Comparing four-cylinder cars against the six-cylinder competition, and comparing six cylinder cars to the V8 competition, it makes me wonder if the drivers of the other products were not told “we really need the Chevy to win”.
I love these manufacture sponsored Rah Rah videos. They all start out saying that the cars are equally prepared and set, timed and tuned to factory specs, but the sponsoring builder always has the car(s) far superior to the competition. Boy howdy, that is truly fair and unbiased, no favoritism here.
I've lived in Phoenix/Mesa AZ for most of my life. It's hard to imagine Bell and Scottsdale roads looking anything like that, just bare desert. They look rather different these days.
That's exactly what I was thinking , it's a stacked deck all the way . How the hell would a 4 cylinder beat an 8 cylinder , you may as well just have 4 and do away with the V8 all together .
@@danielsmith5023.....It's called MASS ÷ HP; a unibody post 2-door compact is MUCH lighter than a body-on-frame 4-door full-size sedan; note that you can't even find a body-on-frame car since Ford discontinued the Crown Vic in 2012 and a 1.8L-4 Civic could out-accelerate a 5L-8 Crown-Vic; just ask a cop
@@DUCKSAREEVILLLLLLLL.....0 to 60 in 8 seconds was pretty quick in the 60s; my 1966 Mustang convertible does it in 9 seconds while my 1969 VW Beetle takes about 18 seconds
My father in law loved Ramblers so I'll stay loyal. He sure owned some pretty Ramblers. It's funny cause my wife's parent's were good friends with my parent's and I remember as a kid something funny in today's world. Whenever he was thinking of buying a new car, mother in law said, I don't care what he buys, as long as it's a Rambler. He eventually went to an AMC Hornet wagon. Those Ramblers were all trouble free automobiles. Father in law is gone now along with Rambler AMC fine automobiles. Weather Eye!
@@walterweddle7644 We had a 1968 Rambler American. 2dr., 258 cu in 6cyl w/ 3 on the tree. No radio, rubber floor mats. Dad bought it new for $1,800.00. It was a great car! Dad eventually sold it to a family friend years later.
I know wonder if that Chevrolet was downshifted on that hill and the driver even knew where the rock slide was 😂😂😂. The cement thing 😂😂😂put all the weight at the back of the car and compare it the model with the least amount of rear overhang 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻.
We had a nice neighbor lady, that would take us to the lake in her 5 or 6 year old Impala wagon-the road salt had eaten the spare tire floor pan out, and as we crossed a railroad track, the spare tire fell out. As it was stored vertically, the tire went under the rear bumper, launching the back of the car in the air. Us kids thought it was great, but she was not too happy!
I also agree that the Studebaker would have embarrassed all of them. That's why Studey went out of production - it was too good and they didn't cheapen themselves begging for sales. E.g., Pre-WW2 Packards were arguably the best of all, but after the war, they became just another one of the Japanese Grin brigade.
In agreement. Since I can remember, in 1951 when Studebaker offered its excellent V8 of 232 cubic inches and 120 H.P., plus its excellent Studebaker automatic Drive, a Commander 51 burst any Ford, Chevrolet or Plymouth. It even beat in acceleration and top speed to any Pontiac, Buick, Dodge, De Soto, Mercury or Lincoln 1951. There were only 2 American cars that were faster than a Studebaker V8: the Cadillac and the Chrysler V8 1951. The 1951 Oldsmobile accelerated and It ran the same as the Commander V8 1951. Please review the evidence that Mr. Floyd Climmer made that year in Popular Mechanics. In the tests that Mr. Climmer did in 1953, the same situation was repeated. Curiously, from 1954 onwards, a Studebaker car was never tested again in any of the specialized magazines. Similar thing is observed when comparing an Avanti 1962 of 280 H.P. with the first 1964 Mustang with its more powerful engine of just 225 H.P. And to think that the Mustang is venerated until today as the first and probably the best Pony Car. Lee Iacocca was a master in flirting himself and the things he did
I always like when these films devise some totally absurd test like putting 1100lbs of cement on the tailgate - since you know that's where most people would put it.
I just put the original 6 cyl 230ci engine back into our '66 Chevy II. It may have a tad more displacement after being rebuilt, but it's still not very quick at all. And I've got it mated to a 700r4 trans.
Dayumm! Competition was nasty in the car business back then. They would drive the other guy's car off a cliff and set fire to it just to show how much they hated the competition.
Chevy went hard in the '60's. We don't see any car companies using Dynamite equivalent explosives or jumping across ravines, and I really think we should.
I love these old promotional films. No chance that the Ford or Plymouth had comparable drive lines but didn't stop them. I remember the Buick film telling how it performed against the Lincoln Mk.VIII. Never mentioned performance beyond off the line. But kept insisting that the 240hp Buick was faster than the 280hp Lincoln.
+Capt Larry. Arizona is just like that , guns everywhere, I've been here almost 60 years. Great vintage footage, my cousin worked at the GM Proving grounds where most of this was shot. I drove a corvair too, awesome cars, and they were really incredible in the dirt, just put 200 pounds of sandbags in the trunk to hold the front wheels down so you can turn and stop.
Man I wish I saw this when I was looking for a truck to haul dynamite in, just couldn't keep a tailgate on that ford! And my van getting stuck in a swamp crossing always screwed deliveries up also! They should do a 50 years later video. Bet they can't find someone still driving a corvair pickup or van on a regular basis compared to an econoline!
My uncle works for car manufacturer at that time, and he went out to help in the van scene, the Econoline Ford has bad tires on it, so it wouldn’t get up the hill .
@@gregs3153 you mean to tell me that they were dishonest even back then? I believe it. I always thought it was kinda a cheap shot to degrade someone else's product especially when trying to give it a disadvantage. And fast forward 50 plus years and they all secretly work together behind the scenes developing junk components that neither company can fix
It has occurred to me what the outstanding design of 1962 really was. Which of these cars was way out in front of the others technologically? One passenger car in this competition had fully independent suspension. Even Corvettes didn't have that in 1962. One passenger car also utilized an aluminum boxter six engine. Only one had a transaxle. Also this particular design had no water pump, radiator or power steering pump. Only one used a screw jack. Today a Ford Edge has: fully independent suspension, aluminum V-6, transaxle and screw jack. But more than 50-years ago one car incorporated all these items. And it didn't really have a competitor in America in 1962. But the American public didn't know what they had!
The whole thing is so absurd a couldn't stop laughing and to think people really bought into this stuff. But I will have to say that the Chevy-2 jumping those vehicles was impressive all in all a real "Hoot"!
Do you really think people today are less easy to fool? Hint: Just consider the anti-vaxers and the stop-the-steal folks. In the future people will be looking back and won't be able to stop laughing at the people who "really bought into this stuff".
Some quibbles that already haven't been discussed: Why was the Rambler Classic used as competition for the Chevy II and Corvair? The Rambler American was the compact car that was against Falcon/Chevy II/Valiant/Comet/Dodge Lancer/Corvair. The Rambler Classic was the same size as the downsized Plymouth Fury and Fairlane. And where was Volkswagen? The Beetle against the Corvair? The Type 95 Corvair PU/Van vs the Type 2 VW Bus/Pickup (the VW pickup was available in the early 60s until the chicken tax was enacted). The Chevy II may have been the first sign that Chevy might have had second thoughts about the Corvair. A year later, the Chevy Van/GMC Vandura would come out with a similar layout to the Ford E-Series.
Vintage Reality show sponsored by GM. Look at most of the tests, you'll see how well the actor-drivers handle the "real life tests" At the slalom every single one (except chevy) took the 7th cone lose... How come they ALL managed the 6th cone pretty darn well? That brake test.... the Chevy is clearly staying behind the other two, for security and wisdom. Let the others mess their driving! You simply avoid hard braking by driving slower and learning the curves after their mistakes. Everybody drives into the pond, except the last two. Of course! Not one of the first three even tried to turn right. Acceleration? Did anyone observe how "motivated" were the drivers of the competition? Hardly any shakes or pushes when changing gears... Just 5 comments: 1. The Corvair vanished thanks to Nader, BUT would it have survived? Not sure. 2. How many F100 and F150 have been sold throughout their lifetime? And Chevy trucks? 3. How many Econlines can you still see nowadays? They have a lot of fans! I couldn't even remember the name of the Chevy van... The Corvan! Right!!! 4. How many Highway patrols were Galaxies and Furries? How many Impalas? I always thought HWY cops knew how to pick their pursuit cars. Stupid me... 5. Gotta give it to GM thought, That Chevy II was and is a great little car.
I've owned a lot of stuff in my 71 years. I liked my Ramblers, under rated. In fact, I liked everything I owned. In decent shape for mileage, handling, and just plain enjoyable, I'd take a Corvair. Remember, I liked them all. Ford had a good little 6, the slant 6 was, IMO, over rated, the Ramblers were worth the money, but a lttle light in the suspension.
I had as my first can in 1971 a 1965 Barracuda with a 225 slant 6. The engine was bullet proof with enough power to get me to over 100 mph. I took my dads 1960 Valiant with a 170 slant 6 and raced a 1971 Thunderbird. I had him up to 60 mph and then his V8 kicked in. Don't underestimate a slant 6 they were quick and had good torque.
Hmmmm.... With the Impala demonstration on acceleration, it should be noted the 327 is not the standard V-8 for Chevrolet during that time. The 283 with either 170 horsepower or 195 horsepower was the standard V-8. Plymouth Fury was the 318 with 230 horsepower and the Ford Galaxy didn't even come with a standard V-8. The smallest V-8 for the Galaxy was a 289 with also 170 or 195 horsepower depending on the series 289. The 327 with 250 horsepower was bound to win over the 289 and 318. I do not believe the 283 which is the real standard V-8 for the Impala would have taken the Plymouth Fury... Just this old man's thoughts.
The truth is that all this videos lie in the same way. For me as a Chevrolet fun, I feel embarrassed to see them. These people who make these commercial videos will believe that we are all ignorant or will they be so ignorant?
Hilarious vid, obviously sponsored back then by Chevy. Had Ford filmed a similar vid one could have been assured back in '62 that all of their model cars would have come up winners vs the Chevy's in the same tests.
jeffman61 This is similar to the video that Chrysler put out in '58 comparing the New Yorker, Imperial and Windsor to different Buick models, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Mercury and Lincoln. But I'm having a tough time trying to remember what car maker won all the competitions? Hmmm... :)
Other than the fact that all these cars were virtually void of any safety features, they were good value. Nobody has the balls today to do any comparison tests.
The Chevy II could have a 283 two barrel and still be a road rocket. In "62 you could get one with the 327; 250 or 300 hp. Your choice. Four speed too.
I think you're wrong. I still keep the Chevrolet catalogs from 1949 to 1989, which gave the owners Davis Cars, the main Chevrolet dealer in Chile. For the year 1962, the Chevy Nova did not offer any V8 engine as optional, none. The only engine alternatives were a 4 in line of 153 cubic inches and 90 H.P .; a 6 in line of 194 cubic inches and 120 H.P. and in the middle of the year the 6 in line of 7 benches, 230 cubic inches and 140 H.P. He used the same pistons, rings, metals, etc. that the engine 153. Regarding the available transmissions, only the three-speed manual transmission plus the modest two-speed Power Glide automatic transmission is offered. It did not even offer a box with overdrive. As you can see, the offer was quite poo
@@santiagorubio833 Actually. My brother put a v 8 in his 62. The steering and crossmember would not allow it. He had to either change the oil pan or raise the engine. I think 63 was the first v 8
I love how all the companies pick only the tests their cars can win. I get it tho. I wonder how they "rigged" the ping pong ball test. They didn't show the side view of the car to see which one bounces more
I don't understand why the Ford products weren't banned years ago. OMG!! It's a wonder how the drivers of those cars are still alive! Look at how the other cars ganged up on that poor little Corvair! How many people who own GM products have been murdered by drivers of the other cars we will never know but, it is imperative to own a Chevrolet in order to escape.
Holy crap, I was 8 yrs old in '62', its was beach movies and dragsters ..Man I thought we lived in an fun, moral and ethical society back then but then I remember, ..they killed JFK a year later.
Granted that was a rigged promo shoot, but the truth is that back then the Chevy 327 had the jump on any American competitor's small block by far. Those engines were almost magical in the power per buck you could get from them, one year later GM would get 375 HP out of them in the Corvette with mechanical fuel injection. That was a lot in 1963, and pretty decent in a two-valve naturally aspirated small block today.
so in 1962 they could build a car that got 33.6 mpg, and in 2020 they are lucky to get 26-30 mpg. WTF ??? 58 years, and you loose mileage ?? seriously... WTF? !!!
On the flipside of that cars today are way safer, faster, better built and heavier so the fact that cars can get the same mileage if not more but with all those mentioned is pretty impressive.
It is entertaining to see these commercial videos, however deceitful and biased they may be. When I was young, I had a Studebaker Lark 1960, V8 of 259 cubic inches and 180 H.P., with automatic transmission. An uncle of mine bought an Impala 1962, V8 of 283 cubic inches and 170 H.P. with Power Glide transmission. Note that the Chevrolet V8 had 10 H.P. less despite having 24 cubic inches more displacement. My uncle who believed that his Impala was the most for the propaganda that was already done at that time, could not be convinced that my Lark defeated him away, both in acceleration and in top speed. He challenged me several times and each time he became more annoyed. Once, on the Pan-American Highway, my Studebaker exceeded 115 m.p.hr., so his Impala did not reach 100 m.p. hr., Staying very far behind. I consider that the performance of that Impala 62 was really miserable.
1unsafe1 I have to max out my volume and use headphones to barely make out what's being said...this is the only video I am having a problem with so not on my end.
This may have been a duel but before the face off Chevy took the competitors guns emptied out the bullets and played a empty hand against their loaded guns.
Well, ya know, guys...I am partisan Studebaker and so biased. But any objective observer will acknowledge the V8 Lark would dust off each and everyone of those six-powered compacts.
Авто/Мото
![[Dealer Film] 1953 Plymouth versus Ford film strip.... the verdict is in...](/img/1.gif)
Comparing four-cylinder cars against the six-cylinder competition, and comparing six cylinder cars to the V8 competition, it makes me wonder if the drivers of the other products were not told “we really need the Chevy to win”.
I love these manufacture sponsored Rah Rah videos. They all start out saying that the cars are equally prepared and set, timed and tuned to factory specs, but the sponsoring builder always has the car(s) far superior to the competition. Boy howdy, that is truly fair and unbiased, no favoritism here.
I've lived in Phoenix/Mesa AZ for most of my life. It's hard to imagine Bell and Scottsdale roads looking anything like that, just bare desert. They look rather different these days.
Have to wonder how some of the results may have varied, if the other brands were driven by their own drivers, not those employed by Chevrolet.
That's exactly what I was thinking , it's a stacked deck all the way . How the hell would a 4 cylinder beat an 8 cylinder , you may as well just have 4 and do away with the V8 all together .
@@danielsmith5023.....It's called MASS ÷ HP; a unibody post 2-door compact is MUCH lighter than a body-on-frame 4-door full-size sedan; note that you can't even find a body-on-frame car since Ford discontinued the Crown Vic in 2012 and a 1.8L-4 Civic could out-accelerate a 5L-8 Crown-Vic; just ask a cop
@@bhaggen My body-on-frame 2002 Suburban does 0 to 60 in 8 seconds. Faster than many unibody cars of the same vintage. It's pretty heavy, too.
@@DUCKSAREEVILLLLLLLL.....0 to 60 in 8 seconds was pretty quick in the 60s; my 1966 Mustang convertible does it in 9 seconds while my 1969 VW Beetle takes about 18 seconds
Every Corvair I rode in leaked exhaust gases into the passenger compartment.
Boy, I guess I'm gonna be buying Chevrolet from now on. I really had my heart set on that smart lookin' Rambler, but not any more!
My father in law loved Ramblers so I'll stay loyal. He sure owned some pretty Ramblers. It's funny cause my wife's parent's were good friends with my parent's and I remember as a kid something funny in today's world. Whenever he was thinking of buying a new car, mother in law said, I don't care what he buys, as long as it's a Rambler. He eventually went to an AMC Hornet wagon. Those Ramblers were all trouble free automobiles. Father in law is gone now along with Rambler AMC fine automobiles. Weather Eye!
@@walterweddle7644 We had a 1968 Rambler American. 2dr., 258 cu in 6cyl w/ 3 on the tree. No radio, rubber floor mats. Dad bought it new for $1,800.00.
It was a great car! Dad eventually sold it to a family friend years later.
The ping pong ball test gets the competition every time.
I can't wait to see which one will prevail!!!!! Ohhhh! The suspense!
Want to know how to really keep someone in suspense, Donald B? Well, I'll tell you tomorrow.
just so funny!! totally FIXED
Back then you could BULL SHIT any body ......but nowadays you STILL can 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃
I know wonder if that Chevrolet was downshifted on that hill and the driver even knew where the rock slide was 😂😂😂. The cement thing 😂😂😂put all the weight at the back of the car and compare it the model with the least amount of rear overhang 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻.
We had a nice neighbor lady, that would take us to the lake in her 5 or 6 year old Impala wagon-the road salt had eaten the spare tire floor pan out, and as we crossed a railroad track, the spare tire fell out. As it was stored vertically, the tire went under the rear bumper, launching the back of the car in the air. Us kids thought it was great, but she was not too happy!
I really wonder how accurate these tests are. Seeing as how Chevy ran them but they are great fun to watch
I also agree that the Studebaker would have embarrassed all of them. That's why Studey went out of production - it was too good and they didn't cheapen themselves begging for sales. E.g., Pre-WW2 Packards were arguably the best of all, but after the war, they became just another one of the Japanese Grin brigade.
In agreement. Since I can remember, in 1951 when Studebaker offered its excellent V8 of 232 cubic inches and 120 H.P., plus its excellent Studebaker automatic Drive, a Commander 51 burst any Ford, Chevrolet or Plymouth. It even beat in acceleration and top speed to any Pontiac, Buick, Dodge, De Soto, Mercury or Lincoln 1951. There were only 2 American cars that were faster than a Studebaker V8: the Cadillac and the Chrysler V8 1951. The 1951 Oldsmobile accelerated and It ran the same as the Commander V8 1951. Please review the evidence that Mr. Floyd Climmer made that year in Popular Mechanics. In the tests that Mr. Climmer did in 1953, the same situation was repeated. Curiously, from 1954 onwards, a Studebaker car was never tested again in any of the specialized magazines.
Similar thing is observed when comparing an Avanti 1962 of 280 H.P. with the first 1964 Mustang with its more powerful engine of just 225 H.P.
And to think that the Mustang is venerated until today as the first and probably the best Pony Car. Lee Iacocca was a master in flirting himself and the things he did
I always like when these films devise some totally absurd test like putting 1100lbs of cement on the tailgate - since you know that's where most people would put it.
I just put the original 6 cyl 230ci engine back into our '66 Chevy II. It may have a tad more displacement after being rebuilt, but it's still not very quick at all. And I've got it mated to a 700r4 trans.
ALL of those old cars are way cool.
I loved this video. And it's fair and truthful. 🙄
Untruthful is more like it
this is brilliant, corvair and other chevrolet and ford comparisons , very scientific :) just like top gear
In Canada, The Chevy II, was also called a Pontiac Acadian, just a rebadged Chevy II.
Back in that time, when one heard about a car accident, the question was often asked, “ Was it a Corvair?”
Also I love how they only use the two cars that will fail the test and leave the other one out until it's ready for another test it can't past
Why do I get the sinking feeling that those Galaxies won't fare too well in a Chevrolet film?
Dayumm! Competition was nasty in the car business back then. They would drive the other guy's car off a cliff and set fire to it just to show how much they hated the competition.
Note the omission of some brands in some of the tests.
Gotta wonder.
Chevy went hard in the '60's. We don't see any car companies using Dynamite equivalent explosives or jumping across ravines, and I really think we should.
Of course the ping pong ball on the Ford weighed the same as the others.
I love these old promotional films. No chance that the Ford or Plymouth had comparable drive lines but didn't stop them. I remember the Buick film telling how it performed against the Lincoln Mk.VIII. Never mentioned performance beyond off the line. But kept insisting that the 240hp Buick was faster than the 280hp Lincoln.
so scientific.. and the guy shooting pistol at the guy driving off with his fake carport... priceless.
+Capt Larry. Arizona is just like that , guns everywhere, I've been here almost 60 years. Great vintage footage, my cousin worked at the GM Proving grounds where most of this was shot. I drove a corvair too, awesome cars, and they were really incredible in the dirt, just put 200 pounds of sandbags in the trunk to hold the front wheels down so you can turn and stop.
i wish the auto. on chevys had three speeds instead of two.
LMFAO! WOW! I can't help but feel that this "duel" was doctored up in Chevy's favor!
and they all lived happily ever after
Man I wish I saw this when I was looking for a truck to haul dynamite in, just couldn't keep a tailgate on that ford! And my van getting stuck in a swamp crossing always screwed deliveries up also! They should do a 50 years later video. Bet they can't find someone still driving a corvair pickup or van on a regular basis compared to an econoline!
My uncle works for car manufacturer at that time, and he went out to help in the van scene, the Econoline Ford has bad tires on it, so it wouldn’t get up the hill .
@@gregs3153 you mean to tell me that they were dishonest even back then? I believe it. I always thought it was kinda a cheap shot to degrade someone else's product especially when trying to give it a disadvantage. And fast forward 50 plus years and they all secretly work together behind the scenes developing junk components that neither company can fix
I like how the BelAir hits the brakes after accelerating off the line.
In Canada, the Bel Air, was also called a Pontiac Laurentian, just a rebadged Chevy, and not a Catalina.
A typical B western. Too bad GM did not film this in color. Thanks for uploading this bit of history. I'm back in the saddle again.
It has occurred to me what the outstanding design of 1962 really was. Which of these cars was way out in front of the others technologically? One passenger car in this competition had fully independent suspension. Even Corvettes didn't have that in 1962. One passenger car also utilized an aluminum boxter six engine. Only one had a transaxle. Also this particular design had no water pump, radiator or power steering pump. Only one used a screw jack.
Today a Ford Edge has: fully independent suspension, aluminum V-6, transaxle and screw jack. But more than 50-years ago one car incorporated all these items. And it didn't really have a competitor in America in 1962.
But the American public didn't know what they had!
The whole thing is so absurd a couldn't stop laughing and to think people really bought into this stuff. But I will have to say that the Chevy-2 jumping those vehicles was impressive all in all a real "Hoot"!
LoL 😆🤣😂😹😆 ......
Do you really think people today are less easy to fool? Hint: Just consider the anti-vaxers and the stop-the-steal folks. In the future people will be looking back and won't be able to stop laughing at the people who "really bought into this stuff".
Chevy 2's tail light is out ! I had one same problem lol
whoa, that' gotta' hurt! (George Costanza).
Some quibbles that already haven't been discussed: Why was the Rambler Classic used as competition for the Chevy II and Corvair? The Rambler American was the compact car that was against Falcon/Chevy II/Valiant/Comet/Dodge Lancer/Corvair. The Rambler Classic was the same size as the downsized Plymouth Fury and Fairlane. And where was Volkswagen? The Beetle against the Corvair? The Type 95 Corvair PU/Van vs the Type 2 VW Bus/Pickup (the VW pickup was available in the early 60s until the chicken tax was enacted). The Chevy II may have been the first sign that Chevy might have had second thoughts about the Corvair. A year later, the Chevy Van/GMC Vandura would come out with a similar layout to the Ford E-Series.
Vintage Reality show sponsored by GM.
Look at most of the tests, you'll see how well the actor-drivers handle the "real life tests"
At the slalom every single one (except chevy) took the 7th cone lose... How come they ALL managed the 6th cone pretty darn well?
That brake test.... the Chevy is clearly staying behind the other two, for security and wisdom. Let the others mess their driving! You simply avoid hard braking by driving slower and learning the curves after their mistakes.
Everybody drives into the pond, except the last two. Of course! Not one of the first three even tried to turn right.
Acceleration? Did anyone observe how "motivated" were the drivers of the competition? Hardly any shakes or pushes when changing gears...
Just 5 comments:
1. The Corvair vanished thanks to Nader, BUT would it have survived? Not sure.
2. How many F100 and F150 have been sold throughout their lifetime? And Chevy trucks?
3. How many Econlines can you still see nowadays? They have a lot of fans! I couldn't even remember the name of the Chevy van... The Corvan! Right!!!
4. How many Highway patrols were Galaxies and Furries? How many Impalas? I always thought HWY cops knew how to pick their pursuit cars. Stupid me...
5. Gotta give it to GM thought, That Chevy II was and is a great little car.
did any else the rambler miss a gear int he first run at the start of the video?
We all know these videos are going to be fixed to make the sponsor look good, but, dang! If you knew those cars back then, the rigging is obvious!
I've owned a lot of stuff in my 71 years. I liked my Ramblers, under rated. In fact, I liked everything I owned. In decent shape for mileage, handling, and just plain enjoyable, I'd take a Corvair. Remember, I liked them all. Ford had a good little 6, the slant 6 was, IMO, over rated, the Ramblers were worth the money, but a lttle light in the suspension.
I had as my first can in 1971 a 1965 Barracuda with a 225 slant 6. The engine was bullet proof with enough power to get me to over 100 mph. I took my dads 1960 Valiant with a 170 slant 6 and raced a 1971 Thunderbird. I had him up to 60 mph and then his V8 kicked in.
Don't underestimate a slant 6 they were quick and had good torque.
They could not even refrain from smoking to film a commercial. LOL
Hmmmm.... With the Impala demonstration on acceleration, it should be noted the 327 is not the standard V-8 for Chevrolet during that time. The 283 with either 170 horsepower or 195 horsepower was the standard V-8. Plymouth Fury was the 318 with 230 horsepower and the Ford Galaxy didn't even come with a standard V-8. The smallest V-8 for the Galaxy was a 289 with also 170 or 195 horsepower depending on the series 289. The 327 with 250 horsepower was bound to win over the 289 and 318. I do not believe the 283 which is the real standard V-8 for the Impala would have taken the Plymouth Fury... Just this old man's thoughts.
ford had a 292 y block!!!! the 289 was introduced in 1963
The truth is that all this videos lie in the same way.
For me as a Chevrolet fun, I feel embarrassed to see them.
These people who make these commercial videos will believe that we are all ignorant or will they be so ignorant?
They seemed to have left the Plymouth station wagon out of the tailgate load test. Wonder why?
You can tell the string they tied to the ping pong ball to get it to bounce got stuck @ 8:00 .
It's no wonder that 327 pulls hard.
PS notice they didn't include the 63' Rambler 600 classic ? true this was a year earlier
The 63' Rambler Classic had, I believe, curved side windows. This was a modern feature although not the first to have it.
Yes I think your right : ) I always thought it was a great model ! I think it got Motor Trend car of the year .
chevy should have had opt. 6, to make it a fair comparision.
how come chevy ii doesn't have a six cyl.
Funny stuff.
execelant, (Newman).
What happened? Did Chevy kick Plymouth and the Dodge out of the party after they were having too much fun?
GREAT COPS EPISODE--SOMEONE STOLE MY CARPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kennedy-Era 1962 & 1963 Cars(Chevrolet & Others)
Hilarious vid, obviously sponsored back then by Chevy. Had Ford filmed a similar vid one could have been assured back in '62 that all of their model cars would have come up winners vs the Chevy's in the same tests.
jeffman61 This is similar to the video that Chrysler put out in '58 comparing the New Yorker, Imperial and Windsor to different Buick models, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Mercury and Lincoln. But I'm having a tough time trying to remember what car maker won all the competitions? Hmmm... :)
The 1957 Fairlane and the 1962 Fairlane are completely different cars...
Other than the fact that all these cars were virtually void of any safety features, they were good value. Nobody has the balls today to do any comparison tests.
The Chevy II could have a 283 two barrel and still be a road rocket. In "62 you could get one with the 327; 250 or 300 hp. Your choice. Four speed too.
I think you're wrong. I still keep the Chevrolet catalogs from 1949 to 1989, which gave the owners Davis Cars, the main Chevrolet dealer in Chile.
For the year 1962, the Chevy Nova did not offer any V8 engine as optional, none. The only engine alternatives were a 4 in line of 153 cubic inches and 90 H.P .; a 6 in line of 194 cubic inches and 120 H.P. and in the middle of the year the 6 in line of 7 benches, 230 cubic inches and 140 H.P. He used the same pistons, rings, metals, etc. that the engine 153.
Regarding the available transmissions, only the three-speed manual transmission plus the modest two-speed Power Glide automatic transmission is offered. It did not even offer a box with overdrive. As you can see, the offer was quite poo
1962 was the final year for the venerable 235 inline six. Here in the states the V8 ws available.
@@santiagorubio833 Actually. My brother put a v 8 in his 62. The steering and crossmember would not allow it. He had to either change the oil pan or raise the engine. I think 63 was the first v 8
Hahaha. He chose to raise the engine.
In Canada, Pontiac had a 261 c.i.d
4:30 impala actually spit a little flame😰😂😂😂
Hey !!! Come back here with my carport !!!!!
My right ear enjoyed this. You wouldn’t mind fixing the audio, please?
I love how all the companies pick only the tests their cars can win. I get it tho. I wonder how they "rigged" the ping pong ball test. They didn't show the side view of the car to see which one bounces more
At 23:12 shooting. Stealing the car port. LOL
That makes you think, (Kramer).
There are literally hundreds of 'tricks' that tuners can do to give a significant advantage to one car over another.
I don't understand why the Ford products weren't banned years ago. OMG!! It's a wonder how the drivers of those cars are still alive! Look at how the other cars ganged up on that poor little Corvair! How many people who own GM products have been murdered by drivers of the other cars we will never know but, it is imperative to own a Chevrolet in order to escape.
Wonder why they didn't do a wet surface traction and handling test? Lol, I know why.
I had my doubts throughout, but they lost all credibility in the end by implying a first gen Corvair outhandles everything else!
Hey Jason. Are you related to a Steve Griffin from Toronto??
@@zephyr332 nope.
what ever! (mr. grueber)
I didn't know the Nova ad a 4 cyl.
I may have been convinced.
Until the 4 cylinder Chevy II beat an 8 cylinder Ford.
Fords were out saling chevy big time in the sixties
Holy crap, I was 8 yrs old in '62', its was beach movies and dragsters ..Man I thought we lived in an fun, moral and ethical society back then but then I remember, ..they killed JFK a year later.
Here's where the bridge is at 23:27 tinyurl.com/y9bkt23t
Falcon and Comet are the same car. Same chassis, same engines. Why would Comet run out of gas before the Falcon?
+Eric Rose Comet was heavier. The Mercury version was more upscale than the Ford.
@@Seabee_Camper different drivers too.
1:04 those layers in the mountain top are proof that The Flood really did occur 4,400 years ago.
16:11 more Flood geology.
Corvan was rear wheel drive...rear mount motor.....
Granted that was a rigged promo shoot, but the truth is that back then the Chevy 327 had the jump on any American competitor's small block by far. Those engines were almost magical in the power per buck you could get from them, one year later GM would get 375 HP out of them in the Corvette with mechanical fuel injection. That was a lot in 1963, and pretty decent in a two-valve naturally aspirated small block today.
that makes you think (kramer)
so in 1962 they could build a car that got 33.6 mpg, and in 2020 they are lucky to get 26-30 mpg. WTF ??? 58 years, and you loose mileage ?? seriously... WTF? !!!
On the flipside of that cars today are way safer, faster, better built and heavier so the fact that cars can get the same mileage if not more but with all those mentioned is pretty impressive.
Where's the Studebaker Lark?
Winston Elston That's my question, too.
It is entertaining to see these commercial videos, however deceitful and biased they may be.
When I was young, I had a Studebaker Lark 1960, V8 of 259 cubic inches and 180 H.P., with automatic transmission. An uncle of mine bought an Impala 1962, V8 of 283 cubic inches and 170 H.P. with Power Glide transmission. Note that the Chevrolet V8 had 10 H.P. less despite having 24 cubic inches more displacement.
My uncle who believed that his Impala was the most for the propaganda that was already done at that time, could not be convinced that my Lark defeated him away, both in acceleration and in top speed.
He challenged me several times and each time he became more annoyed. Once, on the Pan-American Highway, my Studebaker exceeded 115 m.p.hr., so his Impala did not reach 100 m.p. hr., Staying very far behind. I consider that the performance of that Impala 62 was really miserable.
5 years ahead in time. LOL!
Pretty hokey.
What ever, (Mr. Gruber).
Fixed!
pretty cool....but no sound?
The sound is there and works fine here - it may be something on your end .
1unsafe1 I have to max out my volume and use headphones to barely make out what's being said...this is the only video I am having a problem with so not on my end.
not a fair comparision, chevy ii, should have had a six cyl. like the rest.
Love the hood bouncing on the plymouth. They knew they could not compete with torsion bar ride, had to cheat somewhere.
Not to mention alternators! Chrysler had the engineering advantage for awhile until they started slipping in the 70's
the bel air would the same as the impala.
Very cool video.
But it looks to be manipulated.
Meilenwerker my 56 belair with a 265 would blow the doors off fords back in the 70s but they would get me on top end ..390s were dogs
animalcorvair "dogs"? What do you mean?
Meilenwerker Thanks!
Chevy II should had a 6 cyl.
BRAKE TEST IS A JOKE, I DOUBT THAT GUY COULD PUT HIS HAND THERE AFTER FLYING DOWN THOSE HILLS
What would be the results if the Chevy II, had a 6 cyl.?
This may have been a duel but before the face off Chevy took the competitors guns emptied out the bullets and played a empty hand against their loaded guns.
Well, ya know, guys...I am partisan Studebaker and so biased. But any objective observer will acknowledge the V8 Lark would dust off each and everyone of those six-powered compacts.
louis gastron & arthor
that's a shame! (jerry seinfeld).
bel air is the same car as the impala.
That's all good but who's the testers? Chevrolet is .That's why they are winning in every category. Need I say more.