(first posted 6/5/2014) Turbochargers are becoming ubiquitous. At the rate that manufacturers are adopting down-sized turbocharged engines across their model lines, naturally aspirated engines may one day be a quaint memory. The turbo revolution has had its ups and downs; or should we say boosts and lags, but here’s where it really started, in the Corvair Spyder, beginning in 1962. Yes, the Oldsmobile Jetfire came out a few months earlier, but its complicated systems soon had its maker pull the waste gate on it. The turbocharged Corvair was the first car to expose the masses to the joys of turbo boost.
The history of the turbocharger is almost as old as the internal combustion engine itself. The benefits of forced induction were understood by both Gottlieb Daimler and Rudolf Diesel, and they experimented with pump-driven forced induction on early versions of their engines in the latter years of the 19th century. But it was Swiss engineer Alfred Büchi who first patented the exhaust-driven turbocharger in 1905, although it would be some time before it was successfully built and used. Early uses were mainly airplane engines, to allow high altitude flying, and large diesel engines for stationary, locomotive and ship use. The first automotive application was the 1938 Swiss Saurer diesel truck.
So why and how did GM come to be the first to apply turbocharging to a gasoline-engined passenger car? They were no stranger to forced induction small engines; the 1951 Buick XP-300 concept had an aluminum 216 CID (3.5 L) V8, with a Rootes type supercharger that made some 339 hp. The GM labs were likely the greatest ones in the automotive world, so , undoubtedly they had experimented with turbocharging. And the first years of the 60s was a time of great innovation at GM.
The 1962 Jetfire aluminum V8 had similar displacement (215 cubic inches), and was rated at 215 hp. But it used a high 10.25:1 compression, ratio, which required the use of a water-methyl alcohol injection system to cool the fuel mixture as a deterrent to dangerous pre-combustion. The Jetfire quickly became a maintenance and reliability nightmare, and many were converted by dealers to convention four barrel induction. Few of the 9,607 built survived.
Wisely, Chevrolet took a more conservative approach with turbocharging its air cooled Corvair engine. Compression ratio was lowered to 8.0:1, which helped reduce the chance of pre-ignition. Maximum turbo boost was 10psi, not insignificant, and was essentially limited by the design of the exhaust system, which featured a very throaty low-restriction muffler and short and fat 9″ tailpipe. These turbo mufflers came to be used commonly as an aftermarket muffler on V8 performance cars of the era, and for some time, “turbo muffler” became almost a generic term.
The Corvair’s turbo was built by TRW, and hid under that chrome bullet-shaped cover on the right. A side-draft 1½” Carter YH carb fed the turbine, in a “suck through” system. The Spyder engine received many heavy duty parts, such as a special alloy-steel forged crank, stronger connecting rods, special pistons and rings, and tougher valves and seals, among others. Output jumped to 150 hp (gross), at 4,400 rpm from the 102 hp up-rated 145 cubic inch naturally aspirated engine. Torque jumped by 64%, to 210 lb.ft. @ 3200-3400 rpm. Chevy claimed that “usable power” increased by 90%, up to 3000 rpm; that would be after the turbo spooled up, of course.
Before we consider how well the Spyder engine worked, the question is why turbocharge it, instead of increasing power by the more conventional means. Chevy was certainly no stranger to extracting well over 1 hp per cubic inch; in 1962, the 327 V8 was making 340 hp with a carb and 360 with fuel injection. The reason was that the Corvair cylinder head was designed for an economy car, not a sporty one, and had quite small valves and ports. And most likely because of its being air-cooled, it may have been difficult if not impossible to change that, without a major re-design. Forced induction is the best solution for a poorly-breathing engine. Or at least an expedient one.
Here’s Chevrolet’s take on the Spyder, with some nice footage of it at work. The throaty engine sound is quite unmistakable, and there’s a nice shot of it being pushed hard into corner, creating a bit of smoke/dust from the rear wheels.
Car and Driver tested a Spyder in their May 1963 issue, and a reprint is on-line here, at corvair.org. The review is generally very positive, inasmuch as this Spyder really was as close as anything Detroit made to a Porsche, especially an affordable one. And with the Spyder package only costing $317.45, which included the four speed transmission, sports suspension, a new dash with full instrumentation, and other goodies, it was deemed quite the bargain. Which led to demand quickly outstripping supply for it.
Performance was very considerably improved over the normally aspirated Monza, with 0-6 coming in at 11.7 seconds. Not bad, for a small sporty car for the times, and certainly better than plenty of genuine sports cars (MG and such). The very slow steering come in for criticism, as usual.
Obviously, there was turbo lag, since full boost didn’t come in until 3200-3400 rpm. And since the Corvair engine peaked out at or before 5000 rpm, keeping the Spyder in the boost was a bit challenging, especially in the first two gears, which were quite low (3.65; 2.35). The Spyder’s turbocharging was most effective and enjoyable at higher speed, in the top two gears. But C/D still found the Spyder to be quite pleasant around town, being perfectly tractable and no less responsive below its boost than the 102 hp engine, if not even better, oddly enough. For a first shot at mass-market turbocharging, the Spyder was a success. And the engine was tough enough to take it without ill-effects.
In 1964, the Corvair engine’s displacement was increased to 164 cubic inches (2.7 L), but somewhat oddly, the Spyder’s engine was still rated at 150 hp, although at a lower 4,000 rpm. Torque was up to 232 lb.ft.
But in 1965, along with a major body restyle and a new rear suspension borrowed (partly) from the Corvette, the engine line up changed, and the top level model was now called Corsa.
The standard engine on the Corsa (optional on other models) was now a new 140 hp, four-carb naturally aspirated engine. Chevy finally did revise the heads, and fitted larger valves and ports to it. The 140 engine revved higher, with its power peak coming at 5200 rpm. Its torque curve also shifted upwards, so that it felt a bit more lethargic at low rpm. Why did Chevy bother to develop the 140 hp engine? Presumably because of the cost of the turbo engine and as well as the complexity of keeping the turbo engine properly tuned and happy. The 140 hp engine became quite popular, and is generally the most sought after Corvair engine, but its additional power is really only felt at above 3000 rpm or more. Around town, the lower output engines are a better choice for most drivers.
The turbo engine was now optional on the Corsa, and packed 180 hp @ 4000 rpm. Torque was also up; a pretty healthy 265 lb.ft. @ 3200 rpm. Boost obviously was higher to accomplish that. It should also be noted that the 180 hp engine did not use the new better breathing cylinder heads from the 140 engine. Performance was up a bit, with 0-60 now coming in at around 10 seconds flat, depending.
Keeping a Corvair turbo engine in top tune can be challenging. Ignition timing, done strictly through mechanical advance, can be tricky to keep right on the numbers. The very old-school Carter YH, last seen on the 1953-1954 Corvette six cylinder, is also a bit of a tuning challenge, and is subject to heat soak given its location next to all that exhaust plumbing. Dedicated Soyder and Corsa owners have made a number of various improvements to their engines, including different carbs, fuel injection, modern ignition systems, etc., which has allowed both more reliable operation as well as increased performance.
I found this ’63 Spyder (wearing ’64 wheel covers) the other day in the driveway of a rental house in the University district. Zak (sp?), a student, was outside and I asked him if it was his. It turns out to be his grandmother’s, a fairly recent acquisition which she’s happy enough to share with him, for extended periods. Obviously, this car is not quite original, especially its paint and upholstery. But it’s a long term keeper which will be restored to its original condition, starting with the paint.
Zak gladly pulled it out to the curb for me, and the sound of the Spyder engine’s throaty exhaust brought back memories of some folks my parent knew in Iowa City that had a ’62 Spyder convertible. How I lusted over that when they parked in our driveway, and how impressed I was by that badge on the rear deck, and the big stubby exhaust (which I forgot to photograph).
And I hung in over the door to admire the Spyder’s comprehensive gauge cluster, which included a combination vacuum/boost gauge, and a cylinder head temperature gauge.
I can’t even fathom how someone could have re-upholstered a Spyder with this Broughamy cloth. Mind-boggling. But it will go too, as part of the long term improvements. The engine needed a new turbo, which obviously was a priority.
This Spyder is in good hands, and will likely become Zak’s someday. We should all have a grandmother who buys a Corvair Spyder and lets us take it to school.
Now that summer’s here, what better way to spend our long balmy evening than behind the wheel of a Spyder, waiting for that turbo to kick in.
And the wait is worth it, especially in a convertible, as the Spyder makes such nice sounds even before the the turbo spools up. If you’re going to experience a bit of turbo lag, this is the best possible place to do so.
Raised on 3 Corvairs, a couple of observations. The fully-articulated rear suspension of the ’65 was on coils versus the ‘Vettes transverse leaf spring. I feel the Corvair coupe roofline was a GM-inspired design. It evolved nicely into the sleek ’65 2door hardtop and wasn’t anything like a Ford roofline. The second generation Corvairs are not only gorgeous, but timeless as well. To this day, BMW’s echo that style.
Yes, I knew I forgot to qualify that detail about the rear suspension.
Definitely a lucky guy, to have a grandmother who’s a gearhead! (Or at least nostalgic and generous…) Cool car as well. Interesting that Chevy debuted turbocharging on the top-lijne version of a mainstream, if advanced, car, and now 50 years later after many years of turbos only appearing on sports cars, it’s come full circle with turbo engines to be found on the highline versions of the Malibu, Cruze, and Sonic.
Well, GM started playing with turbocharging again in the early ’70s and then there were the Buick turbo V-6s. Saab insisted for years that “light-pressure” turbochargers on relatively small engines were perfectly viable for family sedans and luxury cars, something later taken up by Volvo and nearly every major Japanese automaker. In the Japanese market in the late ’80s, pretty much every big luxury car was available in a small-displacement turbo version, and there was some of that in Italy as well for similar reasons.
It’s not a new idea so much as one that comes and goes depending on the mood and priorities of the time. How successful it is usually depends on a variety of political and environmental factors. For example, the reason smaller turbo engines became popular in some markets in the ’80s was that those markets imposed heavy tax penalties on cars over 2 liters and a powerful 2-liter turbo engine was a way around that.
Don’t forget the big turbo player of the 1980s: Chrysler. Almost everything in its lineup during those years had an optional turbo. From the little Shelby GLH to a Dodge caravan with the turbo 2.5 and an optional stick, if Lido could fit a turbo in a car, it got it.
Also for a few years the lowly Pontiac Sunbird had an optional turbo charged engine.
True, although the Chrysler sedans and minivans are a better example in this case because the Sunbird Turbo package was specifically positioned as a performance engine (as were the Omni GLH).
Interesting comment on the “turbo” mufflers. Back in the early ’80s, “Monza” mufflers were all the rage, and I fitted one to my Vega. Wonder if there’s a connection there as well?
Really? Never heard of a Monza muffler. But there used to be ads for “turbo mufflers” in magazines and such.
Monza is a brand name and their biggest claim to fame were resonator style exhaust tips of 1 into 2 variety. The did do mufflers and complete exhaust systems too. They were the cool thing to have on your compact hot rod in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Here is the model that graced the rear of my Pinto back in the day.
Abarth knock-offs; I see. I guess I thought they were the real thing.
They were definitely trying to channel a euro vibe with that logo.
I had a full Monza exhaust and a header on my 1976 TR6, sounded like there was no baffling of any sort. I wouldn’t drive anything like that now, just too annoyingly loud.
Cool car wish my grandmother had one of these, the film was interesting with speeded footage and a speedo that climbs while the rev counter remains static.
You made me go watch it again to check but the tach moves just like it should. It hits redline at almost 110mph just like it would with the 24.7″ tires and 3.55 rear end they came with. The Spyder speedometers are little optimistic. I think 105 is the actual top speed. The tach and speed match my ’64 Spyder. Mine reads a little over 73 at an actual 70mph.
Neat car — but Zak’s grandmother should make him mow the lawn.
This was a radical new car when compared to the”Honey I shrunk the Galaxy” Falcon and the Valiants “different” styling.I could easily put up with a Corvair.I’ll never understand why they’re not more popular with UK American car enthusiasts
Minor correction: The Oldsmobile Jetfire did indeed have a wastegate, something Olds knew about from aircraft turbocharging practice. (WW2-era “turbosupercharged” engines usually if not always had wastegates.) I forget what the Jetfire’s wastegate valve was adopted from — I dimly recall that it was something sort of interesting. In any case, it was set to open at 5 psi/0.34 bar. There was less boost than in the Corvair, but also less lag, since it didn’t take long for the turbo to spool up to maximum boost. (Chevrolet deliberately didn’t do that because they didn’t have a wastegate and wanted to avoid overboost.)
With that sky-high compression ratio, you sure wouldn’t want to run much boost!
Not with a carburetor and mechanical distributor, no, although modern engines with direct injection, knock sensors, and direct ignition routinely go that high or higher. (Direct fuel injection to some extent performs the same function as water injection.)
modern aviation engines(pre electronics) in aircraft such as beech bonanzas or mooneys are what we call turbo normalized, at sea level they are just like a normally aspirated engine, but as they climb in altitude a valve opens and the turbocharger starts to kick in to help feed the large pistons lots of air.
I owned a 1964 Spyder Convertible back in 1966-67 and have always wanted another. From what I recall, excessive boost was controlled by implementing a relatively large turbo for lower rpm and a restrictive 1 barrel for top.
“At the rate that manufacturers are adopting down-sized turbocharged engines across their model lines, naturally aspirated engines may one day be a quaint memory. ”
Wow – I feel like it’s 1981 all over again. 🙂
A seriously nice find. I can’t imagine that there are many Corvair turbos out there in regular service these days.
The whole GM turbocharger experience of the early 1960s is fascinating to me. Supercharging was fairly well sorted out by then, and in those years, Studebaker was honing it to a fine art. I wonder if GM’s decision to go with turbos rather than conventional blowers was out of a desire to not follow poor, ugly little Studebaker. In fact, most American cars with superchargers (at least since the Duesenberg) had been from undercapitalized companies trying to get performance on the cheap. I suppose that turbocharging seemed decidedly more prestigious, especially with its association with aircraft. I cannot blame GM for blazing a new trail, especially one that smaller companies would not be able to afford to go.
Sort of well sorted out. Those Paxton superchargers were mighty inefficient, which meant that the engine had to actually make like 40hp more than it did after driving the blower. Modern superchargers, and their electronic clutches and such, have cut a lot of those losses down. But they can never compare to the intrinsic efficiency of a turbocharger.
I don’t think it was prestige, but simply that GM knew that turbos were more efficient, and had the wherewithal to make it happen. Your final line sums it up.
Well the characteristics of a smaller supercharged engine are only really matched by with big cubes when naturally aspirated, which are inherently more thirsty under cruise conditions due to pumping losses. Cruise situations in a smaller boosted engine will be significantly more efficient regardless of whether it’s spun by an exhaust turbine or a Belt(the boost is low in either case). The power robbing effect of a supercharger really comes about under hard acceleration and that’s where the Turbo wins in efficiency. Obviously GM was a big player in the cubic inch race well under way by 1962, so I can’t help but think their motivations were in prestige more so than efficiency as well.
My father at the time being an ex-RCAF aircraft mechanic during WWII was given the oddball assignments (just because he could figure them out) around the Chev-Olds dealership he worked at and I remember him saying that the Paxton conversions he did mostly came back on their roofs not because of design but because of over exuberance on the drivers part, these were not driven as straight line rockets as most American cars were at the time. Having said that I’m thinking back when I was very young I had probably had a ride in every Corvair variant (wagon, Rampside, etc ) that there was growing up with the exception of the turbo and I currently own a 65 Monza convertible hmmm….
Don’t forget that Ford also bought some McCulloch/Paxton superchargers for the ’57 line. It wasn’t just Studebaker and Kaiser-Frazer.
One of the issues with supercharging was that the ’50s McCulloch/Paxton units had quality control problems. After the Granatellis bought the division, they sorted out those issues, but Detroit was still suspicious for a while. Also, Bill France’s reactions to superchargers for NASCAR, which was Ford’s goal, was “Nope, nope, nope,” which removed another incentive to go that way. (Not that NASCAR would have accepted turbocharging at that point either.)
As for GM, I know that at Oldsmobile, some of the inspiration really came from WW2 aircraft engines. There were a bunch of “turbosupercharged” aircraft engines, some of which various GM divisions had built during the war, which had exhaust-driven superchargers, wastegates, intercoolers, and fluid injection. Obviously, aircraft engines have different operating parameters than automobile engines, but there was a substantial body of research and operational data available, a lot of which had more or less been shelved with the postwar move to jet engines. I think someone said, “Hey, why don’t we…” and, as you say, GM had the resources to say, “Hmm, play with that and see where it gets you.”
Maybe you know this, but the US Army Air Corps, before and during the War, was fixated on turbosupercharging, as it eliminated “steps” in the power vs. altitude curve and could be more efficient. Downside was, it required a lot of space for the ductwork, hence the relatively large Allison-powered P-38 and Pratt&Whitney-powered P-47. These were the only US-powered Army fighters able to perform well at high altitudes (I’m not counting Packard Merlins). The P-39 and P-40 were stuck with simple superchargers, and suffered accordingly.
The US Navy, along with the British and Germans, preferred mechanical supercharging, accepting the power curve anomalies and greater parasitic losses.
Turbo charging wasn’t out of reach of the smaller companies. IH strapped pretty much the same turbo as used on the Corvair on their 152 in Scouts as an expedient way to up the power. Initially they were marketed heavily in Denver but were available anywhere. They offered it in 1964-66. Because the 152 was derived from a MD truck V8 it didn’t get or need any changes to handle the boost. They even used the oil drain back port in the head for the air brake compressor used on big trucks. The exhaust manifold was turned upside down and a wedge inserted between it and the head to point the outlet in a better direction. Eventually they introduced the 196 which made about the same power, at least at sea level, was cheaper to produce and less finicky.
Oops meant to include a picture, found at corvaircenter.org
Love the license plate, all too appropriate for a Eugene car
Nice find. How many grandmother’s would buy a car like this. You probably could count them on one hand. Maybe she had a similar car in her youth? A shame someone spent the time and money on the upholstery and then used that materiel. Looks like an early 70’s Tijuana job. Glad to see it’s going to be restored and taken care of.
cool commercial. the driver looks like Gig Young.
Nice article Paul, I own a 65 coupe, a 500, I love the styling and the glass house on this car, but I also like the styling cues on the early’s, like the vents in the engine lid and the front end styling as well, keep it up.
These turbo mufflers came to be used commonly as an aftermarket muffler on V8 performance cars of the era, and for some time, “turbo muffler” became almost a generic term.
LOVED turbo mufflers back in the ’90s. I had a set on my ’68 Galaxie 500, and that 390 sounded fantastic with them. I really like the exhaust on my current vehicle, but there was something really unique about the sound of the turbo and super turbo mufflers when you would really get on them. Still can hear it to this day.
Also the 11.7 second 0-60 is amusing in comparison to modern times. Everyone is bent on going fast these days, heck my 200,000 mile 4.6 in a big heavy shell comes strikingly close to that 11.7 second mark – and it feels “slow” at times. I’ve heard people with the EcoBoost tart machines claiming they’re “OK” – at 6 seconds to 60.
As a Corvair owner (1962 Monza) I just want to thank you for all this info and links on the Corvair. Have found all this information a blast to read, it just goes on and on… Thanks again.
How much would a 1962 Chevrolet Corvair Super Spyder XP-785. be if found? Important…
A few years ago, there was a saying that “If you didn’t have a turbo in your car yet, your next car will.” I believe personally that may have cooled off a bit due to increased hybrids using battery power, etc., but I recognize that even the smaller gasoline engines becoming more prevalent, even in electric/hybrid cars, could and do benefit from turbochargers.
Interesting history of turbocharging at http://www.mre-books.com/turbo/history.html. There, they also state that the 10.25 compression ratio provided a poor host for a turbo, and they also go on to provide other rationale:
“Mistake number one was that the engine had a 10.25:1 compression ratio.
Mistake number two: it was under-carbureted, using only a single-throat side-draft carburetor.
Mistake number three was that it employed a complex water-injection system utilizing what the marketing types branded “Rocket Fluid.” This was a basic 50/50 mix of water and alcohol that was used to prevent detonation and supply a little more fuel in an attempt to make more power. This system was so unwieldy and complicated that
Oldsmobile actually offered to remove the system and replace it with a conventional carburetor for a fee of $50. Obviously, high-tech engineering in the formative years of the musclecar craze had a few teething problems.”
Interesting article Paul! That video is pretty cool too, but man there was a lot of mud on that dirt road!
I guess the turbo Corvairs had bigger thrown-belt problems than the normally-aspirated ones, because of higher engine speeds and hotter engine bay temperatures. Were there any special countermeasures taken on the turbo cars?
I think the belt-throwing issue is overblown, but I know you tend to buy into for the quick-and-easy generalizations, like the “exploding Pinto” and “everything Chinese is garbage” and such. 🙂
I never had my belt come off my ’63. I think it was mainly a first year issue, and Chevy made some changes to the pulleys and such. I never knew anyone else that had the belt come off.
The turbo engine didn’t rev much faster then the NA Corvair engines (it was less revvy than the 140 hp 4-carb engine).
The biggest common misunderstanding about turbos that I run into endlessly is folks thinking they’re high revvers. Not. Most turbo engines actually make their peak power lower than a comparable NA engine, due to their very strong torque peak when the boost comes on, meaning they don’t need to rev to make hp.
Because a turbo’s torque peak comes on so hard and fast, and then peters out at some point, it’s almost rather challenging to make them be high revvers. A NA engine on the other hand needs high revs if it’s going to make some real hp. No other way.
Maybe this myth comes from the turbo F1 era? Or?
Corvair belts: you surely know better than I do. That’s why I said “I guess” and ended the thought with a question mark.
If I thought everything Chinese is garbage, I wouldn’t be typing this to you right now on a Chinese-made Macbook while my equally Chinese-made iPhone charges up. I also wouldn’t have been able to add the two most successful items to a previous employer’s product line when I was their product development manager. I do have enough relevant experience to know there’s still overwhelmingly likely to be a hell of a big difference between a product made in China with vs. without intensive Western babysitting and QA/QC, which is why when my toaster gave out last week I hit eBay for a new-in-box vintage American-made one.
(Can’t tell how big you meant that smiley to be, but Pintos: Nope, not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent. Not at this juncture. 🙂 )
I don’t think it’s a matter of “Western babysitting” (which is condescending). It’s simply a matter of how the Chinese market works: it specialized in making things cheap, and the Communist system didn’t exactly foster a sense of social responsibility in terms of standing behind one’s product. But ti’s quite apparent that the Chinese are quite capable of building products without “Western babysitting’ that are high quality. I’m impressed with their high speed trains, and their aerospace has come a long way, as have their military equipment. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the better Chinese auto manufacturers (not joint ventures) like Geely are making very competitive cars without the “Western babysitting”.
A huge sector of their economy has thrived in making cheap goods which the world economy has gladly slurped up, and the price of many common goods have dropped dramatically over the past few decades (like toasters) because of it. But as the market changes, and becomes more competitive based on quality too, that will change. China’s fastest growing e-commerce company is based on only selling no fakes and goods it will stand behind. That’s propelling it to huge success. The Chinese are getting tired of shoddy goods too. Competition is and will continue to change things.
if there’s more money to be made in selling quality goods, I can absolutely assure you the Chinese will and can make them.
I am just not a fan of easy/cheap generalizations like “all French/Italian/british cars are unreliable”, etc., regardless of which country it is. No country can be rightly summed up that way. I feel the same way about China.
Fair enough; I’ll swap out “babysitting” for “scrutineering” or something, and agree with you in re their trains, aerospace, and military equipment. Geely cars and the like…I’d still not buy one if I could, but they are clearly getting better.
(You can have my why-don’t-the-British-build-computers/they-haven’t-figured-out-how-to-make-’em-leak-oil cracks when you prise them out of my cold, dead hands, though!)
Paul, one of my best friends is a Chinese engineers. He has told me quite openly that without western supervision, Chinese will not engineer a quality product. The will produce a cheaper product.
The concept of getting everything as cheaply as possible is deeply ingrained in the Chinese psyche.
However, the market is getting more sophisticated and there is now a fairly large market for quality goods.
“The concept of getting everything as cheaply as possible is deeply ingrained in the Chinese psyche.” +1. However, I’d slightly adjust that to “buying everything” i.e. transactional thrift/bargaining, in order to remove any perceived implication that there would be a preference for a crappy toaster since it’s cheaper.
+1 as well to Paul’s comments about competition and making money by building products with better quality. We all know that in the ’60s “Made in Japan” was a pejorative and the Hyundais of the ’80s were at best built to their price – why should we expect any different outcome from China?
There are indeed cultural differences between societies which is certainly interesting and understanding these differences is beneficial to all. We definitely should avoid judgment by thoughtlessly applying our cultural values to other groups and, above all, avoid applying stereotypes to individuals of any group – even if members of that group do so themselves!
As always, I think the answer is “it depends”.
I just finished a mining equipment project where half the stuff was made in China, and half in Quebec. The north american made equipment was so beautiful it made the Chinese stuff look embarassingly bad, but it also cost three times as much per pound and both equipments did their job. So you get what you pay for, usually.
On the subject of Corvair belts, didn’t we see some fancy magnesium fan at the Ypsilanti museum that was supposed to reduct thrown belts? I forget if that was a production part or an experiment…
If both the three-times more expensive Canadian and Chinese equipment do their job, i know which I’d buy for my mine. 🙂
And of course you’re right about “it all depends”. Which is precisely the gist of my point: saying that all Chinese things are junk is a simple and cheap stereotype, and doesn’t reflect reality very well.
The magnesium Corvair fan was introduced in ’64 to reduce belt throwing. And in ’65 they made another change, with a little guide to help keep the fan in place.
I didn’t mean to say belt throwing didn’t exist; it clearly did. Every car has its weak spot, and when you think about it, it’s rather remarkable that the all-new Corvair was as generally reliable as it was except for this problem.
My point was more to address Daniel’s assumption that that turbo engine in the Spyder would likely have a much bigger problem because it presumably ran much faster.
I had a ’63 with the HO engine (peakier cam) and four speed, and I often drove it full-out, but I never experienced a thrown belt. I’m not in a position to say just what the occurrence rate of it was.
The “thrown belt” problem was very real. I had a ’62 Monza, and later a ’64 Monza. After a couple of thrown belts I started carrying a spare belt in the car, along with a 9/16″ combination wrench. This was the only tool needed to replace the belt. The ’64 never threw a belt, as I recall. The only difference I can remember is that the ’62 had a generator, but the ’64 had an alternator. Lower armature inertia. My driving style might have moderated some, also.
The 1965 redesign produced one of the most beautiful cars ever designed. I generally loathe anything made by Chevrolet, but props to them with a sweet looking two door model.
I recently purchased a 2018 VW Golf SportWagen with my first turbocharged engine. What an amazing improvement over naturally aspirated motors! The low end torque is very impressive as it peaks at 1400 rpm. This motor is basically making V-8 power and torque, or close to it.
The fuel consumption is the icing on the cake.
I remember the first Japanese car in my Midwestern suburban neighborhood, a ’71 Corona. In addition to all the American iron, it fit in nicely among the Beetles & Type 3s and Renaults and the occasional Simca. The new Corona owner had to convince the neighborhood car guys that while, yes, Japan made lot of cheap junk in the previous decade, the country’s manufacturing capabilities had matured and he had hopes that the Corona would be a reliable car.