These two cars were found on the same day, just fifteen minutes apart from each other. Both shared a similar color of paint, and both had the look of daily drivers about them.
Having been working for the classic car dealer for about a week at the point this photo was taken, I had become somewhat used to driving first gen Mustangs around the showroom. In my experience, they are pleasant, if plasticky, little coupes that in their stock form are pretty easy to drive. They tend to become a handful once larger engines and modern drive trains are introduced. Most of them are show cars, nearly perfect in execution. I was surprised to see this example of what I imagined most Mustangs probably ended up like in the 70’s and 80’s. Driven hard and cared for, but certainly showing their age.
The interior seemed to be pretty well optioned with air conditioning and an automatic. All in all, it was a pleasant sight to come across.
If I remember correctly, the owner of this car said it was a 1966 Corvair Monza sedan. Having only seen them in pictures up to that point, I was very happy he was willing to let me take a few pictures while he finished his tennis game.
I first spotted this car from a distance and thought it was the same blue Mustang I had seen before. Once I saw the four doors, I knew it some something altogether different. I have seen more of these late model Corvairs in movies and TV than I have their first gen counterparts. Unknown to me at the time, I would soon be the proud owner of a first gen coupe myself in the coming weeks.
The world right now can seem very isolating. I am fortunate enough to still be working. It would seem I switched careers at the perfect time. I doubt very much I would still be working at the warehouse with everything that’s going on. Sometimes we have to take joy where we can. I am happy to have come across these two little blue cars when I did. I hope they are serving their owners well and making others smile just as I did.
Now this is a pair of cars that I would find it very difficult to chose between as they are so similar. The Mustang would probably get the nod due to the air conditioning and a 3 speed automatic transmission instead of the Corvair’s 2 speed automatic transmission. But the Corvair is so rare and quirky, that it would be just about as fun to own, even it it is a 4 door.
You can’t kill a PowerGlide. On the other hand the Ford will return to rust dust soon if it already hasn’t done so.
Nice to see a well optioned, six-cylinder Mustang that that hasn’t been messed with, or turned into a “tribute” car.
Same for the Corvair; the later-era wheels are a nice touch. If they’re wider than the stock ones, I bet this thing handles like it’s on rails.
I’ve owned both Mustangs and one Corvair, and have a love for both. However, I keep coming back to Mustangs, probably because they’re simply more familiar to me, which makes them easier for me to maintain and live with. An added plus is one Howard Kerr mentioned in an earlier comment – air conditioning is easier to come by in Mustangs, and easier to add later.
Nice finds! A 4 door 2nd gen Corvair has recently moved to our neighborhood and seems to be a regular driver (is there even such a thing as a daily driver these days?). I’ll have to “Outtake” it one of these days.
In general I’ve been seeing a lot of CC’s on the road in the past month. Whether it’s the lighter traffic encouraging people to take them out, or having more time to get them running, or just the nice weather, my essential local trips have had some great sightings. An eclectic bunch too, from early Bronco to ‘58 Ford to Lotus Europa. Unfortunately I have struck out trying to get pictures.
I always thought it was strange that GM contnued the Corvair coupe until 1969 but discontinued the sedan after ’67, given that the latter was the only compact four-door hardtop and had no direct replacement unlike the coupe which was succeeded by the Camaro.
Hence my theory that GM built the 1967-69 Corvairs at all out of spite to show that Nader couldn’t push them around. He didn’t kill the Corvair, Lee Iacocca did. Nader indirectly gave it a stay of execution.
Actually, Corvair was killed in 1965, before Nader’s book. GM gave the order to stop further development on the car, and given the four years it remained in production, it was allowed a graceful fade out instead of sudden termination.
And it all makes sense, by mid-1965, Corvair’s replacement, the 1967 Camaro, was cast in stone so its position on Chevy’s roster became effectively redundant.
Maybe Nader’s book DID elicit a reaction of letting it stick around so long afterward, but there were major changes coming for 1970 and beyond, that would’ve necessitated either a redesign or killing it off.
It’s interesting to read the reactions of GM management to the Mustang soon after it’s introduction. When asked how GM planned to respond to the Mustang, they generally replied that Chevrolet already had a Mustang competitor, and it was called the Corvair.
Which makes some sense, as the Mustang was inspired by Chevrolet’s success with the Corvair Monza coupe. Plus, GM management supposedly viewed the Mustang as nothing more than a restyled Falcon, and expected the public to perceive it as such.
The restyled 1965 model sold well at first, but not at Mustang levels. GM management realized that the Corvair was not going to stem the Mustang tide.
Several former Chevrolet employees from back in the day insist the Corvair’s life wasn’t extended to make it look like GM wasn’t caving in to Ralph Nader, and likewise it’s agreed upon that the decision to kill off the Corvair was made before Nader’s book dropped. The bigger problem was that it simply wasn’t profitable to build a unique car with an aluminum rear air-cooled turbocharged engine that shared relatively few parts with other GM cars when Ford proved with the Mustang (as it had with the Falcon 4-1/2 years earlier) that none of that was necessary and that cheaper conventional engineering was actually preferred, despite being cheaper to build.
Indeed, it could be said that the car that actually killed the Corvair was the Falcon. The success of the thoroughly conventional Ford compact (engineered and built for a whole lot less than the radical Corvair) got GM to come out with the Chevy II Nova. From that point forward, the Corvair’s focus shifty almost entirely to the sporty market (the slow-selling Corvair-based pickup, van, and station wagon were all summarily dispatched). Ford then squashed even the sporty Corvair Monza with the Falcon-based Mustang. And then the V8 horsepower race of the go-go sixties was on. Not much room for that with the Corvair’s pancake six.
The final nail in the Corvair coffin was the Camaro. By 1967, the once-promising, rear-engined compact Chevy simply had nowhere to go.
After the early years of the Corvair, four-doors never accounted for more than about 20% of total production.
The thought process behind the decision to discontinue the four-door may have been driven by the fact that the Chevy II provided a viable four-door alternative in the Chevy lineup, but it didn’t work as a sporty “poor man’s Porsche” as the Corvair did. The Corvair was also more costly to produce than more conventional Chevies, which made them less profitable. The coupes probably lived on a little longer because they were typically purchased with more high-profit options.
Hence my theory that GM built the 1967-69 Corvairs at all out of spite to show that Nader couldn’t push them around.
Nobody knows for sure, but that’s the safe assumption many have made. Corvair sales cratered in 1967, from 105k to 27k, due to the Camaro and Nader’s book. Then sales fell drastically more, to 15k in ’68 and a mere 7k in ’69. Logic would say that it should have been killed at least one year sooner, or two. But GM was making a statement by keeping it in production longer.
And the four door was killed sooner as its sales were almost off the charts near the end. The only demand, such as it was, to loyal Corvair buyers was the coupe.
A perfect sentiment at the end, and fantastic finds. The second-generation Corvair looks fantastic in all three of its bodystyles – this sedan looks great, even underneath its patina.
That is, in large part, my recollection. I was born in the early 1970s, and while growing up, I disliked these early Mustangs for a few reasons. First, it seemed that nearly everyone of my parents’ generation was awash in Mustang nostalgia, and it got somewhat tiring to hear. But more importantly, the examples I saw on the road were usually beat-up, and they weren’t exactly rare, either. Whether the drivers were original owners who hung onto their cars for 20 years, or recent buyers who bought a cheap used car, it seemed to me the majority of these Mustangs were pretty rough.
Only much later did I develop any kind of a fondness for early Mustangs. Last year I photographed a ’68 Mustang that I’ve been intending to write it up, focusing not so much on the car but rather my shifting attitudes towards Mustangs.
I grew up in the mid to late 70s, and by then many 60s cars still around in Eastern Canada were in dilapidated shape. One reason why it took me a long time to appreciate them. Plus, they were typically used for car crashes on TV and in movies. They seemed so dated, and disposable. The Corvairs, Mustangs, T-Birds, and other survivors in my family, or with friends, were rough. Most typically due to serious rust. Gaping rust holes in floorboards seeming a common malaise back then. A friend’s father had an early 60s Chev that had alarming open holes in the floor. Even newer designs like the Chrysler fuselages, seemed to wear out quickly. It didn’t appear a majority in the general populace appreciated them by the late 70s.
Nice pics! As an owner of both myself, I can say that they are still practical enough to be daily drivers given the right climate. Mine are not daily drivers, but my Mustang basically was back in the late-’90s. The Corvair you have pictured is a ’65, by the way; the Corvair script moved to the front panel in ’66, and the taillights are ’65 only.
The second-gen hardtop sedan is probably my favorite Corvair. A practical yet unconventional family car that looks almost like a 3/4 scale ’65 Impala, if proportioned a bit differently. It would have been fun to have been ferried around in this thing when I was a little kid instead of the boring Falcon my mom drove. Also, nobody seems to think of the 4 door when they think of gen2 Corvairs.
I don’t think that the Mustang is anything close to a beater, but it definitely looks to be a driver. The Corvair is a bit rougher and the faded paint gives it a more beater look. I don’t see how anyone could call the early Mustang “plasticky” there isn’t any plastic in the outer body except the tail light lens. Inside, the dash, most of the door panels, windshield pillar covers and trim, and even the rear seat “arm rests” are good old steel. If by “plasticky” the commenter meant cheap, well I would agree with that. Base model early Mustangs were very plain. The early models even came with a fixed passenger seat! No gauges, single speed wiper, plain seats, basic heater, no lock on the glove box, am radio (optional). But they all came with standard buckets, (Bench optional), carpeting, full wheel covers,and that little chrome “console ette”for the shifter lever. Mechanically they could be very basic with the 170 c.i. straight six which was later upgraded to the 200 c.i. six, and three speed, always floor mounted. The sixes came with smaller drum brakes, but I’ve read contemporary road tests that stated that they would stop better than the non assisted V8 drum models. The base cars suffered from poor performance along with a choppy ride, poor ergonomics and ventilation. But they looked great, and could be optioned up to the roof. People loved them and they sold like hot cakes! I had a ’66 coupe and just a few years back a ’70 coupe. Now looking for a ’71 -’73 coupe.
I still maintain that the second-generation Corvair hardtop sedan is one of the prettiest sedans GM has ever built.
Agree!
There is not a bad angle found when viewing the 4 door hardtop Corvair.
Does anyone know of a reliable website that will give original MSRP and dealer cost for 1960’s cars and options? There used to be magazines for that. I would buy them and fantasize endlessly. Of course my father was smart enough to buy sensibly and ignore all the stuff I tried to talk him into. Thanks in advance.
Not a website but the Standard Catalog of XYZ books have the MSRP of both the cars and options.
Getting an air cooled engine to meet increasingly tougher emissions standards would have been an expensive proposition for GM, especially on a car that had little profit margin to begin with.
VW did it. GM probably didnt want to spend any more engineering resources on a low volume niche product, where VW had no choice at the time. EFI was an expensive solution that there was no way GM would have done at the time, but retuning the simple Solex one barrel carbs and vacuum advance/retard distributors allowed VW to get by on the lower priced high volume cars.
VW didn’t have a choice because their entire product line in the late-60s was air cooled. EFI on the 1968 Type III was an admirable achievement; powerful, fuel efficient, and reliable except for leaky braided injector hoses. VW’s US air cooled cars were eventually all fuel injected but keeping cylinder head temps in a tight band on air cooled engines is tough, making it difficult to keep emissions under control under different operating conditions.
I was not quite 18 and working my first pay-your-college-tuition (yes, it was possible) summer job when the first Mustangs appeared in showrooms. It seemed that everybody around me was either buying one or itching to buy one. As for Corvairs: I got to know three of them. My dad got one as a company car (green, 2-speed Powerglide on the little lever); had my first cursory driving lesson on it, nearly took out a tree in the process. My younger brother bought a used one (blue, 4-speed); that car ended up with my sister while she drove back and forth to nursing school. It went to the boneyard not long after it developed the habit of dying during left turns. Sister ended up on my doorstep in tears one day, having had to push the thing out of traffic and walk to my place. Then there was the snazzy little white-with-red-interior that we thought my aunt’s then-boyfriend had bought. After they broke up, we found out that my aunt had been paying for it, and she took it back. So, in my recollection, both of these cars were wildly popular, and you couldn’t go anywhere without seeing them.
“I was surprised to see this example of what I imagined most Mustangs probably ended up like in the 70’s and 80’s. Driven hard and cared for, but certainly showing their age.?
When I was a kid our neighbor across the street had a Mustang like that. In the early 1980s it was still his daily driver, and it was definitely showing its age. It looked much like the featured car except his was black. At some point he stopped driving it, and he parked it in his backyard. I suspect that was a case of “someday I’m going to restore this”. It was still there when I left for college, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it was still there today, continuing to deteriorate.
I do recall seeing 1sr gen Mustangs for sale in the early ‘80’s. It was said that early Mustangs were never going to be collectible due to the fact 100,000 convertibles were produced in the 1965 model year alone, of course that was also said about 1950’s furniture like Eames’ mass produced chairs for Herman Miller, aka Mid Century Modern design.
I too am a big fan of the 2nd gen Corvair. If I were to own one I’ld want a 4 door hardtop.
The Corvair has 1965 tail lights. They were only use for one year and are fairly rare, so it’s not likely that they are replacements.
A four door hardtop compact car was unique, but that spells very low volumes for a volume brand like Chevrolet. Who would have signed off on that? Being introduced at the same time as the new B-body with similar design language I do like. Personally, I’d take it over the boring Mustang any day.
There was a ’65 Impala in our driveway, but the local Ford dealer was literally one half block away. It seemed like every other family on the block had a Mustang, probably the source of my boredom with them.
Maybe it’s just me, but if this were my Mustang, it would HAVE to have a matching set of tires w/ wheel covers or wheels. The Corvair already has nice wheels, but I’d HAVE to do something about the paint! 🙂
The 2nd generation Corvair was so beautiful. The most beautiful American car in the 1960s…