Cohort RalfK (Don Kincl) has posted some finds from a walk in his neighborhood in Puyallup, WA. One that caught my eye was this 1967 Chevy II 100 two door sedan. Why? Well, having had Corvairs on the brain recently, it truly is the anti-Corvair, with its tall stance and boxy body. And of course, original cars like this are getting quite uncommon, especially these, as so many Chevy IIs gave up their bodies to a hotter calling.
I always love the brochure shots for the cheapest stripper cars; they’re inevitably in settings totally unfaithful to their actual owners and use. Here’s a fine gentleman in his suit picking up two stylish women with their shopping at an upscale mall in his four-cylinder 100. Right. Should be a cheap old codger picking up his dowdy wife at the Salvation Army thrift store.
Yes, the Chevy II 100 four cylinder was “Chevrolet’s easiest to own,” exactly $38 cheaper than the Corvair 500 coupe.
But then the Corvair 500 had a bigger, more powerful and much smoother 6-cylinder engine, and of course a very handsome hardtop coupe body. Never mind four wheel independent suspension and the best handling of any American car. What a steal for an additional 38 bucks.
Note: a rerun of an older post.
Has CC covered the gestation of the Chevy II from when GM realized that its somewhat exotic compacts weren’t what the market demanded to when the Chevy II/Nova reached production? I’m curious what best handling means in this context. Was there ever a test that demonstrated the second generation Corvair’s superiority to the Valiant or GT350, two cars which actually dominated competitions in relatively stock trim?
The 1st gen Corvair didn’t put in a huge effort in SCCA racing classes. Maybe because of the suspension geometry. The Europeans had essentially invented sports car racing and the Germans, Italians and English had all of the right people behind them. The 2nd gen car gathered some success and a Yenko Stinger was D Production champion in 1966. But then the Camaro came out and all of Chevrolet’s backdoor support went to that. In addition, Group 44 had factory support and major publicity behind them.
I consider it a tragedy that the Corvair was not embraced by Americans. It would have given us a different focus on performance and better prepared us for the small car revolution of the Seventies and beyond. I don’t care mush for the 1st gen Corvair and think it’s unattractive. But the 2nd gen looks great and had decent power and handling.
Had a 62 corvair, dad bought it new for mom and I got it in 65 when dad died. I had front suspension and oil pump problems fixed. Plus I had a few times going around a curve and the the rear end went in front. When did these chevy 11 come out, would have been a lot better than the corvair. I belong to a facebook corvair club, but not really a fan. Late in life I’ve learned to stay away from American vehicles.
Agreed. You could include Ford Mavericks in that group, Many of those gave up their life as a daily driver to become a drag strip terror.
Sheesh, only $38 measely more dollars. Even in 1967, that was a paltry sum for all you got with a still handsome Corvair hardtop over a stodgy 4-cylinder Chevy II 2-door sedan. Even with the Corvair’s bad reputation by then (whether deserved or not), it’s still a no-brainer as to which was a better buy.
A comparison of sales between the two for that year would be interesting.
There’s our sales info right on our front page:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/us-car-sales-and-market-share-by-brand-and-model-category-1946-1975/
Corvair: 27k; Chevy II: 107k Not a good year for either of them. The new Camaro was a prime reason.
After two years, the Corvair 500 would be worth $200 more in trade than a four-cylinder Chevy II 100, albeit $75 less than a six-cylinder Chevy II. (The trade didn’t care much for the Corvair by the end, but they REALLY didn’t like the four-cylinder Chevy II.)
Yes, a Corvair was a better car than the Chevy II. But some people preferred a simple uninteresting car. The Corvair was exotic, the Chevy II was safe and understandable. GM is filled with lovers of new ideas, but most drivers just needed a daily driver.
It’s always been like that. A manufacturer will come up with some terrific, revolutionary design and the buying public will ‘claim’ it’s what they’ve been waiting for.
But when they actually put the new car into production and it comes down to laying down their hard-earned cash, suddenly, those same consumers all go to the tried-and-true, safe, boring option. The Corvair versus the Falcon is a perfect example; they loved the Corvair but bought way more Falcons.
A “4, buzzer” would be like a lawn mower engine in this car..lol
Surprised to know the 153 Super-Thrift (man. 3sp) was available in the 1969 Chevrolet Nova 4-Door Sedan She thus obtained an estimated acceleration of 18.1 sec for the 0-60 and a quarter mile time of 21.7 sec.
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1968/102620/chevrolet_chevy_ii_nova_coupe_153_super-thrift.html https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/the-little-engines-that-could-part-4-six-minus-two-equals-roughly-unpopular/
Surprised to know the 153 Super-Thrift (man. 3sp) was available in the 1969 Chevrolet Nova 4-Door Sedan .The longest radiator shroud in existence? She thus obtained an estimated acceleration of 18.1 sec for the 0-60 and a quarter mile time of 21.7 sec.
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1968/102620/chevrolet_chevy_ii_nova_coupe_153_super-thrift.html https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/the-little-engines-that-could-part-4-six-minus-two-equals-roughly-unpopular/
Was 67 the last year for the original style Nova ? The next generation Nova was better looking and not so boxy.