1969 Chevrolet Impala road test video

[Timberwolf]

Shamelessly half-inched from Jalopnik...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf75xlZO0zo#t=2m19s

I've been watching these retro road tests with some amusement, but this one has to take whatever prize is going.

"These brakes pull to the left severely" announces the narrator calmly as the car wobbles through a complete 180 during an emergency stop. I know, as I'm sure apologists will remind me, that the full-sizers were never meant to be thrown around a track with abandon, but that steering wheel seems to be mostly a control for adjusting how much noise you make as you go in a straight line.

And the best bit? As the car yawns around a corner, front wheel riding on the rim, the tester concludes that the only real fault is that it's underpowered and comes with headrests.

[12gauge]

396/6.5 litre engine and 13.7s 0-60

I'll assume there is only 1 foward gear.

[J4CKO]

Timberwolf said:

Shamelessly half-inched from Jalopnik...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf75xlZO0zo#t=2m19s

I've been watching these retro road tests with some amusement, but this one has to take whatever prize is going.

"These brakes pull to the left severely" announces the narrator calmly as the car wobbles through a complete 180 during an emergency stop. I know, as I'm sure apologists will remind me, that the full-sizers were never meant to be thrown around a track with abandon, but that steering wheel seems to be mostly a control for adjusting how much noise you make as you go in a straight line.

And the best bit? As the car yawns around a corner, front wheel riding on the rim, the tester concludes that the only real fault is that it's underpowered and comes with headrests.

What a wobbly old thing that was !

[Graebob]

I love that

[aeropilot]

Hysterical

[CraigyMc]

12gauge said:

396/6.5 litre engine and 13.7s 0-60

I'll assume there is only 1 foward gear.

I know you are joking, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Hydramatic

265hp from the engine, but who knows how heavy one of those cars are? How does one weigh a small moon?

C

[aeropilot]

CraigyMc said:

12gauge said:

396/6.5 litre engine and 13.7s 0-60

I'll assume there is only 1 foward gear.

I know you are joking, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Hydramatic

265hp from the engine, but who knows how heavy one of those cars are?

And in 1969 that will still be 265 Gross...... so probably barely pushing not a lot more than 200 net.

[eldar]

12gauge said:

396/6.5 litre engine and 13.7s 0-60

I'll assume there is only 1 foward gear.

2 probably. 40 years on and a ford transit is bigger, faster, handles better, is more economical, and more fun.

[Graebob]

eldar said:

12gauge said:

396/6.5 litre engine and 13.7s 0-60

I'll assume there is only 1 foward gear.

2 probably. 40 years on and a ford transit is bigger, faster, handles better, is more economical, and more fun.

Still just a Transit though, isn't it?

[eldar]

Graebob said:

eldar said:

12gauge said:

396/6.5 litre engine and 13.7s 0-60

I'll assume there is only 1 foward gear.

2 probably. 40 years on and a ford transit is bigger, faster, handles better, is more economical, and more fun.

Still just a Transit though, isn't it?

Yes. Just not 13.7 0-60.

[12gauge]

eldar said:

12gauge said:

396/6.5 litre engine and 13.7s 0-60

I'll assume there is only 1 foward gear.

2 probably. 40 years on and a ford transit is bigger, faster, handles better, is more economical, and more fun.

I Do like 70s american cars though (ok, 1969 model) maybe put a body from an impala on a transit. Given the overhangs, the wheelbase is probably about the same.

Just have to find a substitute for the V8 sound.

[aeropilot]

eldar said:

12gauge said:

396/6.5 litre engine and 13.7s 0-60

40 years on and a ford transit is bigger, faster, handles better, is more economical, and more fun.

I suspect that a Transit V4 of similar 1969 vintage was also faster, handled better, more economical and was more fun

[CraigyMc]

eldar said:

12gauge said:

396/6.5 litre engine and 13.7s 0-60

I'll assume there is only 1 foward gear.

2 probably. 40 years on and a ford transit is bigger, faster, handles better, is more economical, and more fun.

It's a 3-speed, the car in the video. Smaller engined and older ones had 2-speed 'boxes.

C

[Graebob]

eldar said:

Graebob said:

eldar said:

12gauge said:

396/6.5 litre engine and 13.7s 0-60

I'll assume there is only 1 foward gear.

2 probably. 40 years on and a ford transit is bigger, faster, handles better, is more economical, and more fun.

Still just a Transit though, isn't it?

Yes. Just not 13.7 0-60.

3/4 size replica, sir. Correct, V8 engined Transit was available though


Back on topic: The Passat Mk1!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYZWCxweQg&fea...

[CraigyMc]

aeropilot said:

I suspect that a Transit V4 of similar 1969 vintage was also faster, handled better, more economical and was more fun

...and better in a robbery, if anything I've read is true.

C

[Timberwolf]

eldar said:

40 years on and a ford transit is bigger, faster, handles better, is more economical, and more fun.

And it's got a Mars bar holder.

Transits are brilliant, especially the newer ones with the gearlever on the dashboard. You can zing through the gears like nobody's business. (Admittedly with the smallest turbodiesel, you need to zing through the gears like nobody's business to keep it in the power band.)

Also the idea of a commercial vehicle with turbo lag amused me, or at least it did while I was driving it.

[ex vtskid]

"In the event the car looks longer to you - it is"