A Malibu SS coupe or convertible, the dream of so many over the decades. Some fulfilled it; others not. But there’s an alternative for those that waited too long and the price got too high: a Chevelle Malibu SS two-door sedan.
Here’s the proof, in case it wasn’t clear enough in the opening shot. And it’s got the Malibu-correct trim on its rear end. Must be the real thing, eh?
Is it looking a bit plain to your eyes? Well, the ’64-’65 Chevelle wasn’t exactly a stunning beauty. Its appeal came from other qualities, such as being the closest thing there was to a tri-five Chevy reincarnated.
It says “327”. If it’s original, then it could be one of three 327s: 250, 300, or the mighty 350 hp L79. If it’s original. But even a lowly 283 could be made to sing with a few cheap bolt on parts.
One thing we do know: it’s not one of 201 1965 Malibu SS396s ever made. With the unique-to-it 375 hp 396 L34. The only thing that could be as rare—or rarer—would be a Malibu SS two-door sedan.
But hey, it’s got bucket seats, so it must be the very rare Malibu SS two-door sedan. And a floor shifter, for what looks to be the Powerglide, unless it’s made way for something a bit more gear-ful.
That is not the rear end trim from a 300, in case anyone is wondering.
It’s just missing a bit of trim on the rockers and maybe some around the windows. If it had that, it would be even more convincing. How many people today would disagree with the existence of a properly-trimmed Malibu SS two-door sedan? Or coupe, in today’s parlance?
The 1964-65 A body cars came as close as anything ever was to a genuine segment-buster. These were the “just right” cars of the batch and sold by the bazillions.
I still can’t warm up to the Chevrolet version, which seems a little dull and puffy compared to the BOP versions. And how often did that happen back then? Chevy was back in front by 66-67 though. So this particular one does not call my name.
It is odd how Pontiac would sell you a GTO 2 door sedan and Olds offered Cutlass 2 door sedans, but Chevy would not do the same with a Malibu SS (or even a regular Malibu, if I remember right).
BOP went to some trouble to make their post coupes stylish with thin pillar hardtop style roofline. The Chevelle was pretty deliberately uglified with a boxy sedan roof.
The data plate should reveal how it was built. Looks like what used to be called a ‘sleeper’ i.e. a plain-jane model hiding its performance potential, guys used to assemble them all the time.
Judging from the rear quarter location of the SS emblem, I’m going to guess this is a 1964 since the picture of the 1965 car has it on the front fender.
Don’t know if this one’s legit, but I’ve read that the SS package was pretty much just trim, so it seems plausible you could get it on a lowly two-door sedan with a pedestrian 327 engine.
I know one of the rare sleepers of the sixties was a 1969 300 Chevelle with the SS396 package which was in response to the 1968 Road Runner, as well as the 1969 Ford Cobra. But, unlike the Plymouth and Ford, the cheapo SS396 didn’t find much success (it wasn’t all that well-known, either).
Judging from the rear quarter location of the SS emblem, I’m going to guess this is a 1964 since the picture of the 1965 car has it on the front fender.
Only the 201 SS396s had the emblem on the front fender. Regular SS’s had it on the rear fender like this one.
Definitely ’65 because of the taillights and grille. ’64 had split upper and lower lenses.
I believe it’s the real deal. Back in the late 60’s I clearly remember a neighbor who drove a 65 Olds 442 in the same color and it was a 4 door sport sedan! Special order or false memory?
When the 442 package was introduced by Olds in 1964 it was available on all F85/Cutlass models, except station wagons. It wasn’t until a few years later when it became its own model.
Until the Colonnades, there was never a Malibu SS pillared coupe, ever. Not only was there never a Malibu SS coupe, there was never mere Malibu coupe, all being hardtops. The owner of the example shown looks like he had some productive days at the junkyard, adding some SS bits.
False memory. There was never a 4dr 442. Rumors said the 64 was given to the Lansing, MI police dept as 4 doors, but no proof has ever been found, as far as I know.
It was certainly advertised as such. And Olds Archives have verified that 10 four door sedans with the 4-4-2 option were built.
Technically it was called the “B09 Police Apprehender Pursuit” option. 1964 4-4-2 cars did not have a separate identification on their build plate, as it was just an option package available on any body style except wagons.
Thanks Paul. Knew I wasn’t mistaken! One of my few vivid memories as a kid was watching this car back out of my neighborhood’s driveway.
The whole “Police Apprehender Pursuit” name was just a ruse to get past the corporate suits on the 13th floor, which was still against these kind of performance packages on the smaller cars. What police department in 1964 would want a four on the floor?
Back in the ’60s if you had the cash and the right salesman, you could get just about anything you wanted. In my little town there were some folks that bought a brand new ’68 Impala 4 door post with a 300 hp 327, 4 spd with bucket seats. Another family in town, the next year, bought a ’69 Torino Cobra formal roof bench seat column shift auto, 428.
The 64-65 BOP 2 dr sedans shared a roof with the 2 dr hardtops, as such they were true Coupes. the Chevelle 2 dr Sedan was truly a sedan as it shared a roof with the 4 dr sedan. Why Chevy held back in this fashion until 68 might have been it’s position in GM hierarchy. 2 dr post cars are lighter in total vehicle dry weight than are Hardtops or Convertibles. So an SS in such livery might have an advantage on the track or the stoplight drags.
My guess is it started out life as a lowly two door sedan and somebody has done a good job of customizing it. Back in the ’60’s these things were everywhere, so finding parts for it would not have been difficult at all.
You can’t see it too well, but it looks like it might have a nub for a 3-speed on the column. If so, then it’s definitely a run-of-the-mill Chevy intermediate (probably a 300 Deluxe) where someone found an SS donor car and swapped over the emblems, seats, and even the interior door panels. Not to mention the poverty steelies without even hubcaps. Hell, it might not even have a 327 under the hood but a six-banger.
Still kind of cool, though.
I was a chev guy in the mid 60s. Owned a Malibu and Malibu SS. 3 years parts sales at a Chev dealer. NEVER remember a 65 Sedan SS. And these seats look like 66 or later.
Reminds me of an Opel Coupe from same period, which I liked very much.
https://p5.focus.de/img/fotos/origs341084/2162131630-w1280-h960-o-q72-p4/die-20-glamouroesesten-automobile-aller-zeiten.jpg
In ’68 and ’69 I believe you could have purchased a Chevelle SS 396 2dr. Coupe, but being a ‘Chevelle’ it was a pillared coupe, not a hard top like a Malibu. In 1970 I think they were all Malibu’s, no more pillared coupes. Friend had a 1970 Malibu with the 250 six and a 3 speed manual, car had no options other than a heater/defroster and an AM radio.
I thought the ’68-’69 base, intermediate, Chevy 2-door pillared coupe was known as the 300 Deluxe, and it didn’t get the SS396 option until 1969 to do battle with the Road Runner in the cheap musclecar wars. The 300 Deluxe was eliminated for 1970 and all the intermediate coupes were labeled as Chevelles. An odd thing, considering a 2-door pillared coupe was still available from both Pontiac and Oldsmobile but I guess that was due to those brands not yet having a compact-class car.
Interestingly, the one-year-only 1969 300 Deluxe SS396 coupe could very well have inspired the 1970 1/2 intermediate Ford Falcon 2-door coupe in which it was possible to get the 429CJ engine.
1969 The SS396 was an option package not a separate model so indeed you could order it on any 2 door regardless of the trim line–only 1969 could you get a SS396 2 door post
Yes, in ’68 the SS 396 was a separate car instead of an option package. Everything after ’68 was an option package. In ’71 and ’72 if you ordered an SS Chevelle, it was a 396. The small block cars were Heavy Chevys.
Mid 1970 Chevy brought back a plain “Chevelle” hardtop and sedan in the US.
Was it the 65 Chevelle that you could order the L-79 engine? I know it was in there somewhere.
Yes.
“Well, the ’64-’65 Chevelle wasn’t exactly a stunning beauty.”
Call me the outlier, but I think it is absolutely stunning in its simplicity.
The #1 car in my dream car garage is a 64-65 Chevelle 300 2-door wagon. Add a couple mods like disc brakes and some handling upgrades, and I would own it forever.
300 two door wagon is the only 1st gen Chevelle that I find interesting. Even the legendary ’64 GTO is not much to look at. ’65 was much improved with stacked headlights. Now take a ’64 Buick Sportwagon, like my uncle had. That was the nicest A-body, and probably the most expensive.
I agree. A friend had a ’65 El Camino back in the day. A VERY nice looking version!
I had 64 Malibu as with a 283 4 br and 4 speed trans
. Super nice. But a bad mistake and. Traded for a 69ss396 chevell .I would take the 64 any day
Back in the early ’70s, I had a ’65 chevelle 4dr hardtop with factory buckets and column shift power glide and a very worn out 283.
There was no Chevelle 4 door hardtop in 1965.
As the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder: “Well, the ’64-’65 Chevelle wasn’t exactly a stunning beauty.”
IMhO the ’64-’65 Chevelle body (2 doors) were the BEST looking of the group. The car’s exterior, designed by Harry Bradley, was far more distinctive than the other GM intermediates for those 2 years. Harry put very clean, cohesive but nicely detailed surfaces on the car that the other 3 lacked.
My dad bought a ’65 Malibu 4 door, 6 that looked pretty nice for a 4 door. Despite the popularity of the ’66-’67 Chevelles; I find them bland. Of course, what do I know…I INTENSLY dislike SUVs/CUVs and drive a Accord! 🙂 DFO
I couldn’t agree more with you about the beauty of the ‘64-‘65 Chevelle. Obviously the size was a return to the sensible size of the ‘55-‘57 Chevys, but the clean styling updated that of the ‘55 (my favorite of the “tri-fives”), while at the same time looking fresh and new.
This graphic from the October 1963 issue of Popular Mechanics has always intrigued me. I’m not sure if the similarity in size was purposeful or a happy coincidence, but somehow it just worked.
Yes, Harry Bradley started working for GM about the time that the ’64-’65 Chevelles would have been styled. Dennis Otto’s comment here prompted me to see if the internet had references to Bradley styling that car line, but I couldn’t find any. How did you know that Bradley designed the first Chevelle for GM? I only find references to his customizing of a ’64 El Camino, and that custom having influenced the 1968 El Camino.
I agree a 300 sedan rhat someone put Malibu SS trim on the bucket seats sre not 64/65 style they are from a 66/67
They may be ’68 seats. I think I see the little buttons on the side to tilt them. ’69 they were on the back of the seat as I remember.
The Malibu SS and Chevelle SS models are all covered comprehensively in this post:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/chevelle-ss-or-malibu-ss-an-overview-of-chevrolets-intermediate-super-sport/
It will answer most of the questions posed in the comments.
I first got to know the ’65 Chevelle through the ’80s reissue of the AMT wagon model kit, to this day the ’65 Chevelle looks most “right” to me as a four-door wagon.
You’ll like this then.
I built one last year as a ‘daily driver’and painted it an ‘almond’ color. I`m going to rebuild it as a ‘phantom’ woodside model. This model looks like it could have been a promo that AMT made into an annual. The surf-drag optional parts are cool,and can be incorporated into other builds if you don`t use them.
There were 64 and 65 Chevelle wagon promos and kits.
I remember that I wanted a 1965 back in 1974 to work on and join my Cougar as I very much liked the look and they were cheap. Never got around to it.
how rare is the 4 door variant??
I have a 65 Malibu SS that has the Chevelle Badging on the inside dash. I want to lift the body off the frame in order to restore the frame. Any advice out there. My concern is trying not to tweak the body lifting it off the frame. I have a 10K lb 2 post that I will use to lift the body using a cradle of some sort that I will make out of 4×4 post (wood) because I don’t want the metal to metal contact with the 10K forks on the body. Any insights to this task would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.