(first posted 11/30/2016) Detroit’s infatuation with Euro-style sedans got their start in a big way in 1975. The Ford Granada was a cynical riff on the Mercedes, mainly having to do with crowing about its boxy design, Mercedes-look wheelcovers and a prominent grille. We posted Road and Track’s review of it here, titled “The Perfect Car For Mother To Buy”. Chevrolet’s redesigned Nova also arrived in 1975, and it too paid homage to a German sport sedan, but this time the BMW. Unlike the Granada, the Nova had some handling chops to go along with the Hoffmeister kink. But that hardly made it a genuine Euro-sedan. What Detroit still hadn’t gotten is that it takes more than good smooth-road handling to compete with Europe’s better sedans. Things like all-wheel independent suspension, steering with genuine road feel, and a body that is genuinely space-efficient.
The Nova LN was effectively a four-door Camaro, including all of its pros and cons. It was no BMW, but if Mom was going to be happy in her Granada, Dad would probably appreciate the Nova quite a bit more.
The poor interior space utilization is the result of having a body that was designed back in the mid-60s, at a time when that was just not a priority for the compact class. The 1968 Nova, which shared its platform with the ’67 Camaro, prioritized a long hood and a very coupe-like body, regardless if it had four doors or two. This 1975 update was still stuck with that same basic body architecture, now grafted to the new front subframe, suspension and steering that the 1970 Camaro and Firebird ushered in.
Ford blessed the Granada with an all-new body, with relatively better interior space utilization, even if it did still use aspects of the increasingly archaic “Falcon platform”. The results speak directly to the outcomes. And of course the Granada had the blingy Iaccoca look that buyers gravitated to much more strongly.
Pretty solid performance for 1975, but abysmal fuel economy (13.5 mpg) for a “compact” sedan that couldn’t even sit full-grown adults on its rear seat with adequate comfort.
The Buick Skylark’s uneven-fire 90° V6 comes in for the usual drubbing, given its persistent low frequency “rumble”. It did yield a much more respectable 21 mpg, but R&T wonders of the engine sound and very leisurely performance was worth it.
I think you’re missing a page of the article.
Yup; I sure did. And I just added it. My apologies.
The 3900 pound weight of the car is the killer for me. By the time of this refresh, GM should have known that more efficiency was called for. Even with the deluxe interior and the 350, it should have weighed 500 pounds less.
R/T seems to be carping on the details a lot. That is understandable, The 3 times the price imports, occupy a lot more of their mindspace than oversized domestic compacts. I suppose to even be worthy of the comparison is the biggest complement that a Nova would ever get from them. They were also surprisingly upbeat on the Granada. I think perhaps they over played up the MB/BMW resemblance. Each could be trimmed that way off the long order form, but in the real world, few were.
How fancy this Nava got raises the question for GM. A 75 Malibu could be equipped about the same way trim and engine wise. It would be marginally bigger inside but the ride handling would be slightly compromised by extra weight. It would cost 10-25% more and the extra money would be almost all profit. Why trim out the smaller offerings so well if it just will make it harder to sell vehicles higher up the line. The eternal quandary of line expansion I guess.
A simple refresh couldn’t possibly make the 1975 Nova 500 pounds lighter.
In the fall of 1972, when GM probably committed to this car, the hottest car in the country was the new Cutlass Supreme coupe, which was a ridiculously big and heavy car for its tiny interior. GM had hit a home run with the 1973 A bodies until the Gulf turned off the tap.
In the fall of 1974, when this car was released, GM was deep into the 1977 B and C bodies, and initiating the the 1978 A bodies, which they got exactly right for the times.
The 75 was up a good 300 pounds over the 74, which already met the bumper standard. The 1980 B body refresh, or for that matter the 1980 BMW 320i refresh, managed to drop 3-4 percent of the cars weight. There is no reason this couldn’t have as well. If it was a priority.
The weight figure seems high for a US compact. Sure it wasn’t a misprint? I’d expect it to be 3300-3500 lbs.
No, it is not a misprint. These were heavy cars for their size.
That’s exactly what I’d expect it to weigh. Camaros/Firebirds of this vintage weighed no less than 3700lbs with a V8 and these were essentially 4 door versions of them.
The weight is likely a misprint. Hagerty lists the weight as 3,188, Wikicars, 3,400, Automobile Catalogue 3,276, Nova Resource (a great site) 3,250. A Popular Science road test of a loaded ’75 Nova LN 4 door put its curb weight at 3,613. I have seen nothing, other than this R&T piece, that has the weight anywhere near the R&T figures.
FYI, Auto Catalogue puts the weight of a ’75 Camaro LT with the 350 at 3,616
The figures CPJ cites are almost certainly shipping weights for six-cylinder cars. For an air conditioned V-8 sedan, I think the printed figures are probably right.
If anyone’s still curious, I found a copy of the AMA specs for the 1972 Nova online and determined that a 1972 four-door equipped like this car would weigh over 3,600 pounds with a full tank of gas, and the ’72 didn’t have 5-mph bumpers.
The shipping weights for the ’72 started at under 3,000 lb, but that’s for an ultra-plain stripped six. The table of weights for the various options is instructive; order a V-8 engine, automatic, air conditioning, power accessories, and custom trim and the weight increases commensurately. It was not difficult to add more than 400 lb of optional equipment.
Also, AMA shipping weights are with only 3 U.S. gallons of fuel. (I didn’t know this, but it was specified in a footnote.) The Nova had a 21-gallon tank, so filling the tank would add something like 115 to 120 lb.
R&T also had a tested Volare’ at the time as close to 4000 LBS in wagon form if I remember correctly and a 1977 Bonneville listed at over 4300 LBS which is about 600 more than they were listed anyplace else. These tested weights were probably fully loaded examples with full tanks of gas, one of two people aboard and maybe even some test equipment.
For reference my 1981 Pontiac Trans Am with T-tops and in Nascar pace car trim with a turbo 301 V8 has the titled weight at 3561. A trip to the local junks yard with me and a half tank of gas saw weight as 3823. Take me and the gas out and the titled weight is pretty accurate.
That sounds reasonable. Customarily curb weight is cited, which doesn’t include payload. I can’t imagine what else could explain a 700 lb. difference.
MB and BMW were three times the price of a maxed-out domestic compact in the mid/late ’70s but that was largely due to poor exchange rates – within easy memory their ‘mainstream’ models had gone for Olds 88/Chrysler Newport money.
Did not know they ever were that low.
Mercedes 220s were in that ballpark in 1971. The BMW 2002 was even less. The 2002’s 1968 MSRP was $2,850. That was compact Big-3 money.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1968-bmw-2002-ndash-review-ndash-car-and-driver-a-splendid-little-car-page-2
Wow I didn’t realize or remember that 2002’s were that affordable. I’ve read that article numerous times but had forgotten. The affordability vanished fairly quickly. By fall 1972, when my dad had his heart set on one (he said the color he had chosen out was Malaga, which is a deep maroon), it was $4,500. He settled for a $3,000 1973 Ford Torino sedan instead.
The base price on a 1968 Rambler American was $1946, and no one paid full sticker.
The base price on a 1968 Road Runner post coupe (Inc 335hp/4 speed) was $2896.
If I recall correctly, it was the exchange-rate issue that drove the European Ford Capri and Opels (Ascona/1900 and Manta) from the U.S. market.
Or that the american car buyer didn’t want a noisy, slow car? The Capri was pretty slow and was called a “poor mans Mustang” in Norway at the time. The rust buckets from Opel didn’t even had power steering, and got noisy underpowered engines. I can’t imagine that any american could choose those kind of European cars when you still got way better domestic cars in the 70s. I do understand why someone bought MBs and other luxury European cars.
The exchange rate may not have helped sales, but in the end these cars where not made for the american car market and not good enough for the traditional american car buyer who wanted power, quietness, comfortable ride, equipment and reliability.
And I can say today, even the Chevrolet Nova was better than about all the Opels, maybe except the Commodores and later the Monza/Senators. The Kadetts and Asconas was some crappy penaltyboxes that we were forced to drive here in Europe. We didn’t even hear about Power steering as options before the late 80s (even the MB and BMW did not have that as standard equipment….)
The Capri was the second best selling import in the US for a while. Only the Beetle was selling better.
I don’t think the Opel 1900 (Ascona) was a penalty box as sold in the US, although you’re right about the lack of power steering I believe. My dad counted his 1974 Opel 1900 Sportswagon as one of his favorite cars of all time, and that included a 1961 Corvair Monza, a 1963 Corvette Sting Ray Convertible, a 1965 Galaxy 500 XL Convertible, a few Impalas, a 1972 Torino, a 1974 Audi Fox and numerous Mercedes and BMWs.
GM should have known that more efficiency was called for.
True, and that led to the downsized B, C and A/G bdies, and the X, etc.
This X body, however, was planned before the 1973 October Oil Crisis, and brought out Sept ’74. there is no way they could have “whipped up” a new car with 1000 fewer pounds, in just a year.
“A 75 Malibu could be equipped about the same way trim and engine wise. It would be marginally bigger inside but the ride handling would be slightly compromised by extra weight.”
For what it’s with my brothers 76 Malibu Classic Landau 350 tip the scales at almost 4100 lbs even. That’s real world weight on a certified scale with a full tank of gas and all fluids.
“That is understandable, The 3 times the price imports, occupy a lot more of their mindspace than oversized domestic compacts.”
This car cost $5,586. The same year, the MSRP of a BMW 2002 was $5,940. The Nova certainly offered more value based on features, but the BMW was hardly three times as expensive.
The Nova LN was a fetching design and good imitation of the European sport sedan, for thousand of dollars less. People bought them for that reason or because they wanted more rear seat room than the Monza or Camaro. I doubt many were cross shopping with the Malibu class where rear seat room was a priority. It would have helped its mission to drop the name Nova from this car.
In addition to being a fresh face in an emerging new category it had that “GM Character” that the author liked so much, which meant cut above handling, quietness, refinement and more sophisticated styling. The beefy oversized tires helped the look and also the performance. Car and Driver did a comparison test with the Nova LN 2-door and four small sport sedans like the Audi Fox. The Chevy more than held its own. The interior, at least in LN trim, looked fantastic and it was a shame R&T missed out on ordering the gauge package.
The author went on and on about the rear seat and no IRS. Later when GM would be providing both we got cars like the ’95 Lumina. Great on the specs, crappy on the personality / character and style. If you can look good and feel good does anything else really matter?
R/T did seem rather lousy with the order form. No 4sp or 70 series tires either.
Great skidpad with basic GM spec radials. What ever happened to those?
GM spec radials are still available. Browse through some sizes of tires on tirerack and you’ll come across a model or two that mention they are TPC Spec.
As much as car magazines liked to talk about “their” test car and how they’d specc’d it, they were really mostly at the mercy of the press pool. The magazine guys could ask for specific models to at least some extent — if they wanted to test mid-grade four-door sedans, say — but it’s clear that they were usually not in a position to custom-order the cars. Since a lot of times the press pool would be early-production cars, they also sometimes had weird combinations of options that weren’t necessarily common or even technically available in production. (In this case, the 78-series tires were standard fit on the Nova, like the instrument cluster.)
I do recall this R&T article, as my Father and I subscribed to “R&T” and “C&D” for over 30 years.
I visited EVERY Chevy dealer within a 50 mile radius of New Orleans looking for a LN Nova equipped and optioned as this test car was.
No joy, no luck, no way.
Salesmen stared at me like I had grown a third eyeball when I described this desired car to them. I was quoted a 6 to 8 week wait to “special order that oddly equipped car” (quoting one salesman) and little sticker discount.
The Dodge dealer did have several Darts equipped with the well optioned, luxurious (for a Dart, anyway) “Special Edition” package, though.
Yes, rather nice in many ways. BUT…quite heavy and really horrible fuel mileage for a compact. AND, the “price as tested, at $5586,” seems very pricey for a compact at that point in time.
An equally equiped Granada wasn’t any cheaper. Especially since you had to get the more expensive Ghia to match the LN.
The horrible gas mileage was due mainly to the crude emission controls used at the time. In those days practically the only cars that got decent mileage were 4-cylinder subcompacts.
The facts that the car had a 5.7 litre V-8 and weighed more than 400 lbs are the reasons the car had such poor fuel economy. The test car was a California emission car. The 49 state cars ran better.
And a slant-six Mopar A body with a 4-speed. Best year was the last, unfortunately.
The brochure says the 350 4 bbl had the 3.08 rear end standard, but the other engines used a 2.73 with 2.56 and 3.08 optional. That’s several mpg (and a lot of throttle responsiveness) right there.
https://www.ss396.com/cars/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1975nova12.jpg
The GM factory stereos were quite lame back then as the reviewer stated. This helped create quite an aftermarket of stereo replacements from makers like Craig and Pioneer. Also, I couldn’t understand then why GM would recommend oil changes every 7,500 miles and filter changes every 15,000 miles. Certainly to lower maintenance costs to the buyer. But considering the quality of oil back then and the normal American attitude toward maintaining a car, it is no wonder engines were toast after only 100K miles.
Engines lasted that long because they were relatively poorly made by modern standards. Simple experience has tremendously improved autos in the last 40 years; annual world vehicle production has tripled since 1975. Less than a billion motor vehicles had been built before 1975. Several billion since then.
That even affects things as mundane as valve guides and piston rings.
It’s possible to get 200,000 miles or more out of a 1960s or 1970s vintage engine if it’s properly maintained. I’ve done it. Some designs, like the Chrysler Slant-six, seemed unkillable even if you didn’t maintain them!
Your comments are reinforced by my last visit to a Chevy dealership a few weeks ago. The pickup on the floor had the hood open and the oil filler cap stated 0W-20 oil only. I can only imagine how long oil with this viscosity would last in an engine made in 1975 before it “disappeared”. Machining tolerances certainly have gotten tighter since then.
There is no problem to reach 300.000 miles with an old american iron from the 60/70s. Even the Chevrolet V8s, if maintained. The Cadillac/Buick/Olds engines was even better, made of better materials.
What cars were choosen by the american taxi drivers? The base Ford/Chevrolet/Plymouth. They often ran 300.000 miles or even more.
Yes, the engines of today has much less tolerances, but the older engines could handle neglect and abuse in a better way.
If you couldn’t get 200K or more miles out of a Chevy Olds or Pontiac 350 then you weren’t maintaining them very well. Ditto many of the other various small and big block motors of the day.
Even the light weight Pontiac 301 could go 200K if one replaced the nylon timing gears and kept it well serviced. I know because I have seen many do it.
The Pontiac 301 as not the best engine. But I drove a 77 Cadillac Coupe DeVille with 260.000 miles on the odometer for some years as a daily driver. The engine (all original 425) was dead silent and ran smooth. I have a 67 Riviera with 430, all original (carburator overhaulet a couple of times, HEI-ignition), smooth, powerfull and silent, 180.000 miles.
From this era, an old american V8 probably is the best and most reliable engine in the long run.
My father at the time said it was not necessary to change the oil at all, just the filter. And check and fill the oil level weekly. With the drippy engines of the time, perhaps more true then. His slant 6 Scamp went to 135,000 when the transmission, not engine went.
My father had a friend who bought a new GM full sized car every three years. He claimed he never changed the oil, since he didn’t put a lot of miles on his cars and he knew he wasn’t keeping them. Maybe that was bluster, but you probably could get away with that for three years even then.
This is what the 6th edition of Peterson’s Basic Auto repair manual said (from 1974). Read the last few lines.
Ford did the same thing for many years. However, the SE grade oil used then wasn’t that much worse than now. And it had zinc!
7500 miles and a 15,000 filter change. That would never have happened under my ownership.
All the owners of high mileage cars featured in Popular Mechanics over the years had one thing in common: regular and consistent oil and filter changes.
Jeez, even my sealed, “lifetime” trans fluid in the ONION got that mess changed at 50,000 miles.
Ironic that even now, extended oil change intervals have wreaked havoc on some modern engines.
By 78 Ford was allowing 10,000 mile or one year oil/filter changes on 2.3 and 3.3/4.1 engines. But only 7500 miles on the V8’s. But you had to change the filter every time. You have to remember, the SE grade oil that came out in 71 was the first “modern” type oil that was several steps improved over the old ML, MM, and MS grades that had come before. The cars in the 70’s may have been poor compared to today, but oil technology “came of age” in that decade.
Speaking of which, Guy: remember Arco Graphite oil ?
Yes I do. It did not work as planned. Most people were scared of it because it looked used just coming out of the bottle. And I think the graphite settled in the pan where it was useless. A colossal mistake on Arco’s part.
I always wondered how well that worked out. It just seemed counter productive on the face of it.
Yup, it was a dead end. However, back in the day some folks swore up and down it did improve their fuel mileage. But for every one of those stories, there were a dozen horror stories.
Slick 50 was just as bad. You can’t coat metal with teflon at the temps that the typical engine produces. The teflon just accumulates in the pan or clogs tiny passages.
Yup, thats why I’ve never used it. I only use a small bottle of zinc additive now since all my cars, except the 94 Taurus are flat tappet cams. I’ve never used “additives”.
There would also be the caveats that additional servicing was required in “severe usage”, which included a lot of driving done on a daily basis by a lot of people, eg short trips.
During the 1970’s and 1980’s I would remove the mediocre factory radio & speakers in every car I purchased and replace it with a far superior sounding Pioneer or Craig aftermarket radio. Even the Big Bucks, top-of-the-line factory radio didn’t sound as good as an aftermarket unit for roughly half the price.
The factory radio and speakers were re-installed in the car for resale.
I think the limiting factor on ride quality here was to some extent the rear leaf springs more than the live axle. Quite a few of the pricey imports the car magazines loved still had solid rear axles at this point, but with coils and more positive axle location. (Alfa Romeo also used lots of aluminum in the axle assembly, which I’m sure Chevrolet would have considered much too expensive.) You don’t need independent rear suspension for good handling, but with Hotchkiss drive, you’re really forced into some compromises between handling, axle location, and ride quality, which shows up on rough pavement.
Of course, the giant live axle bounding up and down is going to have a major effect on handling. Any GM car of the era, even the ones with the four link coil system, will bound and heave on a rough road. It’s simple physics of a heaving lump of cast iron.
The first time I drove an IRS rear wheel drive car, I was astounded in the improvement in ride, handling and space.
4 link isn’t much better than Hotchkiss in the grand scheme of things, it just offered better ride with reduced weight and coils and reduces axle windup as it’s benefits, but lateral control of the axle is hard to achieve without a watts or panhard bar. The arms are triangulated in an attempt to keep the axle centered, which it does ok enough when used under ideal straight line conditions, but that design will bind when pushed and amplify whatever inherent bad tendencies a live axle has just the same.
Third gen Firebirds (and the Buick GNX) used a much improved design, eliminating the upper control arms in favor of a torque arm and using a panhard bar to keep the axle in place. 80s comparison tests unanimously favored the F-Bodies against the Fox bodies in the handling department, and the Fox chassis essentially copy/pasted GM’s triangulated 4 link setup, which Ford struggled to band aid for a decade or two themselves.
Ride quality is exactly what I’m talking about, though. Most of the European cars I mentioned had either a Panhard rod, a Watt’s linkage, or occasionally both. Alfa Romeo live axles had a sort of T-shaped central swing arm that limited the axle’s movement to the vertical and longitudinal planes to accomplish the same thing.
Obviously, even that isn’t going to alleviate the unsprung weight penalty of a hefty live axle, but you no longer have to try to balance the stiffness of the rear leaves and spring shackles against the need to keep the axle in line, you don’t have inter-leaf friction, and you avoid binding, which are all beneficial in terms of rough road ride. Plus, camber and toe stay put, so there’s less of that semi-trailing arm tail-happiness.
The point is not that independent rear suspension doesn’t have benefits, because obviously it does. However, it was possible, with mid-70s technology, to do a lot better than this in terms of ride-handling balance — i.e., to preserve the Nova’s really quite commendable smooth-roads grip while lessening the feeling of going all to pieces on bumpy pavement — with a live axle.
A “compact” at nearly 4000 pounds. And the size of a current Charger. No surprise the 70s appear to be such a decade of sloth in the automotive sector.
Order a V8 and then complain about the mileage ? Did they really want a serious comparison with imported small cars or not ?
The Malibu was downsized in about 79 I think, and looked smaller than this Nova. How much lighter was it and did it get better gas mileage ?
Yes. But the rear door glass didn’t roll down. A deal breaker for me. But a classic design in it’s first couple of years, especially the 2 door.
5″ shorter and a quick search claims 2995 pounds.
The mid-size cars were downsized for 1978 model year. They weighed about the same as the Nova compacts–perhaps 50-100 lbs less.
However, given that the Malibu was a Body on Frame, vs the Nova (which had long front subframe), the Malibu should have weighed more.
Also, you can’t overlook “options”. GM would say the Nova weighed 3300-3400 lbs (2 dr or 4dr or hatchback). However, by the time one added power steering and brakes (70 lbs), A/C (100 lbs), auto (50 lbs), V8 (50 lbs) you were up to 3570-3670 lbs.
Then you can add radio, power windows, etc, and find even more mass.
My family had a 75 Ventura 2-door, 260 V8, NY State registration said 3599 or 3699 lbs.
Great car! If only it had a 350… that’s what I learned to drive on!
A V8 Malibu was less than 3300, so the weight was fairly significantly less, plus more spacious inside, with a real back seat as opposed to this short-cushion affair (though leg room still wasn’t its strong suit).
Yes, the rear windows didn’t roll down. A design error, but if it’s an A/C car, it ceases to matter after the first couple minutes of the drive. That’s why it had rear vent windows. Consider A/C a must-have option.
Did anyone ever test a 351w powered Granada?
If anyone can scare up a Jan ’75 M/T, there is a test of all the US compacts.
I thought the following site had it but that one is missing.
http://www.lincolnversailles.com/granada/Magazines.htm
Yes, it was a Lincoln Versailles.
Yes, i’ve seen the Versailles, Seville, LeBaron test.
The Le Baron was far and away the better deal.
Don’t forget that 1975 was the catalytic converter debut year. Many buyers were sour about buying more expensive unleaded gas. The Nova Rally was around. For a few years. With the straight 6, they were OK driver’s ed cars. cheers
In 1985 I test drove a 1978 Buick Skylark V8 and was supprised how much slower it was compared to the 1965 Skylark V8 2 speed aut. I wanted to trade in – which the GM dealer actually ignored.
I liked the design, though, but ended up trading the 1965 with a 1974 Chevrolet Caprice Classic from a private car dealer.
My question is: What is the major marketing difference between a Chevrolet Nova and a Chevrolet Concours, other than it must be easier to market to hispanic customers?
They look very much the same, but is the Concours an upscale Nova?
Yes, the Concours replaced the LN designation as the top trim level. Can’t remember the year it happened though.
The Concours name lasted 2 model years, 76-77, to counter the Granada. But, the Nova name stuck and for ’78, changed to Nova Custom.
No, it was not meant to be “easier to market to Hispanic customers”.
Tomcatt is correct about the model years for the Concours. The Nova Custom that was introduced in 1978 was close, but not quite as plush as the previous Concours models.
The reason for getting rid of the Concours was because of the newly introduced downsized 1978 Chevrolet Malibu. GM was afraid that if the Concours continued it might cannibalize Malibu sales.
I have often wondered how the LN Nova did when compared to the Plymouth Valiant Brougham (how’s that for a contradiction of terms name, hey?) or the Dodge Dart Special Edition models?
I visited several Chebby dealers in New Orleans during this time period; NONE of them ever had a LN Nova as equipped in this R&T test article.
One thing not apparent in this review is that compared to european sedans of the time, the Nova was fast! I’m not sophisticated enough to look up all the times, but a 10 second 0-60 time was considered fast for a european sedan in both the 70s and the first half of the 80s. While I’m sure a Bavaria with a stick shift was faster, I would bet a Bavaria with an automatic was not. I imagine a Mercedes 280 was slower and a Mercedes 280e was probably slower as well. A 450se may have been faster, but 300d, 300sd, 280s and 280se would have been much slower. A 2002tii was a touch faster, but a soon to be released 320i would have been slower. An Audi Fox and Audi 100 would have been slower. I don’t know if an Alfa Romeo sedan would have been faster, but I imagine a Peugeot, Saab or Volvo was slower.
True Matt – a 10 second 0-60 time back then was considered fast!
They were fast cars for their day. We had one as a taxi, a bare bones Nova, but with the 350. With only PS/PB, it was very quick. So quick, in fact, that the driver ran it into a phone pole on its first shift.
We avoided fast cars after that.
When we moved to the new neighborhood in the mid-70s we went from LAPD with its fleet of Mopars to LA County Sheriff where they ran ’75 Nova 4-doors with the police package.
Around this time I was heavily into German cars and feeling little love for the domestics, but holy smokes what an impression those Novas made on a young me. First, they had a super badass look with battering ram front bumper, oversized blackwall tires and dual tailpipes pipes out back. With the long hood and powerful stance these cars looked ready for business.
As striking as the appearance was, you heard and felt a police Nova before you saw one. These were ALWAYS in some hot pursuit which was funny since our new neighborhood had no crime to speak of. The intake noise was so loud and clear that it would give you goosebumps.
Canuck’s remembrance of the Nova 350 taxi being crashed into a pole brought back a lot of memories. With the right packages the Nova must have been like a drug to drive fast, as the missing page in the review suggests.
Yep, that is a good looking police car. It’s all business. Love all the details like the antennas, dog dishes, blackwall tires, bumper ram, etc.
The text of the article does in fact praise the acceleration and straight-line performance.
Yes it does! But it was on the page that was missing when I wrote the comment;-)
I liked these cars; I thought these and the Seville were, although not perfect, a good step in the right direction for GM: heading towards the size and space efficiency of the European cars, while retaining the things that America did best. An American car with a small V8 engine and a good automatic transmission is a pleasure to drive on most American highways, at least here away from the coasts and their mountain roads. Genuine ice-maker quality A/C was another virtue that the Euro boys simply couldn’t match.
I wish that GM had continued on the path of refining this kind of smaller American and hadn’t decided that every frickin’ car, even those the size of a Japanese apartment, had to be FWD.
Right, just like the current mistake GM and other producers are making thinking that all new cars have to be EV or hybrid or combination thereof. There’s room for everyone to play, boys. We can still refine and produce internal combustion engines for cars and trucks too!
I just can’t get over that photo of the rear seat. Where’s the rest of the lower cushion?
It’s in the next Nova on the line.
I’ve noticed, reading car reviews, particularly from the ’70’s, that car manufacturers frequently sent out to the press models that were much better equipped than what the typical buyer would purchase or see in the showroom. The average buyer, confronted with a $5500 Nova, would step up to a Caprice or a Cutlass. I have never in my life seen a four door Nova equipped with anything but a one piece colour coordinated vinyl bench seat. Buckets and split benches were somewhat common on two door Novas but all vinyl, never cloth. Actually, the first cloth car interior I recall was on a Mid Eighties Aries. No Nova had power locks. No Granada had power windows, cruise, tilt, etc, like another review I read.
I think that the BMW comparison is due to C/D’s huge selling article, GTO v. GTO, in which the Ferrari never actually was reviewed. This is a traditional, pudgy, smallish, low to mid priced American sedan which has nothing in common with the pricey sports sedan. A specious comparison.
The 7500 mile oil change interval was no doubt recommended to make some cost of ownership metric look good and had no bearing on reality. In the days of carbureted engines, oil got DIRTY with lots of unburned/semiburned gasoline. I have also read that a lot of longer engine life can be attributed to better oils. I cannot imagine taking a carbureted car over 3K without an oil change. I still prefer to change modern oil at 3K, it’s cheap insurance.
My kind of motorist. I replaced plugs, boots, all belts and hoses at the 10 year mark. 60,000 miles.
The heat and dust in AZ comes under “severe duty” to my mind. Automobiles are too hard won to just let them rot.
It’s what I call “pre-emptive maintenance: replacing critical parts before they go bad and leave one stranded in the heat.
When one thinks of the labor and financial capital invested into the buying and ownership of a vehicle, it’s insane not to maintain even most throwable of throw away cars.
Not just new or expensive either. There’s a reason I still own a 71 4dr Maverick I bought back in July 1988. I am also a stickler for maintenance. And I only paid $1200 for it.
Sweet looking car. My dad’s friend had a 1976 Chevy Nova four door when I was a boy. We used to do a lot of things with the car. I remember we would cram seven people into the small car and drive from Seattle, Washington to Philipsburg, Montana to visit Dad’s parents. Although it was no BMW, it performed quite well, and was economical and, more importantly, well made, and reliable.
It’s interesting to me to note that long before the FWD era, R&T was remarking that all the division’s NOVA cars were basically identical. Badge engineering, indeed.
Not nearly as bad as the H Body Monza clones, though.
Very true!
In 1978 my family took a trip to Florida and Dad ended up with a stripped Nova sedan for a rental car. It was the same ubiquitous GM brown that even our ’77 Caprice Estate was with tan vinyl interior. To say that car was cramped for the five of us is an understatement. I do remember the A/C freezing us out, and Dad saying it was so underpowered it was ridiculous (more than likely a 6-cylinder). But it took us all over the state for the week we had it, and totally without a glitch.
Dad probably bought a Monte Carlo.
My recollection and personal experience with Novas was that they were almost always relative strippers. Astonishingly cramped, miserable strippers. With a goofy trunk floor.
The LN was the plushest version of 1968’s most cramped big three compact. It was easy to spot with its body colored wheel covers, and a rare sighting at that. There were three trim levels below the LN, and at least they offered a sort of compact price, along with a 6 cyl engine that didn’t suck gas at full-size car pace.
The challenge for the LN started in the Chevy showroom. The LN started at $3,795, while the Malibu Classic started at $3,698. The Classic was roughly the same trim level as the LN, weighed only about 300 lbs. more than the LN, and would pull about the same fuel use if both were upgraded to the 5.7 V-8.
Once you upgraded the LN to the 5.7, you were within a few hundred bucks of Monte Carlo pricing, which had the 5.7 as standard equipment. The price spread was less than an optional AM/FM Stereo radio, so it was completely inconsequential.
Considering it was easy to make decent handlers out of GM’s mid-size cars, there was very little case for buying an LN, with all of its drawbacks compared to other GM offerings.
GM needed to do something to combat the Granada in ’75, and the coming Plymouth Volare in ’76, but their real answer wouldn’t be ready until spring 1979. The LN was a poor selling placeholder.
GM’s prescience that they needed to down-size their cars bit them in the rear in a way. While they were working furiously to improve their cars from top size down, their ‘70s answers to the foreign competition were all developed in the ‘60s, and stayed that way until the ‘80s. A full decade for the Europeans and Japanese to figure out the American market and offer some pretty good product by the time GM was getting caught up.
The other problem with these cars in the showroom was the name. Everyone knew what a Nova was – it was the stripper compact Chevy. Had been for over a decade.
Ford’s genius was an all new car with an all new name (Granada) and keeping the Maverick around for the budget buyers. This Nova LN was really a somewhat improved Maverick LDO. The Granada simply pounded the sales of the previous “luxury” Maverick. This was GM’s version of the Valiant Brougham – same old car trimmed up nicer for someone who wants a traditional car in a smaller package.
Dodge did the same by bringing out the Diplomat. However, Chrysler was such a hot mess by then that it was never really competitive with even the Nova LN.
Something missing from the mythical “order sheet” could have made the Nova into a BMW-killer: RPO F-41. Essentially it was the police suspension but with a softer bushing in the front of the rear leaf spring for less harshness. The Nova still wouldn’t ride like a BMW but it would keep up in the turns, with a more gutsy engine besides. Springs, shocks, front sway bar were different and a rear sway bar was added. F-41 could be ordered on any Nova…Obviously it wasn’t in the “press fleet.”
Unlike Chrysler which made you order a Valiant/Dart or Aspen/Volare with the police package, probably arguing with the salesman to put it through; or the trailer package, then buying the rear sway bar from the dealer parts department, GM made it easy. You only needed to know. R&T obviously didn’t.
MT tested a police optioned Nova at some point G.Poon, along with other compacts set up the same way, IIRC
Hmm, wonder if they tested the one year only Maverick police package at the same time? Doubt it though. Maybe the Fairmont police package? One can wish.
Road Test magazine did such a comparison test. Chevrolet Nova F-41, Dodge Aspen Pursuit, Ford Granada and Pontiac Ventura with civilian “sport packages.” The Chevrolet and Dodge outclassed the Ford and Pontiac. I can’t recall much else, I haven’t seen that article in decades!
The test car did indeed have sport suspension — the text mentions the anti-roll bars.
Short the cushions to give the impression of legroom. When did GM catch that disease and when was it finally cured?
I think they started moving away from this when they began replacing their rear-wheel drive family cars with front-wheel drive models.
GM’s downsized full-sized cars of 1977 suffered from this until they got the major restyling in 1991.
Our ’73 Century wagon had a short cushion which fooled us into thinking it was acceptable for a tall family. Plus my newly 6’3″ brother liked to tilt the seat way back.
It does have some benefit. At a car show, I got my size 11s stuck in the rear footwell of a BMW 3 series. Ended up stretched out on the ground on my hands.
On the Granada, that same style of space saver tire fit into a well on the side of the trunk. I have one of those tires ( without the inflation canister though) but wouldn’t dare use it. It is unused though. But it’s a later Camaro one with a 4 3/4 inch bolt circle non of my Fords use. I keep it strictly as a historical artifact.
Aside from the shortened lower seat cushion in the rear seat, note the shape of the seatback. The curvature at the outer edges of the rear seat was a GM hallmark through the 70’s in their compact and mid size range, making it extremely tight back there for three average sized people, as outboard passengers couldn’t really sit comfortably all the way to the edges of the seat. It appears to be another attempt to increase legroom by pushing the seat back at the center while the outer edges were curved forward to clear the wheel well. This “feature” doesn’t look quite so pronounced in the Nova, but in Monte Carlos and Malibus of the same vintage the rear seat curves forward to a degree that it almost seems semi-circular. (This from personal experience)
The Nova rear seat was not the roomiest. Darts, Aspens, Fairmonts had more legroom
(though the Fairmont had a bigger driveshaft tunnel.. I know, I spent a lot of time in the back of both)
Car & Driver did a comparision of a 75 Nova (or Omega?) with a 350 against Peugeot 504, Saab 99, Volvo, Audi 100.
For US driving conditions, the Nova was the better car. Not as elegantly engineered perhaps, but it was better for suburban US drivers. And that’s with money NOT being a factor.
If money was a factor, it was no contest.
Rather than compare a Nova LN to a BMW or Benz, a better comparison was the Colonade Cutlass 4dr 350 vs a Mercedes 450SE. Thank you again Car & Driver. August 73.
In short, the Olds was no Benz. But is was very comparable—and cost less than half as much.
Paul should share that with the commentariat here.
These were nice-looking cars and the upgrade to luxury was where the compact market was headed in the mid-late ’70s. If you could no longer offer performance then at least you could make the interior ritzy! Though I don’t remember seeing any of these LN Novas back in the day (they were almost always miserly strippers) they were designed to compete with the Valiant/Dart Brougham & Special Edition models, and the Mercury Grand Monarch. Even AMC got into this market in ’78 with the Concord.
Just took a closer look at oldcarbrochures.com and the buckets offered in first two model years did have an odd shape and padding; this apparently was changed for 1977 with all-new seats that seemed to be much better. The back seat in these Novas, however, was always a penalty box with it’s too-short bottom cushion and lack of leg room.
My friend’s dad bought a 77 or 78 Nova Concours 4dr. It was “trimmed up”, 305 V8, but it did not have power windows, locks or seats.
Novas were popular on Long Island. Other friends in HS (or their parents) had them–and they were plain. Plain (kinda cheap) vinyl bench seat.
Averaging 21mpg with a carburetor-fed V-6 is pretty good for the time. I wonder if GM specd a 4 speed manual with it?
They did not. 3 on the tree.
They offered a 4-speed with the Nova 350 V8.
They offered a 5-speed with the 260 V8 on the Omega. This drivetrain (5-spd & 260 V8) was also offered on the Cutlass.
Later the offered a 4 or 5-spd with the 78 Pontiac Phoenix
That weight looked weird but if you go to the GM weights chart on page 70 of the following link I bet you could option the car up close to 4000#.
https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits/Nova/1975-Chevrolet-Nova.pdf
One car that looked better as a four-door. I could never get over the two-door B-Pillar, which I’m sure was done with impending Federal rollover regs in mind.
(Funny, cause I owned – and enjoyed – a ’75 Monza 2+2, and had no problem with THAT B-Pillar…)
But again, here’s why we had a GM Deadly Sin series.
Read the review again…about that “GM character. Quietness, refinement of operation and relatively good handling.” There were, I believe, higher expectations, based on a higher level of execution for decades prior to when all the DS’s mounted.
Despite the sometimes laughable shortcomings – what was with that stereo?! – there was enough Chevy goodness here to call it a good effort.
Would’ve been nice to see more good efforts, especially in the Roger Smith and Smale/Zarella P&G era, instead of, well, the 1995 Lumina.
And speaking of good efforts…read this from Peter DeLorenzo over at Autoextremist, about the just-introduced Chevy Cruze hatchback, about 1/2 way down the page. “Surprising Excellence”…I just may have to take a test drive…
http://www.autoextremist.com/on-the-table1/
!never knew this was a bmw styled competitor. I remember these as mostly old lady cars with a 6 cylinder and cramped interior and styling that lost what ever worthiness after 73. My mother had a green one with a horrid black interior that gave all sorts of engine and performance issues and was gotten rid of in short order. She hated that slow ugly car. Great name nova for a car that didntr like to go I think it was a poor choice vs a dart or valiant which was promoter, better on gas, better looking and way better mechanically. Hell. A Granada was a better car even
All this talk about how this Nova competes with the Granada or the Valiant, or even Hornet show how lax the buff books were in covering the domestics. When they did it was always in comparison to some rich guys import as this was.
Would it have been too much to see a comparison of the hottest version of the domestic compacts and maybe also a head to head of the volume six cylinder versions. These were volume sellers and yet it seems you have to go off the beaten track to mags like Popular Science to find much.
We can see from the hopefully ended GM DS series how thin the reference materials were on high volume everyday cars. Leaving us with just perceptions from long ago.
My buddy bought a new Concours. It was black with a red cloth interior. It had a V8 and was fully loaded with A/C, power windows, cruise etc. It was a really good looking car and for the driver and front seat passenger was quite comfortable. What it really looked like was a discount Seville clone, which is what I think the intent was. Not a bad car for the times. It’s amazing the gains in performance and especially in fuel economy over the years.
+1… when I was 17, my Dad bought a 1977 Concours 2 Door Coupe. It was a loaded 305 V8, red with a red valor interior. That car was quite a looker. With the 3 taillights on each instead of the regular Nova’s 2 taillights on each side, it looked like a little Caprice. It was a really nice car. I loved it when I got a chance to drive it once in a while.
I once owned a ’76 Nova. It ran well and was pretty reliable, but, there were 2 things that annoyed me no end: (1) the weak seat padding that tried to dump you on the curb or street when the doors were opened for exiting and (2) the NASCAR at Indy style crab-crawling that resulted from the bending of the frame/subframe.
That dog tracking was not caused by bending sub frames, nor was it a factory defect, as I’ve seen mentioned at times. What it was, was the center bolt that held the bracket onto the rear leaf spring would rust and break, causing the affected side to slide rearward a few inches. This would cause the car to ride sideways. It was definitely a more common occurrence on 75-79 models. My father had a 75 Nova that this happened to after 15 years of Long Island road salt. It actually was a relatively easy fix. Most people never bothered fixing it and probably wondered why they had to constantly correct the steering to go in a straight line.
I owned three of them, and a Buick Apollo. Nice cars to drive when you’re a 18 year old in Europe…….they sure were a lot cooler then the BMW’s and Opels my friends had.
These Nova 4 doors were so cleanly styled compared to their domestic competition, as real breath of fresh air. It’s a shame most were outfitted for Grandma in poverty spec, with nasty vinyl in depressingly drab shades.
It’s one thing to imitate other people’s work if you think you can do the same work better than they did. But you have to prove that your work is better than theirs. And not just in appearance either. But performance, engineering, build quality. And sadly, most cars built in the USA during the 1970s were of poor build quality
This one I enjoyed. A balanced article, and no endless rehashing of DS.
I’m not sure I’ve ever driven a ChevyII or Nova, but this gen was certainly my favorite. I remember when the local pd switched to these cars from Plymouth Satellites, and they looked very serious with wider tires than any previous cop cars, and little dog dish hubcaps. Now FR78 equivalents (205/75 maybe?) on 14×6″ rims would be a joke on anything larger than a subcompact (well, except for the tall profile and thus overall diameter).
As a side note, I’d be curious to see a comparison of a six-cylinder Nova with a V-6 Apollo.
It still kind of amazes me to read these reviews where a brand-new test car would stall out, repeatedly, and it would be shrugged off like it wasn’t a big deal. California emissions or not–that’s embarrasing. For Chevy and for the industry as a whole.
We’ve come a long way.
Prior to GM’s 1978 RWD A (later on renamed RWD G) Bodied Cars being downsized to exactly RWD X-Bodied “NOVA” exterior dimensions, Fox Bodied Ford Fairmont/Mercury Zephyr which replaced the U.S. Ford Maverick (which was still marketed in Brazil through 1979)/Mercury Comet and AMC renaming their Hornet as Concords, these were the Chevrolet Nova’s chief direct competitors through 1977. The Chevrolet Nova along with its chief rival the Ford Granada also competed with the Plymouth Volare’ (its 4 Door Sedan being the largest of the group at 201.5″) and AMC Hornet (the smallest of the three measuring at 187″). After 1977, the Chevrolet Nova competed with the Ford Fairmont, Plymouth Volare’ and AMC Concord. The Ford Granada became a luxurious upscale still old design and same exact size though to now competed with the newly-downsized 1978 GM RWD A-Bodied cars and the newly produced RWD Chrysler M-Bodied cars like the Plymouth Caravelle (in Canada) and Dodge Diplomat which were actually based from the Plymouth Volare’/Dodge Aspen twins. The Plymouth Volare’ based Chrysler LeBaron however competed more with the Cadillac Seville and the Lincoln Versailles which the rear portions of the roof were squared off to put more distance from the Ford Granada/Mercury Monarch 4 Door Sedans.
My very first brand new car was a ’75 Nova LN 2-door, dark red metallic with dark red velour interior. I ordered the gauge package–they were located in front of the console shifter. It had the 4.3 liter (yes, 262 cubic inches) V-8, offered only that year, I believe. It sure wasn’t fast, but gas mileage wasn’t terrible. The interior was beautiful, but the seats were uncomfortable for long rides, and the engine frequently hesitated from a start. Only kept it for 18 months but sure wish I had it today! I still have the window sticker in a scrapbook!
I had the experience of getting a Nova LN brand new in 1975. It was metallic red, red vinyl roof. 350 2 bbl, auto, F 41 suspension, Air, Power Locks. It was a four door, which I preferred over the coupes. Out of the box it seems a bit better than the test article would suggest. I was 18 working and had my dad’s cosignature. It was $6000 Canadian
Being 18-19 with income, in short order I made the following changes: Holley 500 2 bbl, recurved distributor, removed the cat sand put on dual exhaust with free flow mufflers, Gabriel Adjustamatics set extra firm front, firm rear, Manual shift kit, transmission cooler, and finally American Racing Vectors in 14 x 7 with 205 70 14 Michelin XWX’s. Yes I had a lot of money in that car.
I was an active member of the Northern Alberta Sports Car Club we has access to Edmonton International Speedway. I ran hundreds of laps on the track. I drag raced it turning 16.1/88mph, the car was weighed on the scale at 3800 lbs. So with the mods according to Wallace Racing it had about 180 hp. It ran pretty competitively with 6 cyl BMW’s, but handled far better than a stock 530i. Corrected for sea level the 1/4 mile is 15.6 / 90 mph. So a little tuning went a long way!
I am amazed at a car so big having so little rear sear room. Sort of a four door 2+2! So cramped compared to an Aussie Holden Kingswood of the time – but then that was designed for a different market.
Seriously, I’m surprised they didn’t shift the cowl forward when they did the rebody, to open up more space. I guess they thought they could move the customer ‘up’ to a bigger car if they wanted more room, but the time was coming (or maybe had come?) when that tactic wouldn’t work, and the customer would look outside the Chevy showroom.
But that back seat…would the original sixties Chevy II have had more space?
If the straight six was still the base engine in a Nova, then a long engine room was still necessary.
Damn, it could have had a V12.
This is essentially a four door Camaro. Seriously; the 1968-up Nova shares many key hard points with the Camaro, except for a 3′ wheelbase extension at the rear, which was not enough to give it good leg room. But that explains the long hood. As well as its excellent handling, as the 1975 version got the better front end suspension and steering from the 1971-up Camaro.
It would be like the Falcon sharing the same basic body hard points with the Mustang; it would have a long hood and modest rear seat leg room.
Hmmm, can’t say if I’ve ever heard of a Nova LN.
Interesting.
Considering they nearly debuted at the same time, the wheel placement of this all the way out at the edge looks SO MUCH BETTER than tucked way under the way an AMC Matador coupe had them. Even the Seville benefitted from that wheel placement.
I still say this car’s face is a shameless crib of the ’72 Dart.
Perhaps. But the remainder of the Nova’s body, managed to look like a modern 1970s-styled car. With a overall look that somewhat said BMW. The Dart looked like a leftover design from the 1960s. Which, it obviously was.
This generation Nova, looked their best with rally wheels. Unfortunately, so few were sold with them. Especially, the four doors. Drab, flat-faced wheel covers, or dog dishes, being so common. GM, should have found a way to sell more Novas with the rallys. And the exposed bumper bolts on cars, not equipped with bumper rub strips, really added a cheapened appearance to the front and rear. In the right trim, one of the best looking domestic cars of the 1970s.
I forgot mine! Basic black this time, sorry! 🙂
Whoa! Yours, would have turned heads. Then and now. Really, wish GM had marketed better presented versions (like yours).
Attractive bodywork, that too often was marred, by stripper-looking exteriors, and interiors.
Thanks for sharing Peter! 🙂
Thanks! My initial post was too early in the morning, forgot the pic. 🙂
I think GM had the mindset that the Nova was basically a cheap stripper, for all that they’d do LNs and Concours (Concourses?). Yes they’d stuff the interior full of goodies, but the exterior would often be larded up with too much chrome – or they’d go the other way and delete too much chrome. I kept the awkwardly thick B-pillar, just minimized it with the thin band of chrome around the windows. The shape doesn’t really need more. And I lowered it a bit – more is not always better. Classic gold accent on the wheels and just on the side badge. More would be too much, IMHO.
In Australia where this sort of thing was the standard size car, things were quite different. If GM in America had been chasing a 20-30% market share with the Nova alone, as Holden did with the Kingswood and later Commodore, Chevrolet might have presented the Nova better.
Good points, as so many Novas were indeed, basic transportation. Nice work on creating the illusion of thinning the B-pillar. I’m impressed you dare to tackle such fine details, in your models. Including the ‘Nova’ fender badge. Well done, on the subtle handling of the gold accents. Compliments, the Cosworth Vega as well.
Yeah, this two door hatch is a good looking, sporty, looking car!
GM really needed to make the four door version, a hatchback as well. The versatility would have added to the European quality of the design. And helped offset, the small back seat. Plus, provided them a practical edge over the Granada. And Volare/Aspen.
Maybe a wagon would have been better. I’m not sold on the versatility of a RWD hatch. Holden’s Torana hatch didn’t have much room back there by the time you accommodated the rear axle movement, fuel tank and spare.
And once the Cadillac Seville was in production, they could have shifted the Nova to the Seville wheelbase, to get a decent rear seat.
I agree, a wagon would have made a lot of sense. Though, A-Body and B-body wagon sales, surely would have suffered significantly.
Also, making this existing body a five-door hatch would have made it even heavier than it already was. The structure would have needed to be beefed up to compensate for the much larger rear opening.
That greenhouse “C” pillar design element more properly ought to be called the “Darrin” kink, as Dutch Darrin designed the 1951 Kaiser which featured that particular and distinctive “C” pillar look well over a decade before BMW ever had it. Credit where it is due.
There’s a lot of that going around. But yes, BMW’s famed stylist didn’t invent it. And did Darrin himself even ‘invent’ it, for that matter? Some coachbuilt European sporting saloons and coupes of the Thirties show evidence of such a kink, sometimes dropping the beltline down with it. This 1934 Humber Twelve Vogue springs to mind, designed by a Captain Molyneux.
But IIRC Darrin had been active in car design since the Twenties, so he may well have invented it back then, and dusted off his back-catalogue for the Kaiser.
Interesting, I’d never seen this custom Humber, though Darrin’s version had it’s forward thrust strictly at the bottom after mostly coming down at a “normal” rearward angle, as did BMW’s, thus I don’t really see it as cribbing from this obscure Molyneux Humber.
I was attracted to the body-color wheel covers, something Cadillac put on their Eldos and Fleetwoods in ’77-8. The ’76 Eldo had black centers, but an image search shows many people switched them to body color. I can’t think of many luxury features that went in that direction, Chevy to Cadillac. They didn’t last long because fake wire wheels took over. Of course, the style was cribbed from Mercedes, though Cadillac had used body paint in their early 60s vaned and dished wheel covers (I’d like to know how they painted those, and how so many survived intact).
The colonnade Olds Cutlass Salon and the Ford Granada also had body colored wheel covers, all cribbed from Mercedes as well.
I should have added Ford Granada ESS
Now that I think about it the Dodge Dart SE and Plymouth Valiant also came with body colored wheel covers. As well as the Euro luxury versions of the Ford Maverick and Mercury Comet. That was quite a fad back then.
A friend of mine’s mother had a 75 Nova with a 350 V8 in it. As soon as I got in and she took off, I knew it had been “worked on”. It was downright quick. She loved that car and was very sad when my friend, after a terribly painful motorcycle wreck, decided, while high on painkillers, get into a pursuit with the Las Vegas Metro PD in 1980, and wrecked it. He survived only to die of an overdose about 18 months later, but the Nova was a total loss. He was never the same after that bike crash. She ended up getting a used ’78 Trans Am that she didn’t like, mostly due to the leaking T-Tops that made the rainy periods in Vegas a cold water shower on wheels. I warned her not to get a T-Top car. The T/A was soon replaced with a Ford Courier, which she liked for some reason.
My first car was actually a 1976 Pontiac Ventura sedan in dark green metallic with tan interior. It was special ordered by an elderly banker neighbor. It was equipped with a 260 V8, bucket seats, and four speed transmission with AM/FM stereo and AC. Not a bad first car and it was decent on gas.
I’m really puzzled by the BMW 2002 comparisons. It was closest in size to the top of the line 3.0Si which had a big back seat, 4 doors, and a large trunk, but still shorter and much lighter than the Nova. A 2002 would have been closer to a Vega size wise.
R&T really seemed to like the Nova, I guess in that era of slim pickin’s it wasn’t that bad, at least when new.
1975 model year was ‘sticker shock’, combined with required unleaded gas, thus resistant shoppers. “Luxury Nova” flopped since badge had ‘economy’ image since 1962. Chevy quickly brought out stripped ‘S’ models mid ’75. Nova coupes also had following with hot rodders, modified in many tunes, far from a lux car.
So, 1976 Concours name badge was applied. Still, Ford sold more ‘lux compacts’ then. But Chavy stripped down the Novas and sold more for 76-77, then pushed them in the back row when new Malibu arrived in ’78. [We all know about the Citation replacement, almost called “1980 Nova”.]
These can be brilliant cars given a bit of aftermarket.
A few bucks worth of Camaro handling stuff and more motor. Year ago I drove a four door, 4 speed, 350, handling package 75-79, and remember how decent it could have been with a decent V8.
I’d buy one now except that the collector car insanity has worked it’s way down to the bottom and now even a four door 6 cyl car will fetch $7k+. Crazy.