JT…Lyndon LaRouche. BTW, how many convicted felons would there be running for office if they or daddy didn’t have the money to buy their freedom ? Everything from Chappaquiddick to mail fraud to conspiracy to committ murder…to etc. goes on with the protection of money and politics.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+conviction&qpvt=conviction+definition&FORM=DTPDIA
"You mean like the Porsches, Mercedes, and Volkswagens of the same era?"
Oh not at all. Tires and brakes then weren’t what they are now, but the Corvair was less stable than these other cars. It had a heavier rear weight bias than the others (the Merc not being rear engined wouldn’t have a rear weight bias at all), plus the tire problems and such others described. @dagosa, I think you’re right, the heavier rear weight bias would have made the Corvair oversteer even more than the Beetle, the Beetle should have been easier to recover. Not to say either was particularly safe.
Of course quite a few of Nader's complaints about the Corvair were typical of almost all if not all cars of the era (for instance, he wanted softer dash materials and collapsible steering column so people would not be impailed by the sterring column and dash knobs in a collission.)
@katidid79, I saw that Top Gear. The Corvair did not "fishtail a bit", it spun 180 degrees on him multiple times going around the track. I would say the Suzuki was even less safe for sure, since Tanner is truly an expert driver and still rolled it, and of course rolling is less safe than a spinout.
Oh, and I'm sure they B210 and such are not listed anyway... but as for Datsun missing from the list, Datsun = Nissan.My parents let me learn to drive on their '61 Corvair - 4 dr. automatic, the car was 8 years old. It was a tough little car. I caught it against the side of the garage doorway a couple of times, turning in from the alley. The garage door didn’t look so good, but the car was fine.
It was also perfect for keeping my speed down on the freeway. If I went too fast two of the spark plug wires would blow off of the spark plugs, so I would have to pull over, reconnect them, and then drive slower.
The only dangerous situation I encountered was having the back passenger wheel come off, fortunately as I was stopping for a light. I was in the left turn lane, and suddenly had no brakes, was able to pull to the right and go around the corner where the car finally stopped, without hitting anyone. The wheel had stayed in the wheel well so there was no damage to the body of the car.
It did strand me occasionally. I was going to a college open house a couple of hours from our house when it just quit. I pulled off the highway and found myself perplexed. Since the convention was to raise the hood, I couldn’t figure out if I should raise the trunk or the hood - I didn’t want to confuse anyone who might think about stopping to help.
Here’s my Corvair story: I drove my parent’s '60 and '66 models, and eventually bought the '66 for my ‘first car’. The '66 started eating clutch cables regularly. Not only did I get pretty good at driving without a clutch, but, given the loan of a service-station lift, I could change out a clutch cable in about 10 minutes (I started carrying a spare cable and the necessary tools at all times).
Didn’t the Corvairs have a problem with the chassis ground going bad and burning up clutch cables?(had a similar problem with Pinto-but it was grounding through the instrument panel or cluster(a little explanation,someone had put a battery that was to large in the Pinto and you couldn’t reconnect the extra ground on the fender,the Altenator light stayed on all the time.Any way the military expermented with a Jeep with independent suspension and the had trouble with the axles tucking under and losing control-Kevin
I have to agree with others that, in addition to being a safety hazard, the early Corvairs were poorly engineered. The “fanbelt” made a number of 90 degree turns and was a cheap and unreliable solution to driving all the accessories. The upholstery and seats were sleazy and of poor quality. Numerous other shortcuts made this car look cheap compared to a Beetle which always had first class quality and good fit and finish.
Later models were somewhat better in that respect.
Doc, your post makes me realize how different perceptions can be. In the '60s we considered the Corvair to be the more highly engineered of the two, with sportier looks to boot. Having owned a '61 Beetle and learned on a '61 Corvair, I’d rate the Corvair as clearly the more modern (for its day) and better car. Safer, too. Having said that, the '65 Corvair was a much better car than the '61. It was significantly better designed and built.
The first Corvair, the 1960 model, began with two trim lines-the 500 and the 700. Late in the 1960 model year, a top line Monza series was added. The base series trimline, the 500, was pretty spartan in the interior appointments. The Monza, though, compared favorably with the VW in my opinion. I owned a 1961 Corvair Monza. The upholstery was definitely better than the 1965 Rambler Classic 550 (bottom of the line) that I owned at the time.
The fan belt was a rather crude piece of engineering, although if it was tensioned properly, it functioned o.k.–at least mine did.
The Monza I owned had an automatic transmission. I drove a 500 with the three speed manual transmission. Second was geared too high in my opinion. The 4 speed manual on the Monza was a lot better.
The layout of the Corvair has never been used? How about Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti, and Ford GT? They all use a very similar setup, complete with independent rear suspension. True, the engineering level is notably higher, but they have had the benefit of another fifty years of development.
The thing that always grated on me about Nader’s book was that the major problem with the swing axles on the Corvair had been corrected by the time the book came out. The camber compensator didn’t fix the peculiarities of the rear-engined car, but it did eliminate the axles tucking under.
The last series of Corvairs were really very nice handling cars, unlike the one on Top Gear recently. Had a whole different rear suspension.
I’ll have to disagree with Docnick. I had a 59 VW and a 61 Corvair. If anything the VW had cheesy interior and trim and multiple points where rust was a problem. Such as 30’s era design of fenders, bumper attachment points, and so on. It was strickly a stripped down car. The Corvair though was sporty and fun to drive although the dual carbs made proper tuning an issue.
I was unaware that Ferrarri, Lambo, Bugatti, and the Ford GT ever had the motor hanging out aft of the rear axle. : )
I do agree with you, however, that the later Corvairs were much improved. But I also consider the '61 Corvair to be a significantly better car than the '61 Beetle. Both had swing axles and belly pans.
One thing I think we can all agree on; both the Corvair and Ralph Nader’s book remain controversial.
Yep, big difference is rear vs. mid-engine. Porsche’s got it figured out by now with the 911, but many feel the mid engined Cayman and Boxster are actually better handling than the 911. A number of other older rear engine cars were known for their poor handling.
Well for all thier shortcomings,my step granddad had a 63 or 64’ and it was a very unreliable car-but he liked it better then any car he had ever had.And the Corvair engines are popular with the experimental aircraft set.-Kevin
I probably have strange tastes in cars, but I liked the 1965 turbo charged Corvair coupe better than the 1965 Ford Mustang. Apparently, car buyers in that period preferred a more conventional design. The first Corvair, introduced in 1960 did not compete with the newly introduced Ford Falcon, so Chevrolet brought out the conventionally designed Chevy II in 1962 as a direct competitor to the Falcon. To answer the Mustang, Chevrolet brought out the Camaro in 1967.
My first car was a '62 Corvair Spyder (turbo) and it proved to be a stupendous little vehicle. That model came with enhanced suspension (including static straps on the rear axles) as well as metallic brakes. I improved handling balance by dropping a bag of concrete in the front trunk well, topped by the spare. (Some folks also moved the battery.) Mine benefitted further from larger rear tires. However, even in stock form, it not only handled far better than the Beetles of the era, it also outperformed contemporary Porches.
Any rear-engine car is unsafe for people who don’t know how to drive one. It is silly to suggest, however, that the Corvair was fundamentally unsafe compared to its many super-heavy, tall, sloppy, understeering, front-engine contemporaries. Driven properly, the Corvair cornered like a bat out of hell, with significantly superior braking performance.
In broader terms, the Corvair was an extraordinarily innovative vehicle, and I believe GM sold more than a million units in various forms – convertibles, coupes, sedans, vans, and even those side-door pick-ups. Remember them?
With the flat floor, the Corvair was quite comfortable for five or even six, and got impressive MPG. The rear seatback folded down for added cargo capacity, and there was an extra cubbyhole behind that. The design was efficient, and the style timeless. Today, they look less dated than most '60s cars.
My brother and I (mostly my brother) rebuilt the Spyder from scratch. By the time we were done, I could remove or install the engine in 30 minutes (the two axles, three engine mount nuts, a fuel line, and a couple wire harnesses). Try that with most cars!
Mine proved super-reliable. I’d love to drive one again.
@Gonzo–I agree with your assessment of the Corvair. I bought a 1961 Corvair Monza coupe in 1967 for $450 for a second car. I was fascinated by the Corvair when it first came out in 1960, but as a broke college student I couldn’t afford any car, let alone a new Corvair.
I wonder if the marketing boys at Chevrolet did things backward. If the Monza coupe had been introduced first (with Spyder equipment optional) it might have really caught on. A four door sedan could have then been added. However, starting with an entry level compact car in a market where the buyer probably wanted a conventional car like the Ford Falcon probably hurt sales.
Gonzo, those were called “Rampside Pickups”. They were really cool. The side would drop down and serve as a ramp. Jay Leno has restored one for his collection.
I agree with your post on all points. Well stated.
I vaugly remember a ramp side, but the Greenbriar was a Corvair van. They had the van and then the El Camino type truck bed. Might have also been called a Greenbriar. I was working at a greenhouse and they had the Greenbriar van and rode in that throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin delivering flowers. Had a 58 Chevy wagon and the 61 Greenbiar, both in that pretty copper color and cream. That was hard work for 50 cents an hour even if I would have gotten paid.
This is what I was thinking of (see link).
http://www.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACAW_enUS316US318&q=corvair+rampside+pickup&oi=image_result_group&sa=X
I forgot about the Greenbriar.
http://www.google.com/images?q=corvair+greenbrier&sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4ACAW_enUS316US318&oq=corvair+greenbriar&aq=0s&aqi=g-s1g1g-s4g-ms4&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=8331l14477l0l16801l10l10l0l3l3l0l1264l2230l0.2.1.0.1.7-1l5l0&oi=image_result_group&sa=X
Wow. I’m beginning to realize that the Corvair legacy is more diverse than I’d remembered. Could the Greenbriar have been the original seven passenger minivan?
There used to be some Greenbrairs setting around this area ,I knew of around 3 one used to set along Rt 42 and a couple of more used to set at “Herndon House” furniture store.I guess the Greenbrair in its various forms was intended to compete against the Ford Econoline-Kevin