(first posted 11/14/2017) When I first spotted the jacked-up rear end of this ’68 Chevelle coupe from a block or two down the street on my afternoon walk with the dog, I assumed it was the typical and predictable Malibu coupe, meaning the car its owner lusted after in high school and finally got to the point in life where he could recreate it, and then some. As in resto-modded, with heavy doses of big-block crate-engine steroids, unlike the wimpy 307-powered coupe with a loud muffler that managed to just barely peel a bit of rubber as it pulled out of the high school lot every afternoon back in 1974, but still managed to plant the seeds of lust in his youthful imagination that eventually just had to be consummated.
No, this turned out to be something altogether different. This actually is the car that pulled out of the high school lot every day, chirping its little 14″ tires thanks to a dumped clutch, not an excess of power. And it’s still being driven by the same guy. And it’s never been improved or modified the slightest, so it’s really showing its age. Which makes this the ultimate Chevelle time capsule; in other words, the ultimate Chevelle CC.
Confession time: I don’t actually know that it’s still being driven by the same guy. But it’s an extremely plausible bet. This is the perfect representative of the kind of Chevelle that a 16 or 17 year old kid would buy with his after-school job earnings. Yes, of course he lusted after a SS396, or even better, a 1970 LS4 SS454. But who could afford that on burger-flipping wages? Maybe at least a Malibu with a 327. No such luck.
He scoured the papers and used car lots and found this, and it was close enough, and doable: A Chevelle 300 Deluxe Sport Coupe. Two-barrel lo-po 307 V8. But at least it didn’t have the Powerglide; the three-on-the-tree at least allowed for mini-burnouts. And to top it off, it had a factory vinyl roof. Deal!
Just to clarify: back in the day, the overwhelming majority of Chevelles would sport a Malibu badge here on their front fenders. Malibu was the higher-trim version of the Chevelle, and also the big seller, by far. Malibu coupes where everywhere in ’68 and ’69. My high school girlfriend’s parents traded in a ’63 VW Beetle on a gold with black vinyl topped ’69 Malibu coupe, which was undoubtedly the most common color combo then. 307, PG, power steering, and as dull to drive as dishwater. Give me the Beetle any day.
But this one is almost a unicorn: a 300 Deluxe Sport Coupe, which was actually the middle trim level, and also came in a regular (post) coupe (yellow) and sedan (below).
The only thing below that was the regular 300, which only came in a post coupe (above) and wagon. Having been an eagle-eyed car spotter in 1968 or so, I can assure you that these 300 and 300 Deluxes were mighty scarce on the ground. Why? The economy was booming thanks to the Vietnam war, and nobody wanted a stripper anymore (except of course my father, the neurologist). Strippers (the car type) just were not cool anymore, and in ’68, almost everyone wanted to be cool, if even just a bit so. That had changed very quickly from say 5 or 7 years earlier, where strippers were all too common. If you were so poor in ’68 that you couldn’t afford a Malibu, you bought a Nova instead.
Less than 13k of the 300s were sold, and all of 43k 300 Deluxes, most of them probably wagons and sedans. Meanwhile, close to 300k Malibus rolled off the lots in ’68. Most of them coupes.
So let’s check out this high-school time-warp-mobile from 1974 (or so). What I first noticed as Lil’ Man and I approached from the rear was the lack of two big chromed exhaust pipes sticking out the back of its lifted rear end. Hmm. Side pipes? Nope. Maybe a shorty pipe (or two) with cherry bombs, for the true 1974 experience?
I did notice that the vinyl roof was showing its age; well, a bit more blatantly than the rest of the exterior.
I mostly loathed vinyl roofs back then. Yes, there were a few cars they looked right on, but by 1968-1969, just about every car coming off the lines in the US had the same patterned black vinyl roof. Of course one paid extra for the pleasure, and it undoubtedly was a great source of extra profit for the car makers, as how much can a couple of yards of black vinyl and glue cost? When you’re buying it by the million square mile? But the extra price was paid twice by their owners.
Once at the time of purchase, and then again years later, when the moisture trapped under it began to bubble up, in the form of rust.
And left holes in the process. This is the only kind of rust cars in Oregon get, unless they live really close to the beach. Our Oregon Healing Rain™ can only do its job if allowed to wash the entropy-inducing impurities away. If the miraculous molecules get trapped under vinyl, they slowly regress back into plain old water, and it starts to do its thing. Ugly.
I’ve never claimed that our healing rains work on aftermarket wheels; these Cragar S/S wheels are rusty too. Well, they’ve been there for a mighty long time, because nobody would put 14″ Cragars on a proper dream-mobile Malibu. Not since the mid 80s, or even sooner. But then if you’re going to peel a little rubber, better to have little rubber.
I was very tempted to raise the hood of the Chevelle to confirm my hunch that it more than likely still has its 307 V8, given how everything else is so original. Yes, I have done that to one or two older parked cars that had outside hood releases. What’s someone going to do? Oh, I thought that was my Chevelle; it looks just like it! Anyway, I’ve got my dog along for protection…
Of course there’s a very good argument to be made that the original 307 (I assume, although the call-out badges have also melted away) might not have lasted the duration. In which case some other variant of sbc sits under there, thanks to a junkyard donor mobile.
The interior is showing its decades of wear and tear quite visibly, especially the tears. When I saw the floor shifter and clutch pedal, I did have a moment’s wonder if this might be a four-speed. Nah! This is an aftermarket conversion for the original three-speed. Which fits the rest of the car’s original mission quite well: somebody in 1968 of relatively modest means who wanted a bit of style (and a vinyl roof), a basic V8 and a three speed, to make that basic V8 feel a bit more lively. The original buyer most likely drove a similarly equipped ’55, ’56 or ’57 Chevy 210 two-door previously. And a Chevelle equipped like this was as close as to a perfect replacement as possible. The vinyl roof was a concession to changing taste, but that was plenty. Armstrong steering and manual drum brakes, for sure.
All in all, just the thing for its second owner to love, cherish and protect, to the extent of his abilities. And to spice up with two big splurges: the Cragar wheels and the floor shift conversion. Nothing more…in over 40 years. Maybe things didn’t go so well for him, career-wise.
If you noticed that the blanket seems to be covering up a mini-crater in the driver’s side cushion, you’re a good noticer. The passenger side’s crater is fully exposed, revealing several geological strata. The next layer down is likely to poke holes in one’s pants, which undoubtedly explains the blanket. I’m going to make the safe assumption that the owner is single and doesn’t date much anymore.
I told you this car was truly original.
But the rear seat is still in quite good condition. Too bad the lower cushion is so short, otherwise it could be swapped with the front one. Yes, these 112″ GM A-Body coupes had miserable room in the back. The legroom in my GF’s parents Malibu back there was no better than their Beetle’s had been, especially since her mom was so short, which made the VW pretty doable back there.
The vinyl roof is doing its ugly thing on the A-Pillar too.
I do wish the owner would have showed up. I bet this Chevelle has a hell of a story, or three.
But then this Chevelle wears its story on its tattered body for all to see. I have a hard time imagining any further hidden details or dark secrets. I am what I am; and that’s not something you see every day.
Yes, Paul, the 1968 Chevelle was the epitome of cool when I was in high school 1967-69, everyone including me lusted after one – in hardtop trim, of course!
This thing is definitely a survivor!
And the Chevelle menaged to outdo itself for the cool image when the 1970 model arrived with bigger artillery like the LS6 454 engine. I wonder if Wooderson would had enjoyed a 1968 model instead of his 1970 model nicknamed “Melba Toast”? 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3LxQJ6xvyA
And seems then the Chevelle 300 Deluxe had survived a bit longer in Canada, here a scan from Oldcarbrochure showing a 1970 Canada only model. http://oldcarbrochures.org/index.php/Canada/GM-Canada/Chevrolet/1970_Chevrolet_Chevelle_Brochure-Cdn/1970-Chevrolet-Chevelle-Cdn–08
The 300 and 300 Deluxe were dropped for 1970 in the US, but a base model “Chevelle,” under the Malibu, was introduced in the spring of 1970. There was a surprise US recession, so most volume brands whipped up price-cut specials.
IINM, the 300 was actually dropped for 1969, but this is otherwise the correct explanation of what happened. GM Canada apparently didn’t drop the 300 Deluxe for 1970, and they kept using that name for this trim level for a few more years, even after a U.S. equivalent model had been reintroduced without the “300 Deluxe” name.
I graduated from high school in 1969 and nearly all of the cars in the students’ parking lot were older than this. More typical examples of what most of us were driving was my 1961 Ford, a friends 1960 Corvair or another friends ’61 VW Bug. Most of us would have cheerfully surrendered an appendage to own and drive a new Malibu or a new GTO or a new 442 or a new Roadrunner, ad infinitum.However, one of the girls in my class was the daughter of the local Chevrolet-Olds dealer, and she had a 1969 Malibu convertible. At this point I don’t remember which variant of the SBC it had but the car was heavily optioned. Shortly before graduation the Malibu was replaced by an Olds Cutlass; pure speculation on my part but I expect they were trying to limit the mileage on the Chevelle before it went back to the lot.
I graduated high school in 1991 and from the time I started driving in Sept. 1989 until graduation in June of ’91 I always had the oldest car perched in the ‘Student Parking Area’. My ’64 Ford with its turquoise paint stuck out in a sea of non-aqua vehicles that were all much newer.
Cool story! I too graduated in ’91, and started driving in ’89, though I got my license in July. My first car was not as cool as yours, mine was a blue ’82 4 door buick regal.
That rear seat isn’t the original. It’s been swiped from a Malibu. Note the decadent buttons on the pleats. It’s hard to tell if the front one is too. The door panels are correct for a 300 Deluxe.
The seats appear to be a different color from the door panels, too.
If these seats are not the originals, this car either has a huge number of miles on it or the owner is a masochist.
They might have been perfectly fine when they were swapped in 1980 or so. 🙂
It looks like interiors for the 300 Deluxe only came in blue black and gold.
Wow! I had forgotten all about the 300 and 300 Deluxe in 1968. All I ever remember seeing was the Malibu, but then its not like I paid much attention to these back then.
Two kids in my high school class (1978) drove 68 Malibu convertibles. One was a sharply repainted red one that looked close to new thanks to serious body and paint work and the other was that light greenish gold with dull paint and a little rust peeking out of the lower front fenders. The red one had the Cherry Bomb mufflers and the gold one was (worn out) stock.
I never warmed to the roofline on the Chevelle of this vintage. It was an odd shape that just never looked right to me. I much prefer the 70-72 version of this car. And I remember sitting in the back of my stepmom’s 68 Cutlass coupe. It didn’t seem as roomy as my mother’s 64, and I later learned that chopping 2 inches from the wheelbase meant that it was not just my imagination.
I prefer the 1970-72 roofline as well, however I wonder why the Chevelle didn’t kept a 2-door post-coupe (should we call it 2-door sedan?) while the “BOP”/”Bopettes” still offered that model in their line-up? A 1972 Pontiac GTO 2-door sedan/post-coupe is one rare kind of breed. https://www.flickr.com/photos/coconv/8010807223
The B-O-P A-body post coupes were their divisions’ entry-level models while the Chevelle was a step up from the Nova. The X-body was Chevy exclusive until the Pontiac Ventura II came out in ’71, and Buick-Olds didn’t get theirs until ’73.
Two door sedan or coupe. Anything else is a hardtop. There is no such thing as a “post” sedan or coupe.
Redundant word that was never used to describe anything sold by any manufacturer, Stephane. You are correct: 2 door sedan or coupe.
Misleading and not accurate. Adding an unnecessary word does not make one more precise, more informed or more descriptive.
Simply call things what they are.
A four door sedan is not a four door post sedan. A pillarless four door is a four door hardtop.
A modern Challenger is not a two door post coupe, but simply a coupe.
“Hardtop” is an anachronism today. No one under 50 remembers new pillarless hardtops in the showroom. The primary category is “coupe,” with whatever adjectives might be used to generally describe it or to distinguish it from similar cars.
This generation of Chevelle had 4-door hardtops, so “1968 Chevelle hardtop” is a poor description of any car.
here is no such thing as a “post” sedan or coupe.
The term “post coupe” is quite appropriate in certain situations like the GM A bodies that used a coupe roof (not a 2 door sedan) that was clearly designed primarily to be a hardtop but added a non-hardtop version on the low end.
Sure, you wouldn’t use it on the Challenger or any modern car. It’s only relevant application is on a car that had both versions with the same coupe roof. Which is precisely why the term came to be, and why/how it’s used quite appropriately.
And it is improper English to say that “everyone is entitled to ‘their’ opinion.” Proper English is that everyone is entitled to ‘his’ or to ‘her’ opinion.
But this ship has sailed and those of us who live in the real world have lost this skirmish.
You have the same problem. To all the world a 2 door sedan is a “2 door post.” You might as well sign the surrender papers and be done with it.
I am genuinely curious and honestly want to know why their is wrong in this application? Is it because it’s a possessive? No snark I swear, I just was never good with English… (Don’t you dare ask me what an adjective is!)
Everyone = singular while their = plural.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion, or All are entitled to their opinions. At least that’s what I was taught.
Thanks J P!
To me a car with a B pillar was a sedan whether 2 or 4 doors and a car without a B pillar was a hardtop whether 2 or 4 doors. And a businessman’s sedan is 2 door sedan without a back seat. Of course I grew up in 50’s and 60’s.
Chevrolet had always placed less emphasis on their A-body pillared two-door models than the B-O-P brands did, which seems counterintuitive at first glance (wouldn’t this body style be emphasized more by a lower-priced brand?), but may also be explained by nlpnt’s comments.
Chevrolet never offered the pillared two-door in Malibu trim, while all of the B-O-P brands offered two-door pillared models in their high-trim models, at least in the early years of A-body production. In addition, because the “muscle car” variants of the A-body were initially based on the top trim level cars, the B-O-P muscle cars were offered in pillared form (again, at least in the early years), while Chevrolet’s was not. The only year the Chevelle SS was available in pillared form was 1969, when the SS was an option package available on either the 300 Deluxe or the Malibu.
Another oddity related to this: the 1964-67 two-door pillared Chevelles had a different roofline from the two-door hardtops, and were referred to by Chevrolet as “two-door sedans”. The B-O-P pillared two-doors in those years had the same roofline as the hardtops, and were referred to as “coupes”. In 1968-69, the two-door pillared models from all four brands had the same roofline as the hardtops, and were referred to as “coupes” (like the 1964-67 B-O-Ps, but different from the 1964-67 Chevelles).
The Chevelle 2 door sedan was appropriately named, as it shared the same roof with the 4 door sedan. That is the very definition of a 2 door sedan. The others are all coupes, as they didn’t.
Absolutely right. A ’68/9 Chevelle 2dr. post is a coupe.
A coupe had more to do with it’s “close-coupled” roof proportions than if it’s pillared or not.
You’d never call a ’32 Ford coupe a sedan just because it has a B pillar.
Same with the ’50’s Busninessman’s Coupes. They’re not called sedans for the above reasoning.
Ah, so many opinions, eloquently argued! At least we can agree that no Chevy would be a Tudor or a Fordor, whether coupe, sedan, or hardtop. But should that be coupé?
Gawd… that interior… I’d need a tetanus shot before I’d even open the door on that mess!
I’m not sure what I’d do if I saw some dude with a pitbull (?) start to fiddle with my hood release…:-)
The first thing I thought of when I saw this car was “Wooderson” even though his was the SS version as well as being a couple of years newer…Still, the car fits my own personal stereotype of the owner and how one imagines Wooderson’s life playing out in reality. (This isn’t a knock on the real owner, just how I imagine Wooderson and his car having aged). Doing a “Cars of Dazed and Confused” post wouldn’t be a bad idea either…
Anyway, great find of historical and sociocultural significance! It’s shocking that you still find new material while on foot in a somewhat limited geographical area around your house.
I keep finding cars to shoot almost every day, but I never get around to posting them all. My backlog is humongous.
I’d be lucky to find 1 interesting car every 2 weeks to shoot a snap of. There’s a dearth of interesting cars around here; there’s a lot of trucks, though. I’ve noted more older trucks locally than older cars and I find those perk my interest. Seeing vintage trucks hard at work doing ‘stuff’ is always nice.
The combination of car and dog reminds me of this ’69 307 Malibu I saw last year. I was amazed to find one in such original-looking condition. As I was looking at it, I noticed a dog that looked a lot like yours looking on from the open front door of the house that the Malibu was parked in front of. I decided not to risk any more photos.
Awesome. This would have been right at home in my high school parking lot in the mid 80’s. Maybe with a bit of lower door rot to go with the vinyl roof rust and corroded cragars.
That brought back the memory of barely peeling rubber out of the parking lot. Eeeeeeek! A sweet sound for sure.
I’m a bit embarrassed to say it, but I’m guilty of doing exactly that with Mom’s hand-me-down ’71 Catalina four-door/400-2bbl/auto. And a brief squeak was about all it would muster, too, despite that lump of a V8 under the hood.
Even more embarrassingly (and somewhat amazingly at the same time), my ’71 Vega (with a shorty glas-pak muffler, natch) would easily chirp second gear, which I did every single day leaving the Georgia Tech campus (this was pre-V6, with the original 2300/4-speed). At this point in its life, I had skinny front tires and wide rear tires (retreads!), albeit on stocker 13” GT wheels.
My Vega GT would chirp the rear tires on the 1-2 shift quite handily, even with the original A60 belted tires (not OEM), and subsequent BR60 and 185/70 radials I fitted, and even after installing new Bilsteins. None of my friends’ 4 cylinder cars would do that, though I suspect it had more to do with rear axle location than sheer torque.
From looking at a fair amount of 60s and 70s GM cars, that issue with rust at the bottom of the rear window was not confined to cars with vinyl roofs. My aunt, who owned an very nice V8 powered 73 Nova 2 door, had problems with a leaking rear window that developed soon after she bought the car. Luckily, she lived in sunny California and kept the car under a carport when it wasn’t being driven. I’ve also seen Camaros and Firebirds where it looked like the rear window was about to fall into the trunk.
The chrome trim around the back window was a salt/dirt/moisture trap. Vinyl top or no vinyl top, I think that most of them leaked.
I haven’t stopped for a closer look (yet), but there’s a Malibu (?) of this vintage with its multi-hued-primered-jacked-up-rear-end poking out from behind a dilapidated building I pass in the tiny town of Laura, IL on my way to work.
This one takes me right back to high school days…
This one is a survivor being a 300 Deluxe hardtop – I remember 1968 and I don’t remember seeing many of these in the late ’60’s and on through the ’70’s – they were usually either two door post coupes or the more ubiquitous four door sedan.
That makes trying to resurrect this one that much more pertinent and from what I can see in these images, it looks doable. Next to a 1st gen Camaro, these ’68 to ’72 Chevelles are probably number two in terms of repro parts availability and this one looks like a good project start.
You’d destroy this perfect period piece for another immaculate Chevelle coupe? Heresy!
Seriously; how many are left in this kind of condition. It now has historical relevance. It should be kept exactly like this; folks 50 years from now will be amazed. It’s not unlike the Silver Streak Model T, eh?
I get your point but my fear is that this one will dissolve into a heap of rusty cinders and shredded upholstery fluff and I don’t think it will take 50 more years to do it.
I agree with what PN said above, this “Time Capsule” Chevelle is a Great Find, and should remain as it is. This is a “living” piece of automotive history. It probably sleeps in a garage these days (and if it doesn’t, it should) otherwise it would likely look a lot worse, if it still existed at all.
I also enjoy spotting old “high-school hot rod”-style survivors. And you’re right, cars like this are Real, and Honest. So much more fun to see this car, just as it is, than to see it get over-restored, or see yet another classic get turned into (yet another!) “Pro-Touring” (or whatever they’re calling ’em now) TV show-style car (yawn).
This cool old Chevelle reminds me of another weathered, ass-high, mag-wheeled, glass-packed, smallblock & 3-spd equipped 50 year-old Chevy “time capsule” I saw recently.. in my garage, rusting, I mean resting, peacefully, till the next time I get the urge to hear the glasspacks rumble and the L-60’s squeal. Sure, this Chevelle is a little ratty, but I’ve seen worse. I bet that green plastic container behind the seat is there to conveniently top off the oil, frequently. And I bet the piece of 2X4 leaning against it is because the parking brake ain’t what she used to be, especially when parked on a grade. Another safe bet is there’s a gas can in the trunk, because the fuel gauge hasn’t worked in decades. But I’d hop right in and drive this baby in a heartbeat, big ol’ smile on my face.
Cars like this are fun. Fun without the underlying worry present when driving one of your clean, well-preserved classics. Cars like this Chevelle (and the good ol’ “Heavy Chevy” below) are just pure Fun. I agree, I hope the owner of this “Time Capsule” keeps it just as it is, just as I’m doing with mine. Great find, Paul.
A tip for the lucky owner of the cool Chevelle- ditch the walmart blanket and get a good old Moving blanket, they make great seat covers.. large enough to cover the whole seat, and they’re thick and comfortable. Not to mention durable.. this one’s been in here for decades (as has the Esso Tiger Tail hanging from the mirror)
Rocko – I assume the ’67 Impala is yours, very nice!
I have a ’68 and had a ’66 until a few years ago. Yours looks nicely aged and I can tell you from experience that a garage is critical with these – that’s how they last; rust is definitely an issue with ’60’s vintage Chevies.
Thanks Rpol53. Yep, that’s my ’67 Impala Sport Coupe, AKA “The Heavy Chevy” (or, “La Cagna Rossa” when she’s acting up). She had a black sister, another “high school hot rod”-style survivor ’67 Bel Air sedan (283/PG), but the Bel was sold about a year ago in order to add another classic Mopar to the fleet. Cool that we’ve both had a couple full-size late 60’s Chevies. And you’re absolutely right, if they don’t sleep in a garage, you can almost hear them rusting to bits on a quiet night.
Here’s a pic of the Bel Air. Both of the ’67s photograph well (hey with styling like theirs how can they not?) But in the metal they’re weathered and showing their years. The Bel Air especially, she came close to making this posts’ subject Chevelle seem like a pampered trailer queen by comparison lol. Rough as she was, she still ran nice though. Definitely was a fun car to wheel around in, that old Bel Air
Rocko:
Nice to see that you are keeping a ’67 4-door – they never get the respect that they deserve and they have now become the rare ones!
Cheers!
I recall walking to high school (before and between cars), the first house you’d walk past leaving school had a ’68 Malibu SS, completely stock, faded gold with dog dish hubcaps. It was already 11 to 12 years old then, but everyone who knew of it wanted it; it belonged to an old man.
“But this one is almost a unicorn: a 300 Deluxe Sport Coupe, which was actually the middle trim level, and also came in a regular (post) coupe (yellow) and sedan (below)…The only thing below that was the regular 300, which only came in a post coupe (above) and wagon.”
The text above implies that the base 300 came as a wagon, but the 300 Deluxe didn’t. Depending on how you want to look at it, either none of the Chevelle trim levels came as wagons, or they all did. From 1968 to 1972, Chevelle wagons were marketed under their own distinct model names; there was no “300 wagon” or “Malibu wagon”. But there was a wagon that matched up with each of the non-wagon Chevelle trim levels. The four wagon trim levels were Nomad (equivalent to the base 300), Greenbriar (equivalent to the 300 Deluxe), Concours (equivalent to the Malibu), and Concours Estate (top of the line model with fake wood trim).
The Nomad really had more of a separate existence from the base 300 than the other wagons did. It was introduced in 1968 less to provide a Chevelle wagon at this trim level and more to serve as an entry level replacement for the compact Chevy II wagon, which was not carried over when the Chevy II/Nova was restyled for 1968. There hadn’t been a base 300 wagon in 1967, and the Nomad would continue through 1972, three years after all of the regular base 300 models had been dropped.
“Less than 13k of the 300s were sold, and all of 43k 300 Deluxes, most of them probably wagons and sedans. Meanwhile, close to 300k Malibus rolled off the lots in ’68. Most of them coupes.”
The above figures do not include wagons. In this era, most Chevrolet figures were published on a trim level-by-trim level basis, rounded off to the nearest hundred, broken down by engine type, with no individual body style breakouts. In this methodology, station wagons were treated as if they were a distinct trim level. (This wasn’t done for Chevelles in 1968 because the wagons had their own unique names; it was done for all wagons in all product lines, regardless of whether they were marketed under distinct model names.)
Some numbers that I happen to have handy as I write this, sourced from the Standard catalog, show production as follows:
base 300:
9,700 sixes
2,900 V8s
12,600 total
300 Deluxe:
25,500 sixes
17,700 V8s
43,200 total
Malibu:
33,100 sixes
233,300 V8s
266,400 total
SS 396:
57,600 V8s
57,600 total
station wagons (all trim levels combined):
10,700 sixes
34,800 V8s
45,500 total
Chevrolet production figures from this era are notorious for discrepancies between sources, so these may or may not match what you find elsewhere. To cite one example, Chevrolet has released exact production figures for many SS models. My notes indicate that such a figure for the 1968 Chevelle SS 396, provided elsewhere in the Standard Catalog (62,785), does not match the SS 396 production figure above.
If I had to pick between the dog and the Chevy, I’d take the dog.
Would be interesting to learn this cars history, looks like it’s frozen in mid ’70’s HS trim.
Probably does/did have the same engine/trans as my old ’70 C10 stripper. In 2006 at 160k miles the 307 was still running well, though it did have a valve job and timing chain done at around 100k miles.
Friend had a ’68 Chevelle 396 325 HP auto in the ’80’s that was original and in great shape, medium blue with black vinyl top, PS, power windows, bench seat, power drum brakes. Nice car.
Next door neighbor, older woman in the ’80’s had a ’71 Malibu, 307 automatic with AC and PS, brown with black vinyl top, she kept it looking new.
While technically not a stripper, even a Malibu would look pretty plain unless you sprung for a few options. I learned to drive on my mother’s ’68 Malibu 4-door sedan which had the 250ci six, Powerglide, power steering and an AM radio. Dog dish hubcaps instead of wheel covers, no whitewalls, no vinyl roof. It looked pretty drab. I bought a cheap chrome exhaust tip to bling it up. Didn’t help.
I disagree. Technically, any car that has no options boxes checked is a stripper, even if it’s relatively well equipped. Let’s take a specific example. A 1974 Thunderbird, with it’s standard 460 engine, power steering, brakes and windows, AC, AM radio, tinted glass, Brougham level trim, multitudes of courtesy lights, radial tires, landau roof etc is a stripper if no, or few options are selected from it’s long list.
Staying in the Ford vein, I’ve seen LTDs that were strippers (no PS, PB, no radio or clock)and Galaxie 500s that were comparatively well equipped, if not loaded (full power, AM-FM, AC etc).
My parents had a ’72 Comet 4-door LDO.
It was considered loaded at the time (V8, PS, AC, tint,radio etc) even though it’s equipment level would be laughable today. No power equipment of any kind, no tilt wheel or cruise, no added lighting. Those items were simply not available on that line
The takeaway? Stripperism is a relative thing, and unrelated to trim level of specific model in a series.
Also staying in the Ford vein I’d put forth my ’64 Falcon as a ‘stripper’. The options offered on a Standard Series 2-door sedan would not comprise a long list and I have detected 4 options selected by the original owner: The ‘170’ CID engine upgrade from the standard ‘144’ + the 2-speed Ford-O-Matic [from what I’ve read by model year 1964 Ford would no longer mate the ‘144’ with the Ford-O-Matic — I’m guessing due to the fact it was s-o-o-o slow so buyers seeking an automatic transmission had to ^upgrade^ the engine size]. The last two options were 1) back-up lights mounted in the center of each taillight and 2) drivers-door side-view mirror bolted on. → There was a ‘Delete’ option exercised: No cigarette lighter in the car. Just a 5¢ plastic doohickey filling the hole.
——–
My favorite kind of older cars to look at — few tho they are in 2017 — are the mostly unrestored vehicles like Survivor Chevelle. Luv those automotive time capsules. I have to admit, however, I would consider re-upholstering the front seat. A lil’ bit of TLC is not a bad thing.
roger, your definition of a stripper is not one that I have ever heard, nor can agree with in the slightest. According to it, a RR Phantom, Mercedes Maybach, Cadillac Fleetwood Talisman or just a Honda Accord would all be a strippers if no additional options were specified? That strikes me as rather absurd.
A stripper is simply a low-trim car, with no or very few options. Strippers haven’t really existed for quite some time, as all cars now have standard features that would be comparable to a very loaded high-trim level car back then.
There’s no perfect way to define a stripper; it’s like the duck definition. Most of all it’s relative: strippers look like stripped versions of the high trim versions, lacking the very visible chrome and bright trim. Hence the name. And hence why there’s no new strippers.
As I said, it’s relative. When I was a kid we critiqued cars on that basis. Like , Mr. Jone’s Marquis Brougham is a real stripper, he doesn’t even have tilt or cruise.
Or Mr. Browns ’78 T-Bird company car is a stripper, all it’s got is AC.
Ever seen a late 70s Lincoln Town Car with no options? I have.
Missing tilt wheel, cruise, split seat, only a mono-FM radio (not stereo). It’s a stripper Lincoln, no question.
Back in the day, on a lot in my home town, me and a buddy found a ’76 Corvette with no AC, no power windows and radio delete. That definitely qualified as a stripper. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Quote “There’s no perfect way to define a stripper; it’s like the duck definition. Most of all it’s relative: strippers look like stripped versions of the high trim versions.”
Isn’t that about what I said in my original post?
I had one. In 1972 my mother in law to be was bugging me to buy a car on a loan to get that all-important credit rating. I bought a two-door hardtop from a couple in the nearby trailer park. It had originally come from the Nickey Chevolet dealer. Manual steering, drum brakes and an am radio. 275 hp 327, 4 Spd and positraction. Back then they had a big sticker on the inside of the trunk lid warning you not to try running it with one rear wheel jacked up. The floor shift lever had an odd bend because of the bench seat – in second and forth the knob and upper part of the lever laid on the seat. It was a tough car and I drove it into the ground. Sold the remains to a guy at work, he ran the engine in a stock car for a season. That was physically a damn hard car to drive, I can’t see many people putting up with it now days.
+1
You nailed it, Paul. This is EXACTLY the kind of car my buddy and I lusted after in the mid-70’s. We were too poor, so we bought beater or well-used ’55-’57 Chevies instead.
My friend’s older brother HAD the dream car – a ’69 SS396, 4-speed of course, blue. I never even got to ride in it, but I sure wanted to. Or better yet, drive it…
An acquaintance had that very Malibu you describe – ’68, 307, Powerglide in his case.
To this day, a ’68-’69 Chevelle or El Camino is, to me, one of the prettiest cars GM ever made.
I love this car, and yes it should be preserved as it is.
I’m lucky because a car like this is probably my ultimate dream car.
I would be quite happy if it was a 307, I am a lazy driver so a Powerglide would be perfect, besides I love the sounds they make. I would even prefer the one with the pillar, a bit of extra strength has to be a good thing and you still get the cool coupe roof.
Cragars you can’t go wrong with, but mine won’t sit as high as that.
But mine Must not have a vinyl roof.
My 5 year plan includes a car just like this.
…Or, time capsule form 1984? This was still pretty common well into the ’80’s. Mine was a pea-soup metallic 1971 Malibu. Rotten front seat, carpet with a hole in it, and dings on every corner. Found it on the back line of the Chevy dealership and paid $675. Rebuilt 350 with M/T valve covers The first thing I did was to go to my buddy’s house to show him and left a burnout mark that stayed for almost a year. Gotta love 350 torque.
I spent the next two years in my Dad’s body shop doing general repairs. New front seat, carpet and dash. Clarion 4-speaker stereo with separate EQ. ’72 Caddy Brewster Green paint. Mine had the same air-shocked California Rake and Appliance 5-spokes. Ended up selling it three years later to some dunce who destroyed it within a year.
Definitely fits the bill, for my memory of a typical mid ’70s stoner car.
I graduated HS in ’74, and there were several of these in the parking lot. 68’s and 69’s; most with 307 and PG. One good friend had a red Lemans to break the mold, but he did have chrome Crager SS’s. I think it was almost a mortal sin to modify any of these cars without those wheels being Step 1.
I can smell that late 1960’s Chevy interior old plastic smell from here.