In fall 1961, only two years after the introduction of the radical air-cooled, rear-engine Corvair, Chevrolet rolled out a second compact model, the conventionally engineered water-cooled, front-engine Chevy II. How did Chevrolet see these two similarly priced compact cars fitting together in the lineup?
The 1960 Chevrolet Corvair had made a splash around the world for its highly influential design and its novel rear-mounted air-cooled six-cylinder engine (which appeared almost five years before the Porsche 911). Yet, only two years later, Chevrolet hedged its bets with the Chevy II, their cautious, conventional, conservatively engineered answer to the hot-selling but very dull Ford Falcon. Was Chevrolet having second thoughts about the Corvair?
In a presentation about the new Chevy II before the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in January 1962, Chevrolet engineer Paul J. King addressed the elephant in the room — how the new model was supposed to relate to the existing Chevrolet Corvair:
Early in most discussions of the Chevy II, a question arises as to where this car fits into the Chevrolet product line. Statistically, it fits between the Corvair and the regular passenger car. In overall size, weight and price, the Chevy II is just a shade higher than the Corvair, while interior dimensions more closely resemble those of the Chevrolet.
Inevitably, the dimensions of the Chevy II also more closely resembled those of the Falcon, which had become the bestseller among domestic compacts. Here’s how the Chevy II compared to the Corvair and Falcon in major dimensions:
| Car | Overall Length | Wheelbase | Overall Width | Height (Laden) | Curb Weight, Base 2-Door |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corvair | 180.0 in. | 108.0 in. | 67.0 in. | 51.5 in. | 2,350 lb. |
| Chevy II | 183.0 in. | 110.0 in. | 70.8 in. | 55.0 in. | 2,535 lb. |
| Falcon | 181.1 in. | 109.5 in. | 70.6 in. | 54.5 in. | 2,370 lb. |
(The Chevy II curb weight above was with the four-cylinder engine; six-cylinder cars added an extra 95 lb.)
No one was about to award the Chevy II any prizes for stylistic innovation, especially in bare-bones 100 Series form, but its larger exterior dimensions did give it more interior room than the Corvair: about 1.5 inches more shoulder room, 1.5 inches more headroom, and 2 inches more rear legroom than a Corvair sedan. (Corvair club coupes and convertibles were much more cramped in back, with at least 4 inches less legroom than the four-door sedan.)
Where having a conventional drivetrain really paid off was in trunk space. The Chevy II trunk not only had more volume than the Corvair front compartment, it had about twice as much usable luggage capacity (13.3 cu. ft. versus 6.6 cu. ft.) — the Corvair was handicapped in those measurements by the irregular shape of the compartment and the intrusion of the front wheel arches.
The Chevy II was initially available with the four-cylinder Super-Thrift 153 or the six-cylinder Hi-Thrift 194. The Corvair, of course, still had its Turbo-Air 145 air-cooled flat six, which by spring 1962 was available in standard, high-output, and turbocharged forms. Chevrolet published both gross and net ratings for most of these engines in 1962: The standard Corvair engine rated 80 hp gross (65 hp net) with manual transmission, or 84 hp gross (68 hp net) with Powerglide. The Super-Thrift 153 in the Chevy II rated 90 hp gross (75 hp net), while the Hi-Thrift 194 rated 120 hp gross (95 hp net).
Unfortunately, they didn’t publish net ratings for the hotter 102 hp engine offered in the Corvair, or for the turbocharged Spyder engine that became optional in April 1962 (although Chevrolet engineers claimed its 150 hp advertised rating was much closer to as-installed net than most — Car Life estimated 125 hp net).
With both the Corvair and the Chevy II, Chevrolet’s design goal was performance comparable to a six-cylinder full-size Chevrolet, but with 25 percent better fuel economy. So, the four-cylinder Chevy II and base Corvair were broadly similar in performance, while the six-cylinder Chevy II was quicker than any Corvair but the turbocharged Monza Spyder.
| Model | Powertrain | Model Year | 0–30 mph | 0–60 mph | 0–80 mph | ¼ Mile | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corvair | base 3-speed | 1960 | 5.2 | 17.8 | 34.0 | 21.1 | Road & Track |
| Corvair | base Powerglide | 1960 | 5.1 | 17.5 | 36.5 | 21.5 | Road & Track |
| Corvair | base 4-speed | 1961 | 4.3 | 16.4 | 32.0 | 20.6 | Road & Track |
| Corvair | high-output (98 hp) 4-speed | 1961 | 4.0 | 15.5 | 35.0 | 20.3 | Car Life |
| Covair | turbo 4-speed | 1962 | 3.4 | 10.3 | 19.2 | N/A | Car Life |
| Chevy II | four-cyl 3-speed | 1962 | 4.9 | 17.0 | 41.0 | 20.2 | Car Life |
| Chevy II | four-cyl Powerglide | 1962 | 6.0 | 20.0 | 45.0 | 21.7 | Car Life |
| Chevy II | six-cylinder 3-speed | 1962 | 3.8 | 13.0 | 27.0 | 19.0 | Car Life |
| Chevy II | six-cylinder Powerglide | 1962 | 5.5 | 14.5 | 28.5 | 19.5 | Car Life |
The manual-shift six-cylinder Chevy II was by far the spriest of the normally aspirated offerings, at least in lighter sedan or coupe form. (A Nova convertible was 245 lb heavier than a two-door sedan, and the wagon added another 110 lb on top of that.)
However, King asserted:
The Chevy II concept recognizes the principle that customers do not buy well-balanced product lines; they buy cars — one at a time. Hence the question of fit cannot be answered in statistical terms.
The fact is, the Corvair has created a market for itself — a new and sizable one — and despite similarity in package size, the Chevy II offers little competition in that market. The Corvair has special appeal as a fun car, a limited sports car, a car that is different — with attributes all its own.
The Chevy II is designed to please people who do not need 4000 pound automobiles, but do want luxurious appointments in a wide variety of body styles, accessories and deluxe equipment. And, of course, at a compact price.
By “compact price,” I assume King meant “priced for cheapskates,” although surprisingly the bottom-of-the-line four-cylinder Chevy II 100 was slightly more expensive (by all of $11) than a basic Corvair 500 club coupe and $18 more than the cheapest Falcon tudor sedan.
The low end of the 1962 Chevrolet price scale made for interesting reading when sorted by price:
| Model | Base Price |
|---|---|
| Corvair 500 coupe | $1,992 |
| Chevy II 100/4-cylinder 2-door sedan | $2,003 |
| Chevy II 100/4-cylinder 4-door sedan | $2,041 |
| Corvair 700 coupe | $2,057 |
| Chevy II 100/6-cylinder 2-door sedan | $2,063 |
| Chevy II 300/4-cylinder 2-door sedan | $2,084 |
| Chevy II 100/6-cylinder 4-door sedan | $2,101 |
| Corvair 700 4-door sedan | $2,111 |
| Chevy II 300/4-cylinder 4-door sedan | $2,122 |
| Chevy II 300/6-cylinder 2-door sedan | $2,144 |
| Chevy II 300/6-cylinder 4-door sedan | $2,182 |
| Chevy II Nova 400/6-cylinder 2-door sedan | $2,196 |
| Chevy II Nova 400/6-cylinder 4-door sedan | $2,236 |
| Chevy II Nova 400/6-cylinder 2-door sport coupe | $2,264 |
| Corvair Monza 900 coupe | $2,273 |
| Corvair Monza 900 sedan | $2,273 |
| Biscayne 6-cylinder 2-door sedan | $2,324 |
| Biscayne 6-cylinder 4-door sedan | $2,385 |
| Biscayne V-8 2-door sedan | $2,431 |
| Bel Air 6-cylinder 2-door sedan | $2,456 |
| Chevy II Nova/6-cylinder 2-door convertible | $2,475 |
| Corvair Monza 900 convertible | $2,483 |
| Biscayne V-8 4-door sedan | $2,485 |
| Bel Air 6-cylinder 4-door sedan | $2,510 |
| Bel Air 6-cylinder 2-door sport coupe | $2,561 |
(There was no Corvair 500 four-door sedan in 1962, although there had been in 1960 and 1961. A four-door 500 would return to the lineup from 1965 to 1967.)
In general, cheaper Corvair 500 and 700 models were priced very close to the Chevy II, sometimes within as little as $10, but the Corvair Monza (which was now available as a sedan as well as a coupe) was more expensive than any 1962 Chevy II except the Nova convertible.
When the Chevy II had been announced to the press on August 30, 1961, Chevrolet general manager Ed Cole had expanded on the redefined role of the Corvair and in particular the importance of the Corvair Monza:
While many people obviously buy the Corvair for economy reasons, its greatest popularity has been among people who want a smaller car that is unique, different, sporty and really fun to drive …. We believe the Monza will assume increasing strength in the Corvair line.
This is exactly what happened. For 1962, Corvair production (excluding station wagons, the Greenbrier, and the FC95 trucks) totaled 293,685 cars, of which 220,158 — 75 percent — were Monzas.
While the Chevy II wasn’t any cheaper than the Corvair (and sometimes cost a few dollars more), it quickly became the preferred choice of skinflints, as shown by the following chart:
Notice that sales of the base Corvair 500 (shown in gold) were consistently less than the base Chevy II 100 (shown in green).
Similarly, the Corvair was much more likely to be sold in sporty car trim than was the Chevy II/Nova:
Since the Nova Super Sport was only offered in two-door form, the above chart rolls the four-door Corvair Monza and the short-lived Monza wagon into the “Other Corvair” total. Even so, you can see that Monza/Corsa sales (shown in red) consistently outpaced Nova SS sales (shown in blue) until 1969, the Corvair’s final year.
(Of course, once the V-8 became available in the Nova, ordering it didn’t require ordering Super Sport equipment, but I’m more concerned here with the way the factory chose to merchandize these cars than with their actual performance.)
So, for a while, Chevrolet envisioned the Corvair and the Chevy II coexisting in a manner similar to the later Nova and Camaro: one sensible, one sporty, though not really terribly different in size or in price.
One interesting fact from King’s presentation was this tidbit:
[The] decision was made early to make the Chevy II adaptable to production on both the Corvair and the regular passenger car lines. With this arrangement, work load distribution between various assembly and manufacturing plants can be satisfactorily controlled, even when the relative sales volumes of each line do not go exactly as predicted.
In the long run, I think that consideration would probably have inevitably led Chevrolet towards something like the Camaro, which could share a lot more with the Chevy II/Nova than just assembly facilities. However, in the short term, the Corvair was still selling very well, and it still had a market segment more or less to itself.
Paradoxically, this was also a major reason why Corvair sales eventually collapsed after 1965. From 1961 on, the mainstay of the Corvair line had been the Monza coupe, which at the time had little serious domestic competition. Once the Mustang arrived in spring 1964, that was no longer true, and the bump in Corvair sales following the 1965 redesign was short-lived. With the Chevy II having mostly taken over the cheap-wheels business, the Corvair was left with nowhere to go once it became clear that it could no longer compete with the Mustang.
There’s a persistent assumption that the first-generation Corvair was a commercial flop, which it really was not: Including wagons, Forward Control models, and CKD kits for export, first-generation production totaled 1.4 million units through the 1964 model year. The Corvair ended up being most successful in a somewhat different capacity than Chevrolet originally anticipated, but while it had less volume than the Ford Falcon, it sold best in its most profitable forms, leaving ample room for its duller, more conventional Chevy II sibling.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1962-1965 Chevy II – Chevy Builds A Compact, Take II (Updated) (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1963 Chevy II Nova SS Coupe – The Only One Left Wearing Its Original Wheel Covers? (by Paul N)
Cost of production was probably the main driver. The Corvair could not share the economies of scale of parts with full sized cars and trucks which were produced in the millions. Engines, transmissions and more on the Chevy II were shared with standard Chevys, upcoming mid-sized cars and 1964 & later Vans.
Ironically, the Chevelle probably cost less to produce than the Chevy II because they were Body-On-Frame like the full sizers and could be produced on more assembly lines interchangeably with the same procedures and labor steps with more vehicles (as well as sharing even more parts with full sized Chevys,the other GM Midsizers, and pickups.)
Looking at sticker prices when comparing vehicles does not give a true picture of revenue per vehicle, because then, like now selling prices are different from sticker. Plus other factors such as time on the lot, order backlogs, and value of options ordered, impact whether a vehicle is a keeper .
Also, the profile of the people actually purchasing vehicles is something the automakers look at to determine if a new vehicle is a flash in the pan for people looking for the latest fad, and that category of buyers will move onto another vehicle once it is no longer a novelty.
Unless I missed it, 2 words, Ralph Nader. In the early 60s, people like my old man were wary of any new fangled gizmo to come along, and all it took was one guys dissatisfaction to bolster their ideas. They wanted conventional cars, engine, transmission and rear axle. It was what they grew up with. The Corvair was a gamble, and not an unsuccessful one, it’s just GM realized, with Falcon, Valiant, Rambler American sales soaring, a more conventional car was needed. Both great cars, but totally different markets.
Ralph Nader was not a relevant factor, at all, in 1962, and is not even slightly pertinent to the subject of this post. (Unsafe at Any Speed was published in late 1965, with the Corvair chapter excerpted in The Nation about a month beforehand.)
People really liked to hate on Ralph didn’t they. He was a voice of Safety. I couldn’t understand at the time. My friend bought a Chevy 2 and loved it. The corvair really didn’t become a good car until 1969 when it was discontinued.
Aside from some basic safety upgrades, the ’69 Corvair was the same as the ’65, but with fewer available bodystyles and engine options. The ’65 Corvair was a pretty good car, but GM decided to stop development by the time it became clear that the Mustang was a huge success. The Camaro was always going to be the answer to the Mustang, and the Corvair therefore became superfluous.
Well, yes and no. I have talked to various people looking to restore late second-gen cars, and they say there were actually a surprising number of running changes in subsequent years — NOT just in safety and emissions compliance areas, but in the electrical system and elsewhere. Many of the changes were for the better, but the problem is that they were poorly documented, which is a PITA from a repair or restoration standpoint and also perpetuates the idea that the car was “frozen” to a greater extent than it actually was.
Well, the ’69 had arguably better seats than the ’65, and it had a dual-circuit master cylinder. Aside from side-marker lights, a thicker dash pad, some upgraded dash knobs, smog heads on lower-HP engines, etc., it’s fundamentally the same car. I’m not sure what electrical system changes would have been made (not saying there weren’t any). Still, my point was that any changes that Chevy made didn’t amount to the difference between a good car and a bad car.
CORSA put together this document of year-by-year changes: https://www.corvair.org/chapters/southcoast/misc/CorvairCatalog.pdf
I was friends with CORSA members who were frustrated by the inadequacies of that specific document, which they said was also kind of a pain from a standpoint of getting the right parts. It’s been a number of years now, and I couldn’t enumerate all of the changes they described to me (not my car, not my money, not my problem, etc.), but it was kind of a lot, in ways that didn’t become evident until they were actually getting deep into working on it.
I don’t know that made any meaningful difference in what the cars were like to drive, but it was more extensive than is generally assumed.
The running changes from ’65-’69 sound like VW’s in the same period but even less significant.
Seems odd to me that the Chevy II & Corvair on the same assembly line. (But what do I know).
Corvairs always looked kinda odd to me. If I “had to” take one, it’d be a 65+ Convertible, the just look best to me (with top down).
Between Chevy II/Nova and Corvair, I’d take the Nova. A Nova (2 dr) with a 327 would be my choice.
I wonder how many others would choose Nova over a Corvair..
I always thought the 327 4sp Nova was the way to go!
The problem with a V-8 in a Chevy II was the brakes. They were marginal with the base engines and inadequate for the V-8.
The picture rendered as “1962 Chevrolet Chevy II 100 two-door sedan in Anniversary Gold” is in fact of a Nova 400 sports coupe. Excellent article, as always, Aron.
Thanks, I corrected the caption.
The photos of the 62 Corvair are not a 62. I had a 62 white with red interior and the front has black on the design.
Huh, you’re right — Raleigh Classic Car Auctions identified the white car as a ’62, but the “grille” trim, taillights, and rear grille say it’s probably a ’61. (I had to check the reference book, I don’t know the trim changes off the top of my head.) I wonder if the person who paid $11,000 for the car earlier this year knew that?
In any case, if you hit “refresh,” you’ll see all-new images of an actual 1962 Monza coupe.
I didn’t realize the Chevy II was actually more expensive than the Corvair at base. I thought the whole point was to be cheaper for the customer, but I guess it was just to be cheaper to produce, and conventional in a way that average people more readily accepted.
I would wager that GM pocketed the difference.
Most US drivers did not understand the tire pressure balance needed for the early (1960-1964) Corvair due to the swing axle rear suspension. A front engine, reasr wheel drive car with the pretty well universal bias ply tires ran higher tire pressure in the front with the rear being lower except for station wagons and fully laden sedans and possibly convertbles. The Corvair required rather low front tire pressure for ride quality, but much higher rear pressures due to the powertrain wieght.
The swing axles, even on front engined RWD cars could be interesting, ask anyone who has driven a Mercedes with that rear suspension, hit the brakes in a corner, and the outside rear wheel tries to tuck under. Add, the weight of the rear engine, too low rear tire pressure, and you are courting disaster. Chevrolet made some running changes to help, a front anti-roll bar in 1963, and a camber compensating transverse rear leaf spring in 1964. 1965 through 1969 models used a modified Corvette rear suspension, with coil sprngs rather than the transverse leaf spring the Corvette used. My then 16 yo son.s first car was a 1965 Corsa, 140hp and 4 speed car. He loved it, primarily because it was unique (this was in 1994) and a decent performing vehicle.
Neither a front anti-roll bar nor tire pressures significantly affect its penchant for rear tuck-under and nasty oversteer, which was due to unfortunate geometry with the standard suspension. (This was demonstrated rather painfully by the Pontiac Tempest, which HAD a front anti-roll bar by the end of 1961, but still had the same handling problems.) People love to point to the tire pressures as a way of blaming the various owners who got into accidents with their Corvairs, but it didn’t make much difference in that respect. The transverse camber compensating spring and softer rear springs in 1964 DID help.
Did the optional suspension upgrade on the ’62-63 or the revised suspension on the ’64 significantly reduce rear tuck-under or oversteer? I’ve read differing answers over the years.
Yes. The optional suspension decambered the rear suspension, which made it harder to create the geometric relationship that caused jacking, and it included limiter straps to deter tuck-under. The 1964 suspension also discouraged tuck-under and somewhat reduced the normal range of rear-wheel camber variation under load. Oversteer was not the principal problem to begin with, but that was also reduced by adding the anti-roll bar in front and using the transverse leaf spring to reduce roll stiffness in back. (The leaf would not compress in roll because of the way it was pivoted, and the coils were a bunch softer.)
The tradeoff with the ’62/’63 optional suspension was that there would likely be too much negative camber when carrying a full load of passengers, but I think the typical Monza buyer rarely did that anyway.
Having owned and loved both back when they were just average used cars, I found them suitable for different uses .
Hands down the Chevy II had way more useable space .
Both were good driver’s but the Corvair, even the base models were sportier in look and feel plus driving capabilities .
The Chevy II also had terrific good looks .
-Nate
Nice detailed comparison on one of my favorite subjects that is not very well understood and rife with misunderstandings and commonly-held myths, such as the Corvair was not a success.
I did a post on that subject which might well be added to Aaron’s links at the bottom of his post:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/chart/cc-charts-domestic-compacts-1958-1960-no-the-corvair-was-not-a-flop-it-had-a-higher-market-share-than-the-f150-does-today/
The 153 and it’s non-automotive 181 sister are two of the best marine engines out there. They sold far more of these engines in boats than they ever did in Chevy II/Novas
Aunt/uncle had a “62 Nova”. Was same gold color. Think the inside may have been a bit darker then then the “fawn”.
Tinted , windshield, aftermarket “a/c”, auto, p/s, radio..”6″ cylinder.
Was purchased, I believe from the “Chevy dealer”, on “Columbia Pk/Arlington Va”.
Got traded in “65” for a spiffy, shiny, “Pontiac Lemans”.
They said the lil, “Chevy” was scary, underpowered. lol
I know that “Pontiac”, moved! Whoever got the “Chevy”, got a good car though. Miles were rather low.
Boy, how times have changed. Sixty years ago the Chevy II was a car for skinflints; now the majority of remaining ones are SS with 350’s 😀.
I had SO much trouble finding pictures of an unmolested 100, or even a relatively unmolested 300 or Nova.
No kidding. The same could be said about the preponderance of Chevelle SS 396 out there vs. how many were actually made vs. base models.
My father loves his Corvairs, 12 if them.
I would love a Rampside in memory of Dad to go with his Harley sidecar rig I inherited.
I wouldn’t argue that the Corvair wasn’t a sales success in terms of *units*, but I’ve never read anything that suggests it was a sales success in terms of *profits*. Almost every part of a Corvair was bespoke and not shared with the full-size cars, and that doesn’t come cheap.
Meanwhile, both Falcon and Valiant shared a lot of parts with their larger counterparts and I have to believe there was more profit per unit at Ford and Chrysler on their compact lines.
Early in most discussions of the Chevy II, a question arises as to where this car fits into the Chevrolet product line. Statistically, it fits between the Corvair and the regular passenger car.
I’ll never get over how Detroit in the ’60s and ’70s considered land-yacht sedans, coupes, and wagons to be “regular” size and considered anything smaller to be an aberration. That mindset resulted in Detroit not realizing that small cars would become the norm by the 1970s, allowing imported small cars that weren’t singularly designed for cheapness to take over the market.
They made more money on full-size cars, and were eager for that to remain the norm because it was more profitable.
Then they must have been smoking something. As Paul has pointed out before the sales of these full size cars had started to decline in 1959 I believe. If they are declining each year, while at the same time the population is growing, one would have to wonder why. Also declining as the middle of the Baby Boom era is upon us and they all want cars. A decent market research firm should have been able to do the research to find out what they were buying as it wasn’t Impala, Galaxie, or Fury by the time the 70’s hit. How could they not see their profitable market disappearing?
Declining SHARE of a (mostly) growing market didn’t necessarily signify diminishing importance, especially from a standpoint of profit. Chevrolet sold 1.4 million full-size cars in 1962 and about 1.1 million in 1969.
Yeah, I saw that chart. The ChevyII was marginally larger than the Corvair. I think the Corvair was lower though due to the no tranny hump or driveshaft tunnel. I pulled the dimensions for the 62 Biscayne and first gen Pontiactempest to show how much larger it was than the “statistically middle” Chevy II
Biscayne L 209.6″ W 79″ H 55.5″ WV 119.0″
Tempest 189.3 72.2 53,5 112,0
I don’t understand the reference about the Porsche 911 coming along five years later. It’s not like rear engine Porsches didn’t already exist? Can someone explain?
At the time the Turbo-Air six was developed, there really weren’t any air-cooled flat sixes except some aircraft engines, so it was more or less untried territory for passenger cars. There were rear-engine Porsches, yes, but they were four-cylinders, and the design and cooling requirements of an H-4 and an H-6 are quite a bit different.
Ed Cole made the Corvair and it is his leadership that led GM into production. It was a brilliant car. Yet, I feel that, if not for Mr. Cole, GM would have done what Ford did, and there would have never been a Corvair.
When the Corvair was being created, it seemed that the focus was on building a better Beetle, super popular during this time period. Ed Cole drove that into production.
Yet Ford showed a better, less interesting, way forward. Painful frugality and efficiency designed their Falcon. Chrysler beat both, but had a hideous style that crippled their Valiant until 1963.
Ford sold more Falcons, but lost full size sales to it. GM sold Corvairs without using pirating full size sales. GM saw the Corvair as limited in the long run, and copied the Falcon.
The Falcon-based Mustang blew the Falcon, Corvair and Chevy II out of the sales water, leaving the Valiant as the number one compact for the next decade.
Ford lost full-size sales, but most of those were of strippo Custom sedans. Their lead in high-margin station wagons and convertibles was undiminshed. The Chevy II lost more sales to the Chevelle than the Mustang, and the Nova bounced back in the ’70s as the “midsize” models got *huge* leaving the compacts in that Goldilocks size bracket (as exemplified by a ’49 Ford or a new CR-V).
Another amazing article, Aaron. I didn’t realise how similar in size the Corvair and the Chevy II were.
Fantastic article. While the Corvair is the far more interesting vehicle the Chevy II certainly makes more economic sense. We are lucky the Corvair existed at all. It is still on my list to own one some day.
Chatted with my Dad about this, a guy who’s owned a few Corvairs over his lifetime. As William A Vose notes and Aaron responds, it was important to pay attention to tire pressure as it may not have been everything but it absolutely made a difference; but just like the physics of a RWD vs. FWD car, you needed to respect the weight distribution. There was some “unlearning” to do if you were planning to get a little spicy with your driving..
1) VanillaDude gets this point, this was Ed Cole’s baby and when that’s you, and the company’s in the market share and profitability position they were in, you’re allowed things like that. Remember, GM in the 60s was willing and able to experiment when you come up with the Toronado and Tempest and others instead of the V 8-6-4 and Olds Diesel and X Cars, why not?
2) It’s what I call the Lexus ES vs. IS issue. If you have the resources to develop two different cars to target two different consumers at virtually the same price point without hurting the profitability and market share, why not? Now, later on when you had the Chevy II and the Corvair PLUS the Camaro in the works, not so much.
I also think we have a tendency to look at situations like this from a modern-day mind when it comes to shared componentry. If we could apply some current-knowhow to this some might say “Why would you even do this with two separate cars?” where others might be able to make an even better business case with more careful savings. Sure, GM may not have worked at it because the market conditions didn’t warrant having to scrape up every last nickel – but where would GM be now if in the glory days they’d started to think that way?
The nasty jacking/tuck-under/breakaway antics (which were per se dangerous) and the penchant for oversteer (which was not necessarily dangerous, although not what a lot of American drivers were used to) were different, separate things. Tire pressures affected the latter; they DID NOT significantly affect the former, which could bite even highly skilled racing drivers. See here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/1960s-vintage-reviews/gm-brands-1960s-vintage-reviews/racing-driver-jerry-titus-asks-why-doesnt-the-corvair-handle/
Another great job, Aaron!
I have often wondered if GM figured out the Corvair would not be the ideal low-buck compact the Falcon was, even before the first Corvair was sold. Thus work on the Chevy II/Nova was started on the heels of the Corvair introduction. The Corvair was indeed a different sort of compact car, and GM acknowledged that fact with the Chevy II/Nova.
Interesting that the 4 cylinder Chevy II was actually heavier than the 6 cylinder Falcon, but considering the Chevy in-line engines were quite a bit more substantial than the ‘Falcon’ 6 and the car itself was slighty larger and maybe a be a bit more solidly built it’s not too surprising I guess.
VERY interesting comment about the Chevy II/Nova being compatible with either the Corvair or full size Chevrolet on the assembly line.
In terms of dry weight, the Chevy 153 was roughly 20 lb heavier than the the Falcon 144. Not a vast difference, but it did weigh more, and it contributed to a somewhat higher all-up weight.
The 2nd. Gen. Chevy 6’s were a little overbuilt, as the engine family powered not only the Chevy II/Nova but also replaced the Blue Flame 235 in full size cars and trucks and was also built in the tall deck 292 truck engine version which powered many medium duty trucks. The Ford 240 and 300 were more the equivalent of these 6 cylinder Chevys. The Ford ‘Falcon 6’ was developed for compact cars (for which it served well), the Econoline, and eventually the Bronco. Funny the 153 was 20 lbs. heavier than the 144 (and probably the 170 as well). BTW, derivitives of the 153 are still doing yeoman service in forklifts, generator sets, and boats:
https://psiengines.com/product/3-0-liter/
I think the greater size/weight of the Chevrolet 153/194 engine was due in part to the desire to share components with the SBC. Good for cost savings, not necessarily for weight savings. The Ford 170 was 8 lb heavier than the 144, so it was still lighter than the Chevy 153, although not by very much.
I would agree. Lots of parts carry over to the Small Block.