Many auto enthusiasts are very familiar with the 1968 and later Chevrolet Nova, which was essentially a sedan version of the Chevrolet Camaro. In structure and engineering, the early Chevy II/Nova was much more like the rival Ford Falcon, with a few unique tricks of its own, like single-leaf Mono-Plate rear springs. Let’s take a closer look at the Chevy II and how it compared to its Ford rival (which I’ve previously covered in detail).
If the 1960 Corvair was the pet project of Chevrolet general manager Ed Cole, the 1962 Chevy II was very much a calculated commercial response, aimed at beating the popular Ford Falcon at its own game. The Chevy II was slightly bigger than the Falcon and had what even Chevrolet conceded was mostly conventional engineering, which compact economy car buyers had proven to favor.
Here’s how the major dimensions of the Falcon and Chevy II compared:
| Dimension | 1962 Chevrolet Chevy II | 1962 Ford Falcon |
|---|---|---|
| Overall length, in. | 183.0 | 181.1 |
| Wheelbase, in. | 110.0 | 109.5 |
| Overall width, in. | 70.8 | 70.6 |
| Track, front, in. | 56.8 | 55.0 |
| Track, rear, in. | 56.5 | 54.5 |
| Overall height (unladen), in. | 56.5 | 56.3 |
| Overall height (laden), in. | 55.0 | 54.5 |
Unlike the later Nova and Camaro, which had conventional double wishbone suspension with the coil springs carried on the lower wishbone, the front suspension of the early Chevy II mounted its coil spring and shock absorber on a pivoting spring seat atop the upper control arm, like Falcon. (Rambler had also used high-mounted coil springs since 1950, although Ford and Chevrolet used upper and lower ball joints rather than the AMC trunnions.)
Could you tell these two layouts apart without the captions?
On the Chevy II, like the Falcon, each high-mounted coil spring acted against a compression joint upper ball joint, which was mounted in a suspension tower welded to the steel skirt that formed the side of the engine bay. The upper wishbone pivots were arranged to resist brake dive. To reduce suspension tower intrusion into the engine bay, Chevrolet made the control arms fairly short, although that meant bigger camber and toe changes as the wheels moved up and down.
Both the bulky spring tower and the surrounding skirt had to be quite strong, not only to be able to take the forces exerted by the springs, but also to resist braking torque: Front suspension anti-dive geometry used the upper wishbone as a lever to resist downward motion of the front end under braking, so in a panic stop, the force on the suspension tower was substantial. During the development of the Chevy II, Chevrolet had problems with braking forces loosening or stripping the upper control arm bolts, requiring additional reinforcement and different manufacturing procedures.
Each lower wishbone was formed by a skinny lower control arm located by a diagonal drag strut. These looked very much like the ones on the early Falcon or Comet. The big difference was that where the Ford cars had a conventional anti-roll bar between the lower arms, Chevrolet decided that the front spring rates of the Chevy II were high enough that only the station wagon (and later V-8 cars) needed an anti-roll bar.
People often wonder why these cars used high-mounted front coil springs. There were a couple of reasons. First, it saved weight (and reduced unsprung weight) — because the spring loads went directly into the upper ball joints, the control arms didn’t have to be as beefy as they otherwise would. Second, this arrangement allowed room for much longer, softer coil springs, which was better for ride. The high-mounted coils were not ideal for suspension geometry (although a lot of conventional double wishbone suspensions of the time weren’t much better), but they gave better ride quality in smaller, lighter cars, which was what U.S. automakers were most worried about.
Like the Falcon, the Chevy II had a built-up front section created by welding the inner fender skirts and suspension towers to the front rails, braced by diagonal rails at the lower front corners and the radiator support panel at the front. The front fenders were bolted on over this structure.
Unlike the Falcon, the radiator support was screwed and bolted in rather than welded in place, and Chevrolet did without the diagonal braces the Falcon and Comet inserted between the suspension towers and the cowl.
While the Falcon front-end structure was welded to the body, the Chevy II front end was bolted on, attached at four points. This seems to have been a compromise between Chevrolet and Fisher Body Division that was more suited to normal Fisher production methods. With the Corvair, the front end structure and wheel houses were an integral part of the underbody, so the Corvair took up more space on the Fisher assembly lines than a full-size Chevrolet and required Fisher Body to supply front end sheet metal that wasn’t normally their responsibility.
With the Chevy II, Fisher Body supplied the complete body shell from the cowl back, as they did with larger GM body-on-frame cars. A gauging fixture automatically checked the dimensions and alignment of the mounting points and stamped each body mount with a number indicating how many shims needed to be added to get the proper alignment of the front end and the body shell when the front end was bolted in place.
Structurally, the rear of the Chevy II body was again similar to the Falcon, getting underbody strength from the integral sills and the two rear rails, which were joined by torque boxes (which absorbed rear-end flex). The transmission tunnel in the floorpan acted as a central “spine.” In back, the rear wheel houses and the riser behind the rear seat provided most of the strength.
Unlike the Falcon, Chevrolet anticipated offering hardtop and convertible versions of the Chevy II/Nova from the start, although the convertible still needed quite a bit of underbody bolstering, as shown above.
Another area where the Chevrolet departed from Falcon practice — not necessarily for the better — was its “flush and dry” rocker panels. These allowed air and water to flow from the cowl vents through the kick panels and down into the rockers, exiting through drain holes at the trailing ends. In proving grounds testing, Chevrolet claimed this provided “very significant gains in corrosion protection.” In the real world, it allowed dirt, dust, dead leaves, insects, and the occasional hapless rodent to accumulate in the sills, particularly in climates where it only rained certain times of the year. Getting the accumulated junk out of the rockers then became a real challenge, also creating new opportunities for corrosion.
Chevrolet also took on some bigger challenges in engine mount and drivetrain design because the base engine of the Chevy II was a big inline-four, rather than an inline-six like the 144-cid base Falcon engine. The four-cylinder Chevy II got a thicker propeller shaft than sixes to try to keep the big four’s unbalanced vertical shaking force from exciting nasty resonant frequencies in the body and suspension.
This wasn’t entirely successful, especially with manual transmission. (Powerglide didn’t do performance any favors, but its torque converter damped some of the shake.) Car Life complained that the four-cylinder Chevy II rode rougher than the sixes, which was actually caused by the interaction between the engine vibration and the front suspension. Unsurprisingly, four-cylinder Chevy II sales were never very great — the six provided much better performance and was noticeably smoother.
Finally, we come to the signature feature of these cars: their Mono-Plate rear springs. Like a lot of cars of its time, the Chevy II/Nova had Hotchkiss drive, which means that the rear leaf springs did double duty as springs and as rear suspension arms, locating the axle and transmitting acceleration and braking forces. Unlike other cars of its time, the Chevy II rear springs had only one blade per side rather than a stack of them; for comparison, the early Falcon, Comet, Fairlane, and Meteor had five leaves per side.
Why would anyone want to use single leaf springs? With multi-leaf springs, the friction of the spring blades rubbing together causes ride harshness and sometimes noise. This can be mitigated by adding liners between the springs (as Ford did with the Falcon, Fairlane, et al), but that adds cost and weight. A mono-leaf spring has no inter-leaf friction, it weighs less than a multi-leaf spring, and it can withstand greater stress levels because the material can be evenly stressed over its whole length. Many automakers were interested in mono-leaf springs and had been pursuing them since the 1940s.
There’s a common assumption that Chevrolet adopted the Mono-Plate springs because they were cheaper than multi-leaf springs, but I’m no longer so sure that was actually true. In theory, one blade ought to be cheaper than three to five, especially with no inter-leaf liners. However, Mono-Plate springs were costly to make because each spring had to be specially tapered throughout its length, with thickness and width varying from 0.625 inches by 2.25 inches at the center to 0.375 inches by 2.625 inches at the ends. Here’s how Chevrolet engineer Paul J. King described the Mono-Plate manufacturing process:
The basic design principle is to give the spring uniform stress from end to end. This is accomplished by rolling the spring stock in the final pass on cam shaped rolls to give a steel bar with section shape varying along its length in a manner dictated by the spring design. Steel rolled in this manner has the shape of perhaps, 20 to 25 springs impressed on one strip. The steel is then cut into individual spring sections, and the eyes are formed. The spring is quenched while held in a die. … The spring is stressed to an equivalent stress of 160,000 to 180,000 psi and peened with high intensity shot (10-12 almen C-2) on the tension side. The extra item here is the shot peening operation being done with the spring under great stress. The shot peening action takes about two inches out of the cambered height of the spring. After shot peening, the springs are preset at about 180-220,000 psi. This takes approximately an additional 1/2 inch out of the cambered height.
As far as I know, Chevrolet didn’t publish any specific cost claims, but I have a suspicion the high cost of making these springs may have eaten up a lot of the potential savings versus conventional multi-leaf springs.
The Mono-Plate springs were around 15 percent lighter than multi-leaf springs, so they reduced unsprung weight in back, which was good for ride quality. However, they weren’t great for axle location, and even with the smaller engines, Chevrolet admitted to problems with “flapping” of the rear portion of the springs. (The axle was positioned at about 40 percent of the spring length, so the rear part of the spring was longer and effectively softer than the front.) Chevrolet kept using these mono-leaf springs on the less-powerful X-body model into the early ’70s, and they showed up on some early Camaros and Firebirds, but I don’t think many people outside Chevrolet engineering were ever very happy with them, and hot-rodders and restomodders almost inevitably discard them in favor of multi-leaf springs or coil-overs. (Similar mono-leaf springs were used on the 1966–1970 Oldsmobile Toronado and 1967–1970 Cadillac Eldorado, FWD cars whose rear axle location needs were less strenuous.)
Chevrolet didn’t strain nearly as hard as Ford had at weight and cost reduction, so even a basic four-cylinder 1962 Chevy II two-door sedan was almost 150 lb heavier than a six-cylinder 1962 Falcon standard Tudor sedan. A four-door Nova 400 sedan like the one pictured above had a base curb weight of 2,680 lb. So did the two-door hardtop.
According to the factory specifications, a six-cylinder Nova convertible was 195 lb heavier than a two-door Nova sport coupe or four-door sedan.
However, Chevrolet had obviously anticipated the eventual installation of the small-block V-8 engines, which didn’t demand any of the frantic structural reengineering of the V-8 Falcon and Comet. The Turbo-Fire 283, when it became available, added less than 150 lb to Nova curb weight, roughly half the weight penalty suffered by a 1963½ Falcon Sprint.
Since many modern Chevy II/Nova fans regard the car as a mere vessel for hopped-up V-8 engines laden with aftermarket performance parts, they would probably argue that Chevrolet made the right choices, although in stock form, the Chevy II was no great step forward in structural engineering, packaging efficiency, or chassis design.
On the other hand, it wasn’t really intended to be. Chevrolet had belatedly realized that the more imaginative Corvair sold better as a sporty coupe than as an economy sedan. If domestic compact buyers wanted plain vanilla, Chevrolet was happy to serve it to them — to the tune of 326,607 cars for 1962 and 372,626 more for 1963.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1962-1965 Chevy II – Chevy Builds A Compact, Take II (Updated) (by Paul N)
CC Tech: Ford Falcon, Comet, and Fairlane – How These Unit-Body Fords Were Alike (And Different) (by me)
1962 Chevy II vs. Corvair: Why Chevrolet Thought These Similarly Priced Compacts Could Coexist (by me)
Curbside Classic: 1963 Chevy II Nova SS Coupe – The Only One Left Wearing Its Original Wheel Covers? (by Paul N)
I have written about my family’s disastrous 1962 Chevy II before, and the less I think about those cars, the better!!!
The opening photo – although it shows a convertible – impressively demonstrates which vehicle served as inspiration for the Opel Kadett B styling.
Beginning with the beltline to the design of the grille and even the headlight surrounds: everything shares the same design language. The only significant differences were that the Opel’s flanks were slightly smoother, the rear overhang reduced, and the C-pillar styled a bit more robustly. Those were the heighdays of transaltlanic partnership.
(Image: Adam Opel AG)
Clare MacKichan, who was Chevrolet chief stylist when the Chevy II was designed, then went to Opel from 1962 to 1967: https://www.media.stellantis.com/me-en/opel/press/opel-celebrates-60-years-of-opel-design-studio
That’s a masterstroke of PR wordsmithery, managing to write such an extensive history of Opel without mentioning GM at all.
Indeed. Not an enviable task, TBF.
Beautiful 62 Convertible, especially in red.
And dang, that 64 SS.. Even more Beautiful… especially in red.
🙂
A neighbor lady had one of these, a 62-63 with a 3 speed. I rode in it once as a tot, and marveled at how much work was involved to drive it. I also remember that the powertrain seemed coarse, so it might have been the 4.
Also, my stepmomom had a 63 with a PG when I first met her. I rode in it one time, with my dad driving. He did not seem to enjoy it. As soon as they were married the Chevy II went away, replaced by a 68 Cutlass Supreme.
The Nova 4, along with similar engine designs from Pontiac and I-H, had a very large displacement for four-cylinder engines. They all shook badly. It wasn’t until 15 or so years later that engine designers widely accepted that balance shafts were exceptionally helpful for smoothing out big fours.
I have to assume that it was cheaper and more expedient for Chevy to design and build a big 4, than it would have been to design and build the small displacement I-6 engines that Ford and Chrysler chose to go with.
If I was shopping at the low end of the compact car spectrum of the era, I would either pick a Valiant 170 or Falcon 144 engine over the Chevy 4. Or if I had my heart set on the Chevy, I’d pay extra for the 230.
I would guess that the glacial acceleration of the Falcon 144 was the whole rationale for the Nova 4 in the first place. GM product planners probably figured if there were buyers for the super-slow Ford, there’d be a similar group of loyal Chevy conventional compact buyers willing to suffer with the Nova 4-cylinder, too.
But the smart guys would eschew the whole thing and go with a Mopar A-body and the peppy 170, especially the cleaned-up, 1963 2nd-gen Valiant.
You’ll get no argument from me that the Chrysler 170 was the best of the small-displacement compact car engines. Even more so if you were a person who preferred an automatic transmission; the TorqueFlite was the best of the bunch. After the questionable 1st generation styling was gone, the Valiant was an easy choice.
Yes, much cheaper, as the 153 was essentially just a 230 with 4 cylinders. Chevrolet need a new big six and this is the route the chose, knowing that probably few would chose the four.
But the 194 six, the base engine on this Chevy II six, was more powerful than the Chrysler 170 six and cost very little more than the four. That’s why it was so common in these.
The 153 4 cylinder also showed up in cargo versions of the G series Chevy-Van/Handi-Van for a few years, and a light duty Step-Van chassis. In addition, it was a great industrial engine that’s still manufactured (and vibrating) to this day.
And in a lot of Mercruiser inboard-outboards.
Interesting artticle, particularly the part about the Mono-Plate rear springs. When GM saw the success Ford had with their Falcon-based Mustang (and realizing the Corvair was a road to nowhere) naturally they looked at building a sporty derivative of the Chevy II. From what I understand, that project was abandoned early on for several reasons, one of them being the tall cowl height of the Chevy II. Since the Chevy II’s cowl height was dictated by the upper control arm mounted coil springs, there was not a practical way to achieve the ‘look’ Styling was going for with that car’s platform. This resulted in the Camaro being a substantially new semi-unitized car using a front subframe and lower control arm mounted coil springs. This made for a beautiful ’67 Camaro, but when the ’68 Chevy II/Nova was based on the new Camaro platform the result was somewhat awkward.
As the former owner of a ’62, I can say, yes, they should have had a front anti-roll bar. The lack of one led to some fairly dramatic roll angles, by 1980s standards, at least. More than one passenger thought the car was about to roll over.
Nobody could ever get it aligned to track straight, either. Possibly it needed some re-shimming of the front end’s connection to the body, though that’s just speculation.
I loved the looks of these since forever and still do .
Yes, they were wretchedly cheaply made but that’s what many Americans wanted at the time .
-Nate
Affordable, simple, reliable and ok looking is nothing to be ashamed of, but GM couldn’t resist reinventing the wheel with its complex to develop and manufacture mono leaf setup that offered little to nothing for gain. I’d take the nova before the falcon, but Chrysler’s A body trumps either.
A Nova story
A high school chum had a very good condition ’62 Nova with a six. He hated the the six since it had no go.
As an aspiring mechanic he and his mechanic father built a fairly hot 350. “Dad, it’ll fit right in!” he’d complain.
Eventually he wore his old man down who finally capitulated “We’ll put it in when the six dies.”
Ernie, the old man, was no fool–he knew the six wouldn’t die anytime soon and he didn’t trust his high school son to handle a Nova with a hot 350.
“Now what?” John the son pondered. John devised a simple plan-he plotted to leave the oil plug loose next oil change.
Sure enough his ploy worked. The plug fell out. The oil poured out and gunning an engine with no oil is a bad idea unless you’re trying to destroy it.
So, the engine was seized and John needed a car. What to do? “Oh, here’s a perfectly good little ol’ 350 we can install, dad.” I can almost see John rubbing his hands together as if he hit the jackpot.
“Sure thing, John. Just help me with this first.” Ernie held the trump card. “Bring me the 1/2″ breaker bar and a socket.” “OK dad, what for?” Ernie said nothing as he checked the dipstick.
Ernie grabbed the proper socket and loaded it on the breaker bar.
John bit his upper lip and a bead of sweat appeared on his forehead.
Now Ernie was built like a fire plug with arms to match. This was no challenge for him.
He let out a grunt as he pulled a quarter turn on the ol’ six. After rotating it several times he removed the socket from the crank pulley bolt, reconnected the battery and backed away.
“Got your keys? Fire it up.”
Sure enough the six fired up and John’s dream was shattered. The six carried him through high school a little worse for wear, but it never failed him.
The single-leaf spring was something that a lot of automakers had been chasing fairly intently since the late 1940s, for the same reasons Chevrolet was interested (less unsprung weight, no inter-leaf friction, no need for liners, less noise). I think the general assumption was that they would eventually be cheaper to make too, but the manufacturing side turned out to be a bigger headache than expected.
I like this article and the two on the Falcon as it shows the real issues the engineers and designers had to deal with. Having to change the front end attachment to deal with Fisher Body’s manufacturing limitations is a classic example.
It’s clear to me the Falcon design team hit it out of the park, and also were given the correct target – they were not designing a performance car. I think the marketing team missed the approaching small V8 era, but otherwise it was pretty spot on.