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.
If this was for me as a “second” car: the older Impala. A basic ‘classic’ that costs you very little to own would be worth some laughs for a summer or three.
If this was as a commuter: the new one.
Another hell no, neither day.
Apples and orange Tuesday.
If you need a cheap daily driver with room for a couple of car seats and don’t care where the sippy cups land…the 05 is your ride. With electronic ignition and fuel injection the 05 should start every morning with minimal hassle.
If you have an empty nest and long for your Aunt Gail’s sweet sweet 70s ride (and still long for your 8-Track collection)…your answer is clear.
I am not in either camp…but can see either why you would vote for one over the other.
My ex-wife’s grandparents have one of those newer Impalas. They are like 97 years old, and haven’t driven in probably 15 years. They bought it new, and it’s been in their garage ever since. I think it has like 20,000 miles on it. The world most boring time capsule.
A 1976 you say? I’m going to print some “Impala Centennial Edition™” badges and plaster them on the interior and exterior and then list it on facesmash marketplace and make a fortune! You are all fools for missing this opportunity!
That said give me the land yacht baaaaybeeee!
Because with more data and more numbers and more ability to analyze things, yes, things are “better” on paper… but there is so much lost in an object or a design when it is simply optimized to the very end. Yeah, sure, the 2005 Impala is objectively a better vehicle for mode of transportation, but look at it side by side. The 76 is way better looking. The interior? Sure, it is probably better to use, but it’s sad grey bulbous plastic versus a striking red. It’s the same with cars getting faster and faster but losing manual transmissions. Yes, a new auto is faster, but it loses the feeling. Humans are not about efficiency and optimization, they are about emotion and feeling and getting products and cars and objects on a deeper level than a spec sheet.
(also, on a topic outside of cars, most consumer goods truly were made to much higher standards of quality in the past than our present throw away consumerist moment)
That ’76 is approaching screamin’ freakin’ deal territory at that price. It isn’t perfect, but the exterior is presentable and the red interior is awesome. I can’t believe this beautiful machine is only $1800. Anyone who would choose the boring ’05 over this exquisite vehicle has no soul.
I will be in Minnesota next week. I’m thinking I should trade my round trip ticket for a one way ticket and drive this beast home. I presume it is cheaper to fly first class than drive this thing 1,600 miles home, but I don’t even care. I would love to be the captain of this land yacht.
“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.”
*Laughs in 5,000 lb SUV with a 3rd row that will never hold a pair of human butt cheeks*
Put me down for Big Red. If the current owner doesn’t already call it that I definitely will.
I think it’s because a car like that a) is uncommon in 2025 and b) can be modified in myriad ways.
The bog-standardness of the driveline means that any number of interesting engine+transmission+diff combos can be swapped in easily. That potential can make it more appealing, while the newer penalty box version mostly limits the owner to maintenance and repair.
Unlike the PLC’s of the day, the big sedans were pretty damn roomy. A high school friend had a ’73 Impala and it was every bit a 6-passenger vehicle, easily carrying 6 six-footers. Rear seat legroom and headroom were plenty even with a six-footer driving.
I had to take the ’76 because you can fix it with nothing more than an adjustable wrench, a screwdriver, and a hammer. Plus you can help the efficiency and power of the engine with a fuel injection upgrade.
It probabaly just needs a small 4BBL carb and a timing advance to wake up AND get better milage. EFI would be icing on the cake.
My college roommate had an ’05 Impala just like that one, with retro graphics down the sides.
It was SUPER comfy and carted the 5 of us in the house to groceries/beer runs/hangover breakfasts. Lots of fond memories.
With all that rose tinted memory, I’m seeing red. So I’m picking the ’76. I’ve got the driveway real estate for it.
I’m mesmerised by the white mudflaps on the ‘76.
I’m not a big car person but I would definitely go for the 76 over the newer car for just fun.
Ok, who in their right mind would choose the 2005 Impala over the land yacht? And $1,800?! Thats total fuck it money.
Please don’t fuck the cars, sir. Regardless of price.
Come on now. The ‘76 has two full-size sofas inside. That car fucks.
Sir, it is a platform that facilitates fucking. It is not to be fucked directly.
I see you have been watching the French movie Titane.
I have a 2004 Impala cop car with 150k miles and it somehow looks nicer than that 2005. Not sure that I want to know how one ends up with just 1 Walmart hubcap…
76 Large Barge for the win!
One car looks like it was cared for, by an owner that I’d guess is getting up there in age and maybe can’t keep up with the repairs at this point…hence the rust. The other looks like it was left outside for the last decade to rot.
Never mind that the ’76 is just cooler looking with the red on red. Plus if I wanted to have some fun, I could hot rod up the big V8 sedan.
I tend to think most EV swaps don’t make much logical sense, but if they do for anything, it’s these 70s cruisers that made 150 hp and got 9 mpg. Keep the style while saving the earth.
A couple of us have wanted to do this for a while. Big, floaty sedan. Lots of space for batteries, the drivetrain was heavy as shit, so you’ll probably break even on the curb weight. Plus, as this ad shows, they’re CHEAP.
I like the idea of EV swaps for cars like this, but wouldn’t aerodynamics be a problem? I presume something not designed with wind resistance in mind would require a large and very expensive battery to get a decent range.
Plenty of room in that engine bay and trunk for a large battery.
I’d also be pretty surprised to see anyone taking something like this on a road trip or driving it in winter, so 100-200 miles is probably enough.
Getting 100-200 miles of range out of a land yacht EV conversion would require a very expensive battery.
I presume an EV land yacht would be (at best) similarly efficient to a Cybertruck since the CT is heavier but far more aerodynamic. The CT gets ~2.3 mi/kwh, so 100 miles of range (with small buffer) would require around a 50-60 kwh battery. This is roughly the capacity of a 2024 Model 3 RWD battery, which weighs ~1,000 lbs and costs $15-$20k. I don’t think weight is a problem since that could be split between the engine compartment and trunk, but price is a problem. And again, this would only get you ~100 miles of range in a mix of city/highway driving, and only when the battery is new.
I like the idea of EV conversions, but they really aren’t practical with today’s technology.
From what I can find, the CT cd is .384 per independent testing (not Tesla’s usual lies stating .34). Were this the ’77 Impala, the cd would be only a little higher (looks like .41 per C&D, though that’s referencing the later years of that body style in comparison to the replacement generation and I don’t know how different the facelifts were in terms of cd, though I would think it’s not significantly different) and cda would be a lot better than the CT owing to the smaller frontal area. Can’t find figures on this generation, though it’s got to be much worse for drag than the CT and frontal area is also large, so even if it’s lower, I would be very surprised if the cda wasn’t a good deal worse.
The ’76 might be more aerodynamic than I am giving it credit for, but it seems impossible it would do much better than 3 mi/kwh. If this were the case, you would still need a 40 kwh battery to get a real world range of 100 miles. A 40 kwh Leaf battery costs at bare minimum $8-10k. It is hard to see any scenario where an EV conversion of a ’70s land yacht would cost less than $15k, unless you were okay with very low range.
Again, I really like the idea of EV conversions of old cars, but I don’t see it being practical at this time.
Toss the boat anchor, and hook up (virtually) literally any modern engine & transmission and you’d still do the planet a favour.
A 2.0T would be humorous, and surprisingly feasible as they’re already used to power heavier vehicles than this, as well as making more power and torque.
It probably wouldn’t be that bad on the generation after this. The weight would be about the same or less than a lot of the modern cars they’re used in (plus, knock off a few hundred pounds for the lighter drivetrain) and I’m not sure aero would be appreciably worse as the frontal area would likely be smaller than many larger CUV applications and the cd wasn’t as bad as it looked (.41 is what I found, which isn’t amazing, but not much worse than what I found from a non-Tesla source for the CT).
I have no desire for a massive land yacht that gets 7mpg and is slower than my grandma’s jazzy. It’s the better looking car for sure, and has far more character, but in this price range that’s not what I’m after. The 3.4 will go forever, just ignore the intake manifold leak, it will start again seconds after you change it so no real reason to bother. And with only 50k on the car, that thing could be a family heirloom
I really wanted to vote for the 76, but then I looked at the ad. Visible rust on the front fenders. The rear quarters look bubbly, too. No shots of the underside. He says “very little rust”, but I think that’s by Minnesota standards. Remember when DT bought Project Postal, and he had to learn to weld to reassemble the frame? Yeah, I’m thinking the same is probably going on here.
Is boring, it’s FWD, and the interior is gray, but I’m betting the blue Impala won’t crack in half the first time I take it over railroad tracks.
If you need transportation, the blue one is the only choice. But for $1800 the ’76 is an amazing deal for an old running car. Just as a fun cruiser it is worth it. Plus, you could likely sell the glass and other parts for way more than $1800.
This. It really comes down to your mission for the car. If you need basic transportation, the newer car is the obvious choice. If you are looking for an extra car to play with, why would you even consider the newer Impala short of something sacrificial like a lemons racer?
The damage on the driver’s side fender looks like the driver has either limited depth perception or visibility over the steering wheel and just caught a bollard or something similar. The fact that it just looks like surface rust instead of Swiss cheese is actually a good sign that it might be reasonably solid underneath.
This doesn’t even seem like a fair competition a cool old land barge or a vehicle that looks like I am doing meth/selling drugs in it.
Can’t… resist… red… interior!
Good Lord hook that ‘76 into my veins.
The 6 liters of your blood would net you about fifty feet of driving distance. If you had that car in in the UK, you’d be BP’s #1 customer and at the top of their Christmas card list.
Back in the late nineties I dailied a ‘79 Thunderbird. This isn’t my first rodeo.
I like the cut of your jib, sir.
I like big old boats. They have an undeniable charm in how they have absolutely zero performance of any sort and only care about providing a couch that can cruise at 70mph all day.
a 76 Impala?? Somebody call In&Out Customs!!