(first posted 8/16/2011) Bittersweet. That’s the best word I can come up with to sum up the Corvair. It failed in its intended role as a mainstream compact to compete against the pragmatic Falcon. Then in the spring of 1960, the Corvair suddenly found its true calling as a sporty car, in the form of the Monza, and generated substantial sales that brought new buyers to Chevrolet. The Monza snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, and it was Ford that had to scramble to create a Monza competitor, in the form of the Mustang.
In the process of transforming from a thrifty compact to a spiffy sporty car, one version got lost in the shuffle: the Corvair station wagon. It was almost production-ready by the time the Monza found its new niche, so it appeared in 1961 as the Lakewood wagon. And it bombed; compact wagon buyers snapped up Falcons, and were not interested in a rear-engine wagon, despite having a trunk in front along with the rear cargo area, unprecedented at the time.
Given that GM had already given up on the Corvair as a serious competitor in late 1959 by greenlighting the Chevy II, which appeared in 1962 with a wagon, the answer to the question in the headline can only be: well, let’s see if we can figure it out.
The Corvair was the brainchild of Chevrolet’s new General Manager Ed Cole, a brilliant engineer who was responsible for a number of successes including the 1955 Chevy small block V8. He was intrigued by airplanes and their air cooled flat six engines. And the explosive success of the VW in 1955 undoubtedly influenced him too, although probably not in a copy-cat way. That wasn’t his style. But he decided that the time was right for Chevrolet to field a compact, and it would be a triumph of left brain thinking.
The intrinsic qualities of the rear engine: a compact engine/transaxle unit without any space intrusion into the body, superb traction, and light steering that needed no (then) expensive power assist were compelling. The rear engine was coming into its heyday in Europe around this time and into the sixties. He was smitten, and bitten by the rear-engine bug, and he was tenacious. And its obvious shortcomings were either ignored, band-aided, or left as open sores.
We’ll do a more thorough analysis of the Corvair’s strengths and weaknesses in our Friday finale, but let’s just say Chevrolet knew that the Corvair was not going to be an effective competitor to Ford’s very conventional Falcon and Chrysler’s Valiant within months of its fall 1959 launch. By December, the decision to quickly develop the pragmatic Chevy II was made, which really sealed the Corvair’s fate as a quirky outsider whose only real future was in its sporty Monza variant.
The Corvair program was ambitious, and new variants were planned to come on line in subsequent years. That included the 1961 Corvan utility van, Greenbrier passenger van, Rampside pickup, and a lovely convertible that appeared in 1962 to reinforce the Monza’s sporty image. And the Lakewood wagon, which also arrived in 1961, in response to a question no one seemed to be asking. At least not compact wqgon buyers.
Falcon moved some 50k wagons in its first year, and almost 100k in 1961. But then wagon buyers (back then) were intrinsically a more pragmatic and conservative bunch. And as compelling as a rear-engined wagon is in certain respects, in others it has serious deficiencies.
It may seem advantageous to have two cargo areas, the rear one as well as the front trunk. But the Corvair’s rear cargo area is obviously somewhat higher than a conventional wagon, and is directly over the motor. Back when the rear cargo area was promoted as a mobile kiddie play pen, the Corvair’s came up short; or tall actually, and a bit noisy, although cozy and warm in winter.
And the front trunk was, well handy, to be sure, but with 10 cubic feet of space, it wasn’t as small as often made out to be. In the wagon, the spare had to live here (not shown), whereas in the other Corvairs it had migrated to the engine compartment in 1961. The rear cargo area offered 58 cubic feet, for a combined total of 68. The Falcon had 76 cubic feet in the rear alone, and a longer and lower load floor.
The other problem was potentially a bit nastier: the more one loaded up a Corvair, the more unbalanced its intrinsically precarious front-to-rear weight ratio became. And the wagon’s roof made it heavier back there to start with. This was not the kind of wagon to haul the family on vacations, stuffed to the gills and with a roof rack. And that was the norm back then. The Corvair’s already touchy handling at the limits would suffer in direct proportion to the load.
If the Lakewood had any real future, it was as a sport wagon, but that concept was still a decade or two away. In 1961, wagons were family haulers. In fact, the 1961 Lakewood wasn’t even offered in Monza trim; only as the very spartan 500 and slightly less-so 700.
In 1961, which was the Corvair’s best sales year, almost 25k Lakewoods were sold; not abysmal, but only about a quarter of Falcon wagon sales. In 1962, when the Chevy II arrived with a wagon version, Corvair wagon sales shriveled to some 6k. And for some reason, they weren’t called Lakewood anymore. But that dorky name will always by synonymous to the Corvair wagon. But why Chevy went ahead instead of killing the Lakewood, given that the Chevy II was just one year away, is highly questionable.
In 1962, a Monza version of the wagon was available too, as our featured car makes obvious. The 1962 Monza sedans and wagons came with bench seats, so either this one has had the buckets switched in, or they may have been the factory optional ones.
I didn’t get to drive this wagon, but sitting in the driver’s seat brought back a flood of memories. And I’ve wondered for years if I would find the Corvair more cramped than I remembered it to (not) be, given how I managed to be able to fit into seemingly anything back then.
No, the Corvair is pleasantly accommodating, despite its low-slung build. Every dimension is adequate, even headroom. Ed Cole made the most of the Corvair’s flat floor, and in some respects it is roomier than a Falcon (and a full size Chevrolet). The basic Corvair package has very compelling aspects, and the visibility from the sedan and coupe were absolutely superb; not bad for a wagon either.
This Monza wagon has had the popular dashboard transplant; how many Spyders gave up their lovely dashes for this swap? It was the goal of every die-hard Monza owner to have a set of Spyder gauges. And every visit to the junkyard meant keeping an eye out for a new Spyder arrival before it was quickly plundered.
Of course, not all the gauges were relevant; certainly not the boost gauge. I suspect the cylinder head temp gauge was rarely put back into action too. But the tach, and the looks of it were what we were after. I never found my Spyder donor.
Under the cargo area is the popular upgrade engine, the 102 hp Turbo-Aire (not stock air cleaners). It arrived in the spring of 1960 for the new Monza coupe, initially with 95 hp, and 98 in 1961. A bit more compression, a more ambitious cam, and recalibrated twin carbs gave the rather modestly powered base Corvair engine a bit of zest. Not truly sporty, but less phlegmatic than the base 80 hp engine, for sure. The standard Corvair heads had tiny valves, to give it good low-rpm torque. It wasn’t originally designed to be anything but a low-rpm engine with modest specific output, for its original intended role as an economy car.
It took the Spyder’s turbocharger, and bigger valves to wake it up (to 150 hp). But the turbo was a somewhat cantankerous affair, and the definitive Corvair engine for regular driving is the four-carb 140 hp engine that appeared in 1965. With its better breathing heads, it offers decent performance without the hassle.
When I hitchhiked out to California in 1972, I crashed with a friend of my older brother’s, a seismology student at Cal Tech. He was the stereotypical nerd, even if he did have long hair and great weed. And what did he drive? A virtually identical red Monza wagon. He was heavily into Corvair wagons, and had a couple more stashed in the end of the driveway, but this one was his primo find: a four speed Monza wagon.
He waxed eloquently about the Lakewood’s intrinsic superiority and advantages, in great detail, and in true nerd fashion. It was the same kind of true-believer sermon you would expect from a Citroen DS Break (wagon) owner. And riding around with him in it and hearing his endless Lakewood praise answered the question I posed in the headline: the Corvair wagon was built for Corvair nerds.
The side profil with its longer rear door is somewhat reminiscent of the Peugeot 403 Wagon.
Speaking of Citroens, as a DS owner, I’ve always thought of making an engine transplant from a Corvair to a DS. Citroens achilles heel has always been the engines. Though the DS engine is a five bearings design, its roots can be traced to the traction avant of the early thirties. They expermented with a flat six air cooled design, but couldn’t get sufficient (and even) cooling for the DS.
I’ve always liked counter factual stories, and in my mind, Citroen could’ve just bought the entire engine design outright in the mid-60’s, like Rover bought the Buick 215. I cant’t understand why it didn’t happen, or why no one thought of it, especially considering GM must’ve figured the Corvair was a dead end by then. France had a tax bracket in the 2.7 litre range, and the Corvair 164 has that exact size. A flat six, four carb would’ve been perfect for a DS27 Pallas.
The Corvair engine ended up being much heavier than its original design target, weighing almost 400 lbs (176 kg). And it was designed to for American type driving, with a very low specific output. Keep in mind that these are old type SAE gross hp numbers. Even the four-carb 140 hp version would have been rated at about 115-120 DIN hp. Heavy, low output, low-rpm band…Doesn’t sound all that appropriate for a top-line Citroen. In the late sixties, European four cylinders were making more power than that, and more efficiently.
A Subaru boxer six or four sounds like the way to go now.
… That is, if you find a way to reverse said Subaru engine’s rotation. That would be the appeal of the Corvair Flat-6, already turning in the “right” direction for a DS.
All the disadvantages of a Variant VW with 6cylinders, the engine under the load area makes access a bit difficult and its got very little useable cargo space easy to see why they stopped making it this must have been a nightmare in the wet with a load on,Wonder how many big scares led to early sell offs though understeer was seen as a safety measure back then.
gotta agree with bryce. i love the way these things look but in day-to-day use they have got to be crazy dangerous. first off, this is the pre-crumple zone era. there is almost nothing between you and the head on. secondly, that much weight behind the bias-ply rear tires is not a good idea. there is a murilee posting with a video of a lemons race somewhere that shows a corvair spinout. the driver took a sharp turn and the rear end went out in the opposite direction. the card did a 360. this was not at high speed. it was terrifying. way worse than anything a vw beetle would do.
btw, my family had a chevy ii wagon w/3 on the tree exactly like the one above. plain jane looks but a very practical reliable car.
BTW, SAS… been meaning to say this to you……
Capn’ Beefheart was a magnificent crazy old bastard!
You Tube has a crash test video of the Corvair. Corvair is prob not any worse than many of the Corvair’s peers of the era. Prob none of the 60s cars are very safe vs a 2014 vehicle. When I drive cars like these on modern roads I consider them to be on par with motorcycles. 😉
As the long time owner of a wrecking yard, the Corvair crumple zone works great to save lives and avoid injuries. I’ve had several where I interviewed the owners, after a head on collision, the Corvair driver walks away unharmed, the doors open perfectly. The empty trunk absorbs the collision. Even the fuel tanks stay intact. It’s front engine cars that injure or kill the driver and front seat passengers.
Actually the Corvair is the safest car of all time in front end collisions. The entire front end is a crumple zone. I actually have a few in my wrecking yard and have the stories as well, such as the elderly lady opened the drivers door and walked out with no injuries, unlike the other driver who was at fault.
Having owned both a VW type 3 fastback and a squareback (variant) I have to agree. The squareback was only marginally useful as a wagon, and the price paid in terms of the dreaded NVH as well as handling when loaded was great.
Love the looks of the wagon, but make mine a four door flattop. 🙂
OTOH I did once own a ’65 Mercury Comet wagon, with original V8 and dealer A/C — now that was a great wagon! But amongst Corvairs the Corvan and Greenbrier were probably excellent choices for wagon duty, if my experience with VW Type 2s is anything to go by.
Maybe it’s the way Brycey phrases things, his arguments are sound, yet I can’t help but want to find arguments against everything he writes. Perhaps being a sheep shagger he’s constantly looking to prove his worth in this crazy world.
Brilliant piece, Paul! A great way to enjoy my morning coffee.
Cars were death traps in those days. In a front engined car, said engine usually crushed thr front occupants in a crash. Location of said engine was a moot point.
well, it may be anecdotal, but vw’s were known as death traps in the 60’s and 70’s. it was common knowledge that no one survived a head on collision in vw at over 30 mph. the physics work something like this:
v8 engine traveling in one direction meats front trunk of rear engined car traveling in the opposite direction and keeps going until it is stopped by the mass of the occupants of said rear engine car. occupants of yank tank walk away with minor injuries.
I once rebuilt a VW beetle for a friend it was a tidy 60 that had at one point been in a frontal the front of the car was still crumpled as far as the axle from there back it was good untill a kink above the B pillar thats how hard that little death trap hit something the body shell on a VW is immensely strong unlike US cars which have little body strength and are held up by a frame. Detroit fought tooth and nail against burst proof door locks seat belts and any other safety feature the occupants of yank tank are usually dead or maimed from being flung round their car or out of it
I think that would have as much to do with the different mass and lack of crumple zone of the full-size BOF cars as the VW. The “mass” of the passengers are not going to stop the progress of the other car. The low bumper height of the VW would not help.
The Beetle’s low weight means something in the crash. I think it would bounce off easier than another heavy yank-tank.
Joe you triggered a memory: in 1996 I was in my 1988 Sprint Metro (I think it and its kin have been covered here) and was struck in the side by a Cadillac at a red light (don’t know the model; I think early 80’s and a mile long with the absurd chrome taillight frames). I was bounced out of the way! I hurt my neck a bit and a good-sized dent and tear in the middle occurred port side rear passenger area. In any event the car was deflected thus didn’t take the full energy of the monster Cadillac. That’s what may happen when a huge vehicle strikes a tiny one.
I never considered until just now the protective effect of the engine’s mass. You learn something new every day. That is a scary scenario. I have never had the pleasure of driving a rear-engine vehicle.
I have never been much of a Corvair guy, but I kind of like the Lakewood. The roofline is so similar to the F-85/Tempest/Special wagons that also came out in 1961, I have always wondered if there was any parts-sharing.
Like most of the more utilitarian Corvair variants, it makes a cool Corvair but a not-so-useful wagon.
On the safety thing, I have seen the crash test of the 59 Chevy and can only imagine how the Corvair would fare. It is a wonder that any of us over 50 is still alive.
They were based on the same basic architecture, so I would guess the Wagons shared the most things, possibly the roof stamping? The rear fenderline of the B-O-P wagons juts out further. I guess the question is how much wider the B-O-P cars were versus the Corvair
I’m sure they weren’t wider. The B-O-P cars had a longer wheelbase, but I’m quite sure that was all in the front end, to help balance the weight of their front engines. Sitting inside a Corvair feels identical to sitting in a BOP compact, and I’m sure many basic body parts, except for exterior skins, were shared. They’re roomier than they might look from a first glance.
As somebody who grew up with ’62 Buick Specials, I know for a fact the side glass is interchangeable. Growing up with these B-O-P+C cars made me a Ford man….But now i’m 45, and looking back, I still like ’em and their quirky little issues…Born at a time when GM felt they could build ANYTHING, and do no wrong…Their corporate attitude of “our s@@t don’t stink” turned me off to them more than the products did…
Regarding safety, agreed they were all death traps compared to our cars today, but some were clearly worse than others. I’ve never seen comparative statistics, nor could I find a Corvair crash video online, but the VW bug is roughly similar:
Edit: Corvair’s fuel tank is more safely located, low and “protected by massive front crossmember” as that wonderful tech chart shows. VW bug’s tank is basically in your lap.
As for the station wagon, well here’s a VW bus-based pickup, obviously carrying a full load in the back:
The stereotypical image of a VW bus full of people driving off to protest nuclear power safety has long been stuck in my mind.
The Vanagon truck was loaded with a half ton of sand and sent into the barrier at 75 or 80 mph. These vehciles did pretty good for their time. In Europe they preformed above average in safety. Today if you watch the Samba website occasionally they are crashed and the owners post the pictures. They do surprisingly well vs a modern Dodge Caravan for example. Or a log truck even.
The Beetle also did okay for their time. They bounce off of some obstacles in front accidents. No, I don’t want to crash one either. I own a ’65 Beetle and a ’78 VWwestfalia van. I know they aren’t automatically death traps and when driving them I keep in mind I’m more or less “riding a motorcycle” witha safety cage. 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmPpry8JiK0
There are a series of crashes in there.
Hagerty did a video about these cars too.
Mediocre video. Don’t waste your time.
Here’s my rebuttal:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/video/cc-video-review-will-the-corvair-kill-you-it-all-depends/
Crash-test late Type 2 seems to have done OK.. Not sure of the speed though!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/boo66/3991076080/
There was significant parts sharing between the 1960-1963 Corvair line, and the “rope shaft” 1961-1963 Pontiac Tempests. Tempests of pre-1964 Vintage had a rear transaxle, which was either a Powerglide automatic, or a 3 speed, or 4 speed manual transmission, with a high degree of commonality with the Corvair transmissions and independent rear suspension setup. Base power for the Tempests in those years was a large 194 cid in-line 4 cylinder (actually, 1/2 of a Pontiac 389 V-8 – a great story of its own) directly coupled to the transaxle by a solid 1” diameter drive shaft (now called rope shaft). The Buick Special, the Olds F-85, the Pontiac Tempest, and the Chevrolet Corvair shared quite a number of common mechanical and trim pieces. Interestingly, John DeLorean, father of the Pontiac GTO, led the design effort on that 1st generation Tempest. Having owned 2 Corvairs, and a 1961 Tempest, I remain in awe of the design and engineering risks that GM was was wiling to take in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
There was not as much parts sharing as GM originally envisioned. John Delorean was alarmed by the handling characteristics of Corvair test mules and lobbied to join the Buick-Olds Y body program rather than share the Corvair’s mechanical architecture as had been the original plan.
Love it (naturally) and a Corvair wagon is so “weird” my baby might even like it (even though she dislikes most wagons.) There’s one for sale on Auto Trader Classic in red with the four carb set up and a beautiful paint job but it’s listed at about $24,000.
Finding a western Lakewood with a solid body sounds like a fun project!
I have my doubts about a Corvair wagon since re-reading this article, but as I just got back from my noontime walk, I saw a drop-dead gorgeous Cutlass Ciera wagon, dark blue, woodgrain, appearing in near-perfect shape! That’s the one you want!
Nope, dang it I still like it. It pegs my weirdness scale (DARE TO BE DIFFERENT!) and there’s still enough of an enthusiast community out there for the sedan and coupe versions that you’ll always be able to find help fixing it. Besides I own a 150cc air cooled scooter, I’m not afraid of a Corvair.
Paul, I think you missed your calling, you’re really a Professor of Automotive History. Each one of your posts is like a great college lecture and i’m enjoying the class.
That’s why this site has been my early morning go-to ever since I discovered it.
Another fascinating and well-written piece of history, Paul.
An exercise for the students: Compare and contrast the Corvair Wagon with the VW Squareback (Type 3 (Variant)), introduced in 1962, just as the Corvair Wagon went out of production. 1.2 million built in Germany plus another quarter million in Brazil. They were a common sight on US streets for quite some time. A rear-engine station wagon….Why??
why don’t they make any mainstream air-cooled cars anymore? is it because the newer more efficient engine designs require more cooling? seems like air-cooling has a big advantage in the simplicity department.
I think it has a lot to do with tightening emissions standards. What I don’t remember.
Much harder to control combustion temperatures with air cooling.
Right; Also, more expensive to make, and the lack of a good heating source.
Higher underhood temperature -> More prone to engine fire and bad for engine electronics
Harder to control combustion temperature -> Dirtier emissions and reduced fuel efficiency
Larger overall engine size (cooling fins and wider cylinder-to-cylinder spacing) and often heavier too (due to cooling fins and larger block)
More expensive to make (each cylinder must be individually cast, rather than the single liquid-cooled block)
Noisier (without the water jacket to dampen noise)
No heat in the winter (harder to move hot air than hot coolant)
Air cooling is more suited to single or dual cylinder engines. That’s why it’s still used for motorcycles and lawn equipment.
thank for the air-cooling education! i always wondered about that.
The interior heating system wasn’t always a flop. My Beetle would roast your sneakers off. It was sensitive however to leaky hoses but honestly was very easy to maintain. Other side effect on the Beetle and my Bus – heat output was directly propotional to engine rpm. Idling in traffic there wasn’t much heat output (breeze) but at 2500+ rpm it was great. The other variable is the outside temps. Mine seem to not make good heat below ~25F but around here that is a very, very cold night. On my cars a quick check during an oil change is all that it takes to keep the system in good check.
Nice reply and 100% correct
Correction: Corvair engine had individually cast cylinders. But many air-cooled multi-cylinder Japanese motorcycles had single cylinder blocks.
Air cooling has some advantages but as VW found out it doesnt always work well in hot climates so once the beetle and Kombi stopped noone else has tried it Porsche has figured the rear engine handling problems out but charge to much for the results, mid engine works well IMP transaxles can be turned around for racing produce an awesome handling car even a standard IMP corners well but its the exception of rear engine cars.
I’ve never once overheated a VW aircooled engine – even in on hot days towing my buddy’s Bronco II for 30 miles. Keep the revs up. I am sure that if any of the system is missing and if we were out west in the desert it might be possible. Have worked on alot of VW engines were some previous owner or shadetree mechanic figured that since in the short term the engine would survive without part of the tine or the thermostat or flaps – then they were unnecessary. It does count over the long haul in extreme temps.
More tightly controlled cooling is the issue. Modern engines have to be up to operating temperature quickly and stay in a fairly narrow temperature range, for emissions reasons and for engine having much tighter mechanical tolerances. It’s very hard to regulate temperature accurately with air cooling but easy with liquid.
An unshakeable belief in air-cooling is what got Soichiro Honda ousted from the design team of his own company in the early ’70s, after the unsuccessful air cooled Honda 1300 (the engine of which was then adapted to water cooling and became the world-beating Civic).
With air-cooling, isn’t the leeward side of the cylinder hotter than the windward?
Stories I’ve heard about Corvairs with turbo is that the boost is likely to come on in the middle of a turn, causing soiling of driver’s seat, or worse.
The other limiting factor for Spyder turbo engines in the wagons was that the turbo wasn’t available with automatic transmission. Unlike the more elaborately engineered Olds Jetfire, the Corvair turbo setup didn’t have a wastegate. According to one of the development engineers, they tried mating it to Powerglide, but had insuperable problems with momentary overboost causing engine damage on upshifts.
At first glance it seemed like a more styled 4 door VW Squareback and they sold lots of Type 3s. Of course we are talking about GM and its Ambrose Burnside like talent snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Corvair was a tragic car let down by the idiot who set the PIs on Nader, instead of simply pointing out how much Ford stock his family had, and the accountants who nickel and dimed their way into the situation by nixing the camber compensator.
this wagon is my wagon and it runs relay good i love my p.o.s shes bin a good car i am a mechanic and have bin around them since i was fourteen when i got my first one a 140 four carb and that sucker flat hauled ass now im 58 and i cruze in my wagon i am eventuley going to put a 140 in little red i think shed like that i don’t think she looks to bad for being fifty years old and the paint has bin on thair for about thirty years as best that i can tell the only thing i can say is that little red will still be hear when RALPH NADER IS GONE thanks for listening!!
^ Bryce School of Punctuation 🙂
A great article. What’s really interesting is how one man – Ed Cole – was able to impose his vision on a major product offering by GM’s biggest division, and how the bean counters managed to undermine that effort at critical points. Does any individual have that level of power at ANY car company in 2011?
Of course, it wasn’t just the bean counters horning in during the development process. I recall reading that, when Harlow Curtice sat in a Corvair prototype, he was disturbed to discover that it had as much headroom as a full-size Buick. He ordered some of the headroom to be taken out, on the grounds that the Corvair must not be allowed to threaten sales of the more profitable big cars.
“And for some reason, they weren’t called Lakewood anymore”. Chevy dropped the unique wagon names across the board for 1962. The full-sizers used the standard Biscayne, Bel Air and Impala names after having been Brookwood, Parkwood and Nomad previously. Curiously, they re-appeared for 1969.
Wasn’t Ernie Kovacs killed in a Corvair wagon?
‘Fraid so, I thought of that too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Kovacs#Death
Was it the rain? Was it the cigar? Was it no anti-roll bar?
Ernie was a genius of the TV medium. Showed the rest how it’s done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyckP1Sjjoc
I’m pretty sure it was his blood alcohol level at the time. 🙂
The general reports were that he took a hard turn at 40-50mph on a rain slicked road. Wikipedia makes it seem more driver distraction than the Corvair Wagon’s fault: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Kovacs#Death
Edit: Now I notice the link above.
Yup they did… my father bought in ’72, after the 62 Special was ‘retired’ (We kept it for the 215V8, actually one of its most reliable features; I sold engine just a couple years ago) a 1969 Chevrolet Townsman wagon…total POS..and a victim of that strike that also delayed the launch of the ’70 Camaro..his car came without the through-bolts in the motor mounts. One day he left peed off and was still moving good in reverse when he shifted into drive…engine (327 2bbl) jumped off mounts and rotated…broke carb, hood, exhaust, smashed air cleaner against said hood, and even cracked tranny tailshaft at the mount…GM did, however did repair it for free…couple months later bought Mercury wagon…and drove Ford products till his death
You sure Bruce McCall’s Bulgemobile lampoon, naming the wagon as “Firewood” didn’t have something to do it? 🙂
My first car was a 65 corvair which set my car nerding in motion from the age of 16. It was a great car, refreshing coming from a corolla family and dead reliable to boot. Since moving to the Uk I’ve owned even nerdier cars. Allegros maxis and Citroën GSA with an air boxer as well as a cx. The earlier poster was right about cit engines. While the GSA had the sweet and revvy boxer my 82 cx had the same engine from the ds and traction. But it was to be different. In the 70s Citroën and lancia were developing the cx and gamma together. Cit would do the suspension and lancia the engine. Sadly the beancounters won over the nerds and this probably saved both companies from an airflowesque disaster.
First, you can put me in the LOVE category. There were a few Lakewoods rolling around where I was when I was a kid…I always liked that novelty in a family wagon. So small, yet a wagon for the family! And a trunk up front, too!
The winning formula – as noted, the “sportwagon” segment hadn’t been created yet – would have been to make it a two-door “shooting brake” with luxurious interior for the driver and front passenger; token rear seats, and do something to make the luggage area more usable. Granted, handling would dictate a lower load capacity…but few among us follows that to the letter. Which of us hasn’t put over a ton in our half-ton pickups or mini-trucks?
The shooting brake Monza.
And, an aside: I’m fascinated these days with the idea of a rear-engine or mid-rear engine, water-cooled setup. Front wheel drive has its place; but it has almost as many drawbacks as advantages. Yet, today, compact transaxles abound…how hard would it be to take the power package, mount it behind the rear seats, engineer a quick-drop for major repairs…and then just run the coolant lines to a front-mounted radiator? An electric coolant pump could ensure proper circulation – and eliminate the power-sapping belt-driven water pump. Without the need for airflow, the engine could be reasonably well sealed and insulated. It would have the traction of engine over the drive wheels, without the torque-steer; power steering wouldn’t be needed; and it would offer responsive,neutral handling.
Crumple zones and reinforced passenger spaces could provide safety with nominal weight increases. Hey, just a thought…
not a shooting brake but something i have dreamed about along the same lines: buying an old porsche 914 and replacing the engine with a water cooled boxer from a subaru. there’s even a kit you can buy.
http://www.renegadehybrids.com/914/Subie/Subie.html
I Always liked the looks of the Lakewood, and the name, the Brookwood was a big Imapla Wagon at the time, was it not?
But Now, I dont think Id want to have the engine in the car with me as it seems in the wagon … somehow more so than the coupes.
Im thinking Nader was a big fan of Erine Kovacs and then had an axe to grind?
Love the seventh pic–exemplary use of Detroit’s oft-employed “5/8ths-sized people” to make the cars they occupy look bigger.
I’ve always loved the Corvair. Too bad the wagon version didn’t make it to the second generation, where the car found its footing styling- and handling-wise.
I owned 2 corvairs — a ’60 coupe and a ’62 — both bought new. (I wanted the ’62 to get the 4-speed tranny). The incredible improvements we have now in engine longevity, brakes, etc. aside, I loved the Corvairs more than any other American car I’ve owned. And I seem to recall that several friends who had bought Falcons wound up hating that they had not bought Corvairs.
All this talk of Corvairs being dangerous is just that — talk. I had owned VW Bugs too, and they WERE dangerous. Any competent driver who learns to transition between front-engine understeer and rear-engine oversteer will make out just fine. In an understeering car you go through the fence front first. With oversteering you’ll go through the same fence rear first. The competent driver does not go through the fence no matter what he’s driving.
Bill S
+1….
I suppose one advantage of a rear-engine wagon is for dog owners – you can put the dog in the wayback, the groceries in the front trunk and still have the back seat available for passengers.
I owned 3 Corvairs…. 2 Convertibles and 1 Coupe,,, loved them all…. The Corvair wagon is very cool, a good look…even after all these years…. And I miss Ernie Kovacks as well….
Ernie Kovacs’ crash looks pretty nasty, regardless of exact cause:
I was just about to post this picture. Would the outcome have been any different if he’d wrapped a Chevy II wagon around that pole?
Probably not. But if he’d been driving a Chevy II, he might not have spun out in the first place.
As Edie said, “If he’d only taken the Rolls” (when he left the party). It’s strange – I’ve passed this intersection 1000’s of times. I well remember this event as a kid – it was a major headline. The loss still stings – the guy was a huge talent. Just re-watched Our Man in Havana to see him again. What’s even more strange is that his daughter with Edie (Mia) was killed in an automobile crash twenty years later.
I don’t know about that. I owned a first gen Mustang back in the 1980s. That car was a handful on wet roads. It was constantly spinning out – snap oversteer. Most of the time it happened fast enough that there was little a person could do but hold on. This was a 6 cylinder car and no posi in the rear end so all one wheel peels.
I can’t imagine the other low cost domestic cars were any different.
My first car was the 61 Lakeland in Seamoss Green. What a piece of crap, but we had more fun in that car. The carbs hardly worked and if you had a 1/4 tank of gas you had to get out and pump the 2 carbs to get it to run… best memories ever…
There are few cars that generate as much polarizing debate as the Corvair.
The DeSoto and Chrysler Airflows, the Tucker, the Edsel, the Corvair, the Pinto, etc.
They all have their rabid devotees, and their equally rabid detractors.
I love the engineering that goes into the creation of many of the dare to be different cars, not so much the being different just to be different, but the creative thought that goes into finding a different way of doing things, as long as they try to do so as safely as possible.
That being said, some people have said that Chevrolet pioneered the technologies that were used in the Corvair, such as unibody, aircooling, rear engine, and transaxle, let the record show that this is not the case.
Unibody construction was used in the DeSoto and Chrysler Airflows in the 30s, aircooled engines were used in the Franklin cars of the 20s, the Tucker used a rear mounted horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine in the 40s and even used the Cord transaxle from the 30s.
There is no disagreement that the combination of all of these elements in a very small car for the day was unique for America.
There is also no disagreement that there were some rather glaring faults in the early Corvairs as delivered by GM. However this is not the fault of the engineers at GM, the accountants and GMs at GM were to blame.
A prime example of this is the absence of an anti-roll bar in the front of the car declared by the accountants as too expensive, and unnecessary in an entry level car. The addition of this simple device, a well proven handling aid for all vehicles would have blunted much of the criticism about the Corvair’s “dangerous handling tendencies”.
The updated independent rear suspension that appeared on the later model Corvairs strongly resemble the independent rear suspension on the Corvette, with an appropriate increase in handling stability. So the earlier criticism of the “dangerous” handling was no longer valid.
In addition, the NTSB also reported that the Corvair, even the early models, was no more dangerous or worse handling than any other car of it’s day, too bad they released that report more than a year after the last Corvair rolled off the assembly line.
Yes, people have tragically died in Corvair accidents, just as people have tragically died in Pinto accidents, or in Limo accidents, as most people in law enforcement will tell you, most accidents are due to driver error.
Do yourself and others a favor, if you are going to drive a vehicle, make it a point to learn how to operate it correctly, and safely, even if you have to take a performance driving course, a really good idea by the way, it will help you to catch some driving situations before they get out of control, and practice thinking ahead, it really pays off when driving in rain and ice conditions.
By the way, driving an older car correctly and safely does not necessarily mean the same thing that it does in a new car, bias-ply tires are no match for modern radials, real older cars don’t have anti-lock brakes (unless there aren’t any), power steering, and power brakes may not have been installed, incandescent lights may still be installed (6 volt systems are worse about lighting), and many other differences, the older the cars are the more you actually have to learn to operate them and to drive them for yourself.
Far too many people have a bullet-proof mentality concerning their vehicles, it is only a matter of time before it catches up with them.
Anyway, I like the Corvair, I just bought my first one, and its a Lakewood. I am looking forward to many happy miles of driving pleasure, and maybe getting my hands greasy from time to time.
Cheers.
> In the wagon, the spare had to live here (not shown), whereas in the other Corvairs it had migrated to the engine compartment in 1961.
Corvairs that had air conditioning also kept the spare in the front trunk, as the A/C components took up too much space in the back. A/C wasn’t available on any Corvair wagon, I assume also because of space limitations.
Why was the roof on Corvair wagons so much higher than on sedans or coupes? It gave the wagons hearse-like proportions.
It’s 2″ taller, for obvious practical reasons, like to maximize cargo space. Why not?
because… it looks like a hearse, especially with the rear door glass widened as well as having extra height. The vertical C pillar and increased height do improve practicality but throw off the proportions – the rear door glass looks so much wider than the front. I have to believe the styling hurt Lakewood sales. The Chevy II wagon looks much better proportioned.
Paul instead of building your xB into an off-roader maybe you should have started with a Lakewood instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIvSUQoDEo
That *looks* neat until I see the engine in the front… bummer! 😉
I can’t get past the (illusion?) rear door windows being longer than the others. Looks great until I see the side profile. That and a raised floor to obviously accommodate the engine seems like a deal breaker from both a style and practical angle to me why these floundered. Too weird for 1961’s typical wagon shopper? Then I remember the Valiant wagon’s weirdness of style and I scratch my head yet once again.
An excellent piece Paul. I had very little knowledge of these and was interested in reading the storage in the front and rear compartments. The weight distribution as you mentioned would have likely been problematic in the hands of less experienced drivers, if heavily loaded in the rear.
What did these come in as for curb weight?
An interesting vehicle.
2670 lbs, about 150 more than the sedan.
That looks like my drivers ed car in 1950. Most of the male students (including me for sure) were squirrels and didn’t seem to cause the instructor much anxiety. Ymmv but you can consider me one who wishes they had continued on. I drove and was a passenger in a second generation convertible and the difference was tremendous. My 66 beetle was far inferior as well.
In ’78, I drove a prep school friend’s Beetle once, and soon after, 2 girls at our sister school were killed in one, so I’ve given rear engines a pass since then. My parents let us drive my great uncle’s ’56 Olds with too much engine for its brakes and handling, but they did add front seatbelts and we survived, probably because the loose steering became scary at low speeds.
It sure looks like the wagon has a longer wheelbase than the sedan, which is longer than the coupe, but Wiki lists them all as 108″. I guess it’s the larger windows and vertical pillars.
Were these the first wagons with a single-piece, top-hinged tailgate?
That is correct, my father is the owner of the pictured car. Single piece top-hinged tailgate.