these two cars between 1963 to 1965. My father owned one. I was born in 1965 and it is the only car he owned between 1965 to 1975 when he died. I would like to find just general information on the differences and figure out what year it was. Thanks for help and info. | |
|
|
|
The Impala was the top of the line and the Biscayne was the bottom of the line, with the Bel Air in between. Externally you could tell the difference between them, the Impala had three tail lights per side with the backup light in the middle, the Bel Air and Biscayne had only two tail lights per side. The Impala had the most external trim, the Bel Air less and the Biscayne was rather bare. Inside the Impala was dressed up inside, with a deluxe steering wheel, chrome trim on the dash etc. |
|
|
|
| Thanks for the info. Can anyone tell me about the exact tail lights description for 1963-1965. I now that may help determine the year. My dad's biscayne had the two tail lights per side and the inside one's were white/clear. Thanks! | |
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars Classic Cars - Archived Discussions '64 Chevrolet Impala
