It was Predictably a Technician’s Car
In retrospect, Corvair was a victim of its own success. Had it not been for the Monza, we might not have had the Mustang — and ultimately, the Camaro. Left stillborn by the no-more-development edict was a project dubbed XP-849, which went at least as far as a pair of clay mockups: one apparently a rear-engine design, the other with front-wheel drive. Intriguingly, both were badged “Corvair 2.” A possible prelude to Chevy’s unfortunate 1971 Vega, though likely for overseas consumption, XP-849 would never materialize. But it showed that at least some GMers still remembered the adventuresome spirit of the original Corvair despite years of corporate miscues and public controversy.
This was fortunate, because Ford’s much simpler and cheaper Falcon was handily outselling other Corvairs in the economy market. From here on, the rear-engine Chevy would aim increasingly at enthusiast drivers. The Lakewood offered a surprising amount of cargo space — 58 cubic feet behind the front seat, 10 more under the front “hood” — more than other compact wagons and even some larger models. But it was too late to change some plans, so a brace of Corvair Lakewood station wagons arrived for ’61 as scheduled, as did a Monza sedan. Chevy also issued the interesting Corvair-based Greenbrier window van, Corvan panel, and Rampside pickup, all “forward control” models inspired by VW’s Type 2 Microbus and forerunners of today’s popular minivans.
Corvair was the most-controversial Chevrolet since the abortive “Copper-Cooled” model of 1923. Of course, neither was supposed to stir up trouble. Had it not opened up an entirely new market — and almost by accident at that — Corvair wouldn’t have lasted even half of the 10 years it did hang on. The problem with Corvair was a radical design that made it too costly for its original economy-car mission and too “foreign” for its target audience. Each was merely a response to a particular market situation in its day. And there’s the irony, for it was Corvair’s success as a sporty compact that spawned the car that ultimately helped do it in: the Ford Mustang.
A major suspension improvement occurred for 1964: a transverse rear camber-compensating spring. When Ralph Nader found out and wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, rajdamnern condo bangkok (simply click the following internet page) Corvair handling became a cause celebre that wasn’t put to rest until a 1972 congressional investigation cleared the 1960-63 models. Nevertheless, the initial Corvair suspension of 1960-63 did not create a “dangerous, Apartments and Home Rentals ill-handling car” as later lawsuits claimed. It did oversteer to be sure, but the tail-wag tendency wasn’t severe — provided that recommended tire pressures were observed (15 psi front, 26 rear). The problem was that most owners didn’t pay attention to that, and some got into trouble.
With the $158 turbo-six option, Corsa was squarely in the performance league: less than 11 seconds 0-60 mph, 18 seconds at 80 mph for the standing quarter-mile. Though the most-popular Corvair rallied slightly for ’65, production plunged by some two-thirds the following year. More critical was the decline in Monza sales then setting in. Unfortunately, Corsa didn’t sell well against Ford’s instant smash-hit Mustang, which had bowed about six months before and could also better the Chevy’s on-road performance. Given enough room, a blown Corsa could hit 115 mph.
The 1960 Corvair had been the first mass-produced American car with swing-axle rear suspension. Both systems employed upper and lower control arms at each rear wheel. The sole difference was that where Corvette linked rear wheels with a single transverse leaf spring, Corvair used individual coils. The ’65 was the first with fully independent suspension, not counting the ’63 Corvette. The uppers were actually the axle halfshafts; the lowers were unequal-length nonparallel trailing arms (two per side).
