The Corvair underwent a major transformation between 1960 and 1961. What arrived in the fall of 1959 was an unorthodox rear-engine economy sedan, with a modest 80 hp and a standard three-speed manual that did it no favors. The optional Powerglide was actually not any slower, but it didn’t enhance its latent sporty but still mostly repressed sporty qualities.
Those came out of the closet in several stages late in the 1960 model year, starting with the high-trim bucket-seat Monza coupe in May of 1960. A higher-output 95 hp engine followed sometime later. But what was really missing, especially for the higher-output engine, was a four-speed manual. There’s also a bit of uncertainty about whether some of those were installed in some late 1960 MY cars, but it was clearly available for the 1961 MY, making the transition mostly complete except for the optional HD suspension, which became available in the fall of 1961.
CL notes: “…the 98 hp Monza with 4-speeds is now the poor man’s Porsche, accord to some people, and at just over half the price, who wants to argue?” Having owned a similarly-equipped ’63 Monza, I might.
CL points out that contrary to popular belief, the Monza does not come standard with either the uprated engine or the 4-speed; they were optionally available on all trim levels. The Super TurboAir cost $26.90, and the 4-speed $64.60.
CL called the front trunk (frunk) not very ideally shaped for the hard rigid suitcases of the time. But they failed to point out that it was significantly bigger than the 1960’s, which had the spare tire right in that well. For 1961, along with a lot of other changes, the spare moved to the rear engine compartment, which improved frunk space but only worsened the rear-weight bias to 63%.
All the Corvair engines got a slight increase in displacement for 1961, from 140 to 145 cubic inches. The Super Turbo-Air engine was hopped with a substantially more aggressive camshaft, revised carburetor calibrations, stronger valve springs and a free-flowing exhaust system and muffler. The changes gave the engine a somewhat lumpy idle and its torque peak went from 2300 rpm to 2900 rpm.
CL disagreed with the decision to change the standard final drive ratio from 3.55:1 in 1960 to 3.27:1 for 1961; undoubtedly done because of feedback that the Corvair wasn’t quite as fuel efficient as many buyers had expected (19-23 mpg). But combined with the engine’s higher torque peak, this was not an ideal ratio; the optional 3.55 ratio was projected to shave a second or second and a half off the 0-60 time (15.5 sec.), which was decent for a small sporty car but hardly breathtaking, especially compared to the larger V8 American cars. It’s better to compare it other compacts and European imports, including the Porsche. The only vintage review we have of one is a 1957 1600 Speedster, which was the lightest body style and clicked off the 0-60 in 13.3 and the 1/4 mile in 18.8, for which the Monza took 20.3 seconds. A regular-engine Porsche 356 coupe would probably have roughly split the difference.
The new 4-speed gearbox’ ratios ( 3.67, 2.35, 1.44, 1.0) were a bit less than ideal; first was very low and allowed 2nd gear starts. 2nd was a bit on the low side obviously too. Third was a nice around-town gear, especially with the higher 3.27:1 final drive ratio. The transmission’s operation was less than ideal too, with a long-throw shifter that was vague, a weak 2nd gear syncro, and unwanted noise. Several staffers pointed out that the VW’s transmission was superior an all these accounts. Nevertheless, it was a substantial improvement over the standard three-speed, which also had an unsynchronized first gear.
The Corvair’s steering “is extremely light and definitely slow”. As to the Corvair’s controversial handling: CL points out that the Corvair’s suspension tuning has been set up for initial understeer, but that obviously with 63% of its weight on the rear wheels, swing axles and no efforts made to tame those factors (other than the differential air pressure recommendations of 16/26 lbs F/R), oversteer was of course inevitable at the limit. CL notes that “it takes a lot of guts even to approach an oversteer attitude. If you do approach this point the car gives plenty of warning, and provided that the brakes are not applied, the car is still easily controlled“.
This precisely mirrors my own experience, and I did a lot of spirited driving, including some 600 miles of the endlessly-curvy Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge Parkway in the late fall, when it was virtually deserted (back then). I approached that limit often, and could feel mild oversteer set in, but by staying on the throttle, it was all utterly benign, and lots of fun, constantly finding that limit and not pushing it.
“If the limit is exceeded on a smooth surface, the car will turn broadside or even do an about face. If the limit is reached on a rough surface, the car tends to chatter and hop well in advance of a spin out“. This is of course the inevitable result of either exceeding the limit, or doing something wrong, like stepping on the brakes in a turn that was felt to be taken too quickly. And of course, it was possible for the rear wheels to jack up, depending on the surface and other factors, which could then launch the Corvair into a roll or throw it off the road. This was of course the issue that ultimately made the Corvair’s handling controversial.
A VW or Porsche was capable of this, but their weight distribution of 42%/58% F/R was significantly less extreme than the Corvair’s 37%/63%. The Corvair’s big six cylinder engine was pretty heavy, and that rear weight bias was about as extreme as it got, and far from ideal. And it’s what came to bite the Corvair in its (heavy) tail.
“The Monza interiors are beautifully done“, but there were a few minor quibbles. Contrary to popular assumptions, the Corvair’s interior dimensions were larger than the Falcon’s and Valiant’s, thanks to its very flat and low floor and despite its low 51/5” overall height. The rear seat even in the coupe could seat three, although getting back out was a bit of a challenge.
CL closes with the statement about many folks having taken to calling the Monza a poor man’s Porsche, and not disagreeing with it. But they rightfully conclude with the statement: “However we think that the sales success of the Monza shows that people will buy advanced engineering and the conveniences of a compact car, with price and economy definitely a secondary consideration.” I’d modify that to say that the sales success of the Monza shows that people will buy a sporty-looking and feeling compact car with a nicely trimmed interior, with price and economy secondary considerations.
At the top, I said that I might argue to point about the Monza being the poor man’s Porsche. There were a few key issues that kept it from that: the slow steering, the less-than ideal gear ratios and shifter feel, the lack of suspension upgrades (rear anti-camber spring, front anti-roll bar, etc.), the excessive rear weight bias, and the somewhat too large of its overall size and weight. Some of those issues were addressed in later iterations, others not so much so.
I really enjoyed my ’63 Monza (Super Turbo-Air, 4-speed, HD suspension), but in comparison to the ’63 and ’64 VWs I had afterwards, it was a bit too floppy and loose in comparison. The transmission is one key example: the VW’s box was always a delight to use, with perfectly-spaced gears and super quick and easy shifting. The Corvair’s…wasn’t. The steering was a similar comparison: the VW’s was quick and very accurate; the Corvair’s wasn’t. I know it may seem odd, but the VW was intrinsically “sportier” inasmuch as it was more fun to drive hard all the time; which one mostly did, or I certainly did. It invited that and thrived on it. The Corvair always felt a bit like I was pushing it hard, and preferred to take it easier, although once under way, it was a fun ride. More of a sporty cruiser than a genuine sports car.
I should point out that there were aftermarket kits to make its steering quicker and reduce the shifter’s travel, as well as the camber-compensating bar. These really did make a difference for those Corvair buyers who wanted to enhance its qualities.Mine didn’t have any of those.
And there’s the fact that the VW felt better built, was a lot more economical, was much more off-road capable with its higher ground clearance and just suited my tall body better. These are qualities that I placed importance on, but of course the VW was slower, a trade off.
If I was wanting a truly sporty coupe in 1961, I’d have gotten a VW Karmann-Ghia and spent a few more bucks souping up the engine. Now that’s a genuine poor man’s Porsche. That’s not a putdown on the Corvair, which had a lot of positive qualities; just my preferences.
Related CC reading:
Auto-Biography: 1963 Corvair Monza – The Tilt-A-Vair PN
1960 Chevrolet Corvair Monza Club Coupe: The Most Influential Car of the Decade Paul N
1963 Chevrolet Corvair Monza Coupe: A Coup For Chevrolet; A Sedan For Me Paul N
1963 Chevrolet Corvair Monza Spyder Convertible: The Turbo Revolution Started Here Paul N
It is interesting how Chevrolet could not (or would not) learn from its recent experiences with the Corvette. This article calls the Corvair the “American Porsche”. I have thought of the original 60 version as the “American VW”. It was like the Corvair team followed the concept of those cars, but did so with very flawed execution.
I have never really heard the Corvette called the American version of something else. It was just the Corvette, which was all it needed to be – a kick-ass sports car. They had some great ideas to improve this car from the original, but it was like they got to an 80% solution and stopped. They were a year away from the Chevy II and had every opportunity to remake the Corvair into something special. But they never really got there.
It is also an interesting thought experiment to wonder how the Corvair might have fared in a traditional front engine/rear drive configuration. Both Corvair and Falcon were grossly underpowered in 1960, with sixes of almost identical displacement. The Falcon eventually solved that problem with more engine, but the Corvair could not (except for the highly flawed turbo version). This car could have been the Mustang before the Mustang.
“This car could have been the Mustang before the Mustang.”
But then again, nobody would have thought of it as the “American Porsche” and it would not have really appealed to everyone who liked the Corvair for its unique self.
The huge difference between the Corvette and the Corvair was that the former was conceived as a sports car, and the latter as a roomy, compact economy car. Yes, the Corvette needed a bit of massaging, which it got thanks to the the brilliant V8 and some chassis development.
But turning the Corvair into a genuine Porsche competitor was going to be a bit more difficult, eh? By 1961, the Porsche had some 13 years of constant development under its belt. It started out pretty weak-chested (35 hp).
The 1961 Monza was just the first step of its evolution; the sports suspension and the turbo came in 1962, and a bigger engine in ’64.
The big difference between the Corvair and the Porsche or Corvette is that the latter two were of course genuine sports/GT cars, with corresponding prices; the Corvair was always going to be stuck as a mass-market compact car with a price that had to be commensurate with the market; meaning very affordable.
Chevrolet kept building some very racy Corvair-based concepts, which would have been a genuine sports/GT car if built. But Chevrolet knew that realistically, that was not going to fly. The Corvette was always going to be faster yet cheaper, thanks to its V8. There was no point in pursuing turning the Corvair into an American Porsche. How many cars did Porsche sell per year in the US back then? It was a very small company then.
What Chevy did with the Corvair was brilliant, in turning a semi-flawed economy car into a cheap, cheerful, appealing sporty car, and one that sold very successfully. And created a whole new market. And of course in the process caused the Mustang to be created.
The Corvair absolutely was the Mustang before the Mustang. How not? Yes, the Mustang sold in even higher numbers, for a couple of years, but fundamentally they appealed to the same buyer.
And as far as I’m concerned, the original Mustang had plenty of flaws too. Neither of them were true sports world class sports/GT cars. They both sold on their sporty image more than their actual prowess.
During my years of Corvair ownership, I too always thought of the original ‘60 Corvair as GM’s version of a VW. Where it diverged was when GM either saw a demand in the form of an aftermarket that quickly cropped up to produce and market performance upgrades for the Corvair. The decision to offer them from the factory was likely coupled with the irresistible allure of greater margins produced by higher trim levels and options.
The thing that remains a mystery is that GM was supposedly aiming for the VW with the Corvair. But in the typical not-invented-here attitude of the time, there was no effort to have Opel provide any significant input on its development, much less also have Opel build and market a co-developed Corvair. Ed Cole repeated this pattern with the Vega, while Ford was equally guilty of this but seemed to get past it quicker than GM (at least with drivetrains), while cash-strapped Chrysler tried with the Horizon.
Clearly they weren’t aiming directly at the VW, given the big difference in size and such. The were aiming squarely at the “compact” market, as defined by Rambler. Ford and Chrysler did the same thing; they all gave serious consideration to somewhat smaller four cylinder cars, but decided that Americans were going to prefer something a bit bigger, more powerful and smoother.
All them assumed that these American compacts were going to be more appealing than the little imports. And they were largely right; the import market cratered in 1960-1961.
FWIW, Opel had nothing with which to fight the VW on its home turf back then; it was getting creamed there. That’s why they created the Kadett, which didn’t come out until 1962.
The Opelk Rekord was a dull and highly conventional car; the Corvair was much more appealing.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that Opel had something with which to fight the VW. I was stating that co-development of some sort could have resulted in a better product for both sides of the Atlantic.
But there are two problems with co-development at that time. First, as you stated, the American car companies were trying to one-up the imports, mostly on giving the public more size and power at a comparable price. Second, in the case of GM it just seems as though Ed Cole had an aversion to products and components that either he or GM North America didn’t have a direct hand in developing.
I see what you mean. It’s what Ford did right after the Falcon with the FWD Cardinal/12M. But Ford US got cold feet at the last minute an pulled the plug because they didn’t see a big enough market for it in the US.
The real issue is that there were two classes to compete in; the compact and subcompact. It was logical to do a compact first; in 1957, when the domestic compacts were launched, VW wasn’t all that big yet. It was only after the Big 3 saw the VW continuing to sell well after their compacts came out that they eventually decided to compete in that category too. The Cardinal would have been the first to do so; I rather agree that its prospects in the US were likely to be modest.
Chevrolet eventually produced a naturally aspirated Corvair that matched the performance of the early turbo Spyders, but they used four carburetors feeding six cylinders to do it. Considering that the turbo models used a single carburetor on top of a fairly conventional intake manifold, I don’t know why they didn’t offer a conventional four-barrel carburetor on the Corvair. It certainly would have been easier to maintain and less troublesome for the customers. The linkages for four carburetors arranged in two rows just added to the tuning vulnerabilities associated with having four carburetors to synchronize.
I’ve never driven one, but one of the problems I’ve read about with the center mount four-barrel conversions was a lack of carburetor heat. It’s apparently difficult to tune out a bog on acceleration, although some people have done it effectively. The Rochesters on a Corvair sit right on the cylinder head, and some of (all?) the carbs even have a vapor valve in the base to fight heat soak on a warm engine.
No idea how they dealt with the Carter on the turbos – maybe the heat from the turbocharger sufficed?
I suppose they could have added heat to a center carb manifold; the VW had it.
The four carbs worked fine; I don’t see any obvious advantage to a four barrel.
I think the heat issue with the 2V and 4V conversion kits was probably not (just) the carb itself, but rather the intake runners necessary for mixture distribution. Even if the carb has heat, there’s going to be a tendency for the mixture to condense on the runner walls, which was an issue with the long-runner Mopar Ram Induction engines as well.
Yet the VW engine managed quite fine with a long intake runner. But there was a heat tube that was co-joined with it for part of its length.
From that CL article, the EMPI 2V conversion had heat, but the 4V didn’t. I assume it came down to what aftermarket companies bothered to incorporate rather than what was technologically feasible.
With regard to the 4V, I suppose if you’re thinking strictly from a performance standpoint, like in some kind of competition setting, carb heat is neither very necessary (if you’re not going to be idling very much and cold start performance isn’t a significant concern) nor necessarily desirable, but that’s another reason why highly tuned engines (like the Royal Bobcat conversions with the heat riser blocked off) weren’t always pleasant or easy to live with on the street.
Granted, the application is quite different, but I have a Corvair engine on my airplane with a single barrel aircraft carb mounted underneath and very long intake runners. Carb heat, manually applied when needed, is from an intake air heat muff on the exhaust.
I thought that I wanted a turbo ‘vair for years…..decades….until I drove two different models.
IF you planted your foot on the front bumper and waited a few heartbeats for the boost to build, it pulled strongly.
In any other less than full throttle driving situations the turbo engine felt slightly more sluggish than the 102/110 horsepower engine.
Yup: Lower compression and additional back pressure with the same cam.
There were various aftermarket kits for such conversions — the EMPI 2V and 4V conversions are discussed in this article:
https://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990392123408/1963-09_CL_EMPI_Corvair_Monza_1-5.pdf
As it notes, one major limitation of the 4V conversion was that it just had too much venturi area at part throttle and low speeds.
And the four barrel version managed to shave a whopping half-second off the stock engine;s 0-60 time. And the 2V version: none at all.
Yeah. For racing, four-tenths of a second in the quarter might be worthwhile, but on the street, not so much.
My Father had a late 1950’s Porsche 356 that constantly went thru expensive Bosch generators and voltage regulators and suffered from body rust even in warm, salt-free New Orleans. Even in this area the heater was barely adequate. He was stopped by the police several times because of the dim tail lights on the 356. Dad lined the insides of the tail light housing with aluminum foil to help boost the dimness. The headlights were so yellow tinted that the man next door asked Dad where he got the huge fog lights from.
As a grade school lad I found the hand-crank open sunroof (that leaked water unless positioned closed perfectly) and the AM-FM-SW radio piquant novelties. More than once I ran the 6 volt battery down trying to search out ships at sea on the shortwave radio band.
After driving it in the rain and spinning it off our suburban street by making the almost fatal mistake of letting off the gas coming out of the turn into our neighborhood my Mother refused to drive the car. I also noticed that on rainy days Dad drove Mom’s station wagon to work.
After reading road tests in “Road & Track”, “Car & Driver” and this “Car Life” magazine road test, Dad was intrigued by the Corvair Monza. A test drive with only me with him piqued his interest.
The local Chevy dealer kept after Dad, with follow up telephone calls and Corvair post cards, inviting him in for another test drive.
After the third Bosch generator in about 6 months’ time, Dad had enough. (They kept loosing ground circuit completion, draining the wimpy 6 volt battery and frying themselves).
The Chevy dealer kept raising and raising their trade-in price for Dad’s “Lemon Yellow Poorch” (Dad’s sour epithet filled description of the 356) until they reached Dad’s purchase price of 3 years earlier. The “OK” used car manager wanted it for a front row draw item in the worst way.
Dad laughed like an escaped lunatic from “DePaul’s (a sanatorium in New Orleans) Home for the feeble minded” all the way home from Bryan Chevrolet in our brand new Corvair Monza.
Dad’s only problem after buying the Monza was keeping my Mother out of it.
Was that Mike Persia Chevrolet, by any chance?
Mike Persia Chevrolet (“Buy-your-Chev-roh-layyyy-from-Mike-Perisa, Mike Persia Chevrolet!” was their long term advertising jingle) was 12 miles away in the city of New Orleans.
Bryan Chevy was out in the ‘burbs of Metairie, close to our home.
I wonder if the Corvair-into-a-poor-man’s-Porsche debate is an example of how jealously protective of the Corvette’s market forces would be within GM’s internal higher-ups (Zora Arkus-Duntov, Ed Cole).
The lack of an adequate Corvair/Porsche might have been the first case of a potentially sporty vehicle that never made production (Banshee) or that GM intentionally made inferior (Fiero) simply because there was a chance, however remote, that it might have cannibalized Corvette sales.
An intriguing point of view, rudiger!
Would explain much.
Of course; it made no sense to have another genuine sports car, given how modest the Corvette’s sales were.
It’s worth mentioning that one internal Corvette challenger did manage to sneak through: the Cosworth Vega.
Unfortunately, the Cosworth never lived up to its promise and was never a serious threat to the Corvette’s throne. But, like the Corvair Monza, the potential was definitely there.
I don’t see the Cosworth Vega being a threat to the Porsche, even if it did have the kind of performance it was supposed to have had.
By this time, the Corvette was selling more on its two-seater style image than genuine performance, which was lagging more and more.
At the time, I think the Porsche analogy was just easy to make, perhaps to the point of being lazy. After all, as you say Paul, the Monza was not a sports car. But was it in fact the first sporty two door variant of a small sedan from any country? The Kaufman Ghia was visually a completely distinct vehicle from the Beetle, and I think of the Alfa Giulietta coupes as real sports/GT cars and not merely a two door version of the sedan. Other smaller sporty European cars, like the MG Magnette were always just four doors, and in any case BMC (and Rootes) used badge engineering to differentiate sporty versions from the basic cars, which GM did not with the Corvair. As such, although the market positions and features of the Monza presaged the Mustang, its branding and positioning within the Corvair lineup more closely presaged the VW GTI, which was 2 door only for many years.
Good points. The only reason the “poor man’s Porsche” thing ever came up was of course because of the Corvair’s rear engine. If it had a front engine, it would never have happened. And as such, it rather saddled the Corvair, as it was never going to be a Porsche, which cost at least twice as much.
One important detail: the Monza wasn’t just available as a coupe; it was also available as a four door sedan as well as the station wagon (Lakewood).
What the Monza really presaged was the SS package on the big Chevy, and then on the Chevy II and the Malibu. As well as all the other bucket seat copy-cats.
I was thinking of smaller cars, which is why I skipped past the GTO all the way to the GTI, but of course the Chevy II or Nova SS and I suppose the Falcon Sprint were the real Monza follow-ups.
The problem with the comparison to the GTI is that it was a genuine high-performance version of the Golf. The Monza was strictly an appearance-trim-interior package. It came standard with the base engine and three-speed. There were no performance elements included as standard.
I think the Falcon Futura, Ford’s initial response to the Monza, further emphasizes this point. The Futura was dressed up, but it didn’t even offer any kind of performance upgrades other than the 101-hp 170 that was optional anyway. (The subsequent Falcon Sprint, which was beefed up to handle the small V-8, was a different animal, and a real flop in terms of sales; the Futura was quite successful.)
I didn’t realize that the 1961 98hp optional engine had the same 8:1 compression ratio as the base 80hp engine. That changed in ’62 when the hi-po normally aspirated engine’s compression ratio was bumped up one point to 9:1, adding an extra 4hp but requiring premium gas.
Another rear engine handling comparison would be to a Renault Dauphine which was the second best selling “foreign” car in the US in 1960. Its rear weight bias was also >60%, with its heavy water-cooled cast iron four hanging out the back and, of course, swing axles.
I seem to remember reading somewhere in the early 60’s that Porsche himself ( before the 911 ), drove up in a Corvair to a meeting at the factory with a wry look on his face. Perhaps the Corvair had something to do with the idea of developing their own flat six? Anybody heard of this?
I haven’t, but looking at the VW/Porsche “big” boxer four 1700cc introduced in 1972, it had several Corvair features like moving the oil cooler from on top of the engine to the back, and o-ringed pushrod tubes (that also leaked, like the Corvair’s.)
Yes, this was the type 4 engine that was first introduced in the VW 411 and then a few months later in 1969 in the Porsche 914.
Of course you’re right. I was thinking of just the US market. Although we started getting a few 914s in ’70 we didn’t get the 411 until ’71. Both sold in pretty small quantities. What sold in much larger numbers was the 1700cc Type 2, which we finally got in’ 72.
Almost certainly it happened. Why wouldn’t it? The Corvair was something of a sensation in Europe, and not just for its styling. It was the first of its kind, and coming from the US, it was a big deal. Every European carmaker took a close look at it, and many copied its styling.
As to that having an influence on Porsche developing a six, it was essentially inevitable, as the four had gone about as far as it could, and performance expectations were constantly rising. It was essential to their future. And Porsche, a master engine builder who also did a lot of work for other companies, certainly didn’t need to be shown how to build one. More likely the other way around.
The Corvair engine was designed by Al Kolbe who also designed the Chevrolet small block V8 and can be considered a master engine builder too. According to Rust Mag in The Curious Case of the Corvair, Chevrolet studied a Porsche engine and Porsche studied a Corvair’s, both to see how the other’s engines ticked. That makes sense; complicated things like automobile engines don’t get designed in a vacuum. Verbiage from the article:
From the beginning there was a persistent urban myth that Porsche or VW had a hand in the design of the car.
Bob Benzinger said, “I am often asked how much help we got from VW and Porsche. And sometimes asked this by people who firmly believe that Herr Doctor himself designed the vehicle, the engine, the whole shot. Actually, the truth is that zero help came from VW or Porsche.”
That said, in 1957 Chevrolet purchased a Porsche 356 to give it a look-over and pulled the engine to study it on the test bench.
The Corvair engine was developed long before Porsche came out with its six-cylinder engine for the 911. In fact, when Porsche was developing its six-cylinder 911 engine, Ferry Porsche had Huschke Von Hanstein purchase a Corvair for them to study. In 1961, Dan Gurney, who was driving the Porsche Formula One cars, brought a Corvair over to Germany to drive. So it is clear that Porsche had a good look at the Chevy when they were developing their engine.
I’ve read essentially the same. And Chevrolet used the 356 they bought as a mule for the Corvair engine, stuffing it into its rear. I think I even saw a picture of that once somewhere.
Undoubtedly Porsche looked at the Corvair engine; why not? But what were they going to learn? They’d been building air cooled opposed piston engines for a very long time by then. The 911 is of course quite different too, with its overhead cams and hemi heads.
Well, they did learn to move the oil cooler from the top of the engine, where it disrupted air flow to a couple of cylinders and a head, to the back of the engine. Compared to the 356 with its upright oil cooler mounted between cylinders 3 and 4, this 911 engine looks very much like a Corvair engine.
So they were fine when pushed hard providing you know how to drive, most cars are like that with power on they are stable and controllable but as soon as you touch the brakes it turns to custard,
that includes that stupid safety program lots of cars have now that brakes one wheel when the program thinks you are about to crash but in reality are just powering thru a turn, the car I had on loan from my mate had it very scary but also had a switch to turn it off then the car cornered brilliantly
I had a beautiful 65 red convertible..a great chick car and a beautiful red head too. Hit the brakes and the car turned all the way around and smashed into a sreel telephone pole ass end first. Thang gid nobody got hurt..i loved that car and the girl who went with it.