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.
Gimme some Big Red to chew on this morning – cinnamon for the win!
The nice thing about 1976 is those massive bumpers that seem to be indestructible but devastatingly destructive to other cars hitting the Impala.
A friend of mine had a 1976 Caprice two-door saloon. We stopped at the intersection and felt a “slight” thump coming from the rear. My friend saw smoke or steam coming out from the rear so we jumped to check out. A second-generation Nissan 300ZX crashed into his Impala, and the damage to Nissan was very extensive.
His Impala? Just squished up rubber stripes on the bumper. Of course, he had to replace the shock absorbers anchoring the bumper to the chassis.
Another nice thing about 1976 Impala is that you can do whatever with the V8 engine to gain lot more oompah.
Miles have no bearing on rust. That thing has been through 20 New England winters; you can be certain that it’s going to have rust. I know from experience that RI salts the hell out of roads if there’s even a hint of a chance of snow. Low miles for a car like this means lots of short trips around town where the motor rarely got up to temp.
My brother had a VW Jetta that was used like that and was literally falling apart with barely over 100K miles.
That said, as long as it’s not structural, that’s a decent price for a beater with a heater.
I still don’t want it though, I’ll take that 76 ALL DAY. It’s not desirable, but it’s more interesting and could be a fun ride. I like the trend of lifting and adding offroad tires to cars like that, it would definitely make a cool death mobile.
Would prefer the generation after the ’76, but I’ll take it providing the undercarriage isn’t all rotted. The ’05 is great as a first car or maybe someone with virtually no budget. A little work replacing the lights and rattle-can clearing the hood would make a huge difference for cheap, as well.
GM won’t pass my name reuse test until they slap “Citation” or “Cimarron” on the back of their next crossovers.
“Very little” rust in minnesota means it needs new floor boards, new trunk floor, and the visible rust on the body, but at least after that’s all fixed it’s an interesting car, unlike the 2005 yawn mobile.
I’d take the big red Impala and rent it out for movies.
The other one – I wouldn’t touch it.
I really wanted to choose Big Red, but that level of visible rust means what we can’t see is likely even worse.
I wouldn’t be surprised if those floor mats were structural.
I had an 83 LeSabre in college with less visible rust that had structural floor mats.
For where I’m at in life, the 2005 makes sense even though Big Red is infinitely cooler and almost suspiciously cheap.
With the poverty spec, I could drive like I’m a detective in a mid-2000s cop show that the Chief actively hates and shows it by giving me the worst possible cop car available at the time.
I picked the red one for the novelty. Both of these are old now, but I have been in plenty of mid-aughts Impalas, and while perfectly cromulent, they aren’t exciting or unique. I think the appeal of the ’76 is probably in the fantasy land of hot rodding, but the reality is that it’s probably too rusty to justify anything other than maintenance.
Man, as a GM boy and a fan of both body styles I’d probably pick neither of these examples. I’m not interested in the newer style unless it has a 3800, and the older one frightens me with that rust. Fun and super annoying fact: The newer style of Impala had a belt tensioner with coolant running through it. Why.
Either/neither, doesn’t matter with today’s selection honestly.
I would have gone 05 if it had had the 3.8. More so had it been an SS with the supercharged 3.8. as it is the 3.4 is not the most desirable, and I highly doubt if the miles are correct that the upgraded intake gasket was done, so no telling how long before the milkshake occurs and causes internal engine issues.
I think I see lot more bubbles in that red paint than I would like to see, but I would probably just drive that thing as is and just enjoy the looks and stares and occasional thumbs up. the 350 SBC even in severely neutered form as shown here, it still basically the 3.8 Buick V6 of the Chevy world in the 70’s.
I took the ’05. That’s a couple of not-difficult repairs and patches away from being a decent car. Normally I like big American land yachts, but the mid ’70s isn’t a great time for American cars, and this one has seen better days. For $1800 I wonder if the owner is better off parting out the engine and transmission and scrapping the rest.
you would probably do well selling it to a person looking to do some stunting on the streets. Or a young buck looking to pull a Donk Radwood dream of some sort.
Also not looking at a daily, so donk Caprice for the nascent Lemons spec land yacht class.
Others have posted but the quarter panel rust, red overspray, and Minnesota provenance indicate this is held together by bondo
The 2005 has seen some things. That is a hard 50,000 miles. I like neither of these, but I’m going to choose the modern one with my Internet bucks. The red one is rusting into oblivion.
If I needed a cheap, reliable driver, the 2005, no doubt.
But I don’t. Therefore, gimme Big Red all day long.
I’m sure the underside of the ’76 is an oxidation nightmare.
So the one with deteriating paint or the one with paint that is probably holding it together?
If I have to choose, it’d be the 76. I’d at least be wanting to drive it until it’s considerable additional heft provides more payback at the scrap yard.
The entire rocker area of that ’76 is going. It’s not just the front driver’s quarter. There is a rust hole in the passenger front quarter, the rear quarters are bubbling (the entire length of the passenger rear quarter is shot), and the bottoms of the doors are starting to go as well. Something tells me that the underside of this thing is one pothole away from going full Flintstones-mobile if it hasn’t already. The ’05 is a grim, ugly appliance but it’s probably good for several more years. That ’76 is a case study of a car that presents pretty well at first glance but upon closer inspection turns into a crusty puddle of nope.
At least it is a full frame ride. but yeah I imagine the floors are already squishy.
As a Minnesota driver that brought a ’73 Pontiac (Grand Am!) into the state in 1988 – that ’76 is going to absolutely dissolve should you dare expose it to road salt during Minnesota winter.
Red on red rolling bordello for me today
I guess the ’05, simply because the one in Minnesota will have rust for more severe than the pictures show. But in reality neither, because both are terrible.
I’m not so sure the Impala got away with it. I can distinctly remember meeting an old man with a maroon 90s Impala SS at a gas station complaining about the new FWD Impala filling up next to him being an insult.
Anyways, my last job forced me to take a 9th gen Impala as a company car and that thing was garbage so I’m not feeling great about this 8th gen, I’ll take the ketchup bottle.
If I need a cheap beater, I also need to go easy on the gas budget. The ’05 Impala isn’t great (especially by today’s standards), but a whole lot better than a thirsty, underperforming 350 in a land barge.
So, gun to my head, the choice is obvious. Absent the firearm, today is a neither.