(first posted 9/1/2016) I think that for many car enthusiasts, there’s at least one specific make and model that he or she identifies with personally – a car that is the automotive embodiment of traits that he or she possesses. For me, one of those cars is the second-generation Chevrolet Corvair. We personify the cars we own, aspire to own, or simply admire, and we often give them names based on their “temperaments” – how well they function and how reliable (or not) they are. A car model’s heritage, history of public acceptance, and ultimate legacy can also play as a metaphor into our own, personal life stories.
More than a few things come to mind when I think about things I have in common with this car. The Corvair didn’t really catch on and find its true purpose in life until well after its launch, with the introduction of the sporty, bucket-seat Monza coupe and convertible for mid-year 1960. And while the first Corvairs were good-looking cars, the second-gen cars really brought the goods in terms of aesthetics. Many of us have our own tales of foundering, say, after high school or college, and I’m no exception. Photography, for example, was something I dabbled in and enjoyed as a teenager, but it wasn’t something I seriously got back into until two decades later. I can also say that in my early 40’s, I’m probably in the best physical shape of my life.
The Corvair never really ran with the big guys, or stated another way, never seemed to make any pretense of having any innate badassery. The limitations of its rear-engine configuration meant that aside from the Yenko-modded Stinger and semi-custom V8 jobs, it was never going to pose any serious threat to the Ford Mustang or other performance-oriented midsizers – not even in its turbocharged Corsa guise. Like the ‘Vair, I’m in decent physical shape now, but I was never going to be an athlete. If you want to see something awkward, try to find VHS footage of me attempting any sport – especially tennis or basketball… and I’m completely fine with that. (Thankfully, there were no camera phones in the late 1980’s.)
It has also occurred to me the second-generation Corvair Monza was kind of like the “Ford Probe” of Chevy dealerships of its day once the Camaro had made its debut. Much like the second-generation, ’93 Probe had arrived in dealerships just in time to be steamrolled in power, performance and popularity the very next year by the newly redesigned ’94 Mustang, it seems the rebooted ’65 Corvair had a remarkably narrow window in which to really shine before Chevy trotted out the Camaro for ’67 as a true Mustang competitor. Granted, a dude named Ralph Nader and a little book named “Unsafe At Any Speed” had something to do with how that whole thing played out, but that doesn’t make it seem any less of a shame – especially considering how the Corvair’s handling bugs had been worked out by then.
Like the Corvair had no direct replacement, I have no offspring nor plans for any. And that’s that. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. My life has its share of fulfillment and priorities, and from what I hear from my siblings, I’m kind of killing it in the Uncle Department. I look at it this way: my siblings were more viable candidates to pass along the Dennis family name and DNA, much like the Chevy II / Nova was better than the Corvair at being an economical compact, and also how the first Camaros were capable of going faster than the ‘Vair. In my opinion and in the Corvair’s defense, neither the Chevy II / Nova nor the Camaro in their late-60’s iterations looked as good as the second Corvair, and neither possessed but a fraction of its mystique. Who made that? What’s its country of origin? Keep ’em guessing, I always say.
Maybe it’s the enduring popularity of the first-generation Camaro and corresponding market prices that make the Corvair seem like a more rational choice for a classic car purchase in 2016. Corvairs in good shape seem inexpensive relative to other classics of the 1960s, with a convertible like our featured car going for about $16,000 in excellent condition, according to the good folks at Hagerty. Given the ’65 Monza convertible’s base price of roughly $2,500 (almost $19,000 / adjusted), this is a car that has…well, just shrugged at depreciation, I guess. Much like I would, I suppose.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, August 20, 2016.
Like your photography skills have flourished, so too have your writing skills. I can’t think of another piece of writing I’ve read where the author convincingly likened themselves to a car, and yet you have done so masterfully. It would have been nice if Chevy had passed on the Corvair’s “genetic material” and, if you were so inclined, I think the world would be richer for having a Joe Jr. Even if he’s not a badass and just a smart guy who sucks at basketball.
Thanks so much, Will. This started out as a longer piece, but sometimes I’ve found it more effective to say more with fewer words than when I started out.
As far as my lack of athletic prowess, I had learned to play the piano fairly well, so it just goes to show that we all – each of us – has strength in some area.
Very nicely written. And yes, I’ve got the same kind of identity – mainly because dad brought a ’65 Monza coupe home for about a week for me to drive thru the neighborhood. First driving lessons, at the age of 15. I think by then he knew he was leaving the dealership soon, and there wouldn’t be the big deal of my getting my license the following year.
Of course, last night’s Wheeler Dealers was the restoration of a mild custom 1963 Monza Spyder convertible. Gawd, I wanted that car at the end.
I think it says something about personalities that, although the family had a ’67 Camaro RS (base 327/Powerglide), I tried talking dad into a Corvair Monza back then (fall of ’66). Never mind that it was a given that the car was on the way out, especially since the Corsa had been dropped for ’67.
And it’s been that way ever since. Given a choice between a (fill in the blank – Hemi Cuda, Boss 302, Camaro SS350/396, 401 Javelin, etc.) in mint restored condition, and any year Corvair in any trim level, two door, four door or convertible, in any condition better than rolling basket case . . . . . . I’ll take the Corvair. Any day.
And I’m slowly running out of time to finally own one. Unfortunately, either I get rid of four motorcycles or build another garage if I want to get serious about ownership.
Syke, I need to check out that show! My local cable provider is a really mixed bag. 🙂
I agree with you about choosing the Corvair over any number of hi-po specials. While I (probably also like you), appreciate those other cars, those are the stuff of high-priced auctions and museums. I respect the Hemi ‘Cuda as much as the next guy, but I’d rather have a Corvair – just the like our featured car.
I am deciding between getting 2nd gen Corvair or a 70s era 2 stroke streetbike though I am leaning heavily towards the motorcycle at the moment I definitely would jump on a good Corvair if one came up.
Driving a slow car/bike fast is always more fun than driving a fast one slow.
Agree with the writing compliments, Joseph. BTW, Wheeler Dealers is a great CC TV show, although it has trended more towards higher end “motors” over the years. I am sure the “early stuff”, now 10 years old, is available on YouTube. But the show is/was produced in Britain, so many Euro cars rare repaired and sold.
The old Wheeler Dealer fix on a budget shows were better. Velocity channel shows old and new, Ed’s repair’s were shown in especially good detail and better presented in the older episodes. Less extensive repair detail and more expensive cars today, trips to California and Mike’s now starting to grab a wrench “when Ed’s not around” have not done the show any favors. Still, it’s fun to watch the bullfrog and the giraffe team up, especially in the earlier episodes with a more modest budget and older, lower priced cars.
The Corvair is a great find. Joseph did, as usual a great job of photography and writing up this find. In 1965 if a good looking car is what you were after, GM was the place to look.
There a good episode where Ed’s fixes up a Mk1 Golf GTI.
Joseph, Interesting and well developed piece. My interest in Corvair mechanicals centered on the Corvan Greenbrier, but a friend had a white first generation convertible with a red interior and two speed automatic and it appealed to me in a way I had not expected.
The seemingly one piece instrument panel that appeared in all things first gen Corvair/Van was my biggest annoyance because it seemed tacked on and, well cheap. But it was a lower priced vehicle, so that annoyance was probably not deserved.
I was sickened when my favorite TV comedian Ernie Kovacs was killed in a Gen 1 Corvair station wagon while making a fast turn on a wet road in early 1962.
Gen 2 fixed the rear axle issue and made the car classically beautiful with a properly built in instrument panel but, as all the car mags would say, the writing was up there for all to see.
Great photos of a moving target.
I smiled watching last night’s Wheeler Dealers when Edd added the camber compensator to the rear end on the rebuild.
Somewhere, there’s got to be a special hell for the accountant who cancelled that part off the 1960 models. All to save something like $2.00 per car?
You’re mixing up the camber compensator with the front anti-sway bar. That’s what they left off. But they should have also added the camber compensator, which only was added in 1964.
Thanks so much, rlplaut. It’s funny you should mention Ernie Kovacs having died in a gen-1 station wagon, as I was watching an episode of “The Lucy-Desi Comedy hour” just last weekend. I believe Ernie Kovacs and his wife, Edie Adams, were the guest stars for the very last episode.
I also read somewhere that the “Corvan” was built, among other places, in my hometown of Flint, Michigan – probably at Chevy-In-The-Hole on the Flint River. I was hoping to read somewhere that the coupes and sedans were also built there, but that’s not the case.
Joe, how is it that we are both in Chicago, and you seem to routinely see all manner of interesting cars, while all I ever see are Camrys and cute utes? Great shot and write-up as always. As for skills, let’s just say that even if I did stumble upon these cool cars, my attempt at photos would be crooked, or have a thumb over the image, or would cut off half the car… You are a master of spontaneous in-motion car photography!
Also, no matter the Corvair’s attributes as a performance machine, I will always consider it one of GM’s best styling jobs ever. Not a line out of place.
Thanks, GN! I’ll let you in something – I use the free “picnik” software available on-line, to rotate and crop images as I see fit. Sometimes, it’s about taking a bunch of frames if you have a limited amount of time in which to do so, and then just going with (and editing) your best shots. There was a full-on profile shot I had hoped to use, but it was blurry. Thankfully, I got several usable images.
At first, I was mad at that white Jetta for getting in the way (first shot), but I’m glad it was there, actually, to provide some context in terms of what else was on the road when I spotted this car two Saturdays ago.
GN, I wonder the same thing. And I was just in Edgewater last week. Joseph just has an uncanny ability to spot classics, I suppose.
Although, I did see a first gen Thunderbird go down Division the other day. Wasn’t fast enough on the draw to catch it.
A beautiful and truly underappreciated car.
Nice catch.
Buddy of mine had a 2nd-gen Corvair 500 coupe, lovingly cared for, that he sold for about 5 grand a few years ago. It was soooooooooo tempting to get it. Because you’re right, these are just drop-dead gorgeous, far more lovely than any other smaller Chevrolet offering of the times.
PS. I’m envious of your panning skills.
First: the pictures. Minimal tonal range dividing that defining crease; rear chrome and taillights floating in soft plimrose. A crisp shifting blade against the mild green leaves. Especially pics 2 and 3. Nailed it.
Secondly: the words. Your philosophy is disarmingly embedded in your prose. Your frankness around the subject of offspring matches your images. Loved it.
Don, thank you for the kind words. I thought I’d point out that the third and fourth pictures are actually the same frame – the 3rd image is a cropped version of the 4th.
I hope my brothers and sister had a chance to read this article this morning. 🙂
When I was a kid in the mid ’60s, my family had TWO Corvairs. The first was a ’61 white Lakewood station-wagon, just like Ernie Kovac’s last ride! The second, was a much-improved ’65 Monza 4-door sedan, which we brought with us when my Dad was posted to the American Embassy in Lisbon Portugal. On weekends, we’d sometimes take day-trips up the mountain roads north of town and the winds that usually roared in off the Atlantic there made that ’65 Monza a handfull. Considering the earlier car’s broadside area and swing-axles, today I occasionally wonder If we’d have survived those trips, had we brought that ’61 wagon over instead!
Happy Motoring, Mark
My father had one of these in this color in the early 70s – looked just like those pictures. I LOVED that car! He bought it in non-running condition and it smelled a little musty – well, you know, a convertible. When he started disassembly of engine and found mud in interesting places it was clear the car had been in s flood, not just left with the top down.
He spent the winter (it seemed) rebuilding the engine – I remember carrying some of the cylinder “jugs” to be machined. Then moved onto the top and interior.
This was our second Corvair. I wanted him to keep it long enough for me to have it (another, what, 6 or 8 years) but he sold it. He told me if he had kept it for as long as I wanted he’d be giving me two halves of a Corvair rather than one whole.
As a kid, I much preferred the crisper lines of the first gen Corvair to the second, that I sort of thought lacked definition. However, as an adult, I have to admit that I like this.
It is funny how so many cars that developed a devoted following early-on have never really turned into big-time collector material. Studebakers are another. These Corvairs had diehard owners early on and still do. But now as then, it is a minority taste.
I will echo the others. I can’t decide whether your pictures or your prose is the lead attribute of this piece. Well done all around.
Part of the problem is that a lot of antique car owners are not mechanics, counting on a commerical shop to keep their cars running. And despite the Corvair engine being a basic, simple OHV engine; radical only in its cooling and positioning, there’s a lot of shops that’ll happily work on anything 60’s American will shy away from them. “Too different.”
Thanks, JP. I was thinking of several Studebakers (cars I like, and I know you do, too) before I read the second sentence of your second paragraph.
Love the write-up. Love the car. I’m whole-heartedly in agreement that the 2nd gen Corvair, while not unappreciated in the collector community, is certainly UNDER appreciated. But that’s just fine. Personally I think it’s one of the most elegant, understatedly beautiful designs ever to come out of a GM design studio, and not being a speed freak, I’d be much happier to have this in my garage than any Mustang or Camaro.
Corsairs are great collectible cars – they’re inexpensive, parts are readily available from Clarks Corvairs and they are reliable and get decent gas mileage. Plus, unlike a tri-five Chevy, there won’t be many (or even any!) others at a car show, especially if you get a truck or wagon (which can be hard to find and expensive). I’ve had a few and intend to get more and they’re reliable, once dialed-in. These second-gen variants handle better than most 1960s-era machines as well. Love me some Corvair! Here’s one of mine – had to show this lovely lady that there’s no engine in the front of this wagon…
If more Corvairs had such an attractive addition under the “hood”, then I think they’d have more of a following.
This is awesome, AutoNut!
It’s also pretty amazing you mention Clark’s. When I was on business travel in Omaha this past October, I went into a store that sold vintage t-shirts and bought a blue (about the same color as your car) t-shirt with Clark’s logo emblazoned on the front, flanked by three Corvairs. It gets regular wear. 🙂
The Chevrolet Corvair was very influential in the development of the Chevrolet Nova and Camaro in terms of its compact size which later on influenced other GM Cousin Affiliates as well as shown on the photo I posted here. Eventually though the Corvair which in the present day was somewhat a “spiritual successor” to today’s Chevrolet Cruze. Just remember this Family Tree arrangement the Chevrolet Corvair then the Vega, Monza, Cavalier, Cobalt and Cruze.
Another view of the Corvair influenced similar Compact Car sizes from other GM Divisions overseas as well.
The second generation Corvair truly did get a perfect job from the stylists. The size, the shape, the new suspension…it was just right for its role as GM’s little sportster, freed from cheap family car duty by the boxy, boring Chevy II.
Too bad about the Mustang. And too bad about Ralph Nader. To this day I consider him a self-serving loudmouth. I was going to say “self-serving loudmouthed a$$****” but that would get this comment censored. Maybe it will be, anyway. Like Consumer Reports, Nader’s main interest has appeared to be grinding his own axe for the purpose of self-aggrandizement.
Ralph Nader didn’t kill the Corvair. GM management had already decided to allow the second-generation version wither on the vine even before his book was published.
The Mustang killed the Corvair, along with the aversion of GM’s finance-driven top management to anything really different (read – more expensive to design and build).
GM had a burst of creativity in the early 1960s with the original Corvair, the “rope drive” Pontiac Tempest, the aluminum V-8 used by Buick and Oldsmobile in their “senior compacts,” and the Buick V-6.
Rather than continued development of those promising efforts that would have addressed their flaws, GM took the cheap and easy route of either discontinuing them (Corvair) or replacing them with less expensive, conventional technology.
This would come back to haunt the corporation when we hit the 1970s and new ways of thinking were required to meet CAFE and Clean Air Act requirements.
Nader did no such thing. That was the standard refrain from upper GM management all through the 60’s. What killed the Corvair was the same GM management that tries to pin the blame on Nader. It was GM that tried to make a car to compete with the VW Bug. So much so that they copied it’s quirky suspension.
Car magazines, of the day, noted that and the great oversteer of the car. While in the hands of a skilled driver it could be fun. Problem is the people buying it weren’t skilled. GM could have corrected the problem. A $15 front sway bar and proper tires would have helped. The cars other flaws didn’t help it either. Getting it right by 1965 was simply too little, too late.
The higher production costs and yes the 1965 Mustang sealed the coffin on the car. Yet, true to form GM management once again tried to lay the blame on anybody else they could except where it truly laid.GM screwed up as they did many more times between 1960-1982. Always taking the wrong lessons from the car buying public or more likely ignoring the car buying public as ignorant as to what they really need. What was good for GM was also good for the public. Not saying GM was alone in the stupid category.
In all fairness, I don’t believe GM top management ever officially pinned the blame on Nader for the Corvair’s demise. If anything, GM’s management wasn’t about to give him that much credit regarding a product decision.
In the wake of the Mustang’s success, GM management simply issued an internal memo saying that nothing more was to be done to the Corvair except the changes required by any federal regulations. (Work had already started on what would become the 1967 Camaro.) It never blamed Nader – the memo was issued before his book was published.
GM’s initial response to the entire episode was to pretend as though the Corvair never existed. For several years in the 1970s, the car wasn’t even mentioned in the company’s official history of Chevrolet!
Nader might not have killed the Corvair, but I’ll bet he thinks he did. He has an extensive display on its travails, at his Museum of Tort Law in Connecticut.
Along with the 1967-69 Plymouth Barracuda in hardtop and convertible form. one of the most distinctive and underrated styles of the 1960s. The designers didn’t follow the long hood, short deck approach of the rival pony cars.
The reason they didn’t is because they were forced to use all of the Valiant’s basic underbody/hardpoints. It’s certainly not because they preferred these proportions. They did the best they could do given the limitations imposed on them.
And a great job they did, too. I’d take a Barracuda over that era’s Camaro or Firebird, based on the styling alone.
Well, a Barracuda fastback or convertible, anyway. The coupe, not so much, which is ironic, considering the ’67-’69 Barracuda coupe is clearly a copy of the much better looking 2nd gen Corvair coupe.
As to the A-body Barracuda not getting the Mustang’s long hood/short deck styling, wasn’t the Mustang just a rebodied Falcon? How was Ford able to achieve such a radical styling change between the two cars when, underneath, they were essentially the same car, yet Chrysler could not do the same thing with the second generation Valiant/Barracuda?
I suspect they could have if they wanted to, and that the answer lies in Chrysler management simply choosing the wrong sporty car to copy.
I would imagine it was determined by how much each respective pony car was allowed to deviate from its donor platform.
For example, this Barracuda still shares its windshield and supporting structure with the Valiant. I’m not sure that the Mustang shared its windshield and A pillars with the Falcon. The Mustang windshield looks as though it’s more steeply raked.
The Mustang had a completely new body structure, from its own unique floor pan up. Not one piece of its underbody structure is the same, never mind the exterior. Yes, it used the Falcon’s suspension, so it’s possibly that the front spring/shock towers and a few pieces of steel in that area were the same. But the rest is all new. The whole body has vastly different proportions; the cowl was lower and set further back.
Ford used its experience from the Falcon to create a new body structure for the Mustang. Chevy created a whole new car from scratch for the ’67 Camaro, but much of its “platform” (suspension, cowl, and some other underbody pieces, likely much of the floorpan) with the ’68 Chevy II/Nova.
The Barracuda is a Valiant, with new exterior sheet metal draped over the same inner body structure, including the cowl, doors, etc. Quite different, and it explains its proportions.
The 1971 E-Body Barracuda (and Challenger) shared much of their whole bodies with the new mid-sized coupes (Satellite/Charger). Chrysler could never afford to give their pony cars a unique body.
I don’t know about Chrysler not having the funds to do the A-body Barracuda with the proper long nose/short deck proportions. Cash-strapped AMC managed to get it right with the Javelin, didn’t they? I’m sticking with the theory that, just like in 1962, Chrysler executives managed to misread where GM was going in the sporty/ponycar market, thinking the Corvair was going to be their long-term Mustang fighter, so that’s what they copied for the second generation Barracuda.
I mean, Chrysler then would later follow suit by copying the ’67-’69 f-body Camaro/Firebird for their 1970 E-body Barracuda/Challenger. It’s like Chrysler inexplicably disregarded the styling of the market leading Mustang (something even GM didn’t do) for any of their ponycars after the original ’64 Barracuda bombed.
See, I’ve always much preferred the ’67–69 hardtop. The fastback has the usual fastback problem — looks sleek from some angles, like a half-inflated dirigible from others — and I love the hardtop roofline, which I’ve always thought looked a great deal like that of the second-generation Corvair two-door.
The Falcon platform has always been a bit of a misnomer if you’re trying to imagine it like a Chrysler A Body or a GM B body that effectively have identical structures under the external sheetmetal. The reality is just about all of the Falcon platform based models share absolutely no structural steel with the Falcon – not the Mustang, not the Fairlane/Torino(until 1966 when the Falcon was moved to a shortened version of it), not the Maverick and not the Granada. What is shared are design elements for suspension points and a few related bolt-on components. A more accurate description for it would be the Falcon Template.
Regarding the Barracuda coupe vs fastback debate I think both have their good and bad angles. The Fastback looked much better than it did in the fishbowl years IMO and compared to the Marlin or original Charger fastbacks it was far better, albeit not nearly as good as the Mustang or second gen F bodies(who seem to mimic the Cuda’s rear glass shape incidentally). The problem with the hardtop coupe however is the same as the fuselage C body coupes, the roof looks tiny on the body and the trunk is HUGE
rudiger, don’t be stubborn. The facts are all too obvious. I’m not going to spend anymore time arguing about what is well documented and self -evident.
And you think that AMC could afford to give the Javelin had a unique “body”? You haven’t noticed how similar it is to the Hornet that it shares quite a bit with under the skin? Take a second look.
Great article and very nice photos. My grandmother’s neighbor had a second-generation, maroon hardtop coupe for many years. I still remember its distinctive engine note when he started it, or drove by on the street. He had that car well into the late 1970s (along with a white, 1965 Chevrolet Impala station wagon).
These were very handsome cars. It is interesting that this generation, unlike the first Corvairs, really didn’t have much of an impact overseas from a design standpoint.
Thanks, Geeber. I did actually think about tying in this car’s unique engine note with my choice of studying the piano with some success, but I thought that might be one metaphorical stretch too far. 🙂 And I also wonder why the second generation had less of a global impact in terms of its design.
Terrific essay. It’s something I have certainly experienced in my life, a deep association with a particular car, especially my first one, a ’63 Monza.
But unlike you, it’s been a few key cars, as my life has had some very significant changes/phases. If I had to chose just one car whose personality and biography resonated so strongly, it would be a real challenge. Something to ponder, and a good QOTD.
Thanks so much, Paul. I did actually consider this as a topic of a QOTD, and I hope someone runs with it.
…And now I’m actually thinking about what my answers would be in terms of other cars I identify with.
I think you hit the nail on the head here, some cars I simply find instantly beautiful or technically interesting from the moment I see them, but there are cars that through hindsight I can somehow relate to just as you describe, and appreciate despite their faults, because really I see them as a reflection of my own. This is what keeps me coming here 🙂
The Ford Probe analogy is perfect when describing the gen II Corvair, or vice versa. If there was ever a car I found instantly attractive these were it, the first gen may have ultimately been more influential in Europe but the Gen II far looked more European to my American eyes than the first gen did. The 1967 Camaro on the other hand was as generic of a ponycar as the Chevy II was a compact car, but it had big V8s and hip proportions, just as the SN95 did. Funnily enough though my preferences dictate me choosing that in the Mustang and Camaro over both of them, Chevy and Ford effectively pitted those cars against each other – one could relate to that sibling rivalry perhaps, eh?
Thanks, everyone, for reading this, the kind words, and for the insights. I agree with the general consensus that these cars are underappreciated – but that probably just makes the prospect of ownership that much easier. Happy Friday-Eve.
I just switched mine out to the storage barn yesterday. This winter, I finally have to do something about the clutch chatter after talking about it for 5 years. I’m guessing the hot spots didn’t all get machined out the last time I did it, or…who knows?
I’ll probably also get the cylinders bored and throw new pistons and rings in, because the plugs are a little oily (I already had the heads done back in ’08).
This is a beautiful car ~ the color matches the lines so well .
I’ve always been a fan of the Gen. 1’s but this looks sharp all these years later .
Good writing too .
-Nate
Jeff Lilly is a custom coach builder or something and he restored a gorgeous 2nd gen Monza ‘vert. It’s more of a restomod, but it is so beautiful. I read online that it cost almost 50K. He basically stripped it down to the metal and created a new car. It’s such a beautiful car to begin with. The 2nd gen Corvairs are some of the most beautiful American cars ever built. Glad to see that they are getting their props on the classic car circuit.
I had three Corvairs, with increasingly bad results. My first car was a 64 Monza convertibleI bought from the local Chevy dealer in 1972 for $250. I drove it for about six months but when I went off to college my mother sold it for $300. One of the few times I ever came out ahead.
The second was a 67 Corvair 500 four-door. I paid $50 for it as it had a busted bellhousing. I got one from a junkyard and got it running but eventually blew the engine. I had to pay $5 to the scrapyard guys to ahul it away.
Third was a 66 Monza four-door in a beautiful shade of dark red. I inherited it from my sister when she bought a new Pinto. I drove that for a summer until on the last night of my summer job I over-indulged and drove into a bridge abutment. The non-telescoping steering column did a number on my mouth and I have had fake teeth for over 40 years now.
Did I learn my lesson? Of course not. When my soon-to-be wife graduated from college I found her a 65 Monza coupe. She drove that until one day a bee flew into the car. While she was swatting at it she hit a pickup head on, spun around and somehow managed to wipe out a second pickup. The car and both trucks were demolished but no one was hurt.
We haven’t had another Corvair since then but I can still spot one from a quarter mile away.
What a great write-up! Several things came to my mind after reading it:
1. In the early 60’s, my dad had a light blue Gen 1 Corvair coupe, with a stick, I think. He kept it for 6 weeks. He might have gone back to a VW Beetle, I’m not sure. MY memory of the car is climbing into the back seat like i did in our VWs, and being surprised the seat was so low.
2. In the late 70’s, I had my one-and-only driving experience in a Gen 2 Corvair 4-door. I was into performance cars at the time, but that Corvair was one of the nicest-driving cars I’ve ever driven.
3. I LOVE the color of the convertible! I seriously considered painting my ’56 Chevy the same color. One of the best yellows EVER on a car.
My Corvair at the 2012 Corvair Society of America Convention, Sturbridge, Massachusetts.
In my recent comment on Paul’s wintry Corvair tale, I mentioned that my life was mostly Corvair-free. But in early 1974, when I was considering buying my first car, I noticed a silver ’65 or ’66 convertible, turbo, 4 speed, parked curbside in my neighborhood with a For Sale sign. Clean, straight, no holes in the top, and at least according to the sign, “Runs good”. But the asking price was a steep $500, way out of my budget, and I ended up with a $175 175cc Bultaco motorcycle instead.
Although I grew up in the heyday of the Corvair, they weren’t at all popular in my area, and I saw very few of them. I never knew of anyone who owned one, and have actually never ridden in one. Did they have a distinctive sound to them like the whir of a VW? Since we lived in snow country I would have thought them an obvious choice, but although we saw quite a mix of experimentation with oddball foreign makes, no one experimented with Corvairs.
I’ve always thought the 2nd gen cars beautiful, and I’d seriously consider a Yenko if one came my way; an appetite that was rewhetted when I saw one at the Vintage Races at COTA a few months ago.
Yes;
Being a boxer 6 cylinder they had an exhaust note similar to an early bone stock Porsche 911 .
.
Fiddling with turbo mufflers and / or balanced headers could make them sound very sweet and authorative without being loud/raspy/nasty .
.
-Nate
My friend Ralph regularly put his Dad’s 66 Corsa coupe through the paces with me as co-pilot. Features such a 4 speed, 4 carbs, and a tachometer were heady stuff at that time. The Corvair looked beautiful and even went around corners. Thank you for reminding me of good times with a great friend.
The irony of the Mustang being the chief culprit in the demise of the Corvair (with a little help from Ralph Nader) was that it was the popularity of the original Corvair Monza 2-door and convertible that likely inspired Ford to create their game-changing ponycar in the first place.
Then there was the irony of the advent of the other paragon of the sixties, the GTO. It could be said that GM (specifically, John Delorean) truly put the final nail in the Corvair’s coffin. Once the GTO hit the scene, beginning the bigger V8 in a smaller car horsepower race in earnest, well, the Corvair simply didn’t have a chance.
GM had really gotten it right with the 1965 refresh. It was a beautiful car, in either hardtop or convertible versions. But it was simply the wrong time and is another example of how true the old auto industry axiom that timing is everything. It’s actually hard to envision a scenario where the Corvair ever could have made it, simply because it begat the Mustang. I guess the only chance the Corvair might have had was if Ford had tried to copy the Corvair more closely and used the same rear-engine layout (which they actually toyed with at first with the Mustang I showcar).
In fact, the Corvair is one of those rare GM models that might be both a Greatest Hit and a Deadly Sin. After the Corvair, suddenly, GM was chasing Ford instead of the other way ’round. GM followed the much more popular (but completely conventional) Falcon with their version (Chevy II), then followed the Mustang with the Camaro.
Ugh – Corvairs. I’m not old enough to have a bad view of the Edsel, but I am old enough to have a bad view of the car Ralph Nadar and mass media turned into a car that was “Unsafe At Any Speed”. Thanks television, you lied and we believed you.
I have read all the glowing positive comments from Paul, and it has helped enlighten me. Today, thanks to him, I can look at a Corvair like I can a Exploding Pinto, an Unintended Accelerating Audi, or a Ranger-based Ford Exploder. I can now see the Corvair as an incredible and unique vehicle. Like a BMW Isetta. But still.
Well V.D. ;
As a Corvair owner and enthusiast I can tell you the whole bad handling thing is 100 % true .
In you’re an enthusiast no problem but to hand an early one to the average American driver is folly .
-Nate
My grandma had a Monza Spyder Convertible. It was her last car, and she was already a bit old for it when she got it, so her driving was limited largely to driving us kids to the post office/general store for ice cream. Not much use for the turbo under those circumstances (which may be one of the reasons the car met an early demise) I used to adore the spider logos on that car. And the white upholstery. That seemed the height of luxury to me…to have something as impractical as a WHITE interior.
That’s the one car that I really wish I had been able to rescue from the “woods full of derelict cars” that was her property in (then) rural MD. But by the time I became old enough to actually be able to think about a task like that (i.e., as a high school student), the convertible top had long given away, the car had filled with debris and was sinking into the Earth…just like all of the other cars there.
Thinking about buying a “Curbside Classic” as a driver? Corvair will probably be high on your list. Lots going for it. Had a ’62 Monza Coupe with a 4 speed back in the day. Cheap to obtain, good a a driver, easy to work on. Sporty, not fuelish. Even today, I’d consider something like a Corvair to any late model car. Being retired and not having to drive to work is part of the thinking. From a practical view though, it seems to me that something like the Monza that I had then would wipe the floor with most of what’s available today at a reasonable cost. Lots more fun and chic bait too. About Corvair not being a success? 1.8 million built. True it was a dead end. Safety concerns? Watch the tire pressure and wear your seat belt.
I’m with you both .
I paid .10 CENTS per pound for my one owner original paint base model 1961 Corvair two door, it was a GREAT CAR and ran the twisties like nothing, had more power than most of the old beater imports I’ve had .
My large complaint was : it couldn’t run on California’s Foo-Foo “Motor Fuel” slop that’s decidedly _NOT_ Gasoline ~ I tried to finesse the ignition timing but it either pinged or ran too hot .
At the time I couldn’t afford premium fuel in my daily drivers, I had to sell on more than a few otherwise nice vehicles at that time for the same reason .
I wish I’da bought the $150 Lakewood station Wagon I was offered in 1972….
-Nate
BTW : speaking of old disused daily driver’s, you should have been in New England in the 1960’s ~ beautiful 1930’s and 1940’s coupes and convertibles along with not a few light duty pickups were left where they lay after refusing to start on a freezing January morning, they were always rusted beyond any saving, nearly made me cry many times over .
-Nate
Yes, very different from today. Was able to get cars for free back then, good parts cars or even good enough to drive safely on the highway with some work. Was usually working many hours and had limited storage or else I would have had many more. More than one guy in my neighborhood had a side business doing this back then.
CC effect still 5×5 Id never seen a Monza untill a few weeks ago when I stopped at a red light next to one it had the top up but a real nice looking car.It was an immaculate cream colour