What is it about a Chevelle? It’s a fair assumption that an average red-blooded car-loving American will likely refer to some Chevelle in the 1968-1972 range of model years as their dream car, and their car show ubiquity is reasonable proof of that. Few of those dream Chevelles, however, would be hubcap-shod Malibu hardtops sporting a lone exhaust pipe, and that’s where my interests and Chevelles must converge. Ah, there’s something about a Chevelle, isn’t there?
I have some history with Chevelles such as our feature car, which is why this original ’71 caught my eye immediately. My senior locker partner in high school drove a gold ’70 Chevelle with a black vinyl top year-round in Michigan. This was in the mid-1990s, so it might not be a surprise that it was suffering from an advancing, but not altogether obvious, state of decay. In other words, the frame was rotten. I also managed to run into the side of it with my not-any-nicer ’65 Mustang with bodywork provided by a guy who didn’t know what he was doing. In other words, me.
Somehow, my friend managed to find a ’71 Chevelle hardtop parts car for $100. Today, that seems like a scam. A hundred dollars. It had no driveline but it did have a solid frame, which he definitely needed. One Saturday, we formed a convoy to drag it home. I drove my ’87 Thunderbird as a Bandit-style “blocker,” or a car that could run its four-way flashers behind the car in tow. He drove his dad’s early ’80s Squarebody Chevy with a straight-six as a tow vehicle. I remember our not having much of a plan, but we did have an extra friend with us. Needless to say, one of the few mental images that has remained with me from that day is the Chevelle’s front wheels crashing violently to full lock as my friend took off as if nothing were behind him. With nothing to lock the front wheels, the extra friend hopped in and steered the dangerously wayward Chevelle in tow, on tires that must have barely held air, and a front suspension that was pointed in every direction but straight. This is a reminder that teenagers are often idiots.
The Chevelle looked awfully similar to our feature car, and I don’t remember if my friend ever got around to a frame swap. I don’t think he did.
After that, I basically forgot about Chevelles for almost 10 years, when one of the few “cars that got away” entered my life for a short couple of minutes. A ’70 Chevelle very similar to this ’71 was parked on the side of a rural two-lane highway a ways out from where I live. It was 2003, I was not making much money, and I already had a couple of cars I didn’t truly need. It was a nearly rust-free 307-powered Malibu priced at $3900. Today, that seems like a scam. Thirty-nine hundred. Either way, I looked it over and told my dad (who was with me) that this was an amazing deal and I probably should buy it, even though I was never all that hooked on Chevelles. It was a great looking unmodified Malibu, but the timing wasn’t quite right. I should have made it right, however, because it’s worth a bit more than $3900 today. This is a reminder that people in their twenties are often idiots.
Since then, no Chevelles have entered my life that have affected me in such firsthand ways, although this beautiful ’71 Malibu gave me those feelings all over again. So many have been cloned into SS models or have been LS swapped that I often feel as if I’m the only person in the world who would vastly prefer a stock 307 or 350 Malibu with a vinyl top such as this one. This is the Chevelle of the average man, a piece of Midwestern industrial socioeconomic history. No drag strip terror, the basic lines nonetheless shine through the lack of pretension. Chevelles are truly handsome cars.
Although white is not my favorite paint color, it harmonizes well on this Chevelle with a blue interior. I love the interiors of 1970s Chevrolets. Some people complain about their lack of comprehensive gauges, but that simple ribbon speedometer and clean steering wheel get me every time. I love the way that the “Chevrolet” script is off-center and the severely angled gear selector juts out from and back toward the dashboard. I love the tall armrests and the vertical theme on the door panels. I love it all but the fuzzy dice (no offense to anyone who loves fuzzy dice).
GM intermediates are fantastic cars, although my tastes run toward the earlier Buicks of the “square” period. There is no denying, however, that the ’70-’72 Chevelle hardtops are among the best looking cars of the muscle car era, even if some of them aren’t muscle cars. The fact that they are equally adept at being muscle cars and basic transportation is only one of the lovely things about them. To most car fanatics, that’s been clear all along, but it simply took something more along my lines, and a few old memories, to make me notice.
Further reading:
My favorite intermediates. These are great looking cars, and this one was mine a long time ago.
That’s a beauty!
I look at the face of that ’71 Malibu and instantly think of Reuben Kincaid. Ha! But seriously folks, a ’71 or ’72 SS, dark blue, white stripes, 4 on the floor (just like the author bemoans) is one of my dream cars. Hurry, before gas stations are relegated to the dustbin of history!
There’s a car stereo shop down the street from my parents’ house that’s been there for decades. When I was a kid, they owned a car with advertising on the side that you would have loved (without the advertising). It was a red ’72 SS with a four-speed. Cool car.
Such good-looking cars. Also count me in the camp that would rather take a 307 Malibu rather than some gussied-up, over hyped Chevelle. These cars, especially in base trim, had such good lines that stand on their own merit.
In 2004 I started college in Tempe, AZ and would ride past a 68-72 Malibu sitting decrepit outside of a decrepit house. It was still there in 2008 when I moved away but I admired that car daily. Wonder what ever happened to it.
Hey Sun Devil! I graduated from ASU in 1998.
I love that this is still in its’ original trim and colors and hasn’t been turned into an SS454 “tribute car”. I’ve seen a rootbeer brown one with beige vinyl top and interior, but being a 4-door hardtop it’s at less risk of clonification.
Amen
My first brand-new car…’70 Malibu convertible ordered with 6 cylinder, automatic…Fathom Blue over black vinyl with limited options…AM radio, full wheel covers, and dual-stripe whitewalls were pretty much it. Paid $2950 for it. Kept it until 1972, when I sold it to my sister when I ordered my new ‘72 Dodge Polara 2-door hardtop.
Beautiful car, Don!
Sure is. I hope it stayed in the family for a long time.
Actually, it did. My Dad bought it when my sister decided to sell it and he kept it until it was used up and was so rusty it was no longer safe to drive, probably in the mid-80s. All my younger siblings drove it at one time.
Thank you…it was!
Perfect color on a beautiful car, Don.
Thanks, I thought so, too!
I too much prefer GM intermediates of this era (’68 to ’72) in stock form: especially 4 dr hardtops (now very rare) or even more common 4 door sedans and wagons. Those were 90% of the kind of cars that we saw on the road every day back then. Now you NEVER see those ordinary versions of these cars at shows.
Fantastic car! Thanks for writing it up. I’m a big fan of “mainstreamers” (the unsung lower trim models of popular flagship classics) and this Malibu is sure fine. Were you able to get any details on this car’s story, like mileage, originality, who the owners were, etc? I’m intrigued by the tires (I’ve been thinking about whitewalls with Tom Halter’s articles this week). They are double white stripe, like was briefly popular around that time. It’s hard to tell for sure in the pictures, but they look like radials, which would imply they aren’t original, but somebody went to some trouble to get period-suggestive tires.
I also hate fuzzy dice. Maybe I should learn to like them, because I can’t question the taste of somebody who would own a car like this.
I would have loved to attend that car show. Every other car in the background looks super neat, too.
It was the “Golden Memories” show at Sloan Museum in Flint, MI, Jon. I like it because they don’t allow modified cars and there’s no DJ, so it’s nice and quiet. It’s also free to enter and free to attend, so obviously it’s not that well-attended. 🙂 Oh well.
I noticed that all the cars in view look stock, which is unusual for most cat shows. How many cars so they get? I’d love to go sometime.
It always depends on the weather forecast. This year, there was a chance of rain, so not that many cars came out. I’m estimating, but I’d say there’s 75-100 for a good year.
One of my younger sisters has a 70 Malibu that she has owned for probably 30+ years. Her’s is a 307 Powerglide 2 door hardtop that is a dark green with a black vinyl roof. A few years ago her son paid to have it restored so that it looks nearly brand new.
Over the years I have driven 2 Chevelles of this generation, a 69 SS 396 and my sister’s car. For late 60s cars they are quite nice, but really just your average Chevrolet.
Myself? I prefer the 68 Cyclone GT I once owned, but I know in many circumstances that fastback and heavily slanted rear window would make it impractical as a potential daily driver.
Get rid of the dice, and had Chevvy added a grab handle at the top of the door card it would have helped haul that big door closed.
This car was a market leading driver at the time. Great shots of a car in great shape.
Thanks, Lee.
I do like this Chevelle and like that it’s not a SS-454 clone. The color suits it nicely and I love the interior. I also liked those wheel covers back in the day.
To me, if I were to leave such a Chevelle in stock condition, I’d still like one minor customization. I’ve mentioned this here before, but I would like mine to be a 1970 model with the ’71-72 rear bumper treatment. That would be perfect! (to my eyes anyway)
Yes, I have to agree with most folks here… Loose the Fuzzy Dice! That was SO Fifties! At least we were spared the crying kid doll thing. That never made any sense to me.
Oh, and what’s up with the Monte next to it? It seems to be rocking a Dodge Charger SE vinyl top treatment on its roof. I don’t recall any first generation Monte Carlos looking like that. Customization indeed!
An interesting idea. the 4 round taillights are more of the Chevy thing and would bring the front with quad headlights, together as a full design theme. the factory should have kept the quad headlights. but the designers were all about evolving the look toward what was supposed to be the all new 72s, but delayed until 73.
Here’s a better picture of the Monte, Rick.
Thanks Aaron. That has to be a custom roof job. Again, I don’t recall a Monte ever looking like that. I kinda like it, but then I liked the Charger SE back then too.
Fuzzy dice has no place in classic cars in my opinion, with the exception of 1950s cruisers.
Count me in as a fan of this one. I am enjoying the heck out of the variety of the likely factory panel gaps and variations thereof. Back in the day, this is how they often looked, upon delivery. There was something about all the various curvatures and angles of the car, combined with slightly less-than-exact jigs and tools (or at least in the way the workers wielded those tools back then) at the assembly plant, that allowed for all sorts of interpretations on exactly what a panel gap could look like. The Japanese, a few years later, got everyone else to get a bit more shipshape on such matters.
The variety of gaps on this example, accentuated by the light paint color, are part of the charm, IMHO.
Yeah, I know a lot of people are perfectionists, but I too am in the “close enough” camp. My cars have so many imperfections that perfect gaps are the least of my concerns. 🙂
My family over time has had four ’71-’72 coupes. All green inside and out and equipped with the L65 350. The first car I ever bought was one of them for $675. Dents in every panel, rough interior, but a rebuilt 350. I spent a couple of years in my spare time making a decent car out of it.
Those skinny 14 inch wheels… that’s why they ended up with at least a seven inch wide rim as a common modification. The stock ones were way too sunken into the wheel wells. I’d say most manufacturers had a “fuselage era” in the early 70’s and had the same problem. Still, I like that this one is completely unmodified.
I’ve lusted after the ’68-’72 Chevelles since I saw the first spy photos of the ’68 models in late summer 1967. At that time, I too wanted an SS 396, but now a Malibu suits me just fine. In spite of my strong dislike of GM (owning their cars will do that to you), I still think they got these just right. Even the station wagons look good.
Can we lose the fuzzy dice now? They became passé around what….1962?
I’ve been immersed in car obsession since about 1974. I had no idea that these Chevelles were considered to have broad appeal. I’ve talked to thousands of people about cars. When it comes to American models the various pony cars each have their adherents; the Corvette was an attainable dream car for decades; Mopar muscle, GTOs and even old Cadillacs have come up in conversations countless times. I’ve never had anyone bring up a Chevelle when we weren’t standing next to a Chevelle.
I had a friend out west who was daily driving a nicely restored Chevelle SS 396 4-speed a decade ago, which was impressive since 100 octane was about twice as much as 91 octane in our neighborhood. He was at least a decade younger than the car, so I guess this suggests that Chevelles made an impression on some people who aren’t simply nostalgic. I also had a kid I went to school with insist that I go for a ride in his street/strip Chevelle after he saw me driving an Iranian ex-pat friend’s new Porsche 911 Turbo.
I’m sure they’re nice enough cars, and they held the record for the highest horsepower rating during the muscle car era thanks to a strike killing the planned 460 hp 1970 Corvette. I just had no idea until I opened this article that they were thought to be common dream cars. Hagerty says you can buy a sweet one for less than $30K, down 18.9% this year. You’d think being everyone’s dream car would drive values. I certainly don’t think they’re as popular within the hobby as Mustangs, Corvettes, Chargers, Camaros or GTOs.
I can’t tell if you’re using sarcasm to belittle my assertion or if you truly didn’t know that these things are quite popular (at least in SS or Restomod form). Can’t help you either way. Maybe it’s a Midwest thing. They seem to sell a lot of them at the big auctions, but I don’t watch them too often.
I’m not being sarcastic. I had no idea that these Chevelles could be assumed to be anyone’s dream cars. There are too many loyalties among enthusiasts in general to make such a claim, but if I were going to hypothesize a hierarchy of only Chevrolet brand dream cars, it would look like this:
1. Corvette
2. Camaro
3. Shoeboxes – admittedly this one seems to be fading
4. Impalas from the early ’60s
5. Corvairs and Nova SSs and I suppose Chevelles
If I was going to make a hierarchy of ’68-’72 mid-sized GM products, I would expect the Pontiac GTO to win on image, the Oldsmobile 442 and W31 for their highly touted handling, the Buick GSX Stage 1 for its legendary ability to run with Mopars, and the Chevelle to be carried by having been sold by the biggest dealer body.
I’m under the impression you can build a shoebox BelAir from repro parts, as you can a 1969 Camaro. Looking at Chevelle sheetmetal offerings, it looks like this model receives about the same amount of support as other popular two door intermediates from the era.
I too am a big fan of these Chevelles, and this one is a nice find. I don’t particularly care for the vinyl top white colour combo in this car, it just doesn’t work for me. Then again, I do generally have an aversion to vinyl tops. There is a ’71 Malibu that is mostly stock, not quite as nice as this one, that regularly shows up at the local cruise nights. I enjoy seeing as it reminds me of my old ’72 Chevelle. That said, I can’t say that I’d be all to excited to own a low compression 307 powered Chevelle, but Malibu with a 350-4bbl, with a 4-speed (I’d be ok with a TH350 too) and F41 suspension would make a great old driver in stock form.
There is no denying, however, that the ’70-’72 Chevelle hardtops are among the best looking cars of the muscle car era, even if some of them aren’t muscle cars.
I’d say that the majority weren’t muscle cars, despite the many people today thinking that (I know you don’t Aaron). In 1971 and 1972 you could get an SS with the 350 engines, and the majority of them were sold that way. Only the Big Blocks probably truly meet the definition of muscle car and there weren’t that many sold compared to the total number of Chevelles produced. When I mentioned to my class that my first car was a 1972 Chevelle, all of the students who are car enthusiasts assumed it was a super cool muscle car. That idea was quickly deflated when I told them it was a rusty base Chevelle with a 250 six!
When I had my old ’72 Chevelle, I had ideas of building a super cool street machine out of it, but it never came to fruition. Today, a big part of me still want’s to own a 70-72 Chevelle again, but the fact they are so common now and the prices are so crazy makes me less inclined to ever follow through. We also had a ’72 Buick Skylark as a family car, and I have casually looked at getting another one, just to be a bit different than a Chevelle. But even the prices on those are getting very high too.
You know I will never try to talk you out of buying a Skylark, Vince. 🙂 The funny thing is that even base 396 Chevelles just squeaked in as muscle cars (or supercars as they sometimes called them). The road tests I’ve seen had them running high-14s to low-15s, which even at the time was about the dividing line from what I’ve read.
I’m in the minority here. While I generally appreciate Chevy styling – how to describe it? Some mix of clean, simple, corporate, I don’t know – these chevelles always bored me ultimately.
For the record, I did willingly purchase a Lumina so my taste can be questioned.
Hey, Luminas were everywhere back in the ’90s in Michigan, just like Chevelles probably were in the ’70s.
I had one of those, too. Mine looked like this, great car.
I had the ’72 wagon version of this (the Concours!) for a while during college, so around 1989 or 1990. It cost me $500 (sounds like a scam) and provided me fairly trouble-free transportation up and down the California coast including a spring break trip into Baja Mexico (what parent would let three college kids drive well down into Mexico today?).
Anyway, it eventually was sold off again for likely not much more or much less but was a good car. Bread and butter Chevelles at that time were absolutely nothing particularly special as I recall…
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1972-chevrolet-concours-wagon-american-iron-or-american-icon/
Yeah, when I was younger, most of these would have been history because of the salt. Because of that, the ones that were still around had value because people were already modifying them and cloning SS models to varying degrees of success. I imagine it was different when you lived in a drier climate.
Sister, brother in law got a “Malibu coupe”, new in “72”. It did rust rather much.
Not nearly as bad as the “69 Pontiac Custom S” they traded in on the “Chevy”.
Must have been a scam. 😉
I just came across one of those (a Concours!) for about $20,000.
I wanted a 65 Chevelle for the longest time. I also wanted a dune buggy for the longest time. However, that longest time was between 1972-74, when I was 18-21. That puts me right in the idiot years. Yet, having a 65 Chevelle today might make me look better than an idiot now. The dune buggy not so much.
Here’s a cool one I saw a couple weeks ago.
There is absolutely something about a Chevelle. I enjoyed reading these accounts, and yes, teenagers and young adults can do questionable things, but that’s part of the glory of being that age before life experience (read: wisdom) comes more quickly to the forefront of the decision-making process.
This is a beautiful example that seems so much more representative of what much of middle America drove, versus high performance variants. Great feature.
+1 to your observation about “more representative of what much of middle America drove.”
I think it came up in comments the other day to another article that our perceptions of what what equipment cars commonly came with when they were new cannot be entirely driven by what shows up in contemporary car shows (e.g., dual antennas). What collectors and restorers tend to highlight/prize is what they want to highlight and that’s not necessarily representative.
Which brings one to “fuzzy dice”. Something that I swear (even though it was before my time) could NEVER have been as popular in the 1950s as they are in display 1950s cars at current car shows. I mean, they’re just so stupid…shirley people in the 1950s couldn’t ALL have gone for those.
But on a more serious note, I worry some days about how 2 door cars are for some reason more favored by collectors than 4 door versions of the same. I’m not sure why that’s the case, but it’s a similar way that the collectors’ market skews towards what’s desirable to collectors that doesn’t actually reflect what was in fact desirable in real life.
Great article!
Thanks Joe and Jeff! I feel as if four doors have to be on the upswing, since they’ve constituted the bulk of what’s available for years, but there’s still a two doors or none mentality as far as the eye can see.
I feel as if four doors have to be on the upswing, since they’ve constituted the bulk of what’s available for years
Really? In the case of this Chevelle, the two door coupes outsold the 4-doors more than 5 to 1.
It would be a big project to do the numbers on all the other popular cars of the 60s but I feel pretty safe in saying that applies to most cars lines of the times,especially so the mid-sized and compact lines. The ’71 Impala coupes handily outsold the Impala 4-doors.
And there’s the fact that coupes were immediately more in demand on the used car market, as used car buyers also anted a bit more style than a dull sedan. And this again happened the third time, and… Sedans were ditched a lot earlier on; coupes were always in.
I’m just saying that collecting old four doors has to be less unpopular than it used to be because there’s no stigma against them among people growing up today.
Neighbor lady, across the street, had this car in “blue, black top, black inside.
Got replaced with a “79 Aspen custom” as I recall.
The Chevelles were the GM product for late model racing in the late 60’s, early 70’s until the pony cars took over the late model races. These were great looking cars. My brother owned a red Chevelle SS 454, I think it was a ’70, for some reason far beyond comprehension he traded it for a 77 Honda 750, the 4 valve DOHC engine, doh!
Oof. Well, those Honda bikes are popular for sure, but SS454s are worth quite a bit more from what I’ve seen. They made a surprising number of them for being a top-of-the-line option.
And for every one they made, there are about six of them running around right now.
Another vote for unmolested original. Though duals and Rally wheels would tempt me.
I don’t think that would ruin the vibe here, Chris.
Thank you!
I may be in the minority here, but the 68-72 Chevelle never appealed to me stylewise. Mea culpa. My preferred models have always been the ’66 and the ’67, and four-doors much more so than two-doors.
In the 1980s, when I was a student, my daily driver was the ’66 Chevelle 300 Deluxe pictured here. 230, Powerglide, power brakes, tinted windshield and nothing else. Served me very well for seven years. I remember it fondly.
Many years later, I learned that one of the subsequent owners of my Chevelle had torn out the 230/PG combo and slotted in a 350/THM 350 instead. I should have kept the car and prevented some knucklehead from desecrating it.
I will confess to being another who was never in love with these Chevelles. However, it is refreshing to look at one as it would have been built. I still don’t care much for the 68-70, but the 71-72 has grown on me.
What I love most is the swirly pattern in the vinyl roof. You never saw that unless the roof was really cleaned and maybe treated with some kind of vinyl dressing. That was the mark of a vinyl roof presented the way it was supposed to look, which almost none of them did after a few years in the weather. It really shows in your top photo.
Great write-up Aaron. This car really takes me back 52 years to when I was a freshman at Vincennes University. A buddy of mine had a gold ’71 Malibu with the only options being a 307, Turbo Hydramatic 350, power steering and AM radio. That car got outstanding fuel economy as my buddy only had to fill it up every 2 to 3 weeks when he was just using it to run around town. It was a very pleasant car that I have many good memories of. One could always tell a 6 cylinder car as the tailpipe exited on the driver’s side while the 307 and 350’s exited on the passenger side.
Thanks, Glenn! That gold one must have looked a lot like my friend’s ’70. I can imagine that a 307 Chevelle must have gotten at least 18 mpg in mixed driving.
My brother bought a used light blue Malibu two door with the 307, ’68, I think. It was his commuter for the very long drive from Redondo Beach to Palmdale. An econobox would have been torture for such a long drive. Gas mileage was as good as could be expected, but he still was on first name terms with the 76 station attendant. Stone reliable. Got him to work and home every time.
I love 💕 this 🚗 . Maybe a little older but I would sell my 1978 K10 Chevy Blazer it’s the last year they made it any offers…or trade….🤩???