Chevrolet has over a hundred years of heritage from which it can call upon when the right marketing angle presents itself. Like, for instance, when it launches a brand-new Impala for the 2014 model year, as it has just done at the 2012 New York Auto Show. As such, the automaker has brought a mint 1966 Chevrolet Impala SS 427 Convertible to display alongside its new family sedan.

We'll get this right out of the way: the 1966 'Vert has nothing in common with the 2014 sedan, other than its nameplate.

Regardless, it's always fun to ogle over a classic muscle car, and this '66 Impala is, perhaps, the very best of its full-size breed. The 427-cubic-inch V8 was factory rated at 390 horsepower and 470 pound-feet of torque – plenty more than necessary to turn those 7.5-inch-wide bias-ply tires into plumes of smoke, and the four-speed manual and 3.55:1 gears mean it's properly equipped for 1960s-style stoplight showdowns.

Check out this classic Impala SS in our high-res image gallery, and before we all get too sentimental for the old times, remember two points: First, as awesome as this machine undoubtedly is, it could never be sold today due to safety and emissions reasons. Second, most of the millions of Impalas sold over the years were much more pedestrian models than this stunning blue SS.

Caveats aside, we want this car rumbling away in our virtual garage. Badly.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 52 Comments
      No Bull
      • 2 Years Ago
      Now THIS is an Impala . . the way they were, they way they still ought to be! They have truly just taken the idols and smashed them!
      EJD1984
      • 2 Years Ago
      Now THIS is a proper Impala Super Sport!! Though I think it's just a little disingenuous on Chevrolet's part to show a 1966 Impala SS on the same stage as the new car, when all indicators seem to be pointing that there will be no 2014/15 Impala SS (AWD 3.6L TT).
      grandpa
      • 2 Years Ago
      The Chevy was good looking. From that era I had a black over red 1960 Bonneville convertible and later a powder blue 1962 Olds Delta 88 convertible.
      rollie
      • 2 Years Ago
      I have a '65 impala convertable with the 396, (now an alum. head 454) and there is no comparison to a new Impala. Each has it's own personality. I will say that there is absolutely nothing to describe the feeling when the top is down, the spedo is winding past the 120 mark, and the Rolling Stones are blasting away. Makes me feel close to God I think....Try getting that out of a new one!
        Ziv
        • 2 Years Ago
        @rollie
        Considering how my old '71 Impala handled at 120 mph, you might be closer to God than you care for, all too soon, at that speed! ;-) That suspension was so soft, bumps kind of tossed you up in the air at any speed over 100 mph and you kind of floated down the road, sometimes slightly toward the side of the road, for a second or two, with little to no traction. Different car, obviously, but good times.
          rollie
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Ziv
          My car has front and rear swaybars, gas shocks, polyurethane a-arm bushings, and power steering. It holds the road pretty well, while it is no '12 Corvette, only a fool would try to drive it so. As Clint said in one of my favorite movies, "A man has to know his limitations".
      Cool people
      • 2 Years Ago
      My dad owned this blue Impala & two more after this. Cool understated style. GM should remake Impala with ques from this time machine !
      blacccc
      • 2 Years Ago
      Just Sweet (period).
      ponycargt
      • 2 Years Ago
      Chick car
        Chris
        • 2 Years Ago
        @ponycargt
        I have heard people call the Impala many things, but a chick car? I can't comment on whether it was in the 1960s because I wasn't alive then, but I certainly wouldn't classify it as that now. A 60s Impala doesn't have all of the modern luxuries, safety features, and bells and whistles that women especially love. It's not really "cute" either. If I am going to classify any 60s muscle car, or pony car as a "chick car", I would have to go with a 65-66 Mustang convertible.
        getoffmylawn
        • 2 Years Ago
        @ponycargt
        you're an idiot.
          ponycargt
          • 2 Years Ago
          @getoffmylawn
          No, you're an idiot because you can't understand satire
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        vigorpat
        • 2 Years Ago
        Are you freaking serious? ??? If stupidity needed a mascot you would be the #1 draft pick!
        • 2 Years Ago
        [blocked]
        Chris
        • 2 Years Ago
        I am no fan of the UAW, but are you kidding me? This car was made before the 70s, when the UAW started to become a hindrance, back when the Big 3 ruled the automotive landscape. Anti-UAW comments are pointless when discussing cars from this era.
      THE 507
      • 2 Years Ago
      The '66 Impala convertible was driven by middle-aged men who couldn't afford a Cadillac, but wanted some flash and flare. It was a boat, a large car that with the 427 could go fast as hell in a straight line, but don't take it up Mulholland. The ultimate cool car in '66 was an XKE, but if you couldn't afford that, a 911 would suffice (of course there wasn't a convertible 911 then and the Targa was still a year away). For those of us on a budget, the Mustang was still hot and the convertible was fun and affordable.
        kqr
        • 2 Years Ago
        @THE 507
        My middle-aged dad's portfolio was worth $2 million in the mid 1960s, which is the equivalent of about $14 million today. He bought a brand new car every few years and you know what he bought? Not a Cadillac, although he could obviously afford it, and not even an Impala. Answer: Belairs, without a/c. I remember distinctly because I got to go with him to the dealership and order the new car, which btw is one of my favorite memories of childhood. I really wanted him to buy an Impala because they were sportier than a Belair and of course that appealed to a kid, but he liked Belairs from the days when it was Chevy's top-of-the-line model ('50s), and he didn't like the Impala's roof line (too low - it knocked his ever-present hat off). That's why generalizations like yours are nearly always flawed. Everyone was and is different, and certainly that generation tended to be less flashy and more down to Earth than people now, even the self-made millionaires. I suppose that's how they got that way, but not throwing it around on flash and fru-fru. In fact, I didn't know he was wealthy until he died.
      Edward
      • 2 Years Ago
      These were terrible cars, like those of the period. Vague steering, no brakes, skinny tires, unsupportive seats, instant rust, and lots more. Remember spark plugs every 10k miles? 3k oil changes? I never want to go back there. And I was there.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Edward
        [blocked]
        Chris
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Edward
        Spoken like a true Camry driver. Enjoy your appliance. Cars from that era, while not as reliable or comfortable as today's cars are relics of a different "Golden Age". You either get it, or you don't. No worries. PS. I don't think you need to worry about us going back to the 60s. Technology has improved, and current regulations would never allow it, so you can breath now.
        judgesmails
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Edward
        Well, don't forget they only cost about $3500 new...
        ishmaelcrowley
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Edward
        Cars from the late sixties were excellent. You could get disc brakes (on the front) and a bullet proof V8 engine with plenty of room under the hood to work on it. Those cars could last forever if you kept them away from salt. Nowadays you need to have diagnostic equipment and special tools to work on your cars. Not to mention Hyundai airbags that don't deploy or BMW transmissions that don;t go in reverse after 60K miles.
      Luc Helterbrand
      • 2 Years Ago
      that is a beautiful car. the clarity of the design is so refreshing. especially when one looks at the mash up of curves and muck that is the present and future impala. its no wonder these cars are so collectible. they speak to a time of simplicity and honesty rather than false pretense.
        Typesbad
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Luc Helterbrand
        Agreed. This car shares all the lines of my Dad's '66 4-dr, yet the drop top and that 427convey a different character. Yes in so many ways cars a better now, but I do miss this time when a car could be bad-ass without having to go out of its way to look bad-ass.
      breakfastburrito
      • 2 Years Ago
      GM knows their new cars are sh!t€ compared to the classic Chevy's. But they won't actually build the world's best cars predecessors. GM's leaders are so cynical and greedy - they'll simply squander the good names of their predecessors.
    • Load More Comments