(first posted 5/22/2017) Even though much has been written about the Chevrolet Chevelle Super Sports, the history is still unclear to some. There seems to be some debate on whether the car was called the Chevelle SS, the Malibu SS, whether it was a distinct model or an option package? Well to answer in short, all of the above. So, let’s do an overview of Chevrolet’s intermediate Super Sport models.
When Chevrolet released the Chevelle for the 1964 model year, the model lineup consisted of the three distinct series; the Chevelle 300, the Malibu and the Malibu Super Sport. In its first year the Malibu SS was a separate series, available as a 2-door hardtop and convertible, either six or V8. It is important to remember Chevrolet had separate model designations for six and V8 cars. Therefore, the 1964 Malibu SS lineup consisted of four distinct models and two body styles.
The Malibu SS was not a performance package like the GTO, and it included no performance upgrades. The Malibu SS only offered trim and appearance upgrades over a Malibu. These included bucket seats, Malibu SS specific trim and emblems, a center console (with Powerglide or 4-speed), clock and a gauge package (excluding a tach). These cars all had Malibu SS or Malibu Super Sport nameplates on the car and were called the same in GM literature.
1965 Malibu SS with RPO Z16
The Malibu SS stayed the same for 1965, available in the same four model variations (although model numbers were changed). In March of 1965, a new option package was released on a very limited basis for the Malibu SS, known as RPO Z16. This option package was limited to the V8 Malibu SS hardtop or convertible. It did however require a number of mandatory options including power steering and brakes, tachometer, 4-speed transmission with 2.56 low gear, AM/FM stereo, deluxe front belts, rear seat belts and instrument panel pad.
The Z16 option was a performance oriented package. Its performance upgrades included the 375-hp L37 396, a stiffer boxed convertible chassis, larger brakes, and a performance suspension with front and rear stabilizer bars. In the end only 201 were built, mostly going to VIPs. The Z16 was created to help produce buzz for the upcoming regular production 1966 SS396. Despite these cars commonly being called the Chevelle Z16, the Z16 cars were badged as a “Malibu SS”, and Chevrolet called them the Malibu SS in their literature.
Things changed considerably for 1966. With the popularity of the GTO, Chevrolet had to rethink its Super Sport for its intermediate line. The market didn’t want a trim and appearance package, they wanted a real performance car. Chevrolet decided to drop the Malibu SS for 1966. However, the Malibu SS did live a while longer in Canada, which I will write a post about in the near future. In place of the Malibu SS, Chevrolet released a new model, simply called SS396. The SS396 was available as a 2-door hardtop or a 2-door convertible.
Unlike the Malibu SS, the SS396 featured mostly performance upgrades over a Malibu. If you wanted to order a 396 engine in a Chevelle for 1966, the SS396 was the only way to get it. The SS396 had three engine choices available; it came with a base 325hp L35 or the optional 360hp L34 or the 375hp L78. While the 1965 Malibu SS Z16 included a number of chassis and brake upgrades, the 1966 SS396 was de-contented to reduce its price (the Z16 approached Corvette territory). This meant no heavy duty convertible frame and no more large brakes. It had a smaller front stabilizer bar and no rear bar. The SS396 suspension did have somewhat stiffer springs compared to a base Chevelle but this was mostly to compensate for the heavier 396. Also included was unique trim and badging as well as a new domed hood. However, bucket seats, console and the gauge package were no longer standard equipment.
While an SS396 had appointments at a similar level to a Malibu, the SS396 was not a Malibu. There were no Malibu nameplates on the car, only “Chevelle,” “SS396,” or “Super Sport” emblems. Chevrolet generally called it “SS396,” but sometimes called it a “Chevelle SS396”. To me it seems that Chevrolet intended it to be a standalone model name, as in “Chevrolet SS396” like “Pontiac GTO”. That said, it doesn’t seem improper to call it a Chevelle SS396, since all intermediate cars were Chevelles and this seems to be the commonly accepted name. However, since the SS396 wasn’t really a Malibu; I don’t think calling them a Malibu SS396 is correct.
1969 Chevelle 300 Deluxe SS396
Things continued on pretty well the same for 1967 and 1968 model years with only minor changes, and the SS396 remained a separate model. Nevertheless, for the 1969 model year things changed significantly. For 1969, the SS396 became option package Z25. This option package was available on all Chevelle coupes and the Malibu convertible. All Chevelle coupes meant the Malibu hardtop, and the Chevelle 300 Deluxe 2-door hardtop and 2-door sedan. So there were a total of four models the SS396 could have been ordered with. Plymouth introduced the popular Road Runner in 1968, a no-frills muscle car. Making the SS396 an option package available on the 300 Deluxe models was an easy way for Chevrolet to offer a no-frills version of its already successful SS396.
Although the SS396 became an option package, it featured much the same upgrades as previous years’ SS396 models. New features included 5-spoke SS wheels with wide oval tires and power front disc brakes. Despite being an option package, Chevrolet continued to call the car simply “SS396” in sales literature. Further, none of the Malibus equipped with the Z25 option had Malibu nameplates on the car. Calling these cars “Chevelle SS396” was pretty well the norm then and it seems to be the accepted name today. However, it would be hard to argue that it is incorrect to call one of these cars a 1969 Chevelle 300 Deluxe SS396 or a 1969 Chevelle Malibu SS396. How else would you differentiate the two trims?
For 1970 things changed yet again. With GM lifting its self-imposed 400 cubic inch limit off its intermediate cars, the Chevelle now added the 454 to its roster. Like in 1969, the Super Sport remained an option package, but now there were two packages. There was the Z25 the SS396 package, and the Z15 SS454 package. Unlike in 1969, the only way to order a Z15 or Z25 option package required starting with either a Malibu Coupe or convertible. No more plain-Jane Super Sports.
The SS396 Z25 option package was revised somewhat from 1969. The SS396 had two engine choices, the 350 hp L34 396 (now displacing 402 cid) or the 375 hp L78. Also now included was a new domed hood, the F41 handling suspension, and round gauges versus the horizontal style speedometer used on other Chevelles. A four-speed or the Turbo Hydramatic were now mandatory options. The Z25 SS454 was essentially the same package, but offered engine choices of the 360hp LS5 or the 450 hp LS6. The LS6 was released partway through the model year, roughly November 1969. When this engine was announced, Chevrolet told dealers they would no longer be accepting orders for the L78 396 which was subsequently phased out. The SS packages had finally evolved into an all-round performance package, offering the high performance engines with suspension and brake upgrades to match. It only took Chevy 5 years to make it as well rounded as the 1965 Z16 package.
For 1971, there were further changes to the Super Sport. The two option packages of 1970 were reduced to just one, the Z15 Super Sport option. The option package no longer included any engines. Any V8 Malibu coupe or convertible with an optional engine could order the Z15 option package. Remember that the V8 cars are a separate model from the six cylinders. If you ordered a Malibu V8, the base engine was the 200-hp 307-2bbl V8. So to order the Z15 option package, you need to select at minimum the 245hp L65 350-2bbl engine. Also available was the 270hp L48 350-4bbl, 300hp LS3 402-4bbl, and the 365hp LS5 454-4bbl. The 1971 engines had lower outputs due to reduced compression ratios, as mandated by GM corporate wide. The LS5 454 was exclusive to Z15 SS optioned cars. Other than the engines, most of the SS package was the same as 1970. The only minor changes were the inclusion of a driver’s sport mirror (instead of chrome) and new 15×7 5-spoke wheels with F60-15 tires. All Super Sports now wore “SS” badging without any reference to the engine unless the 454 was ordered. The 454 cars instead wore SS454 badges.
Note the factory brochures states you can get a 307 in an SS. I believe this was incorrect.
For 1972, it was the same story as 1971. The biggest change was engines rated in SAE net horsepower, but actual output was the same or very close compared to 1971 engines. Many people think that in 1972 the Z15 SS option package was available with the any V8 including the base 307-2bbl. Even the Chevrolet brochure said you could get the SS package with a 307. However, GM’s factory vehicle information kit says otherwise. It clearly states that an optional V8 is required for the “SS” package. Furthermore, it seems amongst the Chevelle community there has never been one 1972 Chevelle SS with a 307 with the proper documentation to back it up. I’d suggest if these cars existed, there’d be at least one that would have turned up by now.
Note that the factory information kit doesn’t show the 307 as one of the 1972 SS engine options
1973 marked the last year for the Super Sport Z15 option. Just like in 1971 and 1972, it required a V8 Malibu coupe with any optional V8, meaning no 307. For 1973, the 350-2bbl, 350-4bbl or the 454-4bbl were the three engine choices for the SS. The option package was similar to 1972, including unique trim and badging, F41 suspension, and the round gauges. The wheels were reduced to a 14×7 rally type shod with G70-14 tires and it included two racing mirrors. The 454 cars were now labelled just as an SS, but had “454” call outs on the front fenders. Interestingly, for whatever reason, the one major change to the Z15 option was that it was also available on the Malibu Wagon.
From 1970-73 the Super Sport option on the Chevelle always required a Malibu as the base model. While all of the Chevelle SS’s from this time period were technically Malibus, selecting one of the “SS” packages removed any Malibu badging from the car. Chevrolet literature generally referred to them as simply “SS396”, “SS454” or “SS” and most people call them Chevelle SS. That said, I don’t think it would be incorrect to call these cars Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu SS396 or SS454 or SS, but what a mouthful.
as stated in the article the Chevelle SS started out as a sport/appearance package as demonstrated with the Impala since 1961 – the 3rd gen six with the SS (which was the Chevy II six produced to 2001 in Brasil) with the SS appearance package (64/65 only) is not a delusional subject and it was the same 2 model yrs where the Malibu and SS nameplates were used together (exc. Canada) when the SS was associated with the powertrain after 1965
also the SBC was not used with the SS c. 1966-70 until 1971 when RPO L65 was reinstated (2 barrel 350) a majority of the SS was usually associated the the big block and if its a 1966-68 model, the 138 VIN prefix; as usual a documented SS even with the 138 VIN prefix will be in Lexus or BMW turf when its appraised – the Z16 Chevelles (along with the obscure 1969 BO7 police option where the Chevelle 300 4 door sedan had the L35 big block) have and always been the holy grail (the BO7 was based on fleet ordered Chevelles e.g. taxicabs with a boxed frame – much like the modern day Tahoe Z56 (police package) none exist after its service life has ended
1964 & ’65 Malibu SS models had a “138” VIN number too. I had a ’65 with a 283 and a four speed manual transmission that I bought in ’71 and sold in ’73.
Good ol’ GM.
Notice through quite a bit of that time period you could get just about whatever you wanted as long as you were willing to pay for it.
I’m probably the only person who would have considered ordering an SS wagon if transported back in time.
You aren’t the only one. I first found out about the 1973 SS wagon about 10 years ago. Ever since then, one of them occupies a space in my dream car garage.
GM was truly like a buffet in those days.
Here’s your plate (chassis) head over to the buffet (parts bin) and load it up to your hearts content. Just be aware that you’ll pay based on what you pick.
It must’ve been hard to be a new car salesman for Chevy in those years, keeping up with whether the SS was a model, a package, the engine choices (if any) and what was/was not included from year to year.
My H.S. buddy got a brand new Malibu S.S. in 1973, believe it was a ’72. Came from factory with a 307 4 bbl. Dual exhaust, and cowl hood..dual snorkel air cleaner. So you Could order SS package w Malibu and 307 engine..
The early Chevelle had a 2 door wagon version, you don’t see very many of them. OK, not an SS, but still one heck of a nice car.
No, not the only one. I was parking cars at a resort in the early 70s when a guest pulled up in a Chevelle wagon, a full on wood grain trim wagon, with a baby crib in the back. Not really giving it much of a look, I handed the driver his ticket and hopped in. First thing I noticed was that it had a 4 speed!? I started it up, blipped the throttle, and the cowl flap opened!? Needless to say I was intrigued. After I parked it, I gave it a good looking over, SS emblems in all the right places, under the hood was a big block, with cowl induction, etc. I was definitely “what the hell?” about it. I kept the keys to make sure I was the one who got it when the owner came out. When he finally did, I brought the car up, and, as he got in, asked him “where the hell did you get this car?”. He got a big grin on his face, and told me that he’d wanted an SS396, his wife wanted a wagon, and, after 6 weeks going over order forms with his dealer, they got what they wanted. They’d called him when it was delivered, and he was at the dealer to watch them unload it off the transporter, waited while they prepped it, and drove it home. Now, I’ve been told that car couldn’t have existed (quite vehemently on a chevelle forum), but I saw it, drove it, and talked to the owner. A very unusual car. I wonder if he still has it.
I’ve seen one that I believe to be genuine a couple years ago, but I couldn’t stick around to wait for the owner to ask about it. I did get a couple of photos; might write it up as a capsule.
All the photos I’ve seen of SS wagons, plus the one I saw in person, didn’t have the woodgrain. But, as has been noted, you could probably get just about anything you wanted on one with patience and a willing dealer.
Wow! After reading that I feel like the fellow trying to understand “catch 22”. Good article. Now, where is that Tylenol bottle.
A very thorough walk through the maze of Chevrolet Z codes. I believe that the SS model’s wild zigzags between Malibu, Chevelle and standalone phases exemplifies Chevrolet’s struggle of that era. It was the Division that was long accustomed to leading the industry in style and trends, yet struggled to react as competitors got the jump on them over and over in the 60s. The GTO and Roadrunner were two cars that were both influential yet were very different in concept. It seems that the Chevelle/Malibu SS tried to be both of them at various times.
I could imagine that by the time John DeLorean took over, he could see the writing on the wall for the performance market. It was not the SS, but the Monte Carlo that would cement Chevrolet’s leadership in the 70s.
Oh, and just to muddy the waters further, I attach a piece of promo literature from 1970. Chevrolet offered a series of single sheet pieces with a picture on one side and printed info on the back. I remember this one from the cool photographic effects.
When I looked at it just now, I see that the piece that featured this SS was for the line identified as Chevelle. More schizophrenia at work?
You make a good point JP about the struggle of Chevrolet in this era. Sure they sold a lot of cars, but they were not the market innovators by any stretch. They seemed to be playing catch-up all the time, but it seems the market still favoured Chevrolets in general by a large margin regardless.
As for your ad, Chevrolet seemed to most often call the SS cars “SS396” without any other model name in it’s literature. However, it did also sometimes say “Chevelle SS396” in it’s literature. I didn’t really come across of any instances where Chevrolet used Malibu SS in it’s literature after 1965.
My freind in 1972, had a Malibu S.S. with a 307 4bbl dual exhaust, cowl hood. Maybe, if you ordered a 4bbl 307, that filled the gap required to fit (optional engine,) Criteria thereby entitling S.S. package ??
There never was a factory stock 307 with either 4 barrel or dual exhausts. Your friend either modified it, or he had a different engine.
That’s a good way to put it. The most profit was with the higher-tier cars, and Pontiac exploited this well since Pontiac was technically the next rung up from Chevrolet. It was easy for Pontiac to move the GTO from the option list in 1964-65 to a separate model in 1966. Chevrolet had a tougher time slotting in the SS396, made worse with the success of the hot-selling (but lower profit) Road Runner in 1968.
OTOH, Chevrolet must have been doing something right as the SS396 was the number two selling musclecar for 1969, behind the number one Road Runner (the GTO had fallen to number three by then).
The Chevy mid-sizers from 1965-1972 are right in my wheelhouse!
If I had my druthers, I’d have a 1972 “Heavy Chevy” model, in red, of course, but as long as it was a two-door hardtop, I’d have a 250/Powerglide and be very happy, with a 1970-72 model!
Bad news! You can’t have your druthers, the Heavy Chevy was V8 only 🙂
That ad lists two of the four available engines as the 307 and Turbo-Jet 400. Could the other two engines have been either a 2v or 4v 350? If so, a Heavy Chevy equipped with a 350-4v/4-speed/Positraction axle with the lowest (highest numerical) available rear end would have made for a very nice, daily-driver ride that would still be insurable.
Yes, you could get the 350-2bbl or the 350-4bbl with the Heavy Chevy. Keep in mind though, you also got the base model trim/interior with this model option package.
I should have clarified that I would have settled for a 250/Powerglide – equipped two-door hardtop if the H.C. option – or any other higher trim wasn’t available!
Zackman, you’re describing my first car, a 1972 Chevelle (base) 2-door hardtop with a 250 six and powerglide. All I wanted to do when I owned it was drop in a V8, but the car was too rusted to make the engine swap worthwhile.
I’ll take a Malibu four-door hardtop, 307/4 speed, metallic blue on blue cloth with the H-C’s grille, unadorned silver Rally wheels and blackwall tires.
Was there an El Camino SS in 1964 or 1965? I don’t remember seeing one until the 1966 SS396.
There was no El Camino SS from 1964-67. The top trim level was the El Camino Custom in these years. However, for 1966 and 1967 you could get an El Camino with the same options as a SS396 Chevelle, including the 396 engines. Any SS396 El Camino from 1966-67 you see today has been converted and is not factory correct.
For 1968 the SS396 model was introduced to the El Camino line. In 1969, it became an model option like the Chevelle, but was limited to the Custom. The SS option remained with the El Camino until its demise in 1987.
Actually, the first El Camino SS was in ’68. You could get the 396 in a Camino in ’66-’67 but no “SS” trim and it came with the standard flat hood.
Every one you see today seems to have a big block hood, and I’ve seen some with “SS” badges and grille trim but that’s not how Chevy built them.
I always thought that the last Chevelle 300 Deluxe coupe in 1969 had an impact on the goofy 1970.5 Fairlane/Falcon. Ford was trying to ape the 300 Deluxe but was caught by surprise in 1970 when the 300 Deluxe coupe was eliminated and Chevrolet only offered a Chevelle hardtop. My theory is it was one of the reasons what would otherwise have been known as a Fairlane coupe was strangely called a Falcon and the last, real Falcon was dropped after January 1st, 1970. Plus, of course, Ford saved a few pennies by not having to perform the minor updates of moving the ignition switch to the column and removing the horn ring.
It makes sense when one considers that the 70.5 Falcon could be optioned all the way up with the 429 CobraJet engine, similar to how you could make a 1969 300 Deluxe an SS396. A Falcon with a 429 CJ engine is rather like a Valiant 2-door sedan with Hemi.
Are you sure about the horn-ring being a Federal safety no-no?
I know Mopars still had them in 1970. Maybe not much beyond that, but I always saw it as a style trend, not a FMVSS.
Not sure, but it certainly seemed plausible. Maybe Chrysler somehow got an exemption? Or were there other examples of 1970 cars that had a horn ring? Those 1970 Chrysler horn rings do have a rather unique way of attaching to the outlying spokes of the center horn pad instead of directly to the center steering column so maybe that’s how they got away with it. Or maybe that specific ring isn’t made of metal, at all, instead of some other more forgiving material like plastic.
Unlike today, the manufacturers were very good at finding loopholes or getting exemptions for those safety mandates in the first years. Who could forget the big, rubber bumper guards that Chrysler used on the ’73-’74 E- and B-bodies to meet the bumper standards. I can’t imagine the fines they’d get tagged with if they tried that today.
The horn ring on my ’70 Coronet wasn’t chromed steel like they used to be, it had a brushed finish and felt cheap. I don’t remember if it was plastic, but if it was there might have been metal inside to keep it from breaking.
Yeah, that’s kind of what I thought. Good ole Chrysler skirting the intent of the regulation (if there even was one) by putting some sort of perfunctory padding or plastic on their last horn ring. They certainly all seemed to be gone in any version by 1971.
Chrysler seems to have been the last in the US with horn rings – didn’t they use them up to ’74 or even ’75 on some of their three-spoke wheels? This is the ’75 Newport Custom featured on CC:
I don’t know how much influence the Chevelle 300 Deluxe SS396 had on Ford? I think the primary objective of the 1970 1/2 Falcon was a price leader, and the vast majority would have been sold with small V8’s and sixes. Very few left the factory with the hi-po 429’s. Further, the Fairlane 500 was not a mid year model release. The Fairlane 500 was introduced in the fall of 1969 as the base model along with the rest of the Torino line-up. Ford did release a Torino Sportsroof as a mid year model though.
Ford’s answer to the “econo” muscle cars was the Cobra. This had the same formula as the Road Runner, basic trim with a big engine as standard equipment. The Torino GT was fancier but didn’t include all the high performance goodies as standard equipment.
Remember in 1969, the Chevelle 300 Deluxe coupe (2-door sedan – 2-door post car) and the 1969 Chevelle 300 Deluxe sport coupe (2-hard top – pillarless) car could be equipped with the Z15 package.
1970 was a recession year, and there were a number of late-introduction intermediate price leaders. The Chevelle line began the model year with the Malibu as the base trim – the standard Chevelle hardtop coupe and sedan were added later. The Pontiac Tempest T-37 is another example. I think this was the rationale behind the ’70 1/2 Falcon, although as has been discussed a couple of times previously, it’s curious that they bothered to tool up the unique 2-door sedan.
That was my whole point. Ford was simply following GM’s example and realized, too late, that the 2-door intermediate sedan was going to be a big loser not worth the effort, as GM did when they killed the 300 Deluxe for 1970. So, Ford tried to do some juggling with the Maverick and Falcon and renamed the 2-door intermediate sedan as the 70.5 Falcon to fit into the line-up.
It’s worth noting that there was no ’68-’69 2-door sedan intermediate Ford, with the last one being the ’67 Fairlane 2-door sedan. Instead, they went a different route for those two years by offering two hardtops: one with a formal roof, and the other being a fastback.
Paul did a very nice CC on how Ford made a Falcon 2-door sedan by using the ’67 Fairlane center section with the Falcon front and rear. I’m guessing that the 70.5 Falcon was sort of a riff on that plan, but it didn’t pan out. Imagine if the Maverick 2-door had been created by using the 70.5 Falcon center section with a Maverick front and rear!
Chevrolet never had these issues with the Nova and Chevelle, although it does shed a little light on their own creation of the 300 Deluxe intermediate line. They pretty much played it completely straight with completely unique sheetmetal for the different markets, and never tried to wedge any kind of compact down into the subcompact market, i.e., the first Mavericks, and left that field completely to the Vega, Chevette, et al. Nor did they try any of the goofy stuff of using a 300 Deluxe center section with a Nova front and rear.
It’s also worth mentioning that although the 70.5 Falcon was surely a money loser, those first Mavericks were big sellers, which probably offset whatever Ford lost on the tooling for the last Falcon.
I still don’t really see that Ford was following Chevy. Like Stumack mentioned, Chevrolet actually didn’t initially have a base model Chevelle in 1970 and it was later released mid year (Canada had a base model 300 Deluxe for the entire year). In fact, if you look at 1970 Chevelle brochures, it only shows Malibu’s and no base Chevelles. I am not sure exactly the date the base model Chevelles were reintroduced, but if anything, Chevrolet was following Ford by trying to get more of the low end market.
While Chevelle initially only had the Malibu, Ford had the Fairlane 500, Torino, Torino GT, Torino Brougham and Torino Cobra. Ford definitely had a much better model line-up to cover the market and also did in 1969. Then they released the Falcon mid model year to really hit the bottom of the market.
According to Collectible Automobile, there was a price war between Chevrolet and Ford and Chevy in the intermedaite market for 1970. This was the reason that they reintroduced the base Chevelle and brought out the Torino based Falcon to try and get the lowest priced intermediate.
What is odd is Buick, Olds and Pontiac offered a mid sized “post coupe”, for 70-72. But Chevy, the “value brand”, didn’t at all.
It made perfect sense in the context of each division’s larger lineup – Chevy had the Nova all along, until the Ventura arrived for (midyear?) ’71 and the Omega and Apollo alongside the Colonnade A-bodies for ’73, the A-body post coupe was the entry level model for B-O-P.
The Falcon thing’s very possible, if it weren’t for the strippo-muscle market there’s no reason why it couldn’t have been a 4 door sedan only as a placeholder for the Maverick sedan.
It’s also odd in retrospect that the (substantially shortened from the prior Falcon platform) Maverick coupe was ready a year and a half BEFORE the (same wheelbase as the ’60s Falcons) sedan.
During my high school years in ’68 – ’70, I seem to recall a guy who was the talk of our school for having (dropping?) an L88 in his Chevelle.
Thanks Vince for this comprehensive look at what was a bit of a head scratcher back in the day.
Never quite understood the 65 whole Malibu SS thing till now and how expensive they were. Perhaps de-contenting the 66’s made them less expensive and sold cars, but not installing rear stabilizer bars and using small diameter one on the front was bad idea.
As a longtime owner of 71 SS with a 402, I can say that the driver’s side sport mirror was an option as mine had the chrome remote unit as shipped from the factory.
It really wasn’t until 1970 that the Chevelle SS had a decent handling suspension package. While you could get the F41 suspension in 1969, only 722 cars actually ordered the F41 option (there was also a F40 heavy duty suspension which was not in the same league for handling). Early Chevelles were not known to be great handlers, but the 1970-72 cars with the F41 suspensions were tops among its competitiors.
As for the mirror, GM literature says that a sport mirror was part of the package. That doesn’t mean that some cars didn’t get the chrome mirror installed instead. As I have learned over the years, there were often time many exceptions to the rules for cars built during this era.
This article is very interesting – what a maze of model confusion! Never knew about the 69 300 Deluxe SS396. They must be quite rare – I never saw one back in the day. Far more typical would be the one factory ordered by my 16 year-old cousin (pictured below – my Dad’s little workhorse Falcon Ranchero is parked behind it). Beautifully styled, fast car (4-speed), as desirable as a GTO at the time.
Nice car!!
Don’t forget that that you could get the Z25 SS396 package on a 300 Deluxe Sport Coupe (read pillarless hardtop). These would be hard to distinguish from a Malibu based SS396 from the exterior.
Here is one:
I usually refer to any Chevelle SS model as just the “Chevelle SS”. if I understand correctly, the only ones that ever carried Malibu badging were the 1964-65s, although some 1969s and all 1970-73s technically are Malibus. With the possible exception of the 1964-65s, it sounds odd to me to refer to any of those as the “Malibu SS”, although I agree it isn’t really wrong.
Interesting discussion about the 307 not really being available in ’72 SS models. I’ve believed that it was since reading it in some reference book 25+ years ago. I’m sure the brochure was the original source of this. I wonder whether the brochure was just plain wrong, or if there actually were plans to make the 307 available at one point.
If I follow correctly, from 1971-73, the 350 wasn’t “standard” in SS models in the sense of being included as part of the SS package. Rather, the SS buyer was required to purchase a 350 cubic inch or larger engine as an option, separately from purchasing the SS package.
As we’ve discussed in the past in this forum, the distinction between a 2-door (pillared) coupe and a 2-door sedan is an extremely murky subject, with which term a particular manufacturer uses on a particular model often nothing more than a matter of semantics, and the distinction between the two terms arguably meaningless on any car built after the early ’50s (when manufacturers stopped offering both styles side by side in the same product lines). That having been said, I believe that Chevrolet referred to 1968-69 2-door pillared Chevelles as “coupes” (body code 27), not “2-door sedans” (body code 11), and they have essentially the same rooflines as the hardtop coupes, giving them a pretty strong argument for truly being coupes. This is different from 1964-67, when 2-door pillared Chevelles were labeled as 2-door sedans, and had a different roofline from Chevelle hardtops and other GM A-bodies that were labeled as coupes.
MCT you got it correct. I tried to squeeze as much detail into this article without making it too long.
I am not sure on the 307 thing, if it was just a misprint or if they intended to produce one. I kind of lean towards misprint, since the Heavy Chevy could have a 307, 350, 402. It kind of makes sense that the SS should be one step above, and offer the 350-402-454.
For 1971-73, you also got it correct. The Z15 SS package did not include any engine. However, to order that option you were also required to order at minimum a 350-2bbl engine (or above). Basically it the engine upgrade was a mandatory option.
You are correct about the names for the body styles. I knew about the difference in GM’s terminology for the pillared vs pillarless Chevelles. I actually used the “coupe” and “sport coupe” in some comments above. I chose to used 2-door hardtop and 2-door sedan in the article simply because I thought this would make it easier for people to understand what I was writing about. I figured this would be easier than using GM terminology, although it may be more correct, would likely be less understood. In the end, it’s just semantics IMO.
I made the mistake of referring to a ’68-’72 era SS as a Malibu SS on some website. I was told the difference and tried my best to find a Malibu SS of this generation, but, of course, there was no such thing. At least the guy who pointed it out was nice about it.
The writer-formerly-known-as Bill Mitchell has pulled it off again. All the information is in here, if I can only get my head around it – sure glad there isn’t a test!
Chevelle and Malibu get interchanged often. Can be confusing to some car fans used to modern model name and alpha-numberic trim levels.
Some say “post coupe” vs. ‘2 door sedan’.
Malibu eventually won out in 1978, and used today.
But another common mix up is younger car fans assuming all Chevelles were SS Big Block [396/454] coupes.
Example is a poster once commented on seeing a Chevelle wagon and thought it was a “custom body job”, not factory. And another was “shocked” to learn there were 4 door Chevelles!
My mother’s second car was a Chevelle 4-door sedan, a ’72 with (presumably) the 307. She remembers it had a V8, but not exactly which one.
The 2-door wagon that was offered on the 1st-generation cars? Now that one surprised me, and I didn’t think it was factory the first time I saw a photo of one. Still haven’t ever seen one in person, but being born in ’80, There weren’t many Chevelles of any kind on the streets when I was a kid other than the already-collectible SS versions and “tribute” cars.
Chevrolet brought back the Greenbrier name 1st used on Corvair passenger vans for this model. The Chevelle based ones are not very deluxe. They were not very common, even new. There used to be model kits of these Chevelle Greenbriers too.
Wow- Just reading these- About to buy a 71 Malibu/ Chevelle (vin as malibu) 4 door wagon badged as SS with 454. This is gonna be fun!!!!!!
Would anyone here like to venture a guess as to the year make and model of this car? I owned it from approx 1977 to early 80’s. Always called it a Malibu. Husband now saying no, it was a Chevelle. After reading article…I am still confused. I loved it, my first car. It had a removable 8 track tape deck that could hook up to speakers in the house. Installed by previous owner. Neil Young sounded great in that car!
It’s a ’73 Chevelle, looks like a coupe. They had three main series of Chevelles that year, Deluxe (which wasn’t deluxe at all but rather a spartan base model), Malibu (midrange model and the most popular), and Laguna (fanciest interior, and a unique front clip with color-keyed plastic bumper).
Although based on the Fairlane/Torino body style, the 70.5 Falcon did come with a 429 Cobra-Jet, if you were willing to pay for it. I saw one at an antique/classic car show a few years back, and the owner had the Ford Motor Company documentation, along with a copy of the Ford build sheet to match his VIN. That’s one I should have taken a picture of, including the documentation if the owner would have let me do so. I’m fairly certain there aren’t many, if any, still around. BTW, the Fairlane name was last used in 1971, and became the Torino in 1972.
Are the 69 chevelle SS and the 69 Chevy Malibu body size the same but just have different engines? It looks to me that the chevelle SS is a longer body. Chevy fan that hopes to own a muscle cAr someday
Same exact body. Different engines.
I photographed this ‘69 SS396 near my house a few weeks ago. No Malibu (or Chevelle) badging, but it had a column shifter (automatic, not 3-on-the-tree) and no center console. Could this be a base Chevelle with that Z25 package? I assumed it was just one of those fake SS cars.
“…I am still confused.”
Many average folks go crazy when a car line has names for trim levels, and Chevelle Malibu is perfect example. Some think all were Malibus since ’64, and others don’t know that the Colonnade versions were still Chevelles, thinking ’72 was end of name.
And, most common misconception is “all Chevelles were SS muscle cars”, and never seen a wagon or sedan, nor one with an I6, since too young to know. Saw a comment online once > “Someone built a Chevelle wagon, wow!”
I got into a long discussion with someone on a forum recently who was arguing every single intermediate 2 door of any trim was a muscle car as long as it had a V8, so even a 307 Chevrolet deluxe 300 qualifies. It’s not even misconception in this case,, a big sticking point to his argument was that the term muscle car was never officially applied to any of these cars, so who was I to say SS396, GTO, et al is a muscle car and those not?
The misconception wasn’t that he didn’t know sedans and wagons existed, but that standard trim two door were just regular cars to most people back then.
Wow, just like these young You Tubers who call any Maverick a ‘muscle car’. Cable car shows call base V8 Novas, too. “I’m restoring my Grandma’s 1972 Nova muscle car”. [350 2bbl originally]
Another “favorite” is when younger fans ask “why did the original Mustangs have i6, standard? I thought they all had V8s, since they are muscle cars”
Overused and getting redundant. The term means $$$ with some, to sell to those who have cash to burn. Some even ask if a 2 door Chevy Celebrity is one!
On the note of names 64-65 GTOs was originally “Tempest GTO” and the Plymouth GTX was Belvedere GTX, both taking their base trim namesakes rather than the LeMans and Satellite they were both closer packaged to too.
The whole Chevelle/Malibu thing was always a curiosity to me, from a 90s kid perspective with the reverence and values of muscle cars on the rise the Chevelle name seemed more vaunted and premium while Malibu name seemed more low end and dumpy (as the N body Malibus of the time we’re). This is a must read article, I thought I knew a lot about muscle cars but this gave me a much better understanding on the SS396 than I had before
As a sixties kid the Malibu seemed like an upscale Chevelle, but as with BelAir, Impala and Caprice, and LTD, the name got devalued over time. But this post was full of new info and detail for me.
Even after reading the article, which was well written and very detailed, I’m still lost. I was around back then and I didn’t understand why this had to be such a mess. On the big Chevy’s, four tail lights meant you were cheap. Six tail lights meant that you were a high flyer. When you went down a size it just go sooo FFF ing confusing. Malibu SS, Chevelle SS, Malibu Chevelle, SS396, just plain Chevelle and who gives a shit what else. There must be a class in marketing somewhere that hold this up as an example of what not to do.
My uncle had a 1968 Chevelle 300, 2 door (“post”) sedan, I6, with 3 on the tree. Would make the modern fan boys go nuts if saw one like it.
I’ve always wondered, how did Chevrolet get away with putting essentially Corvette engines in Novas and Chevelles? The Corvette was essentially a high performance halo car. So I think GM gave them a pass at building these engines. These clearly had to violate GM’s mandate of 10 lb per horsepower in other cars. A 375 hp 396? 450 hp 454? Other GM divisions pushed the limits but these were clearly out of the ballpark. Was John DeLorean Involved?
SS396 by Paul Revere and the Raiders. Check the comments on the song
Reply to rudiger 5/22/2017:
Not sure about fines. Regs were cut to 3.5 mph during or after 1981.
By that time was moot since models had already been redesigned, change would have cost more than would been saved.
Motive for reg cut was pandering.