Earlier this week a number of commentators discussed General Motors’ mid-sized cars (go here and here), so I thought I would add a new layer to the conversation by sketching the evolution of the Chevrolet Chevelle’s size.
When the nameplate was introduced in 1964, it mostly represented a return to the exterior dimensions of a 1954 Chevrolet. The Chevelle four-door sedan had a similar length (193.9 vs. 196.4 inches), width (74.5 vs. 75 inches) and wheelbase (115 vs. 115 inches) but was almost nine inches lower.
That resulted in a somewhat lighter car (2,850 vs. 3,210 pounds shipping weight) but also reduced interior room (around 1.2 inches less shoulder room) and trunk space (16.9 vs. 22 cubic feet). This presumably justified calling the Chevelle an “intermediate.”
Only a decade later the Chevelle/Malibu had morphed in size and weight to that of a mid-60s big Chevrolet. One can partly blame that on the advent of federal bumper standards. But even in the absence of battering rams designed to sustain no damage in collisions up to five mph, the Chevelle would have still been two inches wider and easily 10 inches longer than its 1964 predecessor.
Bulkier exterior didn’t translate into much more room
The 1973 Chevelle’s extra bulk did not translate into greater interior room over 1964 models. Although shoulder room gained an inch, hip room was down at least two inches and front headroom was shaved .3 inch due to a fashionably lower greenhouse. Meanwhile, trunk space shrunk 1.6 cubic inches.
If GM product planners thought that an increasing number of buyers would opt for a Chevelle over a big Chevrolet, they presumably didn’t think that roominess was a major consideration.
Endowed with bouncy bumpers front and rear, a base 1974 Chevelle Malibu four-door sedan with the standard six-cylinder engine had a shipping weight of 3,788 pounds — roughly 900 pounds more than an equivalent 1964 model.
Also see ‘Was the 1973-77 Chevrolet Monte Carlo’s styling honest?’
That was arguably too much weight for a six to lug around, which undoubtedly accelerated the shift to V8 engines . . . which added more poundage. A well-equipped Chevelle sedan could top 3,900 pounds.
That raised the question: If you needed a family car, why not just buy a big Chevrolet? A Bel Air was less than 400 pounds heavier than a V8-powered Chevelle but was a considerably roomier car, with almost five inches more shoulder room and a trunk with 18.9 cubic feet of space.
1978 models switch back to more space-efficient design
The 1978 downsizing of GM’s mid-sized cars may have seemed radical at the time, but the Chevelle (now simply called the Malibu) was only pruned to slightly smaller dimensions than the 1964 models. Length was cut to 192.7 inches, width to 71.5 inches and the wheelbase to 108.1 inches.
Despite the reduced exterior dimensions, interior room and trunk space were not all that much smaller than in 1964 models. For example, there was roughly 1.5 inches less shoulder room and only .3 cubic feet less trunk space.
The arc of the Chevelle/Malibu’s life illustrates how American automakers simply couldn’t leave well enough alone. The 1964 models were nicely sized to meet the needs of smaller families, but with each subsequent restyling the car’s exterior dimensions grew.
This was purely about giving the Chevelle what was then considered trendy styling, such as more elaborate sheetmetal sculpting, longer overhangs and — in 1973 — a lower, space-robbing “fuselage” shape.
That’s why it strikes me as ironic when some folks argue that mid-sized cars like the Chevelle grew in size to at least partially supplant big cars in the 1970s. Buyers essentially got the extra bulk of a 1960s big car without the added utility.
NOTES:
Specifications are from the Automobile Catalog (2023), Flammang and Kowalke (1999), Gunnell (2002) and the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Automobile Catalog; 2023. “Full detailed specifications listing and photo gallery.” Accessed Oct. 26.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet (1954); Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu (1964, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1973, 1976, 1978)
As has been stated in earlier blogs, G.M. North American Car & Truck head John Z. DeLorean did not want the planned 1972-1977 (introduced for model-year 1973 due to the 1970-1971 U.A.W. strike) A-bodies to be as large and heavy as the came to be, over-ruled by Bill Mitchell and the 14th Floor. I think that most domestic auto execs below those in the thickly carpeted offices knew that the “sweet-spot” for the American automobile were cars with wheelbases spanning 115-116-inches. Those at the very top believed that big cars equaled the biggest profits. 1974 must have been a year of regrets and much soul-searching.
Good choice on using the Chevelle as a prime example of Detroit’s bigger, glitzier and more powerful syndrome at work. Interior roominess and overall practicality (eg, trunk space, manoeuverability) definitely took a back seat to increased room forward of the firewall in order to accommodate much bigger engines in GM’s A-bodies. This did not make sense for the 1973-77 generation because the day of the muscle car was largely over and big block engines were not needed, IMO, for 4-door sedans and wagons.
I was a frequent driver of my dad’s 1973 Chevelle wagon (base model), purchased new, so I’m well acquainted with it’s flaws. I will mention the good things first: acceptable performance & passing power from its 2 bbl 350 V8 & Turbo Hydramatic transmission (Canadian market car, btw); great air conditioning; the cargo space. The wagon comfortably hauled our family of 5 plus everything else from large pieces of furniture to copious quanitites of fishing and camping gear. The clamshell tailgate was convenient but the fixed tailgate window was disappointing. My dad did not order the car with the optional rear vent windows (I always questioned their usefulness). My impression back in the day was that the Chevelle was not an especially big car but as I was also able to drive a 1976 Dodge Royal Monaco Brougham, 1976 Continental Mk IV and 1978 Chrysler Newport around the same time, those tanks did make the Chevelle seem almost demure.
The ’73 Chevelle wagon was able to easily hold 6 people but on seats that were very low to the floor, with fore-and-aft adjustments only, for the front bench and seat backs raked further than ever to get that long, wide hood needed for big-block motors. GM also had the curious and uncomfortable practice of off-setting the steering wheel in this generation of their mid-sizers, which meant your body was sitting at a slightly-skewed angle in relation to the steering column. Over long drives (I made numerous 8 hour trips in that car) this caused fatigue and discomfort.
The single worst feature of the Chevelle and most other A and A-Specials was the horrible, pre-fab plastic interior door panels. They were cheap and showed just how little GM cared about making a good impression. Combined with the frameless door glass on all models, the sound of the doors closing contributed further to the cheap feeling of the car. Add to this the low-buck interior (no carpet on the passenger floor and bare metal in the cargo area that always rattled when unloaded), the stupid windshield antenna that never did lock in AM radio reception perfectly, rear windows that didn’t roll all the way down and the poor gas mileage (maximum 19 mpg at 60 mph), and well, it wasn’t much more than a workhorse vehicle. It did what it was supposed to do but comfort and quality were sacrificed by GM for style over substance.
CJ, it’s interesting to read your experience with a Chevelle and compare it to mine with a Mercury Montego of the same generation. It sounds like the Montego was a bit better appointed, but that car sure was a tank — yet seemed to have little, if any, more interior room than a compact Dodge Dart. The doors were so thick that you could plausibly stuff a turkey inside them. Ford was even more into the brougham thing than GM, so visibility was terrible even with the four-door “sedans” (which, like the GM mid-sized cars, were pillared hardtops).
This may very well have been the only six-cylinder Montego in California, which made for wheezy acceleration. And while the car was relatively quiet, it had its share of squeaks. What I most remember is that one day I tried to sit on the hood — much like I had regularly done with a mid-60s Chrysler compact that the Montego replaced. Big mistake, both because the sheetmetal was thinner and the Montego’s hood was so large. Fortunately, the indentation I made popped back into its original shape.
In retrospect, I shouldn’t have groaned when my parents talked about buying a Dodge Dart instead. That would have been the better car.