1970 Chevrolet Nova 230 6 cylinder.
Summary:
A well-built, well-designed, tireless, cheap-to-keep servant
Faults:
Right off of the dealer lot, the car suffered a vibration between 65-70 MPH. Dealer had no idea how to fix. Cousin (fresh out of tech school) replaced right rear shock absorber - problem solved.
Starter solenoid went bad - didn't engage starter pinion properly - ground flywheel - had to replace flywheel - 31,000 miles.
Thermostat stuck, caused overheating - 37,000 miles.
Distributor bushings needed replacement to address hesitation just off of idle - 46,000 miles.
Just the usual - brake shoes, tires, valve cover gaskets, belt changes, exhaust system replacements.
Front end held up well - occasional idler arm replacement.
Carburetor needed periodic rebuilds (3) to maintain drivability.
Springs (more rear than front) started sagging after about 8-9 years (~ 85,000 miles).
General Comments:
Interior held up reasonably well - bench seats split after several years of family (read:hard) use.
The 230 cubic inch straight 6 cylinder engine was excellent - no issues with bottom end, valve guides, rings, pistons. Valve tap developed after wrong PCV valve started sludging up motor. Luckily, a rough idle called our attention to the problem before the sludging got out totally of hand.
2-speed Powerglide transmission never had any reliability problems.
Fuel economy nothing special (14 MPG average - mainly city driving), acceleration from a stop none too speedy. The same bulletproof Powerglide mentioned above didn't help either parameter - a TurboHydraMatic 3-speed would have helped both.
Decent handling despite manual steering - just a bit tough to park. Rear wheel drive has its advantages.
Manual drum brakes were reliable, and stopped well - with a bigger engine/more accessories, that might not have been the case.
A well-built, well-designed, tireless, cheap-to-keep servant. Quality was fantastic compared to that of subsequent model years.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 13th February, 2007
15th Feb 2007, 06:38
GOOD review. It was detailed, specific, and covered relevant issues pertaining to the car. Too many of these are vague or biased. This one is what they all should be like.