A year after their disappointing initial test of the new turbocharged Chevrolet Corvair Monza Spyder, Motor Trend tried a convertible version and came away impressed. Not only was it significantly faster, they thought it came “very close to the European definition of gran turismo.”
This road test, bylined by editor Jim Wright, originally appeared in the June 1963 issue of Motor Trend. (The page scans in this post unfortunately aren’t very big — best I could do.)
The first page of this test emphasized a very important point about the early Corvair that’s easy to forget when looking back on it from decades later: While it was something of an also-ran as a compact economy car, the first-generation Corvair Monza scored a direct hit as a car for enthusiasts, among whom it was — for a time — very, very popular. Wright began:
IF THERE’S ANOTHER American car around today that enjoys the fierce owner loyalty, enthusiasm, and popularity of the Corvair Monza, we haven’t heard about it. The Monza seems to have stirred the imagination of motoring enthusiasts like nothing since the early days of the boxy MG roadster.
This is dramatically proven by the Corvair Owners Club International. Sponsored by EMPI of Riverside. California (Box 668, if you’re interested), the club’s membership is fast approaching the 10,000 mark. With members and chapters in all 50 stales and a dozen foreign countries, this surely must be the largest active owners’ club in the world. Unlike several other car clubs, this one’s idea of an activity doesn’t consist of rallying down to the local pub for an evening of booze and bench racing. These people are active and go in heavily for rallies and gymkhanas, and more than a few members are entering their cars in races — with a fair share of success. An example of one of their bigger rallies was a recent Southern California dice that took 12 hours to run and placed equal emphasis on car and driver as well as navigator. Incidentally, the winner picked up $200 far this one, a fat purse far a club event.
Last summer at Riverside, the club held its first convention. Over 150 members from as far away as Canada showed up for the three-day event, which included a day of field trials at Riverside International Raceway.
Wright noted that there were also “more accessories being manufactured and sold for the Corvair than for any other single car.”
It was primarily for that audience that Chevrolet had developed the Monza Spyder, which was the world’s first turbocharged production passenger car, arriving a few weeks before the Oldsmobile F-85 Jetfire and over a decade before turbos from BMW, Porsche, or Saab.
The Spyder was not a model, but rather an option package for the Corvair Monza club coupe or convertible. (While the text describes it as RPO 690, which was how it was listed in 1962, the 1963 Chevrolet specifications actually list it as RPO L87.) In 1962, ordering this package had required also ordering a four-speed manual transmission, metallic brakes, and special suspension, but that was no longer true in 1963. You could now have a Spyder with the standard three-speed manual (though not Powerglide) and the standard suspension and brakes. The $317.45 L87 option package itself included the turbocharged engine, a front anti-roll bar, a heavy-duty clutch, a special instrument cluster, and special emblems. A 3.55 axle was mandatory, with Positraction optional for an extra $37.70.
The photo captions read “Part of the Spyder option includes custom instrument layout. Warning lights are used for both oil pressure and generator. Our test Spyder ran quickly and easily to a top speed of 110 mph. While convertible top balloons at speed, it doesn’t slap.”
Motor Trend‘s 1963 Corvair Monza Spyder test car was a convertible with the four-speed, a padded dash, a radio, a tinted windshield, and seat belts. It did NOT have either the sintered metallic brake linings or the heavy-duty suspension, although Wright made clear that both would have been desirable. List price as equipped was $3,190.20, which split the difference between a Triumph TR4 and an Austin-Healey 3000.
The turbocharged engine was officially rated at 150 gross horsepower, compared to 102 hp for the optional Corvair high performance engine. However, Chevrolet maintained that the Spyder engine was very conservatively rated in a gross output sense because it was not practical to dyno-test it without its air cleaner or muffler, and claimed that the turbocharger actually provided “approximately 90 percent more usable horsepower than the output of the normally aspirated high performance engine.” Motor Trend noted:
Because of the inherent lag in a turbo-driven supercharger, there’s very little difference in acceleration over the standard Monza 102-hp engine until you hit second gear. This is where the boost starts building, and from here on you know the turbocharger is worth the price. We clocked 0-30, 0-45, and 0-60 mph in 4.5, 7.4, and 11.1 seconds. The standing quarter-mile averaged out to 17.9 seconds ET, with a trap speed of 80.5 mph. This is a good 10 mph faster quarter-mile time than a well-tuned 102-hp Monza can make. It’s also about two full seconds or more quicker.
This was also a full second quicker to 60 mph and 0.6 seconds quicker through the quarter mile than the Spyder they had tested in the July 1962 issue. That one had needed 12.1 seconds to reach 60 mph and 18.5 seconds to run the quarter mile, with a trap speed of only 77 mph. Roger Huntington had complained that it was “by no means quick in this day and age,” particularly given the price of the turbocharged engine. (It was also over 2 seconds slower than Chevrolet claimed; Chevrolet engineers said Proving Grounds testing of a Monza Spyder prototype managed 0 to 60 mph in 9.8 seconds with two aboard.) The 1963 M/T test car was clearly more powerful than their earlier example.
Interestingly, the following paragraph hinted at a possible explanation for the more impressive factory claim: the tension (or presence) of the fan belt. Wright explained:
During our acceleration tests, we had a hit of trouble with the fan belt. It had been set up too loose and as a result had worn badly. The belt came off once just as we left the line, and we didn’t notice the warning light come on. So we clocked 0-30, 0-45, and 0-60 mph in 4.2, 6.8, and 10.2 seconds [emphasis added], which is quite a bit faster than with the belt on. Performance can be affected by how tight you set up the belt. We’ve found that about half-an-inch deflection gives good results — not light enough to seriously affect performance or accelerate wear; not so loose that it’ll come off. After we tossed the belt, we replaced it with a spare we make a habit of carrying when testing cars with air-cooled engines.
In any event, extracting good performance from the Spyder engine was complicated by the narrowness of its power band, illustrated by the factory power and torque curves. Look at the shape of torque curve for the turbo engine (highlighted in red): There was no meaningful boost until 2,400 rpm even at wide open throttle, boost didn’t peak until 3,400 rpm, and torque dropped off quickly from there; Car and Driver complained, “The kick in the back is a mild one, only achieved at the very top end of the rev scale, and short-lived at that.”
Wright said the turbo engine would “wind freely and easily to 6000 rpm without protest, but we got the best results at 5500.” The factory had set the indicated redline at 5,500 rpm for a reason: The engineers who developed the Spyder engine warned that the hydraulic lifters would pump up at 5,700 to 5,800 rpm, so trying to bury the needle on the 6,000 rpm tachometer was risky.
The photo captions in the upper right read, “The Corvair can be made to handle well on all surfaces, provided the right tire pressures can be determined. With stock suspension, the outside wheel in a corner has a tendency to roll under. Optional parts will cure this.”
A further indication that the 1963 test car was more powerful than the 1962 was a significant increase in top speed. Wright said:
Several two-wav runs down the Riverside Raceway backstretch produced an honest top speed of 110 mph (5500 rpm on the tach). It might have gone two to three mph faster with more room or with a lower gear (numerically), but we can’t kick about any car that’ll pull to red line in top gear.
The 1962 M/T test car, also a convertible, had topped out at only 105 mph, and had not been willing to pull all the way to redline in fourth gear.
Chevrolet engineers suggested that the Spyder was about 10 percent thirstier than the normally aspirated high performance engine, and it required premium fuel. Wright observed:
While not quite so economical as its lower-powered brother, the Spyder still delivers satisfactory mileage. Our overall average for 878 miles was 16.8 mpg, and this included all kinds of road and traffic conditions and varied weather. Around town, our lowest figure was 14.97 mpg, while high-speed cruising on the open road (65 to 85 mph) delivered a high average of 19.2 mpg. On a long trip, where the driver would stick more closely to posted limits, the Spyder should deliver 20 to 23 mpg.
Thanks to its rear weight distribution, the test car produced respectable stopping distances (141 feet 60 to 0), but in mountain driving, Motor Trend felt “the Spyder showed more brake fade than we thought comfortable.” Wright said that if it had been his car, he would have ordered metallic linings or fitted the aftermarket Airheart disc conversion kit, especially for competition use.
The photo caption at the bottom right of the above page reads, “Flat floor pan keeps front-seat passengers from feeling too crowded, but passengers in rear will find quarters cramped.”
The photo caption in the right column, “Manually operated top is very easy for one man to handle; it doesn’t take any longer to put up or down than an automatic [top].”
This was Motor Trend, so they were not likely to say anything too mean about the handling, but I think Chevrolet allowing buyers to order a turbocharged Corvair without the factory heavy-duty suspension kit was extraordinarily irresponsible — the stock 1960–1963 Corvair rear suspension, with its static positive camber and penchant for jacking and tuck-under, could be treacherous even in the hands of a highly skilled driver. Wright cautiously allowed:
Ever since we drove the ’62 Monza in the 24-hour Enduro at Riverside Raceway last year (MT, March, 1962), we’ve been fascinated by the way this car can be made to handle. Properly set up, it has unbeatable handling characteristics. Best part of this is that it doesn’t take a lot of work or money to get the desired results. The best combination we’ve found so far is the heavy-duty suspension option (RPO 696) offered by the factory. This consists of shock absorbers, stiffer springs (shorter at the rear to give more negative camber), an anti-roll bar at the front, and limiting straps at the rear that restrict rebound travel and also impose a limit on how far the outside rear wheel can turn under should the car be spun out. The cost is under $30 tor this package if you order it on your new car, and that’s hard to beat. Several accessory firms make a variety of suspension helps of equal value. The EMPI Camber Compensator is one such aid that owners swear by.
The factory special suspension (which the 1963 specs actually list as RPO F40, not RPO 696 as in 1962) was much less likely to knife you in the back than the standard Corvair suspension. Given its modest cost ($21.55 in 1963), there was really no good reason for not making it a standard part of the Spyder package.
Wright also weighed in on the always-controversial matter of Corvair tire pressures:
When we took delivery of it, the tires were running the factory-recommended pressures. A quick trip down the freeway and through several comers convinced us that more air was needed. Rear-end sway was very pronounced at all speeds, and above 50 mph it was intolerable if not downright dangerous. Boosting the recommended pressures up from 15 psi front and 26 psi rear to 22 front and 34 rear completely cured the problem, and the Monza felt more like a Monza should feel.
He added:
Now. before all you non-Monza-owning disbelievers sit down to write us a hunch of nasty letters about how miserable you think the oversteering Corvair is, we’d suggest you get one of your Monza-owning friends to give you a quick trip down a twisty road in one. Afterwards, if you’re nice, maybe he’ll even tell you where you can get one just like it.
Motor Trend found their test car well-assembled and thought the famous Monza bucket seats “comfortable enough,” though short on lateral support. The back seat was cramped for legroom, however, unless the front seats were pushed well forward.
The caption at the bottom of the page above reads, “Trunk area is adequate for the needs of two or three people. The brake master cylinder stands conveniently on the firewall.”
The caption in the upper left reads “Cutaway shows turbo details. This supercharger gives up to 11 pounds’ boost from exhaust gas.” Here’s a larger/clearer version of that cutaway:
The captions at the right read, “Spare is carried in engine compartment, but some owners relocate it in the trunk, where it isn’t subject to the intense heat. Supercharged version of the Monza engine pulls a solid one horse per cubic inch from the small, 145-cubic-inch flat Six. Suspension geometry keeps the Spyder dead level during hard braking. MT‘s tests included fast, easy-to-control panic stops.”
Summing up, Wright remarked:
Originally conceived as a bare, economical, basic transportation car, the Corvair has evolved into a real enthusiast’s machine. If you’re not the type who appreciates a high-performance automobile — one that comes very close to the European definition of gran turismo — you’d best shop elsewhere, because the Monza Spyder is definitely not your cup of tea.
I think the “European gran turismo” claim would have been a bit more convincing if Chevrolet had made the special suspension and metallic brakes standard on the Spyder, and perhaps also saw fit to offer a quicker steering ratio than the standard 25:1, which required 4.75 turns lock-to-lock. On the other hand, all those upgrades could be added easily enough, from the aftermarket if not from the factory.
Perhaps for that reason, the Spyder sold remarkably well for such a specialized package: 1963 production was 19,299 cars, out of a combined U.S. and Canadian Monza production of 209,142 cars. There was some hop-up equipment for the Spyder as well. Dick Griffin and Demmer Tool & Die in Lansing came up with an adapter kit for a 2V Stromberg downdraft carburetor (whose freer breathing served to increase maximum boost), while Bill Thomas in Anaheim, California offered an anti-spill kit for the standard Carter carburetor to reduce fuel starvation in hard cornering.
The Spyder engine was perhaps best described as clever but crude, but it was better tailored for its intended audience than the more sophisticated Oldsmobile Jetfire setup. Like the Corvair itself, the Monza Spyder had its limitations, but with the arguable (and much more expensive) exception of the new Corvette Sting Ray, there was just nothing else like it among domestic makes.
Related Reading
Vintage Motor Trend Road Test: 1962 Corvair Monza Spyder – “Chevrolet Has A Problem With The Corvair Turbo” (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1963 Corvair Monza Spyder Convertible – The Turbo Revolution Started Here (by Paul N)
Vintage Review: Racing Driver Jerry Titus Asks, “Why Doesn’t The Corvair Handle?” (by me)
On page 46 of the review:
https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/1963-06_MT_Corvair_Monza_Spyder_46.webp?quality=70&ssl=1
Motor Trend said that increasing both front and rear tire pressures dramatically cured the Spyder’s roll issues and handling dramatically. But they advised keeping the same front to back difference (9-10psi)
I mean, 24-26psi, at all four corners, was fine for a 1965-65 Skylark (my grandfather had one). So 34 out back on that Corvair must have seemed as stratospheric back then as putting 45psi in either axle of a 2020 or so Honda Accord or Chevy Malibu.
I find it interesting that Chevrolet would not provide a PowerGlide in a turbo car. I remember that the received wisdom in the 1980’s turbo boom was that an automatic was better for keeping revs/boost up, which tended to drop off when clutching between shifts. I had understood that the PG was stout enough to handle some fairly serious power, so I wonder if engineers were afraid it would allow over-revving in some circumstances.
Nope, in this case, the issue was that power-shifting would risk overboosting the engine. The Spyder engine did not have a wastegate, so the only thing keeping boost at the desired level was balancing the intake and exhaust flow under load. With automatic transmission, power wasn’t interrupted during the shift, so at WOT, boost could keep climbing way past what the engine could stand.
I should clarify that for turbocharger installations that control boost with a wastegate, this isn’t an issue: The wastegate will hold the boost at intercept value even during power shifts by letting some exhaust gas bypass the turbine. The Olds Jetfire had a wastegate, and it could be (and usually was) ordered with automatic transmission. The Corvair turbocharger did not have any way to limit boost other than the flow restrictions of the air cleaner, carburetor, and exhaust pipe, so it was more precarious in that respect.
No, I’d imagine a PG to be awful. I say that because I drove a circa ’83 SAAB auto, and it was atrocious. Foot flat, nothing, nothing, nothing, then too much, and a traffic light! Imagining the Chev with just 2-speeds and no injection and such, it’d surely be (on the steepish low gear), absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, nothing, then, well, highway speeds and some power, all too late.
Always one of my favorite subjects. I did not realize that the ’63 Spyder package had been de-contented. I suspect very few if any were actually sold with the three speed, as that would have made the issues of the engine’s narrow power peak considerably worse. In fact, given the choice of a 3-speed or PG in a regular Corvair, I’d take the PG.
There was an identical red ’63 Spyder convertible parked on the street on my daily walk to school. How I lusted after it. Little did I know that a ’63 ‘Vair would be my first car, although not quite a Spyder.
I have always found turbo Corvairs very interesting. The question I have is how long would the turbo last? There was nothing like water cooling for the turbos of the era. Replacing one would have been very expensive.
That said, at the time I would have loved to own a Corvair turbo. In a sea of similar cars, the Corvair stood out as something really different.
As usual, Aaron, your article is superb. Thank you for that.
Nice article. Beautiful car. I don’t think I’ve seen one in red like that.
In one of the “Mecum” pics (Of the rear), am I going crazy, Or is the left taillight crooked by several degrees?
You’d think they’d fix that before the photographs.
Before they downsized and retired to Vegas, Dad had the 64 coupe version of this car in a darker red shade, black interior. So a lot of the pics are really familiar. For top-down he had a silver ’66 with an automatic.
When he had one more car than he had garage spaces, the 64 shared a garage with (at the time) my 1992 Mercury Capri. Yeah, the Corvair was small for its day but huge next to that.
I do think he had to have the turbo rebuilt once, but most of his effort was spent addressing small-but-fragrant (and persistent) fuel leaks. The engine eventually developed a lifter knock that he knew was going to take more time, effort and money than he was willing to invest so the car was sold to someone willing to do so.
On occasional desert evenings he wishes he still had the ’66, but then realizes 350 days of the year he’d have to find a place to put it.
GM’s criminal attitude to the suspension stuff should never be forgotten, as it an object lesson in how inhumanity is inhered in the very nature of a corporation: they were invented, after all, to make sure investors seeking huge returns in the plundering of the New World could insure themselves against the downsides. In the crudest terms, GM didn’t give a stuff, and never did thereafter till absolutely forced to. (No doubt the current climate suits them well, and indeed suits all corporations well too. Beware! But I am digressing).
That chart on the performance of the turbo is most interesting, as it shows the installation to be a pretty crude affair. The torque peak is tall and narrow. I wonder what the Corvair turbo is like to drive today? I suspect it would feel pretty peaky and odd.
Compared to the expensive Olds turbo, with waste-gate and water injection, Chevy engineered a far simpler package to avoid detonation. In addition to using exhaust back pressure, if only the masses knew the “turbo muffler” was designed for back pressure, vacuum advance was reversed in the distributor to pressure retard. This is the kind of KISS (keep it simple, stupid) approach I love. Lack of vacuum advance did hurt gas mileage a bit. Heads were also low compression, unlike the Olds.