Here’s an interesting find, from the same small-town garage at which I shot the recent ’67 Galaxie 500. This first-gen Corvair Monza convertible showed up on a trailer, and had apparently recently been pulled from a long-term resting place in someone’s garage or barn.
CC has fairly extensively covered the Corvair in the past, so I passed on making this a full “Curbside Classic,” and instead will just share the excitement someone surely is having with their new treasure.
This is the view that greeted me from the street. I’m not that familiar with the Corvair, so a little searching indicates this is probably a ’62-64 model, as Spring of ’62 was when the convertible was first offered, and the second-gen Corvairs bowed in ’65. [ED: this is a 1964, identifiable by its distinctive trim detail on the front end]
The Corvair offered a real design conundrum: with no need for a grill (no radiator!), how do you style the front end? Apparently, the ’60 model had a concave treatment as seen below, which was changed to the convex treatment from ’62-64. ’60 models may sometimes be referred to as “cave cars” for this reason.
I think I like the later treatment better…
There were several trim/performance levels available on the first-gen Corvairs and this example appears to be the popular Monza. Here’s one breakdown of what was available I located over at CorvairForum.com:
- 500– base model
- 700– upgraded trim and interior
- Monza– nice interior premium model (but by FAR the most common)
- Monza Spyder– 62-64 available only in coupe and convertible. This is a Monza with the special high performance “150hp” Turbocharged engine and full cluster of gauges on the dash. The second mass production car in the world to be offered with a turbocharger. All Spyders have manual transmissions. Turbo engine available ONLY as the Spyder option.
Moving around to the business end of the car, we see the very common taillight arrangement Chevrolet was using during this era. It’s a smart looking design which the thin bumper sets off nicely. The Corvair was powered by a “flat six” 145 cid air cooled engine, which was available in 80, 84, 102 and 150hp variants. This was bumped to a 164 cid engine in 1964, making 95, 110 or 150hp.
Oh-oh. Looks like we had a wheel cylinder fail (that or a rusted-out brake line). Notice that this rear quarter-panel has already been wiped clean of the years of grime and dust.
Someone has a nice little project on their hands. I was unable to really get a good look at the interior, but based on my suspicion that the paint and vinyl top are probably not original, the interior may actually be in decent shape. I think this one won’t take much more than a good wash, polish and tune to get back on the road and writing new stories for its new owner.
The vehicle existed before the Beatles invaded the USA and forever altered USA society.
Lucky indeed. Not many genuine Nadermobiles left.
Made me think of American Pickers. I do wonder what the interior looks like…
Are you positive about the turbo engine? Spyders should have a circular turbo symbol on the rear deck, instead of the crossed flags…
I don’t see where it says that this particular car (a Monza) is a Spyder, just that such a beast was available.
Look closely at the trim on the lower front fender (pix #5)
Yup, I misread it. =/
He didn’t say THIS one was a turbo.
I saw a silver-blue one of these (I think the same car I shot through the windshield last summer) leave a neighborhood restaurant and head into my neighborhood, but I did not have time to give chase. Maybe later. Nice find.
Very nice find. My family very briefly had a similar car, for one summer back in 1970:
And you look suitably proud!
Despite that they both had the same ‘flying wing’ rear window treatment, it’s always fascinated me that the 1960 Corvair and full-size Impala were two car lines from the same car company in the same year. Aside from the rear window shade, the two cars are as different as night and day. It was truly a noteworthy moment in progressive GM engineering history.
Which makes it even more of a shame that GM cheaped-out on leaving off such a rudimentary suspension part (the rear anti-sway bar) on the Corvair, making Ralph Nader a household name, and killed off the promising little car in the process (although GM valiantly and uncharacteristically kept the car around until 1969 despite poor sales). Imagine how differently things might have turned out for the poor Corvair if GM hadn’t been such cheap a$$holes.
Much as I love Corvairs, there were lots of other reasons the car ultimately failed. It’s not hard to keep a Corvair alive if you know how and have an interest but they did require a little more upkeep than it’s intended market was willing to provide. The average owner probably didn’t notice the suspension issue, but they sure noticed engine oil leaks, deteriorated body seals and associated fume problems, fanbelt problems and so on. It was also tricky to keep all but the base engine in tune owing to the 2 or 4 carb configuration. As a poor man’s Porsche the Corvair was pretty good. As an alternative to a Falcon or Valiant, just too quirky. And then the Mustang came along….
But was the Corvair more maintenance intensive than a VW? That seemed to be the market GM was targeting rather than Porsche, at least initially, what with the multitude of VW-like Corvair permutations such as the Greenbrier van, Lakewood station wagon, and the rare ‘Loadside’ truck.
So, yeah, the Corvair definitely was more work to keep up as compared to the traditional engineering of the Falcon or Valiant. But the market for a domestic Euro-style vehicle might have been willing to tolerate the quirky maintenance issues if not for the ‘Unsafe At Any Speed’ fiasco which pretty much put the final nail in the coffin.
While the required upkeep for the radical Corvair made them a tougher sell than the Ford or Chrysler products, a reputation for being dangerously unsafe made it damn near impossible.
What the Corvair ran up against was the later GM conundrum that, by the 80’s, was so common – although for different reasons: The Corvair was designed to appeal to the Volkswagen buyer and, more importantly, the thinks-he-wants-a-Volkswagen buyer, plus those people who actually wanted foreign cars back in the late 50’s. Plus, there was the internal conceit that, “if the buyers actually want one of these damned foreign cars, we can build them a better foreign car than the foreigners can.”
It fell apart on a couple of counts:
1. Back then, just as in the 80’s and today, if somebody is determined to own a foreign marque, they aren’t going to look at GM. Period. GM is the anti-foreign car company.
2. The majority of car buyers, the domestic car buyers, liked simple dull and appliance like cars. Today it’s the Corolla. Back then, it was the Falcon.
3. They weren’t ‘drive-it-and-forget-it’ like most American cars. Like the European cars they aped, they actually had to be cared for. And it helped that the mechanic who worked on them actually had a brain and could handle something mechanically different from the usual front engine, driveshaft, rear drive, solid rear axle. Amazing how many mechanics couldn’t fifty years ago.
4. And they drove differently. Which meant you actually had to have an idea about driving a car. Something more than just pushing the gas and turning the wheel.
Unfortunately, what Chevrolet should have brought out in 1959 was what they brought out in 1961. The Chevy II. And the car world would have been a whole lot poorer if they had.
So, I’m wondering if GM would have marketed the Corvair as a seperate series; assoiciated with but not directly a Chevrolet (much like the GEO in the 1990s), would that have given the Corvair more identity and brought in a different buyer to the showroom? I agree with the notion that most people bought a Chevy because they were cheap, dependable, and easy to own and drive and the typical Chevy buyer wasn’t interested in a high maintenance car of a foriegn nature. If the Corvair and Chevy II Nova had both been introduced in 1960, then 1961-2 would probably have been the last of Corvair!
Its true that foreign car buyers were a different breed back then. They often researched the make they were interested in before buying and were aware of the maintence schedule they required which were usually more costly and frequent that a domestic. Most of the foriegn cars of the day also handled differently that then standard rear drive US cars, but owners felt that made them excotic.
The Corvair really did develope a reputation much like many of the imports (but not really VW) in that most people who owned one either loved it or hated it, it ran beautifully or horribly, depending on the day or maintenance it needed.
You make a good point. VW made a few attempts to sell cars here, but I think it was Ben Pon (? – too lazy to go look it up) that realized a service network would have to be in place before they would really be accepted, so that’s what they did.
Given how *different* the Corvair was from typical GM fare, I wonder how good the service really was at the typical Chevy dealer (or at independents)?
Timely! Corvair lust is about to overtake me, as I wonder what could be wrong with this one:
http://monterey.craigslist.org/cto/3058732669.html
I might be living with a Corvair in a week. We shall see…..
Wow, it looks great in the photos. Hopefully it looks as good in person and the owner really means need to $ell
That does look pretty nice indeed. I’ve gotten to the point that a Corvair is pretty much at the top of my toy car list again. If this one were white, I’d get into a bidding war with you. Four speed and ’64 are the best of the gen1s for sure. Let me know!
Indeed, this one looks pretty good and it may not take much to get it back in decent, but mostly original shape, assuming that paint is original, but I doubt it.
It may well be the original color though.
Keep us posted if you get it.
I talked to the seller: he was not very knowledgeable, bought it from a guy who had stored it since 1979. His GF drove it a few times, and it’s just been sitting around. The bad: the engine makes a “metallic sound, intermittently”. He suggests it has to do with it being air-cooled. Folks describing engine sounds is a huge stab in the dark; it could be serious, or nothing but a loose piece of shrouding or something.
The good: it does look like a very solid, un-rusty car, a real CA-mobile. Sadly, it has one pretty good-sized dent in the hood. If it weren’t black, I’d be getting worked up. But I just have to have a white one!
did you buy it? The CL ad is gone . . .
Nice find I see it been bogged up once before and had a respray hopefully its not a rustbucket under that clever sculpting but there are plenty of Corvairs around to cut patch panels from.
I bought my black-on-black-on black ’64 Monza convertible from a classmate in 1969 for $100. It had the 110 hp twin-carb engine and a 4-speed. 1964 was the first year that the Corvair came with a “camber compensator” as standard equipment. The rear end was still a swing axle design but the camber compensator kept the rear wheels from tucking under in hard cornering. Camber compensators had been available from Empi for a number of years. My roommate had a 1965 Corvair which had double-jointed half-shafts. It handled and rode much better than my ’64. I enjoyed the time I spent with my ’64, but as a student, I didn’t have the means to feed its thirst for parts.
My father had a ’62 or ’63 Monza sedan. It was an automatic and had a small “lever” mounted on the dash for selecting gears (Powerglide?).
One other thing I remember about it was the fan belt. It was prone to falling off. The belt had to make a 90-degree turn from the output of the engine to the fan on top of the engine. I helped my father re-install the belt a number of times.
It should be noted that another famous car with swing axles (that would be the Beetle) had the same suspension problems. But it escaped Mr Nader’s notice. The Corvair gen II eventually fixed the problem but it was too late. Mr. Nader’s publicity had done it in.
Unsafe at Any Speed is not all about the Corvair as some believe, in fact the Corvair as far as I can recall is only covered in one chapter of the book. The main killer of the Corvair came from 2 ends, internally from GM when Chevrolet launched the Chevy II to compete against the Falcon and Valiant, and from out side from the Mustang which dropped like a cannon ball into the middle of the small sport car pool, which before, was almost exclusively Corvairs territory.
I like the first gen Corvairs, they are good looking little cars, but my favorites are the second generation 1965-1969 version. True that they do require a little more that some other cars, but if you have some basic mechanical skills they are not hard to work on, just always carry tools and a spare belt!
Heres my own 65 Corsa convertible, currently she needs a few things tended to, I need to swap the correct 4 carb 140hp engine back in, the original one was lost long ago, she currently runs a 110hp 2 carb engine.
Yes, Unsafe at any Speed was like the pall bearer, not the killer.
Nice Corsa! Currently, a Corvair is at the top of my list for a toy car. They’re very reasonable, and I remember what it’s like to work on them from my first one. I know the gen2 is a better car, but I have a real thing for the gen1. A ’64, with four speed, like the one in the ad up in the comments above. I wish it weren’t so far away so I could look at it.
Thanks, they are fun little sporty car, I like the 2nd gens for their slightly prettier styling, in my opinion and the full independent rear, though the first gen cars seem a little stouter than the 2nd gens which were designed to be be full hardtop in the sedans and coupes, whereas all the first gen cars have pillars. You couldn’t go wrong with a nice little 102 or 110hp 2 carb Monza coupe, and they were the most produced Corvair variant. I would like to find a little 2nd gen hardtop coupe as a playmate for my 65 vert.
You got it. What really killed the Corvair is that the American public will happily shell out for a fancy body on at best mediocre mechanicals (Mustang) over actual engineering excellence (second generation Corvair). While the first couple of years of the second generation Corvair sold very well to its intended market (the sports car crowd, the mechanically adventurous), the GTO and Mustang appealed to the quarter-miles-stomp-on-it-and-hang-on school of driving. Typical Americana: No finesse, no skill, lots of show, lots of “instant street cred” without actually earning it.
Plus, one other factor that nobody’s brought up yet. The year the Corvair came out; it, and all other rear-engined rear-drive cars (with the exception of the Porsche 356/911), had already been made obsolete about six months earlier – due to the advent of the Mini. GM designers didn’t realize it at the time, but even if the Corvair had survived the onslaught of the (ptooie!) muscle car, it was still a technological dead end. Just like the Hillman Imp, Renault Dauphine, etc. Maybe they could have gotten a third generation out of it, which would have carried it into the mid-1970’s. But, unless they were willing to go up against Porsche as a real sports car, they wouldn’t have had a market. And Chevrolet (and GM in general) wasn’t about to mess with any other sports car that could possibly encroach on the Corvette.
Man, I envy you on that Corsa. I’ve promised myself that in the next 4-5 years my 924S will get traded on something with a drop top (the one kind of car I haven’t owned yet is a convertible); I’m seriously considering looking for a second generation Corvair rather than the expected alternative of a MX-5 or Boxster.
Thanks, they are fun to drive,they are low slung and sporty, especially the Corsa with the full gauges, its funny how normal sized cars loom in your rear view mirrors and crossovers seem like semi-trucks.
I have a ’64 coupe which I bought last year, my first Corvair since the mid 80’s. It’s been an eye opening experience how tall even ordinary cars have gotten. I also find that other drivers sometimes just don’t seem to see it at all, I think because they are looking higher!
I remember walking up to a 63 Corvair sedan a few years ago and being struck by how really small it was outside. The car was REALLY low, with proportions that are very different from what we have become used to.
Syke, as the owner of a rear-engined car (Imp) I agree with you the layout is obsolete. I don’t think you could properly engineer a crash structure that incorporated the load compartment which some knucklehead could put something sturdy in and compromise its performance. Obviously an exception is made for sports cars, as the same issue applies to mid-engine cars.
Actually just thought of an exception – the Smart car. However I can’t in any seriousness say that it proves my theory because it doesn’t have a front luggage compartment!
This is a ’64 which is absolutely the best of the first generation. It has a sway bar up front and most importantly a transverse leaf spring in back that tames the swing axles (similar to the aftermarket “camber compensators” for 1960-63 models). Had GM released the car that way in ’60, Nader wouldn’t have been able to slam it, but it would have been harder for GM to keep the base model pricing in line with Falcons. It’s interesting that GM repeated the two basic Corvair mistakes with the Fiero — they tried to split the difference between an economy car and a sports car with a quirky design, and they took 3 years to get the car sorted out by which time buyers had moved on.
Ultimately, Nader or no Nader, the Mustang was going to kill the Corvair. It’s a lot easier to build a car with a variety of personalities by using a platform that could accommodate a wide range of existing corporate drivetrains.