As they say, a picture says a thousand words, and this great shot by AGuyInVancouver maybe be worth three times that much. It’s much more than a mere twofer; it’s really a triptych which illustrates the story of the average American large compact through three examples built and/or conceived roughly two decades apart. While that eighth-gen Acura CSX (Civic) is far from being a classic, it’s an appropriate marker in the ongoing story of the compact American sedan across several generations.
And let’s not kid ourselves, that Acura is most certainly an American counterpart to the Chevy II and Aries. It’s based on the final Civic sedan ever sold in Japan, and today, only the Hybrid carries the famous nameplate in Honda home country. To no one’s surprise, it is bigger than that Aries, a car initially considered to be on the small side of the American compact class (and at the time, a “new normal”) and is also about as heavy as that Chevrolet.
Imagine if Americans knew that three decades later, the “new normal” as embodied by the Aries would be expressed through very large, heavy versions of the same architecture. There was nothing “new normal” about this Chevy II, on the other hand. While that term could’ve been momentarily applied to life during the Eisenhower recession, customers slowly but surely found themselves overwhelmed by the ubiquitous oversized standard sized offerings of the day, creating an organic demand for more sensible transportation. Compacts like this offered that reprieve and while its stark three-box shape makes it appear large for a compact to modern eyes, it’s an optical illusion. The pseudo-monospace cars sold in its place today are even more hefty, with the Cruze weighing about three hundred pounds more, taking up the same amount of space and looking more compact all the while.
When comparing today’s Camcords with the late ’70s A-bodies from GM, we concluded that for a midsize sedan, the covergence of the dimensions for each of those respective cars indicates a certain rightness of size and proportion. So it is the case with these larger compacts of the ’60s, ’80s and the past decade; a length of about 180-185 inches, paired with a width between 68 and 70 inches creates the template for the sensibly sized large compact. Here’s hoping the ever expanding compacts of ensuing generations rediscover this lesson.
Related reading:
Curbside Outtake: 1st Gen and Current Generation Accords- A Growth Industry
Curbside Classic: 1967 Chevelle Malibu Sedan – The American Big Opel
The Civic shows how far ‘size creep’ can go. The original was a mere 140 inches long!
The original was also not classified as a compact, but as a subcompact. Apples to oranges. A more fair comparison would be the original to the outgoing 1999 model–admittedly, that one was 2 feet longer and had a wheelbase stretch of 13 inches over the ’73.
All of this is irrelevant when one attempts to decipher what COMPACT means in a parking lot. In some, anything smaller than a Chevrolet Suburban will fit in the space. In others, if you park a Ford Focus between two other cars, you can hardly open your door wide enough to get out. This last, I found in New York City (where else?) where some greedy real estate mogul was thus able to claim more spaces on his property.
That generation of Civic is actually pretty light, I remember looking up the specs when my dad was shopping for one in 2010, it was around 2600 pounds I think. A new Cruze probably has a good 500 lbs on that, but GM gets kind of excessive in their desire to quell NVH in their vehicles (as they pretty much always have), so their cars always weigh a lot.
I really don’t get the huge issue some car enthusiasts have over increasing weight, though. The NVH in a 2000s compact is just so vastly better than the NVH in a 1980s compact that I’ll gladly take a few hundred pounds as a trade-off. With suspension and structural improvements, a lot of them handle better than the older cars regardless. And, more recently in the 2010s, many new models being released actually weigh less than the ones they replace. The current Camry and Accord are good examples. I don’t see what the big problem is.
Yes, that Civic was not only light but, I believe did well in roof crush tests. It would seem Honda invested wisely in the structure.
But my point is that the three cars in this photo have very similar dimensions and weigh within two hundred pounds of each other.
I think the enthusiast issue over increasing weight is that for the longest time, over and over again, it’s been shoved down everyone’s throat that all old American cars are ill handling boats in large effect due to their weight , like for example all of the 71 era “pony cars” vs. their mid 60s predecessors. On the other side of the enthusiast world less weight is even further reinforced, what made the BMW 2002 such a good handler again?
Personally I mostly don’t care about weight myself as anything under 300lbs difference is barely perceptible anyway. I do however find it funny how many have taken to defending the ever increasing weight and bloat put into cars over the last decade or so since it’s assumed all the heft is due to safety and safety is always worth the sacrifice. Plus there was the perpetual debunking of SUV “safety by mass” anti SUV people constantly voiced in the peak of that segment’s popularity, yet the cars those people drove have all gotten heavier and bulkier since and you never hear them complain about it, in fact they defend it, as I mentioned, because it’s supposedly “safer”, so there’s some irony for ya.
“Plus there was the perpetual debunking of SUV “safety by mass” anti SUV people constantly voiced in the peak of that segment’s popularity, yet the cars those people drove have all gotten heavier and bulkier since and you never hear them complain about it, in fact they defend it, as I mentioned, because it’s supposedly “safer”, so there’s some irony for ya.”
Which is STILL a load of crap. If you take any BOF truck or SUV and play chicken with an econobox or even midsize sedan, the truck wins. That whole anti-SUV crowd claims the trucks are ‘unsafe’ and yet its the little cracker box that gets shredded in a collision. Give me the truck. If we’re talking sportscar or muscle car, then it still loses, but at least it justifies the risk with the reward of driving pleasure.
I agree with what you are saying to an extent, but if the vehicle rolls, or it’s a single vehicle crash, all bets are off. For both of those types of accidents, your risk of dying is more than double compared to a passenger car, and statistically, it’s almost twice as likely to have those types of accidents in trucks or SUVs. It pretty much balances out in the long run.
Interesting to see how much lower the cowl and especially the trunk are on the Chevy II vs. the Honda. It would be instructive to see a comparison in rear seat legroom and headroom, as well as trunk volume.
It is not just the Civic that has creeped up in size it seems that with cars getting better gas mpgs that all cars have grown. I visited my folks last weekend with my “new to me” 97 Lesabre. I parked next to their 2009 Taurus (aka the Ford Five Hundred with more fake chrome) and I was astonished as the Taurus was much bigger, wider and taller then my Lesabre (which in 1997 was one of the largest cars sold due to the death of the Caprice/Roadmaster)
The Civic and Corolla have gotten so big that they had to offer the Fit and Yaris to back fill the subcompact spot those two cars left.
I was taken aback one morning in San Francisco when seeing two San Francisco Police cars parked nose-to-tail. It was amazing how the new, Taurus-based Police Interceptor looked bulkier than the Crown Victoria in front.
It’s happening at the other end of the size spectrum, too.
Correct me if Im wrong, but isn’t the Taurus actually based off a Volvo SUV platform? If so, this starts making sense…
Yes actually it is, it is running on Ford’s D3 Platform which is a modified version of the Volvo P2 platform. It shares the same platform as the Volvo XC70 and XC90 (among others)
The front springs on the 08-09 Taurus are massive.
An upside of using the D3 is that headroom is amazing on the Five Hundred/Taurus. I seem to remember from the few short years my grandmother owned one that the visibility was very good as well.
There was probably more legroom in the rear seat of my `76 Valiant 4 door than in any Panther-and thats with the front seat all the way back!
It’s easy to look at that pre-nova chevy II and forget that they were considered to be pretty junky by some that owned them. Good looking car and that one is probably pretty useful since it’s a four door. Today, it’s my pick of the three. Even one as mechanically inept as I has a chance to keep it running.
The most important difference is height. After 40 years of low roofs and three-box formats, we’ve come back to the 1920s. Look at a modern SUV along with a 1928 sedan and a 1968 sedan. The SUV is much closer to 1928 in all of its proportions.
Lee ;
There’s no such thing as a pre Nova Chevy II because the NOVA was the DeLuxe Chevy II package .
That one appears to be a ’63 & the the fender I6 callout indicates it has the tiny 192 C.I. I6 engine , one step above the base model Iron Duke I4 .
Although these were indeed wretchedly cheap cars , they were far better than Falcons & Comets , I owned and drove as DD’s early ‘ Shoe Box ‘ Novas for a couple decades and I love them still ~ cheap and simple if not very sturdy , I’d choose that one in a heartbeat , slap in a stock GM HEI dizzy and open up the spark plugs gaps , delete the muffler and zoom off into the Desert with a sh*t eating grin .
These were *very* roomy cars , I was still 6’1″ back then and never had to slide the seat back to fit comfortably .
-Nate
Yup. Wikipedia agrees with you and now that I think of it so do I. I owned a 68 and there was no Chevy II plate.
Did not care for the car till 66. Style became better as did engine selection.
Wiki had this to say about the name: There was a lot of debate within the Chevrolet organization over just what to call this new car, and the decision to go with “Chevy II” was a very late one. Among the finalists was Nova. It lost out because it didn’t start with a “C,” but was selected as the name for the top-of-the-line series. Ultimately the Nova badge would replace Chevy II – but that wouldn’t happen until 1969.
I think it became Nova in 68 with the style change but can’t remember for sure. I say that a lot lately.
Does this clear it up for you? In ’68, it was officially called the Chevy II Nova. But the specific models were all “Novas”, as in “Nova Coupe”, or Nova Sedan”. They were obviously transitioning away from Chevy II, and by 1969, it was just “Nova”.
The Iron Duke was a Pontiac engine from 1977, based on the 301ci V-8. The Chevy 4 (still in production as an industrial/marine engine) was a cut down Chevy I-6.
Those under-200ci sixes by the big 3 for the early 1960’s compacts were overkill, but necessary to differentiate ” ‘merican” compacts from four cylinder European imports at the time. My guess is that the productions costs were sufficiently low, despite the extra parts count, due to the factory infrastructure and experience they had pumping out millions of straight sixes for full sized cars and pickups in the 1950’s.
” The Iron Duke was a Pontiac engine from 1977, based on the 301ci V-8. The Chevy 4 (still in production as an industrial/marine engine) was a cut down Chevy I-6. ”
That’s interesting as Chevrolet Dealer Mechanics called it ‘ The Iron Duke ‘ in the 1960s .
I was told back then that is was 1/2 of a V-8 and had cam gears , chain and pistons , bearing shells too , all from a V-8 Chevy .
I have never touched one although I’ve seen many in APU’s Gen Sets , Ag & Trash Pumps , Donky Engines , on and on…
-Nate
Its Pontiac that did the 1/2 V-8 thing in the early ’60’s as well. The Tempest Trophy 4 was based on the 389ci Trophy V-8 and had exactly 1/2 the displacement.
If you look at the specs for the 153ci Chevy II four, you will see that it is exactly 2/3 of the all-new 230ci “big” six introduced a year later in ’63. The family similarity is obvious between the four and new sixes when you look at the brochure pictures. Neither the 283ci nor 327ci V-8 pistons would be the right size. These inline Chevy engines all used timing gears, where the V-8 engines used a chain.
THANX ! .
I’m always learning new things .
I remember the Tempest four banger , IIRC it used one of the V-8 intake manifold gaskets etc.
-Nate
One of my friend’s dad factory ordered a ’64 Nova wagon with 283 4-BBL and four-on-the-floor. These compacts were not necessarily economy cars, except for relatively low price. That was a fun car.
Thanx for the photo ! .
I wish I had any photos from way back when and they were just ‘ cheap used cars ‘ but I loved them and rebuilt or restored quite a few , mostly RPO 347 S.S. models , correctly with the Cove painted silver , not like how they do it these days .
Cheap fun and great looking cars , I always preferred the early mdels .
-Nate
Paid $225 for a ’63 Nova 2-dr hardtop back in 1977. Sold 3 years later for $275. Had the 230 CID 6 (155 gross HP) with PowerGlide. Freaking indestructible.
Paid more to outfit it with an 8-track player and some bitchin’ Jensen Triax’s.
I’ll always miss her. My first car.
Speaking of Novas and Compacts, once the Nova started growing larger in size starting with the 4th Generation 1975-79 heavily restyled versions, they were even 4″ longer than the similar sized Intermediate Size Downsized Malibu as obviously shown on this photo. Today the so called “Compact Car Sized” Nova would be considered Full Sized Cars today and its even a little over an inch larger than today’s Holden based RWD Chevrolet SS.