would you consider a 1965 chevy impala a muscle car?

Answer 1

if it has a big block, heck yeah

Answer 2

First off, a 454 in '65???? I started collecting muscle cars about 20 years ago. Everything from Yenko, Mopar, Fords to Impalas. Now, if you are going to restore it back to original and it has a big block, or a 409, that would be best. Is it considered a Muscle car amongst collectors? I can only speak for myself, but I say as long as it is a big block, then yes. If it is a special or rare care, then to me it is a collectible. rockintrain makes it sound as if there was only one 409 built in '65. Actually '65 was the last year it was available in the Impala. I don't have the book in front of me, but if my memory serves me right, and it usually does, I am about 99.9% positive that there were in fact 547 documented original 409s put in Impalas for the '65 model year. As far as putting engines other than the original in it, well then it just becomes a hot rod. Which is perfectly fine too. It takes on a whole different value then. Look at Chip Foose. He can take a car that should be restored and totally redo it in his fashion, and it probably comes out worth more than restored. To each there own. By the way, '65 Impala, very nice ride, any way you look at it!!!

Answer 3

Well, as ChickMagnet says, the Impala wasn't seen as a "muscle car" a lot of the time, but if you put some muscle in it, well, then that might change the perspective on that particular Impala, but, as a rule, the Impala wasn't ever seen as a muscle car. But then I do remember when the 409 c.i. engine came out, and as sorry as it was, the Beach Boys' song "409" made it a "bad" car just by that song. But, all in all, it was too big of a car to be considered a true muscle car. But then, put a 454 in it, or even a 427, and you could get people to think otherwise. God Bless you.

Answer 4

I had a 1965 Impala Super Sport with a 327 cubic inch small block that would eat chevelles and camaros for breakfast. White leather interior and the classic Turbo Hydramatic transmission. This was definitely a muscle car.

Answer 5

The definition of a muscle car is a mid sized car with the larger full sized car engine. The first muscle car was the mid size Pontiac Tempest/Lemans with the full size Pontiac 389 engine as an option. It was called the GTO. I had a 66 Caprice with a 396 and four speed tranny. It was fast and could beat muscle cars in a race but was a full sized car like an Impala, not a muscle car.

Answer 6

I had a '66 with 327/375 horse and 4 speed - SS - would run mid 13's in what they called "pure stock" in those days - the 427's were running low 12's with a little work. The car suprised a lot of Mustang owners at the time.

Answer 7

Most muscle cars were considered to be midsized cars, like a chevelle or a cutlass, so it doesn't fit in that category, but if it had a 396 it may qualify. It certainly wouldn't be as fast as the chevelle with the same engine though. It would be faster than a galaxy though :)

Answer 8

Depends on the engine. My brother had a 283 in his. I had a 396 425 HP in mine. I considered mine a muscle car. So did many of the people I left in the dust.

Answer 9

No way dude! Impala's don't even come to a muscle car!

Answer 10

When they were making muscle cars? No
Now? Yes

Answer 11

Hey pal, Slap a Blown 427 in there. Oh I think this sucker's got MUSCLE