By on May 18, 2020

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, LH front view - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsDuring the middle 1960s, the Chevrolet full-sized sedan was the most mainstream car in North America. The pinnacle for sales numbers came in 1965, with way more than a million new big Chevrolets sold, but 1967 saw 1,127,700 Biscaynes, Bel Airs, Impalas, and Caprices leave the showrooms (if you include wagons in the count, and of course you should).

Of all these full-sized Chevy cars in 1967, by far the most common was the Impala four-door post sedan, and that’s we’ve got for today’s Junkyard Find.

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, sill badge - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsThe point I’m trying to make with those production figures is that the 1967 Impala sedan is one of the top-10 most-produced cars in American history, maybe even top five, and so we should all avoid getting angry about the blasphemous modifications its (presumable) final owner performed to keep it on the road during its final years.

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, front seats - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsGM didn’t spend extra pennies on making Impala seats last for the long haul during the 1960s; if you wanted upholstery longevity, you got a Cadillac (or at least a Buick). Someone grabbed what appears to be the split bench seat out of a 1980s or 1990s GM luxury car (I’m guessing Buick or Oldsmobile) and swapped it into this Impala.

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, power seat controls - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsOn the driver’s side, the factory power seat-adjustment controls stayed in their original location.

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, power seat controls - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsThings get interesting on the passenger side, though, with the controls moved to the door panel. Running the wiring from the door to the body must have been a real headache, so this seat swap went above and beyond the usual quick-and-dirty treatment.

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, shoulder belt conversion - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsThen, because 1967-style lap belts don’t keep you from getting a faceful of steel dashboard in a not-very-high-speed crash, modern-ish shoulder belts have been retrofitted into this car. I did much the same thing with my ’65 Impala sedan, though I used Ford Escort bucket seats (because they were free) and non-retracting shoulder belts from a late-1960s Impala (because they were the correct size and I just had to drill mounting holes in the B-pillars in the same location GM used in 1969).

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, rust - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsThe Rust Monster took a few bites out of this car along the way, maybe as bad as you’d have seen on a ’67 Impala by about, oh, 1973 in Illinois.

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, Powerglide shifter - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsSomebody grabbed the engine, but we can tell by the shadows left behind by the now-pried-off fender badges that this ’67 started its career with the not-so-exciting 195-horsepower 283-cubic-inch small-block V8, coupled with the two-speed Powerglide automatic rather than the base 3-on-the-tree manual (of course, there’s no telling what engines might have been swapped in by the time this car finished its career). A 155-horse 250-cubic-inch straight-six came as standard equipment in the 1967 Impala, but that was the sort of thing only downscale Biscayne buyers and fleet purchasers settled for. You could get all the way up to 385 horsepower from a not-so-civilized 427 in 1967, as well as a 4-on-the-floor manual or three-speed Turbo Hydra-Matic slushbox.

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, gauges - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsYou can see that this Impala’s final owner added 4.2 gallons of gas just 14.5 miles from the end of its long road.

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, HVAC controls - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsThe late-1980s/early-1990s cassette deck (with auto-stop) must have made road trips nicer than the staticky factory AM radio would have made them.

1967 Chevrolet Impala in Denver junkyard, RH rear view - ©2020 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsA very cool machine, but not rare and definitely not valuable. A 1967 factory big-block car, a two-door hardtop, or a convertible would have been worth saving in this condition, of course. I still see full-sized Chevrolet sedans of this era at U-Wrench yards, even in recent years.

The coupe looked much nicer, of course, so nice that you really needed a glass garage to show it off.

It looked good even when sliced in half.

If you want to find links to better than 2,000 more Junkyard Finds, head over to the Junkyard Home of the Murilee Martin Lifestyle Brand™.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

54 Comments on “Junkyard Find: 1967 Chevrolet Impala Sedan...”

  • avatar

    My very first car was my mom’s hand-me-down ’67 Impala 4-door HARDTOP (no posts for me, ugh) with the 327 V8. Nice car, but I hated that it had 4-doors so I traded it for a ’69 Buick Riviera. A much cooler car :)

  • avatar

    The ’67 Chevy had the best instrument cluster of any full-size Chevrolet ever. For reasons unknown to me they changed it for the worse the next year.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree with you about the instrument panel. In fact, every line on the car looked right to me. My father in law bought a 67 Impala 4dr hardtop about 1974 as a second car for commuting. It had the 327 with automatic. It had cream colored paint and the gold interior just like the subject car here. I wish I could have bought it from him as he got rid of it fairly soon when he got a company car. But we were newly married and fresh out of college with no money.

      • 0 avatar

        I kind of preferred the 1965 exterior styling for the sedan over the 1967, but that’s because I owned one. The instrument panel on the ’65 is as basic as it gets. If all you want to know is how fast you’re going and how much gas you have, it’s fine.

        I had the 283/Powerglide, good for 12+ mpg on the freeway, and maybe 10 around town, but when I owned it, gas was 32-34 cents/gallon on the east coast, much cheaper in the midwest. On a trip from Providence RI to San Diego in 1971, I drove 3165 miles and used 252 gallons that cost me $78.65 – over $500 today.

        I don’t know what engine the owner put into it, but I hope he dumped the Powerglide too. Zero to 60 took too long, something like 11-12 seconds, while the 4-speed manual got a quick for the time 9+ seconds. With good shocks and tires, that was a GREAT freeway cruiser.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    One of my all time favorite years of Impala. I really liked 1961 thru 1970 Impalas. Didn’t care much for the 1971 thru 1976.

  • avatar

    Starting in around ’59 the even year mods of Chevy’s odd year sheet metal revamps were mostly misses. I think the ’68 version of this (even the interior with its safely recessed controls knobs) was the ugliest of the bunch.

    The most interesting of the group was the squared off ’64 mod of the ’63.

    But the most sacrilegious change was the loss of the ’59 cats eyes in 1960.

  • avatar

    The seats are from a ’94-’96 Cadillac DeVille.

  • avatar

    I’ll always have a soft spot for these. For what they were, they were great cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Agree. Peak domestic family transport.

      • 0 avatar

        I think these cars reflect “peak America”—the Chevys looked good, and were available to as large a segment of the population as they would ever be.

        But my pick for peak family transport are the 77-79 Chevy Caprice (or Impala for the frugal) with a 305 V8 and F41 suspension. Besides doing everything better than the 65-71, let alone the overdone 71-76, the 77-79 were superb relative to all cars. Even Consumer Reports rated them on par with Mercedes.

        The 65-67 Chevy looks great, but…undertired, underbraked, powerglide on a lot–especially in the “post” sedans and 2-doors.

        I must be getting older, because now I like the “post” cars more than the hardtops.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Some good points. I or my family driveway included at one time or another a 66 Impala, a 75 Caprice and a 77 Caprice. The latter two ‘fully equipped’.

          The downsized fullsized Chevs were indeed groundbreaking. Bigger on the inside, good visibility, relatively economical, and with all of GMs luxury options available. But I am not a fan of the 305.

          And I may have to disagree with Consumer Reports. A mid 1960’s full size Chev equipped appropriately could compare favourably with many European luxury cars regarding performance and A/C and even interior appointments. And exceed them regarding reliability and for long range cruising.

          Yes the 65/66’s were inferior vehicles to the 77 regarding tires, brakes, suspension, etc. But that applies to nearly all vehicles separated by that decade.

          The 77 while good was not in my personal opinion as far ahead/competitive with the imports.

          • 0 avatar


            I am a fan of the 65-67 also.

            My point was that that you could get a base one with power glide, and you got that handsome styling–even with hubcaps and no chrome, but the driving experience left something to be desired and was not commensurate with the external appearance, which, IMO, was light years ahead of Ford and Chrysler, and better than the other GM divisions.

            I really don’t know what Consumer’s Report said about the 65-67 compared to a Galaxie or a Fury. It’s quite possible the other cars ranked higher. It wouldn’t have mattered to me, as I felt (right or wrong) that GM made a better quality car, and it looked much better.

            I’d say, in the US, base MSRP in 1967 was $24-2500. Add real tires. Then add power discs–if you could get them with low end motors (and I’m ok with the cheapest V8, or even the base six). Then add auto. Maybe power steering and some trim, and you’re in the low $3000. I think 1967 is the first year you could get Turbohydramatic in a small-block. I’d pony up for that. Power steering too.

            In 1977, the basest Caprice (or Impala) had a six, but it had disc brakes and real tires. Even without the F41, it drove well. Consumer’s Reports rated it the best car they had ever tested, on par with Mercedes 280 (E or SE? Don’t recall). That one really deserved a V8, and so equipped, was about $5500, with A/C (a lot more common), low $6k.

            A better car for sure, but twice as much to buy, and arguably, half as cool to be seen in as the 67 was back in the day.

            I’ve ridden and driven both–in the 1980s though, not new. I’ll take a 77-78.

            Still, a 1967 daily driver was used for towing a small boat–that car looked just like the featured one, same color, and I was impressed–it was 20 years old! Florida car, but still, very impressive!!

        • 0 avatar

          @tomLU86 – pre 1980 for the downsized cars I’m getting a 350 V8 with my F41 suspension. Oh and make sure it has posi-trac.

        • 0 avatar

          I think y’all are looking at these cars through nostalgia colored glasses, My mother had a ’64 Impala wagon, compared to my wife’s Explorer, the Impala was slower, had less room, worse brakes, less grip, rode worse, was noisier, more prone to rust, less reliable, less durable, less safe, less comfortable, and required more maintenance.

          Peak car, in terms of usefulness, will occur the day before whatever replaces the automobile arrives.

          • 0 avatar

            However, that ’64 Impala wagon probably maxed out at about $4000, so there’s that

          • 0 avatar

            Depending on what is important to you, peak car is now, or has ended.

            If you wanted a good driver that drove decently and could make it across-country, that ran well and was relatively easy to fix and maintain (but it did need tune-ups and maintenance), peak car was US 1965-69. This Impala, is arguably all-around peak of the peak.

            If you wanted a car that had good driveablity (requires fuel injection, there goes the easy to fix), good driver, AND fuel efficient, early 80-s to 90s.

            If you wanted the performance of 70s Ferrari in a family sedan, you can just go get a Camry V6 from…the last 10 or 15 years.

            Other than the malaise era, early/mid 70s to early 80s, we’ve been living in the golden car age. Till now. Even all these boring cars are evidence of it–MAINSTREAM vehicles today are generally so competent, and they look similar (for functional reasons), we consider them boring.

            Principal Dan–yes, 350 would be better with positraction was better. You could get an Impala with the 9C1 police package. For me, 305 was more than adequate, IMO, and could cruise comfortably at 70-80.

          • 0 avatar

            The Impala may very well have had a lower pricetag, in real terms, but it would be junkyard fodder in a little more than half the miles than the Explorer will be. TCO for the Impala was higher.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            By peak, I meant in comparison to the autos being manufactured in other nations.

            Domestic full size cars of that era were, with perhaps the exception of Citroen (or Volvo?), either much better than or better than in a dollar value comparison than the cars manufactured elsewhere.

            But certainly nothing to write home about when compared to current autos. Cars have improved considerably, just like TV’s, over the past 50 years.

            Hence the number of 65 Chevs sold.

            I forgot to mention the black with red, droptop SS from that era that my uncle purchased. The first car that I was ever in with seatbelts. I fell in love with that car, even more than his Jaguar Mark II.

          • 0 avatar

            I suppose I could quibble, but relative to other cars, in the 1960s, American cars were the best in the world, GM were the best American bars, and the good-looking Impala was among the best GM cars, certainly the best value, so the Impala is arguably peak family transport.

            What else was there in 1967? I concur with Arthur.

  • avatar

    My grandparents had one similar to this, maybe a 68 or 69. I was a toddler or maybe kindergarten age and my only memory of it is that it had rust holes I could stick my hand in. This would have been around 73 or 74. We didn’t even live in the “rust belt.”

  • avatar

    CaddyDaddy puts his Stamp of Approval on this full size Chevy. The best thing that ever hapend to the DeVille seats was to be placed in this full body on frame bueaty!

  • avatar

    Regarding the first commercial (glass garage), all this time and I never knew that Agent 13 had legs and a body!

  • avatar

    ’67 Impala wagon in an ugly aquamarine blue was my rolling hardware store/tool shed for years in the 80’s. I was a landlord of apartments built in the 20’s that needed constant maintenance. You could seriously cut down on trips to the store using the crap that would fit into the back of that car. No pick-up truck needed.

  • avatar

    A friend of mine, back in the day, had a rusty 67 convertible sitting in his driveway. It was basic– no power steering or brakes, no a/c. Just a convertible and an AM radio. Oh, and a 4 on the floor (factory) coupled to a 325 hp 396. Just about everything was wrong on this car from the rusted out floorboards to the frozen brakes to teh 4 flat tires it sat on. The engine was likely seized up as well. It didn’t matter, we’d sit in that car for hours (at least until the seats started falling out due to the rust) and pretended we were open-air driving, with the roar of the 396 as we went up and down the gear ranges of that 4 speed. His dad eventually gave up on the old heap and had it towed to the scrapyard, where I am sure it died a very ignoble death inside the crusher.

  • avatar

    “Grandpa, why are there *two* window cranks on each front door??”

    • 0 avatar

      Good old vent windows.

      Smoke ’em if ya got ’em.

      • 0 avatar

        They were the perfect smoker’s accessory

      • 0 avatar

        I can’t remember where–a Curbside Classic article, perhaps–but the scribe described one-piece front windows in some 1968-ish model or other as “an improvement.” My reaction was, “Bullsh_t, that move all about cost-cutting and steering buyers toward shelling out for a/c.” Grain of salt as a/c was becoming less expensive at that time, but still.

        • 0 avatar

          No one at the time thought the elimination of the vent windows was a good idea, especially smokers. Although it made the car look more modern it was not well received

  • avatar

    I vaguely remember my parents buying a used Impala from my uncle. I think it was a 67 coupe, but can’t be sure. They didn’t keep it long, I have yet to find any photos of it. Dad had a VW convertible before he got married, the Impala wasn’t really his style.

    • 0 avatar

      Same with my dad. He bought a used blue four-post Impala (’68?) as a back-up to a perpetually troublesome super beetle. The Impala was extremely reliable, but he was more of a Jeep guy so a succession of SJ Jeeps replaced it.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    NOOOOO!! Actually, I need parts!!!

    Truthfully, there’s not much left here that someone restoring one would need and can’t get re-popped.
    Mine had similar, though not as complete rust on the driver’s quarter as this car has on the passenger. And the passenger side looked like this driver’s side. My uncle did a masterful job patching the panels. Here 25 years later, no signs of rust in the wheel well. The rockers on the other hand have some bubbling present.

    In order to get a similar Kenwood tape deck in it, we had to cut some of the dash to allow the knobs to fit through in the right location. Fortunately not so much that I wasn’t able to put the stock radio back in. But, yes, having that tape deck in order to use my portable CD player sitting beside me on the bench seat was a lifesaver back when I drove around blasting Smashing Pumpkins, Primus, and U2 in high school. I still have my original Profile California 400×4 amp and dual 12″ HiFonics Olympian subwoofers. The amp is still connected but the subs were removed and are sitting next to the car in the garage.

    I’ve thought about putting more modern seats in it with the seatbelts integrated but I feel like it ruins the profile of the car, especially with the windows open. Now, the seat top comes right up to the top of the door. I bought a 1994 Impala SS console to install if I ever go that route.

    Since my last post, it still isn’t fixed. I’m getting closer every day to just pulling the trigger to pay someone to come get it and fix it. I just don’t trust it in someone else’s care. Though I shouldn’t trust myself as it’s just sitting there rotting away.

  • avatar

    Ahhh, great memories. My aunt taught me to drive in her blue, 1965 Impala 4 door hardtop, with the 283 and two speed automatic. I later owned a used ‘66 Impala V-8, 4 door hardtop in metallic green. My favorite car of ALL time was the 1965 Impala SS convertible in BRG with tan top and interior, owned by a fraternity brother of mine. I’m sure its the confluence of many happy memories of that era, but even today, nothing comes close to that regal feeling of cruising in that ‘65 convertible.

  • avatar

    For me, the ’65 was the high point in looks of these coke bottle Chevys. They seemed to get somehow drabber and heavier looking with each passing year. It seemed to be Bill Mitchell’s way – he was interested in the first new car on a new chassis (the ’65 deleted the spaghetti X-frame Chevy had had since the ’58 and gave it a real perimeter one). After that, he let the “stylists” ladle on the geegaws and fiddle with the lines each passing year, and never to any advantage I could see. Take the ’63 Riviera, it got grosser in ’64 and ’65 and then the new ’66 got Bill’s attention again, after which it grew more ornate each year for no apparent reason until it was a parody of itself.

    The 283/Powerglide combo in a ’65 Impala wagon was no sparkler though. Slow. 195 paper horsepower from marketing. Had many rural highway miles travelling back and forth to college on some weekends with one a couple of years old. An older student, a businessman from our town owned the car, and hell, free rides were great. My mother’s ’65 Volvo 544 would eat that thing for a snack, had real seats, and felt all of single welded piece rather than a collection of parts. No wonder back in those days there were sports car clubs at college and many people who didn’t think much of Detroit barges.

    Fifty years on, everyone has gone gooey with nostalgia all over again for the land barge era and shocks that had almost zero function. Boing and a front-back exaggerated double heave was how these things took railroad tracks. As for precise cornering, that lexicon simply didn’t exist – to pilot one you constantly jiggled the steering back and forth just to stay in a reasonably straight line. No, I don’t miss those cars even a little bit.

    • 0 avatar

      You’re talking cars for the plebs, I would take a rock solid, tomb quiet, big powerful ’65 Cadillac. This was back when all of GM’s best efforts in tech and engineering were heaped onto Cadillac and trickled down from there and it showed

  • avatar

    I had always heard that for most car lines up into the mid to late 1970s, including the full-sized Chevys, the 2-door hardtop body-style was the most popular. I would have guessed there were more 2-door hardtops than any other body-style such as 4-door sedans.

    • 0 avatar

      The 2-door hardtops had to be more expensive and no way were they the most popular (sold).

      I wasn’t paying much attention to pricing and sales volume at the time, but the 2-doors are way more expensive today, when you can find them.

      Four doors weren’t offered with sports, handling and muscle packages or rally wheels, and were considered ordinary, everyday family cars or taxi/fleet vehicles.

      Even stripper/base 2-doors were considered the sporty, youth and or swinging single choice, so they couldn’t have been cheaper, although either could be had with big V8s.

      Think Torino, Duster, Malibu, etc.

      • 0 avatar

        Actually, the 2-doors were the most popular for very good reason. Young family’s bought them in droves. There were no such thing as safety locks back then, and the perceived notion was that young children were far safer in the backseat of a 2 door model than a four door, so there was no chance of them accidentally opening a door and falling out of the car. I myself grew up in the back of a 1981 Olds Cutlass coupe when I was of car seat/ booster seat age.

        • 0 avatar

          B-BodyBuick84 – There’s at least some merit to your theory. I swear this 1970s anecdote is true: On a cloverleaf exit ramp, a friend’s older brother (older but still toddler-aged himself) actually fell out of a moving car . . . because why wouldn’t a young child want to fiddle with the door handle and lock of his parents’ manual-lock four-door? Fortunately the car was decelerating as it approached a stop sign or red light, and the driver behind them was paying attention.

          And sort of half a gen earlier, but in the days prior to Volvo-style three-point front seatbelts, rear seat ingress/egress was much easier in two-doors. Especially convenient were the 1940s and ’50s-style front seat backs that pivoted forward and toward the center of the car. I feel like Saabkyle04 has a YouTube review of an old Imperial two-door and hops in the back seat; it’s really quick and easy compared to getting into the back of a present-day Mustang or Camaro (ignoring, of course, the massive difference in room once you get there).

      • 0 avatar

        @ Johnster & DenverMike – I’m sure it’s listed somewhere, but Ate Up With Motor alludes to the two-door hardtop as being the “median” Impala of ’67. This was per a 1965 Chevrolet communiqué to MECHANIX ILLUSTRATED’s Tom McCahill (see Now whether or not that means two-door hardtops represented the plurality of sales for the six or seven(!) types of full-size Chevy body styles, I don’t know. I feel like the bread-and-butter pillared four-door would be the most common model, but maybe that’s wrong for that year.

        What I do think is that the pillarless two-door (and to a lesser degree the pillarless four-door and the convertible) set the styling baseline for this gen Impala and for other models of the era. Even though the pillared four-door seems like the standard configuration, stylistically it seems like a variant of the pillarless two-door rather than the other way around. Contrast that with a ’77 B-body or an ’82 A-body, where (to my eye) the stylists clearly started with the four-door as the styling and packaging baseline. The two-doors (pillared only at that point) were basically there to cash in on buyers who’d been conditioned from the mid-’50s to the mid-’70s to eschew four-doors.

        I know Boomers go gaga over the ’77 Caprice two-door’s folded rear glass, but it’s basically a gimmick. The four-door actually is the more coherent, more attractive design. Conversely, even someone who would buy the pillared four-door amongst the ’67s based on practicality and body integrity has to admit that the pillarless designs are prettier (and have the cool windows-down-in summer aspect).

        • 0 avatar

          I checked Classis Car Database for production numbers, and they don’t break down the full size coupes, hardtops and sedans, just the convertibles and wagons.

          There were 180,000 Bel-Airs of various sedan/coupe types, 93,000 Biscaynes, 124,000 Caprices, and 575,500 Impalas, and that doesn’t include hundreds of thousands of wagons. Chevrolet did pretty good business back then.

  • avatar

    Mom and Dad each bought a ’66 Biscayne; Mom’s a 4-door sedan, Dad’s a four-door wagon. One of my best friends had a ’65 4-door sedan. I waffle back and forth over which year was better-looking. The 65 appeared muscular, athletic, handsome, something of a brawler. By comparison, the ’66 was handsome, athletic, but more poet/smooth talker than brawler. I respect both.

    ’67 and ’68 are the lost years for me. I can’t at the moment recall the differences between them. Not my favorites. They seem fussy to me, not the “clean” styling of the previous two years.

    I had a ’69; hoop front bumper. Nice-looking car. But I thought the ’70 was even better.

    A previous poster said

    “As for precise cornering, that lexicon simply didn’t exist – to pilot one you constantly jiggled the steering back and forth just to stay in a reasonably straight line.”

    That is ABSOLUTELY true…until you replace the worn suspension parts, add stiffer but shorter springs to retain or slightly lower the ride-height, replace the rotted rag-joint in the steering column, replace the rotted rubber control arm bushings, and put in a steering gear with a stiffer torsion bar and faster gear ratio. Add a bit of negative camber, and positive caster during the wheel alignment. The difference is astounding; especially if you also replace the rotted body-to-frame rubber cushions and hardware. There’s nothing really “wrong” with the suspension; it’s just that GM deliberately sabotaged it via crappy shocks, weak but tall springs, over-boosted steering, too-small wheels, and terrible alignment angles–and that’s all correctable. Larger wheels makes room for bigger brakes. The frames of these vehicles are frightfully flexible when they’re not properly bolted to the body. It’s the body that’s rigid, not the frame; and everyone thinks it’s the other way around.

    • 0 avatar

      @ Schurkey – Your insight about the frame is consistent with what I’ve read in the Ate Up with Motor article linked above. Apparently the perimeter frame’s function was intended to be some sort of middle ground: in some respects structural but in other respects providing compliance. (Where that leaves the convertible of the day is an interesting question.) My memories of pre-’77 B-bodies are very murky. I’d love to experience one in as-new condition again.

      And you’re right that it’s tough to judge any older vehicle when various components may be worn. Heck, I just borrowed my parents’ 5-year-old/65,000-mile vehicle and found it to be stopping better than at any time since they acquired it used at about 18 months old. Credit their mechanic for suggesting a brake job and performing it properly.

  • avatar

    “Seriously?” Ashleigh scoffed to herself. Sure, his Tinder profile mentioned he “still plays with cars,” but this wasn’t a toy, this was a pile. He didn’t show any embarrassment, however, as he clambered out of the puke green sedan, rust flakes showering out of the quarter panels with the slam of the door. He waved in her direction as she pulled her phone from her purse and sent a quick “he’s here, rescue me in 20 minutes” text to her BFF. He approached the coffee shop and held the door for her, as he was taught a gentleman should.

    They had barely gotten their orders when Ashleigh’s phone blew up and she hurriedly excused herself. He wasn’t surprised, most of his first dates had ended similarly…some of his second dates, for that matter. After watching Ashleigh scuttle across the cold parking lot to her newish Kia and scurry away without looking back, he ambled back out to the Impala. More rust piled around the rear tires as the overbored V8 rumbled into life and settled into a lopey burble. As he sat there, feeling the warmth of the DeVille bench he’d crammed into the car, he decided this weekend was the Impala’s last. The sedan had served him well as a daily beater, taking just the bare minimum of effort and expense to ferry him back and forth to work and school, but the hardtop coupe in his garage was just an engine away from being on the street, and today’s test drive revealed his rebuilt mill was ready for real work.

    Dropping the shifter into D, he coaxed the large barge out of the parking lot and onto the main road. Stabbing the go pedal barked the old tires and the car woke up under him and swiftly carried him home. He was going to miss the big girl, but her heart would live on in his third-date car.

    “Maybe I’ll find an 80s G-Body for a first-date car. One of those Cutlass sedans or a Bonneville wagon would do the trick…”

  • avatar
    cimarron typeR

    Wasn’t this the same Impala that the scary thin dude used to run over a poor victim in “Blue Thunder”? Could be a movie car.
    I remember as a pre-teen , the older brother of a friend of mine drove a ratty Impala SS coupe. So loud. It amused me because it was such a large car to me (this was the mid 80s). Adding to this is that he stood about 5’1”

  • avatar

    My Grandpop had a gold 1967 Chevrolet Bel Air sedan with a black cloth and vinyl interior. I loved the dashboard on these cars. The instrument panel appeared to go all the way to the floor to a little kid sitting in the passenger seat.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Jeff S: GM could compete with Mercedes but management and the accountants will not let it happen. Cost cutting their...
  • Lou_BC: @Sobro – the USA isn’t the only country on the planet. That period of runaway inflation and high...
  • mcs: “and then focus billions of dollars and the minds of the greatest engineers and programers in the world to...
  • mcs: The closest I got to a trip Russia was a visit to the KAMAZ plant in Tatarstan. The invitation was withdrawn at...
  • Gabe Ets-Hokin: Hey! Here’s a wacky idea: let’s all drive our own f-ing cars and then focus billions of...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber