Chevy Corvair

[paigeoliver]

Ok, I am finally selling my Geo Metro (had it a few years, and I am tired of it now, and it is leaking brake fluid and I don't even feel like getting that fixed).

I was browsing around and I noticed that 1960s Corvairs are just dirt cheap, and apparently plentiful. What do you think about these cars? Yes, I know "Unsafe at any speed", etc. But opinions other than that?

Note, I don't particularly need to get a "reliable" car, as I still have a new motorcycle and the Suburban that I got From DrewCarey (which I will probably have forever).

It seems like good looking driver examples of these things are only about $2000 and even the convertible models don't seem to be all that pricey.

[geomartin]

My dad bought one brand new for my mom back in the day.  They only kept it 1.5 years.  No specific complaints other than not happy with performance, road noise, comfort etc.

[paigeoliver]

Road noise and ride quality have never been the largest concerns for me. Biggest concern for me at the moment is a car that doesn't have any rust holes in it, since my last few have had them.

[mccoy178]

So..............if you're not worried about safety, ride quality, or noise,...........................what was the question?

[boykster]

Get a red one....that gives it +5 horsepower

[danny_galaga]

unsafe at any speed!

actually, i always thought it would be cool to put a corvair motor into a beach buggy (",)

[Thenasty]

Get a red one....that gives it +5 horsepower

Not from a Five-O. It's always +15 over the speed limit 

[BobA]

The safety thing was corrected soon after production started.

Noestrebor will be on the thread shortly, I'm sure.  He's a big Corvair enthusiast.

Not quite true.  The camber problem in the Corvair apparently lasted 4 years.  It was corrected just before Nader published his book so maybe that is what you are thinking about. 

Quote

One of the examples of the book, and the article for which it is probably most widely known although it forms only one chapter, was General Motors' Chevrolet Corvair. The 1960–63 Corvairs had a rear-engine, and a suspension design which was prone to "tuck under" in certain circumstances and which required drivers to maintain proper tire pressures which were outside of the tire manufacturer's recommended tolerances for the tire and with an unusually high front:rear differential (15psi front, 26psi rear, when cold; 18 psi and 30psi hot). The pressures were more critical than for most contemporaneous designs, but this was not made explicitly clear to salespeople or owners. The pressures also rendered the tires overloaded, according to the standards laid down by the Tire and Rim Association, the relevant industry body, with two or more passengers on board. An unadvertised at-cost option #696 included uprated springs and dampers, front anti-roll bars and rear axle rebound straps to prevent tuck-under. Aftermarket kits were also available, such as the EMPI Camber Compensator, for the knowledgeable owner. The suspension design was modified for the 1964 model year, just far enough ahead of publication to allow its inclusion in the book; most significantly a second, outboard constant velocity joint was added to maintain a constant camber angle at the wheels. Corvairs from 1965 on were of this type and did not suffer the characteristic tuck-under crashes.

 So Paige Only get a Corvair if its a 1964 or later model.

[BobA]

I guess it is all heresay and conjecture then.  Without actual figures from Chev and I doubt that they would want them released or maybe they don't have them.    I would not want an earlier model Corvair in any case.

[nostrebor]

I don't really have the time to address this properly right now so I'll just ignore the Nader propaganda...

Paige, Any model not including 1960 is a fine pick. Earlies (1960-1964) are more ummm.... bathtub looking than lates (1965-1969). Pricing will run the same either way. The sweet spot for Corvair production overall was 1966-67. The best of the development was had by 67 without the eventual slacker attitude in construction for the last 2 years. I would not buy a turbo charged car unless I was prepared to go full blown crazy into the art of Corvair tuning. Given todays highway speeds, the best powertrain combo is a 102hp (or 110 in '64)/3.27 rear end ratio/4speed car in the earlies, 110hp/3.27 ratio/4 speed in the lates. 140hp engines are a bit faster, but you are looking at 4 carbs to adjust rather than 2, which can be a bit daunting to master. Avoid the powerglide cars like the black plague. (unless you enjoy driving underpowered 2 speed automatics) The PG was just a huge HP robber.

The perfect pick for a Vair enthusiast: 1966 Corsa Coupe. 140hp, 4 speed, 3.27 posi. 205/60/15's will fit these cars without modifications on Monte Carlo steelies and give a bit more highway cruising speed. I prefer to run larger tires with lower profiles, but the wheel wells need mods. I have a 67,000 mile car that matches these characteristics, waiting for a rebuild right now.

If you just have to have an early: 1964 Monza Coupe. 110hp, 4 speed, 3.27. The '63s aren't a bad pick either.

In either case a Convertible is fun and plentiful. The big ticket items on the verts are the window seals around the side glass. A car with good seals will save you about $500.

If you are looking for an almost rust free project, you are going to have a hard time locating one in MO. These cars will rust at the cowl, rockers, front and rear fenders behind the wheels, and under the battery tray. Convertibles will have floor rot in most cases. Pretty easy to fix rot on these, and panels are available.

Check out Clarks Corvairs for a lot of info and parts. and Corsa.org for more info.

[Ken Layton]

I have a friend that restores old cars. He's doing two Corvairs from 1962 right now. He likes them.

[nostrebor]

I guess it is all heresay and conjecture then.  Without actual figures from Chev and I doubt that they would want them released or maybe they don't have them.    I would not want an earlier model Corvair in any case.

I still don't have time but I can't help myself.

The Federal Government finally (after the Corvair production had ceased) did rollover comparisons between severa domestic and foreign cars of the same era as the early Corvairs in question. Using Manufacturer specifications for tires, both type and pressure, the findings were surprising. The Corvairs had similar or less incidences of rollover in cornering than all the cars tested.

The bottom line: Nader's book was based purely on conjecture and hearsay and had absolutely no scientific evidence to back up his claims. He actually kept the Corvairs in production 3 years longer by releasing the book, as GM had planned on dropping production in '66 prior to it's release. Fearing a stop in production would give the impression of guilt, GM continued production through 1969, making only 5,000 cars the last year.

Contrary to popular belief, Nader did not start the demise of the Corvair, GM did. It was a marketing disaster from day one. The manufacturer never really embraced the car for what it truly was, a domestic entry level sports car.

On today's tire technology a Vair is a thing of beauty to drive. I can make muscle-car-owning-grown-men cry out like little girls on a twisty road. I am "unsafe at high speeds". 

[nostrebor]

Here's a bit of info from the net:

While the Mustang quickly gobbled up market share, the Corvair continued to enjoy a loyal following who liked its distinct handling. It was this same handling, however, that was the basis for several lawsuits against General Motors. The Ralph Nader book "Unsafe At Any Speed" portrayed the Corvair as unstable and prone to rollover accidents. While many would attribute the failure of the Corvair to the book, the handwriting was already on the wall in the form of declining sales.

Interestingly, 1966 would have been the last model year, had the Nader book not drawn so much negative publicity. Even the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had opened an investigation into its handling. There was simply no way GM could halt the line without appearing to "cave in" to the charges, so production continued, albeit in limited numbers, through the '67, '68 and '69 model years. Ironically, the NHTSA report, released three years after Corvair's demise, would exonerate Chevrolet of all charges, concluding that the Corvair was no more prone to accidents and rollovers than any other comparable car of the period.

[paigeoliver]

I wasn't looking for a project so much as a driver. Sure I would tinker, but I am a single apartment dwelling type guy and can't really just rip entire cars apart for long periods of time.

[nostrebor]

I wasn't looking for a project so much as a driver. Sure I would tinker, but I am a single apartment dwelling type guy and can't really just rip entire cars apart for long periods of time.

Honestly, unless you really like to tinker, don't buy a Corvair. They are much more picky about tuning than any other 60's era domestic. I would say by at least a factor of 3.

[ChadTower]

But in the meantime, he lived in it.

[TOK]

I wasn't looking for a project so much as a driver. Sure I would tinker, but I am a single apartment dwelling type guy and can't really just rip entire cars apart for long periods of time.

Get yourself a mid to late 90's Toyota Corolla and save yourself 5 months of agony. Nothing against the Corvair, just that doing what you're wanting to do is futile. I learned this the hard way by having a 67 Mustang as a daily driver. Lots of nasty nights in the rain and snow under that thing because I needed it to get me to work the next day. At least most parts were available over the counter. I'm thinking Corvair parts might be less stocked.

I feel GM definitely got a bum rap from Nader. Many independent suspension cars would exhibit the same traits as the Corvair, or some even worse (Porsche 911, I'm looking at you). Just like the Pinto exploding gas tank thing, and the Chevy pickup side impact fires, it was something that got blown out of proportion.

The Chevy pickup side impact fires were actually rigged by Dateline NBC by placing rockets in the tanks. They showed the video of a crash and resulting fire without fully disclosing that it was actually rigged and not a real event.

Only 3 days later, on February 8, 1993, GM launched a vigorous attack against NBC for its November 1992 "Dateline NBC" portraying of GM pickups. "Dateline NBC" had presented footage to demonstrate what could happen to a GM pickup in a side-impact crash. The film showed a 1977 Chevrolet pickup erupting into flames. NBC correspondent explicitly stated that the demonstration was "unscientific" and that it was not presented as a random experiment to see what might happen. However, she failed to mention that the private testing company in Indiana attached tiny toy rockets to the underside of the truck and ignited them by remote control to make sure sparks would be present when a Chevrolet Citation struck the side of the pickup. Although NBC initially defended its actions, it soon issued a public apology. Public attention was suddenly shifted from safety issues to questions of media responsibility.

Its kind of a long dry read, but the whole story on the GM saddle tanks is here.
http://wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/templates/student_resources/0534605796_harris/cases/Cases/case49.htm

[WaRpEd]

Tok
I remember that as well it's just goes to show that profits get in the way of good journalism and gotcha reporting without fact checking.
Made a splash for advertising and ratings.
But a blackeye for the network.

[danny_galaga]

paige, forget the chev, you need to get back to your roots 

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=70350.0