What comes to mind when you think of the name “Chevelle?” A high-performance SS? The car your local teenage gas-station employee drove in the 1980s? The base car for other models like Monte Carlos or El Caminos? Whatever comes to mind, chances are it’s not a Malibu sedan such as this one. Fewer than 15 percent of 1972 Chevy A-bodies were four-door sedans, and combined with them not being collector’s items these days, seeing one isn’t an everyday occurrence. But regardless of its rarity, this is not the world’s most exciting car – Chevelles and Malibus, which had not been extensively overhauled since 1968, were underpowered, and were dully styled. This car’s coat of battleship gray paint doesn’t exactly spice things up, either. So take a No-Doz if you must, and let’s admire some shots of this rather unlikely survivor.
1972 was the last year of Chevelle’s second generation, introduced for 1968 along with GM’s other A-body intermediates. With over 2.7 million examples (Chevelles, Malibus and other permutations) produced over its five-year run, this generation of Chevy was a common sight in its day. And despite being rather long in the tooth by ’72, 632,000 of them were still sold, even as GM dealers anxiously awaited the delayed Colonnade replacements. But our featured car is not the version that most consumers sprang for.
source of production figures: chevellestuff.net
Of those 600,000+ 1972 Chevrolet A-bodies, only about 92,000 were 4-door sedans. Two-door models – whether Chevelles, Malibus or Monte Carlos, accounted for two-thirds of total production – and four decades later, sedans represent an even smaller proportion among surviving cars. For example, a check of Hemmings.com in July 2018 revealed that only one of the forty-two 1972 Chevelles listed for sale was a sedan. (ED: the Monte Carlo was actually a G-Body, and given that 180,000 were sold in 1972, these numbers are skewed heavily to two door versions. Actual Chevelle 2 door production was 248k (coupes and conv), so the four door sedan and hardtop represented about 25% of combined coupe and 4 door sedan production.)
One may think, looking at this dreary, unadorned sedan, that it is a stripped-down model. But astonishingly, it is not. This is a Malibu, as opposed to the base Chevelle sedan – the upgraded model that provided customers with more exterior brightwork (yes, really) and interior nicities. Most buyers sprang for the extra $174 the Malibu package added on to Chevelle’s $2,747 base price. Those base Chevelle sedans wound up being rarer than Corvettes, and one has to wonder whether any of them have survived.
But rare doesn’t always correlate with excitement. Chevelle and Malibu sedans were unexceptional vehicles, even when new. Engines (such as the 250 6-cyl. or 307 V-8) were insipid, trim quality was no better than average, and rear seating room was small. But none of that stopped Chevy’s A-body from being the top-selling intermediate for much of its lifespan. They provided good value for basic transportation, which is undoubtedly what attracted our featured car’s original owner.
How many good things can we say about a Chevelle? That’s actually a pertinent question. A year before our featured car was built, Chevrolet published an ad claiming that Chevelle had “109 advantages to keep it from becoming old before its time.” However, this claim prompted an investigation by the United States Federal Trade Commission (which, in a flurry of consumer protection, investigated dozens of other unconvincing auto ads that year). General Motors responded by providing the FTC with 109 Chevelle attributes that it said fit the ad’s criteria. The list was amusing – including trivial things like an outside mirror, balanced tires, and a “Body by Fisher.” While the FTC dropped its investigation, that case undoubtedly produced quite a few groans from GM’s legal department.
I won’t attempt to conjure up 109 reasons why I enjoyed seeing this example parked somewhat haphazardly on a small town’s streets. Just one reason is enough: because I haven’t seen a four-door Chevelle or Malibu of this vintage in about a decade. This car has survived long enough, in fact, that it becomes almost exciting. Almost.
Photographed in Chadron, Nebraska in June 2018.
This is what I think of when I think back to the Malibu/Chevelle.
These were Mom cars – second cars.
I’ve ridden in the back seats of these cars going to school, camp, boy scouts, and other outings.
They weren’t exciting, but they got the job done.
Wow, I had no idea 4 door production was so small. And if 4 doors only made up 15%/92K units, I wonder what the breakdown was between these sedans and the 4 door hardtop that was still being offered.
It is hard to call a GM car of this era dumpy, but I think the 70-72 A body sedan was as close as they came. The roofline/beltline combo of these sedans was about as unattractive as anything GM did before the 80s. That 1960 Ford wheelcover on the right rear does the car no favors either.
When I was first married there was an elderly neighbor who drove one of these, though it might have been the lower trim Chevelle. Bright metallic blue with black tires and those VW-esque bowl-style hubcaps, it was an odd combination of plain and exciting.
I could never figure why people thought that a mismatched wheel cover was better than a missing one. Put me in the latter camp.
A mismatched cover looks bad as you get closer. A missing cover looks bad from 200 yards.
Years ago, I worked with a guy who had a nice late model car with two different pairs of covers, but different front and back instead of putting a matching pair on each side. I never asked why he didn’t put the matching covers on the same side.
LOL!!!………….duh?
Well, Eric lumped in 180k Monte Carlos in those numbers and graphic. The 1969-1972 Monte Carlo and Grand Prix were actually called G-Bodies. If you take out those 180k Montes, the percentages aren’t quite so extreme. but yes, this was the heyday of the coupe, and let’s face it, these four door sedans weren’t exactly very appealing, eh?
The Malibu 4 door hardtop had about a 24% share of all Chevelle and Malibu 4 doors, and about 50% of Malibu 4 doors (not including wagons).
According to American Cars, 1960–1972, Chevy made 24,192 midsize 4-door hardtops in 1972. It certainly was less dumpy than the sedan.
Agree completely. The leading edge of the C pillar makes all the difference. Where that on the sedan was nearly vertical, the hardtop gave it a faster slope, which made the car look sleek. There are few cars where the look of a 4 door sedan and hardtop were so starkly different (and where the hardtop was sooooo much better looking) – but this is one of them.
What I find interesting is that the 4-doors (even the hardtops) retained the front vent windows, while that feature had been missing from the 2-door hardtops since 1969. I would have bet that all vent windows were gone from 1970 forward on all GM cars but, apparently, the sedans kept them (as well as the 4-door hardtops) through 1972.
From 1973 on, I think the only GM vehicles that still had vent windows were the pickups and vans.
Yeah and not only the Chevelle 4-doors and wagons, its BOP counterparts Tempest-LeMans/Special-Skylark/Cutlass-F85 4-door, wagons and 2-door pillared coupe(2-door sedan?) along with the 68-72 Nova/Ventura kept front vent windows.
A 1972 Olds 442 or Pontiac GTO with front vent windows are very rare.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-0604-1972-pontiac-gto/#060400hppp_01z-1972_pontiac_gto-passengers_side_view
It looks like they took the basic 2-door hardtop roofline and tried to make a 4-door out of it. Circa 1979, I was driving a high miles worn out ’72 LeMans 2 door hardtop while a high school friends father found him a clean low mile ’72 Chevelle 4 door sedan with a six, for less money. I didn’t care at the time, he was dorky I was cool, or so I thought 🙁
Given that low of a production number for 4-doors, I guess it’s not so surprising that the “yoots” of today deny that any 4-door Chevelles were made. Not only that, but they were all SS’s too!
What’s a “yoot”?
?
Ah, THE Judge Chamberlain Haller in My Cousin Vinny! One of my favourite automotive-related flicks.
Yes, your right I have a 1972 Malibu four door and it still on the road
This is My 1972 Chevrolet Chevelle Hardtop 4 door . so hard to find parts for it.
Notice the mismatched ’60 Ford wheel cover on the left rear. Those were the ugliest wheel covers ever seen – not quite as sleek as the somewhat similar ’57 Plymouth wheel covers which are the classic full-sized moons.
The 4 door/2 door breakdown is interesting. Implies that, at that time, intermediates were still considered as second cars. or cars for people pre-family. Only a decade later, intermediates seems to have taken over as the family car as the roads were full of 72+ Torinos and 73+ Cutlasses.
It was during the uproar over the rear wheels falling off of the 72 Torino, that I saw one of these A bodies on the shoulder of I-94 in Dearborn, with the right rear wheel missing, while the owner was pushing the wheel along the shoulder from where he had picked it up. He was holding the axle shaft that was still attached to the wheel, but had broken off of the diff with his other hand.
The Gilmore is putting together a new exhibit: “Barn Finds”, showing cars as they were when found. When I was there last Wednesday, this was the only car in place so far.
The 4 door/2 door breakdown is interesting. Implies that, at that time, intermediates were still considered as second cars. or cars for people pre-family. Only a decade later, intermediates seems to have taken over as the family car as the roads were full of 72+ Torinos and 73+ Cutlasses.
I’m struggling to make sense of your comment. Obviously, intermediate coupes were already family cars in the late 60s and early 70s, as per the numbers. I can’t begin to tell you how many friends I had in this time whose parents bought A Body coupes as family cars. The kids rode in the back seat, right?
There’s no doubt in my mind that the explosion of intermediate coupes was an echo effect of the Mustang’s huge popularity. Lots of folks who had bought a Mustang during its hey day (1965-1969) now needed something a bit bigger as the kids were now older, or had arrived. The intermediate coupes were the perfect way to transition into something roomier yet still a stylish coupe. And this effect lasted right through into the early 80s, to one degree or another. I give the Mustang and pony cars credit for that, or the Corvair Monza, which of course was the reason the Mustang existed in the first place. And the imports in the 50s before that.
A whole lot of Americans were sick of basic sedans they had grown up in during the 30s, 40s and early 50s. They wanted something stylish.
The four door sedan came back into style for one reason: the second import boom in the late 70s and 80s. Mercedes mostly came in four door sedans, and it and the Audi 5000 and BMW 5 series and the Peugeot 504 and Honda Accord and other Japanese sedans suddenly made 4 door sedans in again. Ergo the huge success of the Taurus. The pendulum had swung again.
Obviously, intermediate coupes were already family cars in the late 60s and early 70s, as per the numbers. I can’t begin to tell you how many friends I had in this time whose parents bought A Body coupes as family cars. The kids rode in the back seat, right?
Where I was at the time “family car” was a 4 door sedan or, if they had a lot of spawn, a wagon. There was only 1 family with two cars that I can think of, the mommymobile being a string of Ford and Merc wagons, and “dad’s car” was a second hand Mark III Continental. It’s a pain getting people, or large items, in and out of the back of a two door. My grandmother was all of 4′ 10″ and she got stuck in the back of my 67 Thunderbird. Had a heck of a time prying her out of there.
The mid 70s GM A body coupes appear to have greatly outsold their sedan counterparts, but the coupes of that generation *were* real lookers. Their Ford counterparts show the trend away from 2 doors to 4 doors.
According to classic car database, in 70, Ford sold 195564 2 door Fairlanes and Torinos, vs 115155 4 doors. In 75, ford sold 68671 2 door Torinos, including 23372 Elite “personal luxury coupes” and 59050 4 doors. Take the Elite, which had different sheet metal, out and 4 door Torinos outnumber 2 doors.
Also in 75, Ford sold 147215 4 door LTDs vs 98356 2 doors, and 161820 4 door Granadas vs 140829 2 doors. Even the cheapie Maverick sold 90695 4 doors vs 71877 2 doors. 75 was the first year the 4 door Maverick outsold the 2 door. The trend away from 2 door to 4 door cars was establishing itself across the Ford line.
By the way, while I am receiving the e-mail notices to subscribe to each thread to receive e-mail notices of followup comments by e-mail, I am not receiving the notices of followup comments.
I don’t get what you’re trying to say. It’s opaque. And anecdotal memories about what families drove in your part of the world are just that.
The breakout between coupes and sedans tell the story, as in this article. This happened already in the late 60s. I don”t know what you’re trying to say about Ford, and why the ratio of their coupes to sedans is somehow more significant than GM’s.
It depends on every family’s situation. My father stopped buying full size cars in the mid-1960’s as intermediates grew large enough to haul all three of us boys around in the back seat. Not that it was especially comfortable for me, as I was the youngest and always sat on the hump…
But my father like many others, truly believed that two door cars were safer than four door cars. I think this was a bit of folklore left over from the 1950’s, kind of like not wearing seat belts so one would be thrown clear of the accident and (somehow) not incur further injuries…
I must have lived in a really straight-laced small town growing up with a lot of families, as the four-door Malibus along with the wagons far outnumbered the two-door models. While in auto shop in the 1980s, I used to do tuneups on these cars all day long (well actually only 3 hours a day LOL).
We had the $26K Sun Tune-up machine that monitored primary and secondary ignition patterns, engine vacuum, charging system voltage, and could ground out individual cylinders for a quick power balance test. I could do a full-blown tuneup on a typical V8 American car in about 45-50 minutes (would take me 2-3 times as long now) including fuel/air filters, carb clean and adjust, PCV cleaned, new spark plugs, cap/rotor terminals cleaned, timing/dwell set, slow and fast idle speeds set.
These cars were the CUVs of their day, for those that didn’t want or need the full-sized station wagon.
Cool, I had no idea those early engine analysis machines could do all that. I always got the impression they were kind of “more trouble than they’re worth”, but that was probably according to old tune-by-ear guys who couldn’t afford the machine anyway.
What exactly are you tuning up on a modern vehicle? 100,000 mile spark plugs, coil on plug ignition, fuel injection, etc. ?
Not to mention the eye-watering replacement cost when it‘s time to replace them, especially with modules and 300-plus steps of disassembling the entire front end to replace the timing chain…
This is just… a car. Something to use for transportation. While it is not economical in fuel efficiency it is very economical in other areas. Registration fees, insurance, ( probably liability only in Calif.) and it is totally depreciated. I would imagine that it doesn’t get driven a lot of miles in a year. It’s a cheap way to get the job done. Maybe someone would buy this to make a “donk” out of it?
There is a similar year two door hardtop located a few miles away from me. It is 307 V8 powered and even more worn and sad looking than this car. It is a daily driver belonging to an older gent. I’ll bet that the owner gets lots of notes under the wiper asking to buy it. I could see someone building a Super Sport clone out of it.
It seems I’m the only one who loves this generation of GM intermediates! I guess it’s because I was born in 1969 and we had a Buick sportwagon of this vintage (the short wheelbase wagon from 70-72, with the Chevy six and the rally wheels) that was the first car I remember. Yes the 250 six was gutless (mom said it couldn’t get up a hill) and yes the sedans had an awkward back door, but none of that reduces my love for them. Not sure why, maybe pure nostalgia;-)
When some casual car fan goes “all Chevelles were muscle cars”, show them pic of this plain old 4 door.
Regarding 2 door middies as family cars back in the day, yes, there were many families with them. Quite a few only had 1 or 2 kids and no need for a wagon/full size 4 door. Also, some didn’t take long road trips.
“When some casual car fan goes “all Chevelles were muscle cars”
I actually come across more people complaining about people that say that than any actual people saying it.
I agree, however car shows, and recent movies that are set in the ‘50s and ‘60s, tend to lend belief to the myth that all cars were more highly optioned than they were in reality.
I’m not slamming those who make movies, nor the owners of these cars. It’s just that – in the absence of sentimental value (for example, Dad’s car) – if you have the option of restoring or preserving a potentially $50,000 bodystyle of a particular car versus a $15,000 bodystyle, most will choose the option that maximizes value. Especially when the restorations costs are about the same for a four-door seden and a convertible or two-door hardtop. So the less popular bodystyles get used as part cars for the more valuable ones, and eventually get thinner on the ground.
Compare recent movies set in the ‘60s to this photo my father took of a new and popular shopping center, circa 1964. You get a good feel for what people really drove. Lots of post sedans, and while this is far from the snow/salt belt, I’m surprised at the number of cars that are more than five years old. The ‘54 Plymouth Savoy in the foreground is looking good for a 10-year-old car!
Alot Of those early 70s base sedans ended up down here because I have seen several of those with 250&manual and only one so far with V8&auto.nonetheless great looking cars.thanks for CC.
As the current owner of a 71 Cutlass 4 door sedan, I think Olds pulled it off best. Luckily for me, the original owner specified the Rocket 350, so it is a strong performer and not a fleet special.
Plus I like that I don’t see them very often at shows.
Interesting, I had no idea these were that rare. Explains why you never see them these days, last one I recall was a black primered example I used to see around here a few years back.
As anyone around in the early seventies can attest, Chevelles were everywhere. It would be a while before GM lost their mojo and while there was the occasional Ford or Mopar, GM (specifically Chevrolet) truly ruled the streets and highways.
And all those Chevelles were screwed together reasonably well, certainly as well as the competition. But they weren’t without their flaws. A couple of them were the side-terminal batteries (next to impossible to get a good battery clamp connection for a jump-start), and the horrid windshield-embedded radio antenna, supposedly one of John Z. Delorean’s ideas. I guess they worked to a certain degree, but really showed how they weren’t ready for prime-time when the windshield wipers were on and the radio would cut in and out with every sweep of the wiper blades.
The newly-minted famous Chevelle is featured in awesome TV serial, Preacher, driven by the lead-footed Tulip. It even has proper ECE headlamps.
Perhaps Preacher producers have sucked up all surviving and running Chevelle four-door as to ensure they have adequate supply for the entire run. Just like the 1967 Chvevrolet Impala in Supernatural.
There is not many cars that would make a 1971 Plymouth Satellite 4 door look “modern” and “stylish”…….but this Chevy surely does!
I find the ’71 Chevelle front end treatment quite attractive.
This, however, reeks of “HOLY CRAP WE CAN’T GET THE ALL-NEW CHEVELLE TO MARKET FOR ANOTHER YEAR, WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!!!”
Much like the “Dollar Grin” ’48 Chevy grill with the awkward vertical centerpiece.
Goes to show that sometimes the difference between home run and homely can be as simple as how you place the trim on a grill.
Grandma bought a ’72 Buick Skylark 2dr hardtop new. That represented a very stylish A body of that generation, vs the Malibu shown. Indeed, in spite of the differing wheelbases, the body was obviously styled around a 2dr, making the 4dr awkward. Station wagons did not have the same problem due to the inherent roof profile. There are a surprising number of these Buick’s still on the road around here. All seem to be beige with bucket seats and column shift, just like hers. The Buick 350-4bbl and TH350 combo made the car quite lively as well.
My brother bought a used ’68 Malibu 2dr as a commuter. It was a bit lethargic with the 307/PG, but it got great highway mileage for a comfortable long distance cruiser. ’64-’67 A body 4dr sedans did look much better, but I prefer that generation in all styles.
I am a little late to the party on this one, but there are couple of points that I wanted to mention. I read the source that Eric had obtained his production numbers from and I can see why he created the chart he did. It wasn’t that he combined the Monte Carlo numbers and the El Camino numbers with the Chevelle numbers, the website Chevellestuff.net did. I also read over some typical sources such as the Standard Catalog of American Cars, and it does not break down the production for the 1972 Chevelle by body style. So, I don’t think Eric intentionally combined the numbers, he just used the information as it was presented by a reliable source.
That said, the proper way to look at the production numbers for the Chevelle in 1972 is to look at the Chevelle only. El Caminos and Monte Carlo numbers need to be excluded as they are separate lines. In doing this the total production of Chevelles is 393,695 cars. The percentage break down by body style is as follows:
2-doors – 61.5%
4-doors – 23.5%
Wagons – 13.8%
Convertible – 1.2 %
So despite the fact that the percentages are incorrect on Eric’s pie chart, his point remains. The vast majority of the Chevelle line were 2-door cars. And 4-door cars were significantly less than the 2-door cars.
Eric also mentions that the Chevelle’s were underpowered in 1972. While a 250 powered car wasn’t very powerful, the V8 powered cars were certainly competitive with the competition for the day. The majority of the 1972 Chevelles had an optional V8 (something other than a 250 or a 307), and would have been provided more than adequate power for 1972 standards. Keep in mind that despite the lower SAE net horsepower ratings 1972, the majority of the engines line up actually produced the same power as the 1971 Chevelles.
I will also comment that I always rather liked the 1972 Chevelle styling. While a little on the plain side, it was clean overall. I agree that the 4-door sedans were less attractive than the 4-door hardtops, but I though both were fine in my eyes. In fact, I though the A-body 4-door hardtops were relatively attractive cars for the times.
Just wanted to share our 72 4 door, this car only has 18,600 miles.
What engine is in it,and do you like it,I’m thinking of buying one
Greetings from Venezuela, my first car was a Chevelle 72 four doors in green. Bought by my father in the city of Maracaibo at the end of 1972. The available engine was the 307, but in Venezuela it developed more power than in the United States, since they came from the agency with a double exhaust system, but without catalysts and other control systems. emissions, for said year 1972, were not mandatory in Venezuela, there was 95 octane leaded gasoline available, so its power was around 200 hp. This Chevelle was with my family for twelve years, and we traveled all over the country, it worked satisfactorily, from the hottest places to the coldest, it easily climbed the roads of the Andes mountain range, the Aguila peak road, at its most high reaches nearly 13,500 feet above sea level and the modest 307 was still performing well. On more than one occasion we ran it up to 112 miles per hour. In 1984, we sold it and we never saw it again, still with the original engine and transmission, a decision that I regretted until today, as they say, it was my first automotive love.
I’m thinking of buying this one,they want $5800,one owner