Talk:Chevrolet Nova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 1972 Nova SS ???

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

[edit] "Second" Generation

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)

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


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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

More links to reputable sites referencing a 1985 Nova:
⇒ BRossow T/C 00:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
No sweat! I just feel bad that EITHER of us wasted time researching this.  ;-) ⇒ BRossow T/C 10:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] '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)

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

"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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


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)

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)

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

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
How about merging back? I'll see what I can do... PrinceGloria (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please rename, no agenda here. I'd prefer chassis/development codes anyway (GM/GMX if applicable). PrinceGloria (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)