(EXPANDED FROM 11/2/2023)
When the Chevrolet Chevelle was introduced in 1964, it was marketed as an “intermediate.” The term was awkward sounding but made some sense because the car was close to the mid-point in size and weight between a compact Chevy II and “standard-sized” Impala.
The 1964 Impala was roughly 210 inches long, 78 inches wide and weighed around 3,300 pounds, depending on the body style. In contrast, the Chevelle was 16 inches shorter, three inches narrower and around 400 pounds lighter. Meanwhile, the Chevy II was 27 inches shorter, seven inches narrower and around 750 pounds lighter for a comparable body style and trim level.
The Chevelle was the trendy new thing, yet 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).
GM fails to learn from its painful experience
The Chevelle wasn’t quite as roomy as its 1954 predecessor, but it arguably represented the sweet spot for an American family car. Thus, you’d think that the catsup oracles at General Motors would have kept the Chevelle at that size. After all, the whole reason why Detroit had felt compelled to come out with compacts was because the public had revolted against its cars getting too big in the late-50s.
Yet GM management apparently learned nothing from that painful experience, when sales of the automaker’s premium-priced cars collapsed and imports became popular in the U.S. for the first time. Between 1964 and 1974 the Chevelle/Malibu would morph in size and weight to that of a mid-60s big Chevrolet.
Also see ‘Ford got crushed in 1960s mid-sized field despite early entrance’
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.
This was pretty substantial growth, but it occurred in enough increments that it may not have been noticed much at the time. In a way it was like a person who slowly puts on weight over a decade.
New-for-1973 body was last gasp of ‘bigger = better’
The redesigned body was oriented primarily around style-conscious two-door coupes rather than the more utilitarian four-door sedan and wagon. You can see that in the relatively low height of all body styles and the extreme rake of the sides and deck.
Prioritizing the coupes made a certain amount of sense given their relative popularity over sedans and wagons. For example, the 1973 mid-level Malibu two-door coupes vastly outsold the four-door sedan and wagon combined. In addition, the Monte Carlo may have been a top-of-line halo model, but it sold almost as well as the entire lineup of Chevelle two-door coupes.
Of course, even two-door models didn’t have to get so bloated. Richard M. Langworth and Jan P. Norbye noted that GM’s 1973 mid-sized cars would become the automaker’s last new body “designed in an atmosphere of unlimited faith in the traditional way of building American cars — big, on the outside, small on the inside, heavy, posh, and thirsty” (1986, p. 324).
Bulkier exterior didn’t translate into much more room
The 1973-77 Chevelle’s extra bulk did not translate into greater interior room over 1964 models. Although the car gained an inch in shoulder room over the previous generation, 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.
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 3,800 pounds.
That raised the question: If you needed a family car, why not just buy a big Chevrolet? An Impala was only around 360 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:
This story was originally posted on Nov. 2, 2023 and expanded on July 15, 2025. Specifications are from the Automobile Catalog (2023), Flammang and Kowalke (1999), Flory (2004, 2009, 2013), 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.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- ——; 2009. American Cars, 1946-1959: Every Model, Year by Year. McFarland & Co.
- ——; 2013. American Cars, 1973-1980. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M. and Jan P. Norbye; 1986. The Complete History of General Motors 1908-1986. Publications International, Skokie, IL.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Chevrolet (1964)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet (1954); Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu (1964, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1978); Chevrolet Monte Carlo (1974)
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.
I was just about to turn 15 when the 73 Malibu was introduced. I really had loved the 70-72 version, the 73 absolutely horrified me when I first saw it. 52 years later nothing has changed my opinion. The early 70s GM bloat was a total turn off to me. Years later I had a downsized 78 Cutlass Calais, other than the soft camshaft I thought that car was pretty much near perfection.
In one of his many Ate Up With Motor articles, Aaron Severson writes about size creep… the cars get smaller, the cars get bigger, but there is a sweet spot in car size that keeps coming back, which might be around the size of a Honda Accord. I wish I could remember which article it was. He went back to the size of the tri five Chevies and did some comparisons over time.
Montego – my dad had a light green 73 coupe with the dark green vinyl top and interior. The back seat was definitely not roomy. He did get the V8. My mom got his 68 Le Mans coupe in metallic gold. My brother and I got squeezed into the back seats of cars for the sake of styling- my dad preferred the coupes.
I wonder whether it makes much sense anymore to talk about a singular sweet spot for car size. One reason is that the shift from passenger cars to SUVs has changed assumptions about what constitutes an adequate amount of room. And now with the gradual shift to EVs, there are new considerations in terms of packaging and vehicle weight.
Beyond all that, attitudes about the size of cars have evolved as the American population has gravitated to the suburbs and the number of vehicles in typical households has grown. In other words, over time the use case for cars has evolved. George Romney’s insistence that the compact was the car of the future was heavily grounded in research done in the 1940s that anticipated these shifts.
Indie Auto has done a number of data dives on the growth of American cars during the postwar period, e.g., here and here.
You mention a 1973 Montego; my family had a 1972 four-door model. It was roomy enough for its assigned role, which was as a local commuter that rarely carried more than a few people and some shopping bags. A compact or even a subcompact could have done the job much more efficiently. I was always struck by how much unnecessary bloat the Montego had. The doors were as thick as hams and the front overhang was much greater than it needed to be. Nor did it help that visibility was terrible, particularly toward the back due to the huge C-pillars. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have ribbed my dad for considering a Dodge Dart four-door sedan because it looked like an old-man’s car.
“It was roomy enough for its assigned role, which was as a local commuter that RARELY carried more than a few people and some shopping bags” Caps mine. Aye, there’s the rub. I drive a 09 Mits Raider pickup. 80% of the time there is nothing in the bed. However, I’m converting my yard to clover and wildflowers and I’ll be hauling bags of topsoil until first frost. Yeah most of the time I could easily go with a subcompact but at times nothing else will do. Yes the cars of that era were big on the outside small on the inside but they were big enough on the inside compared to the Pinto. If your folks were say, going out with another couple do you want to fold them into cramped ucomfortable back? I’m sure you can think of a number of similar scenarios. Maybe your parents never did those things but I bet some crossed their minds visiting the showroom. Regarding the porcine doors, was perhaps that needed for the curved glass?
The thing about cars is that we all have our own individual experiences. Yours could very likely be different from mine. For example, I think it pretty safe to say that our Montego was never used to “go out with another couple.” We had a big van for larger groups of people, bulky cargo or long trips.
If you take a look at the door sides of a Montego and compare them with a 1963 Rambler Classic, the latter were much thinner even though they both used curved side glass. That was purely a styling decision, albeit one that all of the U.S. automakers indulged in to a meaningful degree in the 1970s.
Some time ago I rode in the backseat of a modern B-segment family car launched a few years ago (its body roughly 165 inches long, for a wheelbase around 100 inches) and although I am of average height, with my hat on I touched the ceiling and my knees were squeezed by front seat’s backseat. None of the occupants of the car could be described as tall.
By American standards that could be classed as a supermini I guess, but I definitely would not recommend such a short car if the prospect buyer foresees to frequently use the backseat or if the prospect himself/herself is tall.
Also keep in mind the side of the average American’s back seat.