(first posted 10/14/2016) Welcome to Part 4 of this ever-expansive dive into the depths of automotive history, exploring various times when relatively small displacement engines were used to power mainstream offerings. Today, we are examining an offering from none other than Chevrolet.
In 1962, Chevrolet brought forth an engine whose type had not graced the brand since 1928. Beginning in 1962, and ending in 1970, one could acquire a four-cylinder engine in a compact Chevrolet.
Advertised as the Super-Thrift 153, due to its 153 cubic inch displacement, this engine is not to be confused with the Pontiac Iron Duke 2.5 liter engine. While the Iron Duke has a 4 inch bore with a 3 inch stroke yielding a smaller displacement of 151 cubic inches, the 153 has a 3.875 inch bore and a 3.25 inch stroke. That bore and stroke of the 153 is identical to that of the Chevrolet 230 cubic inch straight six that would come along one year later (1963) and would be found in the full-sized Chevrolets starting that year.
These Chevy four and six cylinder engines were developed at the same time, and share architecture and most internal parts. The 153 four and 230 six also share the same bore and stroke with the 307 cubic inch Chevy small block V8. There was some limited commonality with those engines, but not as much as between the sixes and the four.
The Super Thrift four was advertised with 90 hp, but as this chart from GM’ heritage Center Vehicle Kit shows, its net hp was 75. That makes a better point of comparison to post-1972 cars. For what its worth, that 90 hp was still a bit more than the 85 hp on the Falcon’s 144 cubic inch six. But it ran smoothly, at least.
There were four and six cylinder versions of the two lower trim Chevy IIs available; the six cost exactly $60 more, in 1962, that was undoubtedly money well spent. The deluxe Nova model only came with the six. Not only was the 194 Hi-Thrift six more powerful, with 120 gross/95 net hp, it obviously ran a lot smoother too. Big fours are pretty notorious for being rough-running without balance shafts.
Harvesting from the bounteous fruit of YouTube, one is able find a video of a running 153 mounted in a 1963 Nova convertible.
Which is rather odd, since several sources (like the ’63 brochure) show that the Nova series only came with the six. Apparently someone wanted a four in their Nova convertible really badly. Did they get a $60 break in the bargain?
Given the production of four-cylinder Nova / Chevy II’s (which, oddly enough, my mother had a ’62 with the four-banger), good luck finding one.
I thought they had a four, saw one in a Nova wagon about 40 years ago so it was factory. I didn’t believe it but my BIL swore that he saw it at a local garage so we went to look and sure enough that’s what it had. We just couldn’t understand why GM did it and still don’t!
That four-cylinder engine was BIG news in 1962. I had no idea, though, that it was available through the 1970 model year.
Remember that in 1962 Volkswagen was making unexpected sales inroads in the America. I recall seeing several four-pot Renault Dauphines and Ford Cortinas at that time, too, particularly amaong the acaemdic set. Of course, the compact Ford Falcon was a very big sales deal in the early sixties.
A family friend bought a new ’68 Nova 4 cylinder 3 on tree stripper. I remember him lifting the hood and seeing that tiny engine inside the engine bay. He said he got it for about the price of a new Beetle. I had no idea it was one of only 1,270 built. A Cadillac turned left in front of him after about a year, that was the end of the Nova. Pretty serious accident, no seat belt and put him in the hospital for a while. He was a very large man, over 300 lbs. He said he was disappointed on how badly the car folded up. Lots of room to crush before that little engine even would have been touched.
I got to drive one of these engines – but not in a Nova. These were used in the Kaiser Jeep Dispatchers (Mail Jeeps). A friend owned one that was either a 69 or 70 model, with the Chevy 153 and a 2 speed automatic that was probably a Powerglide. It was plenty of power for that little lightweight Jeep. It always started and never gave a moment’s worth of mechanical trouble. But it never, ever ran really smoothly.
I did ride in the back seat of the Nova a time or two, didn’t really notice a lot of vibration as a 12 year old passenger. But that was a long time ago and I just barely remember riding in it. It seemed to go OK. The 3 speed was the right transmission choice for this car.
My dad tried to buy one in 1969-’70 or so with the 4-cylinder engine. HE claimed the dealer wouldn’t order one for him.
These earlier versions of the 3G Nova had the third long production life after 1972 (from 1968-78). Even though the later versions of the 3G Nova and the 4G Nova were not available in Argentina, the earlier versions of the 3G Nova were still being produced there through 1978 and they were called Chevrolet Chevy and their top of the line 4 Door Sedan were called Chevrolet Chevy Malibu (not related to the U.S. Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu). The first Nova that had the longest production life was the Chevrolet Iran Nova which had an off and on production from 1980 through 1992. The 1975-79 both the U.S. and Iranian Nova were built at the same time so I only mentioned from 1980-on since the Novas were discontinued here back on March, 1979 and only to be replaced by the FWD X-Car Chevrolet Citation as a 1980 model. Our First Generation Chevrolet Chevy II Nova which were made here from 1962-65 were also built in Argentina through 1974 and they were called Chevrolet Chevy 100 so this genre of the Nova had the second long production life 1962-74.
In Brazil they put this engine in an Opel Rekord C body (the Chevrolet Opala) which was built into the early ’90s.
Chevrolet Chevy has to be the most reduntant model name ever. Funny thing is it isn’t – in Australia there was a Chrysler by Chrsyler.
I supposed that they have either redundantly done this purposely in haste and/or lack of imagination because the Chevrolet Marketing people in Argentina do not want to use the Nova name due to their own misguided and erroneous interpretations as a resulting stigma attached to it.
A car so nice they had to name it twice
From Chevy II to Chevy².
different name was required. What does NO VA mean in spanish?
I had forgotten that the Nova was originally just a high-end trim package on the Chevy II. Was this always the case, or did they all become Novas at some point, just like the Chevelle and Full Size Chevies became Malibus, Impalas and then Caprice over time?
1969.
The name change was transitional – all ’68s were badged as “Chevy II Nova”, the ’69 was badged as “Nova”, but marketed as the “Chevy Nova”, then in ’70 it was just Nova.
Probably due to the fact the name change of the car from Chevy II to Nova could have been a last minute change prior to the start of the 1969 model year.
The Malibu/Malibu Classic/Laguna S-3 were also badged as “Chevelle” until the 1978s came out.
For the Full-Size models… Starting in 1958(?) the trim levels were Del Ray, Biscayne, Bel Air. At some point, possibly 1962/3, Del Ray went away, and the trim levels were Biscayne, Bel Air, Impala.
Biscayne stuck around until 1973, mostly as a fleet/taxi/police model. Bel Air was dropped shortly thereafter.
By the 1977 redesign, Impala was fleet-spec, then Caprice, then Caprice Classic.
Chevrolet was also trying at one point to distinguish the standard Nova with the Nova Concours line and trying to make them two separate lines therefore eliminating the “Nova” name and just calling the car “Concours” (which during 1968-69 was also the name used for the luxury trimmed Chevelle line up and later on Station Wagons through 1972 and two decades later a luxurious trim variations for the Cadillac DeVille line) which of course did not fool people therefore the Concours name (except in Mexico which still used this name especially a unique Deluxe version which was our Buick Skylark here) were replaced by the revival of the Nova Custom line up through its discontinuation after 1979.
The Delray was gone after a single year (’58).
77-85 Impalas were base level trim, but not all of them were ‘fleet spec’ strippos.
Last US Bel Air was ’75, Biscayne ’72.
Chevy II/Nova: The Chevy II was collapsed into just a single Nova series in 1968, then the Chevy II prefix disappeared for 1969. The four-cylinder engine was not offered in pre-1968 Novas, only in the lower trim level Chevy IIs.
Chevelle/Malibu: Chevelles continued to carry the Malibu prefix through 1977, although all Chevelles were badged as Malibus from 1974 on except for the Laguna (which lasted until 1976). The downsized 1978 Malibus were the first that didn’t also carry the Chevelle name.
Full-size: The three trim levels in 1958 were Del Ray, Biscayne and Bel Air, with the new Impala as a subseries of the Bel Air, available only as a coupe or convertible. In 1959 the Impala became a distinct model and was expanded into a full range of body styles; the Bel Air and Biscayne were each bumped down a notch, and the Del Ray was dropped. The Caprice first appeared as an option package for Impala four-door hardtops in 1965, then became a distinct model and was expanded into a full range of body styles for 1966. The Biscayne was dropped after 1972, the Bel Air after 1975, and the Impala after 1985, leaving just the Caprice. (Note: The Biscayne and Bel Air both continued to be sold in Canada for a few more years after they were dropped in the U.S.; I believe the Biscayne lasted until 1975, and the Bel Air until 1981.)
The Chevelle name as one of the Malibu trim series did carried over in Mexico for the 1978 downsized version if this counts? Only in the U.S. and Canada the Chevelle name as you mentioned was dropped.
There was a base Chevelle Deluxe trim in ’73, also, just one year.
Caprice wasn’t a convertible until ’73-’75.
“..the Impala [was dropped] after 1985, leaving just the Caprice”
To be a little more exact: From 1973 to 1985, all Caprices were known by the “Caprice Classic” name. For 1986, the Impala was replaced by a new base (non-“Classic”) Caprice. So I guess you could say the Impala name was dropped after 1985, but its place in the full-size Chevy lineup wasn’t. I don’t know how long after 1986 the base Caprice continued to be available.
The base Caprice lasted into the “Whale” body era, 1991-96.
What was cool about the ‘base Caprice’ of late 80’s was it still had an aura of luxury, with the fleur d’ leis symbol.
The “Whale” lost that and were just plain old big Chevys to me.
I’ve seen what I think were non-Nova ’68 Chevy IIs with “Chevy II” badges where the “Nova” badges normally were and obviously stripper trim.
There was an Impala S sedan in 1976 which pretty much was the ’75 Bel Air in all but name.
Rather surprised to see the large 4cyl production for ’69. Around ’74 or so I saw a 69 Nova, 4 cylinder, 3 speed manual on the tree. Far more of these engines (and it’s 181/3.0L twin) ended up in boats, forklifts, generators, etc, than was ever planted in Nova’s, at least here in the States. And after 28 years as a marine mechanic, I still cringe when I hear some clam brain refer to them as the Iron Duke
Also interesting to note…
There was a 181 cubic inch (3 liter) version of this engine, but it never was installed in a passenger car. Descendants of the 3.0 are still sold to this day as the Mercruiser 3.0.
https://www.mercurymarine.com/en/us/engines/inboard-and-sterndrive/mercruiser/30l/
This is interesting. I have one in my boat. Hot Rod magazine promoted these marine engines as a more robust swap for Iron Dules in Fieros etc. They referred to it as a 3 liter version of the Iron Duke. I guess its not, but the bell housing is probably the same, making it an easier swap.
Paul did a writeup here
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/need-a-new-engine-for-your-chevy-ii-four-cylinder-its-still-in-production-today-as-the-vortec-3-0/
Is that fellow on the ’69 Nova brochure cover wearing a hat? That’s so 1959.
lol, very true. Definitely using a NOVA as a city/commuter/airport/don’t give a f*** car.
Indeed he is; that’s what attracted me to this picture.
The etiquette of hattery?
My dad always used to take his hat off inside the car, and sit it on the seat beside him; put it on when he got out. He was only 5’6″, so it certainly wasn’t a headroom thing. Was it like taking your hat off inside a building?
Running gripe when driving in 1980’s was “being behind an old guy in a hat, slowly moving along”.
I’m sure that the 4 cyl was intended to appeal to the older demographic that lived through, and were scarred by The Great Depression. Many of that generation got by with as little as they could and the mentality of them would have justified that they saved 60 dollars and there were two less cylinders to have problems with.
I often find it amusing when speaking to younger people on FB or other places, they’re always amazed that many “brougham”-style cars came with crank windows, etc. Apparently many of them missed the history lesson on the Great Depression and what that did to folks.
My folks were old enough to have lived as adults through the Depression and WWII, and they never spent a cent more than they needed to. I can remember in the mid 1970’s my folks buying a new Mercury that had air conditioning and my father worrying that it would be major failure point with the car. We still had crank windows, though… No worries there.
Younger enthusiasts can’t quite get it through their head that many people didn’t see the necessity in power windows, when they had a perfectly good arm. People just saw these things as failure points, even on more expensive cars. Now cars come so impressively equipped we nitpick about whether or not the interior door panels are squishy enough. Times have changed.
Part of the reason cars now almost universally have power windows is that it’s cheaper to not have to do the side impact tests twice, which current regs would otherwise require. Also, adding more content is a way of justifying the higher base prices of modern cars. So, it’s not just a matter of buyers being spoiled — it’s that it’s more expedient for manufacturers.
Why, oh why did they not just put this engine in the Vega from the start?
At that time, Detroit was facing rapidly growing competition from foreign makers. Their designs were generally more advanced than what we were offering. The idea behind the Vega was to one-up the foreign makers with (not well proven) cutting edge technology. We all know how that story unfolded. The old Nova 4 cyl. would have been regarded as unacceptably retrograde for the Vega project at that time.
I don’t think it was a matter of leading the pack. If I recall correctly, in theory, wasn’t the sleeveless aluminum block supposed to be cheaper to produce, thus increasing the profit margins on the car? I also recall that’s why they had an iron head. GM was trying to squeeze every dollar they could out of that car…
I’m trying to think of another alloy block/iron head engine. I seem to recall the old rear-engine Skodas used this metallic mismatch too.
The later Cadillac HT4100 did so as well, to no great effect.
Detroit was having an aluminum party in the sixties! AMC made a straight 6 cylinder 196 cubic inch aluminum block from 1961-63. It had a cast iron OHV head. Chrysler made a straight 6 cylinder 225 cubic inch aluminum block in 1962 and 1963. It also had a cast iron head. So, the reasoning behind the aluminum block/cast iron head was Detroit wide thinking. They can’t all be wrong. At the same time the Oldsmobile and Buick 3.5 liter/215 cubic inch OHV V8 were being produced as was the Corvair aluminum head and crankcase flat six. Cost was the death knell of all these projects. Excessive wastage was a major issue with all of the block castings. Consumer struggles with coolant and mechanics struggling with softer aluminum threads.
I think the Chevy 153 with its 3.875″ bore and 3.125″ stroke is an odd choice, I assume dictated by production cost sharing. Clearly it is not to reduce 2nd order vibrations, the major vibrational drawback to an inline four cylinder. Shorter strokes reduce 2nd order vibrations. Bores of 4″ with strokes of 3″ or 2.875″ would have worked great. The Chevrolet 327 V8 had a 4″ bore and it was introduced the same year as the 153. They could have just taken one bank, like Pontiac, with a reasonable stroke (unlike Pontiac), and had a reasonably smooth inline 4 cylinder, at a reasonable cost. I think it is just unwillingness to spend money on engineering for an engine that is not desirable to the organization making it. The organizational disdain showed and damaged their product.
I think the Chevy 153 with its 3.875″ bore and 3.125″ stroke is an odd choice, I assume dictated by production cost sharing.
The 153 was just 2/3 of the 230 six; both were new in 1962, and shared all the internal components (except crankshaft). This made it cheap to “develop” (essentially zero) and cheap to build, using the same expensive transfer lines as the six as well as all those components.
It’s safe to assume that Chevy was very pragmatic in this choice, inasmuch as they knew the four would only be installed in a relatively modest percentage of Chevy II’s, as well as a few vans.
If they had come out with a genuine subcompact at the time which would have used a four primarily/exclusively, I suspect they would have put a bit more thought and money into improving its dynamic qualities and vibration. Presumably. Maybe. Hopefully. 🙂
A slant-four derived from a V-8 is bulkier and heavier than a conventional I-4 (you end up with more like two-thirds of the original engine rather than half), and complicates the second-order vibration issues because the direction of piston motion isn’t straight up and down. It would have been better for breathing, but that obviously wasn’t a major priority with the 153 or the 194/230. A 2.5-liter four without balance shafts is never going to be a model of smoothness, but in terms of size, weight, cost, and manufacturing ease, it was likely a better solution than a slant-four derived from the SBC would have been.
I always thought the aluminum block was because GM had a huge contract with Reynolds Aluminum. Reynolds built a foundry next to the Tonawanda New York plant where Corvair engines were built. With the end of Corvair production GM had an obligation to Reynolds.
As to the sleeveless cylinders, Porsche and Honda have apparently perfected this and use it today. But in the Vega days technology wasn’t quite there, and GM was cranking out huge amounts of a low end engine compared to Porsche at that time.
That is the reason; to utilize their huge sunk investment in the aluminum casting foundry. Corvair to Vega to Cadillac HT4100.
I have often wondered that myself. It wouldn’t have been too difficult to design an aluminum OHC head to fit it. Pontiac had pioneeed the way with their OHC six which was based on the 230 6 that the 153’s had been based on. Had they done that and had the quality of the later Vega’s at first we would probably be praising them instead of calling them one of GM’s big mistakes today. Or taking the OHC six and loping off 2 cylinders fixing the upper oiling problem at the same time. Vega’s biggest Japanese competitors all had iron blocks with aluminum heads when the Vega was introduced.
I remember that MT article. I believe they said the that the 6 with a 3sp OD probably made more sense than the 4cy engine.l
Unless the Chevy 153 featured a thin-wall cast-iron block despite its 350 lbs weight, GM would have needed to find a way to reduce its weight to something closer to the Vega’s 285 lbs weight on top of equipping an OHC 153 with an alloy-head.
Had it been possible (via the alloy CERV SBC V8 as tested in a Vega for example) it would have resulted in a rather decent engine family with a displacement range of 1.8-2.5-litres (lower capacity via Opel K180) and wider use in other models (like the Chevette, etc), one that potentially builds upon the near Volvo B18-like reputation for durability.
Except for Toyota. The 8R/18RC had iron block and head.
Two words: corporate ego.
Motor Trend tested a 68-69 Chevy II/Nova against the larger VW [Fuel injected ?] in an extended mileage test. The VW got better mileage, the Chevy did very well, but MT wondered why anyone would buy one instead of the 6.
Have to agree with Stumack. Would have made even the “legendary” Iron Duke unnecessary unless it had to be superseded for emissions regulations.
Had to have that linerless aluminum block, though.
It is interesting that the iron duke came out with 85hp and quickly went to 90. Not many engine in 78 had more net horsepower than the equivalent from 10 years before. The older 153 even had a little extra displacement.
We’ve commented in the past about how there are often discrepancies in production statistics for classic American cars between different sources. These discrepancies are perhaps most widespread when it comes to Chevrolet between 1958 and 1970.
During this period, Chevrolet did not publish exact model-by-model, body style-by-body style production figures for most models. Most Chevrolet numbers you see during this era are for entire models/trim levels, rounded to the nearest hundred. Because Chevrolet generally considered different engine types to be distinct models, these figures are usually broken down along those lines (e.g., Six/V8). From 1958 to 1964, the Standard Catalog of American Cars also has exact body style-by-body style numbers at the product line level (e.g., all Chevy II four-door sedans, all full-size two-door hardtops), which I’ve never seen anywhere else. John Gunnell’s book “American Cars of the ‘60s: A Decade of Diversity” has exact totals for each product line (e.g., all Chevy IIs, all full-size cars) from 1960 to 1969, and the Standard Catalog has figures of this type for 1969 and 1970. Other production breakdowns seem to exist randomly. Sometimes these numbers are consistent with each other, sometimes they aren’t.
I have my notes handy with production numbers from the Standard Catalog. To the extent that these differ from what Jason posted in the article, I suspect that Jason is getting his numbers from the Encyclopedia of American Cars. I have a copy of that book, but I don’t have it with me right now. I’ll try to check it later to see if I can explain some of the discrepancies.
With that backdrop, here’s what the Standard Catalog has for the 1962-70 Chevy II/Nova:
1962
If you up add the exact body style-by-body style production numbers in the Standard Catalog, you get a total of 326,607. If you add up the “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers, you get a total of 326,600. Gunnell has total Chevy II production as 326,618. The small discrepancy between the Standard Catalog and Gunnell aside (11 units), these numbers are all consistent with one another.
The Standard Catalog has separate “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers for six-cylinder engines. These add up to 302,600. This implies that about 24,000 four-cylinder cars were built. If this is correct, there were far more four-cylinder Chevy IIs built in 1962 than in any other year.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Chevy II production is significantly higher (406,521). My recollection is that the Standard Catalog presents 1962 Chevy II production in a confusing, half “exact body style-by-body style production numbers”, half “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” manner, which results in some double counting. That may be the source of the discrepancy here.
1963
If you up add the exact body style-by-body style production numbers in the Standard Catalog, you get a total of 372,626. If you add up the “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers, you get a total of 375,600. Gunnell has total Chevy II production as 375,626.
The exact body style-by-body style production numbers in the Standard Catalog are obviously a little off from the others, and I think I see the source of the problem. The exact body style-by-body style numbers show production of 72,274 station wagons, but the “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers, which treat station wagons as their own distinct trim level, show production of 75,300 station wagons. In addition, remember how I said in the introduction to this post that other production totals seem to exist randomly? It so happens that, for this year only, the Standard Catalog has exact production figures for two-seat and three-seat wagons. These show that 67,347 of the two-seat wagons were built, and 7,927 of the three-seat wagons. That adds up to 75,274. From that, I would say that there is probably a typo in the exact body style-by-body style number for station wagons quoted in the previous paragraph. It should be 75,274, which would place total production at 375,626. With that adjustment, this number now matches Gunnell’s and is consistent with the “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” total of 375,600.
The Standard Catalog has separate “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers for six-cylinder engines. These add up to 371,800. This implies that about 3,800 four-cylinder cars were built.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Chevy II production is 300,300. This looks like a “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” total that excludes station wagons (75,300).
1964
If you up add the exact body style-by-body style production numbers in the Standard Catalog, you get a total of 191,691. Gunnell has the same number. If you add up the “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers, you get a total of 191,700. These numbers are all consistent with one another.
The Standard Catalog has separate “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers for four- and six-cylinder models (the newly introduced V8 was initially considered to be an option on the six-cylinder model, and was apparently not broken out separately). These indicate that about 800 four-cylinder cars were built. In the “other production totals seem to exist randomly” department, the Standard Catalog also has exact production figures broken down by Four, Six and V8. These indicate that 1,121 Fours were built.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Chevy II production is 166,576. I am not sure where this number comes from or why it is different from those discussed above.
1965
If you add up the “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers in the Standard Catalog, you get a total of 118,000. The numbers in my notes do not have any breakout by engine type.
Gunnell has total Chevy II production as 130,426, which obviously does not match the Standard Catalog.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Chevy II production is 101,300.
Which of these numbers is right? Who knows.
1966
If you add up the “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers in the Standard Catalog, you get a total of 152,400. I don’t see a breakout in my notes for the number of four-cylinder models produced.
Gunnell has total Chevy II production as 172,485, which obviously does not match the Standard Catalog.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Chevy II production is 143,900.
Which of these numbers is right? Again, who knows.
1967
If you add up the “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers in the Standard Catalog, you get a total of 106,500. Production of four-cylinder cars is stated as 480.
Gunnell has total Chevy II production as 117,995, which obviously does not match the Standard Catalog.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Nova production is 93,600. This looks like a “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” total that excludes station wagons (12,900).
Why Gunnell’s figure doesn’t match the others, I have no idea.
1968
If you add up the “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers in the Standard Catalog (actually now just breakouts for Nova Four/Nova Six/Nova V8, since there were no longer any trim levels aside from the Nova), you get a total of 201,000. Production of four-cylinder cars is stated as 1,270. Gunnell has total Chevy II production as 201,005, which is consistent with the Standard Catalog.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Nova production is 201,000. For once, all sources are consistent!
1969
Gunnell and the Standard Catalog both give an exact figure for total Nova production as 269,988. If you add up the “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers in the Standard Catalog (Nova Four/Nova Six/Nova V8), however, you only get 251,900. Production of four-cylinder cars is stated as 6,103.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Nova production is 106,200. This is obviously way off from the sources discussed in the previous paragraph.
I can offer no explanation for the above discrepancies.
1970
The Standard Catalog gives an exact figure for total Nova production as 254,242. Production of four-cylinder cars is stated as 2,247. My notes from the Standard Catalog have “trim levels rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers for some 1970 Chevrolet models, but not for the Nova.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Nova production is also 254,242.
Here’s what’s in the Encyclopedia of American Cars:
1962
Earlier I had noted that the 1962 numbers in the Encyclopedia were garbled. Here’s what it has:
–For the 100 series, there are “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers, broken down by Fours and Sixes. These are consistent with the “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers in the Standard Catalog. So far, so good.
–For the 300 series, there is a “rounded to the nearest hundred” number for six-cylinder models, which matches the figure for 300 six-cylinder models in the Standard catalog. Production for four-cylinder models is simply left blank.
–For the Nova series, exact body style-by-body style figures are provided for each body style except for the wagon. The problem is that these figures match the exact body style-by-body style figures in the Standard Catalog for all Chevy IIs. The figures for the two-door hardtop and convertible are presumably accurate, since those body styles came only as Novas. But the two-door and four-door sedan also came in other trim levels. If the Standard Catalog is correct, and those figures are for all Chevy IIs, not just Novas, some cars are being counted twice.
–All of the above figures are presented as not including wagons — which makes sense, as Chevrolet typically kept wagon totals separate in this era — but then no production numbers numbers are shown anywhere for the wagons.
If you add up all the totals in the Encyclopedia, ignoring the fact that some numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and some are exact totals, you will get the figure Jason has in the article (406,521). As I believe this figure is derived from a garbled mix of overlapping and incomplete data, as explained above, I do not think this figure is accurate. I think the totals found in other sources (326,600, rounded to the nearest hundred) are likely correct.
1963
–For the 100 and 300 series, there are “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers. These match the “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers in the Standard Catalog.
–For the Nova series, exact body style-by-body style figures are provided for each body style except for the wagon (there is one fewer body style this year, because the Nova no longer came as a two-door pillared sedan). The figures for the two-door hardtop and convertible match the exact body style-by-body style figures in the Standard Catalog for all Chevy IIs. These are presumably accurate totals for those body styles in Nova form, however, since those body styles came only as Novas (all Chevy II two-door hardtops and convertibles were Novas).
The Nova sedan figure (87,415) does not match the exact body style-by-body style figures in the Standard Catalog for all Chevy IIs. It is considerably less. This makes sense, though, because the Nova wasn’t the only Chevy II trim level that came in this body style. The Nova figure should be considerably less than the overall Chevy II total.
If you add up all of the Nova body style totals in the Encyclopedia, they total 171,100. This is the same as the “rounded to the nearest hundred” figure for Novas in the Standard Catalog. It is unclear to me if 1) an exact production figure for Nova four-door sedans happens to have been published somewhere (and the exact total for Nova production happens to be 171,100, conveniently requiring no rounding), or if 2) someone started with the 171,100 number and calculated a sedan figure by subtracting the figures for the other body styles (ignoring the fact that the 171,100 figure is presented as a rounded total, not an exact one). In any event, the Nova sedan total in the Encyclopedia is roughly consistent with the production data in other sources, and the Nova body style totals in the Encyclopedia add up to the same figure as the “rounded to the nearest hundred” figure in the Standard Catalog.
–For wagons, an exact total of 75,274 is presented.
If the numbers in the Standard Catalog are correct, the accurate total for overall Chevy II production, rounded to the nearest hundred, is 375,600. As noted in my earlier post, The figure that Jason has in the article for total 1963 Chevy II production is 300,300. This appears to be a “rounded to the nearest hundred” total that omits station wagons. I assume that it originated by adding up the totals in the Encyclopedia, but you would arrive at the same number whether you used the data in the Encyclopedia or the Standard Catalog.
1964
For 1964, the Encyclopedia has “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers for each trim level. These match the numbers in the Standard Catalog.
The figure Jason has in the article is different; I still don’t know where it comes from.
1965
For 1965, the Encyclopedia has “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers for each trim level, broken down by engine type (Four and Six). There is one discrepancy between the Standard Catalog and the Encyclopedia. The Standard Catalog reports production of the Nova SS trim level as 4,300, while the Encyclopedia has it as 9,100. Using the Encyclopedia figure for the SS yields an overall Chevy II production total of 122,800.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Nova production is 101,300. This looks like a “rounded to the nearest hundred” total that uses the Encyclopedia figure for the SS (not the Standard Catalog figure), but omits station wagons (21,500).
1966
For 1966, the Encyclopedia has “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers for each trim level, broken down by engine type (Fours and Sixes combined, and V8s). There is one discrepancy between the Standard Catalog and the Encyclopedia, and it once again involves the Nova SS. The Standard Catalog reports production of the Nova SS trim level as 10,100, while the Encyclopedia has it as 23,000. Using the Encyclopedia figure for the SS yields an overall Chevy II production total of 165,300.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Nova production is 143,900. This looks like a “rounded to the nearest hundred” total that uses the Encyclopedia figure for the SS (not the Standard Catalog figure), but omits station wagons (21,400).
1967
For 1966, the Encyclopedia has “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers for each trim level, broken down by engine type (Fours and Sixes combined, and V8s). This year, there are no discrepancies. The numbers in the Encyclopedia are consistent with the numbers in the Standard Catalog.
The figure that Jason has in the article for total Chevy II production is 93,600. As noted in my earlier post, this looks like a “rounded to the nearest hundred” total that omits station wagons (12,900).
1968
For 1968, the Encyclopedia has no breakout, just an overall Chevy II production total, rounded to the nearest hundred, of 201,000. This is consistent with the totals in other sources, and is the same number Jason has in the article.
1969
For 1969, the Encyclopedia has “rounded to the nearest hundred” totals for each engine type (Four, Six, V8). Added together, these total out to 106,200. This the same number Jason has in the article, but it is much less than the totals that appear in other sources.
The breakdown for each engine type in the Encyclopedia is 6,100 Fours, 10,800 Sixes, and 89,900 V8s. I am going to say that these totals can’t possibly be right, because there is no way that Nova production in 1969 could have been that heavily slanted towards V8s.
The Standard Catalog has different figures for Sixes and V8, showing 6,103 Fours (exact), 157,400 Sixes (rounded), and 88,400 V8s (rounded). Those figures are more plausible, but they don’t add up to the overall Nova production totals shown both in the Standard Catalog and in Gunnell’s book.
1970
For 1970, the Encyclopedia quotes an overall production figure for the Nova which matches those in other sources (254,242), and is the same number Jason used in the article.
Just when you thought all sources would be in agreement, however, I noticed that the Standard Catalog has exact production totals broken out by engine type (Four/Six/V8), which don’t add up to the above number. They add up to 315,122. These figures are described as production “for the U.S. market”. Does the 254,242 figure represent U.S. production only, while the 315,122 figure includes cars built in Canada for the U.S. market? Could some of the discrepancies we’re seeing for earlier years have a similar explanation?
GM tried this in the UK at Vauxhall building the four cylinder Wyvern and six cylinder Velox sedans(utes in Australia) with the same body the four proved quite unpopular on our market while the Velox sold very well, it actually had lower fuel consumption than the four and with adequate power while the Wyverns were noticeably gutless, the idea was dumped in 57 with the advent of the smaller Victor car emerged using the Wyvern power train and with very good economy,
Kinda a surprise to see GM revive an already failed idea for the US market,
Mind you they did it again in Australia with the 1.9 Starfire engine produced for local content assembly it was put in the same cars as the six it was derived from and proved unpopular only having any real sales success on the NZ market with its higher priced fuel, could be considered a minor success NZ kept a four cylinder Commodore on their market into the 90s.
Part of Vauxhall’s problem was surely the cheap, drab appearance of the Wyvern compared to the Velox. You hardly ever saw them here. Obviously GM wanted to move the prospect upmarket into the more profitable car. The early Ford Consuls were like this too, stark and detrimmed, but I saw more Consuls around around than Wyverns.
That Starfire four was a disaster. The Torana body was way overbuilt to take the torque of the V8 few people wanted; any small engine would have struggled in that body – it needed all the cubes it could get. If they had to chop two cylinders off the six, why didn’t they base it on the 202/3300 instead of the 173/2850, which would have given them a 2.2 litre four? Would’ve gone better in the Commodore body too. Still low-tech though.
The Consul used a shorter front end than its six cylinder Zephyr stable mate so it was lighter they were fairly underpowered but a better option than a Wyvern, Yeah the Torana was quite a lot stronger than it Opel donor body it had to be to cope with the 308 engine, but the main complaint about the Starfire four was it wasnt economical like a four should be my dad had a few four banger Commodores they used as much fuel as a six, and when the six was revamped as the blue motor in the VC the six became quite economical and the four was dropped in OZ only NZ kept in production though the VL Commodore got a 2.0 six from Nissan and the VN onwards models used the Vectra engine that wasnt even available in OZ oddly enough they go quite well I know a guy who has one.
I only ever saw one Torana V8 that wasn’t an SL/R or SS. That was despite living in inner-suburban Melbourne at the time these were new. A neighbour’s visitor turned up in an aqua SL sedan with the 4.2 litre badges where every other one I’d seen said 3300. Definitely didn’t sound like any 3300 either!
Nice but – overkill? Built to win Bathurst, and cultivate an image, but at what cost? Wouldn’t a better-developed six have been more useful to the Aussie (and NZ?) buyer than a V8?
That Starfire four was one of GMH’s darkest hours/worst ideas. Surely they didn’t think it was competitive? Now if it had been developed along the lines of the blue motor maybe… Or the 2250 in the LC/LJ seemed to be a sweet motor; they could surely have developed that for less cost, and trumped the opposition’s big and bigger fours with a small six.
The new for ’68 and up Chevy II / Nova always looked bloated compared to the first generation car, and simply too big for a 4 banger. I checked my suspicion that the Chevy II was getting big boned, and found the following numbers for the base 4 cyl. four door sedan:
1967: 2,560 lbs
1968: 2,790 lbs
1969: 2,810 lbs (probably new safety equipment)
1970: 2,843 lbs
This ’68 + car looked positively huge compared to 4 cylinder Toyotas or Datsuns of the era, cars that probably came in handily under 2,000 lbs. A 1970 4 cylinder Powerglide Nova had to be among the most elite penalty boxes.
That Youtube video is amazing. The 153 has a decidedly lawn mower like sound for those of us with little tractor experience.
You look at those weights and think about the trajectory. The four held on has long as it could.
Would be interested in seeing a history of the Iron Duke motor.
For years, thought it was the same as this Chevy 4 cyl. Hard to find much on the net, and still some sites still claim it’s a Chevy.
The history of that engine has been written. You’re looking for “Automotive Rebuilder” magazine, November 1986, and September, 1991 issues.
The “Iron Duke” IS a direct descendant of the Chevy II four-popper. You can drop a 153 crankshaft directly into an early “Iron Duke” block; provided you also change the pistons. You’d gain a quarter-inch of stroke. Same timing gears as the 153 (and the six-popper the 153 was based on.)
Mind you, that engine underwent so many revisions it’s hard to keep track of them all. GM built about 120 versions as of 1991, and that wasn’t the last of the changes. But yeah, they all developed from the 153 Chevy II right on through the “Tech IV” (or the “Low-Tech IV”) and beyond.
And as for the “Iron Duke” being a Pontiac creation, please note that GM of Brazil was using the Chevy II 153 up to about ’74, and after that, they were using the same bore and stroke as the “Iron Duke”, years ahead of Pontiac.
Can you imagine a Super-Thrift/Powerglide combination? Man, a Nova so equipped would definitely live up to its Spanish name, i.e., “No go”.
It’s unfortunate (but not surprising) production was so low. Someone else suggested its use in the Vega and, if more of the Super-Thrift engine had been built, I wonder how difficult it would be to find one and bolt it in when the Vega’s original engine did its inevitable grenade thing.
Some cars were available for a while with the Super-Thrift and Torque-Drive, which would probably be the grimmest combination from a performance standpoint. (Torque-Drive was a return to the no-shift Powerglide/Dynaflow/Ultramatic format.)
That zombie undead thing about “Nova” meaning “no go” in Spanish isn’t true. Never was. Never will be. Please don’t prop it up like that, even in jest.
I was on a forum (the now-defunct pickuptrucks.com) with someone that owned a 4-banger Chevy II. His 64 was a true no-option car: 153ci, 3-speed, poverty caps, no radio…may not have even had a heater. He researched a bunch, then made a lowball offer on it in spring of 1966. (Yes, it sat that long.) The dealer agreed quickly enough he wishes he’d offered $100 less, and he drove it for a few months. Then, he tweaked it: his research had shown that the 4 used a bunch of parts common to the 283 and 307…and using the best available SB Chevy parts, he built an anvil-tough 4-banger that would have been right at home in a boat or a midget racer, with its solid lifters, forged pistons and rods, tool steel rings, sodium-filled exhaust valves (!), and stainless intake valves. Then, he completed his plan: he added a Corvair Monza turbocharger!
That fall, he was a high school senior…and would anyone believe that the hottest car at the school was a 4-cylinder Chevy II?! He never ran it at a drag strip, but he only lost two races the entire 2 years he had it…one to a Model A pickup with a 409 in it, the other to a Road Runner with a 426 Hemi.
I can’t help thinking GM gave Ford sales staff a goal here. The Chevy II came with a larger base engine than the Falcon, true – but it was only a four. Ford’s engine might have been smaller, but it was a (smoother) six. But I suppose Chevy didn’t want to tool up a short-throw crank for a six that was going to be replaced in a few years anyway,
A short throw crank would be cheaper than doing a 4-cylinder version!
Riffing off of my post further up, there were a whole line of folks who wanted the cheapest, simplest cars they could buy. The belief was, the less stuff in the car to break, the less stuff in the car to break.
In some regards, these 4 cylinder Novas were GM’s response to the original Ford Falcon and other compacts like Japanese and European cars. Had the horsepower wars of the 60’s never taken place, it seems likely to me these cars would have continued on in their smaller sizes. Once these chassis needed to accommodate 396 ci big blocks, there was no way the 153 was going to be able to move the Nova in a safe manner.
That engine stayed in production until just a couple of years ago, powering boats and various pieces of industrial equipment. Somewhere along the line it grew to 3.0L and got fuel injection.
http://www.gmpowertrain.com/2013_pdf/FHR_REV_3.0L_Indust_122112.pdf
Even my friend’s mother, who always had bottom of the barrel strippers, wouldn’t accept the 4 cyl Nova her husband tried to talk her into. She ended up with a no radio (Only cars I’ve ever seen in person without one were hers) red 6 cyl with a 3 on the tree. Her oldest son wrecked it, and a Maverick stripper replaced it, followed by a Comet when it was stolen and trashed. She moved away after finally dumping her husband and the last vehicle I saw her in was a red Cavalier. Since she bought it herself, I kind of doubt it was as stripped as the ones her hubby bought,
We can’t forget about the spiritual successor to the 153cube/Nova combo….1978/79 AMC Concord with the 2-litre powertrain….
Also, the Ford Fairmont from 1978-83 can be had with the 2.3 Liter OHC engine from the Pinto/Mustang II.
The Lima 2.3L : a fuel guzzling paint shaker.
In the mid-1970’s, while attending a utility company surplus auction, I came upon a dozen or so fleet gray-green late ’60’s Chevy II Nova sedans, all four bangers. All high mileage, variously used-up condition, the first round high bidder selected the car numbers he’d take for the price; he took the four ‘best’ ones. Then on through two more rounds for lower bids until the last two went to the local junkyard for scrap price. Such was the fate of at least these, pretty much common practice for all fleet cars.
Two things to add here, the 153 was available in the pickups and it did make its way into the Vega H body, but only in the Pontiac Astre version.
The Australian Falcon got a 2.0L 4-cyl engine in 2012, the Ecoboost with about 240 hp and 265 lb-ft at less than 2000 rpm. 0-60 time would be in under 7 sec, no road-burner but entirely satisfactory performance and it got pretty decent economy too.
A shame Ford never advertised it. Unless you read the enthusiast car mags, or saw one in a showroom, you’d never have known it existed.
Can also be had in a ’64 van.
I remember in 1989 randomly stopping to see a dark green nova for sale at night in DesMoines. Car had 49,000 miles on it. If I could go back, I would’ve found a way to buy it. I knew it was rare then, but 1 in 113? I didn’t..
For the Vega, an aluminum head and a crank with a shorter stroke would have resulted in an engine a bit heavier than the 2.3 Vega, but a lot more reliable, and as it turns out, a lot cheaper. The errors of GM during this period are amazing. Blindman’s bluff.
The Vega Cosworth engine had an aluminum head and a shorter stroke (bringing displacement under 2 liters). It was about 40 lb lighter than the iron-head 2300 and somewhat smoother, but it was also a LOT more expensive and not impressively powerful when they finally got it emissions-certified (110 net hp).
I enjoyed reading this, Jason—must have missed it first time around.
Interesting to see that (apparently) l-o-n-g fan shround on the 4-cyl engine. BTW, this is Popular Mechanics, Jan. 1962 (I’m not certain if it adds anything to the conversation):
It seems like GM brass just wanted a 2.5 liter industrial engine for boats, forklifts etc. Since Chevy was already designing a new 6 they made a 4 cylinder along with it. Offering it in the Chevy II was probably just so they could have a slightly lower price for the true cheapskates, and they never expected to sell many.
This engine was specifically for a car that used to be called a loss-leader, a ‘seats-and-steering-wheel’ car with little profit margin, designed expressly for a dealership to advertise an outrageously low price just to build showroom traffic, sort of like a reverse halo vehicle.
The way it worked was the unknowing would see the amazing low price in the local newspaper and head straight to the dealership. One look and drive, and the prospective customer (with some salesman prodding) would invariably decide to pony up for a real car with a real six-cylinder engine, radio, heater, back-up lights, etc.
Or it would simply be the classic bait-and-switch (“Oh, we just sold the one 4-banger Nova we had. But you didn’t want that dog, anyway. Hey, we’ve got a much nicer one right over here for not much more…”).
Of course, there were a few of those ultra-cheapo types that didn’t care how poorly one of these loss-leaders would drive and buy one, anyway. But there weren’t all that many of those skinflint customers who couldn’t be talked into a more typically optioned, higher profit Nova.
Actually it was created at a time (1959-1960) when economy was a big thing, and the Chevy II needed a small and economical base engine to compete with the Falcon. Which it did, and a fair number of these fours were sold in the first few years.
Things changed quickly during the 60s; gas kept going down in price, in adjusted terms, and incomes were rising, in real terms. So what made sense and was essentially needed to compete in this market segment increasingly looked irrelevant as the years went on.
Agreed. I’d considered the original 144/6 Falcon as the primary reason for the creation of the 4-cylinder Nova. GM must have seen how the glacierly slow (but with good fuel economy) Falcon still managed to sell (and sell well), and reacted accordingly.
But as Ford kept upping the ante with larger, better performing base engines in the Falcon (and the Mustang, for that matter), ending the 144 after 1964, it seems like GM decided to keep the rough, slow 4-cylinder Nova around (especially when it was installed in the heavier 1968 version) to milk as many sales out of the 4-banger compact as they could until the Vega came online.
And that’s when the marketing schemes might come into play as the late sixties would make those particular Novas a much tougher sell than the beginning of the decade.
I have driven a Hyster forklift with this engine. The single speed automatic transmission sounded a lot like a Powerglide, put it in neutral or push the brake/ neutral pedal and it would go wheeeee !!!, then back into gear, wheeeewwho, or something like that.
Lots of fun, I loved the mechanical noise it made, no one else seemed to enjoy it like I did, it was an old outdated machine compared to the modern Japanese machines of the day.
In South Africa they used these engines until the late 70’s or early 80’s, finding their way into Chevrolet branded Opels. The 230 and 250 were available as well.
Damning with faint praise? “Chevrolet 2500 lives up to your expectations.” In contrast to the unnecessary hyperbole you see in most ads, I guess that’s refreshing.
Better than the original idea for the ad: “It’s as much of a dog as you think it is”.
I’ll take the six instead.
I believe that this engine was first used in the Chevrolet Firenza – the Vauxhall Viva HC marketed in S Africa from 1972 to around 1975/6 when it was replaced with the Vauxhall 1256 mill or the Opel 1.9 litre cam in head after the first Energy Crisis of 1973.
Can you use 153 flatplane crank on the 307 and vice versa?
No. Among other things, the 307 crank has much wider journals, as each one has to have room for two connecting rods. Only one each on the four. Google images of them, you’ll see the big difference.
There’s others likely too.