(first posted 6/4/2014) Chevrolet made a few mistakes with the Corvair, but the biggest was in not seeing its full potential as a sporty coupe right from the beginning. Americans weren’t interested in a stripped Corvair coupe with a cheap and drab gray interior. The 1960.5 Monza version of the coupe was rushed into production as a direct response to auto show attendees who saw a prototype, and went a long way to rectify that, but why Chevy didn’t offer a proper hardtop coupe, analog to its Impala/Bel Air coupes, has always been a mystery to me, even back in its day, and it’s one that I’ve long wanted to rectify. Having found a suitable body-builder (CC reader Dan Moran), we’ve teamed up and finally built what Chevy failed to do: a gen1 Monza hardtop coupe. And it’s not the only version we built; just the most beautiful.
You’re probably all familiar with the actual Corvair coupe, whose origin, design wise, was a bit of a mystery to me when I was a kid. Cute, but not really beautiful; a bit too short, in the roof line, making it look a bit like it’s bi-directional. So before we fix it, let’s try to unravel how it came to be.
The 1959 GM cars all shared the same body, and the distinctive “bubble” two-door hardtop coupe roof.
The 1961 GM full size cars had all-new body styling, but the bubble roof was in essence carried over, but with some modifications.
And there subtle variations of it, such as Cadillac’s decidedly squared-off version. But design change was in the air, and shockingly enough, the influence was coming from Dearborn, not GM’s vaunted Design Center.
The 1956 Continental MkII had a formal roof that evoked the closed roof of the classic 1939 Continental Cabriolet. Strictly speaking, the 1955 Thunderbird had it a year earlier, but that’s because the T-Bird stylists stole it from the MKII, and it went into production sooner.
Ford’s formal coupe roof was a huge hit, and Ford used it with little change for ages, including on the ’65 Mustang and the ’68 Mark III. A very prescient roof that predicted the formality of the coming Great Brougham Epoch. And it could not be ignored by GM any longer. And although it may not look like it, the 1960.5 Corvair coupe’s roof was the first acknowledgment of that.
That may not have been evident when it came out in January of 1960, but when the other Y-Body compacts (1961 Pontiac Tempest, Olds F-85, Buick Special) appeared in the fall of 1960, it was more evident. The Corvair shared much of its central basic body structure with these front-engined compacts, and it’s quite obvious that the Corvair coupe was the result of the new, more formal roof of the ’61 Y-Body two-door sedans/coupes. It’s just that Chevrolet used those same doors and basic rear window in a different way, without the large C Pillar. The result was a transitional roof; with elements of the coming formal coupes as well as aspects of the ’61 bubble roof.
Unlike the Monza, the B-O-P compacts also came in hardtop form, although not until mid-year 1961. The Skylark (shown), LeMans and Cutlass took the new coupe styling in a new direction, looking like a closed convertible, and were a preview of the full-sized hardtops that would be seen on GM’s B-Bodies across the line in 1962, and used through 1964.
It would obviously have been very easy for Chevrolet to put a similar formal hardtop on its Corvair, as Dan has done here at my suggestion. The Corvair convertible came out in 1962, so that the requisite frame-less doors and glass had been tooled up. It’s appealing, in a certain way, but just not quite right, in my eyes.
No, the 1961 bubble roof, also carried over on the 1962 Bel Air, would have been the obvious choice for a Monza hardtop.
Which is what Dan used in crafting these. This black one is Dan’s first version, a bit cruder in some details, but gives an alternative color to ponder. The Corvair has a long tail, and extending the roof line to end at the more natural (and typical) point that is closer to the rear wheel center line makes a quite substantial difference.
It’s also more like what Pininfarina had in mind, with his 1963 Corvair Monza hardtop coupe.
In 1965, GM led the formal-roof counter-revolution, with its semi-fastbacks, although now with wide C-Pillars. Everyone soon jumped on that bandwagon too, including Ford. But the formal coupe roof soon came back, with a vengeance, to crown so many vinyl-topped roofs of the Brougham Epoch.
What’s really surprising about the new 1965 Corvair is that it essentially used the then-obsolete bubble hardtop roof. It proved there was life in it yet, especially when it was a harmonious part of such a successful design. Ironically, the 1965 Corvair roof is an echo of 1961, when it used the rear window line of the new formal coupe roof, minus the wide C Pillar; but now it was swept back, and a genuine hardtop.
Well, I’m smitten. I’ve always admired the gen2 Corvair hardtop, and despite its better rear suspension, I’m a gen1 one lover, undoubtedly due to my early experiences in one, as well as because of how unique it was in the early 60s. Now I just need to find a beater convertible and a junk-yard bubble roof, and find me someone who can build me this in steel and glass, not pixels. How hard can it be? Anyone want to bid on the job? I seriously want to own the only 1961-1964 Monza hardtop coupe.
Thanks, Dan, for realizing my dream, if only digitally for now.
Related reading: 1963 Corvair Monza Coupe CC 1966 Corvair Monza Coupe CC
Five or ten years ago, the late Rod & Custom Magazine had a contest where you described your dream build and the winner got a Thom Taylor rendering. Mine was exactly this – a ’60-’63 Corvair with a Bel Air-style bubbletop (it also involved a G-body Monte Carlo chassis and an aluminum-headed 409 up front, but I digress…). Sadly, nobody there thought it was as cool as I did and my dream disappeared into a black hole. If only I had the skill to make that a reality – preferably squatting over wide whitewalls wrapped around chrome-reverse wheels: a 1961 Camaro SS 409.
The 1961, 62, 63 Pontiac Tempest also suffered the 2 door post only problem with customer provided relief thru use of door and quarter window parts borrowed from the Buick and Olds models.
A beautiful concept, extremely attractive. It is amazing how quickly that bubbletop style of hardtop with its thin C pillars disappeared. It was everywhere in 1961, at GM, Chrysler and even Ford Division.
However, it seems that GM stylists were completely done with the concept by 1959 or 60 or so. Just think, the style was prominently featured in all of the B body 2 door hardtops in 1961 (that were probably styled in 1958) but then the style utterly disappeared at GM for 1962. The only holdover was the cheaper Bel Air, probably to help amortize the tooling.
It would not surprise me that the 1961 B body bubbletop was a concept begun under Harley Earl, or at least during the transition period from Earl to Mitchell. Bill Mitchell was able to control details of the 60 models but was probably to late to do anything about the basic shapes until the 61 Y bodies and the 62 B bodies.
Wasn’t there a Ford or Chevy bubble-type top that was a just bolt-on to the convertible? Racers liked it because it was so lightweight and aerodynamic. IIRC it was outlawed then the bubbletop decline happened. That’s obviously not the whole story, but I remember it from somewhere.
That’s the Ford “Starlift” that was designed to regain the aerodynamic advantage that was lost in the shift to the “box top” in ’62. NASCAR banned it after one race, I believe.
I was thinking of the 1960-61 Ford Starliner hardtop.
While the Fleetwood Sixty Special was a 4 door hardtop, it did have a bubbletop style too, looking much like the 2 door hardtops for the 1959 and 1960 model years. The 61 model year got a formal C-pillar.
All of Cadillac six window 4 door hardtops had the bubbletop style for 59-60 model years.
I’ve always liked the 1961-64 Corvair. Its handling may have been different from the later generation Corvair, but so what? It’s too bad Chevy was going to discontinue the Corvair when they did.
The Gen I Corvair was a seminal design and extremely influential on an international basis. It was damned near perfect as it was. The Gen II Corvair incorporated the pillar less concept with one of the most beautiful cars ever produced. Take your pick but don’t mix and match.
The gen1 Corvair that influenced Europe was almost exclusively the sedan. I can assure that if Chevy had built a bubble-top Corvair, it would have enhanced its influence even further, as the coupe was a bit compromised.
Feeling a bit curmudgeonly today? 🙂
Of all the sad words of tongue or pen……….
I wouldn’t think the owner of a Tennessee Chevrolet would be allowed to make a styling comment. One of the ugliest forms of transportation ever developed by GM.
Fantastic. A totally natural fit, and perfectly rendered. Great work Dan, your off-the-cuff concepts have been fun, but the extra attention to detail here is definitely worth it. More of this please.
+1. More Dan!
Ok, I’ll be that guy that you hang (in effigy, I hope). I left the states at the start of 62 and didn’t return till 65. Early 66 I left again. When it came to new US cars I was left pretty much in the dark.
VW’s were cheap and available so I bought one (Canada) in 66. I knew I would have preferred a corvair. When gen 2 VWs hit there was no contest IMO between the corvair and the fastback/notchback etc. IMO the corvair had capacity available while retaining reliability that the vw did not. Hot rodders pulled studs and burned valves making vws go. The general did it by bolting on a turbo. Corvair wins again. I think the only advantage VW had was off road with the baja bugs and dune buggies.
Never wanted a hardtop. I don’t know when hardtops became functional but it could have been during that time frame. Every time I bought a car it had a pillar and that was a selling point. The hardtops leaked water and/or dust. They were noisy with air leaks and in the winter that air leak was cold. I may set here and wonder what the experience would have been if I had bought a corvair instead of a vw (more expensive for sure), but I never, ever, wish I had a hardtop. Even my hardtop disliking self has to admire the picture you pain Paul. It sure looks good. Just not enough to buy one.
Hardtops were very stylish, but there is a downside. Even the later cars, including the Aurora, with B-pillars, are prone to wind noise.
Agree. Any frameless window tends to be loud. Every morning after my son gets out of my Outback to go to school, I have to open and close the window so it seals (almost) right and quiets down.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. After 17 years with a Mitsubishi Diamante, frameless windows don’t have to be loud. Ours never were. Subaru owners might have something to add too.
It works for sure. Now if only GM got the suspension right from the start and had a more powerful engine for a pre-Mustang sports coupe, who knows how things might have developed for the Corvair…
Mr. Turtell,
In the late ’60s at the Soldier Field parking lot gymkhana in Chicago, 110 horse Corvairs ate Mustangs for breakfast, lunch and dinner. My ’64 Monza 110 with Eelco quick steering arms and twin glass packs (JC Whitney) was almost as much fun as my girlfriends at the time.
Oh, I do not doubt that in the right hands a Corvair could embarass a standard Mustang. However, imagine if it had the second series’ suspension and the 180 hp which I believe the Spider Monza ultimately possessed. This and none of the bad rap which it got due to the cost cutting…
Now, how about the flight-deck roof from a ’60-’64 4 door grafted onto a 2 door? On second thought…
While I like both cars, I prefer the second generation and I like it even more in 4 door hardtop version. The larger “C” pillars on the hardtop sedan is what I like about it. And not many compact cars were available in this body style. When it was introduced, even the GM intermediates weren’t available as 4 door hardtops.
I also like the interior/dashboard of the second generation.
I’ve always preferred the second generation Corvairs, but a bubble top in the metal would have made a Gen I fan out of me. Nice job.
It may have been considered too difficult,expensive,or prone to structural and weathersealing issues to be produced. But that top rendering looks great. Big improvement. The 65 up body may have been upgraded in design to allow a hardtop.
Believe it or not, most Corvair enthusiasts will tell you that the early models (’60 to ’64) have a more solid body structure than the late models (’65 to ’69).
An early model hardtop coupe could have used whatever structural reinforcement to the B pillar, etc. that went into the convertible. Although production convertibles did not appear till model year 1962, a concept was built and shown in 1960.
It is very attractive. I don’t know my Corvairs well enough – you could have convinced me it was a late intro 1st gen.
The butchers at WCC can build you one.
But it’s going to have 22″ wheels.
Love those ’61 GM B-body bubbletops! Those curved A-pillars are neat also; surely we can have these today even with crashworthiness requirements. My aunt had a ’61 Olds Dynamic 88 in this body style — talk about panoramic visibility! But the side windows did fail to stay all the way up in later years — lots of rattles and wind noise.
I’ve always prefered the ’65 on Corvairs, but now I’m growing more & more fond of the ’60- ’64s.
The bubble top clinches it. Fine job.
Another pleasing & thought provoking post, Paul.
GM designed the Corvair to compete with the VW bug. To say that “Americans weren’t interested in a stripped Corvair coupe with a cheap and drab gray interior” is to benefit from hindsight, which is always 20/20.
Meanwhile GM quickly figured out that “Americans weren’t interested in a stripped Corvair coupe with a cheap and drab gray interior” and responded accordingly, most notably with the Monza in 1962, which by the way, was Lee Iaccoca’s inspiration for the Mustang. Don’t believe me about that, then I suggest you read Lee Iaccoca’s autobiography where is spells it all out, about how the Corvair Monza was his inspiration for the Mustang.
Check out this photo, where the Board of Directors were being asked to approve the new Mustang, and what’s in the background.
A bubble-top first-generation Corvair would have been neat. But time marches on. How about a Corvair for the ’70s, with opera windows, 5 mph bumpers, and a stand-up spring-loaded hood ornament? Ah, what could have been! As Dave Barry once wrote, “The 1970s – the decade that taste forgot!”
LMAO, but it does look nice. A `Vair for the brougham-malaise era!
This type of conversion, removing the door pillars to make an early model Corvair hardtop, has already been done, and it turned out beautifully.
I’ve always liked the first gen Corvair, but I also like the second gen suspension. Had Chevrolet kept the same line-up while improving the rear wheel suspension, I reckon the Corvair would’ve been less maligned and more respected.
Here’s my take on what GM could have done w/ the 2nd Gen (aka ’65-69 late model) Corvair. It’s a ’65 Corsa 180 Turbo w/ a ’66 4spd transaxle, upgraded suspension (shocks, sway bars, bushings, Crown rear control arms, GM hd Sport Springs, Kevlar brakes w/ finned GM drums, 4 spider gears Positraction diff, quick steering box short steering arms, and real (polished) 14″ Minilite wheels & radials) etc. Had a leather interior w/ mid ’80s Mustang bucket seats, a console, and powder coated interior bits, & better sound deadening. I built it about 25 years ago, and since then, the current owner has done some serious engine mods (intercooler, crank-triggered ignition, electronic F/I on a larger turbo w/ boost controls, and so on). The body mods & paint still look just as good now as they did 25 years ago.
Another view. . .
Lovely work. These were the best looking. That could be a more modern car’s side profile.
And, the front view –
Hahahaha….I love the licence plate, “FUNADER”. I know around here, you can’t have a vanity licence plate that is vulgar (and you have to provide an explanation for what the plate means), so whoever got this plate must have created an alternate story, “FUNADER” was their nickname in highschool or something.
have 5 corvairs 50 years and to this day,the redesigned red coupe roof looks amazing and always what the corvair needed to have happen…just excellent!
I’ve always loved the 1961 GM B and C body bubble tops.
I think the pillarless Corvair bubble top render looks awesome and would have been a big hit for the first generation. I sort of prefer the second generation overall, but the first generation Corvair was really something. It was so futuristic when it first launched in 1959; there was nothing else like it. Jay Leno calls Corvair the American Porsche.
Ford had nothing like it, neither did Chrysler. Falcon and Valiant were handling dogs. Give me the Corvair.
I’m not so sure that I would agree with the idea that in 1965 GM led the revolution away from the formal roofline.
For starters, Ford itself had started to switch from the T-bird inspired 2 door roofline to a semi-fastback with the full-sized Ford and the Falcon in 1963 1/2.
And then in 1966 Chevy adopted a very formal roofline for the new 2 door Caprice.
(I have a feeling that I made this argument here, before, and it was ignored.)
Those are some cool ideas, Paul. I agree on it not being seen through to its proper sportiness, and there was something holding it back from being the popular car that the Mustang was. I’ve often wondered what would have happened, had they had a V8 option (even if it was just a small block, something under 300 cid), and had the foresight to hone the Monza’s trajectory to essentially be what transpired into the Camaro. As it is, I consider the Corvair a great missing link between the Euro sports cars and American muscle cars……it was neither, but proved to be a critical link, if only for its flaws and allowing the industry to realize what worked and what didn’t. The little kid in me has always appreciated the value of all cars.
For completeness’ sake, what about a two-door sedan with the four-door’s roofline and full back seat?
That is probably the most likely thing GM would have done. Two-door post flattop coupes (full size) were offered by Buick and Pontiac in 1961-62.
Looks like a Panhard 24B
Alternative explanation: the Corvair 2 Door Sedan/Business Coupe. The poverty spec interior trimmings of the 1960 Corvair indicate that GM was only looking at their new small car as an economy vehicle. If so, it would have been less of a stretch to build a two door post version, as had been historical practice with the sedan and business coupe, than to spend the extra money to design and build a two door hardtop, pretty as that might have been. Especially if this potentially involved the cost of strengthening the chassis to make up for the loss of reinforcement from the door posts. The sporting potential of the Corvair may have been evident to Mr. Cole, but it evidently was not to the rest of GM, at least until the Monza show car showed them its appeal.
This only occurred to me after I was introduced to the concept of the business coupe here at CC, and then inducted into the cult when I learned that my Dad’s first car after returning from the war was a 1940 Chrysler Business Coupe, with a bustle on the rear end that extended halfway to Nebraska and a wooden back seat bench that he had built in order to carry more friends along to the Friday night dance. The attached pic, by way of illustration, is of a Chrysler business coupe from that year. Looking at Old Car Brochures, it appears that you could get them as either a two door sedan, with a rear seat, or a business coupe, with only the front seat. In 1941 you could get a Chrysler Royal Business Coupe with an even shorter roofline and an even longer bustle. I wonder how many people were spirited into the drive-in in the trunk of that car.
I’m not arguing that the 2 door Corvair was supposed to serve as a business coupe, rather, that in coming up with an alternate style for the 2 door it was more natural for the GM stylists to look back to the design of the two door sedan/business coupe, with its economical associations, than to incorporate the more recent “Bel-Air” style of hardtop into the design. The hardtop style was less than a decade old at this time, and more associated with luxury and/or sportiness, and that lengthened rear end, which looks so ungainly to us, would have been less unusual to their eye.
Yes, absolutely. This is indicated by Chevy’s revival of the term “Club Coupe” in its earliest literature for the Monza Coupe, as seen in the illustration posted below by Iowahawk. In the early 50’s, a Club Coupe was a business coupe body with a back seat.
The Monza coupe with the back seat folded down functions like a business coupe. It can swallow an amazing amount of stuff.
Here is a page from the revised 1960 Corvair brochure, borrowed from the wonderful Old Car Brochures website. Note how the text emphasizes its low price and spaciousness, rather than a sense of style or sport (I love how the artists could get away with altering the actual appearance of the interior to make the back seat look roomier). Even the equivalent page from the 1961 brochure emphasized the fact that the Club Coupe was the lowest priced Corvair. I think that the roofline of the 2 door Corvair was designed to create an inexpensive 2 door sedan for penny pinchers, rather than a cool car for the cool cats. And then GM waited until the ’65 redesign to rectify this mistake. What do you think?
Good points, Iowahawk. Like Paul points out, when the Beetle was imported to the US, it had lots of trim and additions, so my assumption of what GM was trying to do is create a low trim, cheaper car that wouldn’t compete with something like the Corvette or the higher trim Bel Airs. Also, as Paul points out, the sales of the Corvair didn’t steal from their full size cars or even their midsize ones……it created a whole new demographic of buyers and a whole new piece of the monetary pie.
My take on this is that as a decontented car right from the get go, there were not the options for it (ie: no V8), because perhaps they wanted you to graduate to more pricier cars, and move up the scale and then maybe eventually to Buick, Olds and Pontiac. The divisions were suffering from some “me too”; certainly by the time that Pontiac wanted to release the two seat Banshee, corporate execs axed it, feeling that it would steal sales away from the Corvette. And I give GM credit for creating something unique that wasn’t a badge engineered rip off of what they already had in their lineup, and trying to keep it that way.
It wasn’t just the Mustang that killed the Corvair, it was likely also the Corvair needing to fulfill a niche in GM’s lineup. On one hand, its sales were not stealing from other cars in the lineup, which is good in some respects, but I’m wondering if that niche also gave the buyer no real other options to pursue in that field, because you could opt for the Monza as your second Corvair purchase, but where do you go from there? It’s almost as if you have to either go to a different brand like BMW, Volvo or Mercedes for that European flavor (defeating the purpose of enticing people away from the imports), or you have to go to a bigger front engined, RWD car. The turbocharged version was cool and way ahead of its time, but turbocharging may as well have been from the aliens or something at that time. Ford realized early on, to upsell people options on the Mustang, and through the years, there was not only a fastback, but the GT, Shelby, Grande, Boss 302, Mach 1, etc, all of which had a different flavour.
I’ve felt for a while that the Mustang did steal sales away from the Thunderbird, and obviously, it stole from the Falcon. The Thunderbird had trouble finding its sporty roots after Ford essentially made it a junior Lincoln in ’68. But by then, the industry was headed into brougham territory and luxury and personal luxury cars anyways. The Camaro is really what the Corvair should have been……you can get the base six, or if that’s not doing it for you, the Z28 or Super Sport; as mild or wild as you want it. The weird thing is that Chevy appeared to realize with the Chevy II with the Super Sport, it had gave life and more prestige to a base model, cheap car. In hindsight, I find it really odd that GM didn’t give the Corvair a Super Sport model, as well……they gave it to many of their other cars. The SS badge had gave things an instant credibility.
Another idea – a Mustang 2-door notchback sedan with the same roof length and rear window as the hardtop but longer quarter windows and Italianate thin C-pillars.
I think there would have been body stiffness issues with a two door hardtop with the very slim C pillar. And, stiffening the frame as was done for the convertible would have increased weight and thus cost.
I would think traction in snow with a Corvair would be decent, like VWs of the era,
The `62 to `64 `Vairs would look absolutely killer with that ‘bubble back’ roof. Another GM missed opportunity.
Paul’s is an interesting approach. Not sure if a hardtop would have generated a lot of traction in the marketplace given that the Corvair was different from other cars. It was more like a hybrid between an American car and the VW Beetle. And the Beetle had a spirited cousin called the Porsche 356, which was a 2-seater. So maybe a 2-door, 2-seat coupe based loosely on the Corvair was an opportunity for the Corvair program. Something with fairly strong pricing potential. But the Corvette would have been a conflict unless Chevy carefully marketed the rear-engined car as somewhat affordable and frugal, but still fun. A lot of new sheet metal would have been needed compared to the Corvair coupe, but the volume might have justified it. Hard to say.