If you’re in the market for a midsize car today, you have plenty of choices–providing you want a four-door bar of soap. Oh sure, there are several nameplates from which to choose–Camry, Impala, Fusion and Optima, to name a few–and they all come in the same flavor of bland competency. Where’s the flair, man? Once upon a time, before regulations trumped style, a buyer could get virtually whatever their heart desired, right down to colors, options–and yes, Virginia, even a body style other than a family-friendly four-door sedan. Want an aqua F-85 Cutlass convertible with a white interior, V8 and four-speed? Done! How about a red Lark Wagonaire with a red interior, 350 McKinnon (nee GM) V8, and automatic? No problem! Yes sir, you could have those cars and everything in between–in 1965. So let’s set the way-back machine to that classic year and check out the current midsize fare. Maybe we’ll even pick something out!
The Chevrolet Chevelle was in its second year of existence, and sales were going gangbusters. For folks who’d tired of the middle-aged spread of Chevy’s full-sizers, the Chevelle (and flossier Malibu) provided a breath of fresh air. Its tidy package, as has often been noted, was dimensionally close to the iCar 1955-57 Chevrolet.
If you bought a Chevrolet in the 1960s, you really couldn’t go wrong. They were well-built, had stout mechanicals, and there was a friendly Chevrolet dealer in almost every burg you’d care to pass through. Many buyers agreed, and snapped up over 31,000 Chevelle 300s, 37,500 Chevelle/Malibu wagons, 41,000 300 Deluxes, and 152,200 Malibus in 1965.
The next step up the ’65 GM mid-size ladder was Pontiac’s Tempest/LeMans series. While the Chevelle was handsome yet conservative, the Poncho was a knockout. Stacked headlamps, smooth, Coke-bottle flanks and Pontiac’s hail-fellow-well-met reputation were all good reasons to splurge a little for a Pontiac. And who doesn’t love the Van and Fitz brochure artwork?
Oh, it would be so easy to pick out a GTO hardtop or convertible, wouldn’t it? But believe it or not, the GTO was not the only mid-size Pontiac, though you could be forgiven that when attending today’s car shows and cruise-ins. Yes, there were two doors, four doors, hardtops and wagons aplenty, in Tempest, Tempest Custom, and LeMans flavors. And, of course, the GTO. When the model year closed out, 39,525 Tempests, 84,653 Tempest Customs, 107,553 LeMans, and 75,352 GTOs found happy new owners.
Less seen these days than the Malibu and LeMans, the Oldsmobile F-85 and Cutlass were nonetheless handsome, well-made cars. Just as stepping from a Chevy to a Pontiac got you more appointments and special touches, moving from the Poncho to the Olds also bumped you to a nicer car. Oldsmobile was a great car in the ’60s, though somewhat under the radar when compared to its brassier Buick and Cadillac sisters. To those in the know, however, the Olds was a fine car and a great value. The F-85 and Cutlass were no exceptions.
As with the GTO, Olds’ sporty 442 model debuted the year before, in 1964. Though not (yet) as well-known as a hot car, the 442 did get a bit more noticeable from its F-85 siblings in 1965, with optional red-stripe tires and a simulated brake duct with 442 emblem, as seen in the lower right of the picture above. By 1968, the 442 would be right up there in popularity with its Chevelle SS396, GTO, and Buick GS corporate cousins. And I don’t even need to mention the success of the Cutlass nameplate during the next twenty years, do I?
And how could I not mention the unforgettable Vista Cruiser, now in its second year? The stretched-wheelbase F-85 wagon replaced the big Olds wagon in the lineup until the Custom Cruiser debuted in 1971. The Vista Cruiser itself lasted through 1972 with that cool roofline, to be replaced with a less palatable pop-up sunroof in 1973 Colonnade wagon guise. Of course, you could get a regular wheelbase, non-Vista-windowed F-85 wagon too. But why would you want to? Of the F-85, F-85 Deluxe and Cutlass trims, the Cutlass reigned supreme in the sales charts, with 85,207 built. F-85 and F-85 Deluxe production was 24,969 and 69,921, respectively. Vista Cruiser was the most popular wagon too, with 31,985 made.
The top of the heap in GM intermediates was Buick’s Special and Skylark. Introduced in 1961 as a “senior compact” along with the Tempest and F-85, all had graduated to mid-size status in 1964. Specials came standard with something unusual in a 1965 U.S. car: a 225 CID V6 engine with 155 hp, breathing through a two-barrel Rochester carb. Of course, if Buick buyers in Minneapolis, Omaha and elsewhere were thrown by the idea of a V6, a 300 CID V8 with 210 hp could be fitted instead.
The mid-size Buick came in three flavors: Special, Special Deluxe and Skylark. I don’t know why, but the Special Deluxe moniker always makes me think of store-brand coffee. Anyway, the Skylark did well, actually outselling the F-85, with 53,469 Specials, 47,436 Special Deluxes, and 104,532 Skylarks made. Not bad, when you consider that a Buick intermediate sold for approximately $300 over an equivalent Chevelle Malibu. $300 was not chump change in 1965.
The Buick version of the Vista Cruiser, the Sportwagon, also did well, with 28,356 built. I have a hard time deciding whether I like the Olds or the Buick wagon better. I guess I have to give the edge to the Olds, though the Buick is quite handsome too.
Moving away from 800-pound gorilla GM, let’s see what FoMoCo has on offer. The 1965 full-size Ford was a sharp car, but that’s outside our purview for today, so the Fairlane is it from the Blue Oval. As you can see, Ford stylists tried to take the sharp ’64 Fairlane and add ’65 Galaxie styling cues to it. The result is rather blocky, and while it is inoffensive, the resulting look is a bit bland.
It works better on the station wagon, though I don’t think you could get those wheels and tires in 1965. I had to fall back on my car show library for the ’65 Fairlane, as its brochure was not in oldcarbrochures.com, believe it or not. Ford’s mid-sizer was available in Fairlane and Fairlane 500 versions; 52,974 base versions and 170,980 500s came off the line before the year was out. This was the last year of the “original” Fairlane; in 1966, an all-new Fairlane line would debut. Like the 1964 GM A-bodies, they would be bigger and better than before.
If you wanted a Ford product but desired a bit more finesse in styling after looking at the Fairlane’s blocky visage, your only choice was the Mercury Comet. Yes, it was still strictly a compact in 1965, but I’m including it here because having the Fairlane as the sole FoMoCo entry was just too depressing against GM’s mid-size A-body juggernaut. Although the side sculpturing of the ’65 was a little busy, the stacked quad headlights and simple horizontal grille were handsome indeed. And for you sporty types, you could get a Comet Cyclone hardtop with 200-hp, 289 CID V8, four speed, extra gauges on top of the dash, and wheel covers with the look of reverse chromed wheels. All in all, a nice ride.
For the more buttoned-down set, a Comet Caliente sedan could be just the ticket. 1965 Comets came in base Comet 202, Comet 404, high-line Caliente, and sporty Cyclone variants. Of course, a Villager wagon with Di-Noc woodgrain siding was available too, though quite rare with only 1,592 sold. 165,052 Comets saw the light of day for 1965.
And now we come to venerable Rambler. Rambler came out with an all-new Classic in 1963, but by 1965 it was time for a major facelift. You can still see the ’63 in the roofline, but all in all the ’65 had the appearance of an all-new car. The rear deck was extended by several inches for a much more capacious trunk, and lines were generally more squared-off, in the fashion of the times.
The 770 series and sporty 770H hardtop were the top of the line. The 660 was the bread-and-butter model, with the 550 being the skinflint/frugal person’s choice. Five different body styles were offered, including a new convertible in the 770 series.
The convertible was particularly handsome, and when equipped with the premium-only 327 CID, 250-hp V8, quite speedy. Sadly, only 4,953 770 cabs were made. For the more frugal set, a 126-hp 199 CID Six was standard in the 550, with a 145-hp 232 Six standard in all other Classics. A 287 CID, 198-hp V8 was also available, and did not require premium fuel.
Yes, the 1965 Classic was a nice car, but GM had been eating Rambler’s (and Studebaker’s) lunch since the 1961 debut of the Tempest, F-85 and Special. Though as a whole Rambler didn’t have a bad year, it wasn’t as good as expected, considering the huge expenditure in new styling for not only the Classic, but the Ambassador, now wearing distinctive front sheetmetal and riding a newly stretched wheelbase.
When all was said and done, 51,350 550s, 87,643 660s and 64,663 770s (including 5,706 770H hardtops) were made. Rambler made money for the year, but when you compared 1965 calendar year sales of 346,367 against 393,863 for the year prior, you could tell that there could be trouble ahead. In fact, the 1965 Classic would be the next-to-last last new mid-size Rambler, as the refreshed 1967 model essentially lasted all the way to 1978 as the AMC Matador.
Of course, I have to mention the Marlin, which was basically a Classic with a bizarre kind-of-fastback (humpback?) roofline. It debuted in February 1965 as a mid-year addition. There’s a reason this vintage ad shows it from the back and at an extreme three-quarter view. In side view, this car was, to be kind, awkward. Engine options were about the same as the Classic, as you’d expect. This car did not find many takers, with only 10,327 built in its short model year.
Ah, Studebaker. By 1965 I suppose most people outside of Indiana (and Hamilton, Ontario) didn’t know that Studebakers were still made, albeit in Canada. Yes, the ’65 Studeys were imports, powered by McKinnon Chevy Sixes and V8s. The Avanti, Lark hardtop, Lark convertible and GT Hawk were all sadly departed, but you could still get a Daytona Sports Sedan or Wagonaire. Commander two- and four-door sedans, a Commander Wagonaire, and and top-trim Cruiser sedan rounded out the line. Daytonas were available only with the 283 CID, 195-hp V8, while Commanders and Cruisers came standard with a 194 CID, 120-hp Six. And yes, I suppose these were more compact than mid-size, but I have to do my part to spread the Studebaker love!
It was a sad ending for what could have been. Studebaker was at times its own worst enemy, and in 1965 it was more true than ever. After automotive division champion Sherwood Egbert was forced to retire, the remaining Studebaker board summarily wiped out the auto division shortly after the 1966 models’ production began. 1965 Studebaker production was predictably minor, with only 10,699 made. The most popular model was the Commander four-door sedan, with 4,344 produced.
Dodge got a default mid-size in 1965, as a clean-sheet, “real” full-size 1965 Dodge replaced the 1962-64 “shrunken” Dodges. So what did Chrysler do with the old model? Why, they simply facelifted it and reintroduced it as the “new” midsize Coronet! Actually, it was a no-brainer, as the 1962-vintage platform was the perfect size for an intermediate. Coronets came in base Coronet, mid-line 440 and fancier V8-only 500 trim, with the usual assortment of coupes, sedans, hardtops, wagons, and a convertible.
And I would be remiss not to mention Paul’s personal mid-size family truckster: the 1965 Coronet wagon his dad bought new. He coulda had a Town & Country…
1965 Coronets sold decently, with about 63,100 Coronets, 37,500 440s and 33,300 500s made.
If your Mopar love (JPC I’m looking at you) ran more to Plymouth than uppity middle-class Dodge, you had your pick of Belvederes: Everything from a red Satellite convertible with bucket seats and V8 to a pea-green, Slant Six four-door sedan that your Great Aunt Sissy would just love.
In 1965, Chrysler was pulling itself out of the hole it had dug with the 1957 models, and all of their ’65 wares, from Valiant to Imperial, were pretty solid cars. The Satellite was especially attractive in hardtop form, as shown in this pristine gold survivor I spotted at the Cambridge, IL car show last summer.
I especially like the shadow box upholstery treatment, with the Plymouth “frog’s legs” emblem embossed in the center. This was a quality car. Shame that Plymouth, and pretty much all the other U.S. manufacturers, would lose the plot while mired in wave after wave of safety and fuel economy regulations that would appear during the next 10-15 years.
As you can see, the Belvedere and Coronet had quite a bit in common, though that wasn’t all bad, especially in the hardtops, with that cool reverse-angle C-pillar. Somehow I prefer the Plymouth to the Dodge. It just looks cooler to me. Belvederes came in Belvedere I, Belvedere II and Satellite trim levels. All told, 159,335 Belvederes and Satellites of all types came off the line in ’65.
So now we’ve come to the end of the lineup. Lots of tempting choices, eh? It would be easy to pick a LeMans convertible or Skylark hardtop, but I have to go with the road less traveled. I’ve always admired the 1965-66 Rambler/AMC Classic, and I will have to go with one of the “Sensible Spectaculars.” Give me an aqua 770 hardtop with either an aqua or white vinyl interior, automatic, and the 287 CID V8 (don’t want the 327, as it takes premium). What would you pick?
(Studebaker brochure images are from lov2xlr8.no)
A Satellite. While I’m challenged to articulate why, it just is. Maybe it just appears the most fresh to me and it isn’t a GM.
Second, if the Plymouth dealer were out of stock, would be a Pontiac Tempest. While this is a GM, it is my favorite of them. The Buick and Olds versions are good also; the Chevelle is ho-hum for me.
Again, no particular reason, it just is. Kinda like what brand of other things we use; we just do.
Wow, Laurence. So many choices. An embarrassment of riches, really. Of the GM cars, the Pontiac and Olds are the only ones in the running. A GTO with a 389 and 4 speed would have been quite a car, and the insurance industry had not yet spoiled the fun in 1965. If we are forced to be more practical, the Olds with a 4 bbl 330 was a very nice car as well, as I learned from personal experience with 8 years in our family’s 64.
I never understood how Buick had a smaller engine, and all of them saddled you with a crappy 2 speed automatic. So, other than a GTO or a Cutlass stick, we move on.
Ford – meh. I kind of like the Comet Caliente, and both were pretty good cars, but I think we can do better.
The Ramblers have just never lit my fuse. I still have an affection for Studebaker, and if you like the Chevy 283 but want a real 3 speed automatic, then the Stude was your car. But a Stude with a Chevy engine is just wrong, and I would think about the loss of 30 hp from the 4 bbl Stude 289 every day. Sadly I have to pass. Well, maybe I will test drive a Wagonaire.
You pegged me, Laurence. The Mopars had it all. Perfect size, full range of power options, best automatic tranny in the business (even if we must do without the pushbuttons this year). I agree – the Plymouth Satellite for the win. The front of the Dodge looks too much like an electric shaver. 2 door hardtop with a 383, buckets and a Torqueflite lever in the console. Maybe even a ragtop. Something with turquoise interior.
JP, I was the author, though I can understand why you thought it was Laurence 🙂
Ooops. I guess this will happen when a guy reads something before his full coffee ration for the morning.
I think there was a little confusion since I mentioned the all new full sizers from just about everyone for 1965 in the Corvair CCCOTY post. And I think would be an interesting counter point to this post, given that to varying degrees none of the Mid Sizers were “All New” for ’65, but all of the big cars, even the Ambassador to an extent, came to the showrooms pretty fresh for ’65.
Also, it was the last big year (only?) where sport, thrift and the emergence of the Brougham would intersect in an interesting way. There were still Galaxie XLs, Starfires and Monacos among the LTDs and Ninety Eight LS’s with dog dish Biscaynes and LeSabres at the same price point as a well equipped Mustang.
1965 is a bewildering point, and possibly the most fascinating year in the American Auto industry, if you want to think about the infinite choices people could make that year, and how very personal/personality driven an automobile purchase would have been that year.
Laurence! Salient point my friend! Gosh you’re missed…
It was the critical year. I like to think of 1964 as the last great year for American cars, but the turning point was definitely 1965. While many would say the LTD was the instigator, consider the Cadillac Calais as the real canary in the coal mine.
Up through ’64 Cadillac followed the pattern of its sister senior divisions, and Ford’s and Chrysler’s, too. The base line, be it Newport or LeSabre or Series 62 was a solid car and the volume leader. In contrast, base models of the low price three were strippers – Custom 300s, Biscaynes, Savoys.
But with the Calais, Cadillac enshrined the “premium” trim DeVille as the volume leader, and replaced the well-regarded Series 62 with a luxury stripper. The rot was on.
I kept pausing over the wagons in this list. Oh, how I love wagons. I’d have any of ’em, except the Stude. I feel really bad saying that, since I’m from South Bend, but any old car I’m gonna have needs to have wide parts availability and my independent mechanic needs to be able to get them.
Actually Jim, the Studebakers have more parts than even a later Corvette – when Studebaker closed the SB plant in 64, parts were in FULL production. Today over 500,000 square feet of NOS parts remain including interiors, blocks and more.
Being the cheapskate I am it would have to be a Chevelle 300 Deluxe.
If we are limiting ourselves to the car we would have actually bought in 1965, then for me it would have probably been something like a 52 buick 4 door sedan with about 80,000 miles on it, Going back 3 generations I don’t think my family has ever bought a brand new car- and I’m certainly not going to be the one who breaks the streak.
The aqua F-85 convertible would be my first pick, then a Dodge Coronet or Plymouth Belvedere. Love the convertibles, but I think a 2 door HT with the reverse roof pillar really makes the car.
Really amazing what has happened to the auto industry. No car made today has the pizzazz of those 1965 cars. Those 65 cars actually seduced you.
As someone else remarked, why can’t you get a car with contrasting seats? Why just monotony? Before the wife bought her new RAV-4, we looked at Camrys. One we saw was marroon with a hideous yellowish interior. It must have been some special order that someone didn’t buy. The rest of the cars were just the ho-hum the people have been conditioned to want.
The RAV is darker metallic blue with light silverish seats. She loves it. I’ll take an old car anytime.
Coronet 500 2-door HT please. Make mine silver with a black roof and red interior.
Count me as another vote for Oldsmobile. A fine looking car.
Any of the BOP 2-door hardtops would do me. Chevy doesn’t do it for me, but the truth is, all the GMs outclassed everything else in the mid-size field. Their engineering was more sophisticated, for one thing. Full frame and coil rear springs made them the most big-car like.Also, they had the others licked on option choices. The Fairlane was crude and flimsy by comparison, the Mopar simply crude.
The Rambler was an even bigger joke. Kingpins and a torque tube in 1965? Pulleez.
The finally dumped the torque tube for 1967, but those kingpins held fast until being ditched in 1970.
“Kingpins and a torque tube in 1965? Pulleez.”
I would add GM’s 2 speed automatics to this list. With a proper automatic like the THM, the Olds or Pontiac might tempt even me to stray from the Mopar tent.
One of the complaints voiced about the GM intermediates was the flexibility of their frames. The magazine Road Test tested a Pontiac GTO and asked whether paper clips were holding the frame together. The Mopars and Ford Fairlane used tighter unibody construction. The GM cars looked much nicer, however, and had better trimmed interiors.
I don’t recall our 64 Cutlass feeling particularly flexible. That sort of thing would surely show up during 8 years as a lot of rattles and squeaks, which we never experienced. I wonder if that observation was a side-effect the massive shot of extra torque from the 389? After all, that body/frame was engineered for a significantly lower power level. DeLorean had to sneak the 389 into the car as an “export” package to circumvent a corporate restriction on engine size in the A body.
The bigger engine may have been just a bit too much for the basic LeMans body and frame. I don’t recall reading that Pontiac upgraded the frame for the GTO option. Remember that the first Chevrolet Caprice featured the beefier convertible frame as standard equipment.
At any rate, I don’t recall contemporary reviewers complaining that either the Mopars or the Fairlane were especially flimsy, particularly given that both used unit-body construction.
The Fairlane’s main handicap is that looks dowdy next to not only the GM intermediates, but the Mopars as well. The Rambler Classic is also a better-balanced, fresher design than the Ford.
The Mopars were good-looking cars – I’ve always loved the Plymouth – but they just weren’t as stylish as the Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick offerings (yes, I excluded the Chevelle/Malibu on purpose).
What’s interesting is that both Ford and Chrysler were using a facelifted version of a body shell that had debuted for the 1962 model year. The 1965 facelift of the Mopars works (more so on the Plymouth than on the Dodge), but the Ford simply looks clunky and dated.
Buick did use the convertible frame for their late introduction Gran Sport, coupe or convertible. Better to handle the Wildcat 445 (401 cu in but called a 400 cu in to get past the bean counters and lawyers).
Pontiac offered a H-D frame option for GTO coupes and hardtops, basically the boxed-member unit from the convertibles, if I recall correctly.
I’ve noticed that, driving my friends ’71 Chevelle convertible. which isn’t terribly far removed from a ’65 GM A-body. Despite having a fully boxed frame, it has more cowl shake and general feeling of wet kleenex for structural integrity despite going through a complete restoration. Sometimes I wonder if the front of the car is connected to anything behind the firewall.
I wonder if the 4 doors are more solid than the two doors and we all know the convertibles are shakers.
My ’77 in comparison feels bank-vault solid, but it shares very little in the chassis department.
For 1965, my Father’s Oldsmobile was an F-85 Wagon bought at Val Preda’s in South Burlington, VT. We were in process of moving (from Catonsville MD to Burlington VT) and while staying in a motel in Catonsville, my father was hit by another car in his ’63 Rambler station wagon. We were staying with my Grandmother in MD and I remember her picking out pieces of glass from his skin (not sure when safety glass came in, I would have thought in ’63 even it would have had safety glass but I guess not). Rambler was totaled. I think my father rented a car for awhile (we might have even driven to VT in rental car), not sure why he didn’t buy another car in MD, but he may have not had enought time, he had to be at his new job probably on a certain date.
The F85 wagon was nice, we had it until 1969. I remember sitting in it with my sister while my parents were shopping (guess that was not unheard of in the ’60s) playing with the “disappearing” ashtray in the dash (it rotated 180 degrees and looked like a blank dash panel).
Also, the neighbor kid ended up scribbling on the inside of the tailgate with a magic marker. It had a power tailgate window, but everything else was manual. I think it had the 330 V8…I remember my father trying to pass someone probably on our way south on route 7 or 22a while I was laying (sleeping?) in the back cargo area during many of our trips. We even had a car-top camper (hard to describe, a “Camp O’Tel” rig that mounted on the rain gutters, had a ladder on side of car to climb up into it, and pull out bars to hold extensions (it slept 4 but was pretty cozy).
It got traded for a new ’69 Squire wagon in Luzurne PA, his first full-size wagon. I never drove the F-85, but I think it was a nice car, even though F-85 was famous Olds from the ’40’s, I don’t think they kept that name around much longer (maybe most of the buyers for this range of cars may not have remembered the ’40’s model by that time).
I think the 1940s Olds names you may be thinking of are either the Eighty Six or the B-44 from 1942. The 330 Rocket should have been quite adept at passing cars back then. My mother was always very happy with the “pickup” in our 64.
the 330’s had steel cranks in them which were incredibly tough. Oldsmophiles prefer them when souping up their 350s. Both are fine fine engines.
As a side note, Val Preda stayed in business as such until the mid ’80s, became Barview for a few years before being bought out by Shearer. The showroom sold Olds until the end and was Cadillac-Buick-GMC until about a year ago when they moved all of GM to the Chevy lot down the road and put VW at the old Val Preda location – I think they might have some ’70s-era GM signage in places like the service garage door…
While my preference would certainly be a fullsize Chrysler or Dodge, from this list my pick would be the Coronet 500 2-door hardtop, and nothing less than a 383 under the hood will do. EIther Bright Red, Ruby Red metallic or Gold paint. Undecided between the Torqueflite automatic or a 4-speed stick.
Yeah, it’d be a Newport or 300 ‘vert for me, followed by a Bullet-Bird ‘vert or a Riviera.
But an intermediate? Probably a Goat. If the Pontiac dealers were low on stock, a Cyclone (which looked remarkably similiar to the GTO for 1965) or Satellite would have been okay, too, but I’m not as partial to the Mercury (289 biggest engine) or Plymouth (instrument cluster/console not that great) for that year.
If it 1964, I’d have went with a Studebaker Daytona convertible.
Technically the “Bullet-Bird” styling of the Thunderbird was only the 3rd gen from 1961-63. The 4th gen T-birds, 1964-66, are referred to as “Flair-birds”.
Greetings from Idaho!
My preferred vehicle today should probably be a potato truck, but I’m going to go for the Studebaker of course.
65 is my favorite year for the Lark derivatives, because of the 283 option and I like the face on this better than the single headlight 66 redesign. Definately on my short list to own someday.
Other than that I don’t really have a lot of love for 65’s. Like the Fairlane, things were a bit blocky and staid.
I also have numerous 65 parts on my 63 VW, but that doesn’t count.
Keep in mind that the only reason the Fairlane is even there is because there are Ford owners who were too stodgy for the Mustang. Had to have something to sell to them.
No that was the reason they kept making the Falcon.
This is too easy.
Number one is the Chevelle, of course. 2 door sports coupe, please.
Number two is the AMC Marlin. Don’t ask.
Number three is the Coronet. Hardtop coupe. I absolutely LOVE that C pillar! Always wanted one, too.
Notice there are no Fords. That’s intentional because I liked none of them.
The Marlin was a failure, but an admirable one.
It’s OK Zackman, we all have our issues…..
Chevy, Chevy, Chevy, Chevy, Chevy. Anything else is crap. Of course this rather narrow view has something to do with this being the last model year that dad was the Chevrolet dealer. When a car is putting the food on the table, clothes on your back, and 45’s on your record player; it’s easy to see why nothing else was worthwhile for anything more than the scrap crusher.
I’d go with the Plymouth Satellite hardtop coupe first, followed by the Oldsmobile Cutlass Holiday coupe with the 442 option. Make mine either aqua or red.
Chrysler’s intermediate platform was a good one, and since it had been in production since the 1962 model year, the bugs had been worked out if it. Chrysler was still trying to erase the bad memories of the 1957-61 cars, and was thus working hard to produce a quality product in 1965.
The Olds is also very good looking, and, unlike Pontiac with the GTO, Oldsmobile took serious steps to improve handling with the 442 option. The 442-equipped cars may not have been drag-strip winners, but they were more well-rounded cars than their Pontiac cousins.
An odd one for me. Chevelle 300 2 Door Wagon. Optioned with everything you could get on one. Do not know why they only offered that beautiful design in the basic trim level. If could not stand the Austere accommodations of it would opt for the Vista Cruiser.
Because the sense of style back then didn’t find two door wagons particularly beautiful. Boomers were 16 year old kids back then, not 40+ somethings building up cars to relive the youth they never had. Used Nomads back then could still be bought unmodified, and without much of a price premium.
I thought you were about to say “Boomers were 16 year old kids back then, too broke to afford their own cars and too lanky to fold themselves into the back seats of a two-door anything…”
Easy — GM all the way, except for the Chevelle, which still looked too bland. (This would be remedied in 1966-67).
Add 5 years to my age at the time (13) and ready for college, I’d pick a LeMans 2-door hardtop first, love the stacked headlights and the coke-bottle profile. Add the 326 V8, 4-on-the-floor, and bucket seats, plus a nice color like turquoise, medium blue, or maybe even that one-year-only Evening Orchid. A white interior would be striking, but for practicality, I’d probably pick a color matching the exterior — don’t know what was paired with Evening Orchid.
For extra rigidity and rollover safety, I might pick the 2-door sedan (post coupe), if the options I listed above were available.
Studebaker Daytona pillarless HT (sports sedan or wagonaire would be acceptable if pillarless HT isn’t available), Chevrolet 283 (could I PLEEASE get fuel injection or a 4-bbl carburetor at least?) and a stick if available.
Nice article Tom.
I thought I knew until I looked at all the pics. Now all I can say is not the Rambler or Studebaker. As someone who graduated high school in 1965 my friends and I drooled over all these unattainable cars in the showrooms of our small town.
First choice: having owned a ’67 of that model (and loving it), in ’65 I’d have gone with the Plymouth Satellite hardtop coupe.
Second choice would be the Studie: Daytona or Wagonaire. Those were fairly handsome cars, in my view at least, and rare enough you wouldn’t see yourself coming and going when out on the road.
Third would a Buick Skylark 2-door. Gotta say, pretty much any of the two-doors in this group (except maybe the Rambler Classic and Marlin) are cars I wouldn’t mind being seen in.
I don’t find any of the ’65 Intermediate choices particularly attractive and my I have always based my vehicle desires upon aesthetics & “general subjective appeal”. I could really care less about safety, reliability, & conformity and no, it’s not just “to be different”.
With that said I’d go for the Marlin. Contenders would be the Cutlass & Skylark due to their styling (especially the Buick Taillight) but the dash layouts of these vehicles are disappointing.
The Marlin is just beautiful to me and the dash & console are just sublime. The instrument cluster, clock, & huge Marlin deco are so classy. Picture was found on Wikipedia & taken by Christopher Ziemnowicz.
I like the Marlin now and back then also. Also agree on the Buick Skylark taillights. In 65 all the action was on the full-sizers and Mustang. Thanks for sharing the pic.
Having owned a ’64 Rambler Ambassador 990H, I have to agree. Mine had the 327 and the Twin-Stick, and yeah it smoked a lot of mid-90s musclecars. It looked horrific but ran well. Sold it to a friend, who sold it to a guy who finally gave it the restoration it deserved. If you see a two-tone rose-maroon one running around near Long Beach, CA, that was mine. The ’65s were pretty much the same underneath, just different sheet metal. I’d love a Marlin 327 manual!
Really tough to pick a car, BUT I do love the Red Lion behind the Ambassador, still looks pretty much the same in Vail but with the patio now enclosed for more indoor bar space.
So to pick, the GTO is so obvious, so the red 4.4.2.
Lot of stylistic choices for 65 but I am partial to the Oldsmobile Cutluss as I came home from the hospital in a six month old white hard top with blue interior. It looked great on the road, in the driveway, or parked in the garage next to my father’s light blue 63 Thunderbird. Being from New England having a flashy car used to be considered tacky but on our dead road I have to admit my parents had the coolest cars. As 1970 approached my mother ditched her house dresses for mini-skirts and thigh-high boots and the Cutluss for a 69 Grand Prix…my father ditched the square suits and brill cream for sideburns and turtlenecks and the Thunderbird for a 70 Torinio GT fastback..times were a-changing…and soon both parents would be embracing the GM Colonade era—I’ll save that horror for another time..
Your parents had impeccable taste in cars INCLUDING the colonnades. Too bad you don’t feel the same way.
Actually I did have a soft spot for one Colonnade..my mother traded in the 69 Grand Prix on a 73 Grand Am…silver with red velour buckets, rally wheels and fully optioned…sadly it sat next to my fathers 76 Malibu Classic sedan which I could never love…..The Grand Am would last until the Brougham years when Mom came home with an 80 Cutluss Supreme Brougham…
Please tell me it had a 4-speed!
Oh yes: awesome! I left two project ’73 Grand Ams back in Alabama when I had to move up to NC — one is/was an engineless Ascot Silver sedan with black vinyl roof & oxblood interior and the other is/was a Starlight Black 2-door with oxblood interior and 400/400. Very cool cars.
The Colonnades may not have been prettier cars, but they sure were much better engineered cars.
But that is a debate for another time.
I’d be partial to the Marlin, but in reality, I’d probably go for the Comet.
Lord, give me that gold Plymouth Satellite hardtop. It’s the class of this field to me.
1. Buick Sportwagon
2. Mercury Comet Cyclone
3. Rambler Marlin. Also don’t ask.
4. Olds Cutlass convertible/ Pontiac LeMans Hardtop w/ OHC 6
The Le Mans didn’t get the OHC engine until 1966. The ’65s had a 215 cu. in. OHV six.
’65 Chevelle 2-door wagon…327/4-speed.
Hey it was 1965. You could get just about anything in just about anything as long as it didn’t violate GM’s 400-inch ban…
Me, I like the low-rider Radio Flyer in the ’65 Fairlane (station)wagon pic…
In a time traveler scenario, where I know the future, I’d go for the Buick Special V6.
Otherwise, GTO.
If I had to choose from the menu offered, I’d take a Malibu SS with the L-79 327 4 speed. If allowed a little local colour from the great white north, I’d go with a Beaumont Sport Deluxe equipped the same way. The Beaumont had a different grille along with a couple of other small styling cues that overcame the “blah” look of the Chevelle.
What no mention of the late intro Buick Gran Sport with its Nailhead 401 rebadged as a 400 to get by GM’s limit? That would be my first choice. If I needed a wagon then Sport Wagon all the way.
I do kind of like that era Comet, and it would be my second choice, Since it was a stretched Falcon it sort of was the first intermediate, only slightly smaller than the Fairlane, which was also just a stretched Falcon.
The Fairlane for 1965, has to be my least favorite car to come from Dearborn in the 60’s
Lacking the wide spread headlights of many of it’s immediate kin the Cutlass and 442 for 1965 are quite nice looking they’d be my third choice if looking for a coupe. If I needed a Wagon then a Vista Cruiser would come in second.
The GS would have been a good choice. The guy who owned the gas station I worked at in High School was a Buick guy. He had one with a 4 speed. I never drove or rode in it, but he eventually pulled the 401 to rebuild it and for awhile ran it with a dual quad 425 he had pulled out his ’63 Riveria while it was getting painted. It was a good looking car and I’ll bet it really flew!
Well, what I actually bought in 1965 was a black on gold Barracuda with the 2-barrel V8 and 4-speed. Nine years later I had a dark blue 300L hardtop. So it’s probably no surprise to any of you that I’d go with a 383 4-speed Satellite 2-door hardtop.
Maybe all the Chevy guys here aren’t old enough to remember all the problems that the 65 V8 cars had with broken motor mounts – even my uncle’s 6-cylinder Chevelle sedan broke its motor mounts. But other than that they seem to have been pretty solid cars. I remember looking at a pale yellow on black Malibu before we got the Barracuda. But I had my heart set on a 4-speed car and the Chevrolet dealer didn’t have any I could drive.
I remember the motor mounts for sure. In ’65 my ride had training wheels, but there were lots of late ’60s Chevys around with restraining cables (sometimes chains) well into the ’80s. Not just ’65s either, but up to at least ’68. I used to encounter them often when harvesting engines and parts from old Chevys at the wrecking yards. My ’65 Impala had one as well.
One of the old mechanics at the Chev-Olds dealer my dad worked at just rolled his eyes when I asked him about it. Apparently the mount could break and the engine would shift and jam the throttle and transmission controls. GM eventually designed an interlocking motor mount that would prevent the shifting, though they still were known to break after a couple of years of hard use.
Nader cables were what the old mechanic I worked with in the 80’s called them. Not sure if Nader actually had anything to do with the recall but it was one of the first safety recalls. They did have a rod connecting the throttle so yeah when the driver’s side mount broke the engine would twist, opening the throttle more, twisting the engine more ect. The first case of unintended acceleration.
I’ve seen these cables on several ’69 Chevrolets also.
One of the veteran “old school” techies that I used to work with had bought a ’66 Impala 2-door new while he was working for IBM in Texas. He & his wife were in traffic one day and ended up rear-ending another car. He told me that it damaged the front header panel, grille, bumper, etc but didn’t hurt the hood or (if I remember right) one of the front fenders.
What did happen was that both motor mounts tore away, sending the drivetrain forward into the radiator while completely releasing the driveshaft from the transmission. It left quite a mess from what he said.
What a choice and worse all the varying models we could not get at the time, I still get trapped amongst the Pontiacs a goat would suit nicely hardtop manual.
I’d probably go with a Cutlass, Skylark (love those taillights) or LeMans hardtop. Although a Chevy guy, the Chevelle has never rung my chimes. The Dodge and Ford are both frumpy; the minor styling differences make the Plymouth more attractive.
An odd 3 way tie between a Cutlass Convertible (Wimbledon White over blue vinyl please) or the Rambler Classic 770 Coupe with wire wheel covers, or The Plymouth Satellite.
The tricky thing would be pricing, and I get the feeling the Plymouth, with a 318, Torqueflite, Power Steering, Power Brakes and an AM radio to stream Martha & The Vandellas “Nowhere To Run” would be cheaper than the Rambler or Oldsmobile, while giving superior performance to the Rambler with the 287, and comparable, if not better performance (that damned Jetaway) than the Olds with the 330/Jetaway….
Interesting because my parents were in this position in 1965, having just added a sixth child to their family (me) and had just gone with the car my dad was familiar with from his work as a salesman – a demo 1964 Impala 3-seat wagon with a 283 and Powerglide. He was GM all the way back then (drives a 300M now because he couldn’t find a Park Avenue Ultra in his price range) and needed something to haul the family around. He was a Buick man at heart, though, and returned to his roots when they reintroduced a full-size wagon in 1970.
Looking back, he should have held off a model year to get past that X-frame and picked up a ’65, but it would have still had the same drivetrain unless he opted for a big-block 396 with Turbo Hydra-matic. Knowing what I know now, I would have avoided any 2-speed auto like the plague. That means either a manual in a Chevelle or an upgrade to Buick-Pontiac-Oldsmobile. For my dad, he suffered enough with three-on-the-tree company cars in New York traffic, so he loathes manual shifts to this day. My mom could drive one, but preferred not to as well.
Fuel economy was bad by today’s standards even with sixes, and premium fuel was only a few cents more expensive than regular, so how much would you suffer going for, say, a 327 over a 283? All told, I’d be vacillating between a GTO or a 442, but would probably go for the sharper-looking Goat. With four-on-the-floor, of course. Though a test drive of one of the hot Mopars might have swayed me if they were indeed that much tighter and handled that much better.
As for the others, a GM person driving a Ford would be like a Yankee fan rooting for the Red Sox, while the Ramblers and Studes were seen as a bit dull. Time-warp me to 1968 and everything changes, of course, with the AMX and Javelin.
The BOP midsize triplets were stuck with 2sp auto boxes too.
Then it’s big blocks, four-on-the-floor or TorqueFlites for me! I’ve driven and owned Powerglide-equipped Chevys, and I’ve always wondered what those sweet small-blocks would have been like with proper trannys behind them.
I tend to veer towards wagons, so given that my order would be:
1. Sportwagon
2. Vista Cruiser
3. Belvedere
For a convertible, give me the Rambler, a two-door hardtop, give me the Cutlass or the Skylark.
In reality, I’m still angling to get my wife’s great-great aunt’s 64 Special two-door strippo. One day.
A B-O-P hardtop or convertible with a 4 on the floor. Probably the LeMans or Cutlass. Might have looked at the GTO, and more seriously at the 442 before deciding the 326/330 was enough.
Now, if I decided I wanted the automatic? Dodge Coronet. A two speed like the Super Turbine 300 just isn’t acceptable. And the Belvedere gets ruled out due to the cheap dual headlights vs. the quads every other make was using.
Under no circumstance would the dumpy Ford be considered. The Studebaker is a zombie and Ramblers are for nerds.
What an embarasement of riches….I have a soft spot for Studebakers and while I liked the styling of the last Daytona Lark, it was a new body on top of old mechanicals. I liked the appearance of the GM intermediates but unfortunately they could only be had with the old two-speed automatic and I heard lots of negative comments about the flexibility of the perimiter frame they used, and their mediocre drum brakes. I didn’t really care for the Ford and Mercury vehicles, ditto for the AMC’s–they seemed to be trying to appeal to upscale buyers while trying too hard not to lose their old conservative buyer core. So it comes down to a toss up between the Coronet and the Belvedere. and the Coronet. After some deliberation, I’d go with the Dodge Coronet, two door Sedan. A really nice looking vehicle.
Was this ’65 Skylark the first car with full-width taillights? CCOTY-worthy milestone!!!
PS: Didja notice that brochure page features the Portland Rose Festival 😉
The first car with full width tail lights I can recall.My father ordered a 1965 Buick Skylark from the USA,it was shipped to Sydney,Australia,where it was converted to right hand drive.As a 9yo I liked the plaque on the dash which read “this car made especially for Roy Lohrey”.Often wondered how the dash was switched,the convertor made a mould of the left hand drive dash and reproduced it in black fibreglass.Australian law required turn indicators to be amber coloured so a small section of the tail lights was replaced with amber lenses.Mid metallic blue,black bench seat interior,no power options,V6 and whitewall tyres.Was a good looking car,even the late World Champion driver,Jim Clark,commented on it when he visited our house a year or two later.My brother still owns that Skylark,probably approx 70,000 miles from new now and always garaged.
Apologies for the poor quality pic
A Holden Special sedan cost $2286 in 1966,the Buick Skylark cost $7500,very expensive in its day.A basic Holden Commodore today costs approx $35000 Aust dollars.People in Australia aspired to own Buicks,not many M-Benzes or BMWs here then,the major Australian lottery is named Tatts and the slogan was “Win Tatts and Buy a Buick”.
I’ll take the Sportwagon, please. For some reason I’ve always liked Buick styling over Oldsmobile.
Grandpa’s last car was a ’65 Belvedere, so those always say “grandpa car” to me. It was a turquoise 4-dr sedan, poly 318 and Torqueflite. For solid reliability it would be hard to beat. The final step out of the ’62 downsizing sales disaster, the ’65 Belvedere/Coronet was basically the ’64 Fury/Polara, with the those finally reaching the bloated size of the competition.
Call me an iconoclast but I’ll take a Chevelle FOUR-door wagon – as a child of the ’80s my first introduction to the ’65 GM intermediates was through the AMT model kit of the Chevelle wagon.
283 or a mild 327 with the 4-speed and a moonshot axle ratio – with twice the ratios of the slushmatic I can give up a bit of acceleration to get comfy cruising. Artesian Turquoise inside-and-out, please.
I’m an Oldsmobile man at heart but man those Pontiacs were pretty… Give me a Pontiac wagon… stacked headlights are pretty good looking. Gotta have a V8 and a manual trans if available.
According to the brochure, 326V8/4spd was available for a Tempest Safari. I doubt many were built that way.
Oh I never said any were built that way, I was just counting on GMs tendency to build you whatever you wanted back in the day.
As my parents had a ’65 Malibu when i was in diapers I’ll take one 2DR plz.
Second choice would be a Cutlass Holiday Coupe
Today, I’d consider the Pontiac in a convertible, or a Rambler or Lark wagon. As for back in 1965, I was only 8 but my parents bought their Volvo 122S the year before, and I think it was that year that the man across the street moved up (?) from his Borgward Isabella to a Mercedes 190. I think both count as mid-sized, but as I’ve written before, even by 1965 Detroit love was fading in Berkeley. I think the next new car on the block was a ’69 Austin America.
I’d go for the Buick. Perhaps because we were a GM family back then, and one of my uncles had a 66 Skylark.
The Dodge actually would be a close second choice. It’s pretty swoopy. And points for the Mopar ignition sound (Hamtramck hummingbird).
Too hard for me to pick. I find the basic Chevy, Ford and Dodge rather plain. The mid price cars really get my attention, BOP and Mercury. But the Studes and the Ramblers have their attractions too.
Knowing me and how cheap I can be, I’d probably end up with a Chevy Malibu though. The right size and equipment levels, while still being a commercial artist’s checking account friendly price…
Nice to hear of your choice of the ’65 Classic. As I know it, the 327 V-8 offered by AMC took premium only if you purchased the 4-barrel carb version — the 2-barrel carb 327 in my ’63 Ambassador wagon takes regular.
Red over red Olds 442, though the grey Skylark with black roof sure is enticing.
My very first car was a well used 65 Tempest Custom, aqua in color. I got it in 1974, it was out of style, sucked gas like an alcoholic and had uneven compression and generally idled like crap. I wanted to get rid of it in the worst way. Trouble was, everything I drove as a possible replacement didn’t drive nearly as nicely as that unfashionable Tempest. I did hate the two speed automatic, though.
It met an unpleasant end in the fall of 1975, I was rear ended at a stoplight by a Plymouth Road Runner, the driver of which didn’t have insurance. I was uninjured, and a week or so later I was the proud owner of a 68 VW.
I’d love to have another Tempest just like that old one, maybe with a few modifications. In hindsight, it was a great car.
To the poster who said they wouldn’t buy a Studebaker because you’d wants parts availability…I’d venture to say a ’65 Studebaker has the best parts availability of any of these cars, and being from South Bend you should know that! 😉 You can still get virtually every piece of sheetmetal for those cars, except the trunklid, NOS in South Bend and at bargain prices compared to the competition. NOS soft interior trim still exists, and even trim pieces and nameplates, both NOS and repro, are available at reasonable prices. That era Stude is a great car…roomy interior, chairlike seating, clean styling that’s stood the test of time IMHO, etc. And…very rare compared to all the others.
Re 65 Stude, Wheel bearings?
i have always enjoyed looking at skylark convertibles, so i’ll gladly take one of those.
Did they come in that same purple ice that the 65 Caprice came in? Cuz I Like That Grape Frost Clearcoat. P/W and AC must be Factory Included,p/seat to raise it up
I’ve always liked American cars of the 60s. Were they perfect? No, of course not. But then what is? My favourite American cars are the 1965 Chevy Chevelle, the 1964 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser, the 1965 Rambler Classic, the 1966 and 67 Dodge Coronet, the 1964 Plymouth Belvedere.
I am a Ford guy, but looking at the whole group…. a Malibu convertible ….. or that Skylark sans roof……even the Ramblers have a certain, ” Gotta have one of those about them.”
I also like Mopars of this vintage. My favourites are the 1965 Dodge Coronet and Chrysler Newport.
Give me a Studebaker any time…stripped down 4 door with dogdish hubcaps. Black with red vinyl interior. There is one at my local kroger store that I see now and then in that color combination. Or a Wagonaire in pale green with green vinyl…makes me hate my 2013 Civic more and more…boring Urban Titanium color with tan cloth…beige on beige, no spirit, no heart, just a plain little appliance that doesn’t even get good gas mileage…25 MPG average over 12,000 miles so far.
I have a 1965 mercury comet 202 4 door in good shape needs motor and tranny lots of new parts and clean title was wondering if u or anyone would be interested in it if so contacte at [email protected] or 563-505-5441 thank you
I got my first car in 68. A new car was out of the question. I would have settled for anything on wheels and my father, a diesel mechanic for the Air Force and a Ford man through and through, selected a 62 Valiant for me with a 225 Slant-6 for $700. In those s=days cars did not last as long and in 69 the engine needed a rebuild. In 70, the transmission had to be done, it needed extensive rust repair in 72 and I scrapped it in 76 when the engine went again with about 110,000 mile son it.
Now my 2004 Focus station wagon with 120,000 miles on it runs perfectly ans has no rust. I have one with a special 2.3L DOHC California engine and I can smoke a lot of 60s performance cars. My daughter traded in her 2005 Cavalier with 150,000 miles and running perfectly. Because she wanted a car with cruise control as her new job requires a 500 mile round trip commute about once a month. My point is, would I go back to those old days and the answer is no. Cars back then were crap compared to what we have now.
I’d have gotten the Coronet or the Belvedere, but then gone in to trade it for a Charger the following year.
The GM intermediates were nice and offered a big-car ride and appointments, along with high-performance versions such as the GTO, 442 and Buick Gran Sport, plus the standard engines (both sixes and V8s) were larger than the competition – only real drawback were the 2-speed Powerglide and not-so-Super Turbine 300/Jetaway automatic transmissions and small 9.5 inch brake drums. The Ford intermediates were quite dowdy compared to them stylewise with a small 289 V8 as its top and the Rambler Classic though upgraded and reliable still lacked an image though it had many virtues such as decent fuel economy with 6-cylinder or V8 engines, a 3-speed automatic transmission and unibody construction. However, aside from the GM muscle cars, for everyday use I’d have to go with the Dodge Coronet 500 with the 318 V8 and much superior (to GM’s 2-speed) 3-speed TorqueFlite, torsion bar suspension and longer wheelbase., For more horsepower, the same Coronet 500 with the optional 426/365 (Wedge, not Hemi) and Torqueflite plus heavy duty suspension and police brakes. Though the GTO, 442 and Gran Sport were fairly well engineered engine and suspension-wise – particularly the 442 with the industry’s only rear sway bar, I would still go with the Dodge (or Plymouth Satellite) for it’s bigger brakes and superior automatic transmission, plus more standard instrumentation as opposed to idiot lights.