mmarshall

In the late 1950s, the majority of Americans were sold on the giant, softly-sprung, chrome-laden land-yachts that dominated the country, particularly in the garages and driveways of Suburbia that, back then, was starting to offer a different, Leave-it-to-Beaver scenario to either the traditional big-city or farm/rural life. However, a growing number of car-buyers were becoming attracted to the idea of a domestic compact car that would offer better handling, fuel-mileage, and easier parking. Strong signs of this were evident, not only in the continuing popularity of the compact Nash-Rambler, Metropolitan, and other smaller cars from manufacturers like Studebaker, Hudson, the wildly-popular 1957 Chevy Bel-Air sedan/Nomad wagon which was somewhat smaller than its Ford/Plymouth competition, and, of course, the growing popularity of the air-cooled rear-engined VW Beetle, which sold not only on the basis of its size/economy and low price, but also on the noted German build-quality of that period, which the domestics largely lacked.


Noting these sales-trends, the managers of the Big Three (Ford, GM, Chrysler), decided that the time had come for Detroit to introduce its own versions of downsized, compact cars and try and re-gain the share of the pie that was being lost to VW and the independents. By 1960, the first-generation of these new Big Three compacts were ready...the Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, and Plymouth Valiant (Dodge was to get its Lancer version of the Valiant not long afterward, and Mercury/Buick/Oldsmobile/Pontiac would also introduce compacts in the early 1960s. The Falcon and Valiant were conventional front-engine/rear-drive compacts, but used unibody construction instead of the more common (but not universal, particularly at Chrysler) body-on-frame construction of that period. (I first learned to drive on Valiants, and may do a write-up on them soon). The Chevy Corvair, though, was anything BUT conventional, although, in truth, it simply copied many of the features of the VW Beetles of that time in a longer, lower, wider package. GM was at the height of its power and influence back then, and, unlike Ford and Chrysler, had the funds and resources to do something radically different...and, by Detroit standards, radical it was.

The Corvair, like the Beetle, used a rear-engined /air-cooled platform, a swing-axle independent rear suspension that (like the Beetle) sometimes produced squirrelly or dangerous handling, and, like the Falcon and Valiant, a unitized body...the first unitized body to be done by GM's large Fisher Body Division. The Corvair, however, differed from the Beetle by using the unitized body.....the Beetle of that period was a body-on-frame. The Corvair, as befit its larger size and heavier weight over the Beetle, used a horizontal air-cooled flat-six of 80 HP to the Beetle's 40-53 HP. (later turbocharged versions of the Corvair would have up to 150 HP). The actual name "Corvair" comes from a consolidation of the "Corvette" and "Bel-Air" names that were used on other Chevy products.

Right away, the Corvair got off to a bad start with the American public. Except for some of the drivers that had prior experience with the Beetle, many Americans were simply not accustomed to the way this car drove and handled. In addition, it had some quirky and potentially dangerous engineering and design faults...which Ralph Nader helped publicize, particularly in his famous book "Unsafe at any Speed", which I have in my automotive library, and whose reading I recommend. Like it or not, the casualty-figures in killed/wounded for the Corvair, particularly the first-generation 1960-63 models before some changes were made in 1964, steadily mounted up, even more so than most other American-designed vehicles.

And, even discounting the benefit of today's hindsight, it was easy to see why. IMO, much of what was wrong with this car could be attributed to either common-sense or simple grade-school Physics...Nader's criticism of the car, to a large extent, although I still recommend its reading, merely stated the obvious. The relatively large, heavy rear-engine design concentrated a lot of weight in the back of the car, which the relatively primitive tires, suspensions and steering systems of the period had a difficult time managing. The rear-end not only had a tendency to sharply oversteer on sharp cornering, but the swing-axle suspension/driveshafts, in back, allowed the rear tires, at a sharp angle, to tuck under the lower-rear-part of the car, creating a potentially dangerous condition that could suddenly, without warning, toss the car into a roll-over....and, remember, in those days, seat-belts for restraint were not common. The light front end, with little else but air and a spare tire in the front trunk (some versions had the spare tire in back with the engine), placed little weight over the front wheels for stability and traction up front....while that made it good for winter-traction with the weight of the engine in back over the drive-wheels, it made the car less-stable on dry pavement. The light weight up front also contributed to the front wheels locking up prematurely on some heavy-braking, with loss of steering control, though that could (?) sometimes be beneficial for preventing strong forward weight-transfer and nose-dive on heavy braking. On the early Corvair models, the first heating/defrosting system, in response to the Beetle's annoying habit of never really getting warm inside on a cold day, used a separate, gas-burning heater, inside the cabin.....the potential fire-dangers of this are obvious, and go without saying. The steering column was also a common source of injury on early Corvairs. The way it was designed, the joints for it would cause it, in a major impact, to jerk back and upwards.....right into the driver's face or chest. The engine, of course, was air-cooled, and used a system where, if the exhaust system was not diligently maintained and/ parts repaired when needed, the tiniest leak or crack in the system could allow toxic carbon-monoxide fumes to leak into the cabin.

In addition to safety-issues, reliability could also be problem on these cars, as they represented a radically different direction from the usual Detroit fare, with a lot of components and designs that had not been perfected yet. One thing that (seemingly) was never perfected was the design of the engine's oil-seals. My first significant job, in high-school (I graduated in 1970), was working in a military gas-station near the Pentagon, where a huge number of cars came in and out every day, and we sold an easy 300,000 gallons of gas a month. Inevitably, when Corvairs would come in, whether the early 60s or the later-60s versions (the car was dropped after 1969), I'd have to make sure we had oil for them available, because, almost inevitably, when I'd check the level on the dipstick, they would be down anywhere from one to three quarts. Those oil-seals constantly failed, and, if the owner neglected them long enough or didn't get them repaired, they would splatter the inside of the engine-compartment (and cooling-air-vents) in back with oily gunk...a mess.

The Corvair's problems were, IMO (seemingly) a result of four things. First, a lack of prior experience with this type of design on the part of GM's designers. Second, the typical cost-cutting in auto design prevalent back then, where a simple $2 part, often needed, was left out if the bean-counters thought they could get away with it. Three, the lack of experience with many American drivers with smaller air-cooled/rear-engned vehicles, and their instinct to drive them in the same manner they did front-engine cars. Four, the relative lack of electronic news-communication that we have today, where the car's major faults could be publicized quickly to get the word out so people knew about them....although Nader's book helped. News, in those days, was brief, overlapping programs each night on the three major networks, and that was it...you either saw it or you didn't.

To be fair, however, GM did attempt, at first, to make improvements to the Corvair's faults, by experimenting with different recommended front/rear tire-pressures and suspension-alignments to address the handling deficiencies....with only limited success. The hazardous cabin gas-heater was tossed on later models and replaced with a more VW Beetle-like system..at the cost of less heat inside in the winter. The steering column was redesigned. The dangerous and unstable swing-axles in back were replaced by a safer system that kept the rear tires more perpendicular to the ground, with less potential tuck-under. Corvair Monza and turbocharged, sport-oriented Spyder versions were introduced to try and make the car appeal more to enthusiasts.....which they did, to some extent, but not enough to significantly keep sales numbers going in adequate numbers. But, these was generally Band-Aid fixes to what were clearly deeper problems underneath. By the mid-1960s, GM knew that the car in the long run, was basically finished....an entirely new, thoroughly-conventional Nova/Chevy II compact had been introduced, which was sold, at first, alongside the Corvair in Chevy showrooms, in an attempt to stay in competition with the successful Ford Falcon and Plymouth Valiant. The Nova succeeded where the Corvair failed, and even introduced powerful SS muscle-car versions, with engines up to 396 c.i. (6.5L). The Corvair, despite some improvements with time, never re-gained the public confidence once the car's poor safety/reliability record (and Nader's book) were made known, and the car was laid to rest in the automotive cemetary after 1969.

And, as Always, Happy-Car-Memories.

MM

rogerh00

Wow, I never knew how bad it was.


The Corvair I remember was a fine second vehicle run around for our family at the time.

I thought Ralph Nader called the Ford Pinto "unsafe at any speed"? It would explode when rear ended.

mmarshall

The Corvair was not a completely worthless car....it had some redeeming value. Driven with care, it had very light steering effort because of the lack of weight up front, did not need power-assist for the steering which reduced complexity, had relatively good winter traction because of the weight of the engine over the drive wheels in back, and did not need a radiator, anti-freeze, or water pump, which reduced even more complexity and maintenance. But, in the opinion of not only Nader but many automotive historians, its bad features generally outweighed the good.


No. Nader wrote and published that book several years before the Pinto debuted in the fall of 1970. At that time, the Pinto's deficiencies were not yet known. When they were revealed, several years later, Ford was prosecuted in court and found guilty on criminal-negligence charges.....the first time in American history that an auto company was ever prosecuted in that manner.

mmarshall

I won't give you any lectures here, because it sounds like you two learned the hard way....luckily, without further incident. But, at the same time, I think you should know two things. First, in some states, going 25 MPH or more over the posted speed limit (or in excess of 80 MPH, period), will get you a Reckless Driving Charge, which, if the judge sees fit, can send one to prison for a year. Second, a Corvair, particularly an early-generation one, is not a car to play games with or get carried away on the gas pedal. If you have to make a sudden swerve, the unstable suspension, tire-tuck, center of gravity, and classic oversteer can get you in big trouble in just a matter of a second or two.

Stroock639

it sounds like they just learned to always have plenty of cash if you're going to drive quickly

going 95 in a corvair sounds absolutely terrifying lol... that takes courage (although it was spring break so maybe it just took a little of something else)... although i'm sure the corvair's deathtrap status is probably a bit exaggerated, and with proper experience and technique most of the undesirable handling characteristics could be largely avoided

rogerh00

Sure sounds like a lecture to me. You are forgetting this was 1964 and I'm sure the laws were different then or we wouldn't have been on our way. Also, no one knew of the safety issues of the Corvair at the time. Your using a lot of hindsight to bash me and we were all 18 yrs old stupid.

I thought telling my story would be an interesting side to the Corvair thread. I won't be telling anymore experiences I've had with this type of reply.

sm1ke

iTrader: (5)

Sorry to hear that. It sure sounded like a lecture to me too.

LexBob2

Same here, it seemed the same to me. I still cringe at some of the things I did at this age.

TriC

Back when I initially got the car bug at age 14/15 the first magazine I read with frequency was Car Life. In that 1970 time frame they ran an article about a 2nd generation Corvair that had a 427 Chevy big block installed just aft of the front seats. It was the only Corvair that ever piqued my interest!

Toys4RJill

Lecturing never works. Wisdom comes with age and experience.... Especially for the younger generation....if anyone has children they will know how hard it is to get through.

mmarshall

Feel free to tell any stories you want....I certainly do. It was not a lecture (nor meant to be) in the sense that you are using the term....sorry if you felt otherwise. I'm not sure what state you were in, but age is not an issue in some states.....Virginia has always, in my lifetime, had a Reckless-Driving law at 25+ MPH over the limit. That's nothing new, and was also in effect when I was your age.

I'm just glad that you are still around to tell your story in the first place. A lot of people who screwed up in Corvairs aren't.

And, just for the record, although I never was a classic speeder even as a teen, my first year behind the wheel was not without mistakes.

mmarshall

Not a lecture, folks.....see my reply. I myself was not without mistakes at that age.

mmarshall

It also included a convertible model.......forgot to include that image above.

Again, as some of you have posted, that shows how different some of the laws were then.....could you just imagine kids standing up today, in the rear seat, without belts or car seats?

mmarshall

A concept Corvair Monza GT was also done, but never entered production. Some of its styling was also used on Corvettes.

Wilson2000

MM: Great write up! My mom gave me my first car, a red, '63, convertible Corvair when I was 16. At her 80th birthday party, I roasted her and one of my jokes was how she tried to get rid of me by giving me a car which Nader had deemed "unsafe at any speed!"

I agree with most of what you wrote about, but I always assumed the name came from the Corvette as you mentioned (because it was somewhat sporty by sixties standards) and the "air" came from the fact that it was air-cooled (not borrowed from the Bel-Air).

Being 16 at the time, I tried my hardest to roll it, but never managed to! The rear weighting made it a blast to do doughnuts in the empty high school parking lot on rainy days. It was a blast to drive and maintain.

Since I was well versed in air-cooled motorcycle maintenance, it was an easy transition to the Corvair. Mine leaked oil like a sieve until my dad and I replaced all the push rod tube seals with new and improved parts. My dad was well versed in maintaining the WWII air-cooled, radial aircraft engines that used a similar push rod tube design.

Thanks for these reviews and for your continued contributions to CL! I was surprised at how several people took umbrage to your "not-a-lecture" post. Personally, it didn't sound all that bad to me (although it wasn't directed at me). Generally, I think posters should, as much as possible, refrain from being offended. Life is too short (especially for old folks like us)!