Chevrolet Corvair
In the pantheon of unloved, some say infamous, cars, the Corvair surely must rank near the top of the list. The Corvair always seemed just a bit too odd-looking for me, but I have something of a late-developing affection for it for a number of reasons: the engineering was innovative in a lot of ways, it was a radical departure for an American manufacturer, and it got what is, in hindsight, an undeserved bad reputation in terms of safety. The Corvair's supposed safety concerns and the resulting bad publicity didn't kill it off, but they certainly didn't help.
Like many, however, my first introduction to the Corvair was via Ralph Nader's book, Unsafe At Any Speed, which is probably the reason most people have heard of it. To get one myth out of the way, that book was not all about the Corvair; the first chapter was about the Corvair, however, and that pretty much sealed its place in history. Most reviewers checked out the first chapter and that was about it. Fairly or not, the Corvair's reputation as an unsafe car stuck, and these days if you mention "Corvair" that's probably what springs to most peoples' minds.
Most observers nowadays will agree that the Corvair was not, in fact, particularly unsafe compared to many other cars of the time. And in fact, the Corvair had a wide variety of body styles--including a pickup!--to go along with the sedans and coupes that most people are aware of. It was a neat car with interesting engineering and deserves much more positive attention than it has received.
Like the Nomad, the Corvair started life as a show car based on the Corvette platform and was specifically designed as competition for both economy imports such as the VW Beetle and domestics like the 1958 AMC American and the very successful Lark by Studebaker. GM had already had a go with its "captive import" Opel in 1958-59, but 1960 was to be the year of the Corvair. The car was to be modeled on the Beetle as an air-cooled rear-engine design, itself a remarkable distinction for an American car.
Befitting its commercial aim as a small economy car, the first models for 1960 were fairly uninspiring: pretty basic four-door models in base 500 and deluxe 700 trim, followed mid-year by sportier two-door coupes in both 500 and 700 trim levels. These base models didn't sell very well, largely due to the success of much simpler designs from other manufacturers, such as the Ford Falcon. The game changed with the introduction of the Monza version in the spring of 1960. Bucket seats replaced the benches, and with a more powerful engine--95 horsepower compared to the 80 horsepower of the others--the Corvair touched on the nascent nerve of those wanting a sportier, but still relatively inexpensive, performance car, foreshadowing the pony car era that was about to break on the automotive shores.
The engine, placed in the rear ("where an engine belongs"), was a complicated affair. It was an air-cooled 140-cubic inch flat-6 with an aluminum block, integrated intake manifolds and cylinder barrels. The lack of a liquid cooling system, aluminum construction, and flat design made it relatively light, coming in at 366 pounds altogether, though this was still above the target weight. The Monza added a turbocharger. Interestingly, light aircraft enthusiasts realized that this engine would be ideal for aircraft applications, and a cottage industry developed to modify them for aviation. Also, from what I understand, the cooling of the engine was assisted by maintaining a negative air pressure within the engine compartment (i.e., a slight vacuum) thus increasing air flow.
The Corvair was one of the first American cars to have a fully independent suspension which, of course, brings us to the infamous swing-axle suspension. The swing-axle design was not uncommon at the time--the Beetle was its most famous application -- and it did have its advantages: light weight, compact, rugged on rough surfaces, and a smooth ride. Unfortunately, handling was the price to be paid. The design makes for a high roll center which, in hard cornering, transfers much of the weight of the vehicle to the rear outside wheel, which could cause either roll-over or failure of that wheel. This was never as big a problem as many made it out to be, but GM was not unaware of the issue.
The big rap on GM executives was that they chose not to add a roll bar, which would have added between $4 and $6 to the cost. In their defense, they did take other measures to improve handling. They used very wide tires and also specified that the front tires be reduced in pressure by 11 psi relative to the rear. However, many either did not know about the tire pressure differential or didn't take it seriously. So while there was some justification for Nader's criticisms, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigation eventually largely cleared the Corvair of its bad handling reputation. At any rate, the suspension was changed for the 1964 models, making the case moot.
Because of the wild success of the Monza, the Corvair was generally seen as an enthusiast's sports car, but in reality the Corvair was truly envisioned as a whole platform of models. The Lakewood station wagon was introduced for 1961, along with a variety of more or less commercial vehicles. Both the Corvan and the Greenbrier van were small panel vans, very similar to the Volkswagen Transporter. The Greenbrier could be had as a conventional rear-loader or a side-loader with built-in ramps (Bell telephone used the latter a lot as the side entry and ramps provided easier loading and unloading of large cable drums).
Perhaps the most interesting entry was the Corvair 95, a Corvair-based pickup truck. It was based on the Corvan and had a 105-inch bed, which was fairly spacious. Of course, because of the engine placement the entire bedwasn't level; there was a bulge in the back for the engine compartment. This wasn't that big of a problem, as the engine was already small, but it obviously compromised loading in the back. This is where the "rampside" side-loading feature came in handy (see photo). These never proved very popular and were dropped by 1965.
By 1965 all of the utility vehicles had pretty much disappeared, and the Corvair was fully devoted to the luxury sports car market. The body was redesigned for 1965 with the "Coke bottle" styling; this model is generally considered the most attractive of the Corvairs. The look is still fresh today. The new fully independent suspension and more power (up to 180 horsepower) made for a formidable car. It was very well received in the motoring press and Car and Driver went so far as to call it "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."
There wasn't much change in the Corvair from 1965 until the end of the model run, but a lot of other changes were coming together to eventually drive it from the marketplace. The design changes negated the safety issues, but the criticism from Nader hurt sales. So did the competition from the pony cars that were starting to take over the performance market. These pony cars gave far more power for the buck and were not as finicky to work on as the Corvair.
GM also helped kill the Corvair, of course. GM had decided that the Camaro would take over as Chevy's performance car in 1967, and Corvair development was pretty much halted at that point. Some have even argued that production of the Corvair was slated to end after the 1966 model year, but was kept going just to spite the Naderite crowd. This was probably not a smart move financially, as sales for 1969 only amounted to some 6,000 units. There were also plans for a 1970 model with entirely new skin, but it was never produced.
The Corvair's bad reputation has lingered; the Corvair even made it onto Time Magazine's list of 50 Worst Cars. In some ways that is deserved; the Corvair's very innovative design made it difficult to fix, it had a lot of mechanical problems (at least early on), and although its handling problems were overblown, the early models were a handful. Many are certainly loved by their owners; one woman even tried to take it with her.
Why did the Corvair "fail?" Certainly early on it didn't look like a failure; sales stayed well over 200,000 for its first 6 years of production, and only started to tank after 1965. Nader's work certainly had an impact, but I suspect that its main problem was competition from pony cars which gave more power for the moeny from a simpler design. Its looks are rather unconventional as well, which also probably limited its appeal. Most of the negatives decried by so-called "consumer advocates" were overstated, which should have served as a warning to take such over-the-top criticisms with a large grain of salt. Unfortunately, few heeded such lessons later in cases such as the Pinto and Audi controversies. The Corvair is a fascinating car and deserves a much better reputation.
Photos courtesy of Cookie the Dog's Owner and John's Old Car and Truck Pictures.
--Anthony Cagle
That Car Guy on March 31, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Great post, Anthony! I had never seen the pickup truck with the dropped side gate. I wonder, had the car been mid-engined, if it would have been more of a success.
A friend of mine used to describe the first generation Corvair as an "upside-down bathtub", but the 1965 and later Corvair style has always been a favorite of mine.
Here's the introduction of the '65 Corvair in what may be the most blatant product placement of all time. I hope this works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3HvkrYIIwo
Cookie the Dog's Owner on March 31, 2009 at 10:56 AM
The Corvair was the most innovative, out-of-the-box thing GM had ever done. When Ralph Nader made his fortune by trashing the Corvair, I think one unappreciated consequence was the damage to GM's corporate culture. Do something different, and some officious intermeddler comes in to accuse you of trying to kill your customers. The company became risk-averse when it came to product design and operating style, unwilling to shake up the status quo. (Saturn was an attempt to correct this, with decidedly mixed results.) We've had four decades of mediocrity in product design, and the results are on display today, as GM is on the verge of either bankruptcy or a transformation into British Leyland 2.0.
Will on March 31, 2009 at 11:11 AM
My knowledge of the Corvair begins with the Shriners. The local club has a whole fleet of the things in every parade around here. Here's a blog ad showing one of the local shriner-mobiles for sale.
Steaming Pile on March 31, 2009 at 12:25 PM
@Cookie - So why didn't GM sue Ralph Nader for the last drop of his blood? I always wondered that; you publish what amounts to a vicious smear without much to back it up, and you're richly rewarded. What a country!
Grumpy on March 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I had one of the pickup trucks and was less than impressed. In terms of overall size it had a good sized cargo area and, except for the heat, the rear engine hump wasn't much of a problem. It was, however, underpowered and not economical at all.
The Corvair I did like was the station wagon. I never owned one but liked the extra storage area.
Paul Phillips on March 31, 2009 at 03:08 PM
In 1970 I learned to drive in my father's '63. A month after I got my license I sped around a corner, the backend got loose, smacked a pole putting the car up on its left wheels like a Joey Chitwood show and came back down. Drove off to home. Pop wasn't very happy that day.
Before we were married my wife commuted to college in a '67. Don't remember what happened to it but she didn't have it very long.
Mochi Mochi on March 31, 2009 at 03:15 PM
This is such an obvious choice for these pages amazing that we only got around to the corvair now - but a great article and very informative - a complete picture of the corvair family. I knew someone who grew up with a corvair in the family and she looks back on the car lovingly.
I was mixed about the looks of the corvair for a long time in my early years. More recently I've come to really like the styling and the later models are very clean looking. that blue 65+ looks really hot. I can really understand the praise at the time. It really is Very different for a US car. Like someone really stepped out and created a new mold from which to model cars.
About Nadir, I'll only say this. His condemnation of the corvair was dumb and had negative effects on the design of cars. His recent forays into presidential politics went from questionable to bad to worse. political postions completely aside, there's an element of the self-aggrandizing nutter bent on self-promotion at all costs.
SullyAg on March 31, 2009 at 04:42 PM
Whoa .. Car Lust continues to track my personal automotive history.
Our family had a four-door Corvair back in the early 1960s. The car was subject to one of the first factory recalls in US history, which astonished my dad: "You mean they're gonna fix it -- for FREE?" To a guy who grew up during the Depression and fought in WWII, this prospect was absolutely uncanny.
That four-door Corvair was the first car I ever "drove." These were the days before child seats, remember. Quite often, I traveled standing between Mom and Pop on the Corvair's front bench. One day, when I was about four years old, Pop put me on his lap and let me pretend that I was steering the Corvair as he slowly motored down our street.
If Pop only knew what he was starting that day ... :-)
David Colborne on March 31, 2009 at 11:11 PM
The Corvair is definitely one of those cars that I wish I was old enough to see new. It's a pity that it was the last innovative small car that GM would crank out.
Otsegony on April 01, 2009 at 02:18 AM
I have loved the Corvair in all its variants, Monza, wagon and the trucks since I was a kid. I think that it was one of the most innovative cars of its time and was a blast to drive. However, the reason that Ralph Nader was never sued was quite simple - he was right and had the facts to back it up. The failing of GM to fix a known, blatant safety defect until they were shamed into it by Nadar's book is an early example of the terrible corporate culture that has come very close to destroying the American automobile industry. Also, as Anthony points out, the Corvair was simply one chapter in a book about a number of safety-related problems of the cars of the period. Although many people who love cars love to hate Ralph Nader, his work has saved thousands of lives and has improved the quality of automobiles through safer design and better construction.
Anthony Cagle on April 01, 2009 at 08:06 AM
Otsegony: "the reason that Ralph Nader was never sued was quite simple - he was right and had the facts to back it up."
Except that he didn't. As many have pointed out, the NHTSA (NTIS document PB 211-015) found that the Corvair was no less safe than any other car of the time: "The 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests," and, "The handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic."
Another separate panel (NTIS document PB 211-014): "It is the opinion of the panel that the Corvair quantitatively meets or exceeds the standards set by contemporary cars in stability tests, cornering tests, and rollover tests," and, "for this reason the panel concluded that the 1960-63 Corvair does not have a safety defect, and is not more unstable or more likely to roll over than contemporary cars."
Nader was wrong. Kinda makes you wonder what else in that book was a bit overhyped.
SullyAg on April 01, 2009 at 09:54 AM
The swing-axle thing reminds me of a story my dad told me. Pop spent his career at sea, as a deck officer for Lykes Brothers Steamship Company. During one voyage in the 1950s, his freighter transported some Volkswagen Beetles to the US. Only Pop very nearly didn't allow the Beetles to be loaded in Germany. He'd never seen a swing axle before, and, observing the peculiar way the Beetles sat in the rear, he asssumed they were damaged. A German engineer had to explain that the Beetles' rear axles were perfectly normal.
Bill T. on April 01, 2009 at 09:57 AM
The Corvair owners whom I knew were very happy with them. One, an engineer with GM, was a tough customer. Whether his was a loaner, or one that he purchased, I don't know, but if it had flaws, they didn't go uncorrected. After Naders' work put the Corvair into oblivion, those owners were surprised, and all said, "I really liked it."
On an entirely different matter, has anyone ever heard of the American Bantam?
Richard Fagin on April 01, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Why did the Corvair "fail?" Two words: Ford Mustang.
That is what caused GM to produce the Camaro and Firebird in the first place.
Rigoberta on April 01, 2009 at 04:17 PM
Ralph Nader lie-telling and exaggerating? That's unpossible.
Richard on April 01, 2009 at 04:28 PM
Until recently my uncle restored Corvairs as his "hobby". He is a retired engineer who now works part time at Barret-Jackson as a "car pusher". He loved the innovation of them and always had one in the workshop and one in the driveway. They are the most successful unique design in U.S. automotive history and deserved much better in terms of reputation.
Each of my cousins got a Corvair convertible as their graduation gift. I got a wallet. I still think I was born to the wrong side of the family.
Charlie (Colorado) on April 01, 2009 at 04:35 PM
We had one of those side-gate pickups; I learned to drive standard transmission in it. (Stick I think; I don't think I had an on the column standard until I bought a Javelin later.)
We had it an used it heavily for probably ten years or more.
Ellen on April 01, 2009 at 04:42 PM
I had a Corvair in college, and loved the way it drove. But it went downhill mechanically quite rapidly, and I traded it off. Pity - it was fun.
Tedd on April 01, 2009 at 04:56 PM
Cookie has it exactly right. Nader was the Michael Moore of his day. What an interesting coincidence that they both built their fame aiming at the same target!
Jay Dean on April 01, 2009 at 05:28 PM
Wow, does this take me back. Some great times in my grade school years were tooling around with my Dad in his Monza. If it gave him much trouble I wasn't aware of it, and he always spoke of it fondly afterwards. By the time I was of driving age it was gone... a pity. We had a lot of fun with that car.
I can remember how everyone wanted to see the rear, air-cooled engine, so we were always popping open the back to show it off.
pbjosh on April 01, 2009 at 05:44 PM
A friend of mine's family has quite a few corvairs, including the 427 powered mid-engine version his dad has.
He ended up putting his on a Blazer chassis. Link here:
http://www.docsmachine.com/nonPB/corvair.html
Very fun to ride in.
Josh
Ron on April 01, 2009 at 05:51 PM
Dad gave me a '65 Burg.red coupe, black bucket seats,4 on the floor Corvair as a welcome home gift from Viet Nam....it was HOT..great on corners, fun on straightaways...an early chick magnet...it roared and got the blood pumping...freed the soul..
lots of fun just getting out and stomping....going thru some S-bends in Albany, GA, it went sideways and hit a phone pole just behind the driver's seat back end now had a whole new design....couldn't go straight anymore for some reason......RIP
a faithful beast...
Fat Man on April 01, 2009 at 06:04 PM
In the erly 60s practically every small car maker adopted corvair styling cues in their product. The first BMW small sedans, the BMW 1600/1800, which were the forerunners of the 3XX cars, used the Corvair belt-line.
Smilin' Jack on April 01, 2009 at 06:49 PM
Right after I got my driver's license, my uncle bought a brand new '62 Corvair and would let me drive it whenever he visited. It was the first car I ever fell in love with. I thought the handling was great.
All through college I lusted for a Monza Spyder, but the bucks were never there. By the time I was fully solvent, the Corvair was history. Instead, my first brand new car was to be...a Pinto; which I liked well enough.
Two good cars which both got bad raps for safety. We're too willing to let tails wag dogs in this country.
doc on April 01, 2009 at 07:38 PM
My '61 Monza was a sweet car that never gave a bit of trouble during the two years I owned it. I heard rumors that a lot of other owners thought Corvairs ran on oil since they had to keep filling up the crankcase, but mine burned only gas - and very little at that. It got 26 mpg on the highway and ran like a top through West Virginia blizzards, frozen Kansas plains and Texas heat waves. The hump-less front seat and bottomless luggage space under the hood made the car seem a lot bigger that it really was as it carried my young family from one Army post to another. I'd rate it in the top five vehicles I've owned, and there have been a few.