(first posted 11/26/2014) The original generation of the Chevy Corvair certainly never lit the sales charts on fire, at least not by Chevrolet standards. Neither did the Y body compacts that debuted the next year from the Pontiac, Olds and Buick divisions, which incorporated a lot of the Corvair’s basic structure. But where the unique engineering and configurations of the Y cars disappeared after their three year run, GM doubled down on the Corvair with a brand new design for 1965. Unfortunately, it would be a losing bet.
The 1960 Chevrolet Corvair had been a bold move for its maker. Although Chevys had long been known for their style, they had always been quite conservative from a mechanical standpoint. But the Corvair would throw the Chevrolet traditions out the window. Unit construction, an air cooled pancake six, and a rear engine configuration were unlike anything else ever made in the U.S., unless you want to count the stillborn Tucker Torpedo of the late 1940s. It was, however, eerily similar to the popular Volkswagen, only upsized and modernized for American tastes and conditions. The rear wheel drive and the shape of the keys were about the only things that the Corvair had in common with anything else in a Chevrolet showroom.
But almost immediately, the boys at Chevrolet got a rude awakening. It seemed that the daring, advanced Corvair was not selling in numbers anywhere near those of the dishwater-dull 1960 Ford Falcon. Yes, Ford – that perennial Number 2 of the U.S. auto industry – was taking Chevrolet to school.
Chevy’s initial response was twofold. First, if Mr. and Mrs. America wanted a stupid Falcon smaller version of their Bel-Air or Impala, then Chevy would give it to them, hence the 1962 Chevy II. A boring, vanilla Chevy sedan reduced by 35% in size, even its name signified the car’s lack of originality.
Second, Chevy emphasized the sporting character of the Corvair with the Monza series, which went on to dominate Corvair sales for the rest of the first generation. Although there was a base 500 model every year, the 500 sedan was dropped after 1960, and from 1961-64, the Monza coupe would be the Corvair’s sales leader, and not by a little.
First generation Corvair sales were not great by GM standards of the time, but objectively were not awful either. The model was good for between 250-300,000 units annually from 1960-63, before dropping off to a bit under 192,000 1964s.
By 1961, Chevy’s management had some decisions to make. Any other maker and seller of cars in those years would have killed the Corvair and pushed the Chevy II as the company’s entrant in the compact class. But Chevrolet was not most other companies. Chevy had been Number One since the Great Depression, but Ford managed to eke out a slight production victory in 1961. Did Chevrolet make the conscious decision to field two separate compacts because nobody else could afford to? Or was it the more simple rationale that Ed Cole, who had been mostly responsible for the Corvair seeing the light of day, was still at the peak of his influence at General Motors and still the Corvair’s champion and protector? However it went, the Chevy II was in the pipeline to cater to the midwestern skinflints (and keep them out of Ford and Plymouth showrooms), while the follow-up bid for domination of the compact class would be a new Corvair.
This new Corvair would be all about style, and would cater to those who liked sports cars but needed some practicality. The four door model would break new ground as the only four door hardtop ever fielded in the compact field in the U.S. This car would not target the farmer or librarian too cheap to spring for a Biscayne, but to the guy who wanted sports car size and handling with the style of an Impala. I find it curious, though, that Chevy revived the four door version of the base 500 series. Was there no niche too small to mine in the effort to subdue those nasty people in Dearborn?
A funny thing happened though, between drawing board and showroom – and it was called Mustang. The interval between late 1961 and 1964 is notable for two things. First, these years probably represent Chevrolet’s high water mark in terms of influence over the American market. But second, these years saw some rapid development in the template for a successful sporty U.S. car. For its longtime second class status, Ford caught this wave much earlier than did Chevy. The Falcon Sprint may not have been the driver’s car that the Corvair was (in both the positive and the negative sense) but it offered the one thing that would come to trump all in this segment: the power of a modern V8 engine. And where the Falcon Sprint made a small splash, the follow up Mustang would end up sucking most of the oxygen out of the compact market in the States. The Pontiac GTO would do the same thing, only one weight class up.
In today’s market, the two door car occupies a very specialized niche. In 1965, two doors were a huge share of new car sales. And when a car was selling on the basis of style over practicality, well, we were not dealing with four door people. A lot of people had few qualms about trading off those two back doors for the new sporty car sensation that was the Mustang.
The ’65 Corvair would jump a bit in sales, from 1964’s 192,000 cars to about 235,000 cars. Not bad, until we consider that the Chevy II managed to drop by nearly 80,000 units that same year. Our subject 500 sedan would be the lowest production of any closed Corvair passenger car model, as one of roughly 17,500 cars. After 1965, though, things would get ugly in Corvair-land. Sales plunged to 104,000 cars in 1966, 27,000 in 1967, and then to 15,000 and 6,000 in the final two years. Judging by these figures, we can say that though the Corvair was knocked to the mat by the Mustang, it was finished off by the Camaro.
These sedans fared even worse. With a four door in both base 500 and Monza trim levels, these made up only around 20% of Corvair sales from 1965-67, and were killed at the end of the 1967 model year. So, were these attractive little four door hardtops killed by the Mustang and Camaro? Or were their wounds self-inflicted? Maybe buyers of compact cars with four doors were (and are) conservative, practical people by nature, who appreciate function over form. The four door second generation Corvair, unfortunately, offered the opposite.
I was surprised to learn (according to Corvair.org) that Chevrolet built only 82,109 of these Corvair hardtop sedans from 1965-67. Funny, it seemed that these were relatively common back when. Or maybe I just kept seeing the same ones over and over. And I had forgotten that the four door did not even live through the final two (depressing) years of the series. So, I guess I really found something here when I stumbled across this very original example while its driver was inside munching on a Steakburger.
I read somewhere that we do what we know how to do. Ford knew how to take a garden variety car and spice it up into something special. They did it with the ’55 Thunderbird, and again with the ’65 Mustang. Chevrolet knew how to sell beauty and style. Unfortunately, Chevy was still trying to sell a modernized version of what was hot in 1956 – the swoopy, sexy four door hardtop. But in a world of practical Falcon, Valiant and Nova sedans (with optional V8 engines, mind you) this shapely, stylish car failed to offer enough steak(burger) to go with its sizzle.
Looking at these today, it is a fascinating car on so many levels. I always considered these four doors to be quite attractive cars, and maybe my second favorite Corvair of all, after the early Lakewood wagon. And to find one of the low-end 500 models is an added bonus. I can’t help but wonder what kind of buyer might have picked this car out in 1965. Someone who missed his ’53 Corvette but was looking for a Biscayne four door hardtop? But it’s good to know that someone is keeping this old air cooled Chevrolet on the road. Though I have never really been a Corvair guy, I like this car more and more the longer I look at these pictures. You can keep your Monzas, your Corsas and your Turbochargers. Give me a petite little four door hardtop and I will be a happy (and thrifty stylish) little camper.
Nice find JP,a very attractive car,for some reason Corvairs are hugely outnumbered at UK shows by Falcons and Valiants.While more attractive than a Falcon it’s not a dull car
I’m a Falcon fan,Dad had 2 in the 60s,all the style and glamour of an American car without the thirst and size.My sister and myself felt like a princess or film star when we were dropped off at school in the Falcon(and the Aussie Valiant and Dodge Dart)
Corvair, best car Chevy ever built.
Um, apparently you never owned one. Mom had a ’61 4 dr. Monza. Crappy heater, threw fan belts regularly and in its later years the interior was like a gas chamber, with the exhaust leaks that were sucked in through the heater. And I won’t even get into the dubious handling characteristics Ralph Nader explored.
I blame all of this on the hubris of Ed Cole. This was his baby and by God GM is going to build and sell it. It turned out to be more expensive to build than he thought, so to be price competitive with the Falcon out went the stabilizer bar, the camber compensating spring, and other suspension bits that would have made it far safer (and sporty) to drive. Yeah, yeah, I know as long as you maintained the 11 pound air pressure differential between front and back things would be fine, but we’re talking about a Chevrolet initially marketed to the American masses as a family compact. Few paid attention and many paid an unfortunate price.
The sad part is that in 1965 they got it right, but it was far too late. Generation 2 is a beautiful car in all its iterations. And with fully independent suspension, arguably the best handing of any American car of the time. But the Mustang had already struck and the ‘vair was toast. The car buying public never quite bought into the quirky Corvair, always preferring something else during its run, from the Falcon during its compact phase to the Mustang and later Camaro during its sporty phase.
Imagine what might have been if the Chevy II was brought out in 1960 to do battle with Falcon and Valiant, then the Gen 2 Corvair in 1964 1/2 as a sporty alternative to the Mustang.
I owned the worst of the worst Corvairs. An early 1960 sedan. Best car I’ve ever owned. It never let me down. I let it down after neglecting the engine bearings after 300k + miles and just “powering” through that rod knock. That car was my freedom when I was 16 in 1995. The car lasted 10 years until 2005 when the crankshaft busted.
It’s always a treat to find a bare-bones, all-original car like this. I think I like this car’s styling better than the first generation 4-doors. It’s look is a bit more elegant.
As you mentioned, the market for 2-doors today is a very small niche. I would say that the Honda Accord Coupe is the only non-compact, non-muscle car, and non-$40,000+ luxury coupe left on the market today. It’s a shame, as persons such as myself would be more inclined to buy one if there was more choice.
On a non-car note, I’ve never heard of Steak ‘n Shake. It would appear the closest one is in NYC. I don’t think I’d find much I’d like there, as I don’t eat red meat or dairy 😉
Agree on the sad state of the modern 2 door car. When I was a kid, they were the preferred model for families with little kids – no back doors for the little ones to open while underway.
Steak n Shake has been more of a Midwestern thing, but after a management shakeup a few years ago, they are expanding, even overseas. You are right that meat and dairy are hard to avoid there, but I think we could fix you up with fries, a salad and a crock of baked beans. 🙂
Couldn’t resist……
Now I want some ChilliMac
I would judge that Steak ‘n Shake to be 71st & Graham Rd in Indy — where, back in the day, I bought many a taco salad. Dropped from the menu under the Biglari usurpation of a unique restaurant chain, I recreated one last night (minus the fried tortilla shell). Here’s how you build one at home, kids. Start with a pile of chopped iceberg lettuce, add 1/2 cup (more or less, to taste) of Hormel Chili without beans, ring the chili with Ranch dressing, garnish with a fistful of Fritos®, and sprinkle the whole mess with shredded cheddar cheese. Guaranteed to please!
Much like the experience of driving a ’64 or later Corvair hard through a set of esses… damn! but those cars were fun!
Is there still an Altima coupe? There was briefly at least, but I don’t know if it survived.
I believe the Altima coupe was last offered as a 2013 model.
Steak ‘n’ Shake had some locations in NYC, one was near to the Ed Sullivan Theater because David Letterman was a big Steak ‘n’ Shake fan.
Looking back at 1960, it’s odd that GM made such an obvious mistake. They assumed people were buying VWs for the rear engine and the air cooling and the flat floor. Nope. Wrong target. (And the bug didn’t have a flat floor anyway!)
Americans were seeking smaller cars for practicality and parking, because big cars had grown way beyond “normal” bigness.
Ford understood that the real invader was Rambler and aimed correctly.
Not really so odd. VW was starting to burgeon in the US and Ed Cole made an educated guess that an American VW would take the new compact market by storm.
What’s fascinating is how the Corvair set off a chain of events that very nearly killed-off Chrysler. When it became apparent that the Corvair and its variants weren’t going to make it in the practical department, GM made the decision to move it upmarket as more of an American Porsche and bring out the Chevy II to take on the Falcon and Valiant. A conversation about this plan was heard by then-Chrysler president William Newberg at a Detroit dinner party and he mistakenly thought that Ed Cole was going to downsize the 1962 GM full-size cars, which led to the panicked, very expensive, disasterous 1962 Mopars.
Then there was the Falcon-Nader-Mustang-GTO hits that just kept hammering away at the sporty, innovative little car. In that kind of environment, it never really had a chance, and it could be said that it may have severely altered the way GM faced adversity in the future. After the Corvair, it seems like if a new model didn’t take off immediately, GM would kill it off quickly, even when they started getting it right. That’s certainly how it went with the Corvair’s spiritual successor, the Pontiac Fiero.
You really have to wonder how differently things might turned out for the Corvair under different circumstances.
I thought niche’ wise, the Corvair’s “spiritual successors” were as follows: Vega, Monza, Cavalier, Cobalt and Cruze?
I saw a drawing in a Hot Rod Mag in the late 60’s for the next gen of Corvair. I looked exactly like the Monza.
Dropping the usual 20/20 hindsight, try looking at the Corvair from the period of 1957-1959, when it was being designed.
Despite being a pre-WWII design, the Volkswagen was something incredibly novel to American audiences. American automobiles had dropped to the lowest common denominator in design since the Cord left the market in 1937. While Europeans had been using novel front and rear drive trains for decades, the American car market had stagnated into cheap sheet metal changes every year while keeping the expensive underpinnings the same for years. The move into high powered V-8’s and automatic transmissions were the two mechanical advances synonymous with American cars back then. And that’s about all they did.
GM was the only company big enough to embark on a radically different car (for America, anyhow) while still being able to produce a full line of conventional automobiles. And, by damn, if they can do it, they will do it. Let the second rate also-rans (Ford and Chrysler) merely shrink their big cars.
Also, the Rambler had only become a massive sales success since around 1957 with the recession rolling in. They had a market, but they weren’t THAT popular. So, by designing the technically interesting, automobile they were trying to appeal to: Chevrolet customers who would buy whatever had the bowtie on it (while trying to minimize cannibalization of the more profitable big cars), Volkswagen and all those other foreign brand customers, and people who wanted to drive something different. Note: Two of those three categories normally wouldn’t look at or buy GM.
And, in the backs of their minds, they were also really trying to not cannibalize sales from the higher profit Bel Air and Impala customers. Something that turned out to be a major factor in the Falcon’s success. While I don’t have the figures at hand, I seem to remember that the success of the Falcon came partially on the dropping sales of the big Ford for 1960. And I definitely remember Hank the Deuce commenting a few years later, that, while they were bringing out all sorts of new sizes of Fords, the number of total Ford sales was staying roughly the same.
What GM didn’t figure on was the innate conservatism of the American buyer. Yeah, he’s all in favor of new ideas and modern designs – as long as he doesn’t have to risk HIS money on them. Meanwhile, most of the (small number of) foreign car buyers were going to stick with foreign cars, if only for the statement they were making. The 1950’s weren’t quite as homogenized vanilla as we’re often want to think. Those who didn’t buy into the suburban American Dream lifestyle completely would often go to great effort to show that “I’m different from you”.
GM had great hopes for the Corvair. They were convinced that they had a category killer in this car. Turns out they over-read one market (the American sedan buyer) while under-reading another (the person who didn’t want another boring old American sedan, and who would have loved a sports car but reality got in the way).
I have often wondered what might have been different had the Corvair come out in 1957 or 1958, a mere 2 or 3 years earlier. We were still in the midst of an import boom where the Corvair’s configuration would not have stood out so much. Also, they could have gotten the jump on most of the others when the economy started to tank in mid 1957. It seems to me that the Corvair was sort of a 1950s concept of what a small car should be, a concept that didn’t turn out to have much of a shelf life in the U.S. market. And while GM was the master at discerning (and making) trends through the 50s, they seemed to lose a lot of that ability in the 60s. The trend towards the V8 engine being king in America was gaining steam through the 50s and by the early 60s, it was there. The conventional compacts could (with some effort) accommodate V8 power while the Corvair could not. This, I think, might have been the Corvair’s biggest handicap. Just because a 6 should have been enough didn’t fix the problem. When half of all Mustangs were V8s (and that was probably limited by supply constraints), Corvair was at a terrible disadvantage from the start.
Of course, the real kicker is that the Corvair was obsolete the day it came out. Thank you 20/20 hindsight and the Mini. Which, I don’t believe had much of an export presence by the fall of 1959. Yet.
Then again, so was the front engined, rear drive, column shifted, bench seated American sedan. That it hung on so much longer is a testament to the hideboundness of the American consumer. Who were still determined to drive “what daddy drove”.
The Mini was never much of a seller in the U.S. in original form, though, and while GM would certainly have been aware of it, I doubt they saw it as any kind of threat. Which in any direct sense it really wasn’t — even for Europe, the Mini was two or three classes down from the Corvair or Chevy II (or the smaller Opel, Vauxhall, or Holden).
The original Mini is the most overrated car in the known universe, I had a early 70’s clubman as my first car, any of it’s competitors were far superior such as the Triumph Herald, Ford Anglia 105E both cars I have had a lot of wheel time behind.
Both of the later could cruise comfortably at 90-100 kmph or 60 mph, the Mini seemed to be geared to cruise at 45 mph.
I’d even prefer the VW Beetle, I’d even call it as dangerous to drive as the as the Beetle with its lethal swing axle rear end due to its 10 inch tyres.
And after long trips the Mini would give me severe back pain, I surprised I didn’t become a teenage hunchback.
It was brought by my parents for me for $500, it wasn’t my first choice and thanks to the Mini I’ve come to the conclusion you should always look in a gift horse’s mouth.
My second car and first I actually used my own money to buy was a $200 67 Ford Cortina 1300 4 speed column change.
A thousand times better.
The Mini was also obsolete the day it came out.
The thing is, the only reason GM signed off on the Corvair was that the beginning of the recession in 1957 made the corporation very nervous. Without that pressure, the Corvair would likely have remained a concept car idea.
Your post makes me thing of the line from the Hitchcock classic Rear Window, where Jimmy Stewart’s nurse says “when General Motors has to go to the bathroom 7 times a day……you know the whole country is in trouble”
or something like that.
I would append to this that with most of this, it’s important to substitute the words “Ed Cole” (or “Chevrolet,” understanding that Cole was the driving force) for “GM.”
As with a lot of GM’s technical oddities, it was not a corporate move, but a divisional project in which a prominent executive had a personal interest — Cole had been intrigued by rear engines since he was at Cadillac in the ’40s — that was pushed through the system by spinning it as a solution to a current problem. The corporation wasn’t aware of it early in the development and Cole kept it under wraps until he had it developed to a point where he could make a convincing pitch. The fact that he was able to get the corporation to sign off was mainly that he pitched it as the answer to the recession and the sudden demand for compacts.
The other interesting thing about the Corvair was that it was the corporations first whole scale unibody car, while Chrylser and Ford had been playing with it for a few years, without any major development and some setbacks, GM had remained on the sidelines of unitized construction, showing a few show cars with unibody, but no actual production cars until the Corvair.
No American production cars — Opel and Vauxhall had been unibody for years before the Corvair, and all the Holdens were as well.
For the domestic market, where GM sold the majority of its cars, the Corvair was its first unibody car.
Oh, definitely, However, my point it that it wasn’t that GM didn’t know how to do unitized construction. Their position well into the ’70s was that unit construction didn’t make sense for bigger cars (intermediate or larger) because it allowed too much NVH from the wheels to reach the occupants.
It was just “the VW”, although VW sales were growing, there was another car that was growing really quickly, even out selling “the VW” in several states.
The Dauphine.
It was one of the other cars that experienced significant growth between 1956 and 1959 was the Renaul Dauphine, which is closer to what the Corvair is than the circa 1930’s Beetle, the Dauphine sold 28,000 units in 1957, 57,000 in 1958 and 102,000 in 1959.
Thats enough to get GM’s attention. Renault dealers were starting to pop up all over the US. Renault was shipping over Dauphines in loads of 1,000 at a time
It wasn’t until buyers discovered the Dauphine was le merde around 1960 along with the combination of an economic recovery from the 1958 recession and new domestic compacts that the bloom came off the rose
My mother’s first car was a Dauphine, bought new when she got her first job.
She very quickly discovered the disadvantages of the swing axle the hard way on a rainy gravel road. Luckily she was OK, and her brother, who was in insurance, made sure it was totaled.
Talk all you want about patina, this car screams for a repaint. And hopefully in the next couple of years before it deteriorates too much. For me, my favorite GM car. A height of the American car industry. And definitely a step too far for the American car buying public.
Oh well, as Mencken said . . . . . . . .
Mencken said so many things. Here is one example:
“We are here and it is now: further than that, all human knowledge is moonshine.”
But how does it relate to the 4 door Corvair?
I guessing it’s, “No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people.”
Now if you’ll excuse me, I got some Cheez Wiz on my leisure suit.
Comes right off with little bit of moonshine.
Perfect response!!!!
Fabulous cars whose appeal hit me at age 15 at an auction.
The selection at the auction was unique. A ’66 Continental, a ’68 Corvette, a ’62 Galaxie, and two Corvairs – one convertible with a turbo and one sedan. Having never seen a Corvair up close, they certainly captured my fascination. However, my father did indeed purchase one of these cars, the ’62 Galaxie.
Splendid find, JP.
Agree with Syke . This would be a terrific show car with new paint. Patina is not exactly the right word for what is showing here. More like deterioration. But early enough to stop. Those metallics from that era didn’t age well. It would be cool to give it a factory quality coat…and no better. You might want to address the pillarless 4 door body with a placard at shows.
Although it’s a totally different market niche, this car somehow brings the 4 door T-Birds of the late ’60s to mind. In both cases, there was something odd about deciding that you could meld swoop with carrying capacity. Were these cars built for swinging foursomes?
“Does your Corvair have a nickname?”
“Yeah. I call it ‘Bob&Carol&Ted&Alice’.”
In any case, this particular car may have survived because successive owners liked showing it off with the windows down. However, somebody along the way was using it as a hauler: any time you see a vintage car with a trailer hitch, you are seeing a tough emeffer that won’t quit!
Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys was released around the same time as this model. I was reading an interview with Tony Asher who co-wrote the album with Brian Wilson and he said that the album was a flop, an embarrassing diversion from the Beach Boys formula that was never really publicly acknowledged as a classic until the 1990s. I don’t think this car is as much a classic as that album, but it is still the most attractive of the US compacts from that period and I can’t help thinking there are parallels in both these stories. Nice one JPC.
I think that’s a great analogy. The line in the article, “First generation Corvair sales were not great by GM standards of the time, but objectively were not awful either”, could apply to “Pet Sounds”. It peaked at #10 on the U.S. album chart, with a chart run that was reasonably good for the time. A lot of bands would kill for that, but it was a diappointment by the Beach Boys’ standards of the previous few years, and the album seemed to be quickly forgotten once it cycled off the charts (IINM, it would eventually go out of print for a number of years). Brian Wilson saw it as an innovative masterpiece, but the public seemed to view it as nothing special. The masses didn’t “get” it, and the more sophisticated types just wouldn’t take any record that said “Beach Boys” on it seriously.
That’s my reading of it. The only sophisticated types who ‘got it’ were the moptops, and it was apparently a primary inspiration for ‘Sgt Peppers’. Brian’s answer to that was ‘Smile’ and, sadly, trying to reach that new peak was probably the final straw for his sanity. I saw him a few years ago supported by the Wondermints for his ‘Smile’ tour. Despite the fact that he appeared a bit catatonic, he was still ‘with it’ and it was a genuinely great show.
This one actually looks OK on rust, other than the Corvair-typical fender/a-pillar/upper rocker problems. Unfortunately, the cost of even spiffing up the interior so it doesn’t feel like you’ll catch botulism from it makes little financial sense. It has to be a labor of love with a Corvair. On the other hand, it’s worth it if you like the car.
My Dad had a 1965 Impala 4 door hardtop….You can see some of the same styling cues or family resemblance in the 65 Corvair….although the C pillar on the Corvair had the more curved rear side window c pillar design that was also used in the 1967 and 68 Full sized Chevies…..I always liked the 4 door hardtop design of the 65 Impalas better……The 66 Impala used the same hardtop as the 65 but when Chevy got rid of the round taillights in favor of the horizontal wrap around taillights for 66, and flattened the front end, getting rid of the pointed brow of the 65 design, it spoiled the design in my eyes.
The 1966 Impala is an anomaly. Of all the great-looking, full-size sixties’ Chevys, the ’66 is the one with the worst styling, specifically, the front end.
+2
65, 67, 68 knocked it out of the park.
I dunno, I always really liked the 66 Impala. With the new Malibu, the 66 Chevy showroom was a beautiful place, chock full of 4 door hardtops. The 66-67 Nova sedan must have looked really out of place there.
Me too. The ’65 is a bit too delicate looking to my eyes. The ’66 looks more firmed up. The ’67 and ’68 are just bloated.
I’m with you, I’ve always liked the ’66 best. They have a tough don’t-mess-with-me look to them.
WOW what a great find. I didn’t know any of these still roamed the streets — not in original condition, anyway.
I was a high school teenager in the 1980s when I came across a Monza at a local swap meet. The owner indicated it was a rare turbocharged Monza Spyder and offered me a ride. I had a serious flashback about Ralph Nader’s ‘Unsafe At Any Speed’, especially the chapter on flippy Corvairs with swing axles.
Being a young and foolish teenager, I accepted his offer. That was the most exhilitating and at the same time most terrifying fifteen minutes. Afterwards, it took me a while to find strength to walk again and regain my composition…
Having driven and ridden in both generations of Corvairs back in the day I can testify that it would be easy to scare yourself and any passengers, especially during hard cornering. The gen I Corvairs, with the swing axle rear suspension, could be made to oversteer with little effort. My closest friend in high school had one of these and it was a semi-regular occurence for him to pop the outside rear tire off the rim during hard cornering. The gen II Corvairs had a more refined rear axle setup, one that would allow the rear wheels to remain more perpendicular to the road when cornerning. Even so one could induce oversteer if you worked hard enough at it. It is rare to see a Corvair today that has not been restored; as much as I like survivor cars the one in the article might be too far gone to deal with.
2nd gens are a full independent rear suspension.
Aren’t 64’s as well?
Not really. The ’64s were a hybrid of sorts; Chevy added a transverse leaf spring to keep the wheels from tucking under.
Of course, any swing axle suspension is independent, but Carmine was saying that ’65s had double u-joints per axle to avoid camber change.
The ’64 is still swing axles, albeit with a camber compensator (transverse leaf spring designed to support the rear end without adding rear roll stiffness).
For reasons I don’t quite understand, some people don’t consider swing axles to be fully independent. In any case, even if you take that stance, it doesn’t apply to any Corvair.
First-gen Corvairs had rear swing axles (with a single universal joint per side at the differential) located by semi-trailing wishbones; the wishbone transmits engine torque and braking forces to the body and induces wheel toe-in as the wheel moves through its travel. The idea was to add some understeer to help balance the oversteer that would otherwise be created by the rear weight bias and stiff rear springs.
The optional H-D kit added a front anti-roll bar for the same reason, used shorter, stiffer springs, added some static negative camber to the rear wheels, and had limiter straps for the rear swing arms to prevent the wheel from “tucking under” in tight corners at high speeds.
The ’64 car made the front anti-roll bar standard, softened the rear coils, and added a transverse leaf spring in back. The leaf spring served the function of the limiter straps (which were dropped) and basically supported the weight of the powertrain without adding to the rear roll stiffness, which would increase oversteer.
The second-gen Corvair has a completely different rear suspension that’s quite similar to that of the C2 Corvette. The halfshaft still serves to locate the rear wheel (it’s pivoted at the differential), but it now acts as an upper control arm. There’s a lateral link below it, which is triangulated by a trailing arm that carries torque and braking forces. The main difference between the Corvair and the Corvette is that the Corvair has rear coil springs. (There is no more transverse leaf.)
Great looking car, four door or two door, with or without the chrome accents. I’d be very content with any model, with a manual shift.
Good story on a handsome car.
I wonder if some clever marketing – directed at VW, not Ford – could have helped this car. Yes, it was the pony car era, but wasn’t it also a kind of Euro-chic era? Think a little less small?
Excellent question. But I wonder if GM had the ability to “think Euro” and make the car less “American.” An underdog like Studebaker might have been able to think that way, and sort of did with the Avanti. But the Corvair was sort of an odd mix – too European for Americans yet too American for those whose sensibilities ran towards the European. I wonder, did Chevrolet ever try to sell these in Europe?
There were a limited number of export sales in Europe, although it was really too expensive for the market, not being manufactured locally, and was a big, expensive car to run by European standards. Besides, GM had Opel and Vauxhall for that kind of thing.
Of course, as Paul has covered extensively, the Corvair was a huge stylistic influence in Europe.
Interesting to speculate on Opel producing a version for the European market. But it does appear that Europe wasn’t keen on the air-cooled rear-engined set-up for anything other than the smaller end of the market, which Corvair certainly wasn’t in Europe.
Which leads to the question – was Corvair the largest post-war car with that configuration? And was it bumping up against an inherent limiting factor for a ‘family’ car?
“was Corvair the largest post-war car with that configuration? ”
Apart from Tatra, yes, but I don’t suppose they sold many of them in the US!
I assume you’re not counting Tucker!
Once people started discovering the Corvair was a fun to drive car, the focus on the Corvair, from Chevrolet started to sell it as a “fun car”, by 1962 the Corvairs entire scope had changed, explaining the limited run of station wagons that were dropped almost as fast as they were introduced, while at the same time introducing the turbocharged Spyder with full gauges and bucket seats.
Chevrolet did sell the Corvair as European inspired, this is only one of several ads with that theme.
It’s true that the wagon didn’t fit in with the Corvair’s growing sporty image, but its rear-engine layout with its relatively high load floor was also a liability. Once Chevy had a compact wagon that didn’t have that problem (Chevy II), it didn’t really make sense to make both. It also wouldn’t surprise me if Chevy needed the production capacity to build other models that were more in demand (e.g., Monzas).
I think that’s a good point that illustrates one of the major weaknesses of Chevrolet: For all their volume and brand loyalty, their sales, product planning, and advertising strategy were mostly very stolid. The Corvette ads were an exception, being aimed at a technically sophisticated enthusiast audience, but a lot of their general advertising was still bland mid-fifties hokum and the division was really ambivalent about specialty cars (which ended up being some of their biggest profit-makers) until much later. Even the Monza, which in retrospect seems like a startlingly obvious, easy variation on the theme was apparently a fortuitous accident.
Chevy’s poor advertising was a major theme of Delorean’s book. When you think of it, is there a single memorable campaign from the 60s? Maybe the “Jet Smooth” line from the early 60s, but that’s about it. The 70s, in contrast, was a golden era for Chevy advertising. Everybody remembers Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie & Chevrolet. Every time I do research on a 60s Chevy, the ads I find strike me like I’ve never seen them before. Never a theme, just a bunch of scattered concepts and slogans – more like Studebaker’s efforts. With Ford, it was Better Ideas everywhere, and the Dodge Boys over at Chrysler where every ad seemed to feature a hot girl in a cowboy hat.
Good point about Chevy’s 1960’s advertising. Ford had cool jingles and MoPar was using hit music like “The Beat Goes On” and “Sunday Will Never Be The Same”.
And I’d have to agree about Chevy ads in the 70’s, that was indeed a golden era for Chevy advertising even as many of the products they were promoting were going down the toilet in build quality and reliability.
Well, once the sporty-car theme was made the Corvairs m/o, they started to co-advertise the Corvair with the Corvette for a couple of years, pushing the Corvair as the “junior drivers car” to the “big brother” Corvette, leading to the development of the sub-Corvette Corvair based Monza GT sports car concept cars that came within a hair of production.
1962 Corvair Monza GT show car.
The Corvair was also the basis for one of GM most radical looking concept cars of the 1960’s, the Astro I, which looks like something Dr. Heywood Floyd would have driven to the spaceport to grab his Pan Am moon flight!
Those ads may have worked, as my dad traded-in his 1961 Corvair Monza coupe for a 1963 Corvette Sting Ray convertible.
I love the 2 door Corvairs. Never was lucky enough to own one, but I have a thing for air cooled rear engined cars. I’ve had 2 VW bugs, 1 Karmann Ghia, and one rusted out Porsche 911. I also like the early Falcon, but the 1963 Nova SS pushes all the right buttons for me.
I was a kid in Germany when the Corvair came out. Only in the nineties I ever saw one in the metal. But it strikes me how the Corvair influenced European styling. Chevrolet looked at a European success and improved on it’s styling. The Europeans took the styling and extended the life of their already outmoded rear engined cars. I think NSU serves as prime example. The Corvair design marked the top of the hill for rear engine cars, right at the edge of the cliff.
The rear engine design promised low weight and assembly cost until this did not matter anymore because of rising incomes, safety requirements and advanced FWD and RWD designs.
Beautiful cars, they are.
The other consideration for the RR layout was steering effort. GM (and most U.S. manufacturers) had long since taken for granted that most American buyers wanted driving to involve as little physical effort as possible. With contemporary technology, FWD meant heavy steering with lots of kickback and adding power assistance wasn’t in keeping with the cost expectations of an economy car. (And for smaller European cars, the engine already had its hands full without adding a bunch of belt-driven pumps.)
There were a couple of FWD prototype engineering cars that were developed for Chevrolet in the early 60’s, using Corvair engines, they were also working on plans to “scale up or down” then flat 6. The made a 4 cylinder flat 4 FWD prototype, a flat 2 for an ultra small compact engineering study, a flat 8 and even a flat 10.
From Corvaircorsa.com-
A concurrent project in R&D was a redesign of the Corvair engine to reduce cost and improve engine size flexibility. The design used a separate one piece head and barrel casting for each cylinder. This allowed us to build engines of varying size. In fact we built a two cylinder version used in a very small, inexpensive prototype vehicle. A four cylinder version was used in my front drive project. A six cylinder, 3-liter version was used in the Riverside vehicle. This engine used Weber triple carbs. Perhaps the most interesting was a ten cylinder version that was used in a full size, front drive, Chevrolet sedan prototype. The engine project was dropped when the decision was made to discontinue the Corvair.
http://www.corvaircorsa.com/monzap11.html
Wow! They went to town with this concept! Imagine, they would not have had much time to make hey. A few years later someone invented the environment and pollution control. Try that with an air cooled engine.
Hey, Porsche stuck it out with an air-cooled flat six (which, it should be noted, they developed after the Corvair) until 1993…
Fair enough.
However, all the others were mainstream cars at lower prices. The Porsche survived because the purist enthusiasts kept up the demand.
Aha! The Q-sedan project. It was a study for a possible replacement for the full size models with rear engined sedans.
I just remembered having an AMT model kit of a Corvair, likely a 67 Monza as I bought a lot of kits that year. So the car certainly had some appeal to me. I can’t say for certain whether I saw more coupes or four doors where I grew up.
The feature on this well used hardtop now makes me wonder what type of person would buy such a model? I never knew anybody who bought a Corvair back in then day. I can understand how it would be more appealing compared to a Volkswagen.
That model kit has been re-released numerous times over the years since. I’ve built quite a few myself.
It’s my understanding that it’s a mistake to evaluate the corvair by itself, as GM made a corporate commitment to building innovative compacts across every division except Cadillac. The Oldsmobile and Buick had small, light, aluminum 215 V8s with a conventional, american engine, transmission, suspension set-up. The Pontiac had a slant 4, rear transaxle, torque tube, and the independent swing-axle rear suspension shared with the Corvair. The Corvair, of course, was rear engined, flat-sixed, and also substantially aluminum-engined. All were unibody.
I’m not enough of an expert to know why GM was willing to take on so much innovation at once, as each innovation bore a huge risk and they all failed in some sense or other. GM soon went back to larger, body on frame compacts, sold off both the aluminum V8s and the V6s, corrected, then ditched the swing-axles, and let the rear engine die a slow death. The one success created by the trend was the GTO which followed up the Tempest “326” V8.
The cars were to my knowledge very popular among an upscale, possibly coastal section of the market. For example my father bought a 1961 Corvair Monza Coupe with 4 on the floor, my uncle bought a 1962 Oldsmobile Cutlass Convertible with the 215, and my grandfather on the other side of the family bought a 1963 Buick Skylark Convertible with the 215.
But with the massive safety and reliability problems of most of the models, they became unsustainable.
That era shows up the difference in how GM operated then. Once upper management approved a “compact” for the 4 lower Divisions, it was up to each Division to come up with its own. Olds and Buick were to share the Y body, while Pontiac was to share the Corvair body. Pontiac engineers did not like the suspension setup and handling quirks of the Corvair that Chevy was developing, and latched onto the Y body instead. Buick developed the 215 and the V6, Olds took the 215 and made some changes to it, and Pontiac improvised by lopping the 389 in half and using (I believe) the Corvair transaxle with the Pontiac-specific flexible driveshaft. It is likely that with all of the money spent on these cars and with their tepid sales, this would be part of why GM Divisional autonomy took a hit.
Pontiac did offer the 215, but reluctantly, since they had to buy the engines from Buick at a markup.
All four compacts had different automatic transmissions as well, although the Pontiac “TempesTorque” had a fair degree of commonality with the Corvair Powerglide transaxle. Oldsmobile’s was designed by Hydra-Matic and also saw some use overseas, so that one wasn’t a complete financial rout, but looking at the production numbers, the transmissions alone probably lost some money.
The Buick V-6 was sort of an afterthought. Buick planned the Special with a V-8 only, but after they learned that Pontiac had created the slant four, Buick engine designer Joe Turlay said he could do them one (or two) better by turning the V-8 into a V-6. So, the V-6 was a second-year addition — certainly one of the most fortuitous improvisations in GM history.
I am just finishing De Lorean’s book (On a clear day you can see GM), and was surprised at the history of the ‘Vair and the Y-bodies. I had a ’62 700 wagon for many years, and my first car was a ’65 Monza coupe (PG).
I like the looks, but the mechanicals are complex in many areas, and need quite a bit of maintenance with age.
Every time I think about getting a ‘Vair (and I almost bought a ’67 convert this summer), I think of the easy fun I have in my ’96 RMW — when I can just get the grandkids loaded up and we get ice cream.
Congratulations on a most excellent find. I’ve long wanted to find one of these gen2 four doors, but they’ve always been pretty scarce. Speaking of, my question is why they bothered at all with a four door gen2 Corvair at all.
It was totally obvious that the Monza coupe had become the essence of the Corvair line after 1961 or so, and that the four door market was being picked up by the Chevy II. As you pointed out, sales of these gen2 four doors were very weak. Even in its time, these were distinctly uncommon cars on the roads.
perhaps oddly, I never warmed up to them either. Sure, I love it now for what it is, but I thought it looked way too much like a 8/10 Malibu four door hardtop; from the side, almost perfectly so.
On the other hand, the gen2 coupe was brilliantly different than the other Chevys. Fortunately Chevy didn’t give the coupe a mini-me Impala or Chevelle roof, which would have really spoiled it.
The gen1 four door was a quite unique car, despite sharing its ‘flying wing’ roof with other GM cars. But as an overall package, it was more distinct and compelling a design than this rather bland GM-esque four door. I hate to come off as a Corvair hater, but this really made no sense to ever have put into production, and is not really a compelling design, despite it being a rather unique four door hardtop. And it appears buyers rather agreed with that too.
But thta’s not to say I’d kick one out of my Corvair fantasy garage. 🙂
It would figure, we can’t even agree on Corvairs. 🙂 You hit it perfectly with your question: Why? Even more, why re-introduce the cheap-O 500 series sedan? The 65 Corvair sedan could have made a niche for itself as a sport/luxury/European/college professor sort of compact sedan, which would have differentiated it from the Chevy II quite a bit. But no, let’s strip it down and sell it with those awful checkerboard vinyl seats. I think this model may have hurt the Corvair re-introduction rather than helping it.
The answer to the why question may be in the text of the advertisement in the article. It seems 90% aimed at women: “Easier to get in to and out of like a lady” and “decorator-styled” and “makes parking almost as easy as dialing the operator” and “the engine is smooth like running your hand over a mink stole.”
Not as a four door, and not looking so much like an Impala mini-me. The folks that bought Monzas as a true sporty car wouldn’t have touched the four door. And the folks that had bought gen1 four doors had all moved, understandably so.
By 1965, the Corvair was only riding on its momentum as a unique American genuine sporty car, meaning Monza/Corsa coupe. But given the Mustang and the rapidly changing market, the gen2 Corvair really was DOA, except for those hard-core coupe buyers.The only folks that bought the four door were those that had bought a 500/700 gen1 four door and loved it, and wanted a second go-around. Which explains the 500; there was a unique kind of Corvair buyer that was also thrifty. But it had no appeal in the larger market by 1965-1967. And there was no way to market it to have that. The world, and college profs, had moved on. BMWs, Mustangs, Peugeot 404, whatever, but not Corvair four doors.
There was a Monza sedan with bucket seats available at the same time too you know?
The “college professor” car you describe was available, you could get a Monza sedan with the 140hp 4 carb motor and a 4 speed manual if you wanted such a thing.
The only gap they potentially missed was offering a Corsa sedan with the availability of the turbo and the Corsa gauge cluster with the 140mph speedometer and tachometer, though there have been a few Corsa sedans built by corvair freaks.
Good find. Even better article and comments.
For drivers ed in 1960 we had a four door model with the glide. I never once thought of that car as sporty although we might have given the portly middle aged teacher some moments to remember. Went away after that and my opinion never had the opportunity to change as I was overseas where few new US cars were seen. Had exposure to the beetle and I sure did like that.
The revelation came in submarine school where a friend had a 66 or 67 model. How times did change. Preferred it to my beetle but was going back to sea so it wouldn’t have made much sense to change. To those who are always talking about wishing they could buy one new – sometimes it just doesn’t work out.
You can tell me about recessions or americans resistance to change but I can tell you what we heard when we drove them or the beetle. It had to do with the empty front end and wrecks. It seems to me that a rear engined rwd makes as much sense as a front engined fwd. A crumple zone doesn’t have to have an engine in it.
I thought the first generation was pretty junky but so is anything else if you run it hard and stable it wet. I thought the second was desirable. Then they were gone. Like everything else that is subjective, YMMV.
I have always liked the 2nd gen sedans, and did not realize they were produced in such limited qualities although I knew they had been dropped in 68. My best friend’s Dad in Vancouver had a 66 sedan, replacing his loved-but-unfaithful Ford Zodiac. My friend learned how to drive on the Corvie in the late 70s, can attest to the diabolical steering and handling of even these 2nd gen Corvairs, as ultimately he flipped his Dad’s over into a ditch.
For all that, and contrary to Ralph Nader’s diatribes, they were no worse than other rear-engine cars of the day, and certainly more stylish than many. Others are correct in noting that GM had approached the whole Corvair project in reaction to the late 50s US success of VW and Renault Dauphine. But the Corvair had other rear-engine competitors, too, such as the Simca 1000, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz 1000 (saw a remarkable survivor example of a Canada-export model of this car at the VW gathering in Niagara Falls, Ontario last summer), etc….So the layout wasn’t really all that unusual. GM no doubt believed they were not really going out on too much of a limb with the Corvair. But as the economy improved in the early 60s people drifted back to larger cars, and GM was there with the Chevy II/Nova, Tempest/Skylark/F85, etc.
I do suspect the overall experience left GM cynical about the US public’s view of small cars, esp. on top of the Nader debacle. What followed – Vega, Monza, Chevette, X-Car, J-Car – planted seeds that ultimately left GM the hobbled beast it is today, sadly.
According to Wikipedia, Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed came out in late November, ’65. Doing a quick search on the New York Times web site, there were ~17 articles that mentioned Nader’s screed in March and April, 1966, so it was really part of the public conversation (when people still read the newspaper). It looks like sales really tailed off thereafter. I wonder when the book hit paperback and really got in the hands of people who bought affordable sporty compacts? Could be that the initial drop to 104k in ’66 reflects the Mustang’s initial impact and bottom falling out in ’67-’69 was Nader’s doing.
It’s really important to remember that for all its notoriety, Nader’s book (the Corvair chapter of which was excerpted in The Nation ahead of time) was really just recapping the Corvair lawsuits that had already occurred and gotten a fair amount of publicity. His book and his public prominence undoubtedly kept those suits and complaints in the public consciousness longer than would otherwise have been the case, but it wasn’t like he invented the controversy.
Nader himself also freely admitted that the later Corvairs were much-improved, suspension-wise (the second-gen cars are really an entirely different animal in that regard). His complaint was that the Corvair wasn’t released that way from the start.
That’s exactly right. Nader didn’t invent the Corvair controversy, he only rehashed many of the Corvair related lawsuits in his book, which was an indictment of the entire auto industry. The Corvair was only featured the first chapter. Other brands also took a beating, including VW. The Corvair was on the ropes before the book came out. The Mustang would be the final blow.
But then GM brass had a really bright idea. Why don’t we hire prostitutes to entrap Nader and hire sketchy detectives to pry into his life? It was these revelations, and the humiliating specter of GM president James Roche’s publicly apology to Nader, that gave the book (and Nader) iconic status.
“Unsafe” gets too much credit, sure it wasn’t good, but really “Unsafe” is a wholesale indictment of the auto industry, mostly the domestic one, but he does poke at foreign automakers too as I recall, though the last time I ever even thumbed through Unsafe at Any Speed was in junior high when I discovered an old copy in the school library, “Unsafe” has ONE chapter about the Corvair, thats it.
Most people incorrectly think that the whole book is abut the Corvair.
What really torpedoed the Corvair was the Mustang, which ironically, was designed as a Corvair fighter, as others have pointed out, Ford stole sales from itself with the Falcon, while the 200,000 or so 1st generation Corvairs that Chevrolet was selling were bringing in new buyers that wouldn’t have bought a full size Chevrolet, Ford wanted to do the same, plus there was this interest in the “youth market” that was starting to really simmer in the early 60’s.
The Mustangs success surprised Ford too, they were hoping that they could achieve Corvair like sales figures with the Mustang, 200,000-250,000 cars a year.
The Mustang and the muscle car/performance car boom that both started snowballing in 1964 were what sank the Corvair. in simple terms, when Chevrolet and GM saw what Ford could achieve with a much the cheaper Mustang, GM decided to develop the F-body, as additional bonus, Pontiac signed on to the F-body too, putting an another nail in the “Chevrolet only” Corvair’s coffin.
There was a 3rd gen Corvair proposed, which could have finally made the Corvair into the dedicated sport coupe/GT that it could have become, but those were killed off by 1965-1967. The rooflines on the 3rd gen Corvair are predictive of the Colonnade coupes.
Great piece. I’ve never seen this. Vega and Camaro in this as well.
“Could be that the initial drop to 104k in ’66 reflects the Mustang’s initial impact and bottom falling out in ’67-’69 was Nader’s doing.”
I think the drop in ’66 was mainly a combination of the Mustang and Nader, with some natural drop-off due to the second-generation styling no longer being new and the market as a whole being a bit soft after a great year in ’65.
I think the bottom falling out in ’67 was mainly due to the new Camaro sitting on the same showroom floor, with ongoing Nader fallout and the proliferation of other new ponycars that year (Firebird, Cougar, restyled Barracuda) playing a smaller role.
After ’67, I think GM basically gave up on the Corvair, but kept the car around for a few more years so it wouldn’t look it had been dropped in direct response to Nader’s criticism.
To my knowledge, Chevrolet executives of the time have always denied the latter point, BTW. They’ve said (to writer Michael Lamm and others) that it was more that Chevrolet had decided to basically freeze major development except for running engineering changes and modifications for regulatory compliance (or parts commonality, in a couple of cases) and then leave it to run as long as it made economic sense.
There were actually a surprising number of changes after 1965, not all of which are clearly reflected in the shop manual, and as Carmine notes, there was work done on a third-gen car, although as I recall on a fairly open-ended schedule.
That is often how big companies (particularly GM, but not only GM) deal with products or proposals they don’t want. Actually just canceling a car, truck, or project outright was actually fairly rare; instead, it would be frozen or put on hold or postponed or kicked over to the central R&D staff, usually indefinitely. Everybody knew that that was pretty much the kiss of death, but it was rarely an outright no.
I can’t imagine that producing 10,000 or fewer cars a year (in ’68 and ’69) on a dedicated line at Willow Run made economic sense at all. Therefore, I think GM’s assertion that Nader had nothing to do with the continuation of Corvair production was a lie. 🙂 Or maybe just evasive PR.
Though the Nova was also being made at WR at the same time too.
Right…the Nova was on the main line, and the Corvair off on some almost hand built line. Apparently, the workmanship on the ’68s and ’69s left something to be desired.
Impala mini-me, as Paul said. Especially the roofline that approximates a blend of the Impala sedan C pillars with the Impala hardtop.
I think there are also elements of the ’66 Malibu in the sides, as well as the general shape, if not the tail lights, at the rear.
Overall, its just a very pleasant blend of mid sixties Chevy on a small scale, with a European twist in the front and at various points.
These were rare enough that I really didn’t know them as a child in the early ’70s. When I finally saw one, I had an amazing what the heck is that moment, and was reminded how much hardtop styling can really make a car stand out. The fact that all of the Corvairs were hardtops (or convertibles) at this point seemed to give them a premium look and aura.
I’d love to spend an afternoon compounding and cleaning this car. I bet it would pop out more than you’d think, and would make the patina look maintained vs. neglected.
Nice find in the wild in 1980. Positively amazing in 2014.
I think the reason I never liked the Corvair was the lack of front grill for the car. Yes I know it is both air cooled and the engine is in the rear but the lack of grill on the front of the car makes the front end look weird. The first generation of the Corvair had the lock for the “trunk” in plain sight adding to the strange look of the car.
I wonder how many more folks might have bought the Corvair if GM had added a conventional grill? Makers of steam cars found out that they got higher sales when they slapped on a fake radiator grill which allowed them to look like conventional cars.
What a sweet survivor that car is. Regarding this… “The four door model would break new ground as the only four door hardtop ever fielded in the compact field in the U.S.”… I never realized that before.
I used to think the first generation got a bum rap but then a friend of ours growing up was killed in one, in a single car accident. She was a girl and not the partying kind. Safe to drive in the right hands perhaps but the combination of rear engine, swing axle, decent power and crappy tires made them a handful for the unsuspecting driver in certain situations. Not the most popular opinion I know but I feel it is true.
The second gen was breathtakingly beautiful and handled well but alas it was too late. The Mustang didn’t help but it was more about bad reputation if you ask me. Such a sad tale.
I like the vacationing midget family of 6 in the black Falcon in the main article. Those must be some seriously tiny people, I wonder if they were going to or coming back from Ringling?
Ha ha, yes. Plus, the fact that the 144 cid six is able to carry the car and all six of those happy people up a hill. Look at the air disturbances around the wheels – some serious power.
The beauty of static illustrations is that they don’t indicate the speed with which the car is going up the hill or the plaintive noises from under the hood.
I had mentioned earlier that I thought the hardtop / convertible only line up beginning in ’65 gave the Corvair an upscale aura. The interior of the base car the JP found does not look exceedingly “stripper” with its two-tone and trim bits. Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Corvair with dog dishes. It seems the ’65 Corvair uses some of the Mustang playbook as being an upscale compact.
Kind of a fun piece from my archives, this 1967 accessories brochure shows that the Corvair was available with fully integrated air conditioning. A definite notch above the Chevy II.
An aside that I had not caught before, the full size car features round gauges for ’67, putting the look in line with the other cars. The big cars typically had strip speedometers, and the ’68 went back to the strip.
Base Corvair 500 series cars did have dog dishes, but seeing as how the Monza was so overwhelmingly popular compared to the 500, you almost always see Monzas with full wheel covers.
The base 500 was brightened up a bit from the soviet-spec first generation 500, moving a bit more upscale, if possible, and sort of filling in the slot where the old 700 series Corvair used to be, the 700 was dropped in 1964.
Integrated air conditioning was a new thing for the 2nd gen Corvair, though it was seldom ordered, though I have seen one or two down in Florida before, we had a 66 Monza with a/c rotting in the back of the Chevrolet dealership I worked at in the mid 90’s. The first gen Corvair had optional air conditioning too, but it was an add on under dash unit that went around the radio box, the 2nd gen Corvair was designed to have factory air from the get go so the air conditioning components weren’t in the way of the engine like they were on the first gen cars.
1st gen air conditioning. A friend of mine had a parts car with this system in it.
This could have been factory or dealer installed as far as I know…..
A serious duh moment, JPC’s article includes a GM promo with dog dishes. Like you said, rare in reality.
I’m also aware that the AC was rare on these cars, AC was usually hooked up to a hulking V-8 at the time, and there is some irony that at a time when AC was a luxury, the Corvair was known to struggle with heat. Little wonder that Air was mostly ignored by Corvair buyers.
That said, the rare Gen 1 AC is amazingly integrated for an under dash unit. I’ve never seen one before – thanks!
Neat picture of the air-conditioning. I didn’t know one could order a Corvair with a/c, much less heating.
Someone abandoned a secondgen Corvair coupe (in brown brush paint!) on our schoolyard sometime in the early ’80s, the first time I had ever really seen one. Even in its’ shabby condition it struck me as something special, and I’d have never placed it as a Chevy if it didn’t have the bowtie on it plain as day.
Caught a Corvair owner’s meet at the Gilmore last year. Very nice turn out. Saw just about every variation, including a couple Yenko Stingers.
re the Soviet style gen 1 500, I looked under the hood…bonnet…trunk…the thing in front that opens, noted the odd master cylinder…then noted the bottle for the windshield washer was missing…I was informed that 500s had 1 speed wipers and no washer.
No wonder the things threw fanbelts, as between the crank pully and the blower, the belt went around two idlers that turned it 90 degrees.
My suspicion about the odd powertrain was that GM really had no clue what the market wanted, so used a shotgun of different engine layouts and locations.
Even Studebaker played with a rear engined Lark, the white one in the left foreground with the trunk…boot…hood…the thing in back that opens…. It’s sitting in the basement of the Studebaker Museum in South Bend….yeah, I know the pic isn’t that great, maybe I should get a better camera than what you find in a box of Cracker Jack.
Studebaker had considered a rear engine for the ’47 Studebaker, in fact, but finally opted against it.
Much like heaters, windshield washers were optional on a great many cheap low-end cars until well into the ’60s and longer in some other markets. There’s all kinds of stuff that we take for granted now that used to be extra, including turn signals and backup lamps. Base cars didn’t used to give you much of anything beyond four wheels, a drivetrain, and something resembling a seat (which on base cars was often a fairly miserable thing.)
By the way there’s a prototype rear-engined Lark at the Studebaker Museum in South Bend. A museum well worth a detour to visit.
Memories: Take the Good With the Bad. In 1970 I bought a ’65 2 Door Monza for my girlfriend for a few hundred dollars.
The Good: I didn’t think the Corvair would be much fun to drive-especially with 110 hp and the 2 speed PowerGlide with the little shifter on the dash. After putting on some short radius steering arms from Bill Fitch it changed character. I hated to admit it then, but on winding 2 lane blacktop it was much more fun than my brand new 5 sped Fiat 124 spyder. Chevy came close to building something special.
The Bad: The fanbelts always seemed to fly off in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere. Also I probably lost about 10 points of IQ from the monoxide which explains why I’m writing this rather than the great American novel.
“Also I probably lost about 10 points of IQ from the monoxide which explains why I’m writing this rather than the great American novel.”
Well said.
Corvairs have always been intriguing cars to me. Being a VW guy, anything air-cooled and boxer gets my attention.
Aside from that, I have said many times that simply from a styling standpoint, I think that the 2nd generation Corvair is one of the most beautiful cars ever built. There’s simply not a bad line on it or a bad angle to look at it. It’s simple but attractive. One is on my list of “if I ever have too much money I know what to do with I’ll get one” cars.
Ah Corvair, if only you had used your powers for good…
Sooo again late to this party, but personally I have always given credit to GM and the Corvair for trying something different. But I said the same about the Aztek..
Something that I didn’t see mentioned.
Wasn’t part of the appeal of the Corvair was that it was an economy car? I’m curious how it did MPG-wise versus the Falcon/Valiant/Rambler?
Anecdotal evidence here for sure, but my ’65 95-horse 4-speed ‘Vair usually pulls down 22 MPG on the highway, but I have gotten as much as 25. Mixed driving yields around 19-20.
My 225 ’65 Dart only gets around 16 mixed, up to 18-19 on the highway. My experience, obviously, is that the Corvair gets better mileage, but the Dart has quite a bit more power, too.
No idea on the Falcon or Rambler, but the Falcon with 144/170 power was pretty weak-kneed.
It’s unforgivable that the Corvair didn’t sell very well. Apparently their marketing of the car wasn’t very good. I would’ve thought that instead of aiming the Corvair at those who usually buy other American cars of the time (who’s bright idea was that anyway?), Chevrolet would’ve (should’ve) aimed the Corvair towards those who usually buy the Volkswagen Beetle, the Bus, the Japanese cars of the time. For those who drive VWs, the Corvair would’ve offered the same kind of vehicle, but in a larger, more comfortable vehicle for those who need (wanted) it.
I always preferred the style of the 1st. Gen. Corvairs .
This article is very good and the comments are _priceless_ .
-Nate
I like the 1st generation Corvair as well. If Chevrolet had kept the styling, the models, but had improved the suspension, I believe the Corvair would’ve been a bigger hit than it was.
Always thought these Corvair 4 door hardtops were nice looking cars. I was at a swap meet a few years ago an saw a rough 1965 4 door parts car that caught my eye, curious I walked over for a look and confirmed my initial impression. Looking at the door jambs & stripped interior ,this particular car was a painted ‘Evening Orchid / Iris Mist’ from the factory. Never seen a Corvair 4 door that color. It was too far gone to save but what a looker that that was new.
I agree. I like the first gen Corvair for its styling, but I like second gen Corvair suspension.
My across-the-street neighbor had a second gen Monza I really liked that eventually went up for sale in the mid 80s. I considered it a possible alternative economical DD to the behemoth Pontiac I was driving at the time. I enjoyed the test drive but noticed that it had been in minor collisions at both the front and rear. The bumpers had been replaced but the mounts were crooked to the point that not all the bolts would go in and I couldn’t be sure the unibody was completely straight in the front. Due to that and the fact some of the dinged trim was just too hard to find in pre-internet days I had to pass it up.
Here’s a comment that is late to the party, but germane nonetheless. Stumbled across this rather corny, overlong commercial for the entire ’65 Chevy lineup with stars of network shows introducing the new models, while in costume.
Robert Vaughn of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is paired with a Corvair, and it’s a four door hardtop.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0X5m4emm0OM
If you have the time, watch toward the middle for Elizabeth Montgomery of “bewitched”, who was the crush of many an adolescent boy (and his father). She always seemed classier than the character she played, especially in comparison to her bumbling husband and cartoonish (Cruella DeVille-style) mother. She possessed the sexiest voice in all of sitcomdom.
Lorne Greene, from Bonanza, is also in the Chevy ad. Although I’m too young to have lived in the 60s, but I remember watching re-runs of Bonanza and Bewitched.
Back about 1984 a guy rented a house next to me,had a v8 powered ’67 Corvair.
A patina-ed but regularly driven (by a young woman) 4 door second gen Corvair moved into our neighborhood recently. I’ll post a picture one of these days. It’s been sheltering under an equally patina-ed car cover recently, and today I saw a tire mark from our parking patrol (permits required in our neighborhood, but probably hidden under the cover). I hope it doesn’t get booted like the ‘68 or ‘69 Valiant around the corner did one time; I posted the Valiant a few years back as one of our neighborhood CC’s, but haven’t seen it recently.
I always wondered if Chevy had planned to drop the Corvair after 1966 with the Camaro as a direct replacement, had Unsafe at Any Speed not happened. As it was I can see where forces within GM would think dropping it as planned would be seen by the public as capitulation to Nader and built the last three years out of spite.
Ed Cole and the Massena aluminum-block foundry might’ve had something to do with it as well. The latter’s presence had something to do with the Vega’s misbegotten engine too.
Nice survivor! I noticed a few folks asking who would buy a Corvair 500 new when this car was built. I honestly don’t know why Chevy sold them. They were lot poison when new. Typical drive line was a 95hp engine and a 3 speed or P/G transmission. Dealers would sell them cheap to get rid of them. And as a kid in the midwest I noticed they were usually driven by elderly people, probably looking for a bargain ride. But because they were driven by elderly drivers they were little used and well preserved. Upon the loss of the original owner many were just scrapped. Few people wanted them. Some were saved and made into Monza or Corsa “tribute” cars. The trim from a wrecked Monza or Corsa was stripped and installed on these. And some managed to survive mostly intact like this one. Hope this one has a bright future.