My Youtube channel thought I might be interested in this new video on a very old and beaten-to-death topic. The title was not encouraging. Very few “journalists” have been able to present the Corvair, its good and bad qualities, and its relationship to Ralph Nader objectively or at least with some nuance. But I gave it a shot.
Watch it first, then make the jump to my reactions.
Near the beginning, the narrator tries to give the Corvair a pass because it was cheap, implying that any intrinsic negative qualities and short-cuts in its design and suspension were the inevitable result of making it affordable. That’s obviously dead wrong, as Ford and Chrysler built similarly priced front engine compacts that of course had none of the Corvair’s handling vices. Those were strictly the result of Ed Cole’s bull-headed determination to make the Corvair rear engined, despite the objections of many of GM’s key engineers and the extensive history of rear engined cars that had shown for decades that they had tricky handling at the limit, and that tended to increase disproportionately with the weight of the engine. The Corvair’s engine turned out to weigh 78lbs more than intended, and it was by far the heaviest engine on a mass-produced rear engined car.
Chevrolet could have built the equivalent of the Chevy II in 1960 for the same price, or less, actually, as the Corvair was more expensive to build than the Falcon. And because it was more expensive to build, GM decided to leave out a $4 roll bar, or a $7 rear anti-camber compensating spring (until 1964).
The whole “Ralph Nader Killed the Corvair” line is of course a total crock. Nader’s book, “Unsafe at Any Speed” (which we covered here), was about automobile safety in general, and had only one chapter in the book on the Corvair. The book didn’t arrive until December 1965, by which time the Corvair was as good as dead, GM having seen the writing on the wall after the Mustang arrived. In fact, GM only kept the Corvair in production past 1967 just to show that Nader’s book was not the cause of its demise.
The interview with Peter Koehler, a former GM engineer who owns this and 15 other Corvairs, is fascinating. He bad-mouths Nader, claiming Nader pilloried the Corvair just to drum up sales of his book (absurd). But after trying to shoo away any notion that the Corvair’s handling was intrinsically more problematic, he the essentially reverses himself and says this:
“…the way it’s operated, it’s different from other cars; if you don’t know the differences, you could cause yourself to be in a situation that’s hard to recover from. Is that the fault of the engineers, the company that built the car and sold it, or is it just somebody that forgot to follow the rules?”
What rules?!? Did the Corvair come with rules? Where? I never saw any in the owner’s manual of my ’62 Monza. There was no sticker on the dash. In this statement, Koehler effectively agrees with Nader 100% that the Corvair had very different handling characteristics, one which Americans were not at all familiar with, and that these could easily be “hard to recover from”. Or in other words, could kill you.
And as to who’s at fault for this? Of course it’s Ed Cole, the engineers and the company they worked for. There was never any public education effort by GM regarding snap oversteer and how to react to it. Of course if there had been, everyone would have been scared away from the Corvair. Which all goes back to support the supposition that a rear engine car with a large, powerful engine was not suitable to be a family car for Americans, unless its suspension had been developed further (like it was for 1965).
The rest of the video of the experience driver pushing the Corvair on a flat runway makes for interesting watching, because it shows its oversteering handling very clearly. I used to do this on empty parking lots, both dry and snow-covered. In the right hands, that is fun and mostly safe. But in the wrong hands, or if the road surface is uneven, or if the highly-stressed rear tire pops off the rim (as often happened in the deadly Corvair accidents), or if the driver is simply overwhelmed, and can’t respond quickly enough or doesn’t know how to appropriately, it’s really not that hard to flip a Corvair. The driver in the video knew exactly what to do to avoid that.
Chevrolet proved that with numerous tests it conducted on the Corvair, and this video is a ten minute compilation of the numerous hours of video like this that have been posted on Youtube. Makes for fascinating watching.
So will the Corvair kill you? Yes, if you let it.
Oh, and the last bit, about the Corvair avoiding the ball in the street while an Impala wouldn’t is of course wild conjecture. And a missed opportunity, as rear engine cars like the Corvair intrinsically have better braking balance than front engine cars, and thus would more likely have been able to come to a faster stop to avoid the ball/kid in the street.
P.S. The Monza sedan is said to be “Ralph Nader’s Corvair”, which is utterly misleading. It was donated to his museum, but since the museum already had better one, this one went into storage and was recently sold to Koehler.
P.S.S. Thanks for using our tag line “Every Car Has a Story”.
My in-depth look at the Corvair’s history of killing its occupants is here: 1960-1963 Corvair – GM’s Deadliest Sin?
Nice work, Paul; this—the CC article, not the video itself—is probably the most realistic sum-up I’ve seen of the Corvair fracas.
(Right off the bat, the video pinged my bulk wrap detector: the Corvair is the most controversial car in history? The Pinto is only the first of other contenders to come to mind. The Corvair might well have been the most controversial car up to its time, because in the relevant sense it was the first controversial car.)
Yes, determining what was the most controversial car is difficult. By what metric? Because of media hype (Pinto, Audi 5000), or?
It steers from both ends thats quite cool actually I have a little diesel Citroen that deliberately is designed to do that and literally nothing will out corner one, that corvair doesnt appear any worse than a VW beetle though those cars were rolled over in huge herds here,
Hagerty had a companion piece to this in their semi-monthly magazine. I’ve scoured their site and cannot find it but I remember reading it and have a copy of it somewhere in the house.
The number of things mentioned about the Corvair in the article exceeds what is mentioned in the video, primarily Hagerty having put new tires on it prior to taking it to the airstrip. Not mind-blowing but a relevant tidbit not mentioned in the video. One can also assume radials, but I don’t remember any mention being made. It does stand counter to the bias-ply tires that would have come on these when new.
The new tires (clearly radials) were quite apparent. Did they say what the pressure they were inflated to, front and rear?
There were no radials available in the Corvair’s size in 1960 or so. Actually, back in the 60s and early 70s there was some concern about putting Michelin X steel belt radials on rear-engine cars like the VW and Porsche, because it was thought that they broke away more abruptly than bias belt tires or even fiber-belt radials. It’s one of the reasons Continental, Pirelli and Semperit radials were popular with VW and Porsche owners.
But of course French rear engine cars like the Renaults and Simca used Michelin Xs, so I’m not sure how much credence there was to that. In any case, it’s not really much of an issue in this exhibition drive, except that I suspect modern radials are less likely to pop off the rim, especially with the higher inflations that radials tend to like.
I wish I could tell you about tire pressures; I’m even curious about brand. Further scouring of both the Hagerty site and my house has yielding nothing. Curses.
About brand….the number of tire sizes that have whitewalls is pretty low. For a Corvair’s size, that number has to dwindle further.
According to the Haggerty written article. The tires were Coker bias ply repro tires. Set to the pressure recommended by Chevrolet at the time.
Bob
I was apparently wrong in my assumption about radials.
I had a 1961 Corvair Coupe that I flogged mercilessly on it’s bias ply tires and never had any problems although one had to be 100% focused when lying in the twisties and canyons in it .
Good cars IMO buy my opinion isn’t worth a hot cuppa .
-Nate
The german “copycat” of the corvair, the NSU Prinz TT, is one of most worshipped icons of german automotive history. Porsche copied it with the P 914. Audi reused the name for the Audi TT. But of course there was no Nader in Germany back then and nobody would have listened to him anyway.
Needless to say that the NSU TT behaved much worse than the Corvair not only because of the narrower track. Even the trunk had to stay open otherwise the engine would overheat. But it won some important races, all depending on the drivers skills.
Actually, the NSU behaved decidedly better than the Corvair. It’s all-aluminum engine was very light, and sat transverse between the rear wheels, but very far forward (see photo below). The Corvair’s long and heavy engine sat way out behind the rear wheels.
The result was that the NSU had significantly less percentage of its weight on the rear wheels than did the Corvair, and was more stable as a result. Of course it still had oversteer, but was not as prone to sudden snap-oversteer and jacking-up as was the Corvair. The NSU was highly praised as a superb handler, but obviously Europeans were already used to rear engine handling from the VW and other cars. Americans weren’t. That alone was a key difference.
That matches what I recall from reading in Auto Motor und Sport and other publications.
I vividly recall a stunt maneuver that a guy performed on the public road. He sped up to about 60 km/h or more (guess of course) then abruptly turned the wheel left and pulled the e-brake. The car made a 180 turn, he counter-steered and ended in the proper lane. Just an example of what it can do in the right hands.
One thing though: in traffic accidents they tended to catch fire more so than other vehicles. It had to do with the tank in the front and fuel leaking from somewhere.
Just ask the man who owned one, if you can find him. I drove two of these delightful rarities from 1975-85. Only spun mine once, on snow. It snapped around very quickly! On normal roads, it just hung in there; the 1500-lb curb weight seemed to skirt the laws of momentum.
I had skinny Michelin Xs that gave up their grip gradually. The rear suspension was more complex, with separate coil and shock. The rear axle had a second rubber CV joint at the hub, so the camber could remain more correct. My yellow Bilsteins kept everything level. Driving the boxy NSU sedan fast felt like racing a pool table.
The owners manual pointed out how the 150-lb engine was counterbalanced by the average driver. That engine was transverse, just behind the seat, with most of its bulk above or ahead of the rear axle. I joked that it was my “mid-engined sedan.” And the steering? It pains me now to recall how quick and linear it felt. Tracked like an arrow, with strong self-centering from the kingpin front end.
As fate would have it, I once gave Mr. Nader a ride across town from one Lefty outfit to another. I should have taken a picture! I told him I’d read his book “Small on Safety,” spelling out the dozen fatal flaws of the VW Beetle, and found the NSU superior on all counts. He’d lost interest the moment I told him how rare they were in the USA.
Right, these didn’t have swing axles, so that too added to their excellent handling.
If you ever see one of these NSUs in decent condition, do yourself a favor and buy it. You can thank me later. I’m sad that I let mine go to rust, for the want of spare parts. Now I can go online and buy every NSU replacement part except for a body!
When I lived in Memphis there was a former foreign car repair shop that had several NSU sedans sitting behind the fence that enclosed the property. I lived in Memphis for 22 years and never saw any cars at that shop move/change position, can’t even say for sure if that shop was ever open or just sort of abandoned.
Aside from the NSUs, there were a couple of air cooled VWs, and a smattering of vintage British cars. They were all still there 7 years ago when I finally left.
And they are still racing them today. Great footage here:
Thanks, best cockpit footage I’ve seen! Mine weren’t so fast, but they sounded just like that!
You are very welcome. You will find more under “Kampf der Zwerge”
I’m happy to have spent a little time with this one. I didn’t take note of the column’s writer, but dutifully read opening sentences, watched Hagerty video, came back to CC, detoured to FoMoCo handling comparison with Falcon, and finished essay and then started reading comments—only then noticing that it was Paul’s own writing rather than another contributor’s.
The Hagerty video annoyed me for several reasons:
a) the damn music boiling up during any pause in the narration, which I wish I would filter out somehow–but if I shut it off, I don’t know when I’ll next miss some actual narration…
b) Like Daniel Stern, I heard “most controversial car in history,” and thought immediately of several worthy vehicles.
c) One or both of the GM engineers was treated to the “what he was trying to say” (or “what they were trying to say”) routine, which further ticked me off. Did he perhaps “seem to say” it? “Said, indirectly,”? “said–in so many words”? It really bugs me when those who chronicle something feel they have to **characterize** what was said rather than just back off and ___report__ what was said (helpful/unbiased context is often welcome; cherry-picking bits of quotes not so)…..grrrrrr
d) Filmmaker felt he had to have footage matching up to everything he said; I wish he’d have pointed out that the rollover was from GM’s own promotion film (“The Corvair in Action,” about 5:25), the corporation publicly standing behind its integrity in (that kind of) a rollover. Sheesh.
e) Filmmaker’s overall self-congratulatory mode, as though there was lots and lots of *new” here.
Okay, enough from me. I’ll look in later, after I get my papers graded and I finish up class prep for tomorrow….Thanks for this one, Paul.
Here’s the thing: this is par for the course, from my experience. Video is what’s hot on the web, and gets more eyeballs and makes more money, especially with a title like that. I’ve almost never found a contemporary car video that really does it for me.
If we were smarter, and were doing it for the money, that’s what we’d do. But I just can’t bring myself to it. So we’ll always be the little guy pointing out the mistakes of the big guys.
I find I do not have the attention span for video. Any treatment of a topic that would be satisfyingly deep enough would be an interminably long video, and I certainly can read way faster than I can listen.
A full CC or AUWM post could probably rival an hour-long documentary on PBS in terms of length and content.
George, I recommend occasionally using the subtitles/closed captioning button at Youtube when you’d rather read what is being said in a video. It’s not perfect in grammar, punctuation, or exact accuracy to what’s being spoken. It does allow you to avoid music video style editing, when you’d rather have less distraction and more emphasis on the quality of the spoken content. You can additionally turn off the audio.
Or just listen to the audio, with your browser window minimized, while you do other tasks.
Whether Nader’s criticism of the Corvair was warranted or not, I will always appreciate what he did to shed light on inadequate attention to automotive safety.
My question is why did VW get a pass?
VW did not get a pass, Nader slammed it too. Not sure if that was also in “Unsafe at Any Speed” or in another book. And for fun, search for videos of people attempting to run Beetles on the Nurburgring, with disturbing results especially given how often the Beetle doors pop open.
Truth. In fact, all rear-engined cars got slammed by Nader but the Corvair made the headlines because of GM and some high-profile crashes, particularly comedian Ernie Kovacs.
Younger folks may not be aware of him but he was kind of the Louis CK of his time minus the behind-the-scenes crap. An innovative comedian, particularly in the use of video. Regardless, he got killed in a Corvair.
I believe two factors undermined the Corvair over and above Nader. One, the Mustang and two, the fact that EVERYONE was moving away from the rear-engine configuration by the early 1970’s. By mid-decade, what was left? VW had gone front-drive with the Golf, Renault did so with the 5 and was there long before with the 4, 12 and 16, NSU had even done so with the Ro80. Sure, the Beetle remained in production but no new rear-engine designs were coming out from anyone, save for the VW Vanagon. So GM saw the writing on the wall. By 1980, the only rear-engine cars available in the US were the Porsche 911 and the Vanagon.
One car forgotten by this stateside bunch was the Hillman Imp. The polar opposite of the Mini, it relied on a super-lightweight Coventry Climax engine in the back, resulting in another superb-handling car with performance superior to other cars in its class. Unfortunately it was let down by outside factors, such as the British government pushing a factory in Scotland nowhere near Rootes’ home base, the insolvency of the Rootes Group and then Chrysler behind it, typical 1970’s British labor issues, etc.
But even then, rear-engined cars were done.
Note the picture of the Imp with the engine compartment open and the rear window raised. More practical than the Mini, which only had a tiny trunk, but nowhere near as usable as a Renault 4, which was essentially a mini-minivan with its expansive hatchback. Even on the VW Transporters and Corvair vans, the engine got in the way of rear access.
Good question. This observation has been raised repeatedly with respect to Nader’s book. The Beetle and the Microbus had plenty of safety shortcomings compared with other cars, beyond unpredictable handling, including poor crash performance, inadequate power, poor heat and ventilation and windows that would pop out in a crash.
Nader’s book was as much a political, social and economic manifesto as anything. The actual engineering analysis was secondary to starting the consumerist movement by taking shots at the worlds largest consumer product manufacturer. VW wasn’t a juicy target despite their hazardous cars. It was much smaller and firmly entrenched as an anti establishment icon to be an effective target.
Nader corrected this oversight in 1972 with his book “Small on Safety, The Designed-In Dangers of the Volkswagen, where he states the Beele and the Microbus were the most dangerous vehicles sold in significant numbers in the US. This suggests they were more dangerous than the Corvair.
primarily because he wanted specifically to focus initially on the American car makers. His first book, “Unsafe At Any Speed”, is targeted directly at their practices, because they were more familiar and accessible. But as said by other commenters, he laid into VW later.
Keep in mind that the Corvair had significantly more of its weight on the rear tires than the VW, due to its heavy and long six cylinder engine.
Why do you think VW also started making changes to its rear suspension for its US-bound cars within a few years. Wider track in ’67, and full IRS starting in ’68 with the Auto-Stick, and then all beetles in ’69. The European Beetles didn’t get these until some years later.
His Center for Auto Safety published “Small on Safety” in 1972. I still recall some of the chapters, each outlining a fatal defect, such as the jack that was positioned to pierce the fuel tank in a front-end impact. There were the seat brackets that would fail in rear-enders; I actually saw a man half ejected through the rear window from a Beetle that spun out and hit an obstruction going backwards!
A good read. I found it interesting in the FoMoCo handling comparison with Falcon vs Corvair there is a VW Microbus prominently in the film.
Were radials being made for passenger cars in 1960 ? I can’t recall.
Front/rear tire pressures for the Falcon and the Corvair are called out in the Ford comparison video: 24/24 for the Falcon, 15/26 for the Corvair. I’m surprised they’re that low; the 13″ tires on my Civic are meant to be inflated to 32 PSI, and I add a couple of pounds to that . . .
In a Corvair video the car is shown being rolled a couple more times, after the original 360. The car is bent, and seemingly twisted; could any subsequent test be an accurate assessment of the suspension geometry of the car ?
from the pedia of wiki: “The first radial tire designs were patented in 1915 by Arthur W. Savage, a tire manufacturer (1915–1919), and inventor in San Diego, CA.[3][4] Savage’s patents expired in 1949.
Michelin in France designed, developed, patented, and commercialized the radial tire.[5] There is no evidence that Michelin had knowledge of Arthur Savage’s earlier work. The first Michelin X radial tire for cars was developed in 1946 by Michelin researcher Marius Mignol.[5] Michelin owned the leading automaker Citroën, so it was quickly able to introduce its new design, including on the new 1948 Citroën 2CV model.[6] In 1952, Michelin developed a radial truck tire.[7]”
My dad put Michelin radials on his Camaro in 1969, after the OEM Firestone Red Stripe poly tires ran out of tread at 8,000 miles. As far as I know radials were very rare to non existent in the U.S. market at the time. I don’t believe that there were any other radial tires on the American market at the time, although I certainly can’t say for sure. I also have no idea about the tire sizes Michelin had available but I imagine most sizes were aimed at European cars since that’s where the market was.
Anyhow, I don’t believe that the average American even knew radial tires existed before 1969-1970. Certainly we got constant comments from people who thought our tires all under-inflated because they were comparing the rounded radial sidewalls to the ‘normal’ bias-ply tires which they were used to seeing. It was pointless to explain they were radial tires as no one knew what we were talking about, so we just thanked them and said we’d get air.
I also remember that the Michelin’s were pretty expensive but since they lasted 26,000 miles, my dad was pleased.
So, I doubt if many, if any Corvair owners ever put radials tires on their cars.
I have to say, I don’t remember ever riding in a Corvair; I grew up in Western Pennsylvania, and as I recall they were pretty scarce on the ground there.
Sears started selling Michelin X radials with their own name on them in 1966. This was a big deal, as Michelin had to tool up to make them in the popular American sizes for Sears. But that’s what gave Michelin a foothold in the US, and it reinforced Sears’ image as selling superior products. But they were pricey tires back then.
Also, GM began offering radial tires as optional equipment on some models in MY1967. They weren’t super-common at that point, but something available as an RPO on a new Firebird wasn’t THAT obscure.
Ford began mentioning radials in it’s brochures starting in 1968. However, it’s unclear whether this was actually implemented.
The Continental MK-III had Michelins standard in 1970, optional on T-Birds. Ironically, the next FoMoCo product to get them was the ’72 Maverick-Comet LDO. By ’73 they optional across the board.
AUWM & roger: do you guys know who made these early radials for GM and Ford? I seem to remember Michelins on the Lincolns. But I wonder about the ones for GM, and if they were steel belt or fabric belt.
Re GM-I have no idea. I know that B.F. Goodrich was an early US maker of radials, in fact may have been the first.
My parent’s ’72 Comet LDO 4dr had a set of B.F Goodrich radials, called the RS. Quite an aggressive blocky tread for the day, and were upsized from what the brochure called for (ER70-14 vs the advertised DR78-14). I attributed this to being a V8, PS & AC, but a neighbors
non-AC ’73 also had the bigger ones.
My family’s first car with radials from the factory was a 76 Cutlass with Uniroyal Steelers on it.
I seem to recall that Henry Ford II had some caustic remarks about Michelin tires not being American…something along the lines of not wanting “Frog” tires on Ford vehicles. Can’t recall where I saw reference, unfortunately.
My father’s 70 Mark III had Michelin X radials. I noticed them because I had never heard of either Michelin or radials before then. My father became a die-hard Michelin guy from that point on.
I am also a Michelin fan. My rule is Michelin for summer, Nokian for winter.
A bit later, but in 1975 we upgraded our new Pinto to Ford-supplied Michelin radials at the dealership, because my father’s ’70 Peugeot came with them and was still rolling on the original set at 70,000+ miles.
Rootes Group built the Hillman Imp with a rear engine that weighed in at 220lb for the entire transmission. By using trailing arms at the rear and swing axles in front along with a 15psi tyre pressure difference the understeer was controlled. Later models with radial tyres and a reduce inclination were even better handling. They may not have had the outright power on straight roads but on twisting sections they could outdo the Mini Coopers of the day. To get the best out of the design a few lessons in driving helped and you were safe at any speed. I have had a couple for 50 years with no regrets.
Drivers who got into trouble with this car didn’t have the skills that this video narrator has, and expected this car to behave as had all the front-engine/rear-drive cars they’d driven before. Big mistake! Also, as mentioned above the Corvair had much different tire pressure settings that most people were unaware of – 15psi in front and 26psi in the rear, and not keeping strictly to these settings was disastrous.
I believe it was a combination of an arrogant GM, isolated engineers and a sales network that failed to communicate to the average buyer just how to drive these cars, plus an ignorant buying public that just wasn’t educated on how to safely drive these vehicles. Enough blame all around.
Nader was quite the opportunist, but his book did spur the auto safety movement. From virtually no safety regs in 1960 to what we have today. Unfortunately the overabundance of safety features has made many drivers themselves unsafe; hey, I don’t have to pay attention to the road since the vehicle will do that for me, right?
Nader was quite the opportunist,
To get rich? Obviously not. Seriously, can some folks just not get the idea that there are people out there who see serious flaws in the world and want to change them?
Sure, his ego was inflated by his success. But he’s human too, and almost anyone’s ego would have been too. So do we judge him on his ego or what he actually accomplished in affecting huge changes in our world?
Paul Niedermeyer wrote:
“Seriously, can some folks just not get
the idea that there are people out there
who see serious flaws in the world and
want to change them?”
Paul, witness the battle I’m(RidingOnRailz) having here with two members of the administration of ‘Automotive Forums’ – one of the original all-in-one motor vehicle repair, design, modeling, and engineering forums:
Read through the last dozen or so comments in this thread about drafting and design, where the conversation segues over to who is at fault when a vehicle malfuntions or fails:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1158670
According to those two, the driver of said malfunctioning(or exploding) car is always at fault. Even the driver of the infamous Ford Pinto, AND… the driver who rear-ended the Pinto in those fire cases!
It was my understanding that beyond the overzealous cost-cutting that deleted the sway bar or a camber compensating spring, that GM recommended unusual tire pressures vs other cars on American roads, and much lower in the front than the rear. This was done to improve the ride quality, but resulted in drivers filling their tires to more conventional pressures, which exacerbated the inherent handling problems.
The 15 lbs front/ 26lbs rear tire pressures had nothing to do with ride comfort and everything to do with mitigating the Corvair’s oversteer. A lower front tire pressure means increased tendency towards understeer, as they can maintain less contact with the road. And a higher rear pressure does the opposite. This was Chevrolet’s solution to the problem, and one that was typically ignored.
Funny how that goes, as that was Porsche’s standard practice too. Why do so many people pan the Corvair, for doing exactly what Porsche did without criticism?
Because the Porche was bought by driver-oriented people who knew better, and the Corvair was a mass-market American car for everyone. A completely different market and one that needed to be educated about the pecularities of the Corvair’s handling. You think the young mother next door who just bought one would have the same driving skills as a middle-aged male driving enthusiast who had a Porche?
GM failed at educating their customer base and that’s a deadly sin, not to mention the cost-cutting problems with the car itself.
The Porsche buyer was undoubtedly an enthusiast while the Corvair buyer was probably not, at least for the earlier less sporty models. Imagine a modern Corolla buyer having to do the same.
Porsche was criticized, but only when the later 356’s came out with better geometries and so on. All the tests say the earlier ones were “for experts.”
Lgbpop – from what I can see, Porsche only had a few psi difference front to rear (as in about 3psi), nothing like the Corvair’s.
Another point to consider is that most people didn’t even think about their tire pressures in those days as they didn’t actually put air in their tires themselves. Gas stations did it as a normal routine part of their service when you bought gasoline, along with checking your oil, washing your windows and emptying your ashtrays. So, essentially you were at the mercy of some teenage kid, who would be shocked to discover that you let both your fromt tires get down to 15 pounds of pressure. For sure, he’d fill them up to 26 and tell you that “your fronts were a little low but I took care of it.”
In a way, GM had brought that on themselves by putting out too standardized a product for too long…
Hagerty is asking a question that they will regret asking. Almost any vintage car will kill you, if not from treacherous handling, then through poor brakes and zero passenger protection. If you are really concerned about your safety while driving a vintage car, you should just avoid driving one. No vintage car can match a modern crumple zone, air bagged, abs, and seat belt equipped modern car. I rode a motorcycle for thirty five years so I can accept a certain level of hazard, other folks might not be so comfortable. That said some cars were much worse than others. Remember that video of the ’59 Chevy Impala versus the modern Impala? The rearward and upward displacement of the steering column was frightening to see!
I wholeheartedly agree. If a person’s enjoyment of driving an old car is mitigated by a fear of something ‘happening’ while driving it then said driver should find a late-model vehicle to motor around in.
Honestly, I feel like the vitriol aimed at the Corvair was a combination of Nader being an opportunist snake, and the public still being highly adverse to things that were “different” back then. Yeah, it wasn’t a great car, but American Manufacturers should know better! To foist this weird abstract compact on we US citizens was clearly a sin too far, especially from the dealers of Chevrolet, of all people! Yet, if you drive any car like a dumbass you will likely hurt yourself; this is not exclusive to the Corvair. But it was the 60’s… People were still very proud to be Distinctly American, were alright to be angered, and still weren’t comfortable with change… Not hard to see why and how this went down.
“Honestly, I feel like the vitriol aimed at the Corvair was a combination of Nader being an opportunist snake”
Really?? We are talking about Ralph Nader, right? The guy who has spent his life living life a monk and crusading for things to help ordinary people is an opportunistic snake?? Nader walks his talk, full respect for that.
“and the public still being highly adverse to things that were “different” back then.”
I totally disagree with your analysis of American culture in that time, see the giant VW sales for a simple refuting of your thesis that Americans were too narrow minded for the something different like the Corvair. Detroit was running scared from sales lost to foreign makes, hence the copy of the VW Bug with the Corvair, the downsized cars, the compacts, the small vans copying the Microbus, etc. The Corvair failed because Americans knew it was not good, simple as that.
Fair enough. My problem with Nader stems from him going after the big fish to fry (Chevrolet) and ignoring the other issues in the pond (VW) at the time. Once he got the big one, the little fish weren’t beneath him any longer. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to be frank. I’m probably being too harsh regarding this, when you point it out to me, however.
Regarding American tastes of the time, I wholeheartedly agree a lot of people were ready to expand their horizons and try new things. The Corvair seemed to be the target because it was different, yet still American. I likely didn’t make that point very well in my initial post. “Those eccentric foreigners can be eccentric all they want, but not Our beloved Chevrolet” type of thing.
@CGI :
You’re wrong, Nader went after the VW Beetle too ~ the chapters name was “Before the crash – the VW’s erratic dance” . he slammed both the rear swing axles and the wheel’s design for not having a rib to help prevent tires from popping off if you slid it into a curb .
I loved and miss my 1961 base model Corvair Coupe .
-Nate
I haven’t read Unsafe At Any Speed, but does anyone know if Nader mentioned VW’s The Thing? VW should have finished off the name, and made it “The Thing That Will Kill You”. I don’t even need any crash data to look at it and realize that it’s a terrible idea on a variety of levels.
The Corvair was not the only GM car with odd tire pressures. I had a 1972 Chevy Townsman wagon with the clamshell tailgate. Its L78-15 tires called for 22 in front, 32 in the rear. That was a tail-heavy beast. Unstoppable in snow but hotter than hell in summer with dark green paint, vinyl seats, and no A/C.
“What rules?!? Did the Corvair come with rules? Where? I never saw any in the owner’s manual of my ’62 Monza.”
You didn’t read the owner’s manual, then, because it was spelled out in black and white…rear tires to be inflated to 32-35psi, front tires to 14-18psi. PERIOD. The biggest cause of squirrelly handling under certain conditions with the 1960-64 Corvairs was because unthinking owners or careless service-station attendants insisted on inflating the front tires to twice the maximum pressure, which added to their admittedly-different handling characteristics. One can’t blame the “extra-heavy” Corvair engine, either; the Porsche 911 had an engine of similar size and weight yet managed to minimize the few problems endemic to the Corvair. It didn’t help that GM’s bean-counters wouldn’t put Euro-type radials on the car, nor sway bars or anything else to make the car handle like a sports car – but it wasn’t a sports car! It was meant to be a daily hauler for the family. Cole’s dream of mass-produced rear-engined family cars was doomed because of the inherent drawbacks of the rear engine/rear drive layout. Had he put that much thought into perfecting the FWD layout, he’d have created a car to compete with the Austin Mini and beaten the VW Rabbit to market by ten years.
I’ve owned eleven Corvairs, both generations and all passenger-car versions, and I’m not dead yet after 45 years of driving them. All one had to do was to read the owner’s manual thoroughly.
That’s just it though; Americans are intrinsically smart, until they aren’t, and will blame anything other than themself when things go wrong.
(Major eye roll)
I see a storm coming in this thread between lawyers for the enthusiasts and those for the average schlub, and I will have to side with the latter. Someone who got his first Corvair in 1972 is hardly in the same category as the average buyer of 1960. The person had 12 years of empirical knowledge from which to draw safety warnings and responses. Cars aren’t guns. They are assumed to be safe within the parameters imposed by commonly understood information. There are limits to the amount of special knowledge the original buyer of a commodity that is expected to be safe should be held responsible for learning. An enthusiast will likely be too knowledgeable to have sufficient empathy for the ignorant buyer of 1960, but GM shouldn’t have been. And what of the second owner of a Corvair, who might not get the owner’s manual with the car? What of the kid at the service station who has been told that all cars get the same air pressure? There are too many places that things can go wrong in this scenario. The product was known to need special instructions before it was introduced, DeLorean passed on it. Why didn’t Chevrolet put a warning on the dash, where all could see it, and it could not be ignored? The answer is self-evident, and it’s not pretty for GM. The former engineers interviewed in the video hold the last remnants of the cynical, pompous (may I include “patriarchal”?) attitude of the management of most of GM at the time the Corvair was introduced, and show it still persists to this day.
That’s a fair argument, to a point. Again, if you drive within the limits of the law, you weren’t in any real danger 95% of the time. To be fair, any 12 year old used heap then likely had other intrinsically dangerous traits unseen, until they reared their ugly head under the right circumstances. That’s the dice you roll when you buy used (or other people’s problems).
Don’t want to deal with eccentric tendencies? Don’t buy an eccentric product. That’s how I feel regarding the Corvair.
The thing is that when the Corvair originally debuted, Chevrolet gave buyers no particular reason to assume it was eccentric — that it was different was obvious, but the average buyer isn’t an engineer.
The early Corvair brochure declares, “Handling is crisp, more uniform, because the Corvair keeps its excellent weight distribution regardless of the load. … Cornering is positive, precise.” (Emphasis in original.) And the first Monza brochure declares, “In test after test, the Corvair has proved conclusively that it is the finest handling, most roadable car in its class … the Corvair clings to the roughest road … corner as tight, level and steady as a sports car.” Obviously, no one looks to brochures for nuanced discussions of a car’s virtues, but that’s a description notably short of caveats.
“Cornering is positive, precise.”
Thing is, the Corvair pulled more lateral Gs than same-year Falcons, Valiants, and Chevy IIs. As I recall the Dauphine had quite a bit more rear weight bias than the Corvair, what with its water-cooled cast iron engine hanging behind a swing axle.
The front engined domestic econoboxes of the era were attrocious handling cars too; they just understeered instead of oversteered. Plow right out of a corner if pushed too hard.
+1
You didn’t read the owner’s manual, then, because it was spelled out in black and white…rear tires to be inflated to 32-35psi, front tires to 14-18psi. PERIOD.
You obviously didn’t either, as those are not the recommended inflation pressures, which were 15/26. PERIOD. (18/28 when hot, which is effectively the same pressure).
I can assure you that the Corvair’s issues with snap oversteer (leading to flipping) were very much a reality even with correct tire pressure. Sure, having the wrong pressure made it worse, but having the right pressure didn’t solve the problem, by a long shot.
The Porsche 911, whose engine weighed considerably less, didn’t have swing axles; it had a proper IRS as did the 1965+ Corvairs, which almost completely mitigated the early Corvair’s issues with snap oversteer.
Almost nobody had radials on their cars in 1960-1964, including Porsche or Mercedes. Only the French.
So what did you read about the Corvair’s handling and trickiness at the limit in the Owner’s Manual? I’d like to know.
The problem with tire pressure is that it changes with the ambient temperature, so to comply with the recommended pressure exactly, one would have to adjust the pressure every time the car is driven. What I see is that there needed to be a 10-12 PSI difference between the front and rear tires.
Your statement makes no sense to me. You either do them cold or hot; the pressure once the tires warm up is then always close to the hot pressure. There’s no need to keep adjusting them with ambient temps. The slight fluctuations from ambient temps are not significant enough to make a difference.
Yes, obviously there’s an 11-12 lbs difference. But that doesn’t mean any two pressures with that difference are recommended.
Ambient temperature is the temperature of the atmosphere, not the tires. If you set the tire pressure when the outdoor temperature is 75 degrees F and the temperature then drops to 20 degrees, the tire pressure will decrease about 10%.
I get it; I’m not dense. So what exactly is your point? That there’s a problem with all recommended tire pressures because they don’t specify a degree-by-degree of ambient air recommended tire pressure? I don’t see the relevancy to the Corvair specifically.
My understanding of the recommended cold inflation pressure is that it is the minimum pressure, not the maximum cold inflation pressure. So, when adjusting your tire pressure, one should consider the expected low temperature that could be expected in the near future, and then perhaps add a couple of pounds to the recommended cold inflation pressure.
The impression I get from the posts here regarding the tire pressure is that everyone seems focused on the exact pressure recommendations. I think putting a bit more pressure in the rear tires would not have been a bad thing. What I remember about bias ply tires is that the normal pressures were around 25 PSI. However I do not know what the maximum recommended pressures might have been, only that probably not much more than 30 PSI would be a close guess.
The critical thing was the difference between the front and rear tire pressure settings. A ten PSI difference seems excessive to me and suggests that there are serious design problems. I have never driven a Corvair so I don’t know how serious the problem is.
The one thing I know about tire pressure on todays cars is that when I have my cars oil changed at the dealer, they rotate the tires and then reset the pressure to the cold inflation pressure. In the dead of winter the service bay is warm (60-70 degrees) and the car was driven more than 10 miles to get there and goes right inside. So when I get it home and it cools off overnight the tire pressure is below the recommended cold inflation pressure inside my garage, never mind that it is much colder outside. I did scold them on this but unfortunately thermodynamics is a bit beyond most people understanding.
HUGE amount of hate for Nader in my circles when I was growing up, everyone loathed him. Blamed him for ruining cars, “stupid airbags”, etc.
I read his book when I was in late high school, Unsafe, and also his follow-up on VW and thought, “yep”.
We’d all seen the results of getting into any sort of accident. My own mom was pretty seriously hurt in our ’66 F100 in what today would be a minor fender bender where she’d a been fine. The death toll on the roads of the past speaks for itself.
And while I love love aircooled VW they are totally and completely unsafe at any speed. Driving one is akin to riding a motorcycle, and that’s how I think of it, any accident at all and you are in for it.
Saw a horrific accident on HWY 99 just a few years ago, at 70+ one car clipped another right in front of me, spun into the guardrail, the other shoved over into the front of a semi who dragged it, and I lucked out and didn’t get a scratch. What amazed me was how the drivers of both cars popped open their doors and got out walking right after coming to a stop! New cars. That would have been dead bodies 50 years ago.
A couple of my friends will still curse when you mention Nader. What’s amusing is the youngs I know don’t even really know who he is, what he did, and are amazed that we once drove cars without any real safety equipment or design.
The Corvairs understeer-promoting tyre pressures were part of the danger. At 26psi, with even two passengers, a GM tyre engineer admitted that the rear weight bias of the Corvair meant the tyres were underinflated and overstressed. It just increased the likelihood of the tyre uncurling from the rim if oversteer and tuck-under began.
The “animated cult of auto-lovers” as Nader fondly describes the magazines, all liked the Corvair as something different, and all picked up on the faults of the handling but as they were “run on a shoestring” there was an unwritten rule that they didn’t over-criticize the manufacturers; though when the new Corvair arrived in ’65, Car And Driver actually described the 1st Corvair as “one of the nastiest-handling cars ever built.”! (A sidenote, he doesn’t seem to include such mags or race-divers as part of the problem or cover-up, as he sees them as writing for the devotees).
More than any other factor, the use of the swing-axle and positive camber was the fundamental problem, a problem GM engineers knew of as early as ’53, but ignored for cost reasons.
Lucky the owners here at CC never crashed theirs, btw. The car had the steering box two inches beyond the front tyre, so just a panel and a bit of chrome between it and even a mild LHF impact. Steering mechanisms were the biggest killers of the day in accidents, and Corvairs the worst.
Nader forced changes on a very powerful industry, changes that have now saved literally millions of lives. Maybe he was a zealot (though the book certainly doesn’t read hysterically at all), maybe he was an egotist, hell, maybe he got famous and even rich from it, I don’t care. He deserves secular sainthood.
I love the Corvair, the looks, the flat-six, the sheer difference of the thing, but it isn’t safe. The video is crap, but the handling shots are good and show exactly why the swing axle was such a poor choice for an everyman car.
[I’ve accidentally posted this as a reply to Heath, which I can’t work out how to undo – apologies sir, though I agree with you entirely here!]
I watched the Hagarty piece and I noted that it didn’t mention anything about tire pressures. From what I understand, gas jockeys would not heed the inflation guidelines and just pump all the tires up to 32 psi. This is where many of the problems arose, as well as GM trying to cut costs on a car that was way over budget.
The Corvair was DOA. The proof of this is the Chevy II, which was only two years later. It was a more popular car in every way, and the typical North American drivers is going to like Stovebolt and Powerglide over Unipack. It is just too weird for America, and weird doesn’t sell there.
The Beetle was pretty weird by ’60s American standards and they sold gazillions of them.
The Corvair actually sold well once the Monza version was rolled out halfway through the 1960 model year. It was not a failure. And, unlike the Falcon, the Corvair didn’t steal sales from the lower level versions of its full-size brother.
The Corvair sold reasonably well in 1960 (250k). Actually, the number of Monzas sold in 1960 was still quite low; they were pretty rare, probably constrained by production which had not been planned to be high. The Monza was an unexpected hit.
But it’s true that Ed Cole decided to build the Chevy II two months after the Corvair’s debut, because the Falcon was outselling it 2:1.
And you’re quite right about the Corvair not cannibalizing sales of the big Chevy, like the Falcon (and Valiant) did. The Corvair brought in lots of former import buyers.
Hi Paul Niedermeyer,
You wrote, “But it’s true that Ed Cole decided to build the Chevy II two months after the Corvair’s debut…” I realize that Chevrolet did, in fact, decide to build the Chevy II very quickly after the Corvair’s debut, but I have never seen that decision attributed to Ed Cole.
Although I’m a Corvair enthusiast, I’m always a bit baffled that Ed Cole rose to the top of GM, given his association with the Corvair, Vega and the aborted Wankel project. If not for Cole, Chevrolet would have skipped the Corvair and gone directly to the Chevy II as its primary entry in the compact car market. And Chevrolet would have been better off for it.
Here, we’ve been talking about the Corvair safety debate. GM could have saved itself a lot of legal headaches if it had never produced the Corvair. But there is the financial aspect as well. The Chevy II power train – especially the 4-cylinder Chevy II power train – must have been much cheaper to manufacture than the complex Corvair Uni-Pack, with its semi-trailing arm swing axles, six cylinder barrels, twin cylinder heads, twin carbs, twin exhaust manifolds, twin chokes, etc.
I’ve worked on Corvair engines, and while I find them fascinating, they have too many parts! I can’t imagine that Chevrolet made any money on Corvairs.
Good points. Though I’m not privy to GM’s finances at the time, I can fairly certainly ask not “did GM lose money”, but rather “just how much money was it that they had lost?”. For some reason, the whole badge engineering thing (which had existed to some extent, ie: Falcon/ Comet, etc) very well could have grown in popularity because it wasn’t just about making cars cheaper and more easy to produce, but doubly justified by every automaker in the following years, so as to prevent another Corvair type situation. I’m not as familiar with the engine mechanicals as others may be, but when you factor in the turbocharged versions of the Corvair, I can’t imagine what the bills would look like for the average Corvair owner.
The Corvair made a profit. GM would not have built it otherwise; it wasn’t like the 80s and 90s when they built small cars at a loss to meet CAFE regs. Back then, every product had to show a healthy profit margin, which of course fluctuated based on actual sales. Although the Corvair probably didn’t quite meet its sales targets, it should still have been profitable. And they wouldn’t have invested in the gen2 if it hadn’t been.
Having said that, there was a heavy investment involved, most of all in a new facility to make so many aluminum castings. It’s because of that investment that the Vega got an aluminum block, to keep it being used and amortize it.
The reason the Corvair arrived so stripped in 1960, including no $4 sway bar was specifically because its costs were running higher than expected, so there was to be some stringent last-minute cost cutting. The Corvair (pre-Monza) was much more stripped than the Falcon and Valiant.
CC Effect. Just spotted on E-Bay.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1960-1963-1965-1967-Chevrolet-I-Love-My-Corvair-Factory-Bumper-Sticker-wy8367/292344061091?hash=item4411105ca3:g:3ewAAOSwYeRaGEQb
When the Corvair was introduced in 1960, Americans were used to driving front engined rear drive cars that were nose-heavy; the Corvair handled differently and GM management made no effort to inform the public that its handling characteristics were different. I assume GM management felt that if they stated that fact people would have been scared away from it, so they said nothing. The Corvair engine was aluminum, it had durability issues and it required cast iron cylinder liners which increased the engine weight by about 100 pounds. According to Brock Yate’s book “The Decline and Fall of The American Automobile Industry” management would not authorize production unless the profit rate of the Corvair was the same their full-size cars. To address that issue, the Corvair used smaller tires and wheels than originally planned and the rear anti-sway bar was deleted. To compensate for that the change in tire pressures was made and this made it very easy to overload the front tires. Who’s at fault? I have to blame GM management for pushing for profits even if it compromised the Corvair’s handling.
Thanks for this, very interesting watch over the weekend. I too felt the buildup at the beginning sounded a little off. I don’t think GM was applying it’s might to proactively be different, they were reacting to a threat.
Watching the slalom test I assumed the tires were radials as well. If they were repro Cokers I wonder if they were the same size as stock, they look more like 70 series than 6.5 X 13’s. And boy that rear tire looks close to pulling off the rim.
I kind of expected better from Hagerty.
Finally the Corvair vs Falcom skidpad test was kind of sad. I’ve never driven either a Falcon or a Corvair, but I assume the Falcon isn’t the greatest handling car in the world and the poor Corvair has it’s tail hanging out trying to keep up, and exiting the skidpad in various orientations as the Falcon just plows around and around.
That roundabout video is a hoot; it tells the viewer very little, considering that the Corvair driver seems to be doing his best to make every lap different from the last — thus supposedly demonstrating unpredictable handling characteristics ? — and generally not trying at all to make a creditable job of it. The single overshoot seems to have been selected at a random point in the proceedings; the other off-road excursions look more like a collective demonstration of (intentional) ineptitude than anything else.
In addition to snap oversteer some Corvairs leaked carbon monoxide into the heater boxes and on to the passenger compartment. I had a 64 that would leak oil into the heater boxes overnight. On my way to work I knew exactly where to open the windows just before the oil would begin to burn off sending a cloud into the cabin
VWs had the same engine cooling air scheme to heat the cabin. Terrible design, which is why VW changed to heater boxes in later air cooled cars.
The “blame the public” excuse for eccentric road-holding contradicts everything the car industry had been doing to make cars, especially mainstream models, more accessible for laymen. While drivers ought to read their Owner’s Manual and should be liable for negligence thereof, such as in maintenance and load limits, roadholding boundary conditions are an issue too complex to describe in that medium; better to design-in sluggish handling than allow surprises at extremes.
There is a pertinent concept in software (too often disregarded) called “The Principle of Least Astonishment”: If a necessary feature has a high astonishment factor, it may be necessary to redesign the feature
“The Principle of Least Astonishment”
I have not heard this before but this is probably the best short explanation of the Corvair’s design issues. In a legal context (product liability) the issue is always is it a design problem or a user problem. If there are too many user problems, that tends to mean it is really a design problem.
I’ve heard the principle described as “Don’t make me think”.
Agree that Chevy II would have been better in 1960. But then the “Euro purists” complain that GM wasn’t “innovative enough” after the Vair and ’61 senior compacts.
But, “innovative” rope drive, aluminum V8’s and early turbos were not ready for prime time, and many customers were left with huge repair bills or worse. Buyers don’t have time and $$ to put up with untested “innovations”. Ed Cole seemed to want to one up VW and please the ‘purists’.
IMHO, GM’s ‘deadliest sin’ is Vega, but the unfinished Corvair is #2. Citation, #3…
@Tom ;
Having owned Corvair and Citations, I can tell you the Citation was far, _far_ worse in every way, especially safety .
-Nate
Yes, early X cars were lemons, but GM got their money’s worth, and then some, by using same design for A body, lasting until 1996.
Corvair not lasting as long.
I was *so* disappointed ! my Alaska Yellow Citation four door coulda been a contender ! .
It looks right, rode nice and had comfy seats ~ the AC was terrific too .
Then I was on a freeway ‘sweeper’ curve doing 60 when the traffic ahead began to slow so I tapped the brakes and the car tried really hard to spin .
I’m sure everyone nearby thought my ex wife’s shrieks were a police siren .
I discovered there had been a brake recall no one told me about .
Then the steering rack died, then…….
Oh, well .
-Nate
“Every car has a story . . . ” I wonder where I’ve heard that before. 🙂
This video fits a modern trend of what I call “pseudo objectivity.” The narrator sounds objective. But a careful listen shows that he is really rooting for the Corvair. The only “expert” resources are pure Corvair partisans. Not that there is anything wrong with true believers who love Corvairs. But why not show both sides of the argument. Thanks to PN for adding the missing ingredient.
I found reading through this thread and all the posts quite interesting. I do try to read *carefully* as I reckon most posters on here do as well. Big thumbs ^up^ from me for all this fascinating automotive reading material.
ALSO . . .
~Question: Will The Corvair Kill You?
~Answer: Only if you ask it *nicely*! (“Please Meester Corvair would you help wipe my human countenance off the planet?”)
In reference to Ernie Kovacs I thought what happened was he left a party in early 1962 and was a little bit inebriated and skidded and crashed into a telephone pole. I’m not saying Mr. Kovacs was stone drunk out of his mind when he left the gathering, but apparently he was tipsy ~ enough ~ to get into the single-car (his) accident. I don’t blame the Corvair for that and I don’t know if Ralph Nader did — I didn’t read “Unsafe At Any Speed” so I have no idea.
Heh heh, I saw this video in my recommended videos on YouTube, as well. There’s nothing that I cannot add here that hasn’t already been said, but I will take time to re-state the obvious…….what a sexy, unique car. Even in well worn condition, my eyes pretty much just cannot look away from it. I’ll never tire of looking at the lines on these things.
+1 on the looks — especially in 4-door sedan form, like this one. The 2nd generation is also a beautiful car, which isn’t always the case. I’d have a hard time picking a favourite between the two on esthetic grounds.
Agreed on the four door thing. Something about the four door versions still looks great……it’s got sporty looks and it’s something different than the run of the mill cars out there (both then and now). These wheel covers really suit the car…….I wouldn’t like the car quite as much as with the standard poverty caps.
It’s almost identical to my ’63 Monza four door. Every time I see one, I have pangs. I really bonded with it in a way one can only do with one’s first car. My first four-wheeled lover.
My first car was an inherited 63 Monza coupe: I guess being of European decent we followed rules including tire pressure recommendations to the tee. Result? THE best handling car on the market with so much grip in winter it did not need snows in the winter north ! It certainly did not kill my non car buff mother and I am still alive and so impressed by the car I flipped it for a 68 old lady Monza in 73 which was probably the best car I ever had except for the powerglide tranny that gave out twice.
I wonder what would have happened if the Corvair had been launched as a van/pickup and as a sports car first. Would the higher price point have allowed an IRS setup from the beginning? Would the van/pickup have knocked out the VW Transporter and 1st gen Econolines?
The Corvair 95 vans and pickups were sold starting in ’61. Good handlers compared to the nose-heavy Ford and Dodge forward control trucks.
So, the Corvair safety debate continues….
FYI: On Friday, July 21, 1972, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) – a branch of the federal government – issued a report on its two year investigation of the 1960-1963 Corvair. The report concludes: “The handling and stability performance of the 1960-1963 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.” See:
https://www.corvair.org/images/attachments/DOT_HS-820_198.pdf
To ensure the credibility of its findings, the results of the NHTSA investigation were then evaluated by a panel of three automotive experts (Raul Wright, Edwin Resler, and Ray Caldwell) who concluded the investigation was “adequate in scope and depth” and agreed that the Corvair “did not have a safety defect and is not more likely to roll over than contemporary automobiles.” See:
https://www.corvair.org/images/attachments/DOT_HS-800_676.pdf
Not surprisingly, Nader claimed it was all a white wash and that the feds were in GM’s pocket, even though the testing was performed by Texas A&M University.
I have driven early Corvairs and early Ford Falcons and I remember Corvairs as having more responsive steering and a more comfortable ride. I currently own a ’66 Corvair with the improved rear suspension.
Am I biased? Of course! I’m a member of the Corvair Society of America.
No it doesn’t, at least not for me.
There have been numerous allegations that this test was instigated/funded by those that had an agenda or interest in its outcome. Regardless, here’s the thing: an early Corvair can be made to act reasonably docile or flip quite readily. It’s like in this video: a knowledgeable driver can make the Corvair dance, even right up to the ragged edge, but not go there. So it’s really quite easy to show that the Corvair doesn’t have handling issues at the limit.
But put it it in the hands of an inexperienced driver in a challenging situation, and the story is quite different.
Look, even GM acknowledged that the Corvair had issues. There had been a large engineering contingent that was totally against it in the first place, including DeLorean and many others. And when Bunkie Knudsen took over as Chevrolet’s GM, he absolutely insisted that the camber-compensating spring be added as standard for 1964. And of course the suspension became a proper IRS in 1965.
Nobody, especially some paid professional drivers with possibly an agenda, can convince me that the Corvair, with its heavy engine and swing axles and no sway bar or compensating spring, was a good idea to unleash on Americans in 1960. Period.
And yes, I speak from experience, having owned a ’63 Corvair and subjected it to lots probing of its limits.
I’m glad you admit you’re biased. Maybe it was CORSA that instigated that “unbiased” test in ’72? 🙂
I think that the early Corvairs were not what they should have been, but tipping modern cars (well a pickup truck) is easy enough. Last winter, or maybe the winter before, it was icy on my way home from a checkup at Mayo, when there was 4 wheel drive pickup on its side in the median. The median was full of snow, so my guess is that they slid off the pavement and the snow flipped it on its side. It was the third vehicle off the pavement on my way home, but the only one tipped over.
Hi Paul,
I know you’re joking about CORSA, but just for the avoidance of doubt, CORSA hadn’t been established until late 1969. As of January 1970, it had only 165 members, so it could not have possibly had the resources to lobby Washington for a study on Corvair safety.
Ironically, it was Nader himself for called for the NHSTA investigation. I’m sure he expected a different result…
I too have probed the limits of Corvair handling. For over thirty years, beginning in 1973, the Northeast Corvair Council ran Corvair time trials at Lime Rock. There was a good assortment of stock and modified Corvairs, earlies and lates about 50/50. In all those years, we had very few accidents.
I drove Corvairs there in the later years and continue to run with NECC in my ’66 Corvair Monza at other tracks – most recently at NJMSP and NYST. http://www.neccmotorsports.com
Ironically, it was Nader himself for called for the NHSTA investigation.
Citations? Seriously,I’d like to know who did, because I’ve heard intimations that it was sold to NHTSA specifically for the purpose of rehabilitating the Corvair’s image.
I rather doubt it was Nader, because by 1972, he’d long moved on to bigger fish to fry. He’s made his point about the Corvair; why would he spend time and effort to have it tested in 1972. I can’t see the motive.
The Corvair saga made headlines in the late 1960s, so it would be natural for NHTSA to conduct some sort of investigation into its handling characteristics. One source I found said that Nader requested the investigation, but it did not provide a citation to support this claim.
I doubt that GM was interesting in rehabilitating the image of the car that point. It had been out of production, and sales during the final years had dropped like a rock. GM most likely wanted to forget about it. By the late 1960s, some Chevrolet dealers were reportedly refusing to accept them as trade-ins. Even some official GM histories published during the early 1970s omitted all mention of the car.
That’s interesting, and it would seem to confirm my suspicions when I was younger…….the first time that I can remember seeing a Corvair, was many years into my life. I remember being completely puzzled by what it was. I didn’t even know that any American manufacturer had even made a rear engine car until I was maybe 13, when my dad’s friend Brad had bought one and mentioned that the engine was in the back. Even now, I see them at car shows, but very rarely do I ever see them in normal traffic in summer, as a cruiser. It’s like they beam down from the UFO that they arrived from, or something, at the car shows.
For the last couple of years, someone in the used ads was trying to sell a really nice 66 or so Corvair, for something like maybe $6500, and obviously had trouble selling it. It was super nice, and if I had the money and space to store it, I would have bought it.
Long story short, I don’t doubt that GM wanted to forget all about the car, and that–despite some Corvair hardcore enthusiasts–a good portion of the buying populace wanted to forget about them, too. By the time that the Corvair had the reputation that it did, it must have been tough to defend them, because you would have been laughed at to a certain extent for driving one, until it became like the Edsel or Pacer or something…….retro cool, and where someone would get respect for driving something else other than the usual cars at the car shows. But mostly, you’d probably get blank stares from the average person, even those that may have a decent amount of car knowledge.
Hi Paul,
Nader would not let go of the Corvair debate. You asked for citations to corroborate my statement that Ralph Nader called for the NHTSA investigation. Here they are:
In a September 4, 1970 letter addressed to John Volpe, federal Secretary of Transportation, Ralph Nader implored the “federal government to become involved in the Corvair matter.”
In a December 15, 1970 letter, again addressed to Volpe, Nader wrote of certain “disclosures” which “intensify the need and justification for prompt remedial action by the Department of Transportation concerning the hazards of the 1960-63 Corvair.” The letter also included statements from two “experts” who called for handling tests to be conducted to prove Nader’s position against the Corvair.
In a February 3, 1971 letter, again addressed to John Volpe, Nader directly called for NHTSA “to conduct tests of the Corvair which would reveal…the dangerously unique and quantitatively different response of the Corvair under transient or dynamic conditions compared to other vehicles… I would urge you strongly to act as quickly as possible to conduct the tests which are necessary to provide meaningful results which can serve the public.”
Finally, in a letter dated March 17, 1971, a Nader associate named Gary Sellers went so far as to prescribe the methods and conditions for conducting the handling tests. His letter was addressed to Rodolfo Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicle Programs, NHTSA.
Copies of the letters are attached to the NHTSA study dated July 1972. They begin at page 103. You can read them here:
https://www.corvair.org/images/attachments/DOT_HS-820_198.pdf
“But put it it in the hands of an inexperienced driver in a challenging situation, and the story is quite different.”
No, it wasn’t. I bought a ’61 four door at 16-years-old, and there were fewer less experienced drivers on the road than me at the time. I had three pre-’64 Corvairs by the time I was 20. Drove drunk, stoned, and high. Never so much as spun out a Corvair. They were better handling cars than their domestic competitors by a decent margin.
Well, to a certain extent, I think that every time that there’s something drastically different about a setup, drivers do need to know how to prepare for it. I’ve primarily driven RWD cars, so I know how to handle them, but I’ve known people that have only driven FWD cars, and when they drive a RWD, they’re surprised at how crazy (and fun) that they are, and how much the back will swing out, with the torque. And here in the middle of Canada, when you’re driving in traffic in a half a foot of snow, with ice and bad conditions, you really need to be able to work with your vehicle to help avoid accidents and problems.
ANY vehicle in the hands of anyone that does not respect it and know how to drive it will be dangerous, and a driver needs to respect not only the vehicle’s strengths and weaknesses, but road conditions, as well. I can’t tell you how many idiots that I see in the ditch in winter; very often a four wheel drive vehicle or an SUV. The laws of momentum are the same, and four wheel or all wheel drive will help with traction, but if you’re going fast and not respecting icy roads, you’re a hazard not only to yourself, but everyone else.
There are some people that drive like they are invincible and do not drive defensively. I’ve known people that have almost lost their licence for driving: speeding, driving recklessly, etc, and they take the same, safe vehicle that I and everyone else drives, and turn it into something dangerous in traffic.
Unfortunately, the one thing that vehicle manufacturers cannot help with is stupidity and/ or willful negligence, no matter how many safety features that they build in. Some people will always find a way to disable those features, or drive more aggressive to compensate for it. Look at the epidemic of distracted/ cell phone driving. And those people, truly, are unsafe at any speed.
Swing axle fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Law2qYvbs
Although I think that white bug convert is an IRS. Compare the swing axle behavior to the Mercedes just plowing off the road @ 3:27.
Nader did not ever say the Corvair was a bad car as such. In fact, for non-car guy, he understood the enthusiasm of the buff books for it as something different, and something that a professional like John Fitch could get a lot out of. If the car was only available to be sold to enthusiasts (people like CC readers), he’d have no real criticism. What his chapter methodically sets out is the way in which GM’s high requirements of profitability (double that of Fords, for eg) was put before basic safety, not only in the left-out sway bar but the use of swing axles in the first place; and then to have the gall to require owners to have silly tyre pressures that were themselves dangerous to make up for what they had left out. (The fact that the Corvair also had the worst placed steering box and carbon monoxide problems too were seperate, more design inadequacies than the result of greed). Engineers also didn’t like Nader, thinking he was a lawyer, speaking beyond his role. In truth, and ironically, he was pointing out problems and calling on their expertise to fix them. Indeed, all of his views on the inadequacies of the Corvair in the infamous book are from the opinions of engineers and drivers.
The NHSTA – virtually a product of Naders advocacy, ironically – suddenly had data from GM that they refused to supply for years (my, how generous of GM); tested only a ’63 model; had no real data on rollover rates generally or specifically for the 60-63 Corvair; and in short, were snowed. Sadly, not the first time, a govt or academic enquiry was distorted by the wiles of raw capitalism. Also, it’s got to be acknowledged that a Republican admin was being hassled by a (then) Democrat (Nader)to do something. The direction that comes down the line to those doing the report in such a situation – that a certain result is wanted – doesn’t have to be stated, but is implied. Not some grand conspiracy, but people keeping their jobs. (I know: I have been in such a situation, though I was young enough to resign over it).
Nader, at least in those times, didn’t hate capitalism or even GM; he did hate corporate greed, arrogance and recklessness. Sure, the other cars like the Falcon were hardly handling paragons, but from experience, they just mushily roll and understeer and plenty of warning comes first, and when you lift off the gas, the understeer will lessen, – but the tail won’t try to come round, and there’s no fulcrum to jack you up. To the Corvair-istes – I’m with you, I love the car. But watch the handling footage above, and tell me that for any non-enthusiast, particularly if driving on way less reliable 60’s rubber, that that car isn’t unsafe.
Both VW and Renault specified high back / low front tire pressures on their swing axle cars of the era. Were those specifications silly, too? And do your admonitions about greedy capitalism apply to those companies too? There were several Soviet and Warsaw Pact Country cars with swing axles around the time the early Corvair was produced. In fact some of those designs were built well into the 1980s. Would you attribute those designs to greedy socialism?
Mate, look again. I haven’t admonished a soul or a system, and anyway, I’m from Australia & by US standards, we’re all Commies here, (but we seem to do alright), so you’re barkin’ up the wrong tree. Nip over here and have a govt-approved beer some day, I’ll shout ya. (Btw, this site pretty much bans political stuff & is all the better for it, so we’ll respect that & stop there).
As for the Renaults – the Skoda was a copy – they were possibly worse than the Corvair being shorter and cast/watercooled and upright engined, and yes, it can be speculated that they put profit before safety with the cheap swing axles. But in the case of the Corvair, we KNOW that conscious decisions were made about cost that caused trouble, forseen trouble, we KNOW that their own engineers said in ’55 that rear engines and swing axles were “a poor bargain”, and we KNOW from GM itself that the tyre pressures were dangerous. (Btw, the Renault had radials and the pressure diff was small). The VW was a 1930’s design long amortised and very profitable, and it’s highly probable (but not ACTUALLY known) that they put cost first; we kind-of know that they knew better because IRS came in by 68 or so and doubtless saved a lot of trauma.The different tyre pressures were far less important there as the overall weight and rear-bias of weight was significantly less than the smaller-tyred(!) Corvair.
It is worth noting that in the NHTSA test the VW and Renault rolled and the Corvair (albeit a ’63 with suspension changes from that year, slight positive camber, etc) actually did not! Sure proves that swing axles and rear engines are, when not ameliorated by other engineering changes, “a poor bargain” indeed.
Great points. I think this may be the most balanced response here. From that, I can deduce that GM really should have made the Corvair an outright sports car–two seats, better engineering and charging a higher price to compensate for the more expensive costs of doing something right. The Corvair’s main flaw probably is that it tried to do too many things, and tried to appeal to too many different people. There likely was no room in GM’s stable for another two seater, though. I wonder if they shouldn’t have just made the Corvette a rear engine design and have that be the sole sporty car in their lineup, and then charge the premium price to do things right………it makes more sense.
In retrospect, they should have just built the dull Chevy II. The dull Falcon (though I personally like the looks) outsold the Corvair 2-1.
I like your speculation, though, of a fully-engineered Corvair Monza arriving above the Chevy II or whatever they might have called it. Could have been a big hit before the Mustang, and raised the entire engineering standard of popular cars somewhat. The Mustang, after all, is just a simply-engineered Falcon, a pretty crude device. The Corvair, especially when done fully right as in ’65, sure isn’t that.
Regarding safety issues —
I’m curious as to what research was done on roll-over, roof-support problems among the [pillar-less] hardtops.
Those 2-dr., 4-dr., and station wagon models have disappeared since the mid-’70’s, presumably, based on lack of B-pillar support.
Is there a current technology that can offer roof support among contemporary cars, such that these models can be re-introduced? After all, convertibles are again available.
Bring back the hardtops!
The biggest thing wrong with your article is your knowledge of the Corvair and it’s history. A number of defenders have already pointed out the 1972 exoneration of the car, and you have shown you did not know much about that–including the Nader connection to it–but your worst statements were in dismissing the expert comments in the video about “following the rules.”
Every Corvair came with tire pressure instructions in the owners manual, AND stickers providing those “rules” in the glove compartment. Open one in any Corvair and you will see three indented circles on the door. those circles had round stickers outlining tire pressure and fan belt safely precautions. Many surviving Corvairs no longer have them, because folks also used that area of the car for cup holders.
The stickers are sold as reproductions and are easy to find in eBay and Amazon.
Just to be clear here are examples:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-CHEVROLET-CORVAIR-w-o-AC-DOOR-PILLAR-TIRE-PRESSURE-DECAL-STICKER-NEW/361931223488?_trksid=p2485497.m4902.l9144
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-1966-1967-1968-1969-CHEVROLET-CORVAIR-WARNING-LIGHTS-DECAL-STICKER/361955701058?_trksid=p2485497.m4902.l9144