(first posted 11/27/2012. Update: it’s almost surprising how many previous readers/commenters didn’t get the point of this article. It’s clearly not about the first Monza’s rear engine, which was undoubtedly not influential. Its significance was all about offering a fashionable, well-trimmed sporty coupe at very affordable prices. It has long been established as absolute fact that the Monza’s surprising popularity in 1961 motivated Lee Iacocca to create the Mustang. And that led to both the explosion of pony cars as well as the popularization of coupes, which eventually became the best selling body style in America.)
It’s difficult to overstate what a significant car the 1960 Corvair Monza Coupe was. There is no doubt that it turned the industry’s conventional thinking on its head–that compact cars should only be penalty boxes for thrifty folks. That’s what the whole American industry took for granted, and none more than Chevrolet with its Corvair sedan.
It arrived in the fall of 1959 seriously de-contented, devoid of any overt pizazz or sizzle, despite its very low-slung and fundamentally highly attractive body. Motor Trend gave it their COTY. The Europeans went gaga over it. But the highly conventional Falcon outsold it two-to-one, and the Chevy II was rushed into development. And then something totally unexpected happened, thanks to some auto show attendees that knew better what they wanted than did the car company executives.
The Corvair was always planned to be a thrifty, compact family sedan, with no overt sporty or up-scale ambitions. It arrived in two trim levels: the almost shockingly austere 500 (above), with an interior only a taxi company owner would appreciate.
The 700 included the typical step up trim one might find on a Biscayne sedan of the times, with some chrome trim and a barely decent interior but still with rubber flooring and not even a horn ring. Austere; and conveying anything but prestige.
A coupe version had been in the works, as part of the expansion of the line that would eventually also see a wagon and convertible. The coupe was due to arrive in similar 500 and 700 level trim in May of 1960. To spark some enthusiasm for the two door coupe, Chevrolet showed a customized one-off at the Chicago Auto Show in February (similar to this one, but with wire wheels and no side strakes). It had chrome window surrounds, a spiffy name, and….bucket seats! That was something almost unheard of in an American car, especially in a popular-priced one. The crowd loved it, and Corvair-Papa Ed Cole rushed the Monza into production.
The rest is history; very big history. The Monza became an instant hit, even though Chevy could only build a very modest number of them before the model year was over. The Monza became the Corvair sales leader by a huge margin in 1961, and for the rest of the Corvair’s life, the 500 and 700 were relegated to near-obscurity. The Monza gave the Corvair a whole new reason for existence, as well as sparking a monster market segment.
Ford instantly followed suit with the bucket-seat-and-console 1961 Futura, and the Valiant sported a similarly-trimmed Signet coupe for 1962. Even the dowdy Rambler American got in on the act with its 400. Bucket seats and a bit of sporty trim in a compact package were suddenly the hot thing. For the same price (≈$2200) as a big, dull Biscayne sedan, Americans could enjoy a modest-sized dose of glamor.
Ironically, that had been the same premise of the original Nash Rambler, exactly one decade earlier. George Mason knew he could never sell a low-content compact in enough numbers to make a profit, given how cheap the Big Three’s low-end full-size cars were. The well-trimmed Rambler sold modestly; perhaps the fact that big cars weren’t yet all that huge in the early fifties had something to do with it. But it did spark the whole Rambler line and direction. The formula was changed some by George Romney, who created enough volume with compact and mid-sized Ramblers to make it work for a while, especially during the recession era bracketed by 1958 and 1961.
During the fifties, full-sized cars became progressively bigger. But what really changed in during that decade was the import boom. They all came well-trimmed; there were no strippers in their midst. And sporty coupes like the Karmann Ghia were catching on. In retrospect, it’s rather odd that Chevrolet didn’t plan for a K-G type sporty coupe version all along, given its relationship to the Volkswagen, the Corvair’s stated nemesis.
Because that’s exactly what the Monza ended up being: the Corvair Karmann Ghia. But it took a crowd at the Chicago Auto Show to point that out to Chevrolet.
Lee Iacocca knew a good thing when he saw the Monza, and exploded the sporty coupe segment wide open with his 1965 Mustang. Turns out a long hood in the front turned was much more popular than one in the back. Not surprisingly; certain shapes and proportions seem to be hard-wired into our heads, libido and wallets.
It became known as the pony-car market, and when Americans got a bit older and bigger, they traded in their cramped pony cars for mid-sized coupes, which became the best selling segment for the better part of two decades. You might call it a stretch to credit the Monza for that chain of events. I call it self evident.
Having done the history, let’s take a look at the actual 1960 Monza Club Coupe. I didn’t find this one the street. They’re quite rare, as only 11,296 of them were built at the end of the 1960 MY year. They’re even hard to come by on the web, until I stumbled into this fine little blue coupe, on a web site dedicated to its restoration by its owner: cathyscorvair.com. It was her godfather’s car, and she documented its resurrection in great detail.
The 1960 Monzas have some unique aspects, and some mysterious ones. It’s the only Monza to have the distinctive concave 1960 Corvair front end, and its wheel covers were only used on that very short model year, which is a bit odd.
As a kid at the time, I was very aware of the 1961-1962, Monza, and there were several around. Then one day, I took a different street on my walk to elementary school, and ran into one of these. How odd! I knew what the 1960 Corvair looked like, but had never seen a Monza version. I kept thinking someone was messing with my head, being convinced there was no such thing. Did someone customize it?
There are those famous bucket seats. Keep in mind, this was two years before the Impala SS arrived with bucket seats. The Monza really was a pioneer, and undoubtedly inspired its big brother. This car is an automatic, with the funny little shifter-handle under the dash.
There was an up-rated 95 hp Turbo-Air engine that made 15 hp more than the standard one, thanks to a Duntov cam and a bit more compression and a four speed stick became available sometime later in the spring of 1960, a few months after the start of Monza production. The first version of 1960 Monza Coupe brochure doesn’t mention either of them; just the 80 hp unit, and the three-speed and Powerglide.
No matter; the public was hot with Corvair fever, and took what they could get until the full 1961 Monza line-up was ready, which included a late-intro sedan version too. It would be nice to think the Monza sedan played a role in sparking the sporty-sedan market of more recent years, but that really would be a stretch. The coupe did quite enough.
What’s really significant about the Corvair too is that its sales were almost totally incremental sales, undoubtedly from previous import buyers or from other brands. Ford’s Falcon sold more units, but they were almost totally at the expense of the full-size Ford, which meant that Ford overall in 1960-1963 performed quite modestly, whereas Chevrolet had some of its best years ever.
One might even go so far as to say that the Monza spelled the end to the low-end car from Detroit. Once folks got a taste of a properly trimmed car, and what that exuded in terms of prestige and satisfaction, stripper sedans soon became the province of flint-skins, and died off within a decade or so. Everyone knew what the Chicago Auto Show attendees knew: pizazz sells, even in small packages.
Good or bad we got very few of these Corvair import taxes made any US car a luxury model and rear engined cars had a pretty ordinary reputation already so having another more powerful car that even remotely ressembled a VW didnt sell cars
I purchased #15, a 500 series 4 door sedan, in dark green, in late ’59 from Tip Top Chevrolet in Fairbanks, AK. It had Powerglide, dual carbs, single aircleaner, shift stick on the dash with no park position. The heater quit just west of the Canada border, Dealer in White Horse found bridged spark plug gap, had phenolic spacers under the carbs, gas heater in ‘trunk’. Dealer in Amarillo subbed aluminum spacers under the carbs curing the carb freezing problem. Did recall work on steering idler and tierod, replaced shallow pulley on generator with deep sheve pulley, replaced the multi pull parking brake lever and pull-off ‘T’ with a one stroke lever. Drove it down the ALCAN highway to Texas doing 13 gpm with the engine and 13 gpm to the heater.
I’d have to nominate the Falcon, it had a far more lasting effect, as well as just plain being built in it’s orginal configuration for a long long time, 3 decades. The original body lasted until 1991 in Argentina with only slight tweaks to it’s grille and tail lights. It even lasted so long that a 144ci engine was reintroduced, though in 4cyl “Pinto” form. It also was the first platform that was extensively shared, for unique models, being the basis for the Fairlane, Mustang, Maverick and Granada in the US and the unique Fairlane and Fairmont down under.
In short it was far more successful and long lasting than the Corvair. Plus it made Chevy go back to the drawing board and quickly get the Chevy II into production.
I will grant you that the little acorn that was the 1960 Falcon did indeed grow into a mighty tree.
I forgot to mention the Falcon Six. It did have a pretty long run in the US but those inventive Aussies made it into a performance power house with a new alloy head and other tweaks. It also provided the basic architecture for the Tempo and Taurus 2.3/2.5 HSC 4cyl.
Yeah, I’ve heard of the Falcon.
I think I’ve seen at least five Corvairs for every Falcon, and I know I’ve seen at least that many articles lauding the Corvair compared to the Falcon.
I’m not sure where you live but there are a lot more Falcons that survived than Corvairs. As far as articles, you can’t really go by what you see here since our founder is a self proclaimed Corvair fan, so certainly he is going to produce more articles on it.
I’m actually quite fond of the Falcon, and we have covered it a number of times, including this main CC: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1961-falcon-how-to-build-a-winning-compact/
Sure, the Falcon sold well, but it was a very safe design, and it didn’t leave much lasting impact on the market, as in how it affected the market. And by 1966, the Falcon was in a massive slump, and its plug pulled in the US shortly after.
Iacocca created the Mustang precisely because he thought the Falcon too dull. The Falcon may have given some of its innards to the Mustang, but that doesn’t mean it inspired it.
The Falcon may have started off dull, but as soon as Ford Oz created the ’67 XR GT sedan, the dullness was relegated to the poverty-spec models! Sales here in New Zealand and Australia grew and grew from that point too – in direct contrast with the US Falcon it seems. The current Falcon is superb considering the latest twin-cam turbo version of the 6-cylinder engine still shares bore centers with the original 144ci. 🙂
Which is why I say the Falcon had way more impact, lasting impact on the market place than the dead end Corvair since parts of it live on today.
The Maverick replaced the Falcon here in US, so the basic platform was still in production. Big 3 tend to toss out established model names for ‘new, new!’.
yes you are right. I have a 62 ranchero and I think my corvair with a powerglide is so cool.
I do believe that this is the longest nomination that we have seen to date. 🙂
On the Corvair, please permit a dissent. The car was an engineering dead-end that had virtually zero influence on the industry at large from an engineering or layout standpoint. As for the sporty Monza, let us not forget that bucket seats had been part of the Thunderbird mystique since 1958, and were found in numerous foreign cars. Also, the Corvair Monza may have been first, but by a period of weeks or at most a couple of months, as the 1961 Studebaker Hawk came with bucket seats and an optional 4 on the floor as well, at the time of its intro in late 1960. That car had to have been in planning long before the introduction of the Monza. But enough of my curmudgeonliness.
I will surprise everyone and not nominate a Studebaker for 1960.
However, my nomination would be the Chrysler Corporation. First, this was the inaugural year of the famous slant 6 that would power Mopars well into the 1980s. Even more significant, Chryser jumped wholesale into unit construction and became the first mainstream manufacturer to do so across its entire line, rather than just in specific models. I would argue that a new Chrysler 300 is closer to its 1960 counterpart in almost every way than any other new vehicle, mostly because the 1960 version was so advanced.
However the Imperial stayed body-on-frame until the 1966 model year.
But let’s not forget the introduction of the Valiant, first as a separate division (who’ll stay longer in Canada) then as a Plymouth model who’ll span the Barracuda (unfortunately, the 1st-gen was handicapped by being only a Valiant fastback) and the Duster and the A-body Dart who replaced a unsuccesseful Lancer).
Then 1960 was also the intro of the Dodge Dart as a full-line model who stepped into Plymouth territory.
> However the Imperial stayed body-on-frame until the 1966 model year.
I would give Chrysler a pass on Imperial. The well-known reason is that they were concerned that unibody would not provide the quiet ride that Imperial buyers expected. To convert the entire lineup aside from Imperial from BOF to unibody for 1960 still had to be a monumental feat.
Also, unitized construction poses some serious limitations for coachbuilders. Cadillac had the lion’s share of the livery/hearse/ambulance market, but there is a difference between Imperial having a small chunk and none at all.
True, that was another good reason for Imperial to remain BOF. Chrysler had a history of contracting out custom work to Ghia. They had the contract to build the stretched limo Imperials for Chrysler while they were BOF, through 1966. Ghia didn’t have the expertise to stretch unibody cars though, so they didn’t get the contract again when Imperial when unibody for MY1967.
I respect your rebuttal, but here’s the key thing: yes, the rather pricy T-Bird had buckets and sporty trim, and yes, I’ve given it plenty of accolades for that. But it was several price steps up from the Biscayne-priced Monza. The T-Bird was not affordable to the masses. Nor was the Hawk, which also looked rather ridiculously out of date by 1960. You’re talking apples and oranges. The Monza was affordable to an entry level buyer. It pioneered sporty and high-trim affordable compact cars, which up-ended the existing order of things.
And AMC wasn’t a mainstream manufacturer with its line of unibodies?
I would argue that a new Chrysler 300 is closer to its 1960 counterpart in almost every way than any other new vehicle, mostly because the 1960 version was so advanced.
Now that’s an interesting argument, and I’m not quite sure what to make of it. But for the hell of it, I’d argue that the current MB E-Class is actually closer to a 1960 Mercedes, given its independent rear suspension, ohc six engine, more-than-three-speed automatic, safety equipment, overall size, bucket seats, and just about everything else.
You’ve opened up a line of questioning I’ve never thought of. But it doesn’t really say that much about the 1960 version, does it.
Isn’t a new Ford F-150 more like a 1960 F-100 than the Current 300 is like the 1960 300?
And isn’t a current Porsche 911 more like a 1960 Porsche?
And isn’t a 2012 Hindustan Ambassador almost identical to a 1960 version?
How far can we take this? The makings of a new parlor game, or CC debate. I rather like it.
I see what you are saying about the Monza being a compact with a high/sporty trim level. One point about the Hawk is that they were not as expensive as most people think – they were in the $2400-2600 range, maybe $2-300 more than a nicely trimmed Monza. But you are correct that they were ancient and not that appealing to most, and never sold over maybe 4,000 units. But I still consider the 61 Hawk more predictive of the package that eventually became the ponycar/sporty coupe that was king later in the 60s. Of course, the Falcon Futura was there by then too.
On the Chrysler nomination, you probably have me on the 1960-2012 Mercedes comparo.
And didn’t George Romney make a career out of making sure that AMC was NOT a mainstream manufacturer? 🙂
Of course, non-mainstream AMC was selling more cars in these years than Plymouth…every one with a unit body.
A picture of the 61 Hawk with buckets and 4 speed. I want one.
In other breaking news, for CC’s 1960 CCCOTY, Niedermeyer has nominated a Corvair, VanBuren has nominated a Ford and Cavanaugh has nominated a Chrysler. Film at 11 with the public’s shocked reaction.
I am surprised that Paul did not nominate the Peugeot 404
That crossed my mind, but I didn’t want to be too obviously biased 🙂
Corvair, Monza or other, looks fine to me today. In the day, nothing but full size would do, even a stripper Biscayne. (As long as it was a 2 door.)
I’m thinking back, the mention of bucket seats reminds me of a comic strip. I believe it was “Tiger”. Tiger is explaining to the other kids his homemade coaster. Kids in my town called them “hot rods”. Tiger shows them what are “bucket seats”, overturned buckets nailed to the floor of the vehicle.
Funny how a person can remember something worthless 50 years ago, but can’t remember where he put his keys 10 minutes ago.
Amen, brother!
There is no question that the original Corvair had tremendous international influence on design/styling. The mechanical package may have been more respected had certain problematic areas continued to be refined-handling, the fan drive belt, and a reliable winter heater that didn’t ruin gas mileage (as did the optional gas heater), to name a few.
The Falcon and Valiant were solid but uninspiring to drive, but that’s what North American seemed to want in the ’60s. But neither of these cars could match the ride quality and driving dynamics of the Corvair, especially from 1964 onward. The 1965 and onward Corvairs were light years better that the 1960-64 cars in ride, handling, and braking. Although the first gen cars are the ones that are most often discussed when it comes to styling, I think the gen II cars were some of the best looking cars ever designed.
Of all the cars from the sixties that I would still want to own, first would be a ’65-’67 small block Corvette with no power nothin, and secondly a ’65 or later Corvair. Neither would seem out of place in today’s market.
I am starting to dread CCCOTY for 1965. The Corvair vs. Mustang debate is going to be pretty fierce.
Maybe we can add in a Chrysler C-Body versus GM B/C Body versus “all new all over again” Full Sized Ford nomination? Or had the market moved so far from any of those 3 being the future that it would be futile to nominate them?
Let me just say, as big cars go, 1965 would possibly be the hardest year ever, since each corporation’s redesign had some merit.
I loved the handling and steering ease, and, of course, the looks, of the Corvair. I hated the swinging rear end in tight curves. But let’s talk about appearances. The post-1965 design is, in my opinion, the most compelling aesthetic automotive achievement of the era, if not ever. A convertible of that vintage, especially, never will be approached in the looks department.
I want a 1965-69 someday…when I was a kid one of my Uncle’s had a 1963 4-speed..that he paid $150 for…and another Uncle had a 1963 Corvette, needless to say I own a C5.
The Corvair Monza started the entire “sporty car” genre, and led to the first Mustang. That alone makes it influential.
As the article says, the Monza proved that a small car could appeal to Americans based on styling and features, not just low price. This, unfortunately, has been a lesson that the domestic manufacturers have had to learn repeatedly over the last 50+ years.
The Falcon and Valiant were more predictive of what Americans would be driving in the coming decades, but they were just refined versions of the “standard” American Motors Rambler that had been on the market since 1956.
Speaking of the Karmann Ghia, you can’t tell me there wasn’t some influence from the Corvair styling when Karmann made the Type 34 Volkswagen. Here’s a beautiful 1966 Type 34.
We covered the KG and the host of other cars the Corvair’s body design influenced here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-how-the-1960-corvair-started-a-global-design-revolution/
I had a type 34 coupe and ’61 Plymouth convertible and Sportscoupe, park them together and line for line the type 34 is Plymouth.
Too bad VW decided not to produce this.
This would have been cool.
Since no one has explicitly nominated the (not-yet-Plymouth) Valiant, I will.
Yes, the original ’60 model had styling only an Exner could love, but it was also the first car to be powered by the venerable slant six. As noted above, like other ChryCo products it featured a unitized body and far better handling than the GM and Ford compacts.
Maybe I didn’t make it clear enough. There many ways to judge a car: its technical aspects, its aesthetics, its performance, etc…but given that we now have the benefit of hindsight, I tend to see a car’s most significant historical aspect in how it changed the market (maybe I think too much like a 14th floorer).
That was the specific point of this nomination: how the Monza influenced the marketplace, and changed it forever. I see the Monza coupe as being most significant in that respect: it led to a wholesale change in attitudes about what compact cars could be.
It is actually quite hard to come up with much besides the Corvair for 1960. Other than Mopars going Unibody, there was virtually nothing happening in the market other than the big 3 compacts. Lots of interesting cars, hardly any of them new or noteworthy. Funny how all these years later we are still talking about Corvair v. Falcon v. Valiant. Suddenly it’s 1960 (still).
Paul,
You wrote above: “The 1960 Monza Coupe brochure doesn’t mention either of them; just the 80 hp unit, and the three-speed and Powerglide. As best as I can tell, both of the performance engine and four-speed were late arrivals, due to the very rushed deadline. Whether any 1960 Monzas ever came with them is unknown to me. Perhaps very late in the model year, since that engine and transmission are listed in catalogs.”
I recently bought a 1960 Monza 900 Coupe for $450 in Salem Oregon that has the 4 speed tranny and high performance (95HP) engine per the serial number on the engine [T0628YD]. I didn’t know what I had until I did some research on it and made the discovery of these 2 significant changes that a few of the late 1960 model Monzas were updated with. Just thought I’d let you know they aren’t a phantom model…. Rocky W. Cowart
Here’s the VIN for my Monza 900….
Rocky; congratulations on the fine find. Yes, since that article was written, I have had it confirmed that the 95 hp engine and four speed made it into production late in the year.
I distinctly remember seeing one when I was a kid ,with the four speed, on my walk to grade school.
I am far too spent from the off-topic political discussions on another post to wade into any controversy here. I like the 1960 Ford Starliner but don’t expect anyone to agree with me. I also LOVE the Karmann Ghia ad pictured here and want to have it as a big poster.
Hey I love the 60 Starliner, it just didn’t break in truly new ground nor have the long term impact of the Falcon.
All this discussion of the Corvair has been having me watching my local craigslist for one, I’d have to go with the later 65 and newer model myself though. It’s something you just don’t see around here even at most shows.
I remember my Grade 8 science teacher buying a white Monza coupe with a red interior.
I especially remember his obvious pride when offering a ride to an event, and telling a second student about to get into the front seat, “You can’t get in the front – it has bucket seats!”. Heady stuff!
I can’t argue against the Corvair…I suppose the Mustang’s platform was sprung from the Falcon platform but even so, the Falcon itself has always been such a forgettable vehicle to me.
I love this site…..I used to have a perfect wheelcover that matched the feature Corvair’s but never knew what it went to. I should have kept better tabs on it due to its rarity b/c I think I somehow either lost or accidently smushed it at some point.
Here’s another vote for the Corvair. Good or bad, nothing else in ’60 had such a profound influence on the future of the industry. It was the catalyst for sporty cars, a lightening rod for the auto safety movement and the first visible crack in GM’s armour all in one.
You nailed it perfectly! But I would say it was the first crack in the hull of the ocean liner that was GM, given they SUNK! Sorry, I’m a boat guy… That said, I love Corvairs, and just about anything else with an air-cooled opposed engine, including aircraft
+ 1
As far as the Corvair’s configuration being a dead end, well, Porsche drove pretty far down that dead end road.
That being said, air-cooled vehicles were an engineering dead end for reasons that were not anticipated in the late 1950’s when the Corvair was being designed. Emission controls were harder to implement on an air cooled engine. Also, the demand for more creature comforts became a problem as air cooled rear engine vehicles are harder to air-condition as well as heat. It’s a combination of the plumbing involved and the effects of A/C on engine compartment temperatures.
Interchangeable left/right headlight bezels!
Corvair vs. 300F, yet another undecided decision from me for CCOTY. Hmmmm…
In my mind, I would let the Corvair have the win for 1960 if the 300G gets the title for 1961, but I’m sure that there will be stiff competition from the ’61 Lincoln Continental and possibly the T-Bird again.
Falcon was a great success because it was not the first of anything. It’s one of the best examples of the All-American Six, our basic car from 1940 to 1980. Inline six, three on the tree, rear drive, solid axle with leaf springs. Body-on-frame, 2 or 4 doors, bench seats, enough room for 4 to 6 adults, 110 inch wheelbase, 2300 pounds. In 1960 that’s a Falcon, Valiant, Rambler or Lark.
Solid and useful, efficient for its time. Very good value for money. Well suited to American (and Australian) driving. But not fundamentally different from the Studebaker Champion, which would be the CCOTY of 1939 for being the first AA-6.
Corvair Monza was the CCOTY of 1960 for all the good reasons we’ve seen here.
The Falcon was a unibody. It was a first in a couple of ways. It was the first compact to sell in large numbers, it did come in 3rd place in sales. In addition it was the first on what we now call a “platform” that spawned a number of vehicles that fit in a number of different segments. Thus the Falcon spawned platform engineering something that persists to this day, and is required to make the development of many vehicles economical enough so that they are able to make it to production.
The Falcon vs. Corvair debate is an interesting one and highlights the fickleness of the American auto consumer. The Corvair was a radical departure, a brand-new, from-the-ground-up design, like nothing GM had done in the past. It made a big splash, Americans (supposedly) loved it, and the Corvair would be influential in myriad ways to this day.
The Falcon, OTOH, was new only in that it was Ford’s first compact. Everything else about it was strictly conventional. In all aspects, it was nothing more than a latter-day Model T. The Falcon’s biggest claim to fame was that it would take platform-sharing to a whole new level.
Guess which one Americans bought? Consumers might have thought the Corvair was sporty and cool, but when it came time to actually lay down their hard-earned cash, the Falcon was the one they turned to.
In the Falcon’s defense, this was Ford’s first foray into a high volume unibody. Ford’s prior unibody experience was in the low volume TBird and Lincoln, probably the two vehicles least able to take advantage of the unibody’s greatest advantage – light weight. The “standard” Ford never went Unibody at all, with the last CVs still body on frame.
JP, I could be wrong, but I believe that the bodies for the Square Birds and ’60s Continentals were built by the Budd Company. Wixom was an assembly facility, not a full-fledged manufacturing plant. Budd had designed the unibody for the Citroen Tracion Avant which debuted in 1934, so this was nothing new for them. The ’64 Falcon that my family owned was tight and solid, something that could not be said for any GM car of this era.
Oops, I knew Falcon was a unibody, thanks. Indeed AA-6 cars came in BoF and unit body form.
Very good point about the platform. Though Studebaker, for one, had to spin everything from Hawks to Larks off the ’53 Starliner.
The only difference was that Studes were all BOF, so body changes could really be done for cents on the dollar compared with a Unibody structure, which is very expensive to change. Problem was that Stude had only about 15% of the money for a new body any time they went to make changes. The 64 standard Stude line was quite different from the 53, but it took numerous incremental changes to get there. Also, they were still offering two separate wheelbases – long one (120 in) on the Hawks, and shorter (113 in) on Larks. The earlier Larks were on a 108-109 in. wb. Which makes sense, as the lwb 53 Commander Starliner was a completely different car structurally from the standard Champion sedan.
What else can it be but the Corvair? Possibly the most important American car ever, arguably the most controversial, definitely the most compelling. GM’s simultaneous Greatest Hit and Deadliest Sin. As far as I’m concerned, the Corvair was the purest embodiment (or caricature) of General Motors ever unleashed: aim for the fuckin’ stars, wuss out when it costs too much, finally get it right when no one cares… style for the masses, tomorrow’s technology today – infuriating incompetence and damning arrogance guaranteed!
Possibly the best summary of the Corvair distilled into a single paragraph I have ever read.
Brilliant and true.
Even now GM’s got the aim-for-the-stars thing going, with the Volt. But they didn’t wuss out this time (and it does cost too much). It’s been out for a year, and CR just reported Volt is the #1 car for “would you buy another”, just ahead of the Dodge Challenger and Porsche 911.
GM also earned the bottom spot in that survey with its Aveo. GM’s future remains to be seen.
To give you an idea of the rarity of the model, I’m certain my father’s Chevrolet dealership never had a ’60 Monza in stock. In fact, I didn’t even realize the car existed until the ’61’s showed up, at which point this Corvair fan became a full-blown fanatic. Which I still am. Mustangs are for sheep (baaaaaaaa!)
Then again, I shouldn’t have been surprised. Dad was totally immune to the concept of sporty or sporting in cars. I couldn’t see him being bothered with the Monza in the slightest until their sales success became apparent.
For good or bad, the Corvair certainly influenced the industry, and the sporty aspect of the Monza made it the only car of the early ’60’s which had any overt appeal to my Europhile upbringing (big V8’s certainly had appeal, but that was a more closeted, sinful attraction). But I think it’s a stretch to give the Monza credit for the US domestic 2 door coupe boom of the late ’70’s and early ’80’s. These were just reincarnations of Club Coupes and Business Coupes of decades earlier, IMHO … a reflection of the fact that we liked big cars but usually drove around alone and didn’t need 4 doors or a roomy backseat.
My father bought a 1960 Corvair sedan base model, 3 on the floor. Excellent winter car at least until my mom drove it off a mountain in WV. He replaced it with a 1963 version, this time with 4 on the floor and the optional gas heater. He loved his Corvairs.
Oddly enough, the reason he bought them was the fact that there was no VW dealer within a hundred miles. He thought of Corvairs as US VWs.
Unfortunately for GM, they did their typical miscalculation and severely overestimated the market for a domestic VW. For whatever reason (most likely the classic, clever Doyle, Dane, Bernbach VW ads of the sixties), most consumers interested in a VW didn’t seem to be much interested in the Corvair. I guess it didn’t have enough of the counter-culture ‘caché’.
It’s a shame because the rear traction would undoubtedly be useful in the snowbelt. Of course, rust would be a big downside of owning a Corvair in those regions, as well.
On my list of cars that I would like to own and/or own again is my 66vw, my 56 (IIRC) microbus, and the corvair that I drove but did not own. I fell in love with them all because of what they would do on winter roads and/or off road. I listened very intently to all that has been said and I think I will drink the corvair coolaid.
Funny, I think any of the three I just mentioned could take the place of the 57 chevy in my driveway.
The Corvair is the obvious choice: Clean-page, a new approach. Granted, rear-engined cars had been around since the start of the Auto Age; but this was a new tack for GM. And to couple the package to style; to a six-cylinder design…it turned out to be a dead-end, as we all know, but it was revolutionary nonetheless.
On top of that, it was the mistakes made in creation that made scales tip in favor of wholesale regulation of the auto industry. One could argue that it would have happened eventually anyway; but it was the Corvair, its mistakes, its fatalities and its powerful detractors which led us to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.
The Falcon was a significant car, true. But there was little revolutionary about it: a conventional platform; a conventional six-cylinder engine. Austerity…which was a Ford tradition. All of this had been done before, by Ford and by other companies. Long-lived? Sure…like many other Ford models. The 1949 Ford was tweaked and upgraded patchwork until 1964; the Panther platform survived with only one major skin change from inception until the Police Pursuit model finally expired of advanced age and Rental-Agency overdose.
it’s a shame the Corvair experiment went as it did. I could see modern water-cooled high-performance rear-engine cars…the traction advantages of FWD without all the inert understeer. Engine in the back, sealed up…electric water pump to get coolant into a radiator in the slipstream. Ah, what might have been….
Got to go with the `Vair because the Falcon and Valiant really didn`t break any new ground, save for their unitbody construction, something comparitively new in `60. Dead conventional, though the wierd style of the Valiant did influence later Mopar styling to an extent. The Monza really took the `Vair to what it should have been in the first place,and it worked. BTW-Pontiac was supposed get their own version of the `Vair in what was supposed to be named “Polaris”, but got the 4cylinder-transaxle Tempest instead.
Here’s a ’60 Monza for sale in Oxnard in ’62 with the 4-speed; I’ll guess “big engine” means the 95-hp, but of course I can’t be certain:
New-to-me also is that the May 1960 announcement, and even some of the ads for several months thereafter, refer to it as the Monza “900” model—even if the brochure doesn’t:
For any of you who need/ want a used Corvair,, there is a Red ’63 coupe in Morgan Mill, TX the owner would love for you to own, It has the stock engine and a four speed stick on the floor. He has offered it to me every time I see him for what he calls ‘a bargain’ a really good deal. I would not drive it away for it, having had #15 off the production line. It had more bugs than a mile of Texas roadside.
For the uninformed, there was one model that was turbo charged and was rated at 180 hp. i do not recall what year (s) it was offered.
The 1960 Corvair was indeed quite…spartan…looking inside.
A V200 Valiant’s interior made the Corvair look like a Studebaker Scotsman inside.
Unbelievably spartan. I wonder how many Monza sedan buyers didn’t care about the sportiness but just wanted the top trim level?
My father bought my Mother a new 61 Monza Coupe. White, with red interior. She wanted something smaller than the 59 Bonneville. Hell anything would have been smaller) He traded Moms 58 Mercury in on it. First time I got in the bucket seat interior, I could only think, “Where’s the lower part of the dashboard?” Was the question that entered my then 9 year old mind. She liked the corvair, Up until she was hit and soun by a 58 Buick, the :”Vair” was replaced, and Mom was introduced to the 63Grand Prix in late 62…..Her first of many
“… that compact cars should only be penalty boxes for thrifty folks.”
Agree that the Corvair Monza trim, with bucket seats and all, made compacts more desirable and plusher. Instead of thinking that one had to ‘move up to a big car’ to get more features.
Monza led to all sorts of nicely trimmed compact/mid size coupes, that not necessarily were “muscle cars” or PLC’s. [not all 2 doors in the 60’s were “muscle cars”] .
OTOH, Mustang started the “pony car” market, with unique sheet metal and image, compared to Falcon Sprint.
I had a 1964 sedan in tan just like the one in the picture above. i sure miss that car. it kept having problems with the flywheel and went through 2 starters. as a 17 year old i could not afford to get it fixed and NYC took my car from the streets. the corvair is one the most influential cars in history it’s styling can still be seen in cars from BMW and many many cars overseas. i like the sedan best with that wrap around rear window and very efficient and sizable interior. While the bean counters really screwed this one up………….it’s still and always will be a fantastic car.
To add:
“For the same price (≈$2200) as a big, dull Biscayne sedan, Americans could enjoy a modest-sized dose of glamor.”
Similar happened later, when buyers chose Cutlass over full size Chevys as #1 car line in 1976. Why get a big ‘granny car’ with just vinyl bench seats and AM radio? Get a nice mid size car, with more ‘bells and whistles’ for same price or less.
Hence the decline of plain-jane big cars. By 1983, the base big Ford was Crown Vic, with standard landau top. Only cops and taxis were “stripped”.
The Monza trick is an oldie but a goodie, take one average four door sedan delete rear doors lengthen front doors delete B pillar tune engine add gauge set and sporty floor shift my pet car became the Sunbeam Rapier using that formula other makes and models have done same, it works, they sell.
I have to say I’ve always liked the early Corvair best as a sedan; the coupe looks a bit misproportioned with its’ near-equal hood and deck lengths.
I wonder if that’s a case of leading by example of what not to do since long hood/short deck proportions were baked into the Mustang recipe from the very start. If so, that’s another strong influence since the long hood/short deck look *absolutely infected* Detroit, showing up on full-size sedans that needed wasted hood length and smaller trunks like they needed a hole in their engine block.
Corvairs are neat cars – fun to drive, good looking (especially the 2nd gen) and unique among American cars. But for the love of God do not crash one, especially a head-on.
I do believe that we can all agree that the LM (Late Model, 1965-69) Corvairs were much better cars than the earlier ones were.
An inexpensive, sporty, nicely trimmed coupe with a manual transmission. What we need today!
I think Corvair’s greatest influence was on the C8 Corvette.The engineers used the fine idea of putting the engine in the rear and fixed Corvair’s several deficiencies, namely a water cooled engine so you can fit a proper heater and, oh yeah, put engine unfront of the rear axle, bingo, Car of the Year 60 years later.