Talk:Chevrolet Chevy II / Nova

1972 Nova SS ???

How do you determine if original SS or not? --Clrusher 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

230ci

The Chevrolet Chevy II brochures for 1962 and 1963 show that only two engines were available: the four cylinder and the 194ci 6cyl. The article says the 230ci was also available for 62 and 63, and then goes on the say that the 230ci was introduced in 1964. The 1965 and 1966 brochures say that the 230ci was available, and that information should be added to the engine article (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chevrolet_Straight-6_engine).

"Second" Generation

The second generation styling (1966-1967) was significant enough to warrant it's classification as different than 1962-1965, as the changes were not a "minor restyling". While the chassis components are indeed interchangeable between 1963 and 1967 inclusive (some 1962 chassis components are 1962 only), all of the body components and trim are very different for 1966-1967. TR - owner of a 1963 Nova SS convertible, 1965 Nova sedan, 1967 Nova sedan. July 25, 2010. *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.133.78 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still question the veracity of saying that the '66 - '67 was a "second" generation. Even this article says that it was only a "minor restyling." Don't you need substantive changes to be called a new generation? Why would Chevrolet create a whole generation of a popular-selling car just to ditch it in two years?

Maybe generation "1 and 1/2", but not "2".

Nova SS 22:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, but isn't that the commonly accepted nomenclature? Or have I gone completely mental, which is entirely possible? If it's the former, it would be a good question for the Nova list. If it's the latter, somebody smack me. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 22:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is common nomenclature only to the taped-glasses portion of the Nova crowd. :-) Nova SS 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After futher discussions on the Nova list, it seems likely that the '62-'65 and '66-'67 chassis are virtually idenical. If that is the case, I think it is needlessly blunt to separate the '66-'67 into its own generation. They certainly deserve a special callout, but that's it. Nova SS 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a consesnus on the Nova list discussion for them not being a separate generation; in fact, I'm seeing just the opposite, if anything. My inclination is to let it stay as-is for the time being with a potential eventual resolution being to remove generational identification altogether. Just MHO. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Buick Apollo redirect here? Regarding the 1962-67 generation, they share the same chassis layout although 1966/67 being labeled a generation of its own has been decided by Chevy II purists. I have not heard of 66/67 being referred to as the "first generation and a half", Gen 1.5, or Gen 1b. The first generation VW Bus was known as the Type 2 throughout its lifetime; however, the pre-1968 had three nomenclatures - T1a, T1b, and T1c.Montrose Patriot 08:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why I think separating the '66s and '67s as their own generation is a pinheaded, propellor hat distinction. For all practical purposes and intents, they are the same car as the '62-'65. At MOST, I think they should be distinguished as a revision within the same generation. Nova SS 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But with all due respect, if you're the only one who feels that way and a large group of Nova owners does not, I'd say that the large group consensus must take precedent. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Nova

Hate to say it, but the rebadged Toyota Nova came out as a 1985 model. That is, unless the EPA is wrong: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1985_Chevrolet_Nova.shtml I'm going to go back and correct that info unless you can convince me the federal government is wrong and tested a nonexistent car. ;-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 00:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More links to reputable sites referencing a 1985 Nova:

⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 00:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but try these Google Image searches: 1985 Chevrolet Nova and 1986 Chevrolet Nova. The '86 Nova search isn't exactly full of Novas, but the '85 search seems to be completely devoid of Novas. While you're in each search, flip over to a web search. You won't find any user sites or (legit) classifieds about '85 Novas.

Either this Nova is nonexistent, or you have happened across a new collector's item: the rarest Nova ever!

Oh, and this wouldn't be the first time the government is wrong. :-)

Nova SS 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell would take a picture of their '85 Nova? ;-)

But seriously, what about the GM parts manual? I would think GM would know if they built an '85 Nova or not. A lack of Google image results doesn't mean nearly as much to me as a factory manual. And you must admit, there are only a SMALL handful of '86 Nova pictures in those results. Given how crappy these cars were from the get-go, I wouldn't be surprised if the '85s are all gone, at least gone enough to mean they're no longer pictured on the web. Not exactly something most people would show off. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 04:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I missed that link about the GM parts manual. Hmmm... I still think the Google searches mean something... Nova SS 14:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did more research, and I am now almost certain you are correct. Sorry if I caused any confusion. Nova SS 02:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat! I just feel bad that EITHER of us wasted time researching this. ;-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 10:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'69 and '70 names

The text implies that the name changed to "Chevy Nova" in '69 and then to "Chevrolet Nova" in '70. Are you sure the official designation didn't become Chevrolet Nova in '69, with no change thereafter? See this ad: [1] Nova SS 23:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed this before seeing your note. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The text implies that the name changed to "Chevy Nova" in '69 and then to "Chevrolet Nova" in '70". That IS correct. Read the first line of the ad (not the headline).

1975-79: A Forgotten Generation?

A recent issue of Hemmings Motor News featured an article on collectibles for under $3500, and the following made the list: 1975-79 Nova, and 1973-87 Chevrolet/GMC C/K series.

Most of the 75-79 generation is over 30+ years old, and the restoration industry does not seem to care about these vehicles at all. Only the mechanicals e.g. suspension, small interior components are listed in both X and second-generation F-body (Camaro/Firebird) resto catalogs. Back then, it was not cool to own a 75-79 X-car along with the Dodge Aspen although the GM X-car was a better choice than the poor-quality control Mopar counterpart (e.g. rusted fenders and body panels, Lean Burn). One has to browse smogera.com and view the '70s iron which would be deemed the lowest point in automobile history...Montrose Patriot 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Chevy II?

Hi, I just bought a 1969 nova, and it has the chevy ll badge across the front of the hood. Did some 1969 nova's come from the factory with this badge? There are no other chevy ll badges on the car. Thanks rick.

Chevy dropped the Chevy II name for Novas after 68. 69 and up should have the bowtie logo on the hood. Perhaps at some point a previous owner thought it would be cool to add it on, or the original hood was smashed and the repair shop put your current one on. Either way, as a 69, it shouldn't have the Chevy II. Hope this helps. --Brownings 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main picture

Well that's about the least flattering picture I have seen for this car. I don't know the standard wikipedia guidelines on what picture should be the main article picture, but I feel that the one that most represents the vehicle should be. I'll admit I've been duped when people told me they had a Chevy Nova, and pulled up in a Toyota Tercel-looking box on wheels (no offense to the owners). But the first image that pops into my head is that of a 1969 Nova, not the last model of the car that lead to its demise. Zchris87v 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE MAIN PICTURE! I fixed the description on it, since its clearly not a 5 door hatchback version (I have the same car in Grey). IT is a 4 Door version

Just because you have a Toyota nova doesn't meant that should be the main pic! I agree with Zchris, most people think of one of the first three gens of novas when the term is used (third most I would venture). Lets get a picture of a third generation up there, any objections? --SSChicken 07:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, as long as the Corolla version is suitably illustrated and as long as the image put up top is high-quality and non-redundant. IFCAR 11:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion (having owned 4 "real" Novas) is that the Toyota thing is NOT a representative picture of the subject at hand. My preference would be a first generation Nova (62-65), but a third generation (68-74) example would be fine with me. In addition, there should be NO predecessor and the successor should be the Citation, since the first "Nova" was produced in 63 as a brand new model. (Although technically it was initially called a Chevy II at that time.) Bruno 09:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Bruno Schwartz[reply]

In Discussion with the Nova Listserv, I have replaced the current photo with a very good 1973 restoration photo. I agree with the 'Predecessor/Successor' comment, but perhaps the successor should be the Geo, and could there be one called the "Interim" for the time between '79 and the Toyota model? I Personally would vote for the ToyoNova to be a separate wikipedia article altogether. It was a different manufacturer and a different class of cars, the Chevy Nova and successor Citation were considered Compact cars, while the ToyoNova and the successor Geo Metro were considered Subcompact. --SSChicken 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novas abroad

The reference to the urban legend: "no va" is mentioned in another section and is ambiguous and redundant in this section. My preference would be removing that entire paragraph.Bruno 10:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the 'No Va' bit from the 'Argentina' section. That is a myth which has been debunked many times over, yet in the 'Argentina' section is still billed as truth. Get rid of it. --SSChicken 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1985-1988 Novas

I agree, the section on the 85-88 Novas should be made a separate article and made into a page called 1985-1988 Chevrolet Nova.

Pam1855 —Preceding comment was added at 18:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no precedent for such a move. There aren't different articles for Chevrolet Malibus or Impalas, or Ford Thunderbirds, or virtually anything else. Strongly oppose. IFCAR 03:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging back? I'll see what I can do... PrinceGloria (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - can somebody perhaps try to better integrate it into the article? The entire article could also use some touch ups, though the situation is not as dire as in most cases... PrinceGloria (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you didn't just call it the fifth generation, following the precedent of other resurrected Chevrolet nameplates like the Impala and Malibu. IFCAR (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please rename, no agenda here. I'd prefer chassis/development codes anyway (GM/GMX if applicable). PrinceGloria (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Third Generation" Paragraph

So, I am learning what I can about Novas from 1962-1974. So far I think i am remembering most of what I am reading/learning.

I was reading the Chevy II page and the first sentence under "Third Generation" heading says that in 1968 the two-door convertible was discontinued as a body style.

Is this a typo (supposed to say two-door hardtop)? Weren't convertibles only an option in 1962 & 1963?

I could be way off here, cause, like I said, I am just learning, and I know that Wikipedia is probably not the best place to find and memorize info from, but I guess if I find things like this and question them, right or wrong they are probably more likely to stick!!!

Thanks for any help you can give me on this.

~~ChristyLynn (Christy1027) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy1027 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sidesaddle" issues

I could have sworn that when I was a kid I saw some Novas that when going straight would actually appear to be at an odd angle, and it appears that I am right about that. See http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_352a.html. Would that be worth incorporating into the article, as I recall it being fairly common and notable? After all, I came here to look for it. 76.124.78.88 (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Death Proof.jpg

Image:Death Proof.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxhall Nova

Shouldn't this page have a note at the top about confusion with the Vauxhall Nova, which is also a GM product?(86.31.188.36 (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Notable Appearances

I recently put up a notable appearances section that was cited and confirmable. But it was removed, I was just looking for some clarification why. It followed the same format as the Camaros notable appearances and was far more extensive and impressive. 72ChevyNova (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myth about the Debunking

There seems to be a disconnect between the urban legend debunkers and marketing experts as Chevy Nova sales in Venezuela and South America. The debunkers first affirm that the product was indeed sold in Venezuela as Nova, acknowledged the Spanish language can quickly understand 'No Va' to mean 'Doesn't Go', and that the product was quickly removed from the South American markets (replaced by the Caribe I believe).

The issue that Marketers have is that a poorly chosen product name especially one that instantly triggers a negative response (even if it is a comical remark like nova sounding like No Va.) This is an immensely stupid move by Chevy which does hurt marketing factors too numerous to cite.

I can only surmise that because Chevy lowballed the initial sales expectations which Venezuelan sales exceeded (but just barely mind you.) that somehow this was enough to prove it an urban myth. By that logic I concede it, though I find it a simplification.

Right now American car companies are trying to branch out into Chinese, Korean and other Asian markets and are very, very careful about the importance of translation, even abandoning established product names due to the same problems that arose from the Nova/No Va situation.

I just wish that the article would remove the claim altogether.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.8.125 (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any cars that have been renamed for the Chinese market? I've been following the industry for some time now and have not heard of such a practice. Perhaps I'm ingorant. I'd like to know exactly what long established American cars nameplates have been dropped.24.138.18.30 (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the main article states about this topic is quite innacurate. It is by no means an "urban legend" that the model was renamed because of the translation, rather an actual fact. At least in Argentina, the local branch of GM released the model with the "Chevy" brand instead of Nova PRECISELY because of it's meaning in spanish. But they did so, not in the belief that potential buyers would think that this car doesn't go, like the notable example, which is of course ridiculous, but rather because naming a car "doesn't go" or "chevrolet slow" is obviously a bad move if your intentions are to sell cars. I firmly believe the main article should be rectified at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.245.27 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's almost certainly a myth, the paragraph about sales of the Nova in the UK - "the Spanish-market version of the car was known as a Corsa from the outset (and) the car was called the Corsa in all markets except the United Kingdom" - actually reinforces the idea that it was renamed in Spanish-speaking territories rather than debunking it. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

66-67 models

The Chevy II/Nova 66-67 models are not referred to as the second generation for a body restyle. Example #1: Impalas had new body styling every year from 61-64 (common in the 60s especially on full-size cars) and that period is referred to as one generation; the car was not redesigned until 1965. Example #2: 67-69 Camaros. The 69 had new sheet-metal but the 67-69 is the same generation. The 70 Camaro was redesigned. Example #3 The 66 Chevelle had a body restyle also but 64-67 models are the same generation. The 68 Chevelle was redesigned. The 64-67 Chevy II is the first generation (even with new sheet metal for 66-67); the 68-74 is the first redesign, and second generation (even with new sheet metal for 73-74). The 75-79 was the second redesign, (and third generation); the 86-88 was the reintroduction of the nameplate (and fourth generation). Vegavairbob (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is somewhat incorrect. 1966-1967 Chevy II and Novas are commonly accepted to be the second generation of Chevy IIs. Comparing Chevy IIs to Camaros, Chevelles, Impalas, or other GM vehicles simply will not yield directly proportional results. While the chassis components are generally the same for 1963 to 1967 Chevy IIs (1962 had some "one year only" chassis components), the body styling in 1966 and 1967 was vastly changed - this warrants the classification of the 1966 and 1967 as the "second generation". The "third generation" begins in 1968, and the 1968 was the last year of the "Chevy II" designation. Please see www.novaresource.org and www.stevesnovasite.com for additional discussions about the history of the Chevy II and Nova. I must say that this is the first time I've found that a knowledgeable car enthusiast refers to the 1966-1697 Chevy IIs as "first generation" - this is clearly the exception rather than the norm. TR 25 July 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.6.32 (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First time for everything..Surprise! I would have thought the generations are selected with the same criteria for all car lines. The 61-64 Impalas are considered one generation with "vastly" diffferent styling from 61-62. Both the Camaro and Chevelle have similar situations. Why the Nova generations are selected differently, especially singling out only two model years for a body restyle is beyond me, and I'm not sure if I aggree with it. I believe the 66-67 Nova enthusists had a lot to do with it...possibly the fact that the 66-67 body-style was taken from a concept car. I will change the article subject to a verification of the proof. If I discover other sources that disagree I will start a discussion for concensus. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct nomenclatures

Just for the record.

1962 - 1967

Chevrolet Chevy II 100
Chevrolet Chevy II 300
Chevrolet Chevy II Nova

1968 - 1979

Chevrolet Nova
Chevrolet Nova SS

Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chevrolet Chevy II / Nova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth gen

An anon-IP edited the page to try to merge the fourth generation into the third but did it badly. I reverted it and he left a message on my User talk:Stepho-wrs#Chevy Nova page talk page saying that the so called fourth gen was really part of the third gen. Does this have any merit? Splitting generations and facelifts can be hard sometimes. Stepho talk 21:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sections do need to be cleaned up. The 73/74 cars are widely accepted as 3rd Gens still, even with the facelift due to changing DOT requirements. I don't have time right now to do it, but if no one else jumps on merging them and cleaning them up I'll get to it soon. Brownings (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]