[Dealer Film] 1965 Belair and Chevelle vs Mopars! The curves vs the straight
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 พ.ย. 2023
- Chevy doesn't go into performance on this one...
And Mopars video version is 100% flipped :)
mid 60's the dealers start basically fudging...
Here is Mopars response. • 1965 Plymouth Fury vs ...
1965 Chevrolet Belair or 1965 Fury? 396 SS car or a 426 Wedge? Maybe we will dive into performance later. It would be a close race... - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![[Dealer Film] The 1961 Chevy is the LEADER? Vs Dodge/Plymouth/Ford...](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EKiDvUF_5cI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Dealer Film] The 1961 Chevy is the LEADER? Vs Dodge/Plymouth/Ford...](/img/tr.png)
![[Dealer Film] 1955 Desoto versus Buick, don't turn on the RADIO!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AfBcHrfuPoY/mqdefault.jpg)
After watching a bunch of these filmstrips over the last few years, I have to say that nobody layed the baloney on thicker than Chevrolet.
Yeah I think Chevy took the most "liberties" :) But hey its good to be the king right? :)
@@autochronicles8667 Yes, arming their salesmen with a boatload of hyperbole certainly paid off.
ply fury had full gauges and a 3 speed torque flight auto
FACTS.
Gm was still pushing the Powerslide 2 speed POS.
@@stevespatola763Chevrolet, not all of GM, as only Chevrolet used Powerglide. It may have been a POS performance-wise, but it was super-reliable.
The Chevy HVAC controls from 1965 - 1968 were not vacuum operated and I doubt many people ever mastered them, especially the factory air cars. They worked very well, just quite cumbersome. The five buttons on all Chryslers were as simple as possible. No question that the Chevy was the better choice.
The bad thing about the Ford for 1965 and the Chevy from 1962 on is the total lack of gauges other than a gas gauge. The Plymouths had full instrumentation. Very important to me.
It;s a nice touch, the fail lights were horrible.
One reason Mopar is better! Mopar or no car!
@@kennethanway7979 Providing you get one from a good year. Whatever you do, stay away from a 57.
@@jamesbosworth4191 why is that? Serious guestion. I do prefer the 58.
@@kennethanway7979 The 57s, especially the Plymouths and Dodges, were very poor quality. They were practically mass-produced prototypes, as they were rushed into production. They were originally intended for 58. The actual 58s were improved quality.
I am a Chevy guy but one must give credit for the great engine Chrysler developed.
I really liked the Chrysler "torsion-aire" ride in all of the versions I have driven. Though it might be difficult to keep up vs coil springs
The one styling detail on the '65 Impala that rubs me wrong is the argent silver painted splash pan. It looks as though it was intended to be body colored but either that would cost too much to match every color, or it was decided that it didn't look "massive" enough and had to be made to look like part of the bumper, but again chroming it would've added too much cost. I've seen otherwise-stock ones with it painted body color and it looks great.
The 66 had it chromed.
On the Impala it was painted silver but the cheaper Bel-air and Biscayne had it painted body color. Chevrolet was marketed as the entry level (cheapest) make in the GM lineup and was not always allowed to have too dressy a model. I agree; it looked better painted body color.
@@andrewbillingsley9377 That's weird. Must have differed according to region, as I never saw one when they were new, or even late model used, cars with it body color, regardless of series. I agree though that it does look better body color.
The '65 Impala 2 door hardtop is absolutely the best looking Chevrolet of all time. Imagine seeing leftover '64's in the lot when the '65's were introduced.
When the squared up 64's were introduced, I thought they looked older, less modern than the sharp '63's.
Still do.
You will find some serious 64 fans out there though.
I was never a fan of any Ply. in 65' and was not a fan of Chevelle until 66' with the new body style. The only Mopar that I was a fan of in 65' was the Chrysler Crown Imperial. I was in elementary school and built an AMT model kit of that car. Beautiful styled car. The designer came from Ford and was the same person who designed the Lincolns at Ford.
Mr. Elwood Engle.
The Slant 6 would run for 300k miles. The Chevy 235 on those days began smoking around 50k.
Yes, the Slant 6 would go nearly forever, much longer than the rest of the car, but the Chevy 235 was still a good engine and would go a lot longer than 50,000 without smoking.
Yeah cmon the Chevy wasn't that bad :)
They were using the 194/230 at that point - the 450lb thin cast 'small block version' of the stove bolt, which weighed over 600lbs.
the 65 full size chevy was a home run for GM, but if you had a big block sport fury, you exactly suffering !
At the beginning of the film it is kinda ironic that the presenter says "Plymouth still has the boxy look of yore" when *it was Plymouth* that introduced properly sweeping rooflines in 1957, and GM had put them to rest in 1962 (and arguably, the 1959-61 bubble roofs never were as sleek as the Plymouth's two door hardtops of 1957-61)
Still, 1962-64 across all manufacturers of the US were dull bland years styling wise, and GM between 1965 and 1968 really made magnificent B body fastbacks. From 1969, downhill again for the US auto industry to never recover as the Seventies and the Eighties unfolded
Yeah the boxy look of yore? what? when? they mean the 1964s??? :) I think the car manufacturers hit a rut in 64-66...
@@autochronicles8667 Yeah, notwithstanding the specific years, that timeframe was sort of an interregnum between the flair of the 1950s and the unfortunately short "Coke bottle" era
Later on, almost two decades of boxy cars with opera windows, landau vinyl and other kitschery (is it a word? 😂)
I actually prefer the Plymouth. Better engines, better transmissions, better rearend and the torsion bar suspension and unibody construction was far superior to Chevrolet's Impala for that year...
Some pretty inane advantages like having 16 models instead of 14, but one fact really stuck out: Chevy resale value advantage of $280 after three years - about 9% of the new car price. That's a big deal for those trading in after the typical '60's car note length of 36 months.
In 65' I thought the Impala was 10xs better looking than Fury. Still do.
They really did a good job on selling the Fury here actually. Lower seating position, better suspension, Mopar engines, better paint, nicer and more informative dash, no woodgrain!, and the list goes on.
It wasn't a great attempt... I think Mopar did a much better job. I think I would take a 426 Fury over a 396 big block Impala... I would definitely have to have to think about it for a while :)
Lacquer is the better paint. But lacquer was banned because of environmental issues.
@@matrox Lacquer is easier to touch up, but acid rain destoys it. The oven baked enamel of the 1960s was much more durable, even if it wasn't as pretty.
In 1965 my parents traded in their white1959 Impala 4 dr. hardtop that was loaded with power windows, power steering, factory air conditioning and a 283 V8 for a brand new 1965 Impala 2dr hardtop that had power steering, AM radio with front and rear speakers, 327 4brl V8 and dealer add on air conditioning. They kept it for 8 years and would have kept it longer except it was rusting badly around the rear window. My mom loved both the 59 and the 65 Impalas but wasn't happy when dad came home with a new Pinto to replace the 65 Impala. The Pinto was never a good car it spend a lot of time at the dealer trying to get vapor lock problems resolved which the dealer wasn't able to do.
wow Pinto... ack
A Pinto? What a come-down! At least pop didn't get a Vega!
I went on a tour of the GM plant in Texas in 1964. They were building the 65 models at the time.
That would be very cool to see... ACK too bad you didn't have your smart phone with you :)
@@autochronicles8667 I never had a cell phone until 2015.
@@JohnSmith-cf4gn I think he was joking. (I hope).
@@jamesbosworth4191 Oh?? Ok.
Now this is a twist... most of these films are Mopar vs. the other guys. My grandmother had a '66 BelAir and it was nothing special - rode harder than you'd expect and the powerglide was not up to the Torqueflite. It did age well though. When she traded it off in 1972, honestly it could have kept going for years with normal maintenance - probably did for the next owner
yeah interesting the Mopar version basically refuted most if it. The Mopars had parallel wiper but were longer, maybe they didn't have all the new info. The bumpers are large and more supportive, they filled the gaps in with filler and sand them with the mopars.
Yeah, I've still got it. Great car.
That is Bob Barker’s voice without a doubt!
its close but I don't think so :)
Thank you.....
You're welcome!
On looks alone I'd have to say the plymouth
Yes ////////////
Boy, Chevy sure had to work to find "advantages"...... 8 models instead of 6? Both were great cars, but Chevy lost the styling lead that they had from 1961-1964.
Lol watch the Plymouth response... it's pretty much the total opposite :) It's funny a few of the subjects were wrong... Torsion bars went away for struts, but GM would use them for a LOT of their HD vehicles later, Lacquer was definitely not the better choice. 7 bearings was unneeded. Funny to see what technology "won" out. Plymouth touts their bumper and they have a better point i think. Gm air flush and dry rockers though were nice and wonder if they actually helped.
@@autochronicles8667 Dad was a Plymouth Belvedere/Fury guy and my uncle was a BelAir/Impala guy when I was growing up. When the small local Chevy dealership closed, my uncle switched to Fury. His last Chevy was a 1964 Impala convertible. I loved to take it to high school. I think Chevy had the looks but Plymouth sure had the ride and performance. Dad's Commando 361 Fury (1963) was the car I learned to drive on. Thanks for the response. :)
@@autochronicles8667 Flush and dry rockers? Here in the snow belt, the frames on full size Chevys and Fords of that era were known to rot in half. The unibodies from Chrysler held up much better to road salt in the mid-1960s.
@@autochronicles8667 If nothing else, GM cars were the more rust resistant ones, unless you go back to 1951 or earlier. 51 and older Chrysler products were almost rust-proof. You could dip them in hydrochloric acid and it would only destroy the paint.
@@KDoyle4 Never heard of Ford frames rusting in half, but GM's X member frames with no side rails, (Mercedes too!), were notorious for that.
Both GM and Ford maintained a much better ride over time than both A and B body mopars. GM and Ford will rack up the miles and continue to ride smooth and tight. A and B body mopars would drastically lose ride and drive quality. This is from experience. I think it was the Torsion bar suspension and unibody contruction that lost its rigidity over time. Most cars today use unibody construction but much better. Mopar was on the right track but did not yet reach the station back then. I owned and have had A and B body Mopars as well as family members. Also had family members with GM and Ford products from the same era being the 60s and early 70s so I can attest to these facts.
You are correct, but Chrysler did not strive for a velvety-soft ride, but strove for a sporty feel. Structural rust, though, destroys unit-construction cars before you can even see any.
@@jamesbosworth4191 Chrysler cars did strive float luxury, the dodges and plymouths rode solid when new. My point is as they aged, they got lose, steering got sloppy bumps turned into bangs on the A and B body cars. GM and Ford held their rides longer with age.
@@matrox Pre 57 Chryslers and DeSotos did strive for that floating ride, but 57 and later, NO. The 57 Chrysler cars were notoriously poorly built, and while the 58s and later were much better, they still were not the greatest, so your observation is probably pretty much correct. Now the 51 and older Chrysler cars were of SUPERB quality. Way better than Ford or GM.
The 57-59 Mopar cars ride was one of the best... And a unrusted unibody is the same setup. The industry raved about the 57 Mopars new ride quality, even today a Forward look ride is like a new car. I just rode in one :) Maybe the torsion anchors on the unibody Mopars do loosen up after a while.
@@autochronicles8667 You have to keep in mind that the enthusiast press, even then, hates a soft floating ride. The 57 Chrysler products did not have a floating feeling, so to them, it was a superb ride, as they handled far better than what was typical of 1950s - 1960s cars, but were still comfortable. An unrusted one is a great riding and handling car. The problem is that the cars rusted so badly, even in hidden areas so that the car might have looked rust free but actually was considerably compromised, that the structural rigidity was compromised, which causes a "loose" feeling, as the whole car flexes against itself. They considerably improved the nearly identical looking 58s, and the 59s, then the 60s, were each improved as well, but they never recovered from the debacle of 1957. Only Imperials, which were built in their own dedicated plant, were well built. Canadian-built cars were far better than US-built 57s. Chrysler-built cars were once the finest in the world. From 57 on, not even close. 1957 and up GM cars, though, were the most rust resistant of those years. Undercoating was always available as an option, even in the 70s, but found few takers.
.......this Chevy narrative is just a bunch of BS presented to the biggest BS'ers on the planet, CAR SALESMEN......got love how Chevy hypocritically bashes the Mopars for their looks, yet doesn't mention that the '65 Chevelle is just a '64 with different grille, tail lights, and wheel covers......
Ford blows them all away!
@@davidcampbell1899 Like the Chevelle, the Ford Fairlane was still built with body on frame construction which made it unnecessarily heavy compared to the unibody Chrysler products.
@@KDoyle4 A and B body Unibody ride quality did not hold up over time, rode hard and sloppy as the miles racked up. Had lots of them. A 69' Ply Road Runner being one of them. The drive train remained strong other than leaks, but the ride turned to sh!t at 80 or 90k miles. Ford and GM rides maintained. To be fair all cars leaked over time back then because of the technology of cork and paper gaskets that failed with age. Today most gaskets are just a chemical adhesive that lasts a hell of a lot longer.
@@matrox I ran my 1968 Plymouth Satilite for 270,000 miles and it always drove and rode nicely. The nice thing about Chrysler's torsion bar suspenion is you can adjust the height as the car ages. Perhaps someone was beating the hell out of your Road Runner.
100% true... Torsion bars last... essentially forever it seems as long as they don't get any rust.... Mean while all springs must be replaced over time... leaf and coil all fail.