Initially when I was crafting the “Chevrolets of Bewitched” piece a few months back, it was solely to be focused on the 1964-65 Chevelles. I had serious doubts that I’d ever find an actual Malibu convertible on the streets. Never mind a rather unmolested example. But as the story of the Chevelle goes, better late than never.
General Motors, and Chevrolet in particular were finding themselves a little bit off their game in the early 1960s. Cumulatively at the end of each model year, Chevrolet still found itself at the top of the United States Automobile sales chart. But that happened despite quite a few missteps in product planning between 1958 and 1964. From leaving the Corvette to be a two seater, to the Corvair being wildly radical where the Falcon wasn’t, the next misstep was not seeing the nearly three foot gap between the Chevy II/Nova and Corvair and the Impala. Ford saw it, and plopped a re-imagined mid-sized Fairlane in that slot.
Where the Fairlane (and the finally updated Rambler Classic/Ambassador for 1963) stumbled was in image. Although the above ad tries to portray the Fairlane as a rabble rousing go getter that would inspire you to buy driving gloves, other than the Thunderbolt series of Fairlanes all you could get was a Challenger 289 V8 in the new Sports Hardtop Coupe. There was no glamorous Convertible, or real performance option. It was fine with being a Galaxie 500-Lite.
If Chevrolet was gonna be two years late for the party, they were coming out well dressed. Like the Nova before, the Malibu came with a convertible ahead of its Dearborn rival (the Nova also had a hardtop coupe before the Falcon brought out one belatedly in 1963). And as long as you didn’t mind your automatic transmission being flavored in Powerglide, you were faced with a myriad of powertrain choices, from the thrifty 194 Cube 120 horsepower 6 borrowed from the Chevy II line, all the way through a 300 horsepower 327 that became available by mid-season.
What was probably most surprising is that a healthy number of the top-of-the-line SS trimmed Malibu (approximately 76,000) went out the door the first season. The closest comparable Fairlane, the 500 Sports Coupe, could only dream of bringing in that kind of sales traffic.
You can’t discount the slightly subliminal tie-in that the Chevelle/Malibu was a spiritual successor, in size and in boxy handsome looks, to what was in the early 1960s everyone’s favorite used car: the 1955-57 Chevrolet. Many a first time new car buyer finally glad to be able to step out of their used Bel-Air arrived in showrooms to find something with a familiar Chevy Small Block, the sturdy powerglide and something that was remarkably close in size to their beloved, but most likely tired shoebox Chevy.
Dimensionally the only big change would be in height. At 195 inches long on a 115 inch wheelbase, weighing around 3,200 lbs, the Chevelle like a 1957 Bel-Air that traded in a crinoline skirt for an A-frame skirt. Performance was even a pleasant flashback, as a 220 horsepower 283 equipped Malibu SS dashed to 60 in under 10 seconds, like a top of the line 283 equipped tri-five Bel-Air once could. Interior room gave up precious little to the foot and a half longer current Biscayne/Bel-Air/Impala.
Possibly the biggest disappointment with the new Chevelle/Malibu is that it probably didn’t drive all that much better than a 1955 Bel-Air. Numb power steering and soft spring rates meant all the Malibu had over a comparable base Impala of the time was size maneuverability. If you wanted a decent handling version of the all new Malibu, you either had to know your Chevrolet heavy duty spring rates well, or just point yourself to the nearest Oldsmobile dealership for a 4-4-2.
Of course, it wouldn’t be long before the good sensible style thing came to an end. Surprising to me, the 1965 model was actually up a couple of inches in length, and then again for the rebodied 1966 models, then the split wheelbase 1968 models, and then the colossal 1973 Colonnade models. And the American Car market as a whole abandoned the “ideal size with sensible style” part of the market until, well… What would you consider more glamorous?
A Dodge Dart Swinger 2 door Hardtop?
Or a Ford Granada Ghia Coupe?
But for a short period, it paid to be late for Chevrolet. None of their other belated responses resounded so well with the public.
Yep…just one more reason why Chevy was number one – style, style, style. Ford? With only a couple of exceptions was, style-wise, a distant third, well behind Chrysler at that time. Until the 1965 Galaxies came out, Ford’s offerings were dated and chunky-looking and couldn’t hold a candle to GM. Of course, I’m not mentioning the Mustang, which was a winner in anyone’s camp. Everything else they offered? Nope.
FWIW, I like the 1965 Chevelle better – more refined. The grille on the ’64 always annoys me – not “complete” to me. I’d still take one, anyway!
Late to the ball? Perhaps – but quite fashionably, wouldn’t you say?
I agree 100% Zackman, the ’65 Chevelle was just a bit prettier – I think the grill gained a more attractive peak and the subtle change in the rear both combined to give it a more sleek appearance.
Now, zackman, I have to defend Ford! LOL!
I would put Ford at number two in styling in the early 1960s, and a big reason was that Mercury was never a match for Pontiac, let alone Oldsmobile and Buick. After 1960, Lincoln was far ahead of Cadillac and Imperial, while the Galaxies were attractive in their own right, and held their own with the Impalas.
But park a 1961 Mercury next to a 1961 Pontiac – it’s no contest! It’s easy to tell which one was a corporate afterthought, and which one was the product of the team committed to making their division the hottest in the industry.
Chrysler styling through 1962 was just plain weird across the board, from Valiant through Imperial.
Things got better in 1963, but the only Chrysler Corporation car I would rate as equal to its Ford counterpart in those years was the 1963-64 Plymouth.
I’ll second Geeber and say I find the 1963-64 Full sized Fords more attractive than their Chevrolet rivals. The 63 1/2 fastback Galaxie 500s look so much better to my eye to a comparable Impala Hardtop. There’s just the right amount of trim and chrome on a very beautiful body.
The only early 60’s Chevy, in comparison that looked more modern (and prettier) than its Ford rival in my eye was the 1961 model because it looks so light and crisp.
@geeber:
I had to think back for a moment and I do recall checking out a very nice red 1964 Galaxie 500 convertible when I was 16 or so at a local used car lot. Needless to say I was taken by how fancy that particular car was and wished for it badly, but it was well out-of-reach.
I have no bias against Ford at all, but Chevy and a few other GM offerings in that period of time received most of my attention – that – and few of my friends and relatives drove Fords. GM and Chryslers were mostly it.
Man, from the side that is one boxy and slab sided car. You can tell they were in a hurry, it all looks a bit too generic. I’m with Zackman, the later versions were nicer than the 64.
Nice find though..
I could never quite put my finger on it, but the 64-65 Chevelle was always the least attractive of this series of GM intermediate to me. We had a 64 Cutlass hardtop and I always considered it much more attractive. The Chevelle seems plain and stubby by comparison. It was like some kind of virus went through the Chevrolet styling studios while working on the 1964 models. Both this car and the big Chevy looked like the guys were a little off of their game that year. By 1966, they had shaken off their funk and were back to some beautiful cars.
It does, however, seem much more modern than the 64 Fairlane. Although I love the 64 Fairlane, it seemed a little old fashioned compared with most other 1964 cars.
When I was in grade school, my route home involved a walk along the driveway of an older couple that we didn’t know, but my friends and I referred to them as “the nice people”. On many of those days, I walked past their silver-blue 64 Chevelle hardtop. Although it definitely seemed like a step down from our Cutlass, I liked the car.
Edit – it just now strikes me: How fabulous to see this car without big modern wheels and tires and dual exhausts from some modern 350 sticking out under the back bumper, as seems to happen to most every 60s Chevrolet in the midwest.
Of all the GM intermediates of the 1964-65 period, I found the Chevelle the least attractive of the lot; it was slab-sided and boxy in appearance in contrast to the aggressive styling of the Pontiac Tempest and the classy look of the Buick Skylark. The Oldsmobile Cutlass fell somewhere between the frumpy looking Chevelle and the Skylark and Tempest having a rather bland and undistinguished appearance.
anything laurence shoots looks great but i do agree the later chevelle’s are more to my taste.
what is the little lever on the ford’s shifter below the ball? if it’s an overdrive switch, i’m in love.
If I was to hazard a guess, I’d say that it could be the reverse lock out, if Ford had those.
It is indeed a reverse lockout. The little arms stuck out from both sides of the shifter. Grasp like a trigger and squeeze to move the shifter into reverse. I guess it kept people from accidentally shifting into reverse when 1st gear was intended.
Also, all 4 speed manuals got a lockout, even if reverse was to the right and up or down due to it being in what is known as no man’s land.
Only 4 and 6 speed manuals needed a lockout, but 5spds and I think 3spds didn’t require this as reverse was often below a forward gear, say in a true “H” pattern, reverse being below 3rd gear, rather than along side it like in a typical 4spd, if not next to 4th (or 1st as in some cars).
Nice find indeed. But with the world’s most generic grille? And the world’s most uninspired rear end? The Chevy styling studio does seem to have fallen asleep after the 1960 Corvair and ’61 Chevys.
But that front end was probably cheap to make. Every penny counts….
I enjoyed your point, Paul. However, the Dodge 880 that you cite was an entirely different kind of blandness. 64 Chevy bland was one thing. But to the Mopar buyer of 1964, the Dodge 880 was like a soothing dose of Pepto after 3 days of drinking games with periodic breaks for White Castles, burritos and sardines. Bland can occasionally be a good thing. 🙂
You make a very soothing point indeed!
A dose of Pepto to swallow how the disastrous 1962 “plucked chicken” Polara/Belvedere/Fury did. Dodge got its fix with the 880. Strange they didn’t revived the “Custom Royal” for this one or even Coronet (although it’ll be revived for ’65 from the shrinked “plucked chicken full-size” who morphed into a “mid-size” for ’65 to go head to head against Fairlane and Chevelle).
Well, they weren’t the only ones. I have to look hard at a lot of the Fords of the early 60’s to know which is which…
I’m amazed that this car is parked along the street. A convertible SS is worth a fair amount of money. I’d be worried about the wheel covers being stolen, as they are pretty desirable.
When I was a boy, our elderly neighbor had a light blue Chevelle sedan with a white roof and dog-dish hubcaps. It was a daily driver, and, in the mid-1970s, was already considered an old car. Even though she had a garage, it was parked outside, and often wasn’t moved for weeks at a time, as she lived with two relatives who had a new Chevrolet passenger van as a daily driver (which was considered somewhat odd at that time, as it was just three relatively old people living in that house). She died around 1980, and I always wondered what happened to that car.
And I agree about the front – I always thought it was surprisingly plain and generic, especially for a GM car. The Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac versions of this car were more handsome and really did look more upscale (which, I guess, was the point).
But, even though Ford really got the ball rolling in this segment with the 1962 Fairlane, the new Chevelle easily outsold it, and didn’t look back until 1972, when Ford debuted an all-new, bloated, body-on-frame Torino.
Post 72 the “colossal” chevelle line kept blowing Ford’s doors off too!
Did the Chevelle really sell all that well after 1972? If I recall correctly, it was the Monte Carlo that kept Chevrolet well ahead of Ford in intermediate sales after 1972 and really blew the doors off the competition. The Chevelle/Malibu really wasn’t a hot seller for Chevrolet during the Colonnade years.
The Monte did cannabalize Chevelle numbers, but they were still respectable sellers.
The 73 Chevelle colonade coupe was was 168,774. If you add in the Laguna it’s 211,715 and then the Deluxe added another 21,367.
The 73 Monte total #s were 260,963.
Total A/A “special” Chevy production for 73 was 742,409.
The 64-65 Chevelles don’t do it for me. A 64 or 65 300 Deluxe? Different story, I think the design of the early cars lent themselves better to the cheap, entry level or el-strippo car more than they did a high line intermediate.
I don’t think I am in the minority. If you look at the production numbers for just the Malibu V8 coupe the 64-65 combined total is 110,653 units, jump to 1966 and the numbers for that single year are 130,540 for the redesigned Malibu V8 coupe.
Maybe they were late to the party, If the 64 Chevelle had been introduced in 1962 it might have looked less out of place(to me at least).
You can drive through farm country in the midwest and still find a bunch of these. For me, I liked the 67 chevelle so much better than anything else in the 60’s that I bought one. Others liked it to. So much so that they beat me up with dollars until in a moment of weakness I sold it.
I think I liked it better than my 57 but learned enough from the experience that I still have the 57;
There wasnt a space for these in our market they would have been priced too high but it is a bland looking thing 3 boxes with some trim done, The little Fairlane was popular though.
I dunno. I think the old Chevelle here isn’t too awful on the eyes. Granted it’s rather plain, I’m assuming that was done for a reason. I would guess that Buick and Olds owners would be highly agitated if the cheap-o Chevy looked a lot better than their F-85’s and Skylarks.
But to add to Laurence’s secondary point: There is close to an ideal size for a car, and these 60’s compact-midsizers were it. And logically, the Dart and Granada I would add the AMC Hornet/Concorde) were it’s descendants.
Not too big, not too small, just right.
I don’t have the time to do it, but I wonder how today’s Accord, Camry, Malibu, Fusion and Sonata compare to these Chevelles for size.
4 doors enough room for 6 regular humans and enough power to move it Valiant ,Holden, Falcon of the late 60s /70s size
The license plates on this example were issued in 1978. Nice find in the land of Curbside Classics extraordinaire – the East Bay (specifically Berkeley, Oakland, Alameda, San Leandro and Hayward).
Don’t forget Albany and El Cerrito!
Is that Quentin Tarantino’s old car? John Travolta drove one exactly like it in Pulp Fiction then it was subsequently stolen.
Or maybe it was a ’65. Still pretty damn close.
Here’s a 1966 Malibu for comparative purposes. As I commented in the Falcon for Hipsters piece, oddly in the Bay Area, out of all 1960s Chevrolets still in regular service, second to Corvairs are Chevelles. More often than not the Sedans though
Reminds me of the other classic movie Malibu of the same vintage: the 1965 4-door sedan in Repo Man.
I have this car’s corporate cousin, a 1965 Buick Skylark convertible, currently in storage awaiting restoration.
The Buick A- bodies have been noted for being the longest, heaviest, and cushiest of the A-body line.
I too always thought the ’64 and ’65 Chevelles were too plain and boxy, especially compared to their B-O-P cousins. But as others have stated, Chevy fixed that problem with the ’66 and ’67 models.
C&D did a picture history article about styling trends from post-WWII to the early 70s (with some speculation about the mid and late 70s.) They called the various periods the Dark Ages (immediately after the war), the Renaissance (mid-50s), Baroque (late 50s), Classicism (early 60s), and so on. The ’64 Chevelle was chosen as a not-so-fine example of Classicism, with its bland style that could be airbrushed in photos to represent “anycars” in insurance company print ads.
BTW, the best car of that era in C&D’s view was the Lincoln Continental. (And natch, the ’55 Chevy was the best of the Renaissance-era cars.)
’65 Chevelles are nice!! There was a print ad in ’65 that had a blue Malibu SS coupe, and if you looked carefully at the front, you would’ve seen this was a privately O&O’d car with Cal plates and the “Campbell-Bishop” dealers frame on it. (Corte Madera, Cal. now long gone defunct).
I believe BBSF in San Francisco had Chevy division as one of their big West Coast clients in those days. Although the entertainment industry was “king” in Los Angeles, the banking and advertising agencies in the west used to be HQ’d in San Francisco. Many car ads were shot in and around the Bay Area then (still are).
I had quite a bit of exposure to these as teen. My friend’s dad had one and he basically learned to drive on ’65 Malibu 283 2bbl Powerglide. The car was average in power for the time, 12 seconds to sixty or so. No engine tone at all, between the muffler and the air cleaner snorkel. The Powerglide certainly tolerated abuse, the 16 year old would rev it in neutral and drop it into drive to burn out. The PG/283 would not burn out otherwise. Never needed a transmission till dad traded it in ’70 for another Malibu.
I drove the ’66 283 Powerglide. Same engine sound, drove the snot out of it and it never missed a beat. I remember very light power steering.
As kids we certainly had at least some respect for these cars.
The ’70 model w/ 350 and THM 350 had much snappier acceleration.
As a kid, I also liked the later Chevelles more, with the 64 being plain and Rambler-ish. The tailights were strange compared to the 65’s, and newer one had more aggressive facia.
But also, maybe since the ’64 didnt have an SS396 version, that it was overlooked by Hot Rodders of the 60s/70s. 67-72’s are easily modified, and it’s like the 64 was a Biscayne.
I often wonder what would have happened had Ford built a beaucoup of 63-64-65 Fairlane Sport Coupes with the 289 HiPo option ?
I’m an admitted Ford guy, having owned only two Chevrolets in my 60 years, but those hipo Fairlanes were very rare in Central Florida in the mid 60’s while it seemed like 327 Chevelles were everywhere. Maybe they wouldn’t have sold as well optioned like that in the day. Maybe Ford didn’t want to steal the thunder from Mustang. I do think their scarcity was a disadvantage to Ford’s Street credibility in the 60’s.
That being said, I always liked the 66-67 Chevelles best, especially the 396 SS versions.
Great find. Fun article. Malibus sure were an important part of the 60s and beyond.
Many CC readers come up with very creative captions in the caption pieces. I think it would if someone could write a little fiction about this car titled “The Two Girls in the Malibu”. The story really needs to have a line like “sure would have worked out better if her father had any sort of sense of humor at all!”
A car I wish I had back! In January 1973, fresh out of Navy boot camp in San Diego, saw one of these sitting in a car lot, right on the corner, new blue paint, new white top, 64 Malibu SS convertible. What more could one ask for? Only $675! 283 with a powerglide, bucket seats, console shifter, AM radio. I was in love. When we were signing the paperwork, the salesman told me “Man, it’s easier to get rid of the clap than a convertible in Southern California!”. Drove it from LA to FL for school, then back to CA for my first duty station. Drove the wheels off that car for 3 years, sold it for $300 (for some dumb reason). Last I saw just the rear clip was sitting in a wrecking yard in Lemoore californa 🙁 I still remember the license plate KAM 664. Looked just like this, and just as nice (when I bought it, looked a little worse when I sold it). Mine had the stock SS wheel covers when I bought it, put a set of Appliance ‘Wire Mags’ on it in FL.
THE car I wish I could get back. I still have one of the SS emblems that I peeled off it when I saw it in the boneyard. And no, I don’t want to think what that car would be worth today.
Been a while since I have chimed in, but this this car has inspired me – It was my first car too. Mine was silver with a white top, black interior, console, buckets, 283 2bbl and powerslide with 112K on the odometer. Interestingly enough I bought mine the same year RogueInLA sold his (1976) but saved a few bucks as I paid only $275!
It was bone stock right down to the SS wheel covers but that was not good enough for me. I had to have a hot rod so I put a rebuilt set of Power Pak heads, a 4bbl manifold and Rochester 4 jet carb on it. Whoohoo!! ran like a raped ape for about a week until the rings couldn’t take it any more. It still ran fine but with next to zero compression I couldn’t go anywhere fast! So I bought a used 307 2bbl at a wrecking yard and dropped it in. So I decided to make it look and sound fast with some air shocks, glass packs and 14 x 8 chrome reverse rims, very 1977!
I rode ‘er hard and put ‘er away wet until ’79. I sold it for $700 and replaced it with a ’70 Chevelle, that is another story. I knew the minute I sold it I would regret it, one of the few things I got right at that age!