Got that right, surprised the Rally rim stayed on or the tire didn't blow, that would have been fun to watch, almost 14 seconds to 60 is MUCH slower than my 2017 Hyundai Elantra 6 speed manual
thats what happened to cheap biasply tires back then... we had "redlines" that were biasply but were performance oriented... instead of a white wall they have a thin red line
I have a 2017 Impala Premier with all of the bells and whistles. It handles, accelerates, stops 100% better than this 1969 Impala. Unfortunately the seats are not very comfortable being rock hard with thin padding. Seats need a little more cushion and softer springs would add much more to the comfort level. As for reliability dependability no complaints. So far after sixty thousand miles Impala has been 100% trouble free only having routine oil changes air filters and new tires.
I had the same exact car, all I did was add a stock 4 BBL intake with quadrajet and add a stock dual exhaust and the car ran 15.40 in 1/4 mile. I was shocked to say the least.
Was it low compression or high compression with the 2bbl? Was it a 402 or 396 ci in '69? I was amazed how slow it was, seems like a 350 300hp car would decimate it in every performance and economy metric. It could probably even have a shorter axle like a 3.27 or 3.42 compared to a 2.76 or 3.08 with the 396, still get better fuel economy and have the same or higher top speed.
I love the narrators honesty! Lol... I did not know they made a 2 barrel hog block. I had a '68 Impala with a 325 horse 396 4 barrel. It was a fun car for a 20 year old.
Yeah, my brother had a 69 Caprice with a 327. Smooth, quiet and a luxurious interior. I loved these tests, Bud Lindemann was priceless. Thanks very much for Posting this John Doe - you've made a REAL NAME for yourself!
The most entertaining thing about these videos... NO ONE could beat the snot out of a production car on a track any better than Bud and his test driver!!!
My older friend has a 69 Chevy Caprice Classic with a 427 four speed Pea Green with a black vinyl top. Has hideaway headlights as well. He bought it new from the dealership this way and has only had one repaint. My friend is 80 and still runs the old style ply style tires.
I drove the 69 Impala 396 and loved it tremendously. It did however perform 100% better when you redid the complete suspension. It would then take a corner at speed.
Wow for being made at the peak of the muscle car era, this thing sure had some paltry straight line performance, 13.7 seconds 0-60, 265hp out of a 396ci V8 of all things.
Tires were under inflated, 2.41 axle, 4.094" piston real 396ci not a 402ci, tiny 2bbl, all power accessories and A/C. Might not have been tuned right, maybe it was tuned for high test and they put low test in it and it was knocking against it's own pistons. Plenty of potential here. It might have had a powerglide too for all we know, should have been a TH400 but, who knows. One thing is for sure, it could only go up from there, I bet it would be a lot better if it was bored out to 4.125" with a 4" crank, decent heads, nice cam, headers, aluminum intake, 4bbl, true duals, some deeper gears in the 3.42-3.73 range, a posi, a higher stall converter and it would really cook.
I grew up in the era of these cars. The suspension on the Chevys was very soft and not at all good for handling. But I remember the Chevrolet cars as having the most comfortable ride of the big three, I love riding in them even when I was a child. The ride was so smooth and comfortable.
Keith Wilson Yes I’m pretty sure GM head beefed up springs with their towing packages, and their SS suspensions And I think when you ordered a car you could specify different suspension back then, I’m pretty sure in the 70s you could order different suspension packages.
If this car had the 427 cid V/8 390 horsepower with the 3.42 gears, THM 400 transmission, front disc brakes, and the F-41 Special Handling Suspension, Bud and the crew would have sang a different song.......
So my father and I found one of these in flawless shape for about $2000 in 1989. I tried my best to get him to buy it for me, but he was nervous about me driving around a “big-block” Chevy. Little did he know….
There was no excuse not to have a decent running 2 barrel engine in 1969. Ford 351 Cleveland-2V and 390-2V engines were really good runners around 1969 / 1970. Oldsmobile, Buick, and Pontiac all had really good running 350-2 barrel engines back then too. Chevy 2 Barrel engines just always seem like turds.
Yes. I had a 72 Cutlass 4dr with a 350 2bbl that run 16.19 in the quarter with a 2.73 gear. See the attached video. th-cam.com/video/JdmHhLinoDQ/w-d-xo.html
I use to enjoy watching these classic Car and Track episodes on Speedvision in the late 1990's early 2000's. They were already cool classic car review shows back then. But are even cooler today 25+ years later on. I miss old Speedvision. From 1996-2002 it was mostly must see tv for me. As to this Impala test. Certainly very under powered big V-8, but OMG how did those front tires stay seated on the rims even under that cornering?🤔
Shame he didn't hammer the gas as it did that 180 during that 60mph stop, would have been a gnarly front J turn burnout like the old 1970s police chase movies/tv shows.
I remember as a kid who was into cars and all that diverse styling of the time I really hated that non-fastback 2-door Impala and Caprice of '69 and '70. Watching this old film though the wrap-around bumper on the front end and brown metallic paint and white vinyl roof combo still say "modern" I guess because that was new when I was old enough to notice. The "elliptical wheel wells" of the '68 and '69 full-size Chevys were different but looked like they were going to cut into the tires!
It was obvious that the driver's side tire was under inflated. In the very beginning of the film 0:53, when the tire was inflated properly, the car went through the turns like a warm knife through butter and then, all of a sudden, the tire loses air pressure for the rest of the test. Something doesn't add up. Also, the rear brakes are out of alignment too. That is not necessarily the fault of Chevrolet. Most of the people who bought this car with this engine weren't interested in performance. They wanted a big, roomy car to get them from point "A" to point "B" in relative comfort. This big Impala did that VERY well. Any experienced driver would have known that the tire was under inflated which leads me to believe that this test was rigged against Chevrolet for some reason.
As of 2020, this was a road test of a car from 51 years ago! Let that sink in. And 51 years from 1969 was 1918. So it would be safe to say that in 2020, a 1969 Impala handled like total shit on a road course. It would also be safe to say that a 1918 car would handle like shit compared to a 1969 car back in the day. LOL
Except that there were plenty of cars from 1969 that had wonderful handling, even cars from GENERAL MOTORS built on the SAME PLATFORM. There is absolutely no excuse for how horribly unsafe these cars performed, particularly the badly biased and balanced brakes. The slow acceleration is really not a big deal as higher power options were available, but to even allow such a horrible handling car to even be sold was indicative of how little corporate minds cared about the working class who could only afford the base model cars.
Even though gas was cheap in 1969, Dodge, Ford and GM were packaging big block engines with 2 bbl carbs to give the customer the best of both worlds of big block power but with 2 bbl carb economy. An economy rear gear ratio was also included like a 2.41 ratio. As you can see, it didn't work very well and they produced poorer fuel mileage than the base 4 bbl 396. Ford had better success with big block engines and 2 bbl carbs as they matched their engines with better suited gear ratios.
Back in the day of cheap gas, a big displacement two barrel with tall gearing would still feel snappy and responsive at 'normal' driving speeds while being quiet and smooth as the engine never had to rev very high. Yes, they ran out of breath beyond about 4000 rpm, but the person choosing this option wouldn't see 4000 rpm or WOT very often (if ever). The aim here is lots of smooth torque, down low. Most did it a lot better than this particular motor -- either the 396/2bbl was a bad combination or something was out of tune on this particular example!
Olds used to sell 455s with 2bbls, they always have highways gear and dual exhaust. They were tuned to make great power at low RPMs and get great MPGs. This Chevy doesn't look that way.
The 0-60mph and 1/4 miles is something you would've expected out of the smog era, hell even a 1977 Chevrolet Caprice 350 is a lot faster and quicker than this particular Impala.
At 4.55 you can see the front tire scrub completely.Maybe under inflated ? He said they drove the way they “got em “ .13 + sec even with a 2 bbl and 279. Gears seems way slow .Ive been in factory 2 bbl moters that ran great ,especially with a free flow duel exhaust..
I was thinking if I was a teenage boy in 1969 and dad brought one of these home as the family car how I would want to hot rod this thing. Imagine how much quicker it would get with an aftermarket intake, four barrel carb and a set of headers with glass packs. Probably drop at least 3 seconds off the quarter mile time. Unfortunately for me when I was a teenager, our family car was a Mercury Lynx. Not much available to hot rod that thing. I convinced mom to get some white letter 175/70R13 tires and I added a chrome master cylinder cover from the Ford Motorsports catalog. I also swapped on a chrome round air cleaner with a home made adaptor to fit the rectangular air horn on the progressive 2bbl carb. This probably performed worse than the oval factory piece. that carbureted 1.6L automatic was a real slug. My 2bbl 71 Impala 4 door was a rocket compared to it.
A neighbor had '69 Biscayne 4 door Powerglide SIX cylinder & 3 kids - imagine the family trying to merge getting on the Turnpike in that barge. Or passing a truck on a 2 lane. Floor it & pray.
My first car was a 1961 Biscayne with a 6-cylinder and the powerglide. No, you cannot merge on a freeway with that boat anchor unless the onramp went downhill. 0 to 60 was around 20 seconds. It rewarded me with 13 mpg. city, 11 mpg. highway. I'm sure handling would parallel this Impala. And just like a boat, my two happiest days were the day I got it and the day I got rid of it!
These vehicles are what the consumer got back when there were no real regulations for safety, economy, and environmental impact. They were bad for your health on a multitude of levels.
He said the rear window was convex, but it's concave! He didn't say the axle ratio--this car was probably configured for highway economy, not performance.
It's like trying to run the 100 yard dash with a 1/4" snorkel sealed on your face. Open up the air cleaner and exhaust and that car would light the tires up. Maybe putting more than 17 psi in the front tires would help the handling.
Who in God's name buys a 396 with a two-barrel carb? And what's with the skinny underinflated tires? Ridiculous "road test." The car was set up to meet Lindemann's pro-Ford anti-Chevy agenda. His trash talk is deliberate. I learned to drive in a '69 Impala and grew up with it. 350 c.i. with 4 barrel Quadrajet. It was quick and handled just fine. Was almost totaled within 2 months of purchase when hit head on by a box truck. Dealer repaired it and it was like new - you couldn't tell anything happened to it. Was still running like a champ 13 years later when it was T-boned by a red-light runner. That was the end for it. Sad to lose it. Beautiful car too. Dark green.
@@trillrifaxegrindor4411 I put 2-3/4 spring spacers in the front springs 3 of them in the rear to help the handling-- fun car, 0-60 in 7.3, I used a G-tech
look at 4:53- to 4:55 ,it didnt handle because it has a flat tire on the front.if you watch early in the test it drives very decently for a 69 land yacht
That road test was hilarious this could possibly be the worst handling car ever invented and how about that 60-0 brake test where the car spins right around
Few understand the 2bbl 396. It was built to do one thing. Deliver fuel economy. I had one and it'd easily get 16mpg. Stock axle ratio was 2.56. Of course it wasn't fast. But getting the same fuel economy as the 250 inline 6cyl what the hell do you expect?
The most amazing engineering feat about this car is how the front tires stayed on the rims with all of that front end plow. Truly amazing.
Much of that plowing and they would loose air and go flat... don't ask how I know that... LOL!
Got that right, surprised the Rally rim stayed on or the tire didn't blow, that would have been fun to watch, almost 14 seconds to 60 is MUCH slower than my 2017 Hyundai Elantra 6 speed manual
The driver's side tire was under inflated.
They make no adjustments
No kidding, I was say to myself that the left front tire looked like it rolled off the rim on the corner.
"should have included a light to show that we were moving..." Priceless. lmao
When it came to car reviews, no one could throw shade like Bud Lindemann.
Never saw a car corner on its whitewalls.We certainly have come a long way
Chubby Chevies tend to do that.
On the whitewalls, they were past that, on the bead.
Looking at what currently coming out on the US car market by US makers you seem to have stayed put !
thats what happened to cheap biasply tires back then... we had "redlines" that were biasply but were performance oriented... instead of a white wall they have a thin red line
I have a 2017 Impala Premier with all of the bells and whistles.
It handles, accelerates, stops 100% better than this 1969 Impala.
Unfortunately the seats are not very comfortable being rock hard with thin padding.
Seats need a little more cushion and softer springs would add much more to the comfort level.
As for reliability dependability no complaints.
So far after sixty thousand miles Impala has been 100% trouble free only having routine oil changes air filters and new tires.
It was cool to see this old video, but the commentator really made it enjoyable.
Dang. The 2bbl 383 was rated at 290 HP and 390 FT-LBS of torque. That 2bbl really choked that 396 down.
I had the same exact car, all I did was add a stock 4 BBL intake with quadrajet and add a stock dual exhaust and the car ran 15.40 in 1/4 mile. I was shocked to say the least.
Was it low compression or high compression with the 2bbl? Was it a 402 or 396 ci in '69? I was amazed how slow it was, seems like a 350 300hp car would decimate it in every performance and economy metric. It could probably even have a shorter axle like a 3.27 or 3.42 compared to a 2.76 or 3.08 with the 396, still get better fuel economy and have the same or higher top speed.
2019 and still driving a 1969 Chevrolet impala with 396.
reed wetzel GM made quality cars that were built like tanks in the 60s
2020 I’m driving my 70 impala convertible with a ls3 swap . Way faster than the stock i can assure you of that.
@@chargermaster3716 exactly, I love my 69 impala , I bought it for cruising speed not my concern.
@@HEYBERT1984 I'm sure, of that, but I'm the kind of guy that likes to keep.my car as orginal as possible.
Driving a 1969 Impala 327 daily in 2020!
“There should have been a light to tell us we were moving” Loved Bud
I love the narrators honesty! Lol... I did not know they made a 2 barrel hog block. I had a '68 Impala with a 325 horse 396 4 barrel. It was a fun car for a 20 year old.
They created to 400sbc to be the 2bbl engine after that.
Learn something everyday.. did not know the 396 engine came with a 2barrel carb and 2speed power glide trans
I saw them in my dad's junkyard with 2 speeds but never a 2bbl , that is shocking
I remember seeing this episode on Speed Channel a long time ago and specifically looked for this video just to see the car almost ride on it's rims.
This is the best classic car history on film!!👍🏽👍🏽
5:30
...and the ride is extremely quiet!
Cut to scene of excessive body roll and horrendous tire squeal 😂😂
Yeah, my brother had a 69 Caprice with a 327. Smooth, quiet and a luxurious interior. I loved these tests, Bud Lindemann was priceless. Thanks very much for Posting this John Doe - you've made a REAL NAME for yourself!
The most entertaining thing about these videos... NO ONE could beat the snot out of a production car on a track any better than Bud and his test driver!!!
Driver beat the piss out of it! Looks like it's moving pretty good and that was a hell of a Rockford slide!
That’s Bud Lindemann’s son doing all the driving.
My older friend has a 69 Chevy Caprice Classic with a 427 four speed Pea Green with a black vinyl top. Has hideaway headlights as well. He bought it new from the dealership this way and has only had one repaint. My friend is 80 and still runs the old style ply style tires.
That's cool!
I drove the 69 Impala 396 and loved it tremendously. It did however perform 100% better when you redid the complete suspension. It would then take a corner at speed.
This was the TV detective model no doubt, drama on every turn.even the music matched LO !
That's the way they built them and what people wanted. Lots of family room, smooth and quiet boulevard ride. Handling was not a priority.
Wow for being made at the peak of the muscle car era, this thing sure had some paltry straight line performance, 13.7 seconds 0-60, 265hp out of a 396ci V8 of all things.
I had the same car and it was much faster and mine had 2.73 rear gear
Tires were under inflated, 2.41 axle, 4.094" piston real 396ci not a 402ci, tiny 2bbl, all power accessories and A/C. Might not have been tuned right, maybe it was tuned for high test and they put low test in it and it was knocking against it's own pistons. Plenty of potential here. It might have had a powerglide too for all we know, should have been a TH400 but, who knows. One thing is for sure, it could only go up from there, I bet it would be a lot better if it was bored out to 4.125" with a 4" crank, decent heads, nice cam, headers, aluminum intake, 4bbl, true duals, some deeper gears in the 3.42-3.73 range, a posi, a higher stall converter and it would really cook.
Never, ever saw one anywhere near that slow. This test is BS
Loved this car! This car was the first car I ever snuck out of the garage!! Didn't get caught either!!
The lack of handling could be cured by the F41 suspension option.
My dad owned a 67 Impala 327 when i was quite young not sure how quick it was but they sure were roomy and comfortable.
I grew up in the era of these cars. The suspension on the Chevys was very soft and not at all good for handling. But I remember the Chevrolet cars as having the most comfortable ride of the big three, I love riding in them even when I was a child. The ride was so smooth and comfortable.
I wonder if the suspension could be beefed up as an option?
Keith Wilson Yes I’m pretty sure GM head beefed up springs with their towing packages, and their SS suspensions And I think when you ordered a car you could specify different suspension back then, I’m pretty sure in the 70s you could order different suspension packages.
The standard suspensions on these vehicles however was very much made for comfort
If this car had the 427 cid V/8 390 horsepower with the 3.42 gears, THM 400 transmission, front disc brakes, and the F-41 Special Handling Suspension, Bud and the crew would have sang a different song.......
if this car had a pulse jet it could fly but what the fuck does that matter?
So my father and I found one of these in flawless shape for about $2000 in 1989. I tried my best to get him to buy it for me, but he was nervous about me driving around a “big-block” Chevy. Little did he know….
"there should have been a light to tell you that you were moving" Hahahaha.
There was no excuse not to have a decent running 2 barrel engine in 1969. Ford 351 Cleveland-2V and 390-2V engines were really good runners around 1969 / 1970. Oldsmobile, Buick, and Pontiac all had really good running 350-2 barrel engines back then too. Chevy 2 Barrel engines just always seem like turds.
Yes. I had a 72 Cutlass 4dr with a 350 2bbl that run 16.19 in the quarter with a 2.73 gear. See the attached video. th-cam.com/video/JdmHhLinoDQ/w-d-xo.html
Nice run for 2;73 gears.. Your Olds would have been fun with lower gears. Great channel !!
Must have had a little over 100k miles in it at the time.
The 351C didn't come out until the 1970 model year.
Well...,I just learned something new. I didn't know that the 396 was available with a 2bbl carb. Thanks for posting this video! I'm now a subscriber!
I took one of these for my drvers licence test. It smoked so bad you couldnt see the car behind us when you started it.
4:52 - I think they scraped the edge of the trim ring on that corner. Forgot to add the sway bar? How can a '69 396 anything be so slow?
I barrel carbuerator
2-barrel carburetor, single exhaust, 2.56:1 rear end ratio.
Wonder what the 6 cyl would of been like.May of been 1970 before it got to 60 miles an hour
The driver's side tire was under inflated.
Thing weights like 4000lbs
I'm sure the gearing on this model was long and slow. Makes the biggest difference in acceleration
it was not ever built for performance, just comfort and luxury.
Never saw a car corner on its rim. Impressive 👍.
I had a 1969 Impala with a 350 V8, and it was much quicker than what was shown here, about a 10 second 0-60,etc, and was completely reliable.
Well yeah, the 350 4bbl made 300hp and lost less power through the TH350 than the TH400.
@@hendo337 no, mine made 255 bhp
I use to enjoy watching these classic Car and Track episodes on Speedvision in the late 1990's early 2000's. They were already cool classic car review shows back then. But are even cooler today 25+ years later on.
I miss old Speedvision. From 1996-2002 it was mostly must see tv for me.
As to this Impala test. Certainly very under powered big V-8, but OMG how did those front tires stay seated on the rims even under that cornering?🤔
My 69' Caprice with the 350ci and 300hp 4 bbl Carb was a sleeper. Plus it had modern radials. But this is quite the example..
So all those trim rings I see off the road are from this car!! Turn the wheel and still go straight!
The driver's side tire was under inflated.
The 69 Impala’s Style’s Quick To Grab me !
I have a 69 sport coupe. I put load adjust shocks on it , it tightened it up and made it ride 200% better. ..... For cruising only .......
Used to have a 427 Caprice was a damn nice car and could get out of it's own way.
This guy's a real straight shooter. He'd piss alot of people off these days.
Make a swap for the 4bbl manifold and to a 3.73 gear ratio, that should make a difference.
ScreamingSadist and duel exaust
And 496 BBC
A TH400 3spd instead of the Powerglide would have probably helped a lot too.
This car look like it was having enough problems getting through the curves as it was, anymore speed it would be slam off the road.
The car uses its hubcaps to dig into those corners
ITS LIKE DRIVING A GIANT SPRING MATRESS AROUND
YIKES at 4:55 we're on the rim for sure. This driving style looks like most people I see on the backroads of PA on my way to work.
Shame he didn't hammer the gas as it did that 180 during that 60mph stop, would have been a gnarly front J turn burnout like the old 1970s police chase movies/tv shows.
I remember as a kid who was into cars and all that diverse styling of the time I really hated that non-fastback 2-door Impala and Caprice of '69 and '70. Watching this old film though the wrap-around bumper on the front end and brown metallic paint and white vinyl roof combo still say "modern" I guess because that was new when I was old enough to notice. The "elliptical wheel wells" of the '68 and '69 full-size Chevys were different but looked like they were going to cut into the tires!
It was obvious that the driver's side tire was under inflated. In the very beginning of the film 0:53, when the tire was inflated properly, the car went through the turns like a warm knife through butter and then, all of a sudden, the tire loses air pressure for the rest of the test. Something doesn't add up. Also, the rear brakes are out of alignment too. That is not necessarily the fault of Chevrolet. Most of the people who bought this car with this engine weren't interested in performance. They wanted a big, roomy car to get them from point "A" to point "B" in relative comfort. This big Impala did that VERY well. Any experienced driver would have known that the tire was under inflated which leads me to believe that this test was rigged against Chevrolet for some reason.
Damn that thing is rolling like a couch through those curves
Grandma's Church Crawler-Edition :)
Back then it was cool to do a 180 while hard breaking. Then you're going the other way.
Holy cow, that thing did a 20 second quarter.....scary.......
So much for the good old days.
They also come with 375 hp 396 cid. And a 427. Dont know why they are testing this slug.
As of 2020, this was a road test of a car from 51 years ago! Let that sink in. And 51 years from 1969 was 1918. So it would be safe to say that in 2020, a 1969 Impala handled like total shit on a road course. It would also be safe to say that a 1918 car would handle like shit compared to a 1969 car back in the day. LOL
Except that there were plenty of cars from 1969 that had wonderful handling, even cars from GENERAL MOTORS built on the SAME PLATFORM.
There is absolutely no excuse for how horribly unsafe these cars performed, particularly the badly biased and balanced brakes. The slow acceleration is really not a big deal as higher power options were available, but to even allow such a horrible handling car to even be sold was indicative of how little corporate minds cared about the working class who could only afford the base model cars.
never seen a 2bbl 396, must be a rare bird
I don't know what is more sideways: The braking or Budd's comments.
What is the point of having a 396 when you strangle it with only a 2 barrel carb?!
Listen to the pause after he said 265hp.
Haha he's stumped for words 😂
@@MrTheHillfolk its a granny car... and its ok if your grandson borrows it ... it was still to fast for those tires and springs
Even though gas was cheap in 1969, Dodge, Ford and GM were packaging big block engines with 2 bbl carbs to give the customer the best of both worlds of big block power but with 2 bbl carb economy. An economy rear gear ratio was also included like a 2.41 ratio. As you can see, it didn't work very well and they produced poorer fuel mileage than the base 4 bbl 396. Ford had better success with big block engines and 2 bbl carbs as they matched their engines with better suited gear ratios.
Back in the day of cheap gas, a big displacement two barrel with tall gearing would still feel snappy and responsive at 'normal' driving speeds while being quiet and smooth as the engine never had to rev very high.
Yes, they ran out of breath beyond about 4000 rpm, but the person choosing this option wouldn't see 4000 rpm or WOT very often (if ever).
The aim here is lots of smooth torque, down low. Most did it a lot better than this particular motor -- either the 396/2bbl was a bad combination or something was out of tune on this particular example!
Olds used to sell 455s with 2bbls, they always have highways gear and dual exhaust. They were tuned to make great power at low RPMs and get great MPGs. This Chevy doesn't look that way.
Had a full-size ‘68 Delta 88 -455 2 bbl-11 mpg in the city, 14 Highway. Respectfully disagree. But it did pass everything.
My father once owned a new 1971 Olds Delta 88 with the low compression 2 barrel 455 & single exhaust. Very thirsty & lame performance.
The 0-60mph and 1/4 miles is something you would've expected out of the smog era, hell even a 1977 Chevrolet Caprice 350 is a lot faster and quicker than this particular Impala.
I have a dead stock 79 318 Cordoba that I've clocked 0-60 in 14 seconds. This car must have been out of tune.
The '69 Caprice, Imp, Bel have great dashboards and steering wheels.
At 4.55 you can see the front tire scrub completely.Maybe under inflated ? He said they drove the way they “got em “ .13 + sec even with a 2 bbl and 279. Gears seems way slow .Ive been in factory 2 bbl moters that ran great ,especially with a free flow duel exhaust..
informative and intertaining..good video.
I was thinking if I was a teenage boy in 1969 and dad brought one of these home as the family car how I would want to hot rod this thing. Imagine how much quicker it would get with an aftermarket intake, four barrel carb and a set of headers with glass packs. Probably drop at least 3 seconds off the quarter mile time.
Unfortunately for me when I was a teenager, our family car was a Mercury Lynx. Not much available to hot rod that thing. I convinced mom to get some white letter 175/70R13 tires and I added a chrome master cylinder cover from the Ford Motorsports catalog. I also swapped on a chrome round air cleaner with a home made adaptor to fit the rectangular air horn on the progressive 2bbl carb. This probably performed worse than the oval factory piece. that carbureted 1.6L automatic was a real slug. My 2bbl 71 Impala 4 door was a rocket compared to it.
Sep455 above did that and knocked about 10 seconds off the 1/4 !!!
What music are they playing in the background?
Does anybody know where I can find the music they used?
Beautiful car!
A neighbor had '69 Biscayne 4 door Powerglide SIX cylinder & 3 kids - imagine the family trying to merge getting on the Turnpike in that barge. Or passing a truck on a 2 lane. Floor it & pray.
My first car was a 1961 Biscayne with a 6-cylinder and the powerglide. No, you cannot merge on a freeway with that boat anchor unless the onramp went downhill. 0 to 60 was around 20 seconds. It rewarded me with 13 mpg. city, 11 mpg. highway. I'm sure handling would parallel this Impala. And just like a boat, my two happiest days were the day I got it and the day I got rid of it!
Gotta love GM during its glory days.
love the old boats.
13.7 to 60, wow that puppy was strangled to death.
Also "headrests... we don't like 'em. We prefer whiplash!!!"
These vehicles are what the consumer got back when there were no real regulations for safety, economy, and environmental impact. They were bad for your health on a multitude of levels.
gosh the performance is something I'd expect out of a 1974 Chevy Impala, not a 1969 Chevy Impala.
that Fisher body is all new for '69.
At least the '74 had 15" wheels and bigger tires. It probably cornered better.
And it had quality craftsmanship and construction
And 4:54 using the sidewall as tread in a corner.
He said the rear window was convex, but it's concave!
He didn't say the axle ratio--this car was probably configured for highway economy, not performance.
It's like trying to run the 100 yard dash with a 1/4" snorkel sealed on your face. Open up the air cleaner and exhaust and that car would light the tires up. Maybe putting more than 17 psi in the front tires would help the handling.
A mid Seventies 350 2bbl THM350 Impala would easily show its taillights to this pooch.
wrong.
People didn't buy them because they were good..but because they said Chevrolet.
Who in God's name buys a 396 with a two-barrel carb? And what's with the skinny underinflated tires? Ridiculous "road test." The car was set up to meet Lindemann's pro-Ford anti-Chevy agenda. His trash talk is deliberate. I learned to drive in a '69 Impala and grew up with it. 350 c.i. with 4 barrel Quadrajet. It was quick and handled just fine. Was almost totaled within 2 months of purchase when hit head on by a box truck. Dealer repaired it and it was like new - you couldn't tell anything happened to it. Was still running like a champ 13 years later when it was T-boned by a red-light runner. That was the end for it. Sad to lose it. Beautiful car too. Dark green.
Interesting observation. Thanks for the back story. Whatever the case we're all lucky to have these videos preserved. Love the Jag XKE video!
The car was complete trash. Ray Charles could have seen that.
Bud often complimented GM cars for various reasons. Admit this one was a disasterous car
Put a 4 barrel on it and some headers and exhaust and she'd probably run great
At least it stayed in its lane while the brakes caused the pig to do a 180!
I took my driving test in a blue met. one with a black vinyl top. Smoked like a train. But i passed!
nice Turd brown paint
I once had a 69 Impala 396 2 Barrel it wasn't that slow like the video showed, the car would spin the tires it would bury the needle at 120 mph
I drove a 1969 Chevrolet Caprice with this engine and I agree with you. I could spin the tires and I easily cruised at 110 MPH all the time.
this could also spin the tires and go 120,it just handled like shit
@@trillrifaxegrindor4411 I put 2-3/4 spring spacers in the front springs 3 of them in the rear to help the handling-- fun car, 0-60 in 7.3, I used a G-tech
Depends on gears and tune. A bad tune up and under inflated tires can make a huge difference.
Nice 😀
Drum brakes....Bias ply tires.....180* spin on a panic stop......wallowing through turns.....a deathtrap by today's standards.
This is how they drive in Florida today.
look at 4:53- to 4:55 ,it didnt handle because it has a flat tire on the front.if you watch early in the test it drives very decently for a 69 land yacht
0-60 mph in 13 seconds?! That's a disgrace for any big block motor in a passenger car. The same era 350-4V would massacre ghat excuse of a 396
What's the use of having a big block with small carb, low compression, and low gears? My 2016 Harley Street Glide does better.
Budd was bagging on that Chevy the whole time lol----- pos GM product nothings changed in 2020
He should have tested a SS 427 impala with a factory low rear gear ...then Bud would have been like dam wow!
He didn't want to, Ford guy.
That road test was hilarious this could possibly be the worst handling car ever invented and how about that 60-0 brake test where the car spins right around
Ford, Chevy and Plymouth choked down their V8s with 2-barrel carbs that year: 390, 396 and 383.
Many years before and many years after.
Few understand the 2bbl 396. It was built to do one thing. Deliver fuel economy. I had one and it'd easily get 16mpg.
Stock axle ratio was 2.56.
Of course it wasn't fast. But getting the same fuel economy as the 250 inline 6cyl what the hell do you expect?
A 396ci engine that couldn’t punch it’s way through a wet Kleenex. Damn, Chevrolet must’ve been cringing like crazy when this test originally aired!
that tire " roll under " at about 4:48 was ridiculous . i don't think they had the right amount of air in the front tires
true that tire looks flat
So a decent, full sized, cruiser.
I don't think that model and trim level was meant for the market they were testing for.