Good morning! Today’s cars both have one thing in common: they’re both hatchbacks, but they don’t look like it at first glance. They’re like one of those hidden doorways behind a bookcase, only not as cool as that. I mean, come on, nothing is as cool as that.
Yesterday we looked at a couple of seriously cheap project cars, and I had a feeling that little yellow Saab was going to steal a lot of hearts. And I was right: it’s another victory for the Swedes. The Spitfire had a lot of fans, especially since it was the one of the two that ran, but it sounds like the race setup turned a lot of you off.
Besides, who could say no to that Saab? It’s adorable, cheap, and viable, and I think a lot of us would snap it up in a heartbeat if it weren’t in the middle of nowhere. (Sorry, residents of Temecula, but it’s the truth.) It’s nice to see that there are still some good cheap projects like that floating around, as crazy as classic car prices are these days.
Now then: My biggest beef with modern sedan designs, apart from the fact that they’re all being scrapped in favor of crossovers, is that they have those dinky little mail-slot-sized trunk openings. They all look like they should be hatchbacks, but very few of them are. Dodge has it right with the new Charger, but it seems to be alone. That’s why I appreciate these two designs from days of yore, that don’t look like hatchbacks, and yet, they are. Let’s check them out.
1975 Chevrolet Nova – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 350 cubic inch overhead valve V8, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Tenino, WA
Odometer reading: unknown
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Some of you may be too young to remember it, but there was a time when cheap Chevy Novas were everywhere. I knew half a dozen people in high school and college who had Novas (or Oldsmobile Omegas, or Buick Skylarks, or Pontiac Venturas), and I had one myself – a blue 1978 two-door that I paid $300 for. I found a nice four-door Omega for a friend of mine for $350 with not a speck of rust on it. That’s why it’s strange to see them creeping up in price these days. Two grand still isn’t much for a classic V8 coupe, but it sure feels like a lot for a freaking Nova.
It’s got the goods at least; under the hood is a good old 350, topped with a four-barrel carb on an aluminum intake, and backed by a TH350 automatic. Like a good cheeseburger or an AC/DC song, it’s a classic for a reason. It runs and drives well, but the seller says it “could use an exhaust.” I’m guessing that means it sounds pretty good, just a little antisocial. Easy enough to take care of.
Malaise-era American car interiors are almost universally terrible quality, and the fact that this one is only a little ripped up is a minor miracle. Mostly it just looks like it could benefit from a good thorough cleaning. You could have the front seat redone and leave the rest alone, if you wanted, or even just toss a wool blanket over it and call it good.
It’s quite a bit rougher outside, with some rust spots, bad paint, and a truly terrible vinyl top. It’s a good color, at least, and all the trim seems to be intact. As long as the rust is just on the surface, you could probably remove the vinyl and repaint it, but I wouldn’t put too much work into it. It’s just an old Nova, after all.
1989 Plymouth Sundance – $1,700
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2-liter overhead cam inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Vancouver, WA
Odometer reading: 73,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives, but needs a head gasket
The Plymouth Sundance and Dodge Shadow were yet more variations on Chrysler’s K-car theme, meant as a replacement for the long-running Omni and Horizon hatchbacks. They were hatchbacks that looked like sedans, like the earlier and larger Dodge Lancer and Chrysler LeBaron GTS models, and I know from experience that you can fit a surprising amount of stuff back there. I once carried a full-size futon and frame in the back of a Sundance – with the hatch open, admittedly.
Like all small K variants, the Sundance is powered by an overhead-cam inline four, displacing either 2.2 or 2.5 liters. The seller doesn’t say which one this is, but the 2.2 was more common, so I’m guessing that’s what this one is. It drives the front wheels through Chrysler’s archaic but trusty Torqueflite automatic. The 2.2 has a bit of a reputation for popping head gaskets, and it sounds like this one may have suffered that fate. It runs and drives, but I wouldn’t drive it too far until you figure out what’s going on.
It only has 73,000 miles on the clock, and it looks like it has been well taken care of. The interior photos in the ad look like brochure photos, except for the classic ’80s droopy headliner. The Sundance was never a fancy car, but it’s reasonably comfortable, more so than a lot of cars in its price range, actually.
Outside, it’s nice and clean as well, save for one missing hubcap. If you wanted to have some fun, the boring taupe color and chrome trim could actually work to your advantage: ditch the 2.2 and automatic, find a 2.5 turbo and a five-speed, and build a fun little sleeper.
All right, I’ll admit it: the only really interesting thing about either of these is the hatchback. But I’ve had enough positive experiences with both of these that I’m drawn to them. One needs a little mechanical help, and the other is pretty scruffy-looking. Either way, you’ll have to put in a little work. Which one is for you?
Also wasn’t it the inspiration of Butthead or Beavis for Mike Judge, where his neighbor had one of these Hatchback Novas and they removed it in the Apartment Parking lot and went. “Hehehe Its a pickup now.”
I guess I will go with the Sundance and take your advice and see if I can accomplish my first engine swap. I’m not keen on it but I know those vinyl roofs. Once they start cracking and peeling they start rusting. And it isn’t surface rust it is holes through the roof. And unless you want to do your first hard top to convertible swap you’re screwed
Easy vote for the Sundance. 2.2s are nothing to work on.