(first posted 6/10/2014) A buddy of mine frequently says, “Real Chevelles have four round headlights.” Of course, he’s making reference to the fact that the sixties-era Chevelles packed big horsepower behind their multi-headlamp grilles, while in 1971 the Chevelle went to both dual headlights and low compression engines (designed to work with the newly mandated lead-free gasoline).
Looking at this head-on shot, you can also see that a four-eyed Chevelle brought a tough looking, sporty attitude to the table. Designers hoped this front clip would strike fear in the hearts of other drivers who, cowering in fear, would pull over anytime they spotted this visage in their rear view mirror. However, the designers also had to mount this front clip on all Chevy intermediates in 1969, and such a ferocious prow did not always matchup to the rest of the car.
The four door models provided a noticeable step down in aggressiveness, but the wagon bodies really emphasized the disconnect between sport and practicality. This shot emphasizes the difference in attitude from front to rear: The front fenders arrow forward, and include a character line that emphasizes this cutting profile, while the rear fenders carry the rear door kick up back to the tailgate, creating a fat butt constantly dragging down those spear shaped front fenders.
Someone has been working on our wagon–the hood and fenders have been painted, and I’m betting that dual power bulge hood came off another car. As part of the project, the owner must have removed the model badges, since there are no badges on the front or rear fenders.
That’s too bad, since I’d like to know the trim level. Chevy offered three wagon trims in 1969: Nomad, Greenbrier, and Concours. They also started offering a two way tailgate that year. A-body wagons with the two-way tailgate included a cut line on the passenger side of the bumper to accommodate the two-way function. Since our featured car is missing the cut line, it’s either a Nomad or a Greenbrier.
The two-way tailgate came standard on the top of the line Concours, so it’s out of contention. Based on the body-colored window trim combined with the manual window crank, I’m thinking this bad boy is the base model Nomad. Still, sixties era mid-trim wagons didn’t automatically get lots of brightwork, so it could be a Greenbrier. The front fenders both include an engine displacement callout (which I can’t read), so I doubt a straight six graces the engine bay, making the Greenbrier trim that much more likely.
Given the cachet of the Nomad name when Chevy assigned it on their top-of-the-line (two door) wagons from 1955 through ’57, it’s odd to think the nameplate graced the flanks of a base wagon just twelve years later, but that’s exactly how it went. Paul posted a review of this nameplate debasement a few years ago in this Curbside Capsule.
You may have noticed the alloy wheels on the other side–this side has one alloy and one styled steel wheel. I’m sure this car came from the factory with wheel covers (or dog dish center caps), so the owner rustled up these wheels to go with the power bulge hood. This wagon may end up looking pretty good at the end of its current restoration journey.
If I were to guess, I’d say those alloy wheels came off a mid-eighties Pontiac. These wheels were mounted on early third-generation F-bodies, and the 1986 Bonneville and Parisienne. The ones on the wagon not as shiny as this example, but the curvature of the fins and total fin count appear to match.
I started this post by discussing how the aggressive front clip of this car does not match up to the prosaic wagon body. However, I do like the body of this car. Even given its rough finish, the section with blue paint emphasizes the good lines of the A-body wagon.
I don’t care much for the four door version of this series, and the cut line of back door highlights my point. However, adding the wagon roofline and back glass helps to hide that sin, and results in a very attractive body. All it really needs is a front clip that matches the rest of the body.
To make my point, here’s an image from Jim Klein’s Car of a Lifetime post. In 1971, Chevy abandoned that aggressive four headlight front clip, and went over to this more formal, almost Monte Carlo-looking clip. While the ’71 coupe lost some its aggressive appeal, I think the looks of the four door and wagon both improved. In addition, Chevy wanted to move coupe buyers into the higher-margin Monte Carlo, so they no longer needed a flashy coupe. I’m sure that made this new clip the obvious choice.
So let’s wrap this segment up with a question: how do you fix an aggressive clip on a big butt wagon? I think the solution calls for a muscle car makeover. But not just shiny paint and torque thrust wheels. To really motivate that four-eyed set of fenders, let’s reach into the box full of big blocks, and mount a 396 or 454 between those frame rails. That big torque motivation is exactly the formula required to build a righteous ’69 wagon!
Last year for the four-headlight Chevelle was 1970, the change was made for model year ’71 rather than ’72 as you claim.
Definitely looks better with 4 headlights,very Vauxhall/Opel it reminds me of an FD Victor wagon from some angles.I prefer the Olds Vista cruiser and Buick Sprtswagon to Chevelle wagons but wouldn’t say no to a nice straight Chevelle wagon if the price was right
I think I’d rather have the FD wagon in 3.3 4speed trim but Chevelles are probably easier to find.
I saw this one on Chevelle magazine, this illustration made by Keith Kaucher, about how the Nomad of the 1968-72 Chevelle era, should had been done by using the El Camino body.
They only made nomads in 55,56,57 I thought . This is not a nomad but it’s mine. It’s just a 210
The name lived on for four more years after 1957. The Nomad of 1958 was the conventional four-door, six-passenger wagon version of the Bel-Air; the 1959-1961 Nomads were all four-door wagon versions of the Impala. In 1962 the wagons all became known by the same names as their sedan counterparts. (As an eight-year-old in the fall of 1961, I noticed this change!)
I like it .
I used to have a Malibu 700 Series four door sedan , ex Sacramento P.D. Metro car , 230 CID I6 and Slip ‘N Slide Powerglide tranny , that old thing did Yeoman Duty for a decade and never hiccuped .
Nice cars those Malibus and Chevelles were .
Most do not understand that the line was Malibu and Chevelle was a trim line .
-Nate
Other way around. Cars were titled “Chevrolet Chevelle.” Malibu was a trim level til the downsized 78 models. For 1970, Chevrolet dropped the low spec 300 Deluxe in the US, then brought out a plain “Chevelle” in the spring without a trim subname.
I realize that I am (and have always been in the minority) but I have just never been a fan of the 68-69 GM A body cars. I love the style of the 64-67 A bodies, and rather like selected models of the 70-72 versions (like the Cutlass Supreme). Can;t put my finger on it, but the whole series left me flat from the very beginning.
As you say, the wagon body style goes particularly poorly with the cars concept and lines. To me, the boxier Mopars of those years are some of the most attractive midsize wagons ever, and even the Fairlane/Torino (including the one with the swoopy 70-71 front end) made for a good looker.
What’s your take on the 73-77s?
Mixed. I love a couple of them, hate a couple of them, and am ambivalent about most of the rest.
I would agree with all your points here. Particularly regarding the ’68-’69 A bodies. As an Olds fan, it pains me to say the Olds versions were probably the worst.
Ranking best to worst: Pontiac, Buick, Chevy, Olds.
Still, if you handed me a Cutlass convertible in blue with a white top, I wouldn’t object!
Not in the minority in my house. IMO, the ’66-’67 A bodies were, along with the ’65 Corvair, GM’s best full-line designs of the 60’s.
As for the ’68-’72’s, I forgot, or wilfuly put out of my mind, how chunky the sedan versions appeared. It’s no surprise Chrysler over-indexed on mid size sales in this era. Their cars looked, and performed best of the Big 3.
If only they’d bought the bullet and brought out a mid-sized Chrysler in ’65, and a 4-door hardtop across the board. They would have been a year ahead of GM, and they already had the tooling. What price Chrysler Saratoga? Or Coronado.
I agree that the four-headlight front is much, much more attractive. And I agree with most fans when they say the cars were designed as coupes from the beginning. But–and I also realize I’m very much in the minority–I’ve always liked the four-door varieties. I’m a big fan of four-door hardtops ordinarily, but when it comes to the ’68-’72 As, I really like the pillared sedans as well as the wagons.
They have a chunkiness I really like; most people say it’s rather flabby looking, but to me, it’s more hulking. It looks good stock, but the four-doors As are one of the few cars I like with a hot rod stance. So, chalk up two 68-72 A body exceptions to my styling preferences: pillared sedans and a tolerance of hot rod stances. Actually, ONLY the four-door hardtop since its squared off green house doesn’t really work with the hippy, chunky look.
I think this generation A-body really epitomizes the muscle-car era for me. The cars just have an thick, aggressive, athletic look. The earlier A-bodies are obviously more elegant and their successors, very clearly flabby, but these strike a good balance. Especially compared to big-three competition which, while attractive, followed an earlier, leaner styling ethos.
I agree. My conservative father bought a four-door Buick Skylark in 1971 (in I believe the Silver Mist color), and that car had a lot of attitude, and a Buick 350 to back it up!
The four door hardtop body works quite well on the ’69 Cutlass imo!
A friend of mine bought a four door 1969 Cutlass, and I immediately thought – why didn’t he get a two door model? I didn’t even know that they made four door models of these things? I thought it completely out of place. I was glad to see him get rid of it. The two door was much more fitting for these.
Interestingly, I had one of those from 1973. My dad liked the ’71 Skylark so much, he bought me a brown ’69 Cutlass 4 – door, also with the 350. I didn’t mind the 4 doors, and my friends (other than those with muscle cars) thought me pretty lucky, as did I!
Swell looking wagon all around and not sure why Chevy designed the beltline with an upkick, but it looks best on the wagon and coupe. It is good the rear of the wagon is the way it is because a swoopy roofline kills cargo capacity and the trailer hitch is handy, but the driver seriously needs at least one sideview mirror. These photos also do a good job of showing off California’s unique plate fonts.
Always liked the ’69 front end, the black grille gives it some aggressiveness missing from the dull grey ’68 grille. And I have to also disagree about the 4 doors, I think they’re among the most attractive 4 doors built. Especially the 4 door hardtops:
The rarest of the 1968-72 GM mid-size hardtop sedans would be a 1971-72 LeMans with the GTO Endura front end
http://www.stationwagonforums.com/forums/showpost.php?s=4510d5a7eacc8fcaa3694fc751ca9eb1&p=197028&postcount=5
http://www.monkking64gto.com/gto71.html
http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/features/hppp_1005_1969_pontiac_firebird_1970_pontiac_lemans/
The 4 door hardtop solves the sins of the 4 door sedans. A shame they were rather rare. Great looking car, perfect colors.
Thank you for the compliment. We have loved and owned this car for 15 years and take it to car shows regularly in the Willamette Valley, Oregon.
We get many compliments on the vehicle. Most all of it is original, repainted once the original Dusk Blue. Interior is also original as well as the carpet. We can’t ever find another one like it.
Car show in Jordan Oredon 27 Sept 2015
This is like mine which had the Concours option with a 307. Sold in 2013.
Ever seen the movie version of hitchikers’ guide to the galaxy?
I think computer keyboards should come equipped with a Vogon face-smacker device so that whenever someone types:
“Real _____ have _____”
or
“If you don’t ____ then you just don’t get it”
Then the face smacker thing would pop up and give you one. How can you not like a 71 Chevelle? It looks perfectly fine with two headlights.
Obviously you’re friend just doesn’t get.. WHAP!! OWWW!!!
Love those wagons. Personal memories of this model. Prob more straight six or 307 with PG than anything else.
Author infers that this 1969 front end was ‘all new’ and meant only for the SS coupes, but was really a slight revision from 1968. Was not as if Bill Mitchell whipped it up from thin air and slapped it on the wagons/sedans.
Know your history. The 1968 GM A body coupes has shorter wheelbases then 64-67, and were meant to compete in the heady supercar/youth market.
First thing that came to mind
http://www.imcdb.org/i001152.jpg
What movie is this from?
The first karate kid movie
Just pop the clutch!
The striping is less aggressive than the SS396 themed wagon shown here, but I would seriously like to spend a few hours driving this Chevelle wagon:“Yen-tow”
You can chalk me up as a solid fan of the muscle car/ wagon hybrid trend that seems to be popular now. Whats NOT to like, I mean really? More useful than a coupe and arguably just as much of a head turner. It doesn’t really ‘give up’ style points compared to the coupe as opposed to being something different. Certainly spanks an equivalent sedan for utility and makes a much firmer line in the sand as far as curb appeal. Going muscle on a sedan makes it look like you got stuck with a 4 door and/or just don’t know any better. Going muscle with a wagon is a solid love it or hate it move and the owner damn well knows what he/she is going for.
Im a bit torn on the 4 eye vs 2 eye look on these. On one hand, my knee jerk reaction is ‘make it as aggressive looking as possible’ and I gravitate towards the 4 eye version on that level. On the other hand, the 2 eye look does just ‘flow’ better. Either way, out of the last 2 pics, that pins down the EXACT way I would rock one of these wagons. Blue is my favorite color and I love rally stripes. Both cars are rocking coke bottle mags. But that green one just looks spot on, to my eye.
You nailed it; especially as to how a muscle treatment on a sedan fails, while the same treatment on a wagon makes a statement.
I’ll disagree on the last two photos, though – make mine the ’69!
Having grown up in that era, I got used to seeing that attractive nose on all the ’69 Chevelles so I don’t share the sentiment…although I understand it.
With all that said I was never a big fan of the 4-doors except for the wagons. I’ll take mine just like the last photograph, with an LS2 and 6L80E if you please.
In high school a kid had a 68 wagon in a nice looking metallic bronze with chrome cragars and wide raised letter tires and duals. It looked better in the flesh then they seem to appear in pictures. I always thought it was kind of sporty looking.
Your argument is invalid :p
Hey! That’s my 1969 Chevelle parked, with the front fenders and hood painted. Still working on her, but thanks for the comments.
NJL, it’s been 5 years, how goes the Chevelle?
I still like the half primered car the best of all those maybe a set of wide black rims to finish it off and call it done.
I’m surprised to notice that the wagons actually had a different rear door than the 4-door sedans. I’ve literally been looking at these cars for 50 years and never noticed that. Seems extravagant.
The “cure” for imbalance proposed in the 2014 article, namely, using the pictured green ’71 wagon front, actually was sort of a factory patch.
That fender fits wagon and El Camino only, it “morphs” front-to-rear and is different than the rest of the Chevelle line. The lighting arrangement at the front too, though it appears similar, it is not physically interchangeable with the other ’71 cars.
I think this just follows the old saw about “You can sell a young man’s car to an old man, but you can’t sell an old man’s car to a young man.”
Dad would sure like to own and drive an SS396 convertible, but his wife and 4 kids say otherwise. But if he checks the right boxes he can get a 396 in his wagon, squint a little, and be a young bachelor in his head.
And Grandpa doesn’t give a hoot. He’ll happily toot around town in his straight-6/Powerglide Malibu sedan.
Saw once online [maybe here?] a young car fan post a pic of a Chevelle wagon and claimed it was a “custom car”. Was shocked to find out there were actual factory Chevelle sedans and wagons. {Some still think that.} The 4 door versions were 116″ wb, by the way, so that is why they look “bulky”.
Back then, 2 doors were the ‘bread & butter’, with 4 doors as ‘family cars’. Situation reversed later, with sedans designed first, with 2 door versions as ‘afterthoughts’ or dropped.