why novas?

what is so good about a nova? Aren't they just a camaro wannabe?

Witch came first the Nova or the Camaro? Thing it was the Nova eh.

Novas were the best for cheap speed back in the day.

I've heard novas were the best lauching cars back in the day, and one of the most aerodynamic cars back then.

Overall right now I own a 1968 Nova with a Stock 250 and Powerglide with 2.73 Gears. I love the thing, I get so many compliments on it and people just fall in love with it.


The nova was introduced in 1962

The camaro was introduced in 1967

The camaro used a lot of parts off of the nova.

The nova would handle just as good or better than a camaro.

I think its more like a camaro is a nova wannabe

Peace

P.S. Until you have driven a 1969 Camaro vs. a 1969 Nova with identical engines, trannys, tires, and gearing. Don't be disrespecting novas. Many novas with small blocks good blow away big blocks....LOL

Novas were the best for cheap speed back in the day.

I've heard novas were the best lauching cars back in the day, and one of the most aerodynamic cars back then.

Overall right now I own a 1968 Nova with a Stock 250 and Powerglide with 2.73 Gears. I love the thing, I get so many compliments on it and people just fall in love with it.


The nova was introduced in 1962

The camaro was introduced in 1967

The camaro used a lot of parts off of the nova.

The nova would handle just as good or better than a camaro.

I think its more like a camaro is a nova wannabe

Peace

P.S. Until you have driven a 1969 Camaro vs. a 1969 Nova with identical engines, trannys, tires, and gearing. Don't be disrespecting novas. Many novas with small blocks good blow away big blocks....LOL

I was going to say the samething on who the want to be was but didn't want to get anything started. My second car was a 63 Nova SS rag top. Wish I still had it today. Never have seen one like it since. When I sold it there was an LT1 with a muncie 4sp in it. Oh yeah,big fun. Drove it from one end of the country and back and then some. It was killed by a drunk in a Cadi in 75.

Like sleepernova said, CHEAP, LIGHT, & FAST! The Nova is lighter than a Camaro, and the body has more of an overhang behind the rear tires, which means better weight transfer during hard launches. It had propably the best power to weight ratio of all the GM cars back in the day. A few performance mods and you had a real screamer. The big block ones were brutal from what I've heard and read, especially the specialty ones (COPOS, YENKOS, BALDWIN/MOTION, ETC.). Although they lacked the handling of the small block cars. I wish GM woulda stuffed an LS6 454 in one, just for the hell of it. Personally I've never driven a big block Nova, but no big deal because even with a small block these cars work VERY well!!!:) I got a 71 Nova with a 350 that is a real treat to drive.:evillol: Also, the Nova had some room for back seat passengers, had a fair bit of trunk space, and was cheaper than the Camaro. They did lack the sporty look of the Camaro, and was not as flashy a car. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the Camaro, it had the performance to back up it's good looks. Probably why it managed to stick around for such a long time after the Nova was gone. Maybe someday the Nova will return as GM's top little grocery getter. Then again, maybe it's better off GM doesn't bring it back. They'd probably only disgrace the Nova name anyway.

I don't know this for a fact, but I have always heard that the only reason GM came out with the sportier camaro was to try and compete with the Mustang.
ps... completely agree wiht NOVA71 - I hope GM dosn't bring back the nova. With all the crap they have put out using the names of classics. I do love the old camaros though. here's hoping the 07 camaro brings back the greatness!

I had a '66 Nova SS with a 301 and a 4-speed with a narrowed 9" Ford rearand a Detroit Locker, the leaf springs were moved inboard for tire clearance. That was a great combination, the car came out of the hole hard and hooked up with either street tires or slicks. I beat many a Camaro with it. And as others stated, they were almost identical cars under the skin. Many suspension/chassis parts were common.

I also had a '69 Nove with a 402, Turbo400 and a 12 bolt 3:73 posi. That was an awesome combination too. Real cheap and easy to build up and it never broke.

Bob

why not novas? love em, had three of em: 76,77,78. but really wanted 72.

When I was younger my father had a black 77. I always thought I'd get that car when I turned 16. Unfortunately he sold it before I reached 16. That car is probably the reason I like Novas so much. Nothing special, just a plain black 2 door with a 305 that he kept in awesome shape. Man that car worked good! Well, I'm glad I got a chance to get a nice old 71 (I do like the 68-72s the best). Hopefully I will never have to sell it.

O k this is how I understand it , compiled from a few various sources:
1. The nova is Chevy's direct rip-off of the Mustang( they used many mustang 2 parts for years)
2.Chevy had no economy or midsize to offer for performance, the full sized or Chevelle was their main 'muscle car'
3.The Nova was first, then the camero but for many years they were all bunched up as 'x-frames' ....then came the unibody, which was the demise of the nova as most know it.
4.............I won't even call the Toyota Corolla version a nova:disappoin

O k this is how I understand it , compiled from a few various sources:
1. The nova is Chevy's direct rip-off of the Mustang( they used many mustang 2 parts for years)
2.Chevy had no economy or midsize to offer for performance, the full sized or Chevelle was their main 'muscle car'
3.The Nova was first, then the camero but for many years they were all bunched up as 'x-frames' ....then came the unibody, which was the demise of the nova as most know it.
4.............I won't even call the Toyota Corolla version a nova:disappoin

You'd better scrap those sources!

1. Nova production started in '62, Mustang in '65 (call it 64 1/2 if you want, but they're all 65's) and NO parts were shared between them.

2. Chevelles came out for 64, two years after the Nova.

3. Novas' never had X frames. They were used on the full size until '65.

4. OK, this is true, but one out of four is still pretty bad!

I stand corrected, and I did get the midsized/fullsized thing completely backward. But if I am mistaken, then what was with the mustang II front end parts? I vaguely remember seeing them as an offerring for some early chevyII's in parts magazine.( I thought)....???

It was a common practice to swap in a mustang II front end for better handling, the same as you would swap in a ford 9 inch rear end to replace the tiny 8.2 inch or 8.5 inch Chevy rear. The Novas are referred to as X-body and the Camaro and Firebird are F-bodies, that's just their designation. Actually the underneath of these cars are VERY similar. I'm not sure about the 62-67 novas, but I do know that the 68-74 frame sections and suspension components interchange with the 67-69 Camaro/firebird, and they all are unibody design, having a front subframe and a seperate rear frame section that is part of the underbody. :)

By the way, welcome to the forum dustyben, we hope to see you stick around. Looking at your profile I see that like myself, you're a little older than most on this board. We can certainly use more members who have a few years experience behind them! :)

Now that I have been caught (unknowingly) spouting half truths I have gathered over time........:uhoh: ................I'll check sources before openning the mouth.

Is anybody aware of any offerings that would convert the 1 bbl carb on my L-6 to a somewhat version of fuel injection? I have a '68 with all original stuff and currently have an electronic ignition from a '76 in it. I figure it would help burn/ perform better. but w/ gas prices the way they are and my good old all steel American beauty........a guy I knew that designed and machined fuel delivery systems for race boats died, he was my next choice....but....

I am not aware of any FI systems that are ready to replace your 1 barrel. As I'm sure you know, the aftermarket systems are geared towards V-8's and are quite pricey. You could probably make one work on your 6, but even if it gave you a 2 mpg increase, (which is optimistic in my opinion) you'd have to drive quite a few miles to have the fuel savings pay for the system. It might be possible to cobble something together with scrap junk yard parts for a lot less money, but unless you're an engineer there's no guarantee the result would even match your present mileage. I'm not trying to pooh pooh the whole FI idea, as it certainly would be possible, I'm only trying to look at it from a practical standpoint. Maybe someone who has added (or tried to add, lol) FI to an older car can give us some more information.

Thanx for the reply. Yeah, I guess I really deep down already figured that. I probably would get optimum results by buying a new/reman. for the engine as it stands.( for the trouble and money anyway.)
It is the same with the dream that I had of boring a 250 .030 over. It would make very minimal difference as it is something like a 4.1 ltr. already.
my real main next concern actually is 'do I do front disc brakes or all 4 wheels?' 4 would be more expensive, don't need it for the power to stop it lol. But the simplicity and the lack of springs holder clips etc... is enticing.
Meanwhile the poor puppy's brakes are totally shot and one of the first fixes. It is just waiting patiently in my garage for some TLC.
-Dusty

Carburetor rebuild kits are very inexpensive, especially for that 1 barrel. Unless the core unit is somehow damaged, you shouldn't need a new one. Just clean and readjust everything according to the instructions in the kit. I drove my 68 six cylinder for 167,000 miles and only rebuilt the original carb twice.

The reason an overbore is performed is to clean and true worn out cylinders. As you suspect, the minimal amount of increased displacement itself will not make a big difference in performance.

If in proper condition, even a four wheel drum system can give good braking performance. That being said, front discs are definitely a worthwhile upgrade if you don't mind spending the bucks. If contemplating this, I'd suggest getting one of the after market kits. That way you'll not only get everything you need, but it will be matched to your application, and all the parts will be new. This makes a lot more sense than messing around with scrap yard junk and possibly ending up with less than desired results in my opinion. Rear discs are an unnecessary expense in my opinion, unless you're road racing or something like that. Keep us posted, and don't be afraid to start a new thread if you have specific issues you wish to address with the group.