(first posted 9/28/2015) After Ford spent the 1950s trying (and mostly failing) to be a better Chevrolet, the following decade would see the reverse, and the 1962 Chevy II was Chevrolet’s first attempt to build a better Ford – in this case, a better version of the super-successful Ford Falcon.
The ’60s was the decade that Ford relentlessly advertised that it had a better idea. One by one, those better ideas kept coming, and Chevrolet was left scratching its head. Ford’s first was the 1960 Falcon. What do people who want a smaller, cheaper Ford really want? Chevy’s answer was “Groundbreaking air-cooled rear-engined car styled like nothing else”. “Bzzzzt – I’m sorry” was the public’s response. Ford simply shrunk the regular Ford to 5/8 scale and called it good, and the Falcon was an amazing success.
Chevy scrambled to react with a shrunken Bel Air and hit the market in 1962 with the not-very-imaginatively-named Chevy II. At eighteen months from management’s approval to production, the Chevy II was possibly the shortest development time in GM’s modern history. No wonder they didn’t have time to come up with a better name. Unfortunately, the Chevy Falcon, er, Chevy II hit showrooms just in time for Ford to introduce another better idea – that people might like a car sized in the gap between the compact Falcon and the big regular Ford line. Chevy would react again two years hence with its new Chevelle, but that is another story.
Chevy was probably ready to take a breather and rake in money on the Chevy II in 1963. After all, they had a competent, attractive, well-built car that was little-changed from 1962, and Chevrolet’s wonderfully expansive dealer network was sure to move plenty of Chevy II’s out the doors. And Chevy did just that, producing and selling about 372,000 units, a record that would stand until the 1974 model year. The Chevy II outsold the Falcon by about 50,000 cars in 1963, although it had no answer for the roughly 344,000 Fairlanes that drove out of Ford dealers that year.
The Chevy II came in multiple series, from the base 100 model, the midrange 300 line and this Nova 400 that was trimmed in a way to mimic the big Chevrolet. Of course, Ford had the Falcon Futura which offered Galaxie-level luxury in a small package, so the playing field was pretty even. Until midway through the model year when Ford added the availability of the 260 V8 for the Falcon Sprint. However, that was offered only in two door models, so sedan buyers all got sixes, no matter where you bought your compact.
It is a pretty sure bet that not many Nova 400s were equipped with the 153 cubic inch (2.4 L) “Super Thrift” four banger. Even if it had more displacement and five horsepower over Ford’s anemic 144 cubic inch six, the idea of a four cylinder engine in a modern American sedan was just not taken seriously in 1963. Four cylinders might have been alright for those poor deprived folks in Europe and Japan, but we just didn’t do that here.
But even though the car acquitted itself well in the sales charts, the evidence was there for all to see that Chevrolet did not consider this as a serious car for serious people. One look inside at this, the highest trimmed version, that if you wanted a Chevy with any pizzazz at all, you were just going to have to pony up some more cash and get an Impala.
Not that the Chevy II was a bad car, it was not. It was arguably a better car than the Falcon, given its highly durable engines and the proven Powerglide. But where the Falcon spawned virtually an entire line of Ford and Mercury compacts and mid-sized cars like the Mustang, Cougar, Fairlane, Torino, Montego, the Chevy II was a little island to itself. Until Chevy was forced to use it as the starting place for a new car to compete with that crazy Mustang.
How long since anyone here has seen an early first-generation Chevy II sedan, particularly one of the high-trim Novas? As for me, I have no idea, because when I came across this one, I just sort of stopped and stared. It is apparent that this one has had a few mods. The extra gauges, the wheels that are not the stock thirteen inchers and those dual exhausts coming out the back make me guess that this one is packing a 350 V8. This one is lacking the fender badge for the six, but that might have been left off in a repaint. Or could this have been one of the fours? I think I would have stuck an SBC into Grandma’s four cylinder Nova too. And what is it with Chevy people and that “USA-1” license plate? Chevy has not been the number one sales brand for twenty-five years. Isn’t that plate just a little sad? But I can’t be too hard on the owner who has resisted the ubiquitous Chevy rally wheels.
I spent a bit of time in a couple of these as a kid. A neighbor lady drove a maroon one, a strippo with manual steering and a three speed. This was in the days when the two car family meant one good family car for dad to take to the office and a second, smaller, cheaper car for mom to use for shopping and kid hauling. Or pretty much the opposite of my married life. The other one, a white sedan, was owned by the lady who would become my stepmom. I only rode in it a couple of times and as soon as they were married, it was traded in on a new 68 Cutlass Supreme. The cars never made much of an impression on me then, other than that they were competent cars with no character at all.
This car would have been an even hotter seller in 1962-63 had the 283 V8 been on the option list. Unfortunately, that engine was not offered until 1964. Neither Ford nor Plymouth had a V8 engine that would physically fit in a compact until mid ’63 or later, so other than Studebaker (which had offered its 259 V8 in the Lark from day one), Chevy would have had the market for a V8 compact all to itself. What was Chevy’s excuse, except failure of imagination and the belief that the Chevy II was a sub-car?
But perhaps Chevy had it right – for every customer who spent more money on the big Chevrolet, a lot of people were made better off. The customer got a demonstrably superior car and everyone from the salesman to Divisional Manager Bunkie Knudsen made more money. Ford may have had a Fairlane, but the regular, more profitable Ford line badly trailed its Chevrolet counterpart in the sales charts in the early ’60s.
But hey, librarians and secretaries needed cars too, and Chevrolet offered them the competent car they needed for the budget they had. And an attractive one, at that. Isn’t that what a Chevy was supposed to be?
Further reading:
A lot of Vauxhall/Opel DNA in there. Nice car I like it a lot and great to see a 4 door instead of big block 2 door “tributes”(Sexton Blakes)
It certainly shouts “Cresta PB” to me.
And me.
Very similar, though without the knife edge moulding along the top of the sides and doors. Had the PB not shared doors with the FB Victor then they might have looked even more similar. The Chevy is 2.25″ longer in the wheelbase, 1″ longer overall, 1.8″ wider but 4″ lower than a PB.
Thanks for the post (and the photos, of course). This is indead one of the more “forgotten” finds, and what cought my eye is the striking diffrence between the Nova and modern day cars parking next to it. How much things have changed…
Yeah its like an American Vauxhall Velox or Holden Special, the same way the Falcon was an American Zephyr rare here we got the Aussie or UK versions from GM but both from Ford.
Given the huge success of the Chevy II and the Falcon compared to the Corvair, it is surprising to me that GM went to that import copying well again when it was time for the Vega. All the extra engineering required to design and then fix the Vega dissipated any profit at the corporate level and left the Gremlin selling far more than it should.
One can see the problem of the compacts. The wagon and the four door made them so useful for families the over time fewer and fewer buy the bigger, more expensive models that are actually profitable. No wonder there were no four door Pintos or Vegas. Only for young singles.
The short to market time makes me wonder how much is wasted on car development. We hear all the time this new model was 4 years and a billion dollars in the making. I wonder if anyone can figure how to do it for less. Studying how GM did it in this case is a good place to start.
For me, the nicest of these would be the 400 with the 194 six and the 3sp with overdrive. The interiors seem so basic and one would have to go top of the line to get any sound deadening. Once speced out, here is as good as any, lifetime car. Small on the outside, big on inside. Durable, smooth, economical inline six that with overdrive good on highway. A lifetime car. GM was crazy to make them this good. Selling to many of them starts to sound like a deadly sin.
John, read this. It’ll all make sense.
http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/chevrolet-vega-cosworth/
I don’t think the Vega was “import copying” at all. It was brashly American, from its sporty-car styling to its chassis, which was just a slightly shrunken version of what Chevy was putting under its bigger cars.
If it had been “import copying”, it would have offered four door sedans and wagons.
But you have to admit, if it had been more Nova-like, packing the old four on a cut-down and tuned-up firstgen Chevy II chassis (not the second which was itself a shortened Chevelle) then it would’ve been a better car. Then again, so would a domestically built Opel Ascona A.
It would have cost far less to develop, be available sooner and given better service to it’s owners. All that means lower unit cost also so it would be easier easier to break even. All while maintaining the good looks and fine handling of the Vega.
Before you wax majestic about the Ascona A. Think about how it’s 1.9 CIH with 75hp and net 92 foot pound torque would cope with AC and a powerglide. Think of them coming down Lordstown assembly at 100 units per hour instead of the normal 60. Remember in Germany these were not the bargain basement cars the Vega was in USA. Think of the unit cost. Think how many look at the four door and buy it instead of the $250 more Nova, that cost less to make.
>>I wonder if anyone can figure how to do it for less. <<
Well, Honda did the new Pilot in a new way:
Honda goes prototype-free to build redesigned Pilot
http://www.autonews.com/article/20150820/OEM01/150829985/honda-goes-prototype-free-to-build-redesigned-pilot
The latest model of the Honda Pilot was developed without prototype models. It was all about saving time and, of course, money…
http://3dprint.com/90852/3d-printing-2016-honda-pilot/
FWIW, the “new” Pilot is just major restyle of the old one, and hardly completely new car, like the Chevy II was. The platform and suspension as well as many other key parts are carry-over.
It’s good to see a four-door version. My mother had a ’62 Chevy II she purchased in 1968. It was one of the four-cylinder with Powerglide units. My father described it has having glacial acceleration; the car threw a rod the day they got married.
Where sales of the Falcon and Fairlane cannibalized sales of the Galaxie (like you mentioned) so Ford had little net gain in sales volume, didn’t sales of the Chevy II only serve to amplify overall Chevrolet sales?
Good point that these may have added to Chevy’s already strong sales. I suspect that these cannibalized from Corvair and the other GM Y body cars. A GM buyer looking for a second car for the little lady would have found this aa better answer than those, as none of them offered a basic inline six sedan that GM owners were so comfortable with. In our neighbors’ case, the husband drove a big 66 Bonneville.
If you look at this snip from my sales spreadsheet,(not complete), you’ll see that the Chevy II very much seemed to add to Chevy’s total sales, unlike the Falcon. As did the Corvair.
Big Ford sales were very weak in the early-mid 60s, while the falcon and Mustang roared.
I think it is hard to determine the cannibalization of sales within product lines like Ford and Chevy (and Plymouth). If not for the Falcon, Chevy II and the Valiant, the buyers of these cars would have been most likely making Rambler, Studebaker and VW dealers happy. The car market was expanding in the early ’60s and there was quite a bit of room for these new players. Full-size Chevy sales kept expanding until 1965 – and stayed quite high for several more years even with three platforms of smaller mainstream Chevy lines.
Given that big Ford sales dropped starting in 1960, in about the same amount that Falcon sold, it seems safe to say that the Falcon did cannibalize big Ford sales.
The Corvair didn’t, because it did get lots of sporty-import car buyers; the Falcon just attracted many buyers who might otherwise have bought a low-end big Ford.
That’s the assumption, based on sales stats. Without having specific info on the trade-ins for Falcons and such, it’s difficult to know for sure. But the numbers are pretty compelling.
No doubt the Falcon and then the Fairlane stole sales from the full-size Fords in the early 1960s. But I would also argue that Chevrolet benefitted more from the implosion of Dodge and Plymouth during 1961-62 than Ford did.
The market share of GM and Chevrolet peaked in 1962, which was when Chrysler Corporation’s market share hit its low point, thanks to buyers shunning that year’s downsized Dodges and Plymouths. The full-size Chrysler, meanwhile, sold well, and Valiant/Lancer sales held fairly steady.
As Dodge and Plymouth rebounded after 1962, Chevrolet’s market share began declining.
This is purely anecdotal evidence, but it seemed to me that, even through the early 1980s, when Chrysler Corporation buyers switched, they usually went to GM, not Ford (and certainly not AMC).
I’m sure there was some cannibalization, but Ford’s large car offerings were pretty frumpy for ’60-’62 and they were cheaping out on interiors.
Chevy had a down year in 1960 by about 90,000 units compared to 1959, and that was with the introduction of the Corvair included.
The 1960 Plymouth, even with Valiant, was down enough that Rambler moved into 3rd place for sales.
1960 Rambler sales were up 75,000 cars to almost a half million units.
1960 was generally a rough year for the low price field, compacts were a bright spot on the sales charts.
My parents came back from my dad’s stint in the service and promptly bought one of the early Falcon Futuras with just about every option. It’s hard to see them picking a full-size Ford at the time over another compact option.
Compacts in general were cutting into big car sales, but those big cars had become so bloated that the market was pretty ripe for smaller alternatives.
When looking at 1960 Plymouth sales, remember that in 1960 Chrysler Corporation took the Plymouth franchise away from Dodge dealers. As compensation, it gave them the Dart, which was a Dodge based on the Plymouth body shell.
The compact Valiant, meanwhile, was not officially badged as a Plymouth for 1960. It was advertised as “Nobody’s Kid Brother.” Valiant sales were grouped with those of Plymouth when it became apparent that without them, not only would Dodge outsell Plymouth, but the division would no longer be third in sales. For 1961, the Valiant was officially badged as a Plymouth, which increased the Plymouth’s sales tally.
Chrysler Corporation thus set up a direct competitor to Plymouth. Dodge Dart ads for 1960 even urged buyers to compare it to “Car C,” “Car F” and “Car P!” Apparently someone in the corporation realized how much this hurt Plymouth, because for 1961, Dodge Dart ads only compared the car to Chevrolet and Ford.
I’m sure there were plenty of Plymouth owners who went to trade at what had been their Dodge-Plymouth dealer. The dealer wasn’t going to send those prospective buyers to the local Chrysler-Plymouth or DeSoto-Plymouth dealer. Especially when he had the low-cost, full-size Dodge Dart right there on the showroom floor.
The result was that Dodge set a sales record for 1960, but it was at the expense of Plymouth, and also at the expense of the old, medium-price Dodge. From 1960 on, Plymouth and Dodge competed directly with each other as much as with Chevrolet and Ford.
Geeber, the same thing was going on at Ford, with the 1961-62 Mercury being advertised as being another entrant in the low priced field. I have not looked to see if Mercury added many sales over 1959-60, but probably not nearly as many as Ford lost to Falcon and Fairlane.
jpcavanaugh, I don’t believe that the full-size Mercury ever sold that well in the early 1960s. The Dodge Dart was actually very successful for the 1960 model year, but full-size Mercury sales were quite lackluster during this time.
Even though it had not yet been badged as a Mercury, it was the Comet that kept the dealers in business during the early 1960s.
geeber, I think I recall that the Valiant was sort of an odd duck brand for 1960. My reference source still compiled Valiant with Plymouth for 1960, I’m sure for convenience, and my guess is that just about everybody that bought one still called it a Plymouth Valiant.
Chrysler almost had to give Dodge dealers the Dart or the loss of Plymouth would have killed the stores used to having Plymouth. The 1960 Dart was a decent looking car in a weird era for Mopar, and it totally transformed Dodge sales numbers. Dodge had a whopping total of 152,000 1959 models, and sold 306,000 Darts in 1960. Dart likely help cannibalize the standard Dodges which sold only 45,000 cars in 1960. Dart was a nicely scaled car on a 118 inch wheelbase and 208 inches overall. A nice move up from the compacts and svelte compared to many standard cars. It may have even stolen a few full-size Ford sales. 😉
Dart was a one year wonder for Dodge, sales plummeted to about 100,000 with the disastrous 1961 restyle. The standard Dodge was down to 14,000 units. The new Valiant based Lancer was the only bright spot with 75,000 sales, keeping total Dodge sales above 1959’s terrible numbers.
Dave B, in retrospect, a more viable plan would have been to keep selling Plymouths through Dodge and Chrysler dealers. Badge the Valiant as a Plymouth from day one, which will give those two dealer networks a compact car to sell and boost Plymouth’s sales tally. Maintain Dodge’s position as a medium-price car, in order to better compete with Pontiac.
Meanwhile, take Plymouth away from DeSoto dealers, but give them an upscale version of the Valiant – something along the lines of the Dodge Lancer, but more differentiated from the Valiant, and thus more obviously a “step up” from it.
When I first encountered the “Falcon cannibalization theory” a few years ago, I was skeptical. In all my years of reading up on classic cars and studying production figures, this idea had never occurred to me. My reaction was similar to Dave’s. Compacts were so much smaller than full-size cars of that era that you wouldn’t think there’d have been that much cross-shopping between them, and I would think that a lot of compact buyers wouldn’t have otherwise bought cars at all, or would have bought them from Rambler, Studebaker or an import brand. As Paul noted, though, the numbers are pretty compelling that there’s something to this. Based on the numbers in Paul’s chart:
–Full-size Ford production took a nosedive in 1960, while full-size Chevrolet production was only down a little. While I’m sure it’s a coincidence, the decline in full-size Ford production for 1960 is almost exactly equal to 1960 Falcon production.
–Full-size Ford production stayed down for the next few years, bottoming out in 1962, when the intermediate Fairlane joined the Falcon in Ford’s lineup.
–If the theory is correct, you would think that Corvair production would have held up relatively well when the Chevy II was introduced. That is in fact what happened.
–Remember that Ford was selling far more compacts in the early ‘60s than anyone else. It’s very possible that Ford was attracting its share of “true” compact buyers, but the reason Ford’s compact sales were so high was that the Falcon was also pulling buyers away from the lower end of its brand’s full-size line to a much greater extent than other compacts were.
One thing that doesn’t fit with the narrative is that the introduction of the Chevy II and Chevelle didn’t seem to have any effect on full-size Chevrolet sales. I think the main explanation for that may simply be that the full-size Chevrolets of this era were just THAT popular. Conversely, Ford’s contemporary full-size cars seem to have turned off some buyers. Also, as others have suggested, Chevrolet may have attracted a lot of consumers who abandoned Plymouth and Dodge in the wake of the 1962 downsizing debacle, and an improving economy was driving overall vehicle sales upwards from 1962 on — by 1963 or 1964 this was probably boosting full-size Ford sales as well.
In the end, without being able to see inside the heads of carbuyers from this era, it’s hard to know exactly which factors were at play and to what degree. But I think the “Falcon cannibalization theory” does account for part of the reason why Falcon sales were so high and full-size Ford sales so low in the early ‘60s. It’s probably also true that the Falcon was simply very popular with committed compact buyers (those who weren’t cross-shopping low-end full-size cars), while the full-size Fords were simply somewhat unpopular with consumers specifically looking for a low-priced full-size car (some of whom probably ended up buying full-size Chevrolets instead).
Regarding the Plymouth/Dodge switch-up, it’s my understanding that the origin of this was Plymouth wanting to have its own dealer network, because they felt the existing arrangement was hurting them. There were too many dealers who sold Plymouths (more than any other brand, IINM) overlapping and competing with each other. And at least from Plymouth’s point of view, these dealers tended to be more loyal to the dealer network they were a part of than to Plymouth, considering their other brand to be their primary focus, and often trying to upsell customers to that brand as opposed to buying a Plymouth.
In the end, Chrysler decided to reduce the number of Plymouth dealers by taking Plymouth franchises away from Dodge dealers. They presumably felt that DeSoto and Chrysler didn’t have enough sales volume to take Plymouth away from their dealer networks, and giving Plymouth its own standalone network was probably thought too big of a leap to even consider. Dodge dealers then used the leverage they held in Chrysler internal corporate politics to get permission to sell a new model that would compete directly with Plymouth. The end result left Plymouth worse off than they had started.
In 1958, IIRC, Chrysler combined Plymouth and DeSoto into a single division (at the same time, Chrysler and Imperial were also consolidated into a single division, but Imperial had never really been fully independent from Chrysler). If those two brands were going to be folded into a single division, what Chrysler should have done is let that division have a dealer network that bundled together those brands, and had Dodge and Chrysler dealers sell only their own division’s cars, without allowing Dodge to expand into Plymouth’s market territory. With the internal power that the Dodge and Chrysler brands had, that would have never been allowed to happen. Dodge and Chrysler didn’t want to lose the volume their dealers gained through selling cars in Plymouth’s market territory. Dodge kept it by introducing a new line of Dodges to compete in that space, while Chrysler kept it by simply keeping Plymouths at their stores.
“…in retrospect, a more viable plan would have been to keep selling Plymouths through Dodge and Chrysler dealers. Badge the Valiant as a Plymouth from day one, which will give those two dealer networks a compact car to sell and boost Plymouth’s sales tally. Maintain Dodge’s position as a medium-price car, in order to better compete with Pontiac.”
That certainly would have worked out better for Plymouth.
“Meanwhile, take Plymouth away from DeSoto dealers, but give them an upscale version of the Valiant – something along the lines of the Dodge Lancer, but more differentiated from the Valiant, and thus more obviously a “step up” from it.”
By the time the Valiant came along, this simply wasn’t going to happen. In Chrysler internal corporate politics, Dodge and Chrysler were the strong brands, Plymouth and DeSoto the weak brands. Even in good times, I have a hard time seeing Chrysler corporate letting Desoto do this, and Desoto probably just didn’t have the sales volume/revenue to stand on its own. It would have also gone against the merger of the Plymouth and DeSoto divisions in 1958. And by 1959 or 1960, DeSoto was clearly in trouble, and Chrysler seemed to be just letting it die.
MCT: Regarding Falcon sales cannibalizing big Ford sales. I formed that theory in 1960, when my dad’s boss traded in a big old Plymouth wagon for a 1960 Falcon wagon. They had three high-school aged kids too.
And they weren’t the only ones.
Keep in mind that the Falcon was advertising its interior room being some 90% of the big cars, and its ability to seat six. I think the Falcon really appealed to a lot of regular-car buyers who wanted something a bit smaller, but not import-sized.
There’s one more factor, in terms of Ford vs Chevrolet losing big car sales. It might be a stereotype, but Ford buyers back then tended to be somewhat thriftier and less style/flash oriented. People bought GM cars (in part) because they were generally the most stylish cars. Those kind of buyers were less likely to be attracted to a Falcon or Chevy II.
Ford tended to have a bit of an image problem back then; I think it had to do with the residual image of Fords being Model Ts and As, and so many of the buyers in the 50s and early 60s having grown up during the “any color but black” era.
Ford didn’t really grow out of that until the Mustang/LTD era came into full blossom, after 1965. Then their image really improved, and they were “cool” again.
Yes, THIS.
And Chevy did just that, producing and selling about 372,000 units, a record that would stand until the 1974 model year.
Was that record indeed broken by the ’74 Vega (460,374 units, peak sales year for the Vega)?
The 74 Nova sold over 390,000 units, which I believe is the all time Chevy II/Nova record.
Okay, my 5th grade teacher had a similar car. I forget the exact year, but it was a white Chevy II Nova 4-door with the 4-cylinder engine. Yes, the 4-cylinder. Irony of ironies, his name was Mr. Rockett.
My first Nova ever was a ’63 four door with the anemic 194 C.I. i6 and Powerglide .
AM radio was the only option on it .
A good little in town car but the 194 six banger was worthless , a 230 not only had vastly more power but it got better fuel economy too .
I miss these little cars very much .
-Nate
I remember seeing a few of these running around in the late 60s and early 70s when I was a kid. They made no impression on me either. Boring, anonymous, and not even worth a second glance. Ford had the upper hand here.
“Boring, anonymous, and not even worth a second glance” – sounds like a Toyota Vitz/Echo/ Corolla or many other Japanese driving appliances today…. but I know what I’d rather have. Maybe one day the driving appliances of today will develop character and become desirable?
“Maybe one day the driving appliances of today will develop character and become desirable?”
I’d hate to think how awful cars of the future would have to be then! But it’s true, many cars that were regarded as awful in their day have an enthusiastic following decades later.
I own a Yaris and know how to make it characterful and fun.
1. Skip the automatic option – THIS IS IMPORTANT!
2. K&N drop-in air filter.
3. 44 PSI front, 40 rear.
It isn’t often you see a car nowadays, even one from 50-60 years ago, with a radio delete.
I can’t remember knowing anyone who ever owned one of these….of any year. And yet, I so liked these cars, being split between the 66/67 and the 68-72 series. This is one of those rare cars where I wouldn’t feel penalized whichever model/body style I owned.
I did own a 77 Nova (6 cylinder with automatic) that was a “nice” car, but still, I guess, just a smaller version of an early 70s Impala. Pleasant.
I’ve ALWAYS liked these first-generation Chevy IIs. Compact yet roomy, simple, great foundation for a CC driver IMO.
These were also historic cars for CHRYSLER, as its president, William Newberg, overheard then-Chevy general manager Ed Cole talking about Chevy II at a 1960 garden party. Misinterpreting what he overheard as a coming downsizing of the entire 1962 line, he ran back to Chrysler and ordered the full-size Dodges and Plymouths downsized as well.
http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/chrysler-downsizing-disaster-1962/
My Aunt had one of these lumps of iron, a 4 door with the “six-in-a-row-that-don’t-go engine”, 2 speed “Slip-n-Slide” PowerGiide transmission, manual steering, heater, no radio or A/C. My Uncle commented that it was the only car he had ever bought, sight unseen or not test driven, by a telephone call.
It was one of 4 or 5 cars in their family, lasted all thru the 1960’s and 1970’s, a dead reliable if very D U L L car, that was the last to be chosen by family members. It was unwashed and unloved, it’s gold paint protected by many layers of Oklahoma dust.
My Aunt often commented “It’ll get you to where you want to go”…but she also wryly commented several times that she felt like an undertaker’s wife when driving it.
After the battery and tires went flat once too often, my Uncle traded it in on a new Chrysler LeBaron convertible for my Aunt; a car she liked and admired much more than the Chevy II.
Had a 230 with three on the tree in a 68 Nova. Happy then and would welcome it back now. It was a great engine for such a light car.
I was overseas and had bigger problems (so did the rest of the country) than cars when these came out. Managed to afford a 50 olds but would love to have had one of these. When I hit sub school in 66 my diving medicine instructor had one. Don’t know if the car was thin skinned or he was unusually clumsy when driving just a little drunk. Was considerably less impressed with the 63/64 models in person but sure did like my 68. Looks like this one had better care than my instructor’s.
Good find JP and very good writeup as usual.
These have become very rare indeed, except for the hot rods one can still occasionally see in someone’s driveway or side yard.
Neither Ford nor Plymouth had a V8 engine that would physically fit in a compact until mid ’63 or later,
Ford’s new little 221/260 CID V8 came out in 1962, but was reserved for the Fairlane only. I assume it was withheld from the Falcon for marketing purposes, to not steal the new Fairlane’s (little) thunder.
The Chevy II was a little island to itself. Until Chevy was forced to use it as the starting place for a new car to compete with that crazy Mustang.
The ’67 Camaro shared its platform with the ’68 Chevy II, but that was a clean-sheet new platform, with no significant carry-over from this generation Chevy II.
Doh! I can never remember that short-lived 221 cid V8. I was trying to focus on the Facon vs. the Chevy II and completely spaced the Fairlane V8.
I had assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) that the 68 Nova was an update of this car. That makes this one an even stranger breed, with a 5 year run within a single Division, and a total dead-end. Only GM could have afforded to do this.
Weren’t these the first (only??) American car with single “mono leaf” springs?
When Chevrolet introduced the Camaro, the ’67 model carried the single leaf rear springs from the Chevy II; as I recall they were not too well received from the automotive press and I believe in the following year were replaced by conventional multi-leaf rear springs.
Yes, the mono leaf spring. It had as much spring as a wet noodle. Another cost cutting idea with the “bean counters” at GM. At least it didn’t attract the attention of Ralph Nader like the cost cutting in the swing axle of the Corvair. But I never did like them. Three of my friends had Chevy II’s and I wasn’t impressed with any of them. IMO they were just a cheap, cheap car. The later ones I like. And the first generation Chevelle is a totally different story.
Car Life’s 1962 Award Winner for Engineering Excellence. They did an entire section on the mono leaf rear suspension.
There’s one for sale here in Tucson. In white. Make mine a 4.
Not that it hurt GM back in the ’60s and ’70s, but they were prone to some messy naming schemes on cars below the full-size level. The result was some model names that are virtually forgotten, and some high trim names that became the de facto way that most people recognized the car. The Nova is certainly an example, and Chevy fully cleaned this up in 1969 when all Chevy compacts on the X platform became simply Nova.
Despite the clean-up on the Nova, their mid-size line remained an odd mix of Chevelle and Malibu (and other names) as late as 1977, the final year the Chevelle name was sort of used. I’m not even sure if it appeared anywhere on the cars, the Malibu and Malibu Classic designations being the most obvious. But, the Chevelle name remained oddly prominent in the brochure………………
I never thought much of the Chevy II-it always had a cheap look and feel about it, as if General Motors was sending out a not so subtle message-like “I’m too cheap to drive a
real car!” Overall, I thought the Falcon(and especially the fastback sport version with the
260 ci v-8) a much better car.
Yes. The styling and trim of the Chevy II have a lot of picky details and planes for no reason. Falcons were obviously made cheaply in the style of the day (like stamped grilles) but were a much more coherent and warm looking design. Very much the same with the interiors and dashboards. The Chevy II dashboard is Rambler level at best.
My family had a ’63 Falcon wagon (last year of the original body) and I rode in a Chevy II back then and thought it seemed crappier in every way (and I didn’t think that much of the Falcon).
The only thing exciting about my Dad’s Chevy II, a 300 model from 1962, was how close its Six came to blowing up (sounded like a connecting rod bearing was shot) once it was warmed up from driving twenty miles or so at speed. It did blow up for its next owner.
Oh, and the vacuum-operated cigarette ash sucker. That was exciting, for a kid.
Grew up with one of these – great memories. Plain Jane interior, had the 2 speed Powerglide, and the 194 six I think. Dependable and reliable.
Nice article on a car that doesn’t even turn up much at car shows around here. The 1966-67 versions are far more common – particularly the hardtop coupes – at various car shows, even though they initially sold in smaller numbers.
This car also recalls a time when GM in general, and Chevrolet in particular, had such a strong reputation that Chevrolet only had to “show up” in a segment in order to garner a significant percentage of the segment’s total sales. Unfortunately, that attitude persisted at GM until long after the world had moved on…
The “IT’S EXCITING” ad foreshadows Toyota’s marketing tripe of late – “The BOLD Camry!” Ah! Hahahaha!
SO correct!
Bold Camry? An oxymoron if ever I heard one.
on june 1, 1972. i drove with my father from new jersey to boston to pick up my oldest brother and his belongings from his freshman year at college. we were travelling in my father’s chevy ii wagon. it was the exact same color as this one, probably the same year. the chevy had a six under the hood and three on the tree. my father had bought the car cheaply a few months earlier and had been very happy with it on his daily commute. at 11 years old, i was very excited because i would get to spend the drive up to massachusetts with him without either of my brothers, which was a rare experience because my father worked about 60 hours each week.
about half way there, the car over-heated. we limped into the highway rest area. the mechanic there and at the next rest stop were unable to diagnose the problem. we proceeded to boston by driving slowly and refilling the radiator periodically. we loaded the wagon up with all my brother’s stuff and got home using the same method.
the local mechanic in new jersey informed my father that the only thing wrong was a stuck thermostat. he told him that anybody with the slightest background in auto mechanics would have checked that as the first thing. he also told him that they should have just disconnected the hose and taken the thermostat out, if they didn’t have a spare one in stock. he then told my father that the compression on the engine was ruined and the rebuild would cost more than the car was probably worth.
it was a real shame. the car was really great. i would describe it as a simpler volvo 140/240 without the pointy headed professor attitude.
needless to say my father was pretty upset. it was after this experience that he agreed to take a night school class with me to learn the basics of auto mechanics. he said he had no intention of fixing his own cars but he was going to be damned sure he knew how to have an intelligent conversation with whoever fixed his cars.
and i caught the car bug which i still have…
Following the death of my paternal grandfather, my grandmother wanted a new, smaller car and traded in their 1960 Chevy Kingswood station wagon for one of the very first 1962 Chevy IIs, a base 100 model two-door sedan in an aquamarine color. It had the four cylinder, three-on-the-tree (in decades of driving my grandmother never had nor wanted an automatic!) and that radio delete plate on the dash.
She drove the little car for ten years until she quit driving due to eye issues and never had significant problems with it. When I got my “learner’s permit” in the summer of 65, my grandmother gave me lots of driving time with her in that car. The manual helped a bit with the four – it didn’t seem any less powerful than my Dad’s Falcon with the 144 six and manual – and it appeared to be a better built and tighter car than the Falcon. Over time it also was slower to rust. These were right-sized cars, big enough to seat adults comfortably and carry a lot of stuff in the trunk but easy to maneuver and park.
As the economy moved forward after the Kennedy tax cut and wage increases and the demand for more power supplanted the move toward economy spurred by the 1958 recession, Chevy IIs hardtops and convertibles with the 283 appeared in our small town soon followed by muscle cars and full-sized cars with even bigger V8s.
I’ve always liked the crisp styling of this first generation Chevy II (it looks way better with the bigger wheels) and miss seeing them around. Even here in SoCal where rust-free old cars still abound, you are far more likely to encounter a Falcon. I’m hoping for the CC effect as I’d love to see a Chevy II like this one again!
Didn’t Dan Yenko or some other dealer swap V-8s into these?
i don’t think the usa-1 slogan has the same connotation that it did when it first came out. now i think of it more as a rah-rah cheer for a nation as in ‘usa #1’ with chevrolet getting some benefits due to proximity.
my take on what seems to me to be an evolving slogan.
“Until midway through the model year when Ford added the availability of the 260 V8 for the Falcon Sprint. However, that was offered only in two door models, so sedan buyers all got sixes, no matter where you bought your compact.”
I’ve seen enough 1963 Falcon Rancheros (including test-driving a new one), sedans, and station wagons with 260 V8 engines to think that the quoted statement is incorrect.
I was actually heading off on a theme of how the Falcon upped the game with a V8 for 1963, leaving Chevy behind again. Then my research indicated that Ford only offered it in the Sprint hardtop and convertible. This was according to the brochure, and we know that sometimes those don’t keep up with reality. So, I backed off that theme. You may, however, be right. I just didn’t keep digging enough to either confirm or debunk what the brochure said. Ford was moving pretty quickly with that smallblock V8 and the applications for it in 1962-64. I never had enough personal experience to keep a mental scorecard.
Friend had a ’63 Ranchero with factory 260, along with 2 speed auto trans. I helped him install a 3 speed C4 trans, which we got to do twice because the first junk yard trans was bad, sure glad the second one worked. The 1st gen Chevy II was plentiful back in the day, but it’s been a long time since I remember seeing one of them on the road.
The 260 was available across the board in mid-year/spring 1963. The brochures had several revisions.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1963%C2%BD-ford-falcon-futura-v8-the-economy-compacts-enter-the-v8-era/
I’ve always liked this generation Chevy IIs/Novas. I’ve always preferred the six cylinder engine models over the V8 engine. The only things I’d change would be to have proper gauges installed where the original warning “idiot” lights were, and to install disc brakes.
“The cars never made much of an impression on me then, other than that they were competent cars with no character at all.” — my impression exactly the one time I drove one.
Lost all interest in ’em after that.
Back to that “cannibalization” discussion above — did the Falcon REALLY cannibalize bigger Ford sales? Or did it keep a lot of sales that might otherwise have gone to other manufacturer’s of smaller cars?
The ‘compact’ class got a big boost by the recession of ’58, the Lark took off in ’59, Rambler was going strong throughout this period. Imports were nipping around the heels of the ‘big three’ as well.
Had Ford (as well as Chevrolet) not brought out a small car, wouldn’t their big cars still have suffered a drop in volume? Think about how the imports might’ve gown back then if demand were high enough to support ‘real’ dealer networks for them, simply as a result of the failure of Ford to develop and effective compact car! The 70’s would’ve happened in the ’60s! The Japanese cars would never have gotten a foothold! (ok, maybe my lunch has sedated my brains….)
The other thing as touched on above is that the 60 Ford’s styling was considered ugly unflattering, or just plain weird by many. That is the reason for the radical redesign for the 61 model year.
I think the Falcon, Corvair and Valliant did stem the tide of switching to imports and non big 3 brands to some extent though at the time it was the Europeans that were headed off and many of those were actually part of the big 3 with official imports British and German Ford and GM products. Being available at some of their main dealers gave them much wider distribution than Datsun and Toyota had in the early 60’s.
I’ve always liked the ’60 Ford styling, but I suppose I’m the odd man out there. The more conventional ’61 looks off to me, and it wasn’t properly fixed until ’63.
The ’64, to me, is one of the best-looking cars of the 60’s.
Is is possible that GM had plans for a ‘conventional’ compact in case the ‘Vair didn’t take off? That would explain the short R&D for the Chevy II
Regarding the old ads posted, it is interesting to see a drawing of a woman driving with men in the car, in 1962. Can see a “Mad Men” episode about it. Wouldn’t Don Draper or Roger Sterling say “Men don’t get in a car with lady driving, right?” Then, maybe Peggy Olson convinces them to keep the picture?
Weren’t car companies always very interested in showing that a car was ‘…so undemanding to drive that a woman could drive it easily,’ yet still be big enough to be comfortable for a man? Especially in one where a good quantity of the hoped-for buyers would see it as a family or ‘supplemental’ car.
The first generation Chevy II/Nova was always considered a “Gal’s Car” or a “Secretary’s car” for as long as I can remember.
my first car! 100 bucks in 1971, 100k nova hardtop pretty dirty,neglected,and used
up,but she ran like a champ with a good clutch,which wasnt very often.learned to
drive a stick on this and learned to raise the hood when the shift levers would
hang up,kind of a greasy mess when youre all spiffed up on a date.it caused me
to give up on it. if it had been an automatic,i might have kept it for a long time
itwasnt too bad for a first car i couldve done worse!
My paternal grandfather had one of these. White with that blue / green cloth interior. My gramps was planning to give it to me, but at the last minute he changed his mind and sold it to a buddy of his.
Though the 4 cylinder Chevy II/Nova was rare, the engine soldiers on in an enlarged 3.0L industrial/marine version. It is still in production.
http://www.gmpowertrain.com/Industrial/ProductPortfolio.aspx
The 4 cyl was actually a 239 6 cyl with two cylinders lopped off. GM has quite a few engines they made by lopping off cylinders of existing engines.
Oops. meant to type 230 instead of 239.
A neighbor of ours owned a brownish 63 Chevy Nova wagon in the mid 60’s
I’m certain it had a six cylinder engine though what size i’m not sure.
It did have a standard three on the tree transmission.
Having ridden in it a few times , my lasting memory of the car was the smell of cigarette smoke,and the bouncing headed miniature dog that was heeled on the Novas dash.
The four-cylinder was finally dropped after ’69 to make way for the Vega, but Pontiac offered an Iron Duke-powered Ventura in ’77 which included a five-speed manual vs. the 3-speed that came with the six. Apparently it could also be had with an automatic, a combination which must’ve been slow off the line and slow off the lot.
I’ve never been much of a fan of these 1st-gen, pre-facelift Chevy IIs, but this one just works. I think it might be the larger-than-stock wheels, which do a much better job of filling the wheelwells and make the car look less dainty. Plus body-colored steelies with dog dishes are always a good look. Wonder if they’re hiding retrofitted disc brakes?
The thing I find kind of striking is the resemblance between the 60 Ford and 60 Falcon, and how that directly correlates to the 62 Chevy and 62 Chevy II. Both essentially look like their big brother with a chop and section between their inboard headlights and back. A familial resemblance that was immediately lost once annual styling changes took effect on the bigger, more profitable, standard line, making these compact companions look dated by comparison(which both ran in 4 model year cycles).
Never liked the look of these. Those ten-cent tail lights ruined it.
You want to see a strange Falcon, go to Argentina. Ford built the early-60s Falcon there until the mid-80s. It’s weird seeing 80s rectangular head and tail lights on that early 60s body. Most of the ones I saw there a few years ago were in bad shape and blowing smoke.
Interesting on the cannibalising of large Ford sales when Ford AU released their Falcon they deliberately strangled UK Zephyr/Zodiac assembly to promote the new offering the UK model outsold the Aussie Ford in NZ and in 62 the Zephyr came in 6 and four banger the four wasnt popular and was dropped from the next model altogether and the Aussie Falcon could in 66 come in V8 here,
The Chevy II always looked cheap to me, even the top of the line 400. It seemed like Chevrolet was so terrified by the thought of a “II” cannibalizing sales from the full size Chevrolet, it was cheap looking by design, Chevrolet’s way of saying “I’m too cheap to drive a REAL car. I never drove one, I rode in a couple and my memory of them was they were basic transportation and nothing more.
Rather than offering the four, only to have the market by and large shun it, would Chevrolet have been better off bringing in a six from one of their overseas divisions?
The four was a 153. Hmm. Holden had this new 149 six, offering 100hp, with the 115hp 179 making a nice step up to the smallest Chevy six at 194. Bryce will probably say the Vauxhall six was better, but by this stage it was a 161 or 201, so a bit larger, though I suppose they could have revived the earlier 138 size if Chevy wanted it.
Yes, I realize that idea would fall foul of the Not Invented Here syndrome prevalent at the time, but a smooth imported small six might have sold more than the local four.
The four was cheaper to build than importing a six, as it was just 2/3s of the six. And the four sold in quite small numbers; the overwhelming majority of Chevy IIs came with the six.
The four made the cheapest skinflint feel like they splurged for the six, which is probably just what GM marketing envisioned. The four appealed to Nuns, virgins over 60, and first time car buyers over 70. There was one sold as a high school graduation gift but the girl who received it became a Nun and stated smoking when she was 71.
For the Falcon cannibalism theory, it’s been discussed elsewhere on CC that the “Ford men” tended to be more hard-nosed than the brand loyalists of Chevy or any other make. It’s likely that even if the ’57-8 Custom (300) had been just at the outer limit of acceptability for them, the “standard Ford” jumped up in size twice over the next 2 years with the ’59s built on the same platform the Mercury had used the prior year and the ’60s being so wide they were actually legal only by special agreement in some states to let things slide for one model year!
And then there was the Falcon, looking like a jet-age Model A with a certain midcentury-modern tinged spare rationality. It was quite simply the right car at the right time, not just for conquest sales but for a huge contingent of those who’d “always had Fords.”
Comparing the interior pic with Michael Allen’s of the Falcon, it’s clear the Ford has some holdover ’50s roundedness while the Chevy’s suffers aesthetically from an early attempt to reduce glare to the driver making its’ definitively early ’60s skinny-tie crispness look cheap and austere. The Falcon’s cloth seat pattern helps too while this Nova has the optional all-vinyl.
It took the progression to “camera black” plastics and woodgrain trim in the late ’60s going into the ’70s to make anti-glare treatments look like something other than a military troop transport.
“It’s Exciting!” so wrong a slogan for this car, whose whole point was to be unexciting.
Aunt/uncle had a “62” or “63”;gold. Sister,s sister in law had a “67”, about this color.