(first posted 5/16/2015) Once upon a time, faded Malibu coupes like this in gold, brown, green or blue could be found by the multiples in every high school parking lot during the week or prowling the streets or fast-food parking lots on weekend nights. Although kids back then aspired (like always) to something more ambitious, like a cherry red Malibu SS454, in truth, this is what they ended up with: a tired second or third-hand Malibu coupe with the weak-chested 307 and a Powerglide. Young adult life is often about adjusting lofty expectations with a diminished reality. It’s no wonder there are more red SS454s nowadays than Plain-Jane Malibus; the middle-aged means of so many frustrated kids finally caught up to their long-deferred aspirations.
On our CC walk through his San Mateo neighborhood, my nephew Aidan and I found both: a resale red SS454, which may or may not be a clone, and this very original 307 Malibu coupe, within a few blocks of each other. It’s all-too authentic. And it’s no coincidence which one he asked to write up and which one I’m writing up. That’s ok with me; one will always be able to find pristine SS454; not so cars like this. Folks, this is how the past once looked, not shiny red.
The Chevelle was all-new in 1968, along with its GM A-Body stablemates. GM made a bold move that year, giving the coupes a shorter 112″ wheelbase than the 116″ for sedans and wagons. That didn’t do anything for their interior accommodations, but than that’s not why one bought a coupe anyway. It was an affordable way to be stylish, and although production stats are not readily available, if my observations of the time are at all representative, I’d venture to guess the coupe outsold the sedan by some two-to-one, or more. Or maybe it just seemed like it, as the sedan was pretty forgettable. And only the most desperate kids drove them to school.
I’d also guess that the overwhelming majority carried the ‘307’ badge on the front fender, the base V8 if one was going to avoid “stupid six” epitaphs hurled at them; real or imagined. Rated at 200 gross hp, or maybe some 140 in today’s ratings, it did the job, just sort of, barely, from a testosterone-influenced point of view. The little two-barrel carb was parental-unit approved. Powerglide did it no favors. When kids ran these at full throttle down the boulevard, the distinctive prolonged moan of the small black V8 as it slowly built revs was unmistakable. The full throttle shift into second/high didn’t occur until about seventy. And getting there seemed like an eternity, in the sped-up internal clock of a teenager. Thankfully, help was just a J.C.Whitney catalog away; or at the junkyard. And a few extra shifts at Arby’s.
But no matter: it said ‘Malibu’ on its sides, and that name was golden; an inspired name if there ever was one. No wonder Ford changed the name of their top Fairlane to Torino. Everything California was golden in 1968, and so was the Malibu, even if the only tang one’s nostrils had ever encountered was from fresh manure and not from the salty Pacific Ocean air.
As bold a move these new GM coupes represented, I wasn’t totally bowled over by the styling details of the Chevelle. Compared to the ’68 GTO, or the Olds 442, it looked a bit light-weight and cheap. Well, it was, although not by all that much. The re-skin for 1970 improved it mostly, and made it look like it had spent some time at the gym, bulked up a bit or just swallowed some male hormone supplements.
Yes, that’s the problem: the ’68 looked a wee bit too delicate and feminine. And a lot of women did buy these; probably most of the ones the kids bought second and third hand were Mom’s or Aunt Betty’s Malibus. If only they had ordered at least the 327…Oh well; beats riding the school bus to school. Or the ancient old Chevy farm truck.
Those Centerline rims aren’t doing it any favors either. Odd to have spent money on rims, yet the rest of the car is so rough. Rolling restoration project, perhaps?
The rims… well, that’s how it worked back then buying a car like this. It was probably the quickest way to put your personal stamp on a car like this you just bought. The multi-colored body parts, primer patches and other stuff meant you were Working On It. She’s gonna be tough someday, man.
This is just how I started in the mid ’80’s, with a ’71 Chevelle 350 I bought for $675. Fortunately, my Dad had a body shop, so I refurbished mine with a 1972 Cadillac green called Brewster Green. Got rid of what I called the Pea Soup Metallic color. Redid the interior. M/T valve covers.
But yeah… she rode primered for awhile on a set of Appliance 5-spokes.
+1 In later years it was a stereo system that cost nearly as much as the car, because when you got more money you would do the rest up. Three years later you sold it and bought a Toyota…
This past Saturday I spotted this car’s brother, a gold with white top coupe. Pretty straight with a decent respray. The Cragar S/S rims set it off quite well. Kinda felt like 1975 all over again.
The appeal of Centerlines always baffled me, of all the great choices of period 1960s designed aftermarket wheels – Cragar SS, Torque thrust, Slot mags, Tulip mags, Keystones, and not to mention the nicer factory wheels(Rallys in this case), people just ate up these flat discs with pointless visible bolts. Never will understand it. I kind of see centerlines as the humble beginning of bad aftermarket wheel designs we’re familiar with now(*cough* Donk *cough*)
I really don’t like donks, either. The initial point of Centerlines or Cragar SST’s was they the ’80’s drag race bred rims (weight saving, y’know?) and not just pure aesthetics. Therefore they ended up on a lot of street cars hoping to be fast or look fast.
centerlines LOOKED like expensive alloy racing wheels but were significantly less expensive…cragars were expensive and muscle cars weren’t money….I’m surprised that Malibu still exists in it’s current form…nowadays people want money for four doors and wagons, much less coupes….
Centerlines started out as real drag racing wheels and therefore they had street cred. Cragars and Keystones were just shiny street wheels made with a steel rim and a steel or cast center. Centerlines are all aluminum and therefore lighter. Also, centerlines were ‘cool’ in the 80’s when cragars and keystones were out of style. Torque thrust were popular in the 60s and were way out of style by the 1980. They are all old to your eyes, but they were each cool at a different point.
Centerlines were cool in the Mullet ’80’s. And SST’s. Anyone remember Protechs?
The Cragar S/S did start as a drag mag… in ’62. Therefore being out of date in the ’80’s.
I don’t know what Centerline is about now. They could have been a Harvard Business School grad’s gift to the Chinese a decade back, for all I know. Forty years ago, they sold very light wheels in popular sizes for people racing American cars. Most aftermarket wheels were about style, but a set of Centerline Racing Wheels took about nine pounds of unsprung, gyroscopic weight off of each corner of a car. There are few ways to improve a vehicle’s all-around performance as efficiently.
The perimeter hood does say, “restoration in progress.” That was in 2025. It is now 2021; what does it look like now?
I liked the “feminine” ’69 most of all. Still do.
If I had one today I’d go Gen III/IV/V with it…5 or 6-speed manual, dual exhausts and EVERYTHING else made to look original. Either run Rallys or the dog-dish Bowtie baby moons Chevy offered in 71-72.
Because even I understand there’s just too many SS clones. I’d keep this a ‘Bu.
The 1969 is also my favorite Chevelle. The styling is athletic in all the right ways. Would love this one in black with Chevy Rallies.
(The 1968 – ’69 Buick Skylark / Special, on the other hand? That car was flowy and feminine looking, especially with fender skirts.)
Like this one?
The ’69 got a much cleaner grille treatment than these ’68s. Helped quite a bit. Though of all the ’68 a-bodies, I’d put these third. The GTO is about perfect with the hidden lamps, and the Skylark–stylistically on sort of another planet from the other three with the dipping character line and the skirted rear openings–works for me as a whole, with some great details, even if it doesn’t scream muscle. The 442, on the other hand? A distant fourth. I never liked the super-wide lamp pods with the indicators between, and the protruding narrow grille looks almost like a bunkie beak in miniature. No thanks. Like the Chevelle, they cleaned it up for ’69, though they went almost too far conservative. The Olds styling really hit its stride with the ’70 cars. (And ended up looking better with the more formal notchback roofline than as a fastback.)
According to standard catalogue of American Cars 266,400 1968 Malibu passenger cars were built. Of course I there is no breakdown on how many of the different V8 engines were installed.
It is stated that approximately 33,100 six cylinder engines were produced compared to 233,200 V8s. This is not including station wagons. So for a young driver the odds of getting a cars with a V8 were pretty good even if it was the wimpy 307.
The blank canvas aspect of this car is what is most mind blowing. A creative kid can learn and grow with it. How to take a wrench to it, bond with it. Cruise in it, fool around in it, get away from parents and see things with it. Know the sounds, If you listen enough, the engine will tell you how it is and the tires will tell you their limits. After a while, you are ready to leave your stamp on it. Maybe a big block with a 2 barrel and tall gears to test your theory of turnpike cruisers. Maybe a monte carlo clone with whitewalls and a padded vynl top. Maybe a t-5 maited to a breathed upon 230 I6. All this and a million more combinations. Then enjoy it. Enjoy the crap out of it. Then park it. When your ready to sell, sell it to a kid. Wash, rinse, repeat.
You are so correct. My high school parking lot back in 81-84 was littered with these. The Saturn SL2 of the late 60s-early 70s,if you will
let me see…my highschool parking lot was littered with:
chevelles
novas
VW beetles
dodge dart/plymouth valiant
generic datsuns in horrendous shape
camaros
various fords…torinos, fairlanes granadas, mavericks LTDs
rich kids had some new hondas and toyotas and a few older european brands
My senior graduation day ended with a 6-car burnout… ’70 Mach 1, ’68 Lemans… two guys got caught. One with a ’69 Charger and one with a, of all things, a ’66 Mercury Parklane,
I used to work as a driver for Domino’s in Atlanta GA in 2005. One day a workmate came to me and said: Come Rubens, take a look at my new ride. It was a 68 Malibu with a 350 cid. I thought to myself: How lucky these kids are in been born in a country like this.
IIRC, 1969 was the first year that the GTO was not the number one selling musclecar. That honor went to the Plymouth Road Runner, with second place going to the SS396 Chevelle. The GTO dropped down all the way to number three.
Many regard the 1970 SS454 as the zenith of the musclecar era, but I’d go with the 1969 L78 SS396 (the 375hp one) just because it was the end of the sixties (among other reasons). That car, along with stuff like the fiberglass, lift-off hood 440-6v Mopar and 428CJ Fairlane Cobra, really made it seem like 1969 was the best of the musclecar years.
The ’69 Chevelle/Malibu was a huge improvement over the ’68. Cleaner grill, better tail lights, and elimination of the vent window made the car “just right”. I’ve always considered the ’69 coupe to be one of the best looking cars ever made.
I drove a 1969 Chevelle SS396 in high school back in the ’70’s. Other than the often single-digit gas mileage (4.10:1 axle ratio), it was one of the best cars I ever owned.
The vent window was only removed for the 2-door hardtops and convertibles in all GM divisions. Strange then Chevrolet dropped the 2-door post coupe for 1970 while the “BOP” kept their post coupe until 1972 and the SS396 was reverted back to an option for 1969 including the 2-door post coupe with the vent windows and survivors are more rarer then the hardtop and convertible.
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265701
And here a video of a 1969 Baldwin-Motion 427 Chevelle, where Baldwin-Motion, Yenko and some others put the 427ci engine under the hood.
And here a Yenko Chevelle
You’re right Paul, most 1968 Chevelles did have a 307 2bbl engine. The data I have shows the following:
82,845 6-cyl engines:
39,762 230cid
43,083 250cid
381,824 V8 engines:
245,032 307cid
74,007 327cid
62,785 396cid
Here is an interesting read, the PM owners report for the 1968 Chevelle. It seems the majority in this survey were PG cars, but it didn’t come up as one of the dislikes. Workmanship and gas mileage were the two biggest dislikes.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=-tMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA98&dq=1968+chevelle+owners+report&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tVdXVdaBJ8uTyAS38oDoAw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=1968%20chevelle%20owners%20report&f=false
Middle-child price overlap was probably also a factor. Teenagers a decade later notwithstanding, the people who bought all those 307/’glide Malibu coupes new mostly got exactly what they wanted; a Nova SS for speed and a Bel Air post sedan for space must’ve cost roughly in the same ballpark if that was what they were after.
Those PM surveys are illuminating. It’s amazing just how bad Detroit cars were when they only had to compete with each other. 54% of owners who’d had their cars for a couple of months had experienced mechanical trouble. Many of the issues they experienced weren’t repaired by their dealers. Why did people buy these turkeys? Past experience and brand loyalty was often sited as the reason. Good grief.
People also bought the Chevelle for its styling, only to complain about lack of headroom and bad visibility once they owned it. Sounds like a modern level of foresight.
When I was a kid, my brother in law has a huge stash of old Popular Mechanics magazines, ranging from 1930-1970. I devoured them!
People bought American cars because there really wasn’t anything else to buy. If you had a wife and four kids, what were your options? A VW was too small and a Volvo too much money.
Memories of World War Two were still fresh and there were a lot of people who would never buy either a German or Japanese car.
Of course, Detroit knew this, and produced the crappiest cars they could get away with.
Of course, Detroit knew this, and produced the crappiest cars they could get away with.
I know we’re in a cynical period in history and that sentence is par for the course, but that can pretty much rephrased directly into “built to a cost”. It’s hardly a big three conspiracy, you think the Camry is the BEST car Toyota can get away with building today?
You are too harsh on American cars
The reason American cars sold so well back then is because they were the best in the world for American roads…for the price.
45-65 years ago America was a different place. We had a small population on a huge landmass. Lots of small towns by European standards, and lots of wide open space. Excluding New England of course.
If you wanted to drive from chicago to LA nonstop at 85+ MPH there was really only two choices…buy a mid to upper level American car or buy an expensive German car. If you wanted to do it in comfort and carry all your crap then there was only one choice…buy a mid to upper level American car.
A large displacement low stress low RPM high torque American motor with a 2.5:1 axle ratio and a 1:1 top gear ratio was the best there was back then.
The folklore has it that the final quality of Chevy’s of this period lies in the factory bolting it together. I recall reading DeLorean’s book, according him the Tarrytown, NY was the worst plant by far for assembly quality at that time.
Although I really like to avoid flag-waving, my personal recollection was the Oshawa built cars really were well put together. I can’t recall anyone at the time complaining about build quality of these cars.
But then again, cars were so bad back then, owners were used to wrenching on them almost immediately.
I have always found that the Oshawa built cars from this Era were better built. My father’s old 76 Malibu was built there and to this day it is one of the most reliable cars anyone in our family had owned (it’s still on the road my brother owns it). We’ve had many other Oshawa built GM products that have all been very good.
When. I worked at a GM dealer the old time body man always said that the Oshawa cars were the best built but the St There’s plan LT in Quebec was one of the worst. It was his theory that was why the F-body moved to that plant in 1993.
Gotta admit they were simple and easy to work on or modify. Keep those hood hinges oiled, you’re gonna have to check the points soon. And plugs. Carbutetor, etc.
I got really good at rebuilding Holley 650’s.
Well yes; poor fundamental design flaws like lack of headroom, visibility, poor space utilization, etc. was ubiquitous in all of these American mid-size cars, especially the coupes. Folks bought them because they looked good, and all the neighbors had them too. The whole mid-size coupe era started about then, and peaked in the 70s and 80s with the Olds Cutlass Supreme and such. Then one day folks woke up and realized these cars were fundamentally compromised.
The they all started buying Jeep Cherokees and such, and soon realized that there were very fundamental packaging and other compromises too. Did you think most folks bought cars with their brains?
And the reliability issue explains why Japanese cars started making such inroads at the time; many just got tired of sloppily built American cars.
Have a look at the PM article: almost half of buyers were age 15-29.
It is now 51. My experience is that 50 year old buy different cars than 20 year olds.
Half of buyers of new cars were under 30
my how far we’ve fallen
nowdays a teen couldn’t buy a brand new 4wheel ATV much less a car
Japanese cars of the era were superior? We’re talking 1968 here right?
When viewing those survey results, remember two things.
One, Chevrolet was struggling with quality control by the late 1960s, as the number of models, options and drivetrains exploded throughout the decade. That is one reason why a fair number of people, including my parents, moved up to an Oldsmobile or Buick when it came time to trade the 1960s Chevrolet. They bought an Oldsmobile, were satisfied with it, and never looked at a Chevrolet again.
That was good for GM in the short run – people were still buying a GM car. But it also further encouraged the complacency that would come back to bite the corporation by the early 1980s.
Two, the imports of that time had their own serious limitations. Japanese cars were rust buckets not well-suited to winter climates (our neighbor’s mid-1960s Datsun refused to start every time the temperature dropped below freezing, which it regularly does in Pennsylvania during the winter).
British, French and Italian cars had serious reliability and build quality problems.
The Volkswagens were reliable – primarily because they didn’t offer much in the way of options. But most people weren’t interested in driving a small car with a droning air-cooled engine over long distances. In those days before the deregulation of airlines, that is how most people travelled within the country. Flying was too expensive. You loaded up the family car and drove to your destination. It was one thing for college students to putter around in a Beetle, or for a family to own a Beetle as a second car. It was another thing to load the family into a Beetle or even a Squareback and drive from Pennsylvania to Florida. Also note that VW’s reputation for reliability pretty much went out the window when it phased out the air-cooled cars and replaced them with the Dasher, Rabbit and Scirocco.
A Mercedes was a nice car, but they were often hard for local mechanics to service once you got out of the major metropolitan areas. And Mercedes still needed to work on its automatic transmissions and HVAC systems. People who lived in regions with hot, humid summers and very cold winters still placed a premium on an effective HVAC system in a car – particularly one that cost as much as a Mercedes.
The Popular Mechanics survey results show that there was room for improvement, and also show why the Toyota Lean Production System had such an impact on the industry. But, in the late 1960s, all cars were lousy by our 21st century standards, and people weren’t just buying domestic cars because they were too dumb to know any better. There were still solid reasons to see the USA in your Chevrolet, as opposed to a Toyota or VW, in 1968.
Sorry, my money goes to the Pontiac boys in this case.
Definitely.
I’ve always loved the ’68 Chevelle’s but I am surprised the 350ci V8 wasn’t available in that year’s Chevelle, I’ve always thought the 350’s were available on the Chevelle’s starting in 1967, it is hard to say what is my favorite year of the Chevelle from 1966-70 although one of my ultimate dream cars is a 1970 Chevelle SS 454 or 1967 Chevelle SS 396
Nope. 350 was only available in the Camaro in 67-68. Was not available across the board until 69, when they started phasing out the 327, If I recall
As suzulight said: no 350s until 1969. But the Malibu was available with the L79 325 hp 327, which was really the same as the former 350 hp version. It was substantially faster than the 350 CID V8, which only came in the mild 295 hp version back then. The L79 with a four speed was a deceptively quick car, faster than the 325 hp 396, and possibly even the 350hp version.
Realistically, the lion’s share of 327s were the mild 275 hp version (former 300 hp). GM de-rated both of these 327s probably both for insurance as well as so that the L79 didn’t bump up against the 396.
The 396 was only available with the SS396 package.
The 350 hp version of the 327 — originally developed primarily with the Corvette in mind — first appeared in Chevelles in 1965, before the advent of the SS396. At the time, it was the clear performance king of Chevelle engines. After the SS396 was introduced for the 1966 model year (following a dry run of Z16s late in the ’65 model year), however, it kind of got lost in the shuffle. Even though it was probably a better performer than some versions of the SS396, as Paul noted, this was the era of “there’s no substitute for cubic inches”, and it wasn’t attached to a sexy package like the SS396. It hung on until 1968.
IIRC, the 350hp 327 was also offered in Chevy IIs for one year only in 1966, although a small number of ’67s are known to have been built with it via special order.
When the Chevelle and Corvette both switched from the 327 to the 350 in 1969 (acknowledging Paul’s correction on the Corvette below), the Corvette got a similar higher-output version of the 350, but it wasn’t offered in Chevelles.
“The 396 was only available with the SS396 package.”
Trivia — from what I understand, the 325hp 396 could also be ordered in police package sedans. Good luck finding one of those today…
What about the Heavy Chevy? I believe it was in 70-71 with a 402 and no SS badges.
The Heavy Chevy option was a low-buck car in the spirit of the Road Runner… but with less hardware. Engines ranged from the 350 2-barrel to the 402. Rubber floor mats. Gauges. 14-inch six hole Rally wheels. Could be a decent car or a kinda fast one by the then new year standards.
They ran from ’71 to ’72.
IIRC, the 400 (really 402) became available as an option in any Chevelle midway through the 1970 model year. Before that, the 396/400 (called a “400” in non-SS models starting with the 1970 model year, really a 402 after the early part of the 1970 model year) had only been available in the SS and rarely seen police package, as described above.
Although I would strongly agree that the L79 327 were underrated cars that were deceivingly quick, I wouldn’t suggest they are faster than the 325hp L35 396 Chevelles. They probably were pretty comparable, but I’d give the slight edge to the 396. Now, when it came to overall performance and road manners, I’d argue the 327 would be the better choice. I do recall one mag testing a 327 Chevelle and an SS396 and concluding that the 275-hp 327 was better at pretty much everything besides straight-line performance. Also keep in mind there were 3 versions of the 327, the L73 250 hp version, the L30 275 hp version and the L79 325 hp version.
The only L79 Chevelle test I can find was by High Performance Cars tested a 1965 Chevelle equipped with the 350 hp 327. The car ran a 16.0 sec flat in the quarter with a 90 mph trap speed. Mind you they did complain of poor traction, but this wouldn’t have a drastic effect on the trap speed, which in this case is pretty much on par with a L35 396. Even a PG equipped L35 Chevelle with a 3.07 gears ran 15.9 secs at 89.5 MPH, and that’s about is bad as it could have got. The L35/L34 SS396 Chevelles may not have been the fastest cars out of the box, but they pretty much always trapped over 90 MPH and somewhere in the 15 sec range. Only the L78 396 SS396’s were capable of breaking into the 14’s out of the box.
I also have a Car Life test of a 1968 L79 Nova that ran 16.47 secs at 86 MPH. So I highly doubt that a 1968 Chevelle would run any quicker. Car Life later tested a 1970 Nova SS350 (rated at 300 hp) that ran 16.5 secs at 85 MPH. That was with the 327 car using a 4-speed and 3.55 gears while the 350 had 3.07 gears and an a TH350 trans,
The 350 essentially replaced the 327, but it was rolled out for high-performance applications first: Camaro SS (not other Camaros, just the SS) in 1967, then Nova SS (not other Novas, just the SS) and Corvette in 1968. The 350 replaced the 327 in most other applications for 1969.
The 327 continued to be available for the 1969 model year in a few cases where low-output two-barrel versions were being used in place of the 307. These were in non-SS/Z28 Camaros (which had been using this arrangement since the Camaro was introduced in 1967) and in fullsize cars (where the 327 2bbl was new for ’69, replacing the 307 that had been available in ’68). From past discussion here, Camaros switched to using the 307 during the 1969 model year. I’m not sure if fullsize cars kept the 327 2bbl for the entire ’69 model year, but it was definitely gone for ’70, when a 350 2bbl was the base V8.
Actually, the 295/300 hp L48 that came in the ’67 on the Camaro SS 350 and available on the ’68 Chevy II was not a true high performance engine; more like a “mid-performance”, comparable to the mid-level 327s, with a pretty mild cam, iron intake, and modest four-barrel carb.
The ’68 Corvette still used the 327s; the 350s started in 1969. The higher-performance L46 (350 hp) in the ’69 Corvette was the first true HP version of the 350, and was a Corvette-only option.
The famous LT-1 appeared in 1970, with 370 hp. It was similar to the L46, but had a solid lifter cam, a higher-rise aluminum intake, and a Holley 780. It was first available on the 1970 Corvette, and the 1971 Camaro Z28.
“The ’68 Corvette still used the 327s; the 350s started in 1969. ”
Paul is right — I thought I knew this well enough to post without looking it up, but I guess I should have. So it was the Camaro SS in ’67, the Nova SS in ’68, and all other four-barrel applications in ’69.
I’ve mentioned this before, but the ’67 Camaro offered a very unorthodox lineup of small-block V8s. The lower-line models used a 327 2bbl instead of the 283 that other Chevrolets used; the SS was the first Chevy to use the 350 instead of the 327; and the Z28 had the unique 302 that was a hybrid of the 283 (crankshaft) and 327 (block) in order to fall just under the SCCA Trans Am Series displacement limit. Only the 327 4bbl offered in the lower-line models was normal and expected.
I love to see cars like this, versus the endless recreated red SS454s that are so prevalent at car shows. Your write-up nails how the average Chevelles/Malibus were common and used, which is what makes them so interesting to me. As a kid in the 1970s, I did still see these around, usually in light blue, white, tan or most likely green, either still being driven by granny or in the process of being souped-up–and run into the ground.
I am a fan of the photographer Steven Shore, and I love how his work captures ordinary street scenes from back in the day. This car would have been right at home, for example, in the shot below. It was the reality of how America looked, for better or worse.
I absolutely love Shore’s photography, and would love to show it here, but it is copyrighted. Maybe one or two? 🙂
It looks to me like that particular Sambo’s caught a lot of people who were on vacation trips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPFMzskXZvY
If you ain’t first yer last!
In ’80, I bought a ’69 with a ’07 and ‘glide. I paid $150 for it in far less than pristine condition. At that time, you could buy 4 Chevelles for what a Camaro would cost, so a Chevelle it was for me.
I put glass packs on it and I spent a lot of time driving it around in Lo, so I could share my love of the sound of a booming Chevy V8 with the world. 🙂
A noble cause.
These are my favorite Chevelles. I love that they are more close coupled due to the shorter wheelbase.I like the roof line and quarter windows and the sharp creases that define the curves of the body. This example doesn’t have the vinyl top either. It’s just a clean weathered example. A blank canvas for sure. Probably a bench seat base interior but it is a hardtop. I don’t think this car would go for cheap. Your average high school kid wouldn’t be able to afford it. A used up Integra would be what the kid would buy.
The four-door hardtop’s my favorite; somehow to me the extra length adds something and the square-cornered DLO pulls it off better than the sedan’s blobby one.
True, chances are the car pictured above wouldn’t be in first-car-for-a-kid territory now, but it looks like how most of them did in the early ’80s when they were.
The 307 seems to have a weaker reputation compared to its predecessor the 283……Why Chevy held on to the two speed powerglide as a primary transmission option is beyond me…..My Dad had a 65 Impala 283 with a 3 speed manual and the 283 seemed to do fine with that trans….I believe that the 283 was also available with a 4 speed which would help it even more….More gears to help keep the engine spinning in its powerband.
The 307 was a dog really. By the time it was discontinued in 1974 in the Chevelle lineup it was making 110 net hp, the 1976 305 made a net 145hp using largely the same engine, save the 350 crank, and the smaller bore.
Mom and Dad had a 69 with a 307 and I think a TH350, it may have been a PG car, but I know it was an automatic, and a 76 Malibu Classic with the 305 and TH350. that heavier and longer 76 could run circles around the 69 in performance, and mileage, and handling. the only thing the 69 had in spades that the 76 didn’t have, was the drop dead looks. Dad said the 69 always got 13mpg no matter how fast your drove it, and the 76 could get 22.
And yes to this day I give dad grief for GIVING away the 69 when I was 8 years old. I got the 76 instead for my first car.
I’ve always liked this generation Chevelle/Malibu. My favourite years for this car are 1970 and 71.
As implied by GN above, I think another reason “there are more red SS454’s nowadays than Plain-Jane Malibus” is that many of them started life as their lower profile brethren.
Don’t be so hard on the 307. I had one in my 71 Nova with a 3 spd stick. Even tho it was a 283 with a 327 crank it did the job. Plenty of torque and durable as hell. Had it 12 yrs and never had to take even the valve covers off.
High school often is our first taste of the compromise known as “perception vs. reality”.
This generation of Chevelle was my favorite car when these were new and I was in high school. ’68, ’69, or ’70, I loved all 3 years. For me the bloom was off the rose for GM starting in ’71.
Though this is no longer a car that really interests me, I’d be hard pressed to turn down an unmolested Malibu coupe from ’68-’70.
I love these cars. Full stop. I love the canted front end, I love the C pillar. I love these in faux SS454 configuration, I love these as straight sixes with three on the tree. When I was a teenager and trew cars incessantly, this is what I drew most often. I will always have a soft spot in my heart for these, and I am especially thrilled to see photographs of this rough example, a Malibu, surviving to today.
I always thought these were just o.k., sort of the pretty little sister to those tough looking Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles.
These were never favorites. I preferred the more angular Mopars and Fords. But Chevy was king then and sold a ton of these.
I also agree with most here that the 68 has the weakest styling of the batch.
As far as looks, I thought the ’68 looked a lot like the Nova.
I’ll probably get reamed for saying this but I don’t mind SS clones. Investors have so overinflated the values on actual Muscle cars you hardly ever see the real deal outside car museums these days. Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing them like this, that’s why I come here, but if someone is enjoying their car, whether by keeping it patinad, modifying it, or making a clone out of it, more power to them. I think it’s pretty pointless to criticize unless I’d be willing to buy the car from them to “save it”.
I’ll also echo that 68 is my least favorite. If I had this car I’d make it a 1969 clone lol
Friend had a 100% stock ’68 SS 396 325 HP automatic. It was pretty basically equipped, bench seat, column shifter, PS, PB, AM radio, no AC. But did have black vinyl roof and power windows. Looked really sharp after a repaint and roof recover. In 1986 it only had about 60k miles on it. Was riding with him and he was looking at me and talking as we approached an intersection, we had the light but an approaching Asian woman in a Toyota was turning her head left and I yelled STOP! He slammed on the brakes and as she turned in front of us we missed her by about 3 feet. He was so happy that I helped him save his car he pulled over and told me to drive it and open her up. After we found a deserted straight country road as we approached 120 MPH he said I could slow down now if I wanted to. Nice car. He kept that car in beautiful condition as a weekend driver. The car was trouble free and well built, and I never knew drum brakes could stop so quickly until that close call day. It was a medium blue color with black interior, and the vinyl top actually looked pretty good on it, even though I’m generally not a vinyl roof fan.
Amazing how adding a small amount of adrenalin can greatly improve the performance of drum brakes. 😉
So true.
In the situation described, grabby as heck. But out on the highway, welcome to faaaaaade city!
In high school I drove both a 1968 Fury and 1969 F100 that both had four-wheel power-assist drum brakes. At slow speeds, the Fury could slam you right into the windshield if you accidently got on the brake pedal a bit too hard.
Most people don’t adjust their drum brakes properly. It needs to have some drag to not be grabby.
I had a ’68. Light gold two-door HT, black knit bench seat, 275 hp 327 4 spd posi. Manual steering, manual drum brakes. It was sold new by the “Nickey” dealership. I paid $800 in 1972 – could have paid cash but took out a year loan because my future MIL kept harping about “building a credit rating.” Drove it for four years, sold it to a coworker for a couple hundred. Its engine went on to power a stock car at Raceway/Elko. It was dead reliable and got crap mileage. Between the clutch, steering and brakes driving it was like going to the gym. Also – for all the handwringing about drum brakes, it stopped just fine. Steve
I had a base model 1969 Malibu 700 four door sedan , it’s was *so* cheap it squeaked but i loved it and ran it very hard for a decade or so .
Slip ‘N Slide Powerglide slushbox and an old 250 i6 ~ no power nothing , manual drum brakes , no radio .
It had been a Sacramento , Ca. Detectives car when new .
I still miss it and we sold it 25 years ago , it never gave me any trouble and drove fine, was reliable, roomy for my Family and well built .
I’d love a Coupe like this one pictured .
-Nate
My younger brother had one of these, same light blue and 307/PG combo, minus the Centerlines. It was not a high school car but an ultra dependable cheap long distance commuter. Build quality is criticized here, but that applies to body/interior fit and finish. 1960’s Chevies may not have been the top in every category, but powertrain, electrical, a/c, all the essentials, were bulletproof when used as intended.
I’ll take that Malibu. Well, I’d take it if it had a 250/Powerglide and I’d love it!
Our neighbors had a 1968 Malibu SS bought brand-new. I always thought that the first year of this generation was the best-looking. It was a very sleek, handsome design. The 1970 models were an attempt to make it look more formal, but that effort worked better with the single headlight fronts of the 1971 and 1972 models. The last two years of this body style also had the four taillights/back-up lights set into the bumper, which was a nice touch.
It’s amusing to read that buyers complained about visibility problems or lack of headroom. They could have visited a Chrysler-Plymouth or Dodge dealer, and bought a 1968 Mopar intermediate, which featured more upright, practical styling – particular on the sedans and wagons. But, they didn’t. I wouldn’t be surprised if sales of the Chevrolet intermediates beat the combined totals of the Plymouth and Dodge intermediates in 1968.
Hate to sound like a broken record but the color of that sky is just amazing…
heres mine with centerlines…
At the time, I had no recognition of these being the same body as the Cutlass or the Skylark. Maybe it was because the people who drove them tended to be the femenine gender, and had jobs where they would never have been able to afford an Olds or Buick. Apart from being all GM cars, that was where the similarity ended for me. These Chevvies were very milquetoast to my eyes. I much preferred the 1966 Chevelle to these.
I’ve owned a 1970 Malibu convertible for 34 years. Bought it in LA and drove it cross country with my wife. 350 w a TH350. Power windows. Red w a white interior. I’ll never sell it. Still love my wife too.
Getting out of the Air Force in mid 1968 and in Kansas City, MO, I bought the EXACT car brand new. Same light blue, 307, auto trans. I had a girlfriend there and we got married in Nov of that year in North Kansas City. That was our honeymoon car as we spent that event at the Lake of the Ozarks.
Lots of memories with that blue Malibu.
Car is long gone and so is the ex wife.
Per Google StreetView, as of 2019 this Chevelle is still there, but now covered. I grew up on this street in San Mateo and immediately recognized the houses in Paul’s original post.
I’ll be the contrarian guy; I loved these ’68s in all body styles, including the El Camino, and loved the 307 particularly.
That style of front side-marker light, with the “307” badge, is still magical. (Actually I have a couple of the same in the garage from an ancient parts car. I should do something with them. I had a couple of 327 badges as well, but gave them to a Chevy-nut friend.)
(In my opinion) the 307 is greatly underrated – it was no less than a 283 block (with a bore of 3.875″) with a 327 crank (with a stroke of 3.250″) – the love child of two small-block legends.
I admit, it was likely a bit overtaxed in my ’68 Impala, but it was old and tired by the time I got the car. Might have been quite adequate when new. It was also hooked to a Powerglide – a TH would have helped.
And it was quite thirsty, greatly for oil and somewhat less for gasoline, but again, would have been a lot better when new. (OK, so maybe it wasn’t a great engine, but it got better mileage and was way peppier than the 250 in my previous car, a Biscayne.)
But in any case, I bet the 307 moved the lighter Malibu/Chevelle along quite nicely.
Bonus: With a similar displacement but a larger bore (3.875″ vs. 3.736″), the 307 was theoretically higher-revving than the later 305.