My father was a dedicated GM guy, depending on the year and the need, it was either a Chevy or an Oldsmobile. When ’59 rolled around and it was time for a new business car, the batwing BelAir was a bridge too far for him so he pulled an unexpected surprise and brought home a really boring gray ’59 Ford Custom. In spite of the ouvert styling, Chevrolet still edged out Ford in ’59, barely, with about 12K more units. Still, I have often wondered if ’59’s excess led to 1960’s similar, but more restrained design. Take this 1960 Impala two-door hardtop, for example, you can see some of the ’59s lines but it is a simpler, cleaner mock-up. Of course, this specific example is hardly clean and needs lots of stuff but let’s see what set the follow-on ’60 apart from its more outlandish predecessor. Parked in Everest, Kansas, this 1960 Impala “bubbletop” is available, here on eBay for a current bid of $1,500 with the reserve not yet met. There is a BIN option of $5,900 available too.
The most obvious styling cue of the ’59 Impala/BelAir/Biscayne was the horizontal tail fins accented by cat eye taillights – and no, the rear end of the car didn’t lift off of the ground at speeds in excess of 60 MPH. There were also a pair of “nostrils” positioned above the grille, right at the lower edge of the hood.
But let’s not dwell too much on the ’59 and note three things about this ’60 example, it has a cleaner front end, smaller fins, and traditional circular Impala taillights – three to a side to be exact. Beyond that, it’s a bit of a heap. It’s rusty with a smattering of contusions and badly degraded paint. To make matters worse, part of the frame, the place where the steering box attaches, has been cut out and removed – oh boy! This body style is known as a “bubble top” because of the thin A and C pillars and the panoramic, protruding windshield and backlight. It was a more appropriately applied and differentiating moniker utilized in ’62 when the Impala and many of its GM B-body siblings went with a creased convertible-look steel roof on hardtop styles while cars like the ’62 BelAir two-door hardtop kept the thin-pillar, or bubble top, design.
A ’60 Impala could be powered by a 235 CI in-line, six or V8s of 283 or 348 CI displacement. The grille emblem indicates a V8 originally held court in the engine compartment but there’s a vacancy now and it’s wide open. The listing mentions the one-time employment of an automatic transmission but the interior images reveal a clutch pedal so this Imp had a shift-it-yourself gearbox.
As for the bench seat interior, fuggedaboutit – it’s a mess – both front and back and it will need a stem-to-stern redo. The seller does state that three of the four footwells are solid so one will need to be replaced or patched – if possible.
So, summation? I do prefer the ’60’s appearance to that of the ’59; it maintains the ’59’s character and applies some cleaned-up refinements. But this example? And with a BIN price of $5,900? Keep lookin’ would be my advice, what’s yours?
Sad. Kinda made some of my lunch come back up. This car was a show-stopper back in its prime.
At least they hosed it off.
Someone should have saved this yhing decades ago!!
Good from afar, but far from good.
Nice project to work on and since it has clutch in… I’m confident that you could find 348, or 409 to install in and sell at the auction
What idiot would put money in this pile of junk and i do mean trash. Parts car maybe, and few at that. What is the world comming to?
Coming to? We are there.
Yea, yea, Michael we get your drift! You would like to crush everything..let it go for awhile, getting VERY OLD!
Cali baby……….
Well it has a clutch pedal but the Ebay listing says automatic trans, like most projects it might cost more to fix up then it’s worth…
Parts car. That’s what this is. Or find a 235/261 and call it a rat rod. Then maybe it’s worth $1500.
Better yet, drop a $50 305 in it, JY seats, with any free transmission you can find.. Go deliver pizzas with the dang thing. That’ll get heads shaking
I have a 454 to build. Would a 454 fit?
A MkIV big block fits just fine.
We put a 396 in a ’59 back in 1974. It drops right in. Use the 348 motor mounts.
Waste of a pair of good 348 motor mounts
Yes.
Yes…..have on in my 1959…..
Overpriced at free. There are better ones to start with
A Lot of these type cars lately seemed to have been pulled out of junk piles and quickly put up for sale. It’s almost like,let’s check the old swamp behind grandpas house maybe drag something out of there and sell it,you won’t believe what people are paying. That being said,in it’s day this was one pretty car.
Although not as cool as the 59 it still is a stunning example. I say this is the perfect car to throw an LS in and make it road worthy.
I remember my dad had a 1959 flat roof hard top white with a blue green or greenish blue interior. I’m sure it was a V8 and knowing my dad it was the bigger one. I don’t care what anyone says your dollar went a lot farther then.
Say Jim, sorry, this car is not a bubble top.
You are generally pretty correct however this one you are incorrect.
What’s your example of a GM bubble top?
JO
Jim, The 61 Impala 2 Dr hard top.
1961 Impala two-door hardtop attached – I fail to see any difference in this car’s greenhouse vs. that of our subject ’60 car.
JO
Well JO, when I was growing up working at my uncles Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick dealership, 1966-68, all of the “older” mechanics and salesman called the 61 a bubble-top. The reason why was explained like this.
The roof profile has a more pronounced raised curvature and the rear window is projected further forward into the roof line and has more of a lifted rounded shape compared to the 60.
Heck Jim, it could just be a East coast West coast thing. This is about the best way I can explain it.
1960’ is indeed a bubble top
Of course it is a bubbletop
I kinda feel like you that the bubble top cars were 61’s but if you google the question the 1960’ Impala is indeed a bubble top so let’s just say, can’t we all just get along lol have a great 2024’ year
Roger that! Like I said, could just be a geographic difference thing. I was 16 in 1966. I may be incorrect. If so I make public apology to Jim.
One thing that IS correct. Use Michael’s suggestion. Part out what you would pretty much destroy by chopping it in half and make two man cave couches. They both would be worth more than you could get out of this POS.
I’m out. Thanks everyone.
Billy:
No apology necessary! This has been a good exercise in trying to determine how a long-ago coined term came about.
JO
The bubble top Chevrolet impala was actually from 1959 through 1962 although 1962 was a transition year into the more formal styled roof design. Cars then prior and post (pardon the pun) typically changed its design platform every 2 years and auto manufacturers realized how costly it was becoming to make new dies and presses .
But even back when many parts were interchangeable from one make to another. Now with the advent of plasticized cookie cutter panels they are manufactured cheaper and I do mean cheap figuratively and literally.
The search for parts and cost of even a moderate restoration would be beyond what it’s worth. The practical thing to do would be to cut it up and make wall art with it. The trunk and fins make for a great couch. There are many examples of this out there. Sending it to the crusher would be a shame.
It isn’t a real 348 car. No flags on the badges. As far as a bubble top it sure ain’t a flat top. Neither would it be on a 59. And for those who will argue, the badges meant 348 ( or a few 409 Cars in 61) not that (61) they were an SS.
Funny I have had my cars for years and now I hear that 59 and 60’s are not bubbletops-this year is starting bad!
If you have a chance to ride in a bubbletop or a flattop for that matter, there is no blind spots. 360 degree view.
Please explain the 348 flags/badges? Thats something I didn’t know.
I think “bubbletop” phrase started in ’62 with the BelAir, which used the same basic roof line as the ’59/’60 and ’61Impala, whereas the ’62 Impala had the “convertible hardtop”, a flat hardtop with fake rear ‘vert top bow outline.
It would HAVE to be a “Labor of Love” project. Not a money maker.
@JO: Not a bubbletop. You don’t see a difference? Maybe you should look again at the ’61 where the rear glass meets the roof and compare it to the subject car. The ’61 glass has rounded corners and protrudes due to a more convex shape; the ’60 (and ’59) has square corners and is flatter. Near as I can tell, the “bubble” refers to the more convex shape of the ’61s (and ’62 Bel Air Sport Coupe) glass compared to the ’59-’60 glass. The two do not appear to be interchangeable so are definitely not the same. The ’59-’60s are just slim pillar hardtops (like the Ford Starliner of ’60-’61) and not bubbletops. My guess is bubbletop was first used to denote the ’62 Bel Air 2DR HTs (compared to the faux convertible Impala roofline) but that’s just a guess.
However, like “Tri-Power” referring to every 3×2 carb setup these days even though it was used only by Pontiac, “bubbletop” has become somewhat generic and has been extended to the ’59-’60s by the collector-hobby crowd. I’ve even seen the term used for Starliners.
Exactly Tiger66, “As near as you can tell“; so if it’s that obscure a detail that it is barely obvious, then it’s immaterial to the “coined” definition. And, I definitely don’t have the time to keep staring at it.
JO
Tiger66: You’re right in your description, should not have said “near as I can tell” because your description is right on. 1957 & later Dodges & Plymouths have the same hardtop roof as the 59 & 60 Impala’s. The bubble in the 61’s rear glass is not very noticeable when looking at a 6” picture, but when looking at full size it is noticeable. I own both now & owned the same back in the early 70’s. In upstate NY guys then called the 61 the bubbletop, not the 60.
Well, I should have been clearer. Near as I can tell from researching the term, not just by looking at the rear window but JO took it the latter way. You are correct in that the difference is quite noticeable when you see one in real life. There is a discussion on The HAMB message board that supports what I said about it being first used for the ’62 Bel Air. The ’59-’60 2DR HTs just had the one roofline so there was no need for a special term for them. It was never an official term so definitions vary, but the ’61s seem to merit it more than the ’59-60s (IMO).
Bubbletop or not it’s a shame to see this car in this bad of condition. If the rest of it looked like the drivers side from a distance then it may have been worth at least making road worthy but only the second picture on ebay tells you to “RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!” To bad. Pretty much every 60’s Impala looks great restored but unless you have a certain attachment to this particular car, then it’s definitely not worth a second look. Too bad.
And we all thought that Christine was in bad shape when Arnie found her…
Christine was in pretty bad shape several times during Arnie’s ownership! Great movie, one of those rarities that you can watch many times and still love it.
So to those who ‘know’ that bubbletops are 61 only; are you saying a bubbletop is Chevrolet only or would my 61 Electra qualify?
Everyone is entitled to their OPINION. The term was used first on the plexiglass topped show cars
The ’61 Electra is a C-body car. The “bubble top” roof was used only on the B-body cars. So the Invicta and the LeSabre 2DR HTs had it, but the Electra didn’t. In addition to Chevrolet, Pontiac and Olds (B-body only, not the C-body 98) also had the bubble top roof in ’61.
Back in the 70’s the old timers in the garage I worked at in NY commented on my 61 saying how they recall the bubble glass when it came out, so some folks were making the distinction earlier than 1962!
Did I see part of the left frame rail missing in the underhood pic? Run Forrest, RUN!
I don’t think so.
The auction ended with zero bids. The trim pieces were not even worth the asking price. That thing needed more help than I could ever give it…
If you think that price is insane price what a mangled rusted out wrecked 1950s Porsches are selling for. And I’m not validating either is worth a nickle of my money. IMHO they have more money than brains.
It’s a buildable car……
anything is buildable, but may end up with more money/time than it’s worth. I noticed roof brace buckled on right front.
I have a convertible in about the same shape or worse. Place mine atop this and put both in the EZ press and make one. Mine did/does still run but it’s a 283 so who cares.
Chris: is it a 60? I’d be interested in a ragtop…
It is but it needs to hang around until my 59 is tip top. I want to pick the best window frames, top rack, window motors, dash parts and so on. I have a delivery that I was going to use for the 60s sheet metal blues but 59 is tops for me, so it needs to hang around until the 59 is finished. In reality the car is worth more dead than alive parts wise.
if you could let me know when you’re ready, wanted one to restore (& baby it) since high school…