Last post on Feb 21, 2008 at 6:31 AM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet, Ford, Coupe, Convertible, Sedan
#1 of 650 or Impala vs. Galaxie 500
Oct 26, 2001 (9:41 am)
if you had the choice to buy one now (price notwithstanding), which would you buy and why?
Anyone here own either, and can attest to their superiority/inferiority?
#2 of 650 Ooh, tough call...
Oct 26, 2001 (11:03 am)
I've always been more of a Chevy man than a Ford man, but there are lots of big Fords from the '60's and 70's that I like. I love the '63 especially, and think the models with stacked headlights ('65-67?) are attractive. Into the 70's, I like the ones with the "poke thru" center section of the grille, which I'm guessing was '70-72. They've got kind of an ugly, hulking look to them, but I still find 'em appealing. After '72, they really didn't appeal to me...too much of a T-bird influence, and a roofline that was kind of clumsy and did away with the hardtops.
Stylewise, I don't think there's a big 60's or 70's Chevy that I don't like. My favorites here would be '60-62, '65, and '72, although I do like 'em all. I really wasn't too crazy about the '66-67 or '69 models, though. Sometimes, a trim shuffle is enough to make a difference in a style to me.
One thing I don't like about a lot of Chevies from the early-mid 60's, is that too many of 'em had 2-speed automatic transmissions. Now I've never driven a car with a 2-speed for more than just a quick spin, so I don't know what they'd be like to live with on a daily basis, but I guess once you get used to 3-speeds, a 2-speed just doesn't seem right. Just like nowadays, a 4-speed automatic is the norm, so going back to a 3-speed, it seems inadequate. Didn't a lot of Fords back then have 4-speed automatics? I remember some kind of feature, too, that would let you start out in second gear to reduce slipping in wet weather, or something like that. I guess the transmission is only a major issue though, if you're getting one as a daily driver.
Oct 26, 2001 (11:40 am)
There was a good reason that the 2 speed auto was nicknamed the "powerflop". If you have a manual try winding first to the redline then shifting directly to 4th. That's about the feeling I remember.
#4 of 650 I like them both, too
Oct 26, 2001 (5:48 pm)
I think Chevies have a slight advantage in getting parts (body and engine) when needed, but the frequency of powerglides in the Chevies sucks. I think it's easy (and cheap) enough to replace with a turbo-hydramatic, no? I know the TH was used exclusively in big chevies after 69 (right?) with some of the same engines (particularly the 327). Does anyone know if the TH would work with a 283 or 307 (68 Impala base V8)?
I don't know about Ford transmissions. I think they were 3 speeds (Cruise-o-matic?).
Chevies are certainly easier to find, but way more expensive in general.
Oct 26, 2001 (7:10 pm)
For everyday driving the Powerglide was fine, at least for me. You lose something off the line because first gear is around 1.72, almost a second gear ratio, but the main drawback is that you run out of passing gear too quickly.
But it worked. The Chevy 283 and 327 were so much better than Ford's comparable engines in the early '60s, the 292 and 352, that I wonder if there was any real difference in performance around town. And as I recall Ford's early Cruise-O had only two speeds unless you floored it.
The '64-up Ford C-4 and C-6 were true three speeds. I'm not aware of any Ford four speed automatic in the '60s and '70s.
Styling is subjective so I won't go there, but I think the full-size Ford's main drawback throughout the '60s was its engines. The Y-block 292 they used through '63 was obsolete in 1958. The '64 used a 160-hp 260 that couldn't have moved that heavy car around too well. The '65-up 289 was a great engine but the 352 was a real chuffer--my parents had one in a '65 Ford and I think their 283 Impala was quicker.
The torquey 390 was great for pulling around a heavy car but it wasn't known as a performer, not even the 390 GT available in the Mustang and Fairlane GT/Comet Cyclone. A friend had a '66 Cyclone that was pretty underwhelming and contemporary roadtests back this up. It's a really heavy engine and the '50s-era cylinder head design just doesn't let it breathe like the more modern Chevy 396. My friend's parents had a '67 Galaxie with the 390-2v and we proved repeatedly that it could spin its right rear tire, but after that it just ran out of breath. (On the other hand I had a 390 built with aftermarket parts that was very strong in a Cougar so it can perform if persuaded.)
Ford always had the right parts in its bins but didn't put them together right until the 428 Cobra Jet and that engine wasn't available in full sizers. The 427/425 was an absolutely helacious engine but way too wild for most drivers. There was an interesting 390 Police Interceptor with a solid lifter cam but Joe Commuter wasn't into adjusting his valves.
I had a ride in a '63 Galaxie with the 427's predecessor, the 406/385, and that was quite a car with a four speed. But overall I think Chevy offered the best selection of engines, at least until smog controls reduced almost every engine to the same level of mediocrity.
#6 of 650 Ying & Yang; Speedshift
Oct 26, 2001 (8:09 pm)
Depends on the use, but speedshift is correct in that the big Fords in the mid 60's were marketed as solid, safe, sturdily built, and quiet cars. Performance was never the image they tried for, and the engine design followed suit.
You may be able to find a Ford with a 428, and maybe even the rare 427, but the vast majority had the 352 v-8 up until 1966, when the 390 is the most common engine found. It was tuned for low end grunt, but the 390 & 428 both used the C-6 tranny, so upgrading a 390 shouldn't fry the tranny if that is the route one chooses.
I don't think parts availability is a problem for either one, both sold like pancakes, and it seems a lot of both are still around, and reproduction parts are made for both.
Ford and Chevy is like ying & yang, some like one, some like the other. Chevy's may cost a little more.
Speedshift, meant to ask you, what does your sources show for curb weight on the 67 Galaxie XL vs. the Impala SS? I thought the Galaxie may be slightly bigger.
Oct 27, 2001 (11:33 am)
I have a big '70's Ford (Well, Mercury actually-'bout a dime's worth of difference), a '78 Grand Marquis. Very big, very comfortable car. The 400 CID engine made 163 horsepower stock and it handles like the QE2. Definately not a speed demon (even more so, now that old age and incomplete tuneups have rendered the old 400M even more of a gutless wonder than it was before). Still, that car is great for those times after a long, stressful day, when you can sit back in the La-Z-Boy seats, turn up the 8-track, and relax as you drive home, secure in the knowledge that this underpowered, ill-handling land barge can withstand the assault of a cell-phone using soccer-mom obliviously unaware that her Navigator is not the only vehicle on the road. And if I want the hair-in-the-wind sportscar feel, I'll just drop the windows and pass an 18-wheeler .
People wonder why I love this car. Sometimes I wonder why I love this car. I just do.
Oct 27, 2001 (11:56 am)
ok, a 6.6 litre (rounded up) engine producing 163 horsepower? I'm glad I'm a 90's driver, very, very glad.
#9 of 650 Suddenly...
Oct 27, 2001 (12:47 pm)
...the 150 hp-spewing lean burn 360 2-bbl in my '79 New Yorker doesn't sound so bad! The really laughable year for it was 1980, when it dropped to an almighty 130 hp. Sometimes those big engines can surprise you though. Even if the hp numbers are laughable, the torque #'s usually are not, and I think in big luxo-cruisers, that's what matters most. Maybe they won't exactly wow you from 0-60, but they have an eerie silence about them at cruising speed, and will deceive you when you see just how fast you're really going. They'll often conquer mountain inclines a lot more gracefully, presuming there aren't any sharp turns!
I can't fully explain why these hedonistic late 70's behemoths appeal to me, either, but I just know that they do. I like the fact that back in the 60's and early 70's, it was possible for a car to be both big and sporty, and that's probably why they have a much broader appeal. But there's just something about the pimpiness of a top-line late 70's car. The shag carpet, the thick, padded vinyl, the fake wood. Sure it's tacky, but somehow, it looks at home in a late 70's love-boat! Plus, this truly was the end of an era for the big car. In 1976, even the smallest full size car was still a good 220-221" long, while some of the Lincolns, Cadillacs, Olds 98's, and Buick Electras were pushing 230-233"! And people cry about those tiny little Excursions today! I think the longest car made today is the Town Car, but even on the extended wheelbase, it's "only" about 223". I doubt that cars of this size will ever be more than a niche market today, but they were the standard back in the 70's.
Oct 27, 2001 (4:18 pm)
I don't know about you guys .
To me and to most people who were actually around then, cars from the '70s represent the automotive equivilent of a perfect storm, the inevitable and uncontrollable intersection of increasing size, gutlessness and bad taste.
Hey, I get it, that's the appeal!
jsylvester: my book lists the '67 Impala SS convertible V8 at 3650 pounds and $3254 base price. '67 Galaxie XL convertible lists at 3794 pounds and $3493. The Impala weight sounds light so I'm pretty sure it's the shipping weight (no fluids). But the Galaxie weight is also probably the shipping weight so it looks like the Ford was almost 150 pounds heavier. And the standard Ford 289 was maybe 50 pounds lighter than the Chevy 283. Maybe the Ford came with a few more features (the higher base price might support that) or maybe it had more sound deadening ("more quiet than a Rolls Royce") or maybe it was better built.
Many years ago my father told me that Ford wagons were stronger than Chevies. Ford certainly sold a lot of full-size wagons then, way more than Chevy, but I never quite believed him until one day I saw a '66 Chevy wagon that actually bowed at the back end just like he said.