The Corvair
 

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365026814.jpg



OTOH,

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365026832.jpg

...and your point?

I used to have a couple of Corvairs. They were no more dangerous than many cars in the 60's. Who would ever want a car with a turbocharged 6 cyl air cooled engine in the rear anyway?

Stats show that they were much more dangerous than other cars of the same period, do they not?

some of that is no doubt dumb drivers

OTOH, the design predates the 911, and Chevy was not exactly known for engineering excellence back then (except for A/C and automatic trannies)

Ralph doesn,t even have a driver's license.

You are correct. But like all good left wing souls, he believes he knows best how others should live.

I read "unsafe at any speed" years ago but don't remember the actual stats.
The cars were sold to ordinary drivers many of whom were unable to deal with a car that had terminal oversteer. Not unlike a swing axle VW or a Triumph spitfire .
All cars of the vintage had deadly steel dashboards,no crumple zones etc etc etc.
The sporty versions of the Corvairs had better brakes and stiffer suspensions(sway bars and camber compensator) but only made up less than 10% of the production.
Short wheel base 911's had ballast added to the front in 1967 or 68 if I recall to reduce it's sudden terminal oversteer.

Nader's "stats" refer specifically to the design of single swing axle models from 1960-1964, not the double swing axle models from 1965-1969. IIRC, VW also used a single swing axle through the 1966(?) model year. Nader also slammed the tri-fives (1955-1957 Chevy) for having an X-frame chassis. I'd still love to own one; '56 for me.

Crash Test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu (Frontal Offset) IIHS 50th Anniversary - YouTube

This is good, I used to own a 50 Bel Air

in the early 70's they were the best 100 dollar car on the market
that meant they were seldom worth repairing
as fixing most things cost more then a newer vair did
as much thanks to nader as anything else

I went thru a 1/2 dozen 65 and later vairs [the ones without the swing axles]
inc a cherry 66 4 speed with 35 k miles [that did cost 200]

I had a roommate with one in the 80's and I'd borrow it once in a while and man --- that thing was FUN to drive! :p

GM bean counters and product planners had a big hand in presenting the car eventually sold to the public. They didn't play favorites; they screwed up most every GM car until they started to act responsibly only recently.

However, the engineers knew what they were doing. Recall GM had a skunk-works racing dept. that assisted/supported Smokey Yunick, Jim Hall and Zora Duntov (among others). For the Corvair program, Chevy hired PAG as a consultant for their engine design. Chevy even considered and built a prototype twin cam, MFI engine and fitted a mid-engined vehicle around it at one time.

Yeah. I had one too.
Sherwood

I'm a sucker for the early 4 doors. :)

I had a '64 as my first car. Never had any kind of problem.

I've always liked Corvair's. I don't know why I never bought one. I did test drive one in the
80s though.
At least I can say I own a rear engined car now.

Dean

I've always thought they were cool

I wanted one, but the one time I considered one the party's looked expensive, and I was poor

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365036522.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1365036561.jpg

I had two in the 70's. A 65 Corsa 140hp ( 4 carbs, non turbo) and a 66 Corsa 140hp. Both coupes, and they handled very well, set up with the proper suspension. 65 and up utilized a derivative of the then current Corvette rear suspension.

It had trailing arms, coils, and double jointed half shafts, which kept the wheels in a parallel plane during suspension travel and cornering, unlike the 64 and earlier models, which had swing axles allowing the wheels to tuck under during hard cornering.

Sort of like 911 handling vs a 356. Think 64 to 65.

The corvair was a victim of bad press, thank you very much, Ralph.