Corvair lovers may endlessly debate their preferences for either the gen1 (1960-1964) or the gen2 (1965-1969), but one thing is for certain: the 1964 was the best of the first generation. For a gen1 lover and former owner like me, that makes it the most desirable Corvair of all. It still had its original pert and groundbreaking design that was so massively influential world-wide, but now with two significant improvements: a bigger, lustier engine and an improved rear suspension. The Corvair’s nickname “a poor man’s Porsche” was now closer to the truth. Now how about improving that slow steering…
This review also gives me the opportunity to report on a significant breakthrough in understanding the long-unresolved conflict with the ’60-’63 Corvair’s obvious snap-oversteer, jacking and rolling tendencies and the NHTSA’s 1972 report that exonerated its handling. It turns out there’s a logical explanation after all.
We’re not going to recapitulate the Corvair’s rapid evolution from the 80 hp economy car that arrived in 1960 into the “Poor Man’s Porsche”, but let’s just say that although Chevrolet clearly intended it to be more of the former, the latent Porsche-like qualities were baked in from the get-go, thanks to its supple 4-wheel independent suspension, “thistledown” steering, excellent braking and nimble handling thanks to its rear engine and very low center of gravity.
While the Europeans went gaga of its truly unique and groundbreaking proportions and styling, American sports car enthusiasts were more enamored of its dynamic qualities, as in the first American compact to have some genuine sporty abilities, even if they were yet a bit underdeveloped. But the potential was there. As were its handling quirks, thanks to a swing axle rear suspension, heavier than ideal engine and no mitigating factors, such as a standard anti-roll bar in front and a camber-compensating spring in the rear, which is precisely what the Porsche got in 1959, substantially mitigating its oversteer.
Several American race and rally drivers like Jerry Titus and Denise McCluggage drove and tested the new Corvair and quickly came to realize that under the right conditions, as in exceeding its cornering power or certain sudden maneuvers would cause its rear wheels to tuck under, jacking up the rear end and readily causing a roll if it was not caught quickly.
We’ve covered this issue in greater detail in my post “1960-1963 Corvair – GM’s Deadliest Sin?“. It’s been the subject of endless debate, especially since in 1972, NHTSA released a report that effectively exonerated the 1960-1963 Corvair’s handling. I have struggled with that results and conclusions of that report, because the inherent shortcomings of the Corvairs uncontrolled swing axles was all-too obvious, even though I never experienced it in my ’63 4-door Monza with the uprated 102 hp engine, 4-speed stick, because I’m quite certain it had the option RPO696 sports suspension option that somewhat crudely but effectively snubbed its worst qualities. But that option, with inherent negative camber on the rear wheels and straps to limit rear axle downward travel only went on a relatively small percentage of 1961-1963 Corvairs. And the Corvairs tested did not have that option.
I always thought there was something fishy about that report, and now, after all these years, Ate Up With Motor has uncovered the reason why: it turns out that the ’60-’63 Corvair’s rear jacking tendencies were also mitigated by more weight on the rear suspension, which changed the camber to negative and avoided the tendency of the outside rear axle to “lock” against the universal joint and jack up. This was discovered by Jerry Titus back in 1960, and his solution was to place several sandbags in the rear of the car. Sounds counter-intuitive, but it worked. And the RPO696 sports suspension option did the same thing, but with shorter rear springs and those straps. Crude but effective.
It turns out that the NHTSA’s tests of the Corvair were only done with a significant load in the car, to represent a passenger load of 4-6 persons. So inadvertently, NHTSA tested the Corvair in a condition of negative rear camber that significantly impacted its handling vices. Of course in reality, Corvairs tended to inherently appeal to those that didn’t carry 4-6 passengers, and most often drove solo or with one passenger. This is a reflection of Ate Up With Motor’s dogged persistence in his research, and it finally clears up the conflicting experience of drivers (and roll-over victims) with the NHTSA’s report. Kudos Aaron! Logic prevails, but it often requires persistence to find the underlying truth that supports it.
On to the actual review:
Car Life opens this review with a somewhat unusual choice of graphics: dyno charts of the three new engines available in the ’64 Corvair, starting on the left with the base 95 hp (gross) version, which also includes net hp (82) and torque numbers. Somewhat surprisingly, Chevrolet had been publishing net hp and torque charts for many of its engines since at least 1955 when its new V8 arrived. They did tend to be cagey about the higher output versions, but with a bit of digging, pretty much all of them can be found (or extrapolated). The middle chart is for the popular 110 hp optional version whose main difference was a livelier camshaft that allowed it rev higher higher, hence the additional hp. And on the right is the turbocharged 150 hp version as used in the Monza Spyder.
The effects of the crude turbocharging of the time are very graphic, with a suppressed hp and torque output below 2400 rpm and an explosive increase in both from that point on. Of note is that the turbo engine makes only 55 hp @2000rpm, whereas the naturally aspirated version both make some 75. This resulted in weak initial acceleration; in fact the turbo was essentially useless in first gear, and 0-30 times were the same as the naturally-aspirated version. This caused Motor Trend to put in the title of its 1962 Monza Spyder test “Chevrolet Has A Problem With The Corvair Turbo“. Of course once at speed, the turbo provided for a meaningful boost in performance, but with a 12.1 second 0-60 time, it still wasn’t going to give a V8-powered compact (or the coming Mustang) a run for the money.
Meanwhile, the 145 cubic inch naturally aspirated versions weren’t exactly all that brisk either; a ’61 Monza with the uprated 98 hp version and 4-speed did the 0-60 sprint in 15.5 seconds. Acceleration isn’t everything, as Porsche had long proved so effectively, but expectations were increasing. The solution was more displacement; via a longer stroke, the 1964 versions now had 164 cubic inches (2.7 liters), but that was not all used for more maximum hp. Revised camshafts for both the 95 and 110 hp units favored increased low-end torque over maximum horsepower, which is of course much more useful in real-world driving. And that was further enhanced by revised by gearing in 1st and 2nd gears, to close the gap with 3rd gear, and made possible thanks to the improved torque characteristics.
The acceleration numbers perhaps understate the all-round improvement, including the ability to now climb mountain grades in 4th gear instead of third. Still, the reduction of the 0-60 sprint from 15.5 seconds to 14.0 is meaningful, as was the improved 1/4 mile time and speed from 20.5 seconds @67 mph to 19.5 @70 mph.
As to comparisons with a real Porsche, a review (coming here soon) of a 1963 356B 1600-S (with the higher-output 88 hp 1.6 L engine), it took 12.8 seconds for 0-60 and did the 1/4 mile in 18.9 seconds. And that rich-man’s Porsche did cost almost twice ($4408) what this Corvair convertible cost ($2736), although a fairer comparison would be the Monza coupe, which equipped the same way would have been right around $2500.
That review of the ’63 Porsche extolled the benefits that accrued from the changes made to its rear swing axle suspension in 1959, fitting a transverse camber-compensating spring along with lower rate torsion bars. Oversteer was drastically reduced, and only made itself a possible threat while driving fast in the wet. Aftermarket parts supplier EMPI quickly saw the light, and their camber compensating springs became a hot aftermarket item for VWs, pre-’59 Porsches and 1960-1963 Corvairs. But Chevy wasn’t buying them; at least not until 1964 when the growing bad press and lawsuits (pre-Nader) essentially forced their hand.
The revised suspension increased understeer by adding an anti-roll bar in front and a transverse rear leaf spring (“camber compensating spring”) at the rear, along with softening the rear coil springs. The static negative camber can be clearly seen in this picture. This combination reduced the roll couple, and resulted in improved handling, cross-wind stability, less roll, and essentially eliminated the dreaded jacking up of the rear swing axles under extreme cornering loads. Presto! Swing axles can be tamed, and very effectively at that.
The Corvair’s brakes were also improved for ’64, with a wider and finned drum on the back. That may sound a bit odd, but due to its rear engine the rear brakes created a much greater percentage of the total braking power than in a front-heavy front engine car, one of the inherent advantages of a rear engine, along with much lighter steering. It still had to slow a ratio, with 4.75 turns, probably a choice by Chevrolet to minimize overly quick transitions by inexperienced drivers. The Porsche had 2.5 turns, but that could easily be rectified on the Corvair with an EMPI quick-turn steering knuckle. And then a short-throw shift gate to really get closer to living up to that nick-name.
There were also improvements to certain engine components, utilizing parts first developed for the turbo engine. But it’s not that these were remedying some inherent defect, as the Corvair engine quickly developed a reputation for being long-lived, like the VW engine. Turns out there was a very logical explanation, thanks to their air-cooling.
The end result was a significantly-improved Corvair, and one that now more fully lived up to its nickname and its hard-driving owners.
And of course it’s the one I would get if I were were getting one. As much as I admire the gen2 svelte styling and double-jointer rear suspension, I’m in love the gen1’s styling as well as its swing axles. But make mine a four door “flattop”, with the 110 hp engine and the 4-speed. There’s something about the original concept and design of these that just speaks to me, like my white ’63 did on those 600 miles of endless curves of Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway in October of 1972.
Related Reading:
Ate Up With Motor: Reconsidering the 1972 NHTSA Report on the Corvair
Automotive History: How The 1960 Corvair Started A Global Design Revolution
Automotive History: 1960-1963 Chevrolet Corvair – GM’s Deadliest Sin?
Auto-Biography Part 13: 1963 Corvair Monza, My First Car – The Tilt-A-Vair
I had a 1966 “Corveight” convertible. 327 engine in the back seat with a 4 speed. It had Crown Mfg suspension parts. and would go around a corner like it was on railroad tracks
Comedian Ernie Kovacs was driving his Covair in 1962 in a rain storm, lost control and hit a light pole, a fatal accident. Some reports say he was trying to light a cigar at the time. He was 42.
His was a wagon, assumedly the most rear-heavy Corvair that wasn’t a van or pickup.
The wagons had more static weight on the rear, but that wouldn’t necessarily provide the mitigating effects that Titus and the NHTSA achieved. The crucial point was not weight balance, but rather rear spring compression, which altered the swing arm angle (and thus wheel camber). With the wagons, the rear spring preload was set to give about the same ride height — and same camber at curb load — as the other body styles, so you’d still have to add enough weight to compress the springs to achieve the same effect.
The article from Aaron at AteUpWithMotor is quite brilliant, and explains a lot.
I can’t help but wonder if GM, with its powers of PR unrivalled, might’ve somehow had an un-noted role in moving the suggestion that the NHSTA tested the Corvair fully loaded from “also” testing it that way – the proper suggestion of the Nader camp that inadvertently served GM’s interest! – to “only”. It makes all the difference, because lightly loaded, the car started and stayed in positive rear camber, and made it a very different beast. Indeed, a beast that isn’t likely to knock off anyone via any habit of parking on its roof.
Completely agree with your last para entirely, loving the Gen2, but probably wanting a Gen 1 4-door flatop 4-speed-withcompensator the most. It’s just got a thing.
Great post.
*IS likely to knock anyone off via any habit of parking on its roof
*oh crap, “only” testing it loaded inadvertently served GM’s interests!
Greenfield Village hosted it’s “Motor Muster” last weekend.
After a few year’s absence, this Corvair reappeared. The owner accessorizes his display. On the driver’s side is a drive-in food tray. One the passenger side is a drive-in movie speaker. He plays movie audio on that speaker. First time I saw this car, several years ago, I knew that movie audio sounded familiar. Stood there and listened to it as I went through my memories of classic 50s Sci-Fi. I finally identified it: “Earth vs The Flying Saucers” Great film. I won’t quibble about the movie being several years older than the car.
I had an old 1961 base coupe and ran it hard & fast throuh the local mountains and canyons .
The large steering wheel meant it felt like power steering, the slow ratio meant women and other non enthusiast driver’s didn’t normally get the over steer .
All in all I like Corvairs but they didn’t really get good fuel economy and wanted higher octane fuel so I sold mine on .
-Nate
When I worked at NHTSA’s office of defect investigations (the agency that issues government-mandated recalls) in the late ’80s and early ’90s, the Corvair was still a hot subject. I’ve never read through the 1972 “exoneration”, but I’d like to know if the tires were set at the strange pressures specified: 26psi in the rear (common for the time) and a very low 15psi in the front. This was supposed to counteract the Corvair’s oversteer tendencies, without requiring a front anti-roll bar but there were two major problems with that approach. First, this was the era when full-service gas stations were the norm, and many drivers relied on them to keep tire pressure at proper levels. Many of the pump jockeys were unaware there was a new car out that should only be filled up to 15psi in front, and inflated all four tires to 26psi. The second issue was that at such low pressure, the front of the car could easily be overloaded if the front trunk were filled and two (or three) adults were sitting in front. Much of the Ford Explorer/Firestone tire controversy a few decades later also hinged on tire pressure, with Ford specifying 26psi but Firestone requiring 30psi for the Explorer’s weight, with both companies pointing fingers at each other for the blame.
The 1960 Corvairs had the spare tire in the “frunk” as auto journalists now insist on calling it; in ’61 these moved to the rear engine compartment in Corvairs that weren’t either air-conditioned or wagons, neither which had room for a spare in back. The sport suspension became available in 1962 according to other sources I’ve read, discontinued in ’64 when the revamped suspensions arrived. The ’62-63 sport suspension supposedly hurt ride smoothness which (along with costs) was why it wasn’t made standard equipment. The ’64 revamped suspension combined smoother ride with more predictable handling.
As for the pioneering ’62 Corvair Spyder, here I thought my car suffered from turbo lag. At least it kicks in well below 30mph. It’s not hard to see why buyers preferred Mustang V8s in droves.
AUWM will probably chime in on the tire pressure issue, but I’m 99% certain they would have used the factory recommended pressures. And yes, having worked at a gas station back then, we just automatically filled up everyone’s tires to 24 lbs all-round. For better or for worse. Only a few sports car owners made a point to tell us what pressure they wanted.
The report says all of the test cars were aligned to factory specs, loaded to their rated maximum load (I presume with sandbags or the like, although the text doesn’t specify), with standard tires (with one exception) inflated to recommended pressures. (The exception was the Renault, where they had to use one of the larger optional tire sizes because the originals were an odd size they couldn’t find.)
The report does NOT specify what the actual as-tested weights, alignment specs, and tire pressures were, which is frustrating. For the Corvair, there was a 300-pound difference between “design load” and “maximum load,” so this would seem like a relevant detail to specify.
You can download the report here: https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB211015.xhtml
OK, elsewhere in the text, it does explain that certain of the tests were conducted with both the recommended tire pressures and with higher equal pressure:
Test No. 2 was a steady turn on a rough road.
It would have been very helpful if the report’s authors had presented a tabular summary of the test specifications; the above data is in the body of the text of an earlier section.
Paul, as always your articles are highly informative and entertaining. Thank you for taking the time to create it.
I have only driven one Corvair, a 1966 model. I don’t exactly remember what year that was, but it had to be around 1982. The car was in beautiful shape, as Vancouver Island very rarely had snow and road salt was not used often. It had the later 140 hp motor and Powerglide. The two speed transmission kind dulled the high output engine, but the car was very smooth and the revised rear suspension was a revelation. It was the first car I had ever driven with IRS, which made for a comfortable driving experience.
I took in home for Dad to see and he immediately told me I couldn’t buy it as it was overly complicated and difficult to service.
That’s a somewhat unfortunate combination, as the 140 was a bit of a revver and really wanted the 4-speed. But the Pg was revised to shift higher in them, and a number of 140s have been swapped into the PG-only Ultravan motorhome.
They really weren’t complicated, although the four carbs on the 140 might have taken a bit more effort if they needed attention. The Corvair motor had a rep for being rugged and durable.
My favorite Corvair was also the 4 door gen1 flat top. The gen1 coupe was very nice too but the semi skirted back tires and the long roof of the flat top was just so good.
The fascinating thing about the Corvair’s flat-top roof is that it’s the only thing a 1960 Corvair has in common with the full-size Chevy of the same year.
I’ll never get over the juxtaposition between new and old of seeing a Corvair next to an Impala on a 1960 Chevrolet showroom floor.
And the slightly wrapped windshield and curved A-pillars on the Gen 1 Corvairs were conceptually similar to those used on GM’s large cars in 1961-62.
The other point worth mentioning, which I discussed in greater length in a Patreon post, is that the camber change with a load of passengers and cargo is why Chevrolet didn’t make the RPO 696 suspension standard. It wasn’t just a matter of making the ride harsher: If you decambered the rear suspension and then added the weight of passengers and luggage, you were likely to end up with excessive negative camber in back, which would eat your tires.
It was an unpleasant conundrum: rear camber settings that gave better handling behavior with just the driver would hurt handling and tire wear with a load of passengers, and vice versa. Stiffening up the rear coils to reduce camber change with load would give you more oversteer, which wasn’t necessarily desirable either.
The ’64 suspension solved this problem by shifting some of the rear end weight to the leaf spring while softening the coils. The combined rear spring rate (at the wheels) is actually about 20 percent greater than in 1960 (although because the leaf spring is arranged so it doesn’t resist roll, rear roll stiffness is much lower). They then apparently felt confident enough to ease back on the positive camber a bit — it doesn’t have static negative camber like the heavy-duty suspension, but you probably get 0 camber, or a half-degree negative, with the driver and a front-seat passenger, which seems like a more customary load condition.
Swing axle VW’s used “knife” type u-joints vs Spicer for Corvair. It makes sense to me how the Corvair joints might bind up at extreme travel, like the outer joints on my 4×4’s do at maximum steering angles.
Speculating here, but did NHTSA test only in the fully loaded condition for all the cars because they thought that would be the most unstable condition? (That is, similar to heavily loaded station wagons of the day, or much more recently, fully loaded 15-passenger vans.)
One of Nader’s associates suggested also testing the cars in fully loaded condition, and I really think the word “also” just got lost in translation. They were trying pretty hard to give Nader and his associates what they wanted, while seeming rather exasperated at the series of strident letters they kept getting. I don’t think there was any conspiratorial intent.