The first 2 years of the Corvair had some major handling problems. It was fixed in later years…but the damage was done.
The first 4 years of the Explorer was also bad. The insurance safety industry suggested that Ford just widen it’s footprint 4"…And when they did the Explorer was far more stable.
Back in the early days, handling deviations were more accepted as there were still so many rwd cars around. When the preponderance of cars become understeer, fwd cars, most rwd cars are considered problem handlers. Either way, if the VW and Corvair rear engine with independent suspension had any advantage, you would still see them in cars other then the “not so smart for ttwo”.
I remember the wind sensitivity of all 5 VW s and the one Corvair in our immediate and extended family. On that basis alone, they are unsafe cars by today’s standard.
"People who criticize Nader and rightfully so for some things, , don’t get that he is a free enterprise proponent and so conservative he squeaks when he walks."I’
You clearly didn’t see his recent speech at that hotbed of conservatism, Busboys & Poets in Washington, DC. I’m quite confident it’s available on the internet. Oh, who am I kidding, C-SPAN covered it so it’s on their website. You can probably also find it on youtube. I look forward to your pointing out the conservative part. I’m sure it’s in there somewhere.
True conservatism existed more back in the 60s and 70s when you could hold corporate executives responsible to both parties. Somehow, corporate influence has highjack both the Republican and Democratic parties making you and others like you feel that there are really two different parties. They differ only on a few social issues and the degree that each can bribed. The true conservative is an environmentalist not interested in corporate influence, and insists that govt. be small, functional and exist mainly to protect the citizenry. More in line with Ron Paul, whom most Replublicans think a lunatic. What ever happened to a little conservative isolationism ?
All we have done as you keep pointing out, is bail out and reward corporate incompetence…with the support of both parties who voted in unison, lock stepped together. That is called fascism, not conservatism. Anyone who thinks, other then the illegal wars we keep fighting, again supported by both, that there is dramatic difference between the two extreme views of both parties, has their head in the sand. Nader doesn’t call for the elimination of NAFTA for example, which conservatives supported, but a renegotiation. I suggest you listen to a few old anti coporate Eisenhower and yes, even Nixon speeches which supported single payer healthcare which is a financially conservative way protecting the citizenry. You might find a starting similarity to Nader.
I learned to drive on Corvairs, a '61 and then a '65. And my first car was a '61 Beetle.
The corvair did get a bum rap. It was safer and handled better than many of the cars of that era. Ralph Nader IMHO was a self promoter out to make a name for himself and to create a nonprofit (read: government funded) “consumer” enterprise and used the book to do so. He was far from the first to do this, and far from the last.
He actually did a great deal of good. He got the federal government to focus on vehicle safety and got the automotive industry to realize that there there would be a price to pay in the marketplace for peddling unsafe junk. It’s unfortunate that the Corvair became the “fall guy” for this to happen. Well, some of the manufacturers anyway. Some took a decade or two for the point to sink in.
Hmm. Some would say “just a fact…you know nothing about cars.” I wouldn’t.
Are you referring to me, Littlemouse?
The “I wouldn’t” part means I’m not.
My grandma on my Dad’s side of the family had a Corvair and she never had problems with it. Didn’t Corvair have problems supposedly because of the “swing” axle or something like that? I remember watching the show “Top Gear” the other day and the guys had the 3 most dangerous cars in America and were testing them out to see if they would have the problems these dangerous cars were reputed to have. 1 guy drove the 1974, Ford Pinto which tended to explode if it got rearended, the other Guy drove a 1988 Suzuki Samuri which tended to flip over, and the Corvair which tended to lose control. It was interesting to watch these guys push these cars to the limit. Suprisingly the Pinto didn’t explode, The Corvair did fish tail a bit, and the other Guy did indeed flip the Samuri.
The first version Corvair had a swing axle, an axle that had only one articulation point on the inner end just outside of the differential. According to Nader, these could “tuck under” and the vehicle roll. The porsches of the day used the same rear end setup, as did Volkswagons of the era. IMHO Nader was full of bull.
I would have enjoyed that Top Gear show. It’s testament to Corvvair that all theirs did was fishtail a bit, however it would have been interesting to know if they wer driving a swing axle version or the later version with the more modern independant suspension.
It should be nnoted that there have been numerous vehicles over the years that suffered from rollover tendencies. The Samurai is an excellent example, as was the Explorer. While I credit Nader with making safety in cars a part of the normal household lexicon, I think the single biggest factor adding to the subject right now is the internet. It used to take a lot for a problem to become part of the public consciousness. Now it takes one YouTube video.
A couple of thoughts Katydid79…We had a Corvair too, and while I agree the car handled ok under normal circumstances, a Porsche it wasn’t. All swing axles are not created equal. The biggest problems I saw was trying to make a car with rear weight bias, less then Porsche like aerodynamics, as well as having other problems related to making the car inexpensive.
There were too many compromizes when GM tried to imitate the VW in a larger package with a bigger six cylinder motor for a compact car price. For one thing, the Corvair 50 lb heavier transmission with motor though t having a similar weight distribution hung more leverage weight beyond the rear axle then the Porsche (or the VW). Even an exact Porsche axle would not have helped. Neither have better axles in rebuilds helped more then making them a litte less safe, and “they still fishtail a bit.” Just the fact that the Corvair design was never resurrected in ANY large format rear engine form tells you everything. It deserved every criticizing it got IMO… And, it was never about GM not being capable…it was and is about car makers lying about their cars.
Porsche overcomes their limitations by investing more in overall engineering. GM didn’t because of it’s compact car status. Pumping noxious fumes into the passenger compartment could have gotten Nader’s attention as well. Personally, Nader may be nobody’s friend…but there are many more of us alive today because of his efforts that are given that opportunity to criticize him.
Dag, IMHO the Corvair was definitely safer than the Beetle, the VW “sportscar” (can’t remember the model name" and no less safe than many other cars…and Jeeps… of the day. The Porsche was known to have the same tendency to tuck under, although perhaps not as readily as the first Corvairs.
Having said that, I do agree that Ralph Nader made safety in automobiles a part of the public consciousness, initiated the movement for mandated safer cars (NHTSA), and raised awareness of the industry that there could be serious consequences in the marketplace for peddling unsafe cars. Subsequent unsafe vehicles over the years would suggest that the message didn’t “take” as well as it perhaps should have.
I still think the guy was a self-promoting freshly-minted lawyer out to build a career, perhaps on federal grants, rather than save lives, and I believe he chose to do so at the expense of a vehicle that really could have been an “answer to the imports”. But I recognize that in spite of himself his actions have caused many lives to be saved.
Same…We had 5 VW s in our family, and you get no disagreement with me about their lack of safety. But the performance capability in the VW was so much less then in my Bros. Corvair Turbo , you were less likely to get to that stage. Likewise, I found that the ability to recover from over steer in the VW was easier. I “felt” more safe in the Corvair…but Nader had little patience with any unsafe car, including VWs. When I moved out, I bought SAABs, for a while. Drove friend’s Karmann Ghia and it did handle “a little better”, maybe just by perception. Almost bought one except, Maine is no place for air cooled heaters and could find little room for two sets of clubs in the trunk.
Early Jeeps IMO are in a class of their own for being unsafe. But, they pretended to be nothing but off road military vehicles…to this day. As far as your last paragraph is concerned, I could have written it myself after the 2000 elections. It’s amazing though, how many of we PO d Bush haters came out of the “bush” to hate Nader for his perceived role in giving him the first election. That one move unified more conservatives and liberals in at last one area of agreement. Friends and coworkers he had for decades walked away for that decision which has almost made him irrelevant to this day.
Karmann Ghia…THAT’s the name I was trying to remember! I actually thought those were neat. Like riding in an eggshell, but a neat idea.
Yeah, I remember that. To my mind any candidate that enters or stays in any race for the sole purpose of being a “spoiler” doesn’t deserve any respect at all, but I think Nader considered himself an actual candidate. Alas, he was almost totally alone in that opinion. It did, however, give people a chance to hear him pontificate, and I think many people who respeced him for having move the autimotive safety agenda forward heard him ramble and said “what the…”.
“many of we PO d Bush haters came out of the “bush” to hate Nader for his perceived role in giving him the first election.”
Nader didn’t give him the election, the dummies who voted for him did. Nader, like Perot before him, was the crazy aunt in the attic whose candidacy affected the election.
Littlemouse; the US system of politics and elections has difficulty accommodating a third party or third candidate. If Donald Trump decided to run now, he would split the Republican vote sufficiently to give Obama another 4 years. In other countries with more than 2 parties, the election outcomes are much more uncertain and often result in a coalition government.
If Donald Trump decided to run now, he would split the Republican vote sufficiently to give Obama another 4 years.
Kinda like what Ross Perot did to GW Bush.
Littlemouse…please read " perceived role".
Compared to Ralph Nader, Donald Trump as a self promotor has no comparison. Nader at the least has a proven history of having the public good at heart. Trump is soley about Donald Trump. His entering into the race will have as much effect on who wins as Pee Wee Herman. The Republican party is turning their backs on minorities, women, higher education and just about any group except white males over 50 and under 65. " Hate Obama and forget everything Republicans really support that is against the self interest of 90% of the voting public" is their election strategy.
Trump and Romney represent all of that. They have thus far done more to reelect Obama then any Dem. strategy could come up with.
Besides, the tallest, most photogenic candidate usually gets the most votes…Republicans would do well to recruit Jeremy Lin at a brokered convention. Why not…their candidates now are candidates of convenience, and not conviction.
“…their candidates now are candidates of convenience, and not conviction.”
You mean ex-cons can run for president?
I couldn’t resist…
The only qualification is being a natural born citizen (whatever that means) and being 35 years old when inaugurated (not when running for election). Ex-cons are welcome. You should have resisted, the juice was not worth the squeeze.