The Chevelle Malibu SS has long been iconic, thanks to the legendary SS396 and SS454 versions — they were some of the hottest muscle cars of their times. And thanks to its tidy size and the ready availability performance parts or engines to swap in, any Chevelle or Malibu coupe became an object of desire. But the Malibu SS didn’t exactly come charging out of the gate bristling with bulging muscles; when it arrived for the 1964 model year, the hottest engine option was a 220 hp 4-barrel version of the venerable 283 V8. Why no hot 327?
M/T tested a 220 hp 4-speed Malibu SS, and although it was reasonably quick and had some good qualities, they just couldn’t quite get excited about it. Maybe that’s why Chevy made the 327 available in January of 1964?
The initial engine lineup for the ’64 Chevelle is rather curious. Where’s the 327s? Given that the ’64 Chevy II had the same 220-hp 283 available as its top engine choice, that’s an odd omission. And what’s up with that 155-hp 230 six, with a hotter cam and chrome valve cover and air cleaner? Who possibly gave a damn about that, on a six? Since the Chevy II had the 283 and the big Chevys had the 409 it seems only obvious that the new in-between Chevelle would have the 327.
Well, Chevy quickly saw the error of its ways, and both the 250 and 300 hp version of the 327 were on tap starting in January. And supposedly the really hot 365 hp L76 327 was also available, but only for a month or so. But there’s no genuine survivors left with that engine to prove it. But it was easy enough — and not uncommon — to order one over the counter and swap it in and terrorize GTOs and such. Such is the beauty of Chevy’s plug and play power trains.
Given the less-than-ideal 3.08:1 rear axle, the little rev-happy 283 acquitted itself well-enough, with a 9.7 second 0-60 time and a 1/4 mile time of 17.4 @80 mph. Obviously not muscle car stuff, but what could be called reasonably brisk for the times. And of course, the 283 could easily be coaxed to give more, thanks to a plethora of over-the-counter and aftermarket parts.
As to its ride and handling, things were a bit more middling. Chevrolet’s obsession with its “Jet-Smooth Ride” resulted in more understeer and lean in corners and bobbing on bumps than desirable. But the solution to that was dirt cheap, as in $4.85 for the optional HD suspension with stiffer springs and shocks. You might think that would come standard with the “Super Sport”, along with the bucket seats, console and all that SS badging, but no, it didn’t. And yes, the 120-hp 194 six was the standard engine on the SS. It was an appearance and trim package only.
The drum brakes were just adequate, and the power steering was a lot slower (3.98 turns) than it needed to be, or should be. But yes, the optional plastic wood-grain, two spoke sport steering wheel looked…super sporty, even when noodling it around a lot more than ideally so.
M/T pointed out that the Chevelle reminded them (and a whole lot of other folks) of the legendary ’55 Chevrolet. They noted that the wheelbases were within an inch of each other, although the ’55 Chevy was a bit longer and heavier. As to performance, a ’55 Chevy tested by R&T with the smaller 180 hp 4-barrel 265, three-speed manual and a steep 4.11 rear axle did the 0-60 run in 9.7 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 17.4 seconds, both exactly the same as this Chevelle, down to the tenth of a second. What a coincidence. Given that the ’55 weighed 300 lbs more, had a smaller engine and a three-speed, it is a bit surprising, as well as underlining just how brisk that car was in its time.
M/T felt that their average mileage of 16 mpg was good for a car that was reasonably quick.
Fit and finish (panel gaps) were deemed to be somewhat below Chevrolet’s general high standards of the time; probably a reflection of the Chevelle being all-new.
Another oddity: this article says that the Chevy II was going to lose its hardtop coupe and convertible bodies for ’64, so as not to compete too closely with the Chevelle. That turned out to be only half-true, as the convertible was dropped, in favor of the Malibu convertible. But the Nova SS coupe was still very much available.
The Chevelle got off to a good start in 1964, with 338k sales, well above the Fairlane, its main direct competitor. But about half those sales came out of the Chevy II’s hide, not surprisingly. And the Malibu and SS versions were by far the most popular, with their combined sales representing 67% of total Chevelle sales. The trend to higher-trim but smaller cars that had started with the Corvair Monza was continuing, and one that would eventually dominate the market.
The final word: “People were constantly asking about the car wherever we stopped. Only time will tell about the future of the Chevelle.” It certainly did.
Related CC reading:
Chevelle SS or Malibu SS? – An Overview of Chevrolet’s Intermediate Super Sport
Curbside Classic: 1964 Chevelle Malibu SS Convertible – The Belle Late For The Ball
The Chevy II did initially lose its hardtop coupe for 1964. It was reinstated at some point in the model year – a revised brochure was issued showing the body style where the first printing did not.
Aha. All the brochures I found must have been the revised ones.
It seems an odd choice, and obviously one they quickly regretted. As well as the decision to only offer the 283 in the Chevelle.
Wouldn’t the 3.70 rear gear defeat the purpose of the overdrive? It doesn’t say how much over, but until it kicked in, you’d be at much higher revs. Looks like that would be the fastest setup–if you can shift efficiently.
No. All overdrives back then had a higher numerical rear axle. But not nearly enough to defeat the purpose of the overdrive.
Why? Because one of the benefits of the overdrive was so that one could start off in second gear, eliminating a shift. One could drive around town in 2nd and 2nd/OD without ever shifting. That was actually why it was originally conceived. Full story here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/the-joys-of-overdrive-the-planetary-kind-not-interstellar-or-otherwise/
The overdrive ratio was 0.70:1, so it really needed a higher numerical axle ratio. With a 3.70 axle, overdrive gave you an overall ratio of 2.59:1, much taller than the standard 3.08, and probably tall enough to make for sluggish performance in hill country: 2,110.9 revs/mile, according to the factory specs. With overdrive off, you had 3,015.5 revs/mile, which would have gotten a little tiresome on an extended highway drive, but was a pretty usable range for hills or passing.
By contrast, with the non-OD three-speed, you had your choice of 2,510.2 revs/mile in 3rd or 4,221.7 in 2nd. So, top was less economical for cruising, and if the engine was unhappy pulling third gear on a steep grade, you could get caught in the big gap between 3rd and 2nd.
With its styling the most bland of the new GM midsizers, the Chevelle looked to me like a half-baked effort on the part of Chevrolet. Perhaps they did not want to offend anyone in their mass-msrket audience.
When these were being drawn, they must have been reacting to the over-the-top ’59-60 Chevy: “What have we done?” In ’66, they made bland beautiful.
If “half baked” means lacking the silly affectations slathered on the sides of other cars at the time, then yes, give me half-baked. It’s clean, not unlike a junior version of the ’63 Riviera and GP, albeit with a cheap generic front end that of course mirrors the one on the big ’64 Chevy.
Stylistically, none of the new, 1964-65 GM intermediates were anything to write home about, with the sole exception being the stacked-headlight 1965 Pontiac Tempest, the basis of which made for for one of the better looking GTOs of the musclecar era.
We could also add, the F-85 beginned to be overshadowed by the Cutlass, where mid-size Oldsmobile buyers referred them more and more as Cutlass than F-85 and the arrival of the Vista-Cruiser and the 442 going after the GTO.
I agree, that semi skirted rear wheel opening and very slight coke bottle kickup of the quarter panel are completely incongruous themes that have also have a fattening effect to the body, which the BOP variations all do better. I’ll agree the lack of trim is a nice touch but the core styling isn’t even in the same ballpark as the GP or Riviera IMO
And, being an adult modeler, I’m happy to say it looks like REVELL will bring out an all-new tooling of this car soon! I’ll build mine as a 327 4bbl. 4-speed! They say the first edition of a car design is often favored the best, and in this case I have to agree.
It seems like there’s always been a corporate edict (official or not) that Chevrolet isn’t supposed to build any cars that are faster than a Corvette. And the big block 396 didn’t become available until MY 1965. Maybe Chevy held back the 327 in the Chevelle line to ensure that it wasn’t faster than a 1964 327 Corvette? Just spitballing here.
A 300 hp Chevelle would definitely not have been faster than a 375 hp 327 Corvette. The 327 did become available in the ’64 Chevelle within a couple of months.
The decision to not offer the 327 initially is particularly odd because the Ford Fairlane was available with the hot 271 hp K-Code 289 since the middle of the 1963 MY.
I can’t help but think that the initial merchandising of the Chevelle was influenced by the Rambler Classic, which was just as much its natural prey as the Fairlane. The Classic 6 offered an optional six with 138 hp rather than the standard 127, and I suspect the 230/155 was aimed at that, an engine for people who could be enticed by a bit more power, but were resistant to stepping up to a V-8.
In retrospect, the idea of Chevrolet caring about AMC seems silly, but I think that’s mostly because the A-body pretty well decimated the Classic. In 1963, AMC sold 320,000 Classics, and 87 percent of those were sixes, so it would make sense for that to loom large in Chevrolet’s initial strategy for the A-body.
The Car Life Chevelle line article (in their March 1964 issue) notes a couple of salient points:
1. That Chevrolet expected the Chevelle to cannibalize Chevy II sales much more than it actually did, and decided in spring 1963 “to continue an emasculated Chevy II line as a hedge on the Chevelle bet.”
2. That early Chevelle sales were stronger than Chevrolet’s production plans had anticipated (18 percent of Chevrolet production rather than 15 percent).
3. That the 327 had just been announced when the CL test began. The issue would have been on newsstands in early February 1964 and their test would have been at least three months before that — probably not that terribly long after the Chevelle went on sale at the end of September 1963.
So, my read is that Chevrolet initially expected to sell the Chevelle as a bigger replacement for the Chevy II and a Rambler Classic fighter, and the initial merchandising plans reflected that economy car aim. Production figures in Standard Catalog of American Cars suggest that Chevelle 300 buyers took the six-cylinder engines at a rate of more than three to one over the V-8, and while Malibu buyers preferred the V-8, it wasn’t by as big a margin as one might expect.
Makes sense when one considers that the Sloan hierarchy was still going strong, even with GM’s divisional smaller cars. The Chevy II was Chevrolet, alone, but the Chevelle had platform mates in every other GM division other than Cadillac. I have no doubt that played a role in limiting the V8 engines that the Chevelle initially got.
Want a hotter V8 engine in your GM intermediate? Well, we’ve got one right here in the (more profitable) F-85, Skylark, or Tempest. But if you want to stick with Chevrolet, all you’re getting is a 283,
Of course, that didn’t last long with the success of the GTO and, soon enough, a 327 or 396 became an option for the Chevelle. Then, the Mustang arrived on the scene and the Nova hardtop was moved into a competitor until the Camaro was ready.
So, I can’t feature a scenario where the truly storming 1966 L79 327/350hp Nova could exist without having something equal in the Chevelle.
Want a hotter V8 engine in your GM intermediate? Well, we’ve got one right here in the (more profitable) F-85, Skylark, or Tempest. But if you want to stick with Chevrolet, all you’re getting is a 283,
That’s not how it worked at GM back then. The divisions had a huge amount of autonomy, almost totally so when it came to powertrain choices. Chevrolet Division was enormous, and these kind of decisions were not made by corporate. Their only edict at the time was no engines bigger than 330 cubic inches in the A-Bodies, which of course was quickly trampled upon by the GTO and then the rest of the herd.
The decision to either offer or not offer the 327 in the Chevelle would have been 100% divisional. And that decision to add the 327 was made within a couple of months. It was clearly a mistake that they were undoing quickly.
No one at GM had any actual incentive to enforce the Sloan hierarchy in that way. It did not benefit Chevrolet executives or Chevrolet dealers for buyers wanting a hotter V-8 to go to Pontiac or Oldsmobile; it didn’t benefit B-O-P dealers or executives to cede much low-priced ground to Chevrolet either.
It seems like Chevrolet really didn’t expect the Chevy II to survive as long as it did, anticipating that buyers who wanted something conventional and relatively economical would gravitate to the Chevelle instead. My best guess is that not offering the 327 initially was an attempt to situate the Chevelle as an economy car, and it wasn’t until they got the first month or so of sales reports that the Chevrolet sales organization realized that the Chevy II was holding up better than anticipated. (It did take a big hit — from about 375K in 1963 to about 200K in 1964 — but not enough to make it the dead duck they apparently expected.)
I get why they offered the 155 hp 230; I just don’t get why it came standard with a chrome plated valve cover and air cleaner. The V8s didn’t get that, with the possible exception of a few top-dog versions.
It would be interesting to find out the take rate for trims and powertrains of many old cars, back when there were lots of options, most a la carte. I’m sure the manufacturers still have the data, but they have no reason to publish or to care.
Would anyone besides us watch a TV drama like “Mad Men” set in 50s or 60s Detroit, but with actual cars, engineering, and marketing decisions (and less soap opera and smoking)?
I wouldn’t assume that, sadly. Judging by the experience of people who’ve tried to research that kind of data (like the Camaro Research Group), the issue is that the manufacturers often didn’t compile or retain this information in the ways collectors, historians, and enthusiasts would like to have it. The factories did obviously know how many sixes or V-8s they built, and things like that, but they weren’t looking to correlate stuff like how, e.g., many blue ’64 Chevelles were ordered with the L76 327 and no radio. Also, what data they did have doesn’t necessarily still exist, and even if it does, it may not be in readily accessible or searchable form.
My older brother had one with the 283 4 barrel.When I would sneak it out on him and floor it,the way she sprang forward with a soul stirring roar made me feel like The King of the Road! I couldn’t wait to get my license!
Visually I’ve always favored the ’64-’65 Malibu as the best of the GM intermediates; despite my first car being a ’64 Pontiac Tempest Custom, 4 dr, 6/AT. Rather odd as the 64 Tempest was the bottom for looks, IMO. I did manage @ 48000+ miles on the Tempest in the 13 months I had the car tho! Price rules, and when I bought the u$ed Tempest in ’68……….$$$ sold me!
My father bought a blah beige ’65 Malibu 4 dr., 6/AT new and found the car fine for his driving needs. I doubt the appearance really factored into his purchased decision: he was a “Chevy man” and this Malibu was a significant improvement over the whale of a stick 6, 4 dr ’60 Biscayne he traded for it! The Malibu lasted until he moved “UP” to a 4 dr, 283 ’67 Impala……in RED no less!! WOWZURR$!! “:) DFO
How do people put that many miles on in a short time–long commutes or long trips? I’d always assumed people used rental cars mostly for local driving from an airport, but, looking at the miles driven on CarFaxes, apparently not.
People drive rental cars like they stole them.
I always found the 64 Chevelle’s styling to be thick and clumsy compared to the other top-trim A body hardtops – LeMans, Cutlass and Skylark. Which is odd, because Chevrolet’s styling during that era was often some of the best in the business. The 66-67 was far more attractive in relation to its stable-mates.
I am not sure that Chevrolet (or GM) understood at first just how critical these cars would be to their future. In fact, I am quite sure they had no idea.
I personally like the 64’s better than most 60’s A bodies… I think the clumsiness comes from the soft suspension. I’ve got 1.5″ drop Hotchkis springs that keep mine pretty firm and it has a very solid and attractive presence. Granted, I’m sure I’m biased… but I’m also sure I’m not the only one who thinks so 🙂
283’s are nice, had one in my 56, thing would pull the wheels, 411 gear, traction bars. Key to all this I think was a 30-30 Duntov solid lift cam. Was my daily driver. All those old cars had some bad body roll. Got a 62 SS 327 Impala with a swapped 70 350 Short block, Duntov 30-30 cam, 4 speed , then Beefed Suspension, Way More Springs ( 9 passenger station wagon springs) in back, front ones Beefed, Then Coil Over Shocks all the way around & some 15″ wheels with Big Fat Radials, car was sweet. Have a 62 SS 409 Impala now but no 409. Has had some Rowdy 327’s in It, has similar suspension as 1st one. My New Camaro Handles Real Well.🤪
The six cylinder/Powerglide version of this car was so dull that it was featured in insurance companies advertisements.
All you people who say oh the 64-65 malibu looks bland with the semi skirted back wheel well opening and ketchup bottle quarterpanels should all receive a mustang 2 you know the ugly looking mustang that no one wants cuz that’s about all the brain capacity you people share as a whole I wish I could say individually but I would be lying and I don’t lie. But who cares what You people say because check the pricing on the 64 and 65 malibu and compare them to any other non gm 64 and 65 and well ill let it speak for it self.
Early 64 chevelle cars even the ss car.were.still being developed for drive trains..duntov.and corvette engineers owned the 327 motor.in the 63 and 64 vette cars..they did want to share this motor with a 2500 $ sedan car called a chevelle..that’s not corvette stuff..that’s just.Gm in 1963 and 1964.and the platform..corvette was not .to share motors or trannys with other bow tie cars…still the 283 motor is a good chevy motor..210 horses.and they allowed A.4barrell version quadrajet.carb…lots of 64 chevelles are the 6 cylinder cars.models too. .the 65 ss chevelle is a better car.more defined..still only 12,000.327.motor cars made and 40k 283 motor cars made in.chevelle 1965..the 1966 cars starts 2.motors in the 396 range and several versions..I think.3..327 motors..and in 66..a lot of 283 motor malibus around to…Early years chevelle car was being developed..really the 69 ss396 chevelle was a winner car..disc brakes 4 speed and.better handles..the car got better..1970..killer red.Ss.454 Ss chevelle car made.with wheels and black stripes..you could sell a zillion of these cars…I. have owned a 66 SS 396 chevelle since nov.1971. It’s a neat car..plenty of power.spind the tires and grab a gear…man it goes..it aint.no corvair…bunky.kudnesen. was right about the chevelle. In 1964..hey give us a little time on the 65 chevelle..we.ll make it one hell of a car..his friend pete.estes.in 1967 had the same idea.with the intro.of the 67.SS 350 camaro in August of 1966…hey..2 chevy guys at,GM that did.not need the corvette guys to rule the chevelle or the camaro successful cars…hey even Pete Estes stole the 302 motor from duntov in the chevy.engineering.divison…as he told corvette engineers to release the 302 motor for the 67 z28 camaro..finally someone at Gm..Pete Estes got it right at Gm with camaro and chevelle cars..He left us a prize for sure..69 SS camaros..Ss454 chevelle..67 SS chevelles..great cars..thanks PeteyEstes for leaving me a 69 Ss camaro..r.jones.
Paul, thank you – you’ve answered a question I’ve had for a while. Thanks also to Aaron for a major assist with those Car Life citations.
I’d used the annual brand sales figures from Wikipedia since WWII to chart a few brands – and it illustrated the apparent cannibalizaion by “Chevelle!” sales in ’64, in contrast to the new Corvair in ’60 and Chevy II in ’62. “I wonder why…”
Well, here’s my answer: it came out of the Chevy II, and here’re the figures behind it. Muchas gracias, senors.
Is your personally-assembled database to thank for this, by any chance?
Is your personally-assembled database to thank for this, by any chance?
Yes it is. it’s a very useful tool, but not complete. I’m trying to figure out how I can make it readily accessible on the site here. It’s an Excel speadsheet.
Ah, good, thanks! And bravo – may it grow and prosper 😉