I take everything C & D says with a big grain of salt. Just because they say it doesn't mean it's true. In 1973 the NHTSA put the Corvair to numerous tests and determined the car was as safe as anything else produced at the time.
Back in the early 70s I owned 3 cars and 2 vans. 1 van had double doors on each side. 2 convertibles, one 1964 dark blue with red interior and white top. The other one was maroon with white top(parts car). Shure would love to have them now.
I think the guy describing the swing axle is probably a good friend of ol Ralphie boy. Kind of left out it cars out at the time and not targeted like the Porsche also benefited significantly from a compensator bar or side to side mono spring. Also the variety of ways several manufacturers delt with the cons of swing axle. What happened around this car set back progress back by decades in the us car market. It was a lightweight smaller car and engine with good mpg for the day. Instead the mustang type of car was ingrained into the driving culture. Larger heavier cars and engines then the fuel crisis. We were behind the eight ball by now we had to do what countries in europe, asia already had started and been perfecting. Except we were just starting and are just recently getting some luster back on the finish. It's quite a bit easier to hold the hill than to be trudging up it in the mud over and over to retake.
They have issues, but to someone restoring and collecting them some issues are fixed with careful rebuilding and new parts. I sure appreciate them for the ideas behind the design, and the aesthetics.
The denigration of the Corvair epitomizes human proclivity for blaming inanimate objects for human failings. An example, pilots during WWII had to contend with limitations on their fighters’ flight attitudes because of their planes’ carburetors. Inverted flight or pushing over into a dive could result in fuel supply interruption, an inconvenience not sought during aerial combat. Another example is the short wheelbase Jeep whose canyon carving cornering capabilities are severely compromised. However, it excels in the rough stuff. When the strengths and the weakness if a plane, car, motorcycle or kitchen blender are appreciated, and implementation carefully considers limitations, then most tragedies are prevented. Notorious among the human failures with the Corvair was people who thought they knew better than the designers and put excessive pressure in the front tires. Slapping on and off the throttle in a curve was another driver error. Entering the turn too quickly was yet another. Did the car have flaws? Yes. But driven with an understanding of those shortcomings provided many owners with wonderful long years of motoring enjoyment. The Corvair was a car that didn't suffer fools, at all. Ask body shops about restoring Turbo'ed Porsches after some tyro went blitzing on a twisty road and didn't compensate for turbo lag when he nailed the throttle mid-turn. So many beautiful cars wrecked by ignorant amateurs.
We owned Several in our family; the Hubcaps SCRAPED the road on sharp turns. The gas pump was right behind the rear bumper; my sisters Exploded into a fireball when it got hit in back. The Paper Zip Tubes would get soaked in oil and Choke you almost to death when the Heater was turned on. The Metal dash was a killer...
Both of my Corvairs ('61 van and '62 sedan) have a gasoline heater and never smell of oil and when working, will put out hot air within seconds of turning on. Airbags are a recent development and the metal dash was common in the decade the Corvairs were built. They were as safe as any other car, and safer than many, if you kept the front/rear tire pressures correct. Just ask Joie Chitwood. He jumped the car over 200 times in his stunt shows. I've personally had my Corvair van up on the two starboard wheels for about 7 or 8 seconds.... on the highway at about 45 mph.... without flipping it or scraping the hubcaps.
@521farmer which hood? if its the trunk hood in the front the keyhole is behind the emblem, if its the engine bay *hood* theres a little level on the right hand side of the license plate
+2right4words This is very true, and often overlooked as a very easy and inexpensive upgrade. The 65' and newer models especially benefited from the addition of a front chin-mounted air dam. I had a 66 'vert with one and it made all the difference.
The Corvair was way ahead of Porches! the flat 6 introduced in 1959 , Porches 1965, Corvair Turbo introduced 1962, Porches did not offer one till 1976.In fact the only two things they have in common is a engine in the rear & 7 letters in there name, Corvairs where always coupes or convertibles, & 4dr. sedans. & let us not forget Corvair wagons,trucks & vans. All had a air cooled flat 6 ,never a flat 4 Porches has always been sport cars in the rear engine platform ( air cooled ) & the Porches tractors do not count. I as a Covair owner am insulted for any of my Corvairs to be called a poor mans Porches.Oh! & 1 more thing when Porches introduced there 1st AC flat 6 in early 65 it was the same displacement as the Corvairs a 164 cubic inch which came out in 1964 & I'm very rich for not ever buying a Porches.Thanks for the video.
If Read the book Unsafe at any speed. It talks about swing axle how it could use a stablelise bar to help with handling. It also said that Covair with the Corvette independent suspension didn't have same issues as the swing axle and it handled better. Here the thing the car was sold as an economy car. Inexperienced drivers were going to buy them. A simple mistake should not make you wreck your car. The car was so ground breaking it had some Teething issues that needed to be worked out and they didn't want to fix them. Today you could put your mother in law in a Porsche Boxer and not worry that she is going to wreck it getting a gallon of milk because the car is sorted out. Not that you going let your mother in law drive anything. The Covair issue is GM said you had to this and that. Today cars are easier to drive. If GM would have worked on making handle better or put the Corvette independent suspension in to begin with it might still be around. In short read a book before judge by it's cover. I still like the Covair after reading the book. I would make sure Covair is all sorted out before I drive it.
TechMaven, the last thing you want to do is add ballast to the back end of a Corvair. Be sure if you have one, to follow the factory recommendations concerning tire pressure unless you want a huge surprise the first time you crank into a corner.
the guy talks about the MONZA being the one with the higher horsepower... I think he means the SPYDER and then the CORSA... But he doesn't even "announce" that!!! This guy did not do his homework.
@@motavaper2613 Also, the Corvair didn't have a radiator anyways. Conventional A/C would have been somewhat difficult, and especially costly. They were meant to be affordable at the time.
The corvair was quite the car but it really didn't stand a chance against the more traditional front engine rear wheel drive compacts that came from Ford Chrysler AMC and Studebaker. Where that car really would have shined is if it had been sold as a two-door two plus two hardtop and convertible like the mustang. As a family car it didn't work very well. It's too bad it was quite the automobile.
You missed a car. The 1962 Chevrolet Chevy II Nova, brought out only 2 years after Corvair. At that point, Chevrolet was looking as the Corvair more of a sporty compact in Monza guise and the Chevy II which came with a 4 cylinder engine as standard equipment as the economy sedan/wagon. This had to hurt Corvair sales as well.
Csaba Csere was wrong. Recommended pressures caused a sudden switch from understeer to oversteer...increasing front tire pressure decreased the understeer but adding ballast to the rear of the car to bring rear camber to a negative state made the car handle beautifully..Neutral, with high lateral adhesion limits..The 2nd generation Corvair had fantastic handling from the word go. Great little cars.
John Robert, you know nothing of which you speak. I had two, my Dad had three, my Sister had one and my girlfriend had one. Tire pressure differential was essential.
It was like a Porsche? Okay sure. But I would guess it was more designed to compete with the VW Beetle than the 356 Porsche. That's what I always believed but I'm open for correction.
OK, so it is obvious you don't like advanced engineering in the 60's era. I have owned Corvairs and 911 Porsches ('72, 73 and '83) and they leak oil too. Smoked oil from tailpipe had nothing to do with motor leaks, that was either rings, guides or other mechanical issues. Weak charging system, so were the other Chevys. There were few power hungry (electrical) items. Rust, so did every other Chevy from 1960-69, as well as, European and Japanese cars of that era. Be little less biased, please.
Nader is not responsible for the demise of the Corvair. If you believe otherwise, watch the video! And I read Nader's book. Corvair is just one chapter on a book attacking the Detroit auto makers.
