Just stop with dragging old threads up. Your research ?
Nobody should be surprised that gas pump jockeys did not take the time to look inside glove boxes for the unusual pressures required by the first generation Corvair, pressures they had never seen for any other US car.
If we’re going to resurrect this old thread, then we should also resurrect this reality:
GM provided a cardboard sleeve on the driver’s side sun visor to explain the function of the Corvair’s somewhat unconventional heater. If they saw fit to post that large notice regarding the heater function–which wasn’t a potentially life-threatening problem–why did they not do this for the totally-unconventional tire pressure bias, which was a serious safety issue?
Yep, I was a pump jockey from 66-68, every tire we mounted or repaired left the shop at 30 PSI. We never looked from recommended pressure from the manufacturer. If we had, if Chevrolet stressed it, Corvair would not have gained their reputation. Having said that, I still would like a Corvair convertible, though it is further down my list.
I bought my 61 corvair out of a farm field in 1975. There was noowners manual or notice on the visor. As far as I can recall, the car was never at a dealer o4 repair facility. I just did all the work myself. I think I had bought a corvair book at Barnes but I really don’t remember and dont remember any special tire information. I did remember a classmate had rolled their new 1960 corvair with a bunch of kids in it so I was a little cautious on handling, but it never went over 40 mph in town. It was a fun car and sold it to our builder for $100.
I don’t know thst there is anyone to blame for not knowing some of the peculiar specs and I did have rear engine experience with my VW. Even in my youth I considered Nader a fraud and still do. It was not a car to take on curvy roads at highway speeds and I knew that.
In one way, that makes sense:
First, it may be early in the morning, or the middle of the day, but the the fact is, the vehicle was driven there, and that heats up the tires and increases the pressures.
In the case of the Corvair, and of other vehicles like it, it wasn’t how how high or low a pressure was put in the tires, but whether or not that front-to-rear difference was observed. If a Corvair left a shop with 20psi in front and 30 in the rear, that’s better than 26psi all around, 27 or 30 all around.
This driver (me that is) knew enough next morning, the day after the car was serviced, to check the tires, and if necessary, bleed any excess pressure that might have been there.
EG: 2010 Honda, 32psi cold. Tires were 33-34, knock em all down to 32psi myself. Done.
going to rack-and-pinion steering improved that situation a lot, imo
How many of you actually owned one? I didn’t find handling much different than my VW.
What was different was what happened when contemporary Corvairs and VWs were pushed beyond a certain point.
Vdubs didn’t have simple swing-axles that caused the rear wheels to tuck under, under high speed corrective conditions.
Yes they did, until 1968 or so.
Yep, th3 wheels tucked under. It was just not smart to make high speed sharp turns. Nader was mistaken but orool3 bought his books.
But I’m sure the VWs had camber correction.
Corvairs 1.0 didn’t just snap and roll over while the Volkswagens didn’t, for no reason at all.
And it’s not just because there might have been 5 Corvairs on the road for every VW.
Pretty sure they didn’t.