I stumbled across this fourth generation Nova five minutes after the Granada of the other day and the contrast could not have been greater. Yes, it’s two years newer but wasn’t much different in ’76 and the Granada wasn’t much changed in ’78 either. While both cars obviously have their fans and clearly provided profits to their makers and transportation to their owners, the manner in which they did was quite different. Of course, this Nova is also at the opposite extreme of the range which only makes the disparity more clear.
I spent several years as an early teen in the back of our family’s ’77 Pontiac Ventura, which of course was just a somewhat fancier Nova with a different engine selection, and a lot of the little details from that time came flooding back to me as I studied this car. I wasn’t a huge fan of it at the time and never really of the Nova either, but have come to appreciate it (and Chevys in general) over the years, with much thanks to this website that has taught and explained so much.
The Nova of course spent the ’70’s sort of competing against the Maverick at the beginning, then the Fairmont towards the end and the Granada starting in the middle. While of course many Granada buyers were really large-car intenders that downsized, I have to believe that a chunk of those might have cast a look toward the General as well. The Nova was the bottom rung with other divisions such as Buick, Olds and Pontiac as stated above creating their own models, and yes, even Cadillac dropping those well-worn bones into a pot and stirring up something with a Spanish name…
Notwithstanding the gap-toothed smile on this street brawler, the Nova overall was quite a clean design, devoid of unnecessary garnish and other crap for the most part (not completely, but never really over the top. The other divisions larded on some more toppings and you could get a vinyl top and hood ornaments on the Nova too, but even the Seville was actually fairly restrained, all things considered.) The Nova had what it needed to get the job done; and did it clean, lean, and without any airs. A simple grille but still with some character, inset turn signals, wraparound chrome bumper with a rubstrip (missing here), and two headlights to lead the way out front.
Pop the hood and just like in the Granada there is a 250 cu. in. I-6. Unlike in the Granada this one put out a respectable for the day 110hp at 3800rpm and a healthy 190lb-ft of torque at a very low 1600rpm. A 3-speed manual was standard, a 4-speed was not available, but a three speed automatic was (and a required option in California where the outputs also were reduced to 90hp and 150lb-ft). The rear axle ratio was 2.73 with either transmission which probably hurt it a bit. 305 and 350 V8’s were optional as well.
I’ve never had the pleasure of driving one of these so equipped but the base powertrain seems like it’s a decent starting point. Check out that little baby one-barrel Rochester Monojet carburetor, someone apparently took a look at it and probably squirted some starter fluid down there recently. I’ll say it looks a little tight in there, my Dad’s Ventura had the V-6 and it looked like there was a bit more room from what I can recall but that’s the rub with a long inline engine vs a squat V.
Heading around back I remember those slits in the bumper, we used to go all over the western desert areas into ghost towns and Death Valley etc. Frequently the rear of the car would scrape driving through gullies on the dirt roads and then for weeks there’d be sand and dirt coming out of those slits, presumably from being packed in from the other side.
The trunk seems a bit shallower than that of the Granada but better shaped. We generally had no problems fitting luggage and camping gear for four back here even if sometimes it took a hefty slam (or two) to close it.
You could get your Nova as a sedan, a two-door, or a hatchback 3-door, which are the rarest. There were 14 colors available, and I believe this one is called Camel, appropriate for such a beast of burden. This one’s very basic, but does have the optional rub strip along the side. Novas were built all over the place for the fourth generation but by 1978 had been whittled down to just Willow Run and Tarrytown, NY, where this one hails from according to the VIN for the US market.
Other factories were Van Nuys, CA (near where I lived at the time), Oshawa in Ontario, Sainte-Therese in Quebec, as well as Tehran, Iran (!) and finally also Mexico City between ’75 and ’78.
Around 288,000 were sold in 1978, a drop of around 100,000 from the year prior which was considered not a very strong showing anymore, but nowadays would be pretty respectable for a midsize car, if not a sales leader. Of course, 1978 is also when the downsized Malibu debuted and the Nova’s fancy Concours version was dropped due to that model’s introduction.
However, as far as I can tell, if you were to add the Buick, Olds, and Pontiac variants to the mix, then that would add another 250,000 or so if my math (and source) is correct. The Seville (which is admittedly very different) added yet another almost 60k. So overall that’s still pretty good insofar as the Granada/Monarch/Versailles had dropped to a combined 350K for 1978 but the new Fairmont racked up 460K sales while the new Malibu added 350K. Big numbers.
The interior actually caught my eye first, this is the “Sport Cloth” interior upholstery option, which was available in Blue or Camel, so this is obviously the match to the exterior color. The plaid does work though, and gives it a jaunty and ready-for-anything vibe here – or at least it did when new, now I don’t think I’d want to sit in it either.
For any young’uns out there, no that isn’t a fast and furious boost gauge fitted in the upper left corner, but rather a temperature gauge as GM did not fit a lot of gauges (or gages as they call them) to the lower-line models. This owner apparently thought it wise to be informed as to the state of his engine. The rest of the interior is fairly spartan with manual windows and locks, no tilt wheel, one speed wipers, but the passenger seems to get four air vents compared to the driver’s one.
The gauges aren’t ugly at least, just there is the absolute bare minimum with reminders of what could have been. The blanks aren’t even blank, they have printing on and around them. That notch above the steering column that covers part of the gauge trim is bad design though, it could have been rounded off of the gauges reshaped/resized to accommodate it.
Lights are a simple pull knob and that looks like one of Delco’s finest AM-only radios towards the right, below the column shifter.
I can’t say that I mind the Camel color all over the place here, it’s at least bright and probably not too tough to clean. It also retained its actual color which isn’t something that always happened at GM. This owner did opt for the Air Conditioning option but not the rear window demister which was a fan installed in the rear parcel shelf as another way to keep it from fogging up. I don’t see how that could have been cheaper than just a heated rear screen but perhaps it was. I also see an ashtray but no lighter.
I suppose with the front bench there’s seating for six, never mind the monster hump in the middle. Perhaps that’s the reason for all the vents or, more likely, the only way to get some air to the back seat. Overall this looks comfortable and sporty enough to spend time in without feeling like you’re in an overstuffed parlor.
My old domain. The seat cushion is out of place here, the leg room wasn’t that bad. It wasn’t great as I recall but for early teen sizes acceptable. I seem to recall that the rear windows would not go all the way down, they stopped about 4″ or so short of that which was annoying but here they do seem to, which is odd. Those front headrests were the same as well with the single-blade support design.
For 1978 Chevy played up the fact that the Nova was very popular with police departments for some reason. I’d hate to be “cuffed and stuffed” back here but I guess the perps don’t get to choose their accommodations. Well, besides Aunt Becky but let’s not go there…VinceC actually put together an excellent post regarding the Nova 9C1 police package which went into great detail regarding the development and changes made to the car to prepare it well for such duty, amongst the changes was in fact a different rear seat that seemed to be set further back in the car precisely so that a divider could be installed inside the car and still leave (some) room.
The Coupe was the most popular of the versions, but it is curious why Chevy stopped using the name after 1979 until the rebadged Corolla version came out. I wonder if they ever had any intention of creating a new 2-door as well, such as by using a version of the Corolla SR-5. Although they did have the fairly rarely seen 5-door hatchback which I had completely forgotten about until just now.
In case it’s not obvious, this would be my pick over the Granada. Then and now. Never mind the performance, this just seems like a much more dynamic package overall, notwithstanding the lesser “luxury” appointments and yes I believe that term needs to be in quotes. Even though its styling is older the Nova seems more modern, weird that. Never mind the Maverick, this is leagues ahead of that in styling. The Fairmont though, hmm, not sure there, that new really square design ethos was something I could get behind. Still, from what I understand, the Nova drove better than all of them. Presumably my Dad knew that as well and while he had the Pontiac version, it was probably better for him than whatever the other options at the time were.
Great write-up Jim on a very popular car.
Those slits in the rear bumper (as well as the front bumper) were for the jack when changing a flat tire. I owned a 1972 Heavy Chevy (Chevelle) which had a similar set-up on its rear bumper (albeit with larger holes). The first time I ever saw these slits were on my dad’s 1973 Olds Cutlass front bumper. It appears they were exclusive to the 5 mph bumpers although it looked to me like very little for the jack to engage to when holding up the car to change a tire. No wonder you were warned never to get under a car supported only by a bumper jack.
do you know where i can find the driver side doors for a 1978 4door chevy nova? call or text me at 615-668-1892. Andre
I suppose it’s unlikely that the yard also had a Valiant to complete the set?
Best would be a Duster, so we could compare sporty compact, standard compact & brougham compact.
Jim, I’d agree, it would be a Nova before a Granada. It may not have always been that way, but the choice is a no-brainer now. But something more than a six would need to be under the hood.
Here’s where I need some help…back when these were regularly found on the road, it seemed in so many there was always a huge gap between the top of the driver’s head and the roof. Not saying one’s head needs to rub but the gap was considerable. Did these sit that low? Or did the seat cushions start to sag that early?
Always felt that was one of Chevy’s best cars after the ‘55-56’s, and figured them to be the modern rendition of those classic models. The real beauty of that generation Nova was that it could be a really nice driving car with the careful picking of a couple judicious, not very expensive, options.
Seeing the hard-plastic camel-colored interior brought me back to the days when I was about 5 years old.
As a car-crazed kid, I’d relish any opportunity I got to ride in someone else’s car. However, it was always a disappointment to ride in these Novas — they were so… plain. And it seemed like about half of the families in our neighborhood had one. I remember thinking at the time that there’s nothing remotely interesting about these cars — and I even remember looking at the dashboard, filled with blank spaces for gauges, and thinking “wow, how boring.” I had a pretty low standard for automotive excitement as a 5-year-old, and somehow this car managed to stay below it. And I think I carried that aversion to Novas around ever since.
So thanks for stirring up these repressed memories!
I briefly owned a ’77 sedan with the I6/auto drivetrain – it was my grandmother’s final car that my Dad inherited. When he moved back to GA from TX, he bought a Buick Le Sabre and gave the Nova to my brother. He drove it until they bought a used Volvo wagon, and it then passed to me. My main DD was down for some major repair work, so the Nova was pressed into service and did “okay.”
The car was pushing 20 years old and had lived most of its life in FL and TX – the plastic trims in the cabin were turning to chalky dust, and the engine bay was heavily coated in grime and grease. The drivetrain was (to borrow the words of McCall) “almost satisfying.” It was generally an unpleasant thing to be in, but on the other hand, I loved (and still love) the honesty and unpretentiousness of the styling.
Your picture reminds me very much of the “photorealism” painting genre of which I am a huge fan…Nice shot.
Wow, that’s an incredible, and incredibly detailed painting! I never attempted something that detailed while in the Industrial Design program at Tech, but did enjoy putting little easter eggs in hubcap reflections and such in the numerous car illustrations I did.
The photo I posted was taken in Commerce, TX, where Dad lived when he taught at East Texas State University. He remuddled the house in the photo (like father, like son), as well as the house next door that he bought as a repo. Took a soaking when he sold them, unfortunately.
I remember carpooling in the back seat of my friend’s parent’s Nova and recalling what a miserable experience it was. It seemed like I would get carsick every time (probably because of lack of ventilation in a non-AC vehicle). My Mom’s Aspen SE seemed so much nicer. But my other friend’s parents drove around in a Granada and I was very envious. So that was my perspective on the pecking order of American compact cars as a 10 year old.
A buddy of mine had one of these as his terminal car, the one he drove from his home to the truck terminal. By the time he had it, it was pretty used up, but never failed to start and drive no matter the weather. In Northeast Ohio, that was a huge plus, a real beater with a heater.
Folks complain about the plainness of these cars, but that was mostly their mission in life. They were the least expensive way to get into a new GM compact. If you wanted something more, you paid your money and took your chances. This same friend’s father owned a 1978 Olds Omega with the Chevy 305 V8. That car was a barrel of fun! With the right parts, these cars could be quite capable.
Great write up. These were leagues ahead in exterior styling over the Granada. Once the instrument panel is filled out, that looks a little better too. The fender mounted air intake for the carb is a bit odd, never noticed that back in the day. Pontiac carried the GTO over to this in the end too
Fender mounted Cold Air Intake, yo, that’s obviously where the claims of 25% “mad power gainz” come from for the CAI aftermarket industry that sprang up after this debuted! The 250 in the Granada didn’t have one so 105hp vs 87 back in ’76…and the rest is history 🙂
The irony of the aftermarket “CAI” kits is they replace the actual CAI of the factory airbox and half of them put the new open filter element in the hot engine bay with no heat shield!
Functionally this is the exact real world benefit “ram air” earlier muscle cars had, isolating the air intake from engine compartment heat, without the side effect of dumping rainwater straight into the air filter if the hood scoop doors weren’t closed. I think Oldsmobile was sort of the pioneer of this style of intake with hoses out of the air filter fed from underneath the bumper
The Nova was a sort of honest mediocre transportation. The Granada and the Seville were so much more pretentious and dishonest about what was really going on; putting on airs, as it were. The Nova was for people who were comfortable in their middle class+- way of life, and didn’t care who knew it or not.
The Nova, Dart, and Valiant were simply straightforward transportation, without gimmicks, and did the job fairly well. Of all the mid-market, plain-Jane based cars from that era, these three are among the most admired and least silly looking ones from that era today. I would not be embarrassed, or feel the need to make excuses, if I was driving one of them currently.
The styling and size of the GM compacts have held up well over the years, although the Oldsmobile Omega has always been my favorite.
These could be quite nice in the deluxe versions, but the base versions were REALLY plain. There was a mint 1977 Buick Skylark four-door sedan at one of the Carlisle Car shows for sale a few years ago. It was the base version, and the interior was very spartan. The interior door panels looked like thin cardboard covered in very cheap vinyl – it was what one would expect to find in an AMC Hornet of that vintage. That might have been acceptable on a low-level Nova, but not on a Skylark or an Omega.
I rode in many examples of this generation of the X-body compacts and could not agree more. The Novas were really plain and cheap inside: one friend had a base two-door coupe with the same plaid upholstery as shown above (I thought it was really ugly then and still think so now), while another drove his father’s 4-door sedan with the six, again a base model with dog dish hubcaps and vinyl bench seats that were unsupportive and uncomfortable no matter the season. On the other hand, a girl I knew often drove her mother’s Omega 4-door that had every option available and was really quite nice inside. She was a lead foot, and often beat the Camaro and Firebirds of the same vintage at the stoplight Grans Prix in town.
No doubt the Nova was a better-looking, more modern design than the pretentious Granada, but the latter had a far nicer interior. Last, there was a strong family resemblance between this Nova and the Opels and Vauxhalls of the time (at least on the outside) in direct contrast to the dichotomy between Ford’s North American and European Granada’s.
The base version of the Nova didn’t compete with the Granada, but the Maverick, which was the entry level compact for Ford.
Great find! As Eric pointed out above, the general cheap appearance of the Nova dash and interior, didn’t endear these to me. The plastic dash setting the stage for the equally cheap-looking Malibu, Citation, Cavalier and Celebrity dashes.
Nearly all domestic chrome bumpers at the time had exposed chromed bolt heads for attaching the bumper. Most were generally minimized, and relatively discreet in appearance. My eyes were often drawn to the prominent eight across bolt heads that span the bumpers front and back, on models not equipped with bumper rub strips. I thought they were especially noticeable on the Nova and their siblings, unfortunately adding an industrial/utilitarian appearance to the Nova’s otherwise attractive exterior.
Nice find! Like Jim Klein, I spent my early teen years in the back of these, in my case a 75 Ventura 2-door Coupe, and my later teen years in the driver’s seat, with a 260 V8 (a smaller, de-bored Olds 350 that made the same 110hp).
I liked the car! Part of it pride perhaps, but much of it because it was a good car.
I had friends whose parents had 75-79 Novas. My folks had friend with 75-79 Novas. And also Darts, Dusters, Valiants, Aspen, Maverick, and pre-75 Novas.
I disagree with Daniel. Our car, a base car, had the same cloth weave seats as the feature car. With the glasshouse and nice trim, it felt a lot richer than the other ones listed.
Yes, the base Nova seats had that cheap looking vinyl. Even so, spending time in the other cars, they looked cheaper inside.
The bumper bolt heads (or are they rivets?) are minor. The GM cars had chrome. The Fairmont had dull bumpers. Ditto the chrome window frame moldings. The GM car was twice as old, yet they looked shinier. I washed both, so I know…
Never any drive ability issues with the 260. Started and ran flawlessly, as Consumer Reports might have said.
I felt fortunate to learn to drive on it, compared to what most other kids.
On subjective design topics like this, we are each welcomed to have our own opinion. 🙂
IMO, models without the bumper rub strips looked like the rub strips had fallen off. As the consistent bolt heads across the bumper lent the resemblance of fastening points. As seen when cars lose their body side trim.
I was schooled, and worked as a graphic designer in my 20s, and repetition is often used in design to draw attention. And create a pattern. In this case, they wouldn’t want to create a pattern and draw attention to the appearance of missing trim with repetitive fastener points in a high profile location where looks/styling matters. New Novas looked like they were missing the bumper rub strips. The Volare, Aspen or Granada didn’t look like they lost their rub strips, if they didn’t have then.
Volare and Nova comparison. Twice as many bolt heads on the Nova, as the Volare bumper looks cleaner. The fact they run right across the bumper draws more attention to the lack of rub strips.
Style is subjective, yes.
I don’t think the missing molding (looks like an E30 85-91 3series) is a valid comparison. That is clearly a missing part.
However, now that you’ve shown the picture, I see your point—after 35-40 years.
It’s possible that as a graphic designer, these things jump out at you. Perhaps that detail jumped out at many people, just not me.
The Aspen/Volare interiors, particularly the premier, but even base cars, seemed nice to me back in the day—except for the very cheap, base 2-spoke steering wheel. But many of these cars were BASE—and bereft of chrome or wheel covers, I felt the looked cheaper than base Novas equipped the same. It is subjective—or the subconscious bias that GM was better, perhaps.
The visual repetitiveness of the exposed BMW molding clips creates a visual pattern. A similar consistent visual pattern created by those eight bumper bolts perfectly aligned and spaced across the full width of the bumper. Lending the illusion of exposed trim fasteners. That’s the comparison I was making. It draws your eye with a consistent pattern, as often seen in exposed trim clips, just where you don’t want people to look.
Yes, I always look closely at design detailing and surfaces on cars. And this detail seemed unpolished then and now.
“The bumper bolt heads (or are they rivets?)”
Tom, they are carriage bolt heads.
The funny thing is that most of those bolts are there just to fill the holes for the rubber strip. The thing is that holes are often punched in a separate step from the ones that are done to form it. Of course it meant that there was one part to stock instead of having one for w/o rub strip and for w/ rub strip.
Your point reminds me that when my brother and I spec’d out a 73 Monte Carlo for our mother, we ordered bumper guards but left out the bumper rub strips, because we didn’t realize that Chevy called the latter “deluxe bumpers” at the time. So the front bumper in particular had the same row of rather unsightly bolt heads which would have been concealed by a rub strip.
I got two Nova’s from my grandmother on my mother’s side – a 1971 Nova 2-door that was a gift when I turned 16, at which time my grandmother bought the ’75 2-door that I later inherited as well. Both had the 250 6 cylinder engine.
The interior of the ’75 seemed so much cheaper than the ’71 – rubber-maid doors and interior trim, cardboard ceiling, flimsier seat headrest construction, that my impression was of a cheaper car overall, even though I later learned that the front suspension was upgraded in the later vehicle. I preferred the curving lines of the ’71 coupe to the ’75 too.
While Ford’s Granada aspired to be the American Mercedes W116, this Nova was more like America’s W114 or W123 Mercedes 200D. Tough, durable, and just enough to get the task of transportation done.
As a teen that liked Euro cars in 70’s, I always fancied a 74 Nova Concours 4 door with all the options and a 350 4 barrel. To me, it was quite the opposite of a Lincoln-esq Granada. And the 74 grille was so subdued it just looked sophisticated in an understated way…very unusual for a domestic back then.
Ok, it could have used an independent rear suspension, but what did I know back then. In later model years, they couldn’t help themselves and had to throw cheesy bright work on the grille like this example…my image of it was shot at that point.
Correcting my own work…its the 75 I’m talking about, not 74.
My dad bought a 1977 Nova 350 for use as a taxi. Up to that point of my limited driving experience, it was the fastest car I had ever driven. The light(ish) body made the 350 really haul ass for the time. It also handled exceptionally well as it had F-41 with the rear sway bar.
I begged dad to let me have it, but no: it had to be a taxi. Even at age 17 or so, I told him it was too powerful for taxi use.
I turned out to be correct. One its very first shift, a hippie freak named Harry Liddle crashed into a phone pole. It was a rainy day. He stomped it from a red light and lost control. The car was a write-off. Dad never admitted he was wrong.
By this time, the Nova was left-overs served plain. The Granada was nicer, the Valiant was sturdier, the Maverick was sportier, the Hornet was more attractive, the Fairmont was 100X more modern. I like a good honest car, and the Nova definitely fits that description. In every way, the Nova was a plain Jane made of plastic and vinyl.
I’ve always seen these as a knockoff of the ’70-’72 Dodge Dart; very strong similarity in the front end. The slantback rear, too, though the bumper regs move the similarity there closer to the ’74-’76 Dart.
And what were GM thinking with that stoopid side-discharge tailpipe on the driver’s side of these cars? All the better to be enveloped in a plume of exhaust if you happen to have your window open and you’re next to a wall or the wind’s blowing forward.
Detroit figured out that having the exhaust discharge at or just before the rear corner of the car, and at speed the smoke would travel down to street level in the vortex behind the car, created by the air flow, and quickly dissipate. The traditional rear exhaust exit would create a cloud of visible smoke following the car. Mind you, the exhaust wasn’t necessarily cleaner, simply less visible…
Yeah, that sounds like GM…. Our cars seem to billow smoke clouds, get our aerodynamics expert to figure out a way for drivers to not notice it!
Mmmm…fun quip, but I don’t think there’s any substance to it.
Side-dump tailpipes were common on wagons for valid aerodynamic reasons (so a wagon-shaped car wouldn’t drag a cloud of exhaust along behind it), but the side-dump tailpipe was an unusual feature of these Nova/Apollo/Omega/Ventura coupes and sedans. If your answer were correct, we would’ve seen a lot more car models with this tailpipe location, and we didn’t. Also, these cars weren’t particular smokers—note we didn’t see side-dump tailpipes on GM coupes and sedans with the very smoky diesel engine.
There were a few 78+ A/G body variants that used the side dump tailpipes as well, Regal and Cutlass at least. Really cynical speculation would be that the reason was to save a few cents on tailpipe
The reason for the exhaust exit location is the transverse muffler. It’s simplest with that setup to just have a rear side exit. It probably saved a few cents too.
Thank you! That makes perfect sense. Doesn’t cancel the drawbacks of such a tailpipe, but it’s a cogent explanation for why they did it.
Side exit exhausts were installed by the millions on GM cars (other than wagons) during the 60s. I saw them all the time on Chevys.
Take a look at this ’64 Chevy I shot; you can see it clearly.
I agree with you Paul that it wasn’t unusual to have side exit exhaust. However, it seems it was often done for simplicity of design sake. Like I mentioned above, the Novas and A/G-bodies had transverse mufflers making the side exit the simplest solutions due to the muffler exit locations. The X-frame Chevy’s have the exhaust running over the rear axle outside the frame, much further outboard than a say a perimeter frame. This exhaust layout makes for an easier side exit exhaust too. FWIW, Chevrolet adopted a traditional rear exit exhaust on the 1965 Chevrolet full-size cars which it kept until 1996. The Chevelle line always used rear exit (until the 1978 Malibu). I posted a pic of a ’64 Impala exhaust and you can see it makes most sense to the have side exit.
Disclaimer: I know that rear exit is possible and can been done all of the above cars. My point is I believe with these specific exhaust systems, the side exist was the simplest and cheapest solution which is why it was used by the factory.
Here is a video too that shows an X-frame Chev and how the pipes are plumbed.
Here is a photo of the exhaust tailpipe on a 64 Chev:
Here is a 1961 Impala with custom rear exit exhaust. Note that it requires a more complex tail pipe due to the frame design. On a perimeter Impala, the tail pipe is a pretty well straight run to the rear bumper.
Granted, but I don’t really count that as a side-dump tailpipe. Okeh, it’s ahead of the rear valence, but it’s angled both downward and rearward. So was the ’78+ A/G-body tailspout. The one on the Nova-Apollo-Omega-Ventura wasn’t angled in either axis.
Here’s a ‘6 Impala with its original side exit exhaust.
All the Chevys of this generation had side exit exhausts.
Good call, I never put those together before but now I see it. There seemed to be some aping or parallel thinking between GM and Chrysler in this segment, the Nova coupe and Aspen/Volare have a pretty similar look
That’s awholenother comparison; the Aspen/Volaré and the Nova/etc coupe are very similar in side-on view.
Given the automotive landscape from ’68 to ’79 the Nova was a quite respectable “compact” car. I owned 4: 2-’69s, a ’72 and finally the restyled and slightly improved 1979 in a dk. brown metallic. Two doors, 3 on the tree, all vinyl buckskin colored interior (in numerous shades after @ 3 years) and the 250 c.i. 6. Driver door windows rolled down…..manually. Likewise the steering and brakes were manual. It did have FULL hubcaps, but no radio. About as basic as one could get in 1979.
The car was a wee bit toasty to drive in the Summer of 1980 after moving south to Dallas, Texas. It proved to be a reasonably durable and reliable pc. of transportation….after a new short block was installed @ 3-4 months into my ownership!!
I’ve always liked the original (1968) version of the design that Harry Bradley, one of my instructor’s at ACCD, came up with while at GM Design Staff. I have no idea who was responsible for the “facelift”, but IMO it was a very successful one that modernized the looks to keep it current thru the late 1970s.
Nice find Jim. I too prefer these Novas over the Granadas not only for their superior driving dynamics but also their lack of tacky brougham gingerbread. For a mid-1970s American car I thought the Nova was a very nicely styled car, definitely one if the cleanest designs of the era. The interiors are plain and plasticky, but I can live with that if it is setup like the 9C1 cars I discussed in the article you linked above.
The handling of these was superior to the Granada, and better than the Dart/valiant. They shared all their suspensions, steering, etc. with the ’70-up Camaro. Both of these cars were considered the best handling cars out of Detroit at the time, especially with the F41 option.
I drove one, a six, and was truly surprised at how well it steered and handled. A revelation at the time.
Here’s our vintage review of a ’75 Nova LN:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/vintage-reviews/vintage-review-1975-chevrolet-nova-ln-the-perfect-car-for-father-to-buy/
I seem to recall that as they aged many of these would crab down the road. At the time I assumed it was from a weak / twisted structure, but later learned it was actually just the suspension (rear axle?) displaced in its mountings and was easily fixed.
Either way, I wonder why these were so prone to that?
Because GM figured they could save $1.29.5 per car by making that mounting in that way. With over a million Novas made from 1968 til 1979 (Wild assed guess on my part) those savings add up!
You mean like this?
Easy. Show me an “X” or “F” body car, I’ll show you a car with broken rear leaf springs–or one that’s been repaired.
Rear spring failure was epidemic. The main leaf breaks at the axle housing. The spring clamping hardware hides the break. It cracks right at the locating pin that should keep the axle from sliding backward under braking.
FRONT spring failure was universal on the 6-cylinder models. V-8 cars didn’t seem to have that problem. The Six-Poppers would be so low to the ground they’d drag when driven over the shop’s in-ground hoist arms.
For the record…I WANT THE REAR BUMPER from the “Camel” pictured car. Mine’s been replaced once already, and the replacement has rusted-out again.
For as much these have going for them from a dynamic/performance standpoint over the Granada, that punishment of an instrument panel certainly makes a case for the Ford. If I’m just idling along in rush hour traffic, I know which one of the two I’d rather be in.
Can someone tell me if the front doors and front fenders on this Nova interchange with those on a 1967 model? They sure look alike.
Although some consider the Nova to have undergone enough change since ’67 to be considered a different generation (or even two different generations), the 1967 bones were still obvious in the late-’70s Novas. My parents shopped for one in 1976 and they still had the 67 dashboard in place; it changed to the one seen here a year later. The back seat was also tight on legroom compared to the Granada or Volare, and the doors were narrow. It just felt old, although a tad sportier than the newer competition.
I assume you mean 68? Looks plausible, I’m betting the inner structures are near identical, the biggest change In the 75s from the 68-74 was in the front end, which switched to the current F body design, hence the handling prowess
67 though, no. Those were essentially entirely different cars,
Oops, meant 68 of course
In 1968, despite the restyle with the more sloped back, it was still the Chevy II and the “Nova” nameplate was a trim level. I’d put the 1968 to 1979 Nova into 3 generations. The 1968 thru 1972 models wore similar styling and rear and front end styles. The 1973 and 1974 were restyled to meet the new 5 MPH Federal bumper standards. The 1975 to 1979 models are another generation. They had the 1970 Camaro front suspension slipped underneath, the back end was squared off around the rear window and the trunk. By 1978, these were a refreshed 10 year old car. Sales also dropped in 1978 because the downsized 1978 Chevy Malibu was introduced and was about the same size. It was also funny that when the rest of the GM corporate compacts came out in 1971 (Pontiac Ventura) and in 1973 (Buick Apollo and Olds Omega), the first letter of all their names spelled NOVA. Think about this as NOVA, OMEGA, VENTURA, and APOLLO. These were good cars. I had a 1971 Nova with a Powerglide and the 250. Not a bad car. Reliable and simple and cheap to fix. I also had a 1971 Pontiac Ventura with the 307 V-8. I preferred Dodge Darts but these would be my strong second choice. The Granada you sat too low in and the cars had no power. Thanks for the look back!
A high school friend had a used one of these as her first car, dark green, but a ‘76. It emanated this odd metallic industrial adjacent odor when warmed up. We called her car the Hot Pistol.
I will always like this generation of Nova. One of my best friends from high school had a ’76 coupe (yellow, white vinyl interior w/ buckets) with a 305 that was, far and away, the coolest car any of my friends owned. This was in the early 90s when most of the rest of these were rusty beaters. His was not – it was in near-mint condition.
Granadas, on the other hand, didn’t really move the needle for me at all. I remember us discussing the merits and trying to find something we liked about even the two-door Granadas, and we just basically said, welp… nothing. In recent years, though, I’ve come around on some of the more nicely trimmed four-doors. TK did a writeup of a brown Ghia four-door that sold me on the idea that those Granadas would have been nicer cars to have in the ’70s.
Fun side note: the ’79 Nova was the final American passenger car to offer an “on the tree” 3-speed manual. Trucks hung on until the mid-80s, but this was the last car.
Interesting comparison between the Nova in this article and the Granada from a few days ago, although as Jim pointed out, the Nova is a base model and the Granada was a top-of-the line Ghia. No question though that I’d choose the Nova, both back in the day and now. Ford was the king of all things brougham back then, and I was never a fan of this Maliase Era fad. In fact, I’d take late 50s fins and chrome over 70s brougham, if styling were my sole criterion.
One of my favorite of aal times. I personally owned 3 of them somewhere in the 80’#. One fully loaded Concours,silver with black interior and black vinyl roof, a bare bones blue line-6 with indeed a three-on-the-tree and surprisingly enough a manual sunroof (which leaked after raining, you had to make sure the first corner wad to the right then, so tne water was hitting your passenger instead of yourself) and a really beautiful triple red concours with another line-6, that car was pristine in amd out. One of the few cars I really regret selling.
Hindsight says the Nova was the best of the 3 (Granada and Volare being the other two). But at the time these did not present as nicely in the showroom as the Granada in particular. I would have chosen one of the others at the time, but this would tie for the Volare if I found a nice, clean daily-driver today.
I never warmed to the styling on these – 1975 seemed to me to mark the beginning of a horribly anonymous and generic styling trend at Chevrolet in particular. The big Chevy and these were both revised in 75 and both seemed quite character-free to me at the time. I can see the case for “clean” to describe the styling, but there is really nothing to make it particularly appealing. The Volare was clean too and I prefer it’s basic shape and better execution on the details like taillights and headlights/grille.
These Novas are prized by the “cop car faction.” They can be called the four door Camaro because much of their running gear is shared with the popular pony car. They can make sense if you are looking for a platform that can be heavily modified and still have the practical use of a sedan. Much like the Fox bodied LTD. I suppose the question is if you would want to spend the money on a Nova or would you rather start with a more popular Camaro. They’re going to cost the same when you’re finished and the Camaro would probably be worth more and be easier to sell. Either way they’re not going to be too fuel efficient especially compared to a pony car built since 2000. I gave up on my ’70 Mustang because I couldn’t accept the idea of a six cylinder car that only got 15 mpg. Using one of these V8 Novas as a Daily Driver would impose a harsh financial penalty on a young enthusiast. They can be nice cars though. My buddy bought a new ’77 Concours sedan with a 350 V8. Black with a red velour interior, fully loaded. He called it the “poor man’s Seville”.
I forgot that these were the most common “non-Ford” cars that I recall driving when I worked for Hertz summers of 1977 and 1978. They did have a smathering of other GM cars, but the compact was by far the most common…hardly drove any Impalas, some Pontiacs (don’t think any Buick and certainly no Cadillac).
I previously posted that the most common Ford I drove (non-scientific survey, I know) was a larger size, the Thunderbird/LTDII, though I did drive some Grandas, and in 1978, Fairmont…but NO Maverick for some reason. This was in between the first gas shortage and the second so smaller cars were not unusual, but there were still large cars around, even in the rental fleet.
These were pleasant enough to drive, I think most of the ones we had probably were inline 6 models, and all automatic. In the US, at least, I’ve only driven one rental car that was a standard, a Toyota Starlet my Mother rented on my behalf in 1983, when I was going on an interview in an adjacent city. The funny thing is how I think of these now versus then…back then they were kind of an “anonymous” car as they were so common…whereas Front Wheel Drive (and certainly AWD) vehicles were not so common. Now it is the opposite, these have become rare with time, and FWD cars certainly are most common…what was usual has become unusual, with the passage of time (and changes on what has been sold to the US market).