We had a lively debate here the other day about our preferences for the ’65 or ’66 Chevrolet. I’m solidly in the ’65 camp, as it shows that there was actually an original creative force driving its design, and not just the order to the second-string design team to “now make it look a bit different” for year two. With exceedingly few exceptions, the second year refresh of a new design is invariably dumbed-down, with the little touches of originality replaced by generic cues generally already established by the brand.
The ’67 Chevelle is a classic example of the same principle at work. But I’m sure there will be some who prefer it.
The ’66 has of course become a very popular classic among a certain set, and it’s hard to find a picture of one without big wheels an tires. It introduced the new look for GM’s A-Bodies, with their tunnel-back roof and stepped-up hips. It’s front end was by far the most interesting one found on a Chevelle to date, as the ’64 and ’65 grilles were highly generic. We now see that classic Bill Mitchell-era trademark upper leading front edge, first seen (I think) on the ’63 Riviera. the undercut grille, emphasized by the reverse-slant edges on the side of the front fender, accentuates the lean of the front end, which was of course very much seen on the ’65 big Chevies and the ’65 Corvair.
And what’s it replaced by for 1966? Another rather generic grille that reminds a bit of the ’62 Chevrolet, with bladed fender extensions to make the Chevelle look even longer than the extra 1.2″ it actually was compared to the ’66.
Well, now that we turned that wrap-around front end into a smooth bladed front fender, what shall we do with the rear?
Oh; how about we muck up that smooth bladed rear fender with a wrap-around tail light. Brilliant!
That’s; a little front-rear switcheroo, for 1967! Got to keep the folks thinking the cars are new each year.
Ok; some of you will think I’m splitting fine hairs here; the ’67 is still a very nice car of its time and genre. But I will tell you that I did not get as excited in the fall of 1966 as I was in the fall of 1965. And that’s what it’s really all about when it come to Chevelles: which childhood/adolescent memory is the more deeply etched one. And which is it for you?
Count me as one of those who prefer the ’67 to the ’66 because of cleaner (not dumbed down) details. The best part is that those wraparound taillights found their way onto the ’67 El Camino.
I don’t agree with the “dumbed down” statement–I think the 69 Chevelle is better looking than the 68 as is the 1970 Mustang over the 70 or the 2013 Mustang over the 2010. Come to think of it I like the 72 Malibu better than the 1970–looks tougher. It’s all subjective but I’m sure there are more like the 1970 Plymouth B body looks better to me than the 1968 and the 71 Cuda over the 70.
Agreed, I can think of dozens upon dozens more examples as well. I think the nostalgia of seeing something for the first time is often mistaken for design purity. The 63 vs. 65 Riviera being a prime example, with the latter with it’s clean sides and hidden clamshell headlights being the purest to the form in my eyes, but I never witnessed the 63’s introduction to have that love at first sight moment.
Really when it came to the days of annual styling changes I’d say most of the updates improved on the original design in some way, I’d dare say as mush as a 70/30 ratio of improved vs. ruined. These are volume car designs afterall, there seemed to be a certain level of restraint and compromise purposely built into any given first year design in order to leave room for the next year(s) update to make an instant visual statement on it being more refined over the similar looking outgoing model.
I didn’t say it’s the case all the time; just all-too often. And I agree with you about the ’69 Chevelle.
The ’69 Chevelle fixed just about everything that was wrong with the ’68. There wasn’t much of anything wrong with the ’66, so the “fix” was just change for change’s sake.
There are a few cars that I regret selling. I think my 67 Chevelle would do as well today as it did when I owned it (1974). The trunk was big enough to swallow a Jawa bike that I killed while still being comfortable and economical. What wasn’t to like. Would I have been as happy with a 66? Probably but can’t say it would have made much difference.
I think second stringer redesigns skips a generation with Chevelles – 65 looked much better than 64, 66 looked better than the 67, 69 looked better than 68, and 70 looked better than 71
However, I have disagree Paul, I don’t think 66 was the best looking Chevelle. Really of the 66-67 tunnel roof A-Bodies I feel the Chevelles were easily the weakest design wise of the four divisions sharing them(Ponitac being the best), and while I’ll concede 67 muddied the 66 design traits it wasn’t bad at all, and in many respects I like it better, like the wraparound taillights.
“Really of the 66-67 tunnel roof A-Bodies I feel the Chevelles were easily the weakest design wise of the four divisions sharing them”
Including Oldsmobile? That 67 Cutlass was as big of a stinker as ever appeared on the A body.
’67 Cutlass? Just had to Google it to refresh my memory.
Toronado excepted, Oldsmobile styling in those days was pretty much ‘essence of meh’.
I’m totally with you here. I am partial to the 64-67 A bodies. IMO all of the 64-65’s looked good with the Pontiac looking the best the entire run. My all time favorite car is a 1967 GTO the 1967 Chevelle (front end) was just a meh design. The Buick and Oldsmobiles were better looking.
By the time the 68’s came around things changed with the Old’s being the best looking followed by the Chevelle then the Pontiac and the Buick being WAAAY down the list.
full disclosure as my first car was a 1965 Cutlass 2 dr post with a 330 4 barrel “ultra high compression” rocket v8.
’66 all the way. Took my first ride home in one, so I owe them a certain loyalty.
GM NZ wouldnt let us have these Impalas yes but nothing else the dcecision had been taken to go with Holdens from Aussie and stop Chevrolet assembly, the company my father was secretary of hung a Holden shingle up in 66 in preparation for a Chevy shortage. The only Malibus here were privately imported and rare, one local hot rodder got a 67 coupe and stuffed it backwards into a tree and had to import another one to rebuild it, with the right engine they were fast in a straight line but the handling doesnt match the hp.
Can I get the ’66 front combined with the ’67 rear? 😉
I agree that the 2nd year is often a step down from the original, but have noticed that it was not unusual for the last year of a design to be an improvement over the middle ones.
65/68 Chrysler & 68/72 Cutlass come to mind.
My sentiments exactly. Love the ’66 front, but also like the ’67 rear.
Regarding the 2nd year of a design, I may be in the minority here, but I always liked the ’56 Chevy better than the ’55. Don’t get me wrong, the ’55 was a seminal vehicle, but the ’56 took that classic and refined it. The ’56 grille and tail lights just seem to work better.
That’s what I was thinking. ’66 front, ’67 rear.
I prefer the 67, the front is more simple , and I like the wider cut outs in the nicely reshaped bumpers . It just looks newer and fresher than the 66 somehow.
But the truth is I’d have either one of them.
I don’t think it matters.
The ’65 Ford Fairlane 500 GT coupe 427 w/toploader 4speed relegated all Chevelles moot!
I think you mean ’66, and FWIW the 427 was so rare as to be irrelevant.
Also, no GT was offered with engine, just a handful of plain jane coupes.
You are correct.
My old memory is not as reliable as it used to be.
There was still the ’66 GT coupe with a 390 though, but it would not be a Chevelle slayer, merely approximate to the Chevelle SS of the same year.
The first one of these I actually paid attention to was a 67 Malibu 4 door hardtop. After soaking in the details of the 67, the 66 never looked as good to me.
But I must admit that you have schooled me on these front ends, and I am prepared to change my mind on the strength of that nicely subtle styling job on the front of the 66. The tail ends are close to a wash with me, though I still like the wrap around taillights a touch better.
When I was a teen, someone at my highschool had a ’66 that I really liked. It was an SS 2door hardtop, stick shift, red with red vinyl bench seats and red carpet. I assume it had a 327 motor. This was the first time I noticed these cars.
Thanks for this comparison. In my opinion, the front of the 66 suffers from a slight underbite in the transition from hood to grille. The rear suffers from those oh-so-chintzy light surrounds, about as substantial as an aluminum can. So, put me down for the 67.
I have long wondered if the design developed for one year also includes possible changes for subsequent years or if it’s a “that’s done, now what?” situation.
I’ve always preferred the ’67 Chevelle to the ’66, and like Paul, I was around when they were introduced.
However, I think that more often than not, the first year of a design looks the best, and what follows is watered down or becomes a mishmash. Worst examples off the top of my head — the devolution of the beautiful ’66 Riviera and Toronado to the last-year 1970 model variants.
To my uneducated eyes, they looked similar enough. To bad GM put their ‘fancy’ design stuff on full size, if GM would to set the Chevelle as their go to size …….
I’m in with those who prefer the ’67. A neighbor had a plain white wagon that I think was the low-end 300 Deluxe. The familiarity of seeing it frequently put it ahead of the ’66 in my young mind, and it just stayed that way.
Not so big a fan of this intermediate body up the GM four. It’s my overseas eyes; the fullsizers just look so much better. I prefer the 67, but it needed better detailing in those not unattractive facial contours. Especially doing something better with the headlights.
One company that almost always seems to make their facelifted models look worse (in modern times) is Honda. The 2011-2012 Accord with those random, ugly reflective stripes on the trunk is a prime example, but they seem to always have the attitude of “Let’s change the last two models years of ____ for no reason simply because it needs to be different”. The 1999-2000 Civic is the only example I can think of where it substantially improved the looks – all the other facelifts they’ve done either dilute the original design theme or don’t really improve anything.
With most other car models it’s definitely a case-to-case basis whether styling updates improve things or not. I don’t really think any generalizations can be made.
I’d say the 2006 refresh of the Accord substantially improved the looks from the ’03-’05 versions. I never though the horizontal-emphasis tails looked right with the rest of the car’s styling and the nose was a little “soft”. The wedge-shaped taillights and the sharper nose detailing made a world of difference in the look, at least to my eyes.
A good example of the other direction is the 2nd-generation Accords. The ’82-’83 had a delicate forward cant to the nose (not dissimilar to the ’66 Chevelle). The blunt revision of ’84 didn’t compare; not a bad-looking car but one that didn’t live up to the original.
I always thought it was just me…They didn’t exactly ruin it in ’67, but I’ve always soundly preferred the ’66.
The 66 versus 67 Chevelle debate is a tough one. I like the front end design of both years but HATE the rear styling of the 66. The 66 doesn’t look like any Chevy but instead looks like they just cobbled it up.
The 68 through 72 Chevelles are the same basic body, my favorite is the 70, with the 68 being a runner-up.
At Ford, I prefer the 1st year of most models with exceptions being the 62 Fairlane (THE 2nd ugliest Fairlane….the 65 looks plain goofy), the 70 Torino/Montego (too plain for the 1st year), and the 1st gen Mustang, the 66 is a better thought through model.
At Plymouth, I’d take ANY/ALL years of the Belvedere/Satellite from 65 through 72. Plymouth “facelifts” on their mid-sizer were so small as to be barely detectable.
What I always thought a bit strange is that Chevy went and did a “refreshed” version of the 1966 nose on the 68 and 69 cars.
Kinda makes the 67 a bit of an orphan year.
Decent looking cars, but not my favorite. Didn’t like the skinny roof pillars on the El Camino those years.
Call me when ’68 arrives.
I had a ’64 and ’68 300DeLuxe Malibu Sedans so I’m biased .
I really like the ’66 Coupe and would prefer one over the ’67 .
To each their own , I think GM’s method of tweaking the details was generally to the good .
-Nate
I am biased – will admit that right up front. I prefer the wrap-around tail light rear end of the ’67 and the cleaner, horizontal look of the front end of the ’67 – it seems much more sixties modern. To me front end of the ’66 looks like a fifties throw-back, a bit fussy, I don’t like how the the leading edge is a folder-over part of the hood and fenders, and don’t care for the little chrome hood ornament.
What ruins the ’67 front and back as far as I am concerned is when the optional bumper guards are installed. I hate the way they break-up the clean horizontal lines of the car’s styling. They don’t seem to mess with the ’66 quite as much in my eyes.
Then again I hate seeing the SS-style hood mounted on Malibu’s all the time.
Damn, I miss my Malibu.
I always liked the ’67 front end & the rear of the ’66. Especially liked the roof on the Malibu 2 dr hardtops. But I would love either year in Marina Blue!
I owned a ’67 SS396 Chevelle in the ’70’s and purposely sought it out instead of the ’66 because I thought the styling was cleaner. Also, the ’67 had dual circuit brakes and the 396 motor had revised oiling to better protect the engine’s bottom end; none of that was lost on me back then.
(Interestingly, I also owned a ’66 Impala and preferred it to the ’65 for a similar reason, I thought the styling was cleaner and less cluttered on what was essentially a car identical to the ’65.)