Repurposing old, well-loved names for modern cars is a business fraught with peril. Will the public have warm fuzzies towards the new car because they loved the old one, or will the name be “ruined” because the new car can’t measure up? That’s what we’re investigating today.
Yesterday we looked at two cars with branded titles, one from theft and one from vandalism. From the sounds of it, a lot of you like the ’90s Honda Accords as much as I do – just not that one. Too many questions surround its little walk on the wild side for comfort: How badly was it abused? Did someone live in it? How moldy is that passenger’s seat? A majority of you felt it wasn’t worth the extra five hundred bucks to find out, and you gave the battered Mitsubishi Mirage a comfortable win.
I feel the same. I don’t mind so much that the Honda is an automatic, if there were no other questions surrounding it, but the Mirage feels like a much more knowable quantity. Plus, it’s cheaper, has fewer miles, and lets you shift gears for yourself. Sounds like a winner to me.
Naming cars can’t be easy. There have been some great ones over the years, attached to beloved cars, and the temptation to reuse those names must be terrible. But put the right name on the wrong car, and boy, will the public let you know. A FWD, four-cylinder Dodge Charger? How dare they? Chrysler got away with it, but only because Carroll Shelby lent a hand. When Ford tried to do the same thing with the Mustang a few years later, fans rioted, the old RWD Mustang got a reprieve, and the new car became the Probe. Years later, Dodge brought back the Charger name again, as a proper RWD with a V8 – but had the audacity to give it four doors, causing another stir. And Ford clearly hasn’t learned its lesson – we all know what Mustang fans think of the Mach-E.
General Motors has largely escaped such criticism. The new Chevy Blazer is hardly seen as worthy of the name, but the Malibu and Impala got away with it just fine. The fact that the old Malibu and Impala were basic, bread-and-butter family cars probably helped; no one expected miracles from the new ones. They were just an updated version of the same stuff, in a shiny new wrapper. But how does the revival Impala compare to one from the old days, now that the “new” ones are old too? I found two dirt-cheap examples so we can find out.
1976 Chevrolet Impala – $1,800
Engine/drivetrain: 350 (probably) cubic inch overhead valve V8, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Morgan, MN
Odometer reading: 77,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
It’s easy to forget, until you see one in person again, just how freaking big American full-size cars were before the Great Downsizing of the late 1970s. This car is ten inches longer and five inches wider than its replacement a year later, not exactly a small car itself. The gas shortages and the resulting regulations were unpopular, but in a way, I think, necessary; something had to stop the bloat. There was simply no reason for an ordinary family car to take up this much space.
The smallest engine available in the Impala in 1976 is what I suspect powers this one, a two-barrel 350 small-block. In the following generation, the 350 would become the largest available option. It’s backed by – what else? – a Turbo-Hydramatic. It’s as classic a combination of drivetrain components as there ever was. It’s not particularly efficient, but very reliable, and capable of producing way more power than Chevy ever meant it to. We don’t get anything from the seller about its condition other than “runs great,” but that’s a good place to start.
The funny thing about these old tanks is that they’re not as roomy inside as their outside size suggests. They’re not cramped, by any means, but there’s a lot of wasted space. I guess it’s sort of like living out in the country: if you’ve got room to spread out, who cares if you aren’t using it efficiently? This one is in really nice condition inside; I suspect that the 77,000 miles listed in the ad is original.
It’s probably impossible for a Minnesota car this old to not have any rust on it, but the seller says it has “very little.” The paint and chrome are both shiny, the vinyl top looks all right from what we can see, and it even has all four original hubcaps. It looks like an awfully nice classic car for the price; I suppose it’s cheap because there isn’t much demand for it.
2005 Chevrolet Impala – $1,497
Engine/drivetrain: 3.4-liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Pawtucket, RI
Odometer reading: 50,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives “excellent”
Fast-forward three decades, and the Impala shared nothing but its name with the old one. It’s front-wheel-drive, unibody construction instead of body-on-frame, almost two feet shorter, and nearly a thousand pounds lighter – but still considered a full-size car. Let’s hear it for technological advancements.
This generation Impala was a replacement for the Lumina, which had served as Chevy’s big sedan since the Caprice bowed out a few years earlier. It rides on the same W platform as the Lumina, but with a longer wheelbase. The standard engine is Chevy’s 60-degree V6, punched out to 3.4 liters and driving the front wheels through an overdrive automatic. It probably gets double the gas mileage of the 1976 model’s 350/Turbo 350 combo. This one has only 50,000 miles on it, and the seller says it runs great.
Inside, the broad strokes are the same: a bench seat, a column-mounted gearshift, and room for six. The new seat is a 60:40 split with a fold-down armrest, and a little innovation they hadn’t yet dreamed of in 1976 – cupholders. This one looks awfully nice inside as well, which is one of the reasons I picked it out of all the cheap mid-2000s Impalas available. I wanted to compare apples to apples.
Outside, it’s not quite as nice: the clearcoat is failing, and the black trim is turning gray. My guess is that this car has never been stored in a garage. I don’t see any rust, at least, and with so few miles, I wouldn’t expect road salt to have done much damage. It could use some replacement headlights; they’re pretty cloudy. Fortunately, they’re also cheap.
“They don’t make ’em like they used to,” older folks are fond of saying. And that’s true, but in a lot of ways, that’s a good thing. The newer car is more efficient, better built, safer, and probably nicer to drive. But I’m guessing that most of you will find the older one “cooler.” Why is that, do you think? Why are so many of us so quick to dismiss new things in favor of old ones? Is it familiarity? Nostalgia? Stubbornness? Feel free to discuss it in the comments, and vote for which one of these old Chevies you’d rather have.
That’s about as much red for your dollar as you are going to to get,
I wouldn’t want either of these as my only car, but if I wanted a special event car, the bicentennial Chevy bordello edition will do some of the heavy lifting of making any errand into an event, perhaps special
Of course the VLAD vanity plates would be appropriate, otherwise pinstriped lettering would have to do..
Man that’s a lot of red.
I had a ’75 in 1985 and I still miss it. Rode like a Cadillac and handled like a river barge. Drank gas to the tune of 12 MPG. Made it through the worst blizzard drive in my life.
After I junked it, I kept the front bench and used it as a sofa for several years.
Well, let’s just say it’s a good thing the red Impala has already sold, otherwise I would be heading down the couple of hours to pick it up.
But I am surprised at how much those first gen W body Impalas are growing on me. It’s not a bad design. It manages to be restrained without coming across as generic.
The big Red One is just too much. I’ll take the cheapo low mileage Impala from Pawtucket RI and turn it into a Family Guy Tribute vehicle. Respray with cartoon Blue/yellow, a Stewie doll sucker cupped to one of the rear side windows, maybe a Lois decal on the front passenger window, put on my best white shirt and green pants and some Ben Franklin glasses a Pawtucket Brewery bumper sticker and then just go over the top from there.
I wouldn’t DD either of these. So I’ll go for the radwood-ready one from 1976.
And I suspect that assuming it’s in decent enough condition and not too rusty underneath, it may hold its value and maybe even appreciate.
To hell with Sabrina Carpenter, the ’76 Impala is the Malaise I need.
Slap a Carter/Mondale sticker on it, put a new 4-bbl (or maybe some sort of Holley fuel injection deal) on it, and be the weirdo star of your local car show.
If you want to go further with waking up the 350, the world of aftermarket parts awaits.
As a daily driver? Fuhgeddaboudit. The plastic fantastic 2005 awaits.
I do not know how that ‘76 is so cheap,but I’ll take it. That would be a 20.000 dollar car here in Norway.
Why would such an old car be expensive to buy there? Parts being expensive I would understand, but would it be viewed as a rarity or classic?
“Amcars” (Detroit Iron from the 50’s-70’s) are beloved by “Raggare” (Hotrod/Greaser?) culture in Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raggare
Basically it’s because even though that Impala itself isn’t anything special,that sort of big land yacht is really popular here. I guess you’re not just buying a 76 Impala, buying into the culture
Is it possible for a nation-state to have dual personalities? Norway seems like a good candidate: by far the biggest per capita fleet of EVs and a passion for gas-guzzling land barges.
I haven’t thought about it like that before,it is kind of weird I guess. I suppose EV owners here aren’t necessarily fanatical about it,it’s more from a practical point of view. With fuel prices here at roughly 6 $ per gallon it makes sense to have one.
That ’05 Impala has more Big Altima Energy than an actual Nissan Altima.
This was easy too- I’ll take the big ol’ classic land yacht! These are really cool…plus V8, lower miles, and in good shape. I don’t care much for the newer Impalas. There are a lot of reasons older is better (applies to a lot of things) but as far as cars, I think a big one is design- think of all the art deco cars, then 50’s amazing design, then 60’s muscle cars, and there were even some good ones in the 70’s. The 80’s/90’s had good design too but it was more specific. Now it’s mostly boring appliance CUV’s, etc. Another one is all the fun V8’s back then…along w/ the awesome land yachts that were comfy cruisers on the highway. Plus now w/ so many fucking screens, nannies and other nonsense; most new cars suck
I’ll take the ‘76 Impala at that price in that condition any day.Sure they are Tug boat slow but they ride great,easy to work on,and are reliable.That price is a STEAL.
The Spirit of ’76 lives.
However: “There was simply no reason for an ordinary family car to take up this much space.”
Wrong. If family sedans actually had this much trunk and rear passenger leg room, maybe FWD lifted hatchbacks parading as SUVs would have never been needed. I would have drive the ***k out of this Impala’s successor if it had been anything like this when I was looking to buy my first new car, not whatever the 9th gen was (The final/10th gen was a definite improvement though).
More space is always better. Its the American way.
Anyway, I voted for the mostly beautiful red rider…..
They did have as much if not more room for decades after this. This 76 Impala actually has less interior and trunk room than the “downsized” model that followed it in 1978. Mark wasn’t complaining about practical interior room, but unnecessary exterior room that wasn’t of any use.
I’m saying that current family sedans have less legroom, especialluy for rear passegers, than not only older cars, but moden CUV/SUV class vehicles. If family sedans today had the leg and trunk room of the old ones, maybe more people would buy them.
I’m not comparing a 76 to a 78, or even to a late 80’s model Caprice. I’m comparing them to…well outside of Charger, which is close in trunk and rear leg room, there really aren’t many left. Camry and Accord? The CT5 does have a nice rear seating area, but not much trunk space for a family to do a week long trip…
The SUV/CUV use of vertical space is probably why they are the default now, but….I dunno….I want more things like a Charger.
Of course, the Pacifica is still out there, which is fine. I have had two as a rental. if all you care about is space to move people and stuff , the plug in hybrid version of that will even save you money on fuel. Its….not terrible.
Just missing old school sedans, I guess.
Bicentennial Special fer me!
An ‘05 is only interesting if it’s the supercharged 3.8 V6 that was only available in the Impala and Monte for the 04/05 model years and is otherwise only good if it’s a 3.8 V6 car period. I can’t think of any reason to touch a 3.4 V6 base model that looks like that one other than “this is all I can afford and it’s the only car for sale within 100 miles of me”. The ‘76 is far more interesting today but also seems like it was a base model of its day. However a bordello red interior and a 350 SBC that’s relatively easy to wake up makes the Big Red Cruiser the winner for me, even if it’s likely a Yabba Dabba Doo version of good paint that looks nice from 10 feet but it’s the paint actually holding that car together and I gotta Flintstone it cause my feet actually go through the non-existent floor boards and touch pavement.