In 1961, the Corvair’s second year of production, it was still the new guy at the office, trying its best to fit in. Before it could feel at ease in its sporty polo shirt and sunglasses as the Monza Spyder and Corsa, however, it tried on a lot of outfits, including business casual in the case of this Monza 900 Sedan.
Curbside Classic regular Hyperpack posted the pictures of this very nice Monza on the CC Cohort, and it’s a good reminder of how quickly the Corvair had to find its niche in Chevy’s lineup. As much as marketing and product planning like to rely on market research, the Corvair’s market seemed to find them—eventually.
But first, Chevrolet had to find their way out of the corner they had painted themselves into. Soon after the Corvair’s release as a 1960 model, it must have become clear that a combination of the Corvair’s mechanical quirkiness and production costs meant that it would never perform the “jack of all trades” duties that Chevrolet had intended it to. The advertisements for 1961 models show that the eventual “sporty compact” role that the Corvair would eventually play was not yet fleshed out; it was still being promoted as a complete lineup of cars, including vans, wagons, coupes, and sedans. And the Monza 4-door sedan was not yet available at the start of the 1961 model year.
But the shift to sportiness had already started in the spring of 1960 when the Monza coupe was first released as a mid-year addition to the line, featuring bucket seats and nicer trim all-round. This was rushed into production after a customized Corvair coupe was shown at the Chicago Auto Show in February of 1960 and there was an unexpected degree of enthusiasm by the attendees. Nothing like this, an affordable compact car with sporty looks and interior, had been available to American consumers except from imports. Here was an American car to genuinely compete with imports, unlike the Falcon, which mostly just competed against the low-end big Fords and Rambler.
The 1960.5 Monza’s unique package turned out to be extremely influential, and by 1961.5 Ford had created a bucket seat Falcon Futura, and the Valiant would follow in 1962. The sporty compact segment was the hot new thing, and of course it culminated in Ford’s Mustang a few years later.
In 1961, you were just as likely to see a mid-range “700” in an advertisement as you were a fancy “Monza 900.” By the next model year, Chevy would change their tune and start promoting the Corvair’s relative sportiness in comparison to its staid rivals.
You can see how far things had come in this advertisement for the 1962 Corvair; instead of being promoted as a full-line of cars, which it really still was, the Monza was sharing page space with the Corvette and being shown on a winding road.
Our featured Monza Sedan has a Powerglide, whose selector was discreetly mounted on the dashboard; there were no column shifted three-speeds for any Corvair. Interestingly, this one doesn’t seem to have been ordered with a radio. An optional four-speed manual became available late in the 1960 model year as well as a higher output 95 hp Super Turbo-Air engine (98 hp in 1961).
See the radio binnacle in this Monza; at the very least, our featured sedan has had its radio removed, but since it is missing the entire pod under the dashboard, it most likely never came with one. Neat.
Of course, the Monza Sedan wasn’t exactly sporty in performance in 1961; Car Life Magazine tested a basic 80-horsepower Monza Sedan with a Powerglide and found that the newly-standard 3.27:1 differential sapped some of the enjoyment from the car (a 3.55:1 had been standard for 1960). Chevrolet apparently did this to improve the Corvair’s somewhat lackluster fuel economy; in their words, the change “torpedoed the performance far more than the [one] mile per gallon efficiency increase would justify.”
Regarding the Monza trim package, Car Life mentioned that it was “nothing more than a Corvair 700 with many of the extras included as standard equipment, plus a jazzy upholstery job.” Sometimes, however, that’s all it takes—the magic formula.
Speaking of formulas, I was intrigued that Chevrolet included a net horsepower rating for the 80-horsepower 145 “Turbo-Air” flat-six in their press materials. Apparently, the Corvair was getting by on 65 actual horsepower, which explains why Car Life’s 22-second quarter-mile time at 63 miles per hour was somewhat underwhelming. Obviously, the Falcon’s 144 was no better, and like the Falcon, the Corvair had a step-up engine option, the aforementioned 98-horsepower “Super Turbo-Air” engine that was also tested by Car Life. Paul N. discussed that test here.
What really set the Corvair up for its true success as a sporty car was its styling. It’s true that the sedan never really caught on (the Monza Coupe outsold the Monza Sedan 109,945 to 33,745 in 1961), but I think that the sedan is a better-looking package. The “flying wing” rear window treatment has to be one reason why, but it’s clearly a styling motif that would age quickly. By 1964, when the first-generation (known as the “EM,” or “Early Model,” to Corvair aficionados) was wrapping up its run, the flying wing was well in the past on the full-size line of cars, three years to be exact.
But those were problems for the future when this 1961 model came out, and although there were a surprising number of changes beneath the surface between 1960 and 1961, there were only a few obvious stylistic changes. One was the nose: Notice how the front panel is convex and has a nice piece of chrome trim horizontally bisecting the body line.
When I bought my 1965 Corvair in 2007, a coworker, who would have been a young woman during the Corvair’s production run, asked me where the “radiator grille” was. I can imagine that the sight of a 1960 Corvair with no grille and minimal brightwork would have been a little offputting to those who didn’t understand its engine placement; therefore, the 1961’s extra trim was almost certainly a compromise to spiff up the front end. Also, the convex “bump” increased luggage space, a Corvair shortcoming. Although Corvairs had a fold-down rear seat, you wouldn’t be able to carry any backseat passengers to use it, another selling-point for those in the Ford camp. The Falcon had a very generous trunk.
But it didn’t have the Corvair’s spectacularly successful and influential styling; it was copied the world over and it still looks great today. This one, which appears to be painted in Monza-only “Fawn Beige,” a beautiful color, shows us how handsome a nicely trimmed “basic Corvair” can be. Although it hadn’t quite found its footing yet, and the idea was an eventual dead end, it still makes for an interesting and practical collector car, even 64 years later.
Further CC Reading
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1961 Corvair Monza 98 HP 4-Speed – The Poor Man’s Porsche? (by Paul N.)
Rare Find: 1961 Chevrolet Corvair Lakewood – The Short-Lived Corvair Wagon (by Rich B.)
COAL: 1961 Corvair Monza Coupe – We Can Do It! (by Pioneer_Fox)
Nice! Although not my favorite color the Corvair has really grown on me because of CC. I never liked them as a kid (probably because of the missing radiator grille) but now business casual suits me fine. They are readily available classics, and now call to me from the online ads..
Wow, a 2nd day in a row of a 1961 GM car in that same color (Desert Fawn on yesterday’s 61 Buick Special wagon). Are all old 1961 GM survivors sporting this paint color? It was on the 61 Buick Electra I shot several years ago and wrote up here.
I think I agree that the proportions on the sedan are better, although it is a totally different vibe than the coupe presents. I remember looking at one of these being sold locally a number of years ago, and was bowled over by how low the car is.
Desert Fawn was very common on ’61 Corvairs but it disappeared for ’62 although it was still available on the full size cars.
Just in case anyone’s reading for posterity, the same color had a different name for each GM division. The color’s code was “T” in all cases.
Chevrolet: Fawn Beige
Pontiac: Mayan Gold
Oldsmobile: Fawn Mist
Buick: Desert Fawn
It wasn’t just the radio that needed a dashboard extension pod to house it; the optional air conditioning needed yet another pod to house the controls and vents, which attached to the radio pod, which in turn attached to the dash. This meant you couldn’t have a/c without a radio, unless Chevy was willing to build one with a blank plate. I even saw a online photo of an early Corvair with a tape player in a pod below the a/c pod below the radio pod below the dash, but I’m pretty sure that was an aftermarket addition.
For all the hullabaloo about the Monza bucket seats, they barely even look like bucket seats. They’re nearly flat, there’s only about an inch of space between them, and there’s no center console to drive home the sporty appearance.
I think a console would have been difficult to pull off on a Corvair due to the flat floor; the console would have looked strange, and then you’d need to figure out how to make the shifter work on stick-shift cars.
I don’t think you’re seriously saying Corvairs should have consoles; this is just the first time I’ve thought about how they might have done it.
Good info here, I ad a 1961 700 series Coupe with Powerglide slushbox, it may not have been a race car but it had no problems keeping up or beating other traffic and it was a blast to drive hard on twisty back roads .
-Nate
Nate, that’s why I’ll never fit in at the local car meets. Everyone needs POWER! Everything is modified. Several of my cars are underpowered by today’s standards, but there have only been a few times where it was a problem. Any Corvair will do 70 miles per hour and more with ease (OK, maybe not vans and other Corvair 95s).
The ’61 also had its spare moved from the frunk to the engine compartment which made it substantially better. But the hard core sporty-car owners often moved their spares back in front to help with the weight distribution.
And the ’61s got a completely new heating system, ditching the gas-fired furnace for one that used the engine’s cooling air. That cut into the storage space behind the rear seat which had been quite large on the ’60.
Might be one of my (if not outright the) favourite american cars of all times, the 4door takes the cake for looks also IMHO. Gen 1 Corvairs occasionally pop up for sale over here in Europe, but almost exclusively as convertibles with the rare 2door sprinkled in between.
Would love me a sedan, but poultry dentures seem an easier choice, as collector’s items go.
It wasn’t until last year that I realized that all first gen corvairs were sedans, and all 65 to 69s were hardtops.
Very nice! I agree that the four door with the cantilever roof is the best looking version, or at least the most interesting. The roof is sleek-looking and the rear deck lid doesn’t look as long as the coupe’s does.
I have photos of a 62 Monza coupe in the same color which I took and have been patiently waiting for me to write up. Maybe I’ll wait a little longer!
I am another who favors the sedan, though I will forever live in indecision about whether the1st Corvair is actually good-looking or merely striking. I’ve no doubt I’m really drawn to the car, but is that knowledge of its mechanical interestingess as much as the appearance? Certainly, that three-quarter rear view is really good, but the face – a very vaguely threatening countenance, I’ve always thought – has never quite matched it. And the many, many worldwide derivations of the look have, amongst some nice machines, included a lot angular unfortunates.
Not for the first time, I wonder if that expensive air-cooled alloy marvel wasn’t a bit of a dud. Perhaps it’s the short stroke (but then low rev limit) makes torque delivery weak? Performance for this 2.2-odd litre is noticeably poorer than, say, the pre-war designed, cast iron Holden 2.2 litre six as updated by 1960, which also had better economy with similar weight and gearing (all on fuel guaranteed to be more like gruel here at the time).
Having worked on the 164-cubic-inch version of the flat six for about 18 years now, I’ll say the engine was a moderate letdown. I think the main problem is that it was designed for one job just as it was entering a decade where it would be asked to do another. Furthermore, it’s not like General Motors was accustomed to doing an air-cooled flat six, but Corvair engines are generally reliable if you follow the instructions on setting the drive belt, although the bigger-valve heads are known for dropping seats. That can be remedied, but I don’t think the Corvair ever achieved the power or fuel mileage Chevy might have hoped for. Like I said, the target changed pretty early on and they were stuck with it because it cost so much to develop and…what else would they have used?
Well said, and I’ll add a few more words. The original intent was a genuine economy car but with standard Powerglide. Given that the cooling blower of an air cooled engine sucks up a fair number of power (some 8-14 hp at highway speeds) as does an automatic (even though the PG was exceptionally efficient) this created some serious challenges to meet fuel economy targets. The result was that the original Corvair engine had quite small valves and was tuned for low end torque and economy. The result was a bit of a compromise.
The considerable power demand of a cooling blower is an inherent liability of air cooled engines. The VW was never a paragon of efficiency; water cooled cars in its class were inevitably more efficient. This is the #1 reason air cooled engines went away.