VIDEO: Corvair to Nader: Kiss my unsafe quarter panel!
YouTube serves up another cool video. Corvairs are hella cool, and they were tarred and feathered out of existence by zealots. They were no worse than other cars on the road at the time, but they were picked up as all that was wrong with motoring safety by Ralph Nader. Cars in in the late '50s when the Corvair was developed were all less safe than what we have now. 50 years of scientific study and applied engineering will do that for you. This video offers up some great scenes of a Corvair being herded around Lime Rock's track, as well as some off-road adventures. This is marketing propaganda, so of course the little chuffer comes off as unburstable. It also shows the infancy of the rigorous vetting processes cars must go through now. The handling test is especially hilarious, as the edit is made just as the tail of the rear-engined Corvair starts to come around. Showing a spin is not the best way to demonstrate platform stability. We get to see Corvairs rolled over, driven off slopes that are larger than would be wise, and fording streams. Hyperbolic advertising aside, it's pretty cool to see an early 'Vair abused in such a gratifying manner. Unsafe? pfft! Then as now, it's mainly the loose nut behind the wheel that causes problems.
Video after the jump
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Kowell 4:27PM (2/23/2007)
I keep getting stuck on the "Compact" part...... ;)
Reply
floatyghosthat 4:47PM (2/23/2007)
yeah,
it's too small to ever make it as a REAL car. :p
Reply
Howard Kerr 4:48PM (2/23/2007)
" Unsafe " Corvairs were just slightly more dangerous in their day than the unintended acceleration that Audi owners suffered from. The main differences being the way GM and Audi each reacted to their "problem". Supposedly, Mr. Nader was followed by "those bad men in thrall to GM" while Audi tried to insist that there was no problem and then....the problem was the fault of the drivers of Audi's cars.
While we can thank Mr. Nader for starting the consumerist movement, as readers of AutoBlog, we should give him a very large raspberry for helping GM kill the Corvair.
Reply
Big jim 4:52PM (2/23/2007)
The off road testing was like watching a TRUCKS! episode
Nader can kiss my Corvair ass!!!
Reply
incognito 4:56PM (2/23/2007)
The Corvair was not nearly as "unsafe" as a VW Beetle of the day. I think I read Naders book in middle school, and he does come down on VW's as well. The Corvair was just the target of blame for a lot of things, much like SUVs today.
Reply
rw 5:04PM (2/23/2007)
"" Unsafe " Corvairs were just slightly more dangerous in their day"
No not true the car was proved safe in a court of law. It was the only legally proven safe car of its time.
I own a 1964 convertible and believe me I wish it stopped like the 1960 shown LOL. This was filmed over 47 years ago. In that time frame we did not have the interstates nor the roads that are in place today. So there would be a real concern if the car could go down a gravel road. If you do the history on the car you will also find that the Mustang was the answer to the Monza model of the Corvair. While the Corvair hit the nail on the head as a "poor mans Porsche" the Mustang hit it out of the park in the soon to become the "Pony Car" segment. As I have been in retailing of Chevrolet's for 37 years I wonder what has happened to the GM film library of this type of stuff. They did tons of this type of filming.
Reply
Juan 5:12PM (2/23/2007)
Ahh, before the age of "Professional Driver on Closed Course" disclaimers.
Reply
John B 5:50PM (2/23/2007)
The early Corvairs did have handling problems - I had a 1963. I lost it twice (and not while hooning around) - both times while turning a corner a slow speed when the rear whipped around completely unexpectedly. In both cases, the road was wet, either from a rain shower or a street washer. I quite liked the car and, those cases excepted, I felt the car was fun to drive. The sad part is that by the time Nader's book was published, the Corvair had a different rear suspension that eliminated the problem.
Reply
MJL 6:34PM (2/23/2007)
A question for the more mechanically inclined: since this (along with several Tatras) is the only rear-engined sedan that I know of, did it have specially GOOD handling (a la, say, the good part of FWD without torque steer or needing CV joints) or specially BAD handling (a la the spin-happy pre-90s 911 characteristics)?
Reply
C 6:48PM (2/23/2007)
The problem was the early model's swing axles--which would cause camber to vary wildly, rather than control it with a dual A-arm or even MacPherson strut setup. That combined with the very different handling dynamics of a rear-engined car, partially explaining John B's experience above. I believe the first few models also had a very different tire pressure spec front/rear to compensate, which people tended not to know about.
Hate on Nader all you want. I'm glad my steering column won't impale me in a crash.
Reply
pauln 1:59AM (2/24/2007)
My first car was a '63 Corvair with 4 speed. Drove it hard and fast; through mountains, mud and snow. With that rear engine, it was near impossible to get stuck. I wish I had film of the snow I broke on back roads.
The Corvair handled pretty well, even the early ones, IF (Big IF) the tires were corectly inflated, like something like 6 or 8 lbs more in the rear. If you didn't do that, it became a trickier oversteerer.
Also, to get the most out of the 'Vair, you had to be a godd driver. People got in trouble with it because all the were used to was understeering, front-heavy cars. It reacted differently in extreme situations. If you hit the brake hard going too fast in a corner, you could break the rear loose and it would come around. That's what got the vair int trouble.
This could easily be provoked on purpose by folks like Nader. Hit the brakes and twitch the wheel the wrong way -- you have a spin or worse.
This movie brought back memories of doing similar stuff with my '63. Pre- SUV days, we made car do things off road that people wouldn't dream of doing now. And you know what, it was more fun, because it was challenging. You had really think and plan your moves. How hard is it to take a jacked-up 4x4 truck up a creek. Not.
Reply
BOB 3:52AM (2/24/2007)
#3 -- I agree with the raspberry, but you bought into a falsehood on the Audi thing. It WAS the drivers --I had an 5000 at the time, the pedals were farther left than in other cars.
The problem with GM and the Corvair was that the Engineering people came up with an interesting and rather esoteric vehicle, but the Marketing people sold it as a normal family sedan. The Ford Falcon, which was a success, unlike the Corvair, was a crude, smaller, regular American car. GM bore responsibility for selling a car with driving quirks that could be unsafe for some drivers, but pretending it was not that way.
In any case, Corvair sales, and Corvair deaths, were pretty minor.
It is true that the second model was pretty darn good. I drove in my friend's '65 from Berkeley to Vegas and back, learning to drive stick on the way.
Nader was a crass, self-centered megalomaniac. He pushed the consumer movement, to his credit, but got the power to do that by making a very moderate problem into a crusade.
If you dont believe me, look at the 2000 presidential campaign, where he could have noticed that the Democrats were running a stupid campaign, and pulled out, to ensure that Bush did not get elected. His head is bigger than a Corvair.
Reply
gerald 3:58AM (2/24/2007)
1. I loved the good ol' days when they didn't have "Professional driver on closed course" stamped on every commercial.
2. They won't dare make a commercial like that today.
3. I want a Corvair. In red with a turbo ECOTEC in the back, please.
Reply
Al 12:02PM (2/24/2007)
I owned a '66 Corvair Monza. It had the quad carbs. 144HP and 140 ft-lbs torque. I lived in Montana at the time. Since it was air-cooled, I didn't have any coolant problems when the temps were -30F. Two problems though. 1: it ate fan belts 2: The valve stem seals failed early and it would smoke like crazy going down hill when it had 60K miles on it. I installed fast turn steering arms on it to quicken the steering response. It was a great car. Pfft to Nadar!!!
Reply
mr.ed 12:00PM (2/24/2007)
I had both a '62 and a '65. Both plagued with problems later fixed with newer technology. Tires were bias ply 6:00 or 6:50x13. Wider radials, properly inflated in a ratio of 3# front to 5# rear made a huge difference. The first few '60 cars had longer stroke rear shocks that allowed the inside rear swing axles to drop too far, jacking that end of the vehicle onto three tiny tire patches. Bad news- mammoth oversteer. Limiting the shocks kept the axles more aligned to the road.
Road handling was iffy because the light front end lifted off the pavement. Front spoilers and lots of negative caster fixed that, but those ideas came years after the model was gone, except for those who took French alignment specs and applied them to this car. It sure worked for me.
The engines would leak oil onto the hot exhaust manifolds underneath, driving noxious fumes into the car. The leaks were from vitrified neoprene o-rings sealing the outer (head) ends of the pushrod tubes carrying oil between the heads and the block. Solution: Vyton o-rings. GM never tumbled to this idea, replacing thousands of faulty rings with soon-to-be cooked new ones.
Seats were real back breakers, common to US cars of the time. Only the last couple years of production had anything remotely supportive. It's interesting to see a friend's car, with Impala bench seats bolted right in to the tracks of his '64 (early) sedan. That's how wasteful larger models had become.
And then there was rust. Leaky batteries in the post-'60 Corvairs ate the bottom out of the battery box, further attacked by salty splash, which also took out the taillights. No fender liners in front, either, so horns hidden behind the headlights stopped working, gas guage pickups shorted out, floor-mounted gas pedals and cables to the rear engine disappeared, along with the tunnel covers over(under)neath.
'65 and later cars saw almost immediate cowl leaks and copious rust. The factory even made fiberglass patches for this, but too late.
It's claimed that Nader killed the Corvair. Not true. The much easier to build and sell Nova did it. The Corvair was doomed only two years after introduction. Total production was about the same as the first year of the Citation, another GM failure.
Reply
Peter 2:40PM (2/24/2007)
The Audi "unintended acceleration" disaster was a systematic and very successfull assassination attempt on the brand, and I'm somewhat shocked that there are still people out there who believe that BS. The NHTSA investigated hundreds of complaints back then, every single case was attributed to driver error. TTBOMK Audi hasn't lost a single case in court about "unintended acceleration". I think after it became obvious that there was nothing wrong technically, later some tried to sue them about the pedal placement. While it was absolutely standard for a European car, Audi had gained quite a few customers who were used to the wider US arrangement.
Reply
C.P.T.L. 9:50PM (2/25/2007)
Dan Roth has the stuff to put down Ralph Nader because Dan has stood up for what he believes in. He's risked ruin for the sake of bettering his country. He knows how important it is because he's studied his history and knows what it was like back then. He's devoting himself to making our country and our world a better place. He wouldn't just take a bunch of nasty baseless pokes at Nader for the sake of a 'cool' car. He wouldn't just write off all of the details of the studies and lawsuits and forty or fifty years of Nader's career to make a bunch of specious claims. If he had to, he could write his own book refuting all of Nader's claims. And it's important to speak out about the Nader types. Those kind of people who study hard in school, get degrees and start up phony organizations making believe they're in the public's interest. We would probably have a whole lot more cool stuff if there were more Dan Roths around and less Ralph Naders.
Reply
TM 5:38PM (5/07/2007)
I owned two Corvairs and did lots of mountain driving, at high-speeds 60+ coming down mountain passes the steering got a loose and it sure felt unsafe. In the winter for added traction we always tossed a bag or two of concrete mix or sand in the trunk so it would corner properly. My second one was totalled by a rolling boulder in the spring thaw and we nearly got totalled too. In all it was great car for a high-school kid.
Reply