Corvair - kindred spirit, or just an old POS?

[wahoofan]

I have a line on a '64 Corvair Monza coupe, 110hp twin-carbs with 4-speed. 48,000 orig. miles and rust-free. Not perfect, but needing nothing but fresh paint and chrome.

I've always been intrigued by these things, but I know next to nothing about them. It seems to share a lot of features with my early 911.

Anyone with any experiences/comments?

[Jays72T]

They're cool, check out
http://www.corvair.org/aboutcsa.php

[Dan in Pasadena]

No experience, but to answer your question, my opinion is that the best of the margue was a kindred spirit to the original 911. Sure it was a domestic car maker's attempt to meet the invasion by VW in its original guise, but I believe by the time it died in 1969 it was a MUCH better car than the early ones that Ralph Nader made all the fuss about. Too bad too. That late body style with the high performance option (Spyder?) were very stylish and ran strong, albeit in an era when monster V8's were much better straight line performers.

Personally, I'd have no problem at all with restoring and driving one of the later body styled Spyders. I've seen some very nice ones through the years.

[911pcars]

Kevin has one or several. He may pipe in.

Once upon a time, I had a '62 Monza w/updated engine (164 ci) and 4 carbs - autocrossed it a little. The car was originally my sisters. I converted it from A/T to 4-speed.

I shared many oversteer spins with a neighbor's '57 cabriolet racing around the ole neighborhood (younger days).

Take the Monza. Clean ones are worth something. Simple to work on too.

Sherwood

[Oh Haha]

My first car was a 1966 Corvair. 20 years later I bought a 911. Mine was a two speed automatic coupe. On my first date, the belt came off and I had to call my Dad to get it towed home. I didn't know anything about cars then. I would still like to get another one someday. My Dad bought a new one in 1960 and used to tell me how cool it was.

[Zeke]

Yeah, I don't think that would fly past Kevin too well.

(KevinP73 from Automotive Inovations)

[Oh Haha]

How come Nader didn't kill the 911?

[Dan in Pasadena]

Nader's beef wasn't with the air cooled engine, it was with the rear suspension if I remember correctly...which I believe WAS problemmatic with the original Corvair, but was addressed and the later cars got a very unfair label as a problem car. Probably no more so than the 911's trailing throttle oversteer in the early days.

I also vaguely remember reading in the 80's that Nader had an axe to grind with GM dating from before the Corvair thing. Can't remember the specifics but it made it sound like he went after the Corvair with some personal animosity.

[911pcars]

Corvairs had swing axles, the early ones anyway (60-64). GM revised to double u-jointed axles in '65. Corvairs shared the same swing axle design as VWs and 356 Porsches. However, VWs weren't marketed as "sporty" like Corvairs were, thus Nader didn't consider VW and "speed" in the same thought process. The 356s had a much lower roll center for better handling. Besides, the target audience for Corvair vs Porsches were worlds apart. One group knew or learned how to drive it, the other thought they could.

Amazing that lower ride height, stiffer suspension and -3º neg. camber could transform the car.

Sherwood

[kach22i]

Nader's problem was also the steering wheel's straight shaft with no break-away geared off-set. In a front end collision the steering wheel gets pushed into the driver's chest.

Wheel chamber/ angle geometry of the rear suspension causing a toe-in/ buckle-in of the rear tires was a valid issue later fixed.

The late model Corvair's "rock" in my book, I don't like the early cars at all, but that's just me.

[Rob Channell]

Originally posted by Oh Haha
How come Nader didn't kill the 911?

Edit: Guess I type too slow, but here it is:

Because it didn't have a swing axle. The older Corvairs did and when you hit a big hole in a corner you could have the axle swing down and break under the car. They fixed it after a couple of years with a device to limit the downward travel of the swing arm.

The redesign in 1965 brought a new body style and 4 wheel independant suspension with the swing axles gone. They still had some problems as the O-rings would typically leak because of the higher temperatures. Viton material helped out a lot later(mine used a quart every 2000 miles or so), but the Corvair was already on the way out. They were available in a few different levels of trim. They are a single cam design with pushrods. The heads are aluminum and there are two heads on a motor, one for each bank of 3 cylinders. They had four wheel drum brakes, but many people have converted the fronts at least to the Camaro disc brake setup.

Monza - 110hp (2) one barrel carbs
Corsa - 140hp 4 carbs (2 primaries and 2 secondaries)
Corsa - 180hp optional Turbo

Yenko made a few modded cars to race and they were available with suspension mods and engines in 4 stages of trim up to 240hp. Not too shabby for a mid 60's 2.7 liter pushrod motor. Clark's Corvair parts used to sell a kit that could be used to mount 3 barrel Weber carbs on the engine. Crown made a mid engine V-8 conversion kit. A guy in Decatur put and Olds Toronado front wheel drive V-8 with 385hp into the rear after moving the rear seat forward 6 inches. It looked stock from the outside. If you floored it you just spun the wheels. If you babied it the front wheels would come off the ground for a couple of car lengths before coming back to the ground. My dad almost traded for that car. If he had, I might not be here today....

Personally, I'd love to have one of the later style coupes with suspension mods and stick a 3.2 liter 911 and 915 tranny into the rear. Here's a sneak pic of my dad's old 66 convertible under a tarp. It has the 4 carb 140hp motor and a couple of interesting options. The telescoping wheel I always thought was a great idea. I could move the wheel where it needed to be without cramming my legs up under the dash. It also has a power top and he installed the 14" Camaro Rally sport type wheels with the little trim rings. It needs the secondaries rebuilt and I plan to try to get it running again this year. I think it has the old JC Whitney dual exhaust manifold and muffler combo.

I vote kindred spirit to the early 911s, but with American size and performance. I always joked about it being my American Porsche. After all it was 6 cylinder, air-cooled, rear engined........

[dafischer]

Edit: I guess I'm a slow typer too, but anyway...


The early Corvairs, up through 64, suffered with a swing axle rear, ala early Beetle. With a heavier (than the Beetle) weight engine and the accompanying higher polar momentum, the early cars liked to "trip" themselves when the wheels folded under in heavy oversteer, often resulting in a snap roll and a lowered roof line.

For 64, though, a transverse compensator spring, as on a 356, was offered, which helped reduce the problem. From 65 on, the Corvair got a fully independent rear with double jointed half-shafts, much like a Vette. This gave a very nice handling car, but the bad press had already been done, and Corvair never really recovered from the bad image.

The 65 and 66 Corsa, with either a 140 HP 4 carb engine, or a 180 HP Turbo, got out of it's own way very nicely. With some engine and suspension mods, they were easily turned into very smooth, fast, and predictable rides.

Back in the mid 70's, I had 65 and 66 carbed Coras coupes, both modified, which were a blast to drive. Never got into it with a P-car, but they'd give most of the muscle cats fits in the twisties. The 4 carb setup used four single barrel Rochesters, two primary, and two secondary which opened progressively by the linkage travel. A cheap performance trick at the time was to modify the linkage so that all four opened together. Big difference in performance, and gas was cheap then.

If you want a 'Vair, find a 65 and up with at least the 140. Easy to mod, and you'll have a lot of fun.

[Rob Channell]

OK, one more try for the Corvair rear shot. Not as sexy as a 911, but pretty cool for 1965....

[wahoofan]

OK - let me get this straight:
'64 (what I'm looking at) = safer design of original suspension
'65-on = independent rear suspension


In other words, a solid '64 for $3000 or so isn't necessarily a great deal?

[Rob Channell]

Originally posted by wahoofan
OK - let me get this straight:
'64 (what I'm looking at) = safer design of original suspension
'65-on = independent rear suspension


In other words, a solid '64 for $3000 or so isn't necessarily a great deal?

If you like the 1964 model and it is clean, original, and truly rust free, it is probably not too bad of a deal. For me, I'd have to have a 65 model or newer and I would want as close as I could get to a Yenko......kinda like backdating your 911SC into a 73 RS clone. You may not lose much money on it, but you probably wouldn't make much either and it may take quite a while to sell it when you do. It basically boils down to the question of whether YOU like it enough to spend $3000 of your hard earned cash.

Here's an interesting statistic. I was talking to a guy that specializes in Corvair carbs (Grant at Wolf Enterprises) and he told me that the average age of a Corvair owner is 70-80 years old.

You could almost buy my dad's 66 convertible for a little more (say $3500) and it has the 140hp motor, good paint and a decent top. It is a few years old restoration into a good driver (not show car) status. It does need the secondaries rebuilt. I plan to get them rebuilt and get it cleaned up for the market. When it's all cleaned up and running nice I'll probably ask $4500 or so and take a little less. Check the Corsa website, autotrader, and even Ebay for how cheap some of these cars go for. Most of them are total rustbuckets, much like hunting for early 911s. Good luck and let us know what you decided. Where is that "This thread is worthless without pics" picture?

[rgrimm]

My first car was a 67 Corvair--140 hp, 4 speed, coupe, Butternut Yellow, black interior. If you were careful in adjusting the linkage, you got a nice "kick in the pants" when the two secondaries came in. Was a member of CORSA--they actually sold bumperstickers that read "Poor Man's Porsche."

It was one of the reasons I bought my 68 911. As a comparison, the 911 is much lighter and more nimble in handling. I pulled the seats once on the Corvair--they were HEAVY.

The axles, steering column. Heck, if you think back of what we all drove back in the 60s and 70s (if you've been around that long), we're all lucky to still be alive. It had its issues, but it certainly wasn't the only car that had issues. But if Chevrolet had continued to develop the Corvair like Porsche with the 911, who knows where it would have led.

You still find them around, and there are always a dozen or so early and late models on Evil-Bay (still have a soft spot for a "Vair," so I look from time to time). Rust seems to be the culprit, that and the fact that many weren't well taken care of to start with.

Speaking of e-Bay, I found the following reprint with a nice 69 that's currently being offered for sale--I apologize in advance for its length. And they are testing 1965 models.

MUSTANG - BARRACUDA - CORVAIR
Making the inevitable comparison ...
by David E. Davis, Jr.

Car and Driver, October 1964

After testing the Corvair, the Mustang fastback, and the Barracuda, we would be craven cowards indeed if we didn't try to draw some comparative conclusions. The reader who entertains any thoughts of buying one of the three is bound to want us to make a choice. So we'll try - with as little equivocation as possible - to give you our opinion, based upon our personal reactions to the three products involved.

The basic Mustang, without any performance equipment, is a kind of bargain Thunderbird. It has no particular vices, but it has no great charm either except that, like the Thunderbird, it has original and unique styling with enormous appeal to the general public. With the addition of heavy-duty suspension and a hotter engine, it becomes very fast and very exciting to drive. Unfortunately, part of this excitement stems from Ford's antique Hotchkiss-drive rear suspension (abandoned on the big Ford line this year ), which allows the back end to slide at a furious rate. Our test car could best be described as a lightweight, extremely responsive Super-Stock, for it more nearly resembles a potential drag winner than a true GT car.

The standard Barracuda is a very disappointing car, in that it really isn't as nice to drive as the other cars in the Valiant line from which it is derived. It also suffers from a styling treatment that lacks the distinction of the new Corvairs and Mustangs. However, it fairly blooms with the addition of better suspension and a more powerful engine. It is not as powerful as the Mustang, nor as sophisticated a handling package as the Corvair, but it strikes a nearly perfect compromise between the two. In its most sporting form - like our test car - it is a delight to the enthusiast-driver. It goes fast enough, and it handles the way a man who's had some time in European GT cars would like it to handle. We were very impressed by the Barracuda, as we tested it.

The Corvair, in its most basic form, is a far better car than either of the competitors (also in standard trim) we're discussing here. The regular Corvair handles beautifully and needs no heavy-duty suspension. The car's only flaw is the limited potential of its air-cooled, six-cylinder engine - in its most powerful form it is no faster than the "cooking" versions of the Mustang's 289 V-8 or the Valiant's 273 V-8. In its favor, it has a styling treatment that is one full cycle ahead of its competition, and this will surely offset its moderate performance.
Now that we've discussed the cars in both their most basic and most exotic forms, how about the ones that lie in that middle ground - the ones that most people will buy?

Considered in that light, their performance begins to equalize. The most popular versions of the three will probably be within fractions of seconds of one another in most normal accelerating situations, and their comfortable cruising ranges are nearly identical. It is here, when we evaluate the three from the typical moderately-enthusiastic driver's point-of-view, that the Corvair wins.

And it is here too, that we have to go on record and say that the Corvair is - in our opinion - the most important new car of the entire crop of '65 models, and the most beautiful car to appear in this country since before World War II. When the first Corvair Monza appeared, it caught the fancy of hot-rodders and sports car enthusiasts alike. Big, successful businesses were built to supply the demands of the quarter mile crowd - Eelco, Ieco, Bill Thomas - on one hand, and the sports car people - John Fitch, EMPI - on the other. Nobody seemed to mind that it would never go very fast, no matter how much speed equipment they loaded on it: they just plain loved the car. This new Corvair will kick off a second phase for that accessory business.

The Mustang and the Barracuda are both supposed to be something very fresh and very special - unique new concepts - and they aren't. The Corvair is. And what's more, the Corvair isn't a one-of-a-kind sporty-cum-personal car, it's a whole line of cars including a four-door sedan! When the pictures of the '65 Corvair arrived in our offices, the man who opened the envelope actually let out a great shout of delight and amazement on first seeing the car, and in thirty seconds the whole staff was charging around, each wanting to be the first to show somebody else, each wanting the vicarious kick of hearing that characteristic war-whoop from the first-time viewer.

Our ardor had cooled a little by the time we got to drive the cars - then we went nuts all over again. The new rear suspension, the new softer spring rates in front, the bigger brakes, the addition of some more horsepower, all these factors had us driving around like idiots - zooming around the handling loop dragging with each other, standing on the brakes - until we had to reluctantly turn the car over to some other impatient journalist. We were actually annoyed about having to drive the new Sting Ray and the new Impala SS with a great, storming 409 to propel it.

We said we'd give you a comparative opinion, and there it is. We liked both the Mustang and the Barracuda - for different reasons - and they're very good cars. They have speed and handling and they're the right size - excepting the Corvairs, they're the best of their kind.

[Craig 930 RS]

Heh....

It was fun in an interesting way last summer......I ran at a track day with the Corvair Club last June. About 1/4 of the field went out with breakdowns including a dropped transmission and a broken transmission which oiled 1/3 of the track down.

They are fun to watch under braking - talk about unstable!
At least they ahd the guts to take a tricky car on track.

[oneblueyedog]

I seem to remember that Corvairs had development help from Porsche. Engine? If so, it's kin.

[jhynesrockmtn]

Good background in the latest issue of classic motorsports magazine.

[afterburn 549]

R Nader's problem- He made himself a bureaucratic job..not so much a car problem but a Nader problem- It could have been a can opener or anything to justify his action. In the end what did he save ? himself a job !