Buying things as a working adult has caused me to more carefully assess the idea that quality is often more important than a greater quantity of lesser goods or services I could purchase for the same amount of money. Sometimes, I feel like dining out at a pizzeria where greater attention to ingredients, preparation, and overall flavor and atmosphere of the venue itself are all of paramount importance. Just as often, though, I’d be happy with a lot of decent pizza (some of which I can chuck into the refrigerator for later consumption) for less money than a nicer pie. It’s often the same scenario on one of my occasional treks out to a favorite vintage vendor on the lookout for something cool to bring home with me. It was at the Vintage Garage, formerly held in the southern end of my Chicago neighborhood, that I saw our featured car while on my way in.
This lighted globe is one of my favorite purchases from Vintage Garage.
Seeing this beautiful Chevelle convertible, in one of my all-time favorite generations of this storied model, certainly put me in the correct, “retro” mood to go shopping. (I’m sure that was the point behind someone having parked this red beauty at the entrance gate of the former venue of the Vintage Garage.) This monthly flea market-type event has since moved north to nearby Evanston, scheduled now to meet just three times this year, on the third Sunday of May, July and September, but I’m glad to know the market is still going strong after having moved from this location. All kinds of things are sold there – clothes, furnishings, records, gadgets, fixtures, etc. Simply browsing, even without buying, is a great way to spend an hour or so.
I usually try to go into these events with the intent of finding that one, really cool treasure. The reality is that I’m just as often tempted to purchase a well-made, same-era knockoff that serves the same function as an authentic, “name brand” piece. I’ve had a molded fiberglass chair from the ’60s made in the idiom of the famous Eames chair for a couple of decades now. Maybe my guests have all been kind, but no one has seemed to notice that it’s not the real thing. It serves basically the same purpose, both functionally and aesthetically.
While this Chevelle had the lower section of its body painted black and the correct wheels exclusive to the SS 396 models, it also lacks the stripes and “SS” badge on the rear panel. With only 2,286 Chevelle SS 396 convertibles produced for ’68, my money is on this one being a tribute. This car may well be one of the 7,794 Chevelle Malibu convertibles produced for the model year… but who really cares? I honestly don’t. I might care less about numbers-matching authenticity if the style, look, quality and function are all there. Does this Chevelle go? Is the top watertight? That might be all that matters. Given the overall, relatively scant production numbers for the ’68 Chevelle convertible in general, this one is still a vintage treasure – whether a true SS or “just” a Malibu.
Uptown, Chicago, Illinois.
Sunday, October 20, 2018.
I agree with ypou on this generation of chevelle/Malibu. I remember wanting one when they first hit the market. Though i loved the GTO in 68. The style of these Mid size Chevies was well done. Alas, It was not going to happen…. I had my 64 Cutlass and was happy with that. No need for new car for a 17yr old, at the time. My father was adamant about that. I still like these the 69 was just change for changes sake, and the 70 was a nice expression. My father even allowed as the ElCamino, based on this car were nice and I might have been able to convince him, However, other things at the time took my attention in my senior year of HS…. Music, Dates, Oncoming university expenses, The idea of my moving out. So no new cars for me….In 70, I initiated my credit by buying my first car on time…the 68 Cougar, and in 74, I bought my first new car, the Audi Fox. Still like these late 60s Malibus… Vintage treasure, indeed.
Jason, like you, I first established my credit with a car purchase. I financed $4,000 for a used ’88 Mustang LX through Ford Credit and made those payments on time. It was a huge deal for me then, and the largest sum of money I had ever committed to paying for something.
I actually prefer the ’69 Chevelle with its minor changes. I think I remember seeing one in a junkyard when I was a kid in the early ’80s, and I fell in love with its shape. We were trying to find a side view mirror replacement for my dad’s ’71 Duster, and for some reason, we were looking at this Chevelle.
And I also love the ’68 Cougar.
I had one of those Eames chairs in the living room where I grew up – this one had salmon-colored cloth with grey sides and an elaborate chrome base. It was later demoted to the downstairs rec room, and at some point the torn or worn cloth and padding was removed, revealing the grey fiberglass underneath. It spend its last 15 years or so in the basement, where it mostly served as place to put things and hang stuff. I had no idea at the time this was an iconic design and that both new and vintage ones fetch high prices. I also have no idea if it was a real one or a knockoff – it looked real though – and was very sturdy.
And I too don’t care if my vintage car wasn’t born with the engine, options, or trim level it has now. Do my parts numbers match? I don’t really care.
It’s funny how furniture tastes come around. There was lots of this style of fiberglass furniture in the library I used to go to when I was in school. Back then, it just looked like weird stuff – but now I wonder what happened to all of it. My fiberglass chair is surprisingly comfortable to sit in / on, and it doesn’t any cloth covers.
I also think that having a non-numbers-matching car that still looks the part would give me a bit more freedom to enjoy it. 🙂
About 17 years ago, having some money that could be directed towards an old car (it ultimately wasn’t) I spotted a 68 white Malibu sedan for sale at a very attractive price. That being the most similar car to my father’s 68 Nova then available I went to check on it. It had a 230, Powerglide, power brakes, and had had A/C when new according to the dashboard vents. I asked for a test drive and off we went with the owner. I drove very carefully and slowly, and after a few blocks I realized the box wasn’t shifting. The quadrant was a little off, and I was driving it in Low. So I corrected, and the car drove very nicely. All told, I came back and drove off in my then-15 year old Fiat…the Malibu was vetted by you-can-imagine-who.
That same car is currently for sale, with a Nissan Diesel 6 cylinder drivetrain, a 5 speed manual gearbox, chromed rims, shaved door handles and electric opening, and I don’t know how many more add ons, and it’s no longer white, but gray and purple. It parks a couple blocks from my house. I don’t long for it anymore.
Oh, wow. Even though the Malibu has been customized, I like that it is the exact car you had looked at before, years later.
oops meant to post this for anyone not familiar with these
I went to high school with the daughter of our town’s Chevrolet dealer. For most of our senior year (class of ’69) she drove a Malibu convertible much like the one in the photo, with the exception of having a white top and interior. Hers was definitely not the SS396 but had the 350, which was still decently quick. Just before graduation in May the Malibu was swapped for a new Camaro, a step down in my opinion but there we are.
For me, there’s no contest. I do like the ’69 Camaro, but a ’69 Malibu (in blue metallic) would have been my dream car.
I think the rationale was that she was going out of town for college in the fall and having a hardtop made more sense than the convertible.
How funny – I knew two people in high school with 68 Chevelle convertibles – one guy had a red one with a black top/interior like your lead shot and a girl drove one in that greenish-gold with a matching interior and a black top – much like the car in your ad. Neither was, of course, an SS396.
The green one was ratty and the girl’s reputation wasn’t great, so I only saw that one at a distance. The red one belonged to another trombone player in the high school band, and was a really nice car. His parents had undoubtedly helped in the purchase.
I never warmed up to these. I preferred the pre-1968 style and the competition from both Ford and Mopar stuck closer to my preferred style. Plus, these were what everyone wanted and I was too much of a contrarian to follow that crowd, even in high school. (or was it *especially* in high school). And I liked the bigger cars better – my 67 Galaxie 500 convertible suited me just fine.
It’s the CC effect in decades-old reverse!
I’ll say that while I preferred the style of the previous generation Pontiac A-Body to this one, the Chevy A-Bodies got much better looking for ’68.
GM did a fine job with these cars. The shorter wheelbase for the coupes really helped the styling. I particularly liked the way the curves of the roof came to a chiseled sharp defining line in the front and the rear. Just beautiful.
These were just mid sized Chevies but they were as appealing as anything else in GM’s line up. You could buy a Grand Prix, Riviera, Toronado, Caprice formal roof coupe, Camaro, Firebird, Cutlass, ElDorado. So many choices at so many price points!
You could option out your car to what ever level you desired. If you wanted that Chevelle but thought you should be driving a Riviera than you could go the SS 396 route. Those were the Days!
Jose, you had me wondering if GM had been the pioneers among domestic makes with the split-wheelbase intermediates for non-wagon models for ’68. It does look that way.
However, looking at my Encyclopedia of American cars (2003 edition, from the Editors of Consumer Guide), it looks like the Ford Fairlane and Torino wagons had been riding on a wheelbase 3″ shorter (at 113″) than that of the two- and four-door models! The Plymouth Satellite and Belvedere wagons had a 1″ longer wheelbase (at 117″) than the two-and four-door models.
Like you, I miss the variety that use to be out there.
That Chevelle is my exact car I sold In Detroit in 1975. (Is it really my old Chevelle and now living in Chicago?)
Wouldn’t that be awesome? I usually blank out the license plates out of respect for the privacy of the owners / drivers of the cars I feature, but I wonder what the Carfax report would turn up!
The SS body stripes (along the rocker panel and up over the header panel) were option D96 and they weren’t standard so it’s possible to find a SS396 model without them.
As for the pictured wheels, they were standard on the ’69 and ’70 SS model, not yet introduced in ’68. The ’68 SS396 used unique full wheel covers (Malibu wheel covers actually with a “SS396” emblem in the center) on steel wheels as standard equipment or optional Corvette style rally wheels. All this said, yes, it’s probably a Malibu with a hint of SS dressing.
This is a great find! While the ’68 convertible production number is about 11% higher than ’69, I seem to encounter the ’69 edition much more often than the ’68.
Excellent – thank you so much for the clarification.
I, too, seem to recall having seen more ’69 Chevelle convertibles than ’68s, including this one I wrote about close to five years ago:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule-1969-chevrolet-chevelle-ss-convertible-can-i-rent-this-instead/