(first posted 8/17/2011) There have been very, very few vehicles produced in post WWII America that can be accurately described as unique. Not “sort of” unique, but unique in the true sense of the word: that there is absolutely nothing else like it. The Corvair Rampside is one of those vehicles. And not necessarily in a good way. This little truck reminds me of a question that most of us have been asked at one time or another: “Just what, exactly, were you thinking?”
It is well known that the Volkswagen was a significant influence on Chevrolet’s engineering team during the creation of the Corvair (CC Here). Once the Corvair’s design team got its bread and butter sedan out the door for 1960, it shifted its attention to commercial variations. Volkswagen’s Type 2 van and pickup truck had been logical offshoots from its passenger car program. The Type 2 van (and to a lesser extent, the pickup) had been well received in Europe and were beginning to make inroads in the US. Also, Chevrolet’s product planners certainly knew that there was a similar small truck line under development at arch-rival Ford. With so much attention being given to commercial vehicles smaller than Chevrolet’s C-10 pickup and panel delivery, the world’s largest automaker was not about to ignore this market.
Chevrolet’s new little trucks would hit the market as the 1961 Corvair 95 series. First, why 95? The number represented the wheelbase of the trucks, shortened from the 108 inch wheelbase of the of the passenger car. The vehicles were of unit construction, but utilized a rear subframe for additional support of the engine and cargo area. Mechanically, the 95s were mostly standard Corvair, right down to the rear swing axles. However, the front suspensions were largely carried over from the full sized passenger car in 1961-62 (and then from the C-10 in 1963-64). A slightly beefed up version of the Corvair sedan’s 80 horsepower engine was mated to either a Powerglide or the buyer’s choice of a 3 or 4 speed manual.
The Corvair 95 line initially consisted of two vans and two pickups. The commercial van version was the cleverly named Corvan. Chevrolet also introduced the Corvan’s passenger-carrying offshoot, the Greenbrier. As interesting as the two little vans may be (and they will certainly warrant their own CC at some point in the future), our attention today will be devoted to the strange little pickups, which are unusual even by Corvair standards.
Like the vans, the Corvair 95 pickups also came in two flavors – The Loadside and the Rampside. Of the two, the Loadside is the really rare one (fewer than 3000 were built between 1961 and 62) which was basically a standard Corvair pickup. The Rampside is the one remembered for its single unique quality – the hinged panel on the passenger side that lowered to become a ramp into the vehicle’s ultra-low cargo bed.
We all know that the pickup truck has but a single reason to exist: The large open compartment in the back for carrying lots of stuff. So how do you give your customer a usable pickup when your starting point includes a rear engine? VW’s answer was to make a high flat bed with drop down side panels all the way around. Lockable storage compartments filled in the unused area under the flat bed. Chevrolet took the opposite approach. In order to maximize capacity in the bed, the Corvair 95s traded-away the flat floor. The result was a pickup bed with maximum depth in the middle of the vehicle, and a raised portion at the rear of the truck so as to accommodate the engine compartment.
One look at the inside of the bed of one of these and you can see why the Loadside (confusingly named because you could NOT load it from the side) disappeared so quickly. With no access to the bed but through the teeny tailgate, it was singularly lacking in practical appeal. The Rampside was an ingenious workaround of the Loadside’s Achilles heel and the problematic shape of the load floor of these pickups. With a bed wall that converted to a ramp, the vehicle got badly needed access to the lowest part of the bed as well as a built-in ramp not found on anything else in the industry. Although the payload was comparable to that of a conventional C-10, the inconveniently shaped bed floor cost the 95s a lot of utility points. That Chevrolet offered a plywood platform to make a flat but shallow bed did not really overcome this weakness.
In hindsight, it is easy to see that this truck had failure stamped on its forehead at birth. What happened here? While I have never really been under the Corvair’s spell, I can understand that the car was a bold swing for the fences as a modern compact sedan. But just whose idea was it to make it into a truck? Was the 95 sort of an afterthought? “Uh-oh, great car but I just got a memo that we have to make a truck out of the thing too.” Or was it the hubris of a company that was convinced that the American public would lap up whatever it put into Chevrolet’s showrooms? Either way, it was a painful lesson for GM that what may have made sense for VW in immediate postwar Europe was not necessarily relevant to 1960s America.
Of course, the eventual champion in the compact truck market turned out to be Ford. The 1961 Econoline series met the Corvair 95 model for model. With its conventional front engine configuration, the Econoline had the advantage of an unencumbered load floor in both its van and its pickup. The result was that the Econoline’s sales swamped those of the little Chevy. In 1963, for example, Ford sold over 11,000 Econoline pickups to Chevrolet’s 2,046 Rampsides. This was in spite of the Chevrolet’s 2 foot advantage in cargo floor length and a slightly higher payload rating. The Rampside would be discontinued after selling only 851 units in 1964. (Fun fact of the day: Chrysler managed to sell more Imperial convertibles in 1964 than Chevy sold Corvair pickups.) The 1964 El Camino, with over 30,000 sold, removed any doubt about the lack of viability of its air cooled older brother.
The entire Corvair 95 series would be replaced quickly, with the 1964-65 phase-in of a new, more conventional van design based upon the Chevy II. The discontinued Rampside (the sole remaining Corvair pickup) was not missed. Ford, too, would abandon the odd looking Econoline pickup after its initial version. (Chrysler was, of course, late to the party with its 1964 A-100 pickup, another forward control model which failed to survive to a second generation). What is really interesting here is that Detroit completely missed the most obvious (and only really successful) formula for a small pickup truck: Take a conventional big pickup and shrink it. Toyota and Datsun would make a lot of money from this oversight.
It is not often that your correspondent in rusty central Indiana manages to bag and tag a vehicle that has eluded Paul Niedermeyer in the land of the perpetual car, but we have one for your enjoyment today. Since I started contributing to CC, this is the first vehicle that I actually attempted to chase down. I was backing out of my mother in law’s driveway when I spied this Corvair pickup turning the nearest corner. I had to wait for traffic, then dashed after it, but I was too late and it got away. I gave up and started to go home, but as I cut through the parking lot of a big home improvement store, there it was.
I waited several minutes after taking photos, hoping to talk to the owner. He must have had quite a shopping list, because he never came out to add to the sole bag of mulch in the back before I had to leave. So, what can I tell you what I can about this one? First, I believe it to be either a 1961 or ’62. Later models moved the rear license plate off center and eliminated the fragile protruding license plate lights, so it is not one of the ultra-rare ’63-64 models. Mathematically, it is probably a 1961, because this was the only year that Chevrolet really sold any of them (almost 11,000 units, compared to 4,100 in 1962.) Otherwise, the year is anyone’s guess. The truck also carries a really old California AAA bumper sticker and appears to be very original other than a repaint and newer hubcaps.
I am not sure what the legacy of this vehicle is, if indeed it has any at all. Although it must have seemed like a good idea at the time, it may have been the biggest sales flop of GM’s postwar history. In fairness, none of this era’s forward control pickups really set the world on fire, the VW included. In 1963, for example, the Falcon Ranchero would outsell the Econoline and Corvair pickups combined by nearly 40%. But the Corvair 95 pickup was failure taken to a whole new level. Still, it is vehicles like this one that provide some spice in a bland world. A sunny day and a trip to the home center with the Rampside – what a fun and unusual sight, either in Indianapolis or anywhere else. It always was. The Corvair 95 pickups turned out to be two vehicles in one: Perhaps the least useful truck ever and maybe the coolest Corvair of them all. It is indisputably a Curbside Classic.
Something about those tail lights makes me think of the…. I believe it is the “batwing” 1959 Chevy Impala.
Guess I gotta’ propel the lard-laden gingers to Google image search to verify my incoherent memory.
Or the 1970 full-size Pontiacs. Dead ringer. Exactly.
That can of Tab in the cupholder is a nice touch.
The Tab can inside fits this vehicle perfectly.
Why wasn’t the Greenbriar version of this successful, while the VW bus was reasonably successful in its day? Seem to me it has what the VW lacked, more power! Plus CHevy has lots more dealer even in remote areas, which VW does not. I can understand why the pickup version failed, though, one look at that stepped load floor and any potential buyer would shrink away. My grand parents used to have a Japanese version of this in the 1970s: a Mazda Bongo van, complete with engines in the rear!
My take would be that the big money in those early 60s vans was in the cargo version, and the Corvairs with the rear engine could not match the utility of the Econoline. Nobody sold many of the passenger versions back then. I think that VW did only because there was a certain number of people who really loved VWs but who needed more room. Also, they were economical and of very high quality. None of the early American passenger vans had that VW “quality feel”, and with 6 cylinder power, they were not as economical. If you got into a domestic showroom, it was hard to pass up a comfortable Impala wagon for a funny looking, noisy, slow and rough-riding Greenbriar.
“Why wasn’t the Greenbriar version of this successful, while the VW bus was reasonably successful in its day?”
Several reasons. First, VW was a cult-car company; it was anti-establishment before anti-establishment was mainstream. For someone who wanted a Beetle but couldn’t deal with the lack of room…this was the choice.
Not so, buyers who wandered into Chevy dealerships. They tended to the conventional; they were attracted to Chevrolet’s interpretation of what a modern car should be. A station wagon, that’s the ticket. If they wanted an offbeat, rear-engine box, by God they’d have gone to that Volks-Wagon place!
Second…imported TRUCKS were slapped with a heavy tariff about this time. The VW van got around that as it was classified as a passenger car; but with the tariff, VW transporters and pickups became damned rare. For less money charged the customer, he could buy a van, take out the seats, and have just about the same utility. So, VW got the families AND the handymen with the Bus.
I always liked this setup, partly because I like eccentric rigs and I gravitate towards trucks. The depressed center area seems, not so much a handicap as a mixed blessing – small stuff, bags and cans and whatnot, can be set there without fear they’d slide to the rear and over the gate. The steps would prevent it before the driver was alerted with the noise.
Ah, coulda-woulda-shoulda. Such a departure from the norm, coming from Chevrolet…it could only be doomed, right from the start. Even had it sold well, no doubt – like the Corvair – it had many enemies in the halls of GM.
Had Chevy thought a bit more, they would’ve stuffed the engine up front under the driver and passenger giving more space to the rear cargo area(of course the axle hump would protrude up a bit), and make it a front wheel drive(not sure front wheel drive was possible at that time though), as well, the same for the vans.
Can we say: “Tempo Matador”? Nice try!
I saw lots of Corvairs growing up back in the day, but not many of these pickups and vans – they simply were not useful enough to justify their existence, apparently the Jeep Commando C-101 fits in there, too, although I liked those and owned one for a brief time.
I saw an odd VW pickup on occasion as well, but in all cases, except for the VW van, these vehicles were pretty rare.
In looking at the pickup bed again, that odd step – why didn’t Chevy just make a bi-level bed? That “step” serves no purpose and reduced the little utility the bed already had – they should have just raised the step to the upper level, that would have been better.
I used a Rampside for 5 years as my work vehicle, clocking 30-40K each year. That odd “step” is the cat’s ass for a pickup. 95% of the time the items you’re carrying fit easily into the 4×4 space made up of the low part of the bed. (It is btw designed to perfectly fit two standard pallets, one at the Ramp and one at the Tailgate).
Sitting low in the well means things don’t slide around as much, light items are less likely to fly out, and heavy items only increase the stability of the truck because it’s carried so low. And you have to realize that extra deep well in the middle (over 31″ deep) and a bed that’s 105″ long gives it an overall volume to the rails that is higher than anything on the road today, short of a dump truck.
Further, being able to walk into the middle of the bed means there is none of the awkward clambering in and doing the hands and knees crawl to get things at the front of the bed like on a conventional pickup.
My in-laws gave me their ’98 Frontier (w/ only 91K kms on it) with a modern 4 cylinder and 5 spd. While free is nice, it can’t hold a candle to the 2.7L/4spd combo in my Rampside. The Rampside can easily carry 4 times the load. It’s independant rear suspension means it rides alot nicer. And having the motor 8 feet behind me means the only thing I listened to was a little wind noise and the radio.
I don’t know if anyone flagged it, but the Rampy in the pictures is a ’63. Orange turnsignal lenses = 63>, Corvair 95 emblem with “Chevrolet” = 63/64, Centre location of Rear Lic Plate = <63. Hard to tell from the pics, but I think that Rampy also has the 61 to Early 63 "Mystery Shifter".
I think Joel; nailed it as “Probably a 63” – there were little changes each year and you can track them. Of course, if you liked the Amber front turn lenses better than the White you could swap them and muddy the waters… Or if you broke one and could only get the Amber.
I have a 61 Monza Coupe, and the two-speed wiper/washers and a few other options swapped out of later models. Still need to get an AC System and update it to R134a when I put it in. (R12 is expensive.)
Parts are readily available at several specialty suppliers for reasonable prices – there are a few “You can get the exact NOS Part for a Ton – and a perfectly functional new piece (that only a Concours Judge would deduct a tenth point) for a reasonable price.”
Example – New Delco 557A Group 53 batteries for ~$110-125 at your regional Delco distributor, just not the 60-62 “Tar Top” rubber case. And the modern construction comes with much higher CCA and reserve time.
I figured ’63 right away as well. The 1962, ’63 and ’64 Corvairs all had unique instrument panel trim and this is the ’63 style. When I bought my Greenbrier (out of a junkyard, cooked engine) it was a ’64. I would not have gotten a Powerglide and the earlier sticks had shifters that struck me as goofy. My recollection, in looking at vans then, was the good shifter and the offset-plate access door came in together, in 1964.
Yes! They should have squared off the aft section of the bed. I can’t think of what they could have done with the empty space, but better to make the raised bed longer instead of that purposeless step. And wouldn’t have cost anything.
I understand that Bell Telephone (at least in NYC) bought a big initial order of Rampsides, because they could roll big spools of cable in and out of the bed so easily.
i’m sure you’re right, paul but i don’t remember them as a kid in jersey. the standard bell telephone van in the ‘burbs was the econoline van with the weird vents next to the headlights.
The Bell System was a big factor in the big 3 launching compact vans. It’s been reported they even threatened to buy VWs if the domestic companies didn’t act. Later on, Chrysler had a dedicated facility near its Mound Road truck plant for finishing and upfitting Dodge Vans for Ma Bell.
Even though we’d sold our Ford franchise in 1938, and were Chrysler-Plymouth dealers, we bought a rampside for our other family business, a public golf course. It was just thing for hauling greens mowers around the course – the ramp makes a real difference when you’re making 18 (later 27) on-off moves a day. I think if finally died sometime in the early 70s.
Thanks, Paul… you’ve confirmed I’m not crazy (at least in this regard!) I’ve long thought I remembered Rampsides in Ma Bell paint with big spools of cable in them. I’ve never been able to find a picture of one, so it’s good to know I’m not the only one with that recollection.
Also, as one writer to another… your stuff is really good!
More than a few companies / municipalities used Rampside trucks to build special use rigs .
Los Angeles County weights & measures used them with the left side cut down to better access those funny shaped fuel measuring cans….
I last saw one in service in the late 1980’s it wasn’t all beat up like most Rampsides were .
-Nate
I have seen a few of those rampsides and almost every one has been modified with a larger engine. Last Sunday at a fine car show I ran across one that had a GM 502 crate engine installed. It was nicely put together and I was able to talk to the owner a bit. I asked him how it was to drive on the highway and all he could say was that it was a real handful. The adoring fans that had gathered asked that he start it up. There is much to love about a GM big block with an aggressive camshaft profile and unrestricted exhaust. Educatordan would have been proud.
VW actually made a ramp side version of the Type 2 with the deck over the storage lockers replaced by a removable panel. The target market was businesses moving tall heavy things like refrigerators, switchgear and electronics cabinets. I’m guessing this was not a big seller since it was only available on the split window bus and was not continued on later models.
I like the customized console/cup holder with the shifter sticking through one “holder”
Oh man, jp c.,you too have become a Car Stalker! Nice find and nice article!
Great shots of a real oddball classic, bravo!
Very nice never seen one before thats been a great insight its obviously a lousy ute but the ramp is a cool way around the drawbacks. This particular ute seems to have led a gentle life the bed is mint. I like the forward control layout the big D 3 dont build it anymore leaving modern versions to the Japanese makers Great post
Smart drivers cut a sheet of plywood to fit on the bed and ramp/gate, and secure their loads properly. Much easier to replace.
Smart drivers have seen trucks utterly destroyed by stupid drivers who put an engine block back at the tailgate unsecured… 0-0
The Loadside lost its unique feature, and the root of its name, before production. I believe that it was intended to have a flat shallow bed with a large lockable compartment underneath that was accessed through swing-down door(s?) on the side behind the cab.
How do they go for structural rigidity?
“How do they go for structural rigidity?” .
Not very well as it turned out .
I remember these from new and the big deal with the ramp side was : you could load it dead easy using a hand truck .
The downside was : the ramp was made of fairly thin sheet metal as was the entire bed so within four or five years of light duty hauling, the ramp was all bent to hell as was the inside of the bed .
They rode very nicely, out handled any other stock pickup trucks and got close to 25 MPG to boot .
Los Angeles County Weights & Measures bought several for testing gas station pumps and cut the left bed side down a little bit to facilitate loading the big metal measuring cans they used back then .
IMO, good little trucks that were to advanced for America at the time .
Nice to see this one surviving in such good shape ! I bet that original Delco AM radio still plays fine, I’ve never seen one fail yet and some I have harvested from long abandoned cars were rusty and full of crud but _all_ worked fine after a good cleaning and new good quality speaker .
-Nate
As I’ve stated before, my grandfather worked for GM and had 4 daughters. Did he buy a Chevy van of some kind to haul the family around in? Nope he bought an Econoline with the ole I6. Must have been hard to sell those Corvans even to hard core GM fans. Strange question, which had more horsepower, VW van or the Corvan?
The ’61 Corvan had 80, although this figure may have been bumped a bit in the later models. I’m no VW expert, but a quick Wiki search seems to indicate that the early 60s VW Type 2 put out about 50 bhp. This seems about right, with the Corvan’s extra 2 cylinders.
You got me curious, and I also learned that the ’61 Econoline had 101 bhp.
I think that your grandfather had a lot of company. Pretty bad when GM couldn’t even get their employees to buy them. I did not research Corvan sales, but they must have been pretty bad to replace the platform by 1964.
Vw van were hopelessly underpowered and to drive one at the speed limit on anything other than flat ground meant thrashing the motor mercilessly, which kills them quick, despite the mods made to kombl motors they dont last long untill the suitcase motor came out buying a VW was a sentence to the crawler lane. The flat engine had adequare power and was cooled better VW made some awful motors the twinport 1600 touted as a good motor is absolute crap this was the pinacle of VW upright engineering and the worst engine they made cylinder heads crack between the ports and there is a casting flaw behind the flywheel that causes oil gallerys to crack with no known cure I know Americans think Vdubs are the epitomy of reliability but elsewhere they are the worst car/van you can get with brittle engines and poor build quality.
Wrong across the board Bryce ;
I drove and worked those ‘upright’ 1600 twin port engines hard in the blistering hot Mojave Desert as well as drivo9g them across America loaded to the gunnels and towing too, never had one blow up on me .
When I gave my Son my 1968 # 211 one ton panel truck it had a new 1600 Twin Port engine, he yanked it out and stuffed it into his old dune buggy and built a turbo charger manifold for it and takes it to he drag strip where he runs 25″ (! WTF ?!) of boost and it’s running fine EIGHT YEARS LATER .
In the late 1960’s a guy I know ran pot runs in his 1959 VW Camper from NYC to Florida and back constantly and no issues .
Don’t blame failure of owners and mechanics to properly maintain them for failures .
It’s fine to hate on old VW’s as they were noisy and slow but be honest please .
-Nate
The rear engine air cooled VWs were indeed slow and noisy and the heaters sucked, but if they were well-maintained they were very reliable. You just had to know how to work on them, because they were quite different from the typical American car of the time. Some of them weren’t as slow as others. My grandfather, a self-taught VW mechanic, owned perhaps 100 Volkswagens in his life and he was still working on them into his 80s so I got to drive the last few he owned. He had a beautiful purplish maroon ’73 Bug (not a Super Beetle, but a Beetle with torsion bars) that topped out at 73 MPH. I think it might have had the 40 HP engine in it. My mom had a ’71 Super Beetle that I got up to 85 MPH and it was still climbing pretty hard. I didn’t want to push it any harder than that but it wouldn’t have surprised me if it had gone over 90. Before I was born, my parents had a Type 3 Fastback that my dad saw on 100 MPH once. They were slow, but the later model ones were not as slow as you might think.
The 1961 Econoline 144 put out 90 HP while the 170 put out 101. I can only imagine how slow a fully loaded Econoline van would have been with the little 144.
Had a 62 Ford van and the headlight vent lined up with your right leg. Great cooling effect with shorts on!
Great article, J.P. And what a great find! I found one of these Rampsides in the grave yard behind a local garage–the owner told he intended to restore it and use it for tailgating at LSU games. I hope he did, but I doubt it.
As far GM and Ford missing the boat on small pickups, I doubt it. The contemporary Falcon-based Ranchero was a perfectly good little truck, but GM never copied it and Ford walked away from it after 1965. The problem is that the cost of building a small truck does not shrink as fast as its capacity and the price you can charge for it does.
That’s what’s killing the current Ranger. You can buy a base F-150, with far more capacity, for little more than a Ranger–and which one is more profitable for Ford, do you guess? I hate to say it–I’m a Ranger owner–but it’s true.
Chevrolet did copy the Ranchero. Their answer to the 1957 Ranchero was the 1959 El Camino. The El Camino was dropped after 1960 but a Chevelle-based El Camino was reintroduced for 1964. The Chevelle-based El Camino was bigger than the contemporary Falcon-based Ranchero but both vehicles based on the same concept: an Australian-style coupe utility.
you like to trade for NICE 1996 F-350 4×4 4 door diesel Aloha Ted
It wasn’t a design flaw that killed the production, Ford fared better because they were $100 cheaper. Ford didnt have the traction, braking, or payload that the 95 had. Yes you are correct, Chevy was competing against itself with the Corvair and Chevy II in some ways. But if you check the advertizing GM was doing something different with Corvair “Come see the New Chevrolets and Corvairs” You think they had a Branding Vision? I’m kind of tired of hearing from the uninformed that Corvairs werew a failure. Lets see..lightweight unibody construction, 4 wheel independant suspension, low and wide, with a small(2.5 to 2.7 L) displacement aluminum engine……too bad that formula hasn’t suceeded into todays world……isn’t it?
Thanks for reading, John. But I cannot agree with you. The Corvair 95 pickups were an unmitigated market failure, and not because of a $100 price disadvantage. This was in an era when GM controlled half of the market, and virtually any Chevy would oursell virtually any Ford just because of inertia and the most incredible dealer network ever created. For a Chevrolet to tank so badly (particularly one without significant quality faults like, say, the Vega a decade later) against a competing Ford simply had to reflect the truck’s concept. True, the payload may have been higher and its road manners better, but that unique multi-stepped bed floor just turned off most of the buyers in this segment, which was a small segment to begin with.
Ford was quite innovative in the ’50s and ’60s. First, they built the two seat Thunderbird which wasn’t a sports car like the Corvette but just a stylish little runabout that was far more comfortable than the Corvette. Then they created the personal luxury market with the 1958 Thunderbird. This market segment exploded in the late ’60s and by the mid-’70s the best selling cars in the country were personal luxury cars that were direct descendants of the Squarebird. In 1961 they introduced the Econoline van and pickup truck with the innovative engine inside the cab forward control design. Then in 1962, they created the mid-sized segment with the Fairlane (The 1962 “full sized” Plymouth Fury, Belvedere and Savoy were only slightly bigger than the Fairlane, but they were marketed as full sized cars and didn’t compete directly with the Fairlane which was clearly marketed as being a size between the compact Falcon and the full sized Galaxie) which was copied by most automakers. Then in ’64 the Mustang came along and while it wasn’t the first sporty 4 seat car, it was by far the most influential and set the pace for the “pony car” segment. Chrysler was innovative in engineering, GM was innovative in engine design and Ford was innovative in creating new types of vehicles in the ’50s and ’60s.
Well guys for what it is worth I have owned both the Rampside and the VW Truck. I bought my 95 Series from the local Independant VW Mechanic in the late 70’s and contrary to what I have seen here is mine was a 1965 and accoeding to the man I bought it from there where only 1500 built that year. So must have been one of the last ones made. On the Identity plate down on the kickpanel on the drivers side it read for Horsepower 100 BHP. later on I went to work for GM Service and spent 22 years taking care of GM owners and thier rides. I also spent a tour of Duty with a Volkswagen Restoration shop in Northern Alabama for awhile and saw just about everything Volkswagen made. In 63 and up to around 68 The Volkswagen engine was a 50 hp engine in just about everything but VW on the vans and the trucks added a gear reduction block on the end of the axles to give the little engine the help it needed to push the Bus along. VW then went to 65hp and finally in the 70’s went so far as to put the small Porsche engine in the buses and even tried a watercooled one before they were done. The only things I didn’t like about the 95 series Chevy was it was cold in the winter like most air cooled vehicles and mine had six individual carbs on it that where nearly impossible to keep balanced so it never ran very smooth. Between Ralph Nader and Fan Belt problems the Corvair was doomed from the beginning. One of the Dealerships in Alabama I worked for has a couple of different years of corvair cars in the basement that were never sold and neither one of them have over a 100 miles on the odometer. Don’t get excited boys they are still ther and no they will not sell them. theres a 1928 Chevrolet truck chassis sittimg next ot them that they never received the body too as well. Keep up the good articles I Love em bring back lots of Memories mostly good ones too.
I still own a 1963 Rampside.
When I was much younger I had a 63 Convertible. What killed it for me was the Heater. Living in the Midwest Brrrrr. But that was my fault, young and did not understand the concept.
Fan belt, I never have thrown one,
Carbs, I don’t have any problem with keeping them tuned and with the new gaskets and seals today, wonderful.
As far as the article goes, I loved it! Great job!
And of course I agree with this statement “coolest Corvair of them all. It is indisputably a Curbside Classic”
By the way,,,,My 63 has a gas heater in it. Wonderful, to say the least.
You answered my question about the gasoline heater.
I just bought a 1962 Rampside with 110hp and I love it already! Keep in mind it’s not running yet, and I’ve never really driven one. This article makes a few points that might have helped sales of the Corvair pickup. That if GM had designed the Loadside as a normal flatbed, with locker room for storage underneath the bed (As VW did) it might have been a big hit? Since the usefulness of a pit in the middle of the Loadside truck makes no sense really, when you can’t easily remove debris as in a normal flatbed truck. But with the Rampside, the ramp opens giving access to the bed/pit. Also loading the Corvair Pickup into the bed/pit will center the weight between the four tires, that’s how they are capable of hauling 1,900 lbs. Almost a ton! It’s pretty fun to walk in the bed of a Corvair pickup, many levels to step on. There’s lots of potential for this truck. I bought it to utilize the ramp to the fullest! There’s just nothing else like it. I have some heavy stuff to put into my F150 truck, it’s just not safe to load/unload it! But with this rampside, I can roll it into the middle of the bed from the ground level! I heard from some people who made use of the ramp, that they loved it. I’ve seen some rampsides converted to flatbed too. But I have an idea to make panels that fold to form a flatbed, I will have to toy with that idea? Just as I can use the pit, I will also want the bed to become flat! So I want it both ways. I want to sleep in the back of it too, so I’ll have to come up with the solution. Thanks for the article. I don’t agree that the truck was a bad idea, just not marketed correctly. Comparing the Corvair Pickup to a Ford Forward Control, the weight distribution is much different. The Ford would be better than the Corvair to haul a trailer, as the Corvair engine weight is in the rear. But I’ve seen video of the Ford FC Econoline truck flipping it’s rear in the air at a hard stop, due to the light rear end on the Ford FC.
Also the early model corvairs lacked horsepower that later models gained. If the Corvair had more time to evolve as the VW and Porsche did, perhaps it would have had a better reputation? Check out what Jay Leno did to a 1961 Rampside!
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/trucks/1961-chevrolet-corvair-95-rampside/index.shtml#item=72531
Econoline vs Rampside video…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrhCAiV7diY
Here’s my ‘new’ 1962 Rampside!
Corvairscott@aol.com SanDiego Corvairclub on FB
Scott,
I did a collapsible level bed.
And here it is installed.
No matter how compact it is when removed, it’s still freaking heavy, so not something you’ll want to take in, pull out every day.
I am looking for a 60″s Ford Econoline pick-up or Corvair pick-up. Does anyone know where to find them??
ANY LUCK FINDING THE TRUCK YET??
Nothing yet, still waiting, maybe after the holidays.
If you’re still looking, I’ve got a 61
I owned a 62 Greenbrier for over a year now, It has a later 110hp engine in it. The biggest surprise I got was how well it handles and how well it rides. It’s a blast to drive and has good power. I don’t have any problems with belts or carburetors. Unlike the Econoline and the VW’s I’ve owned and driven, The Greenbrier is a true minivan, that dodge claims to have invented 20 years later.
The maybe you’ll enjoy this: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1963-corvair-greenbrier-gms-greatest-hit-6-we-dont-want-a-better-vw-bus/
The first 3 cars I owned were Corvairs, and I loved em. As the article points out, the vans and truck were wonderful but quirky vehicles, too different to appeal to mainstream pickup purchasers. Radical engineering and superb fuel economy was not enough to gain market share.
I suspect the later small size pickups from Japan benefited a lot from militant OPEC. Gas prices doubled in months instead of decades, and you often waited in line for hours, often rationed due to limited supply. Pretty much ensures fuel economy moves to the top of the must-have list.
One point that hasn’t been mentioned is how small the Japanese mini trucks were, especially inside the cabs. I’m 6’4″ and when I was in high school we had a ’76 Chevrolet Luv pickup truck made by Isuzu. The cab was incredibly cramped and there’s no way that three passengers of my size could have ridden in it. The seat was very low and it was like sitting directly on the floor. My legs stretched straight out, which is fine in a sports car but not in a pickup truck. It got good mileage and was easy to park but it was just too small inside to be practical for a person of my stature. How cramped were the cabs in the Corvair pickups, the Econoline pickups and the Dodge A-100 pickups? I assume that they’re much roomier than the small Asian pickups of the ’60s and ’70s.
I bought a 1961 Rampside with a two-speed Powerglide I think around 1969 when I was 14 to drive around my parents’ plot of land, what we used to call a “lot car”. My next-door neighbor was selling it, it had flat tires and he thought it did not run, I probably paid less the $100 for it.
I blew up the tires and charged the battery and used some starting fluid in the carbs and it started. My neighbor was surprised it was running and told me it needed a valve adjustment so he proceeded to lay underneath and adjust the valves while the engine was running. The engine ran progressively worse until it finally stalled and I never got it running again after that. I had a Chilton manual with a Corvair section that described how to adjust the valves. I think the procedure was to bring each piston to TDC and use a feeler gauge to set the clearance. I attempted it once or twice but didn’t have the skills or determination to get it done. A junk yard eventually towed it away.
I was amazed by the fuel pump since it had one inlet line and three outlet lines, one for each carb and one going straight up to the cab to supply the gas heater. The gas heater seems dangerous thinking about it now, especially with the forward mounted cab. A head on collision seems like it could have started a cab fire. I also wonder if the fumes when operating the heater were vented outside the cab somehow.
The Corvair Rampside may have been sales failure, but check out this advert comparing the Rampside to the Ford on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrhCAiV7diY. The Chevy looks far superior.
I’ve seen this video before. While incredibly entertaining and a fascinating look back to the early 1960s, keep in mind that it was produced by GM and of course it is going to make the Corvair look good and paint the Econoline in a less than favorable light. If Ford had made a similar propaganda film, it would have made the Chevrolet look bad. I read somewhere that the Econoline used in this film had the 165 pound weight that Ford added to the rear of the truck to increase traction and stability had been removed from this particular truck. True or not, the image of the Econoline standing on its front two wheels under heavy braking is terrifying and if I had seen this video back in the day, I would have probably bought the Corvair for that reason alone.
Here is some more GM propaganda about how the Ford was inferior in the eyes of GM:
https://www.corvair.org/chapters/corvanatics/files/documents/brochures/confidential.pdf
I absolutely adore the way these trucks look and I think they’re super cool but I would never own one because of the lack of sheet metal between the driver’s feet and the front bumper. Your legs are basically the crumple zone. A minor front end collision could easily end up in a serious injury to the lower legs. I also don’t like the fact that the engine in the Econoline and the A-100 is in the cab. I would guess that they’re noisy, hot and that fumes from the engine would easily leak into the cab. I love these things, but they are vehicles that I will admire from afar.
The Rampside featured in this article is an early production 1963 “Deluxe” model. The items that identify it as such are:
1) Horizontally striped instrument cluster.
2) Two-speed windshield wiper switch – part of the Deluxe pkg.
3) Two-tone steering wheel – part of the Deluxe pkg.
4) Two-tone door panel with arm rest – another Deluxe pkg item.
5) Amber front turn signal lenses (which, as was pointed out in the article, could have been replacements on a ’61 or ’62, but the instrument cluster negates that.)
6) “Wet spaghetti noodle” shift lever. Chevy made a mid-year production change to a shift lever mounted directly on the floor like the sedans, which continued until the end of 95-series production.
I had a 1964 Rampside with a 110 engine and the 2-spd Powerglide. It was a great little work truck for what I was doing in the early ’70s, turning heads wherever I went. Wish I would have kept it, but a Corvair enthusiast made me an offer I couldn’t refuse so I sold it – and he’s still got it!
Through the years there have been many clever ideas on how to build a non conventional pickup truck. They usually fall into a “neither fish nor fowl” category which commercially is usually a dead zone. The whole concept of a pickup has changed to the point that a true conventional pickup up is a dying breed and the four door pickup is now standard fare. The funny thing is, is that when the new breed of family trucks, with four doors and a short bed, started to come on the scene, I thought that they would fail. Whoops!
As strange as these were, I can’t understand why Chevy thought anyone would want the Loadside. Did they really think there was a market for a “de-contented” Rampside?
I agree with others here in thinking that the stepped engine cover seems like an odd idea, too.
Finally, I remember a time when Detroit would introduce a new vehicle with an engine that was “just powerful enough”, but would quickly add a larger/more powerful engine to the lineup. In the case of the Loadside/Rampside Chevy should have put made the most popular Corvair car engine standard in the van and pickup.
Yeah, you have to wonder what GM was thinking on the Loadside. Maybe they simply didn’t want to tool-up sides that drop like the VW. Besides the cost, there’d be the stigma attached to being too European (even if it was more practical).
Frankly, a Loadside/Rampside with both opening tailgate ‘and’ side gate seems like it would have been ideal. Unfortunately, as someone else commented, I can certainly see the side-gate quickly becoming unserviceable if heavy items were regularly taken in and out over what it is surely a lightweight gate. Not to mention how long it would last as it rusts in the snowbelt.
It’s too bad the owner of the feature Loadside never showed up. It would have been interesting to find out how he uses his rare Corvair pickup.
With the high sides of modern pickups I thing the old VW Type 2 pickup with folding sides might be worth a try again.
I’m a Die hard VW Fanboi and owned a few VW Typ II pickups, as I occasionally haul Motocycles I never made one my Shop Truck or keeper .
I really lusted after a 1968 (Bay Window) Typ II single cab pickup but couldn’t use it so I never did get one =8-( .
-Nate
Drove a ’68 single cab in ’74-’75 for the VW dealer I worked for in Sunland, CA.
Every weekday drove to VOA parts warehouse in Culver City, the under bed storage was great for smaller boxes protected from weather and theft, and the fold down sides were great, the forklift would drive right up to the sides to load a pallet with engine or transmission strapped to it. Put lots of delivery miles on that little beast.
You’re preaching to the Choir here, I drove my ’68 # 211 one ton parcel delivery van all over Arizona in the heat at speed and it never failed me once .
Kinda like riding inside a YUUGE snare drum in the noise dept. but thrifty and it hauled Motocycles dead easy .
-Nate
Folding sides on small and light (flatbed) trucks are pretty much the norm all over the globe, regardless where the engine is or whether it’s a RWD, FWD or AWD truck.
Speaking of the old VW pickups with folding sides, Ford offered a direct competitor from 1953 onwards.
Pretty cool ! .
The U.S. of A. didn’t get those .
-Nate
It’s the (German) Ford FK 1000/1250, later called Ford Taunus Transit, built from 1953 to 1965.
Of course it was also available as a van and minibus, see below. It’s obvious where the name of the later Ford Transit -introduced in 1965- comes from.
This article reminds me a most unusual concept prototype for the Corvair 95 yet .
The Corphibian. Some of us had the pleasure of viewing it while under restoration at the Lane Motor Muesium during the 2016 CC meet up .
That is the ultimately unique Corvair! This writeup at R&T tells the tale, including a home movie showing the Corphibian in action.
It has these rear controls so the driver could climb around and pilot from the stern.
I remember seeing that one. Really something unique!
Another angle
I’ve always liked the VW crew cabs. It would have been cool to see a Corvair , Econoline version of that. They might have sold a few more of those, because the only domestic crew cabs back in the 60s were Dodge and International . Chevy didn’t offer a crew cab until the 70s. An Econoline crew cab could have handled better than the single cab, adding a little extra weight back there.
But you have to remember, both the Corvan and the Econoline van were based on small, economy cars that only featured 6 cylinder engines. I would think a crewcab for the Corvair Rampside or the Econoline pickup would have overpowered their respective engines. And besides, in the 60s, folks still saw pickup trucks as utilitarian vehicles and not as something they wanted to be seen driving “after work”.
I don’t understand your reasoning. Remember, the first Corvair sedans and coupes were marketed and heavily advertised as full six-passenger vehicles. Granted, that was a stretch (or a cram!) but I have numerous memories of three of my college buds and I all piling into my ’65 Monza coupe for a pizza run after smoking an appropriate appetite stimulant. That car with the 110HP engine had plenty of get-up-and-go even with the Powerglide tranny. I bet a Corvair crew-cab variant could have been up to the task of hauling a crew and cargo. (Eddie Carleton even suggested I build a tray onto my air cleaner lid, so we could put the pies over the engine for the ride back to the dorm to keep them hot. I hope Eddie put his vast intellect to more productive use upon graduation! (It was a good idea, though ~)
I mentioned this earlier but I have read that the Corvair with the Powerglide automatic was actually quicker than the 3 speed manual version. Ed Cole wanted the Corvair to come with the Powerglide standard but GM executives vetoed this idea and a 3 speed manual was cobbled together. Later, a 4 speed manual was offered but I’m not sure if it was quicker than the Powerglide or not.
Corvair custom crew cab
It may have been a failure, but I’d much rather see a huge failure–with character–than a sea of bland lookalikes. This truck is super cool. I like the Rampside, because (and this is speaking as someone who at my last job, had to load many customers’ heavy products by hand into their truck), having something with a low floor is a huge bonus. When customers come in with a heavy duty trailer with a low floor (and a side door), loading things when they’re 50-80 lbs apiece becomes way easier. When you’re lifting 50-80 lbs repeatedly, breaking down a skid to load it onto a trailer by hand, lifting it a foot and a half off the ground is much easier than doing it two and a half feet to three feet in the air, depending on how high the truck is.
The Rampy sold a respectable quantity in its first year (1961) and many went to appliance dealers who delivered. Look at it – super low load floor, side-loading drop-down ramp to curbside….how could loading/offloading a washer, or a dryer, or a fridge with a two-wheeler be any easier for residential delivery? Chevy’s problem was, after 1961 and ’62 there were no other people who wanted to buy one. Every appliance store already HAD one or two. They were’t practicable for everyday Joes and Janes – and the Loadsides were even harder to deal with. Get something up over the engine and then down into the main cargo floor. Cool.
Now, get it OUT…
A good idea, taken too far. Even so, a fascinating vehicle to own. I had one, years ago. Completely impractical for everyday use, yet somehow – quirkily irresistable. 🙂
The Rampside strikes me a cool idea, even on a front-engine truck. I don’t know why other manufacturers didn’t copy this. A truck with ramps on both sides would be that much more versatile.
According to the Corvair history on Ate Up With Motor, “Many Rampsides were sold to Bell Telephones for use by repair and installation crews.”
https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/chevrolet-corvair-history/view-all/
I think there might have been something akin to the Rampside resurrected in the Chrysler minivan C/V (cargo van) that arrived in 1983 (MY1984). While it didn’t have a ramp, the side entrance was low enough to the ground to allow a similar level of access as the Rampside. Plus, unlike the Rampside, it offered protection to the cargo from the elements.
In fact, although it wasn’t a factory option, I’m certain there were plenty of aftermarket companies that, to this day, modify Chrysler minivans for disabled access through their sliding side doors with ramps that extend out electrically.
In that regard, maybe there was a big opportunity missed by not offering Rampside on the commercial-duty Corvan. Imagine a version with a lower drop-down ramp, with the top section opening upward. Hell, they could have offered the rampside door on the Greenbrier passenger van, too.
I can only surmise that there were structural issues with the ramp that eventually surfaced over extended use and the reason it was discontinued after its short run. A real pity since it did seems to show promise.
Of course, there was always the very real issue of serious injury in the event of a front-end collision that plagued all of the these first compact-based small vans where the engine was mounted anywhere other than in front of the driver.
Even in a low speed collision you’d suffer major injuries in one of those tin cans! Give me a modern car or truck any day!
Rampside vs VW and Ford.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6RNp153JSw
Rampside vs Ford (old advertisement’s)
These cab forward pickups have a major advantage over now-standard engine-out-front configuration: none of the length is wasted on the engine compartment. I would assume this also has a benefit for the turning radius as well.
As a cyclist, the packaging on these rampsides would be great. Load the bikes standing up in the center section, without having to hoist them up into a tall van or pickup bed. Add a camper shell, and the raised section over the engine provides a nice (preheated!) shelf for laying down a sleeping bag. Unlike the Econoline, the engine in back keeps heat away from the passenger compartment while driving.
Safety standards / crash protection, that’s why cab forward vans and light trucks, with the engine in the back or between the front seats, don’t exist anymore. That is, neither in Europe nor in (I assume) North America.
All of them have the engine-out-front and a crumple zone, not being the driver and passenger(s).
The Toyota Hiace and Nissan Urvan are sold in Mexico, so if those are considered cab forward vans, I guess that’s the only remaining option in North America.
But what about the same formula of using a van chassis, like an E-Series pickup? Maybe not enough demand to warrant tooling something new (that would siphon F-Series sales, no less), but I could see the utility of the smaller footprint in many urban applications.
Ford has the Transit, which is available as a van and chassis-cab. With a short / sloping nose, just like its modern competitors (Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, Renault Master, VW Crafter and others).
Were the Greenbrier/Corvan/Loadside/Rampside models available with the infamous gasoline heater that was available in the Corvair coupes and sedans?
I have read that at least in Corvair coupes and sedans, the Powerglide equipped versions were actually quicker than the 3 speed manual versions. I don’t know if the 4 speed versions were any quicker. I also don’t know if the vans and trucks with the Powerglide were quicker than the manual versions or if this was only the case in the cars. It was very rare in 1960 for a car with an automatic to be quicker than the same car with a manual. I also read that Ed Cole wanted the Corvair to come standard with the Powerglide 2 speed automatic but was vetoed by other GM executives and that the manual transaxle was engineered as an alternative to the slushbox.
I can imagine that gravel and small rocks could get caught in between the bottom of the ramp and the body of the truck, causing damage and eventually failure of the ramp.
I wonder if Chevrolet ever considered engineering a false floor for the Rampside and Loadside that would provide a completely flat floor. This floor could be hinged at the back, and the area underneath the false floor could be used for storage. This false floor could also be removable, providing more space. I know that a plywood false floor platform was available, but I would think a hinged metal false floor that was lockable would be even more useful. It would have beaten the Honda Ridgeline with its lockable trunk to market by decades.
I looked this up once. The Rampside cost $53 more than the Loadside (from which year, I can’t remember). $53 was a fair bit of cash in 1961, perhaps a week’s wages for a working person. Yet still, sales of the Rampside were far and above the version without the ramp, from what I remember.
Around $540 in 2023 d0llars.
My Uncle had a Rampside back in the ’70’s. He had a gardening business and had to load an aerating machine,( kind of like a big heavy hand truck) in the bed by himself. Like pictured in the Chevy ad. A set up with the ramp was perfect, running a ramp off the tail gate of a pick up can be a pretty steep hill to roll things up. Sometimes you just can’t lift something heavy into the bed by yourself. I helped a guy load some commercial sewing machines into a 4×4 truck bed. I’d hate to live with a truck like that. The older I get, the harder it is to load heavy cargo stuff by myself, and having to reach over the lowered tailgate or crawl into the bed isn’t much fun. I think that a side swinging tailgate would be a nice option on new trucks.
I found that the side access of a four door SUV made loading and unloading easier in many situations. I wasn’t that fussy with my old Explorer, but I’m not loading dirty stuff into my Navigator! Sometimes a beater SUV can come in handy.
I can see the Corvair pickup being a good thing. Conceptually. And the VW busses, and the Econoline vans, there is actually a Falcon (Econoline) van parked nearby, and Dodge and Chevy and kind of sort of the Corvairs.
But for one thing, perception is as big as reality, especially in new car sales. People look at VW busses and smile. I was talking with a friend one time and a double cab, VW pickup rolled by. Without hesitation he instantly said, “I’d sleep with that thing”. People look at a Corvair van, kind of cock their head like a confused dog and look away. The economics may have not worked, but I think they needed a flat floor, with a lightweight aluminum folding cover over it in the middle so you had a flat floor, with storage underneath.
The VWs. I once was way into them and the best I can recall is as follows.
mid to late 50s, 36HP. Ok but defines gutless.
59+ a little bit, modified 36HP which was such a turkey you couldn’t get parts for it within just a very few years.
61 40HP. A good solid engine in bugs, you could keep up with traffic, but underpowered in type 2s.
63 51HP 1500. Better
65 53HP 1500. Have no idea what the difference was.
68 57HP 1600. Better, except that the cases from 68-70 used a different alloy which led to head studs pulling out.
71 60HP 1600, dual port with a much bigger carb. Ok, maybe just a bigger carb, but a definite improvement engine wise.
72 The 411 engine, referred to as the 411 engine by some, the VW engine by Porsche people, the Porsche engine by VW people. Better, but not enough better as it should have been.
Re Dodge van pickups past first gen. They did make some, very few, but only for Canada and badged as Fargo. I think it was second gen, maybe third which IIRC was barely different. A vendor I was dealing with had one, so I have seen one in the flesh, or should I say steel. He knew all about it and bent my ear for 15 minutes when I commented on it.
My father worked at the GM Assembly Plant in South Gate CA. There had been one of these in their plant as to run materials/items around. Fairly low mileage, in which the plant decided to get rid of it. They had a closed bid auction for the employees. Dad said he placed a bid, I thought we would be getting it. Someone out bid him. Guess there is a reason things happen that way.
Many many misleading statements by the author and commentators. As the owner of many of these vehicles, I should be qualified to talk. My experience is that the Rampside is the most useful truck ever made. There is simply no other truck where you can easily load a large item like a refrigerator all by yourself with only a hand cart. Stoves, appliances, large air compressors, generators they all load easily. My guess is the poor sales were from all the people who never move large items and rely on store delivery. As far as ride and handling, these are 4 wheel independent suspension and ride and handle excellent. I’ve never seen the ramp door suffer from more than small dings, it’s rugged. The rear swing axles are different from the pass car Corvair, and the front suspension never used anything from the C-10 truck, to counter the authors comments. ,
I’ve always liked vans and minvans. Per Jose ‘The older I get, the harder it is to load heavy cargo stuff by myself, and having to reach over the lowered tailgate or crawl into the bed isn’t much fun.’ My 2002 Silverado Z71 has a high bed. The main use for that is obtaining firewood, and occasionally bringing brush to the dump. The Rampside would be ideal for both, and transporting a snowblower. In winter weather, I’d think the engine over the driving wheels would result in pretty good traction. Looking at the photos, I just imagined how I’d load firewood. Especially rounds – the ramp would be a huge benefit. I’m in my mid 60s, and while still willing and able to handle firewood a used Toyota Sienna is a possibility at some point. The payload capacity is actually slightly more than my ’07 Toyota Tacoma. If I won the lottery I’d be on the lookout for one of these Rampsides.
Recently saw one of these in Nevada that someone had converted to the much coveted “turbo” instrument cluster.
Someone seen the new Multivan yet? Well well VW.
If they get the idea of an open Version? I bet it!
It will be an extraordinary, overprized (70k+?) car nobody really needed. See the LR Evoque Cabrio or the VW TRoc Cabrio.
But, yeah. VW is copying the copy 🙄🤣
The Loadside was designed with a flat floor with lockers underneath, as is clear from photos of the prototype. Then GM’s beancounters got to work, and cheapened the design for production by eliminating the lockers, hence the bi-level, totally inpractical floor.