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
Doug on April 01, 2009 at 07:42 PM
The '66 Monza, the 4-carb version with a 4-speed, was the first car my father got for me to drive, and as a second car for the family. It was fun and had marvelously light steering, as there was no weight up front. We should have put 200 lbs. of sand or something up there. With the engine weight mostly behind the rear axle, it was indeed dangerous on a wet road.
We had two. The second, a '67 with the atrocious 2-speed Powerglide tranny, actually did an uncommanded 360 on a wet day with me when I tried a left turn in the middle of a very busy intersection! When it stopped I was pointed in the right direction so I just drove on!
SC Mike on April 01, 2009 at 08:12 PM
My first car in 1967 was a 1960 four-door Corvair with the PowerGlide transmission. Tire pressure, not the swing-axle design, was critical to stability because most of the weight was at the rear. The manufacturer’s spec was something like 18 PSI front, 32 PSI rear, not that far off from the VW Beetle or Porshe, two other rear-engine cars with independent rear suspension (IRS). Nader was wrong on this, but he’s been wrong on most else.
I read somewhere that the emission controls that started kicking in during the late 1960s played a minor role in GM’s decision to halt production: controlling NOX in air-cooled engines remains a challenge.
PapayaSF on April 01, 2009 at 08:40 PM
I loved my '63 convertible, but maybe everyone loves their first car. Had a tendency to throw fan belts (which were large and ran on four pulleys because they took a 90 degree turn). Next I had a '65 four door that was serviceable but not nearly as much fun. Both were quite roomy for "compact" cars.
Regarding the handling, yes, the rear could get away from you if you were sloppy, but Nader vastly exaggerated the problem (his book had diagrams showing the suspension flexing in ways physically impossible). If you skidded sideways into a curb, maybe you could flip one, but I doubt it was nearly as easy as Nader made out.
But then, Ernie Kovacs died when he lost control of his Corvair station wagon....
Jimmy J. on April 01, 2009 at 09:16 PM
I bought a Monza in 1961. Drove it far and wide for the seven years I owned it. It handled well, was economical on gas and maintenance. One of the best cars I ever owned. Traded it in on a Chevy station wagon that we needed because our family was outgrowing the Monza.
I could never figure out what Nader was talking about. I drove on winding mountain roads a lot and it handled like a dream. Sure would like to see an innovative car like that today.
BobMc on April 01, 2009 at 09:39 PM
My grandmother had one in the late 60s or early 70s. I don't recall what year it was, but I do remember that it oversteered like hell, used a lot of oil and, despite its relatively young age, the engine literally fell out of it in her driveway one day. In my opinion it was just another GM product that suffered a lethal dose of beancounteritis.
63 spyder convertible on April 01, 2009 at 09:57 PM
To correct a few minor inaccuracies:
1. Engine displacement from 60 to 63 was 145 cubic inches; 64-69 was 164 cubic inches.
2. The Monza trim level provided styling and interior upgrades only. To get the 150 horsepower turbo motor from 62-64, you had to get a Spyder; from 65 to (I think 66 was year for turbo) a Corsa (180 hp). Spyder/Corsa came with the turbo, four on the floor, full gauges, and brushed aluminum trim on the dash and rocker panels plus all Monza options.
Andy Freeman on April 01, 2009 at 11:13 PM
My parents had one when I was young; it was the last convertible that they owned. We traded it for a 68 Camaro.
One time my Dad came home late because a pump jockey topped off the radiator. Yup, he filled the crankcase with water and didn't understand why Dad wasn't thrilled and even insisted on a free oil change.
OldCarGuy on April 02, 2009 at 06:10 AM
A great piece, Anthony, about a car I never owned but have long admired from afar. Thanks.
Neuromancer on April 02, 2009 at 06:32 AM
Wow does this bring back memories. When we moved to Hawaii in 1964, my parents sold our beloved Belair wagon (Black Beauty) for a pair of Corvair convertibles; a black one for Dad and a blue one with white top for Mom, exactly like the top two pics in the article! They were a blast, and we almost never had the tops up the whole two years Dad was stationed there. Alas, Dad got rid of them right before we moved. Fortunately, he traded them in on a spankin' new 65 Mustang. His next car was a 69 Firebird convertible, but that is a whole nuther story!
Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
Art on April 02, 2009 at 07:40 AM
My first vehicle was a Corvair Van, paid $100 for it. It was pretty decent on gas, but burned and leaked about a gallon of oil every 100 miles. I still recall the smell of burning oil every time I see one.
Chuck D on April 02, 2009 at 08:08 AM
As a young Lt in USAF, I bought a new '65 Corsa coupe. I loved it. I saw it as a "poor man's Porsche" and the Corsa was, 140hp, 4 speed and room for golf clubs too. On our honeymoon in KY, my bride and I suffered the result of a pinhole leak in the float bowl of one of the secondary carbs. Hydraulic lock-up. The local Chevy dealer didn't know what to do. Finally hand-cranked the fuel out of the cylinder head, sealed off both secondarys and went back to base. My bride still found a way to hit 105 on I-70 in OH. She loved it too - it was better than her Spitfire.
George on April 02, 2009 at 11:11 AM
My first car was a pre-owned Corvair convertible I purchased after I returned from Vietnam in 1968. I don't rememember what model year it was.
My Corvair sprung an oil leak, and the smoky fumes from the oil were pumped into the passenger compartment -- and filled the car with blue smoke whenever I turned the heater on. The smell was so bad one hitchhiker I picked up puked all over the front seat.
Ah, memories....
seguin on April 02, 2009 at 01:13 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."
You know, the Vega wasn't as wildly different as the Corvair, but it was failry innovative for its day too. Not in its layout, which was conventional, but the electrolytic process of its rustproofing (which didn't work right at first), and its all-aluminum acid-etched block (which also didn't work right at first). Unfortunately, thanks to GM's declining quality and the aforementioned engineering screwups, it's only remembered as a lemon.
Doug on April 02, 2009 at 11:26 PM
My first Corvair was a 61 that I autocrossed, very successfully, and learned how to handle the swing axle. Which paid off in 'Nam when driving the M151 jeeps. My second Corvair was a 65 Corsa, that would outrun any Porsche I ever encountered, on any curvy road, but they had me on top end. I also beat their times in autocross. My sister-in-law drove it through a red light when I was in 'Nam, and got hit by a gravel truck, she walked away just fine, but the front of the car was kinda' gone. I bought my first Lotus from the factory, then when I got married we bought a 63 Corvair van- and kept the Lotus! I sold the first 61 to a friend, and he had a total of 226,000 miles on it when HE sold it. Other than the classic oil leak out the back, it never had a serious mechanical problem. I finally sold my van to a Corvair collector, I think he had 11 Corvairs.
Anthony Cagle on April 03, 2009 at 09:16 AM
F Anyone's I, up here around Seattle there's a guy who made mucho bucks at Micro$oft and started collecting Corvairs. Never got a reply when I queried his email, so I was unable to either talk to him or go have a look myself. He's got a web site though: http://www.corvair.org/chapters/chapter981/
Which probably won't make it past the filter, but there you go.
John B on April 03, 2009 at 02:21 PM
This mya say something aboutthe drive qualities of the second generation Corvair.
In the late 60s we had a family friend who had a new Corvair for a daily driver.
His other car? An Aston Martin DB-5 Vantage.
Pretty good company, I'd say.
smitty on April 04, 2009 at 01:38 PM
After the book came out, GM hired detectives to follow Nader and try to dig up dirt in his personal life (they failed) began a campaign of character assassination. This ended when the daughter of a top exec was killed in the rollover of her Corvair, and the company soon brought out a new rear suspension which was a big improvement, on the '62 or '63 cars, I forget.
Swing axles, as opposed to full-IRS, has a checkered history. MerBenz won a lot of races in the early '50s with swing-axle cars. But the VW, like the Corvair, would try to "tuck under" and roll in a high-speed corner; I nearly did it in my '60 beetle. An aftermarket outfit, EMPI, sold a lot of retrofit "camber compensaters" to control this problem. VW, like Corvair, eventually went to a more sophisticated rearend. Meanwhile, the US Army bought a whole bunch of jeep-like vehicles from Ford called the M-151, featuring a swing-axle. This worked well over rough ground, but not on the road where, again, roll-overs in fast corners were likely, and the M-151 was considered about as deadly by our troops as the NVA. After several deaths, the DOD declared the M-151, "not for use on public highways." And once again, the maker grudgingly came back later with a modified, safer version.
Ralph on April 09, 2009 at 12:43 PM
My first car was an early 60's model four door Corvair. It will forever have a place in my heart. This article prompted me to post on my blog about it.
http://ralphcarlsonblog.com/wordpress/?p=244
CJinSD on April 12, 2009 at 05:38 PM
My father's first car was a 1960 Corvair sedan. I think it was about 2 years old when he bought it. The odometer had been rolled back to zero by the dealer. I always thought the Corvair was an intriguing car, but my father would have disowned me if I ever bought one. His had transmission, axle, brake, oil consumption, and starting problems. I think that about covered the moving parts that it had. He won't touch a GM car to this day. Ironically, his last BMW came with a GM transmission. It needed to be replaced at 30K and 60K miles. The BMW was replaced as a primary car by an Acura before transmission 4 could go in.
Most press suggests that the 1965 redesign was the one with the beautiful styling, but that ignores how influential the first Corvair was accross the pond. GM copied their layout, but they in turn copied the Corvair's styling left and right. Without the Corvair, maybe there never would have been good looking BMWs, to name one influence. Look at the baroque angels and isettas to see how the 1500 might have turned out! Then you've got your NSUs, your Sunbeam Imp, your Simca 1000, and the Lancia Fulvia. There are probably others I'm forgetting. I wasn't alone in appreciating the styling of the first generation Corvair. The Corvair's fanbelt routing, now that is something else entirely. What were they thinking?
Modocars on April 15, 2009 at 09:14 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.
Ingram Powell on April 20, 2009 at 09:38 AM
The Corvair's worst handling characteristic would be brought on by lifting off mid-corner. Weight would be transferred from the rear, resulting in extreme positive camber and oversteer.
It's unfair to blame Audi for its "unintended acceleration" debacle, except insofar as they overestimated the intelligence of the typical American driver. The problem was due to pedals offset to the left, so that unfamiliar owners (all of recently purchased cars) who aimed for the brake pedal would hit the accelerator instead. Strangely, the phenomenon was never a factor in Europe. Audi modified the cars, so that "drive" could not be selected without a foot on the brake. IDIOT-proof.
Jerry Carr on April 21, 2009 at 09:55 AM
Nader wasn't wrong. The SCCA will not allow cars with swing-arm suspensions to race except with some fairly drastic mods. Such cars are specifically the pre-65 Corvairs, early Triumph Spitfires, and early VW Beetles. Nader didn't make it up or exaggerate; the swing-arm suspensions will actually jack up in hard cornering, causing the cars to flip. The SCCA has no agenda but safety and keeping their insurance. Thus the rules.
CJinSD on April 21, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Other swing axle cars included the Porsche 356 and Mercedes 300SL, as well as every other Mercedes of the era and some in production into the 1970s. Then you've got most other rear engined cars of the era, which was quite a common layout in europe. Nader was wrong, and he did as much damage to the US auto industry as any single individual as a result. The world would be an incalculably better place without the Ralph Naders.
Bill H. on June 07, 2009 at 01:05 PM
B-H
Some corrections/additions: The car in the picture is a '68 Monza convertible, easily identifiable by the clear-lens side marker light on the front fender ('69s had an amber lens, pre -68s had no markers).
The "Spyder" was the turbocharged model until '64; the Monza was the deluxe bucket-seat version. The Spyder was renamed "Corsa" with the redesigned '65s.
Chevy recommended a front-tire pressure of 15 psi, but most enthusiasts found the around 18 psi front, 30 rear, gave better handling on the Early models. With the introduction of radial tires, the '65-69 models handle every bit like any sports car of the time, including the Corvette (the Corvair rear suspension was the same as the Corvette except for the coil springs vs. the Vette's leaf units). The car's mechanical woes were pretty much all fixed by 1964/65, transforming the car into a reliable, excellent-handling car.
The only drawback to the Late models was the direct-air heater, which directed warm air directly from the engine compartment. As long as all parts were correctly sealed there was no problem; however, as can be imagined, many people didn't or couldn't keep everything sealed as needed to be done, therefore there was the risk of harmful fumes being drawn into the cabin when the heater was turned on.
Perhaps they could have used the oil as a heating medium through a sealed copper core, or some alternative method, of heat, which would have made the Corvair the safest 1965- car on the road, bar none...
Personally, I thorougly enjoy driving my '69 Monza hardtop as a daily driver, at least when the sun's out...
bigorson on February 21, 2010 at 10:04 AM
To Cookie the Dog's owner, who believes that Nade "made his fortune trashing the Corvair" and Steaming Pile, who wonders why GM didn't "sue Nader for his last drop of blood", some facts:
Nader "made his fortune" by suing GM for their mobster-like attempts to discredit him by any means possible, NOT by trashing the Corvair. GM argued Nader was being unfair in singling out the Corvair in his book, so they not only investigated him, they hired prostitutes to try to seduce him, along with other time-honored shenanigans designed to "expose" him as an immoral character (failed -- Nader lives like a monk and his "fortune" has gone almost exclusively toward his public work.) Nader filed suit for invasion of privacy. GM settled, and with the money Nader launched his consumer crusade. This incident catapulted auto safety into the public spotlight, leading to a series of landmark laws that have prevented hundreds of thousands of motor vehicle-related deaths and injuries.
In addition to Nader winning the lawsuit against GM, a Senate subcommittee looking into auto safety summoned the president of General Motors to explain his company's harassment and personally apologize to Nader. Over the following decades, his "Nader's Raiders" continued the fight for consumer rights involving airline safety, health care, food content, and unfair trade agreements.
Of course right wing corporate apologists and their dupes continue to rewrite and distort history, but the fact remains that Nader represents the best efforts of consumers to expose and confront powerful corporations who have no regard for public safety and will stop at nothing to silence critics. From automakers to food processors to nuclear power to Big Tobacco, history has shown it takes unrelenting efforts by citizens groups to oppose the gangster-like profiteering of corporations at public expense with the collusion of their bought politicians.