(first posted 6/3/2014) The Corvair story is an almost endless book; it’s way too long to completely encompass in one chapter. I’ve been writing it since I got behind the wheel of my first car, a 1963 Monza four-speed. Many of the chapters have been put to word here at CC, and I’ll give links to them as we go along and at the bottom. But I’ve never encountered a genuine Curbside Classic™ Monza Coupe, which is really the most important chapter of them all. The Monza coupe was an accident, and a very happy one, as it saved the Corvair’s bacon, turning it from an unconventional but dowdy economy car into the inspiration for the whole sporty car boom of the sixties. And I’ve been ruminating about its roof line for a long time…
The Corvair arrived in the fall of 1959 only as a four door sedan, in two model lines. The 500 model was an ultra-stripper, devoid of almost any bright work, and with a very dreary gray interior (no other colors available). Not likely to be bought by the stylish guy in the rendering.
The Corvair 700 added some chrome, and a slightly better interior, which was still down in Biscayne territory. Why? The Corvair was of course a response to the very successful VW Beetle, as well as the #2 selling import, the Renault Dauphine, another rear-engined (and four door) economy car. The 1958 recession undoubtedly tempered any notions of the Corvair being anything other than a true economy car, and Chevrolet struggled to keep its price competitive. Those measures included leaving off a front stabilizer bar and a rear camber-compensating spring, the absence of both were implicated in the Corvair’s tricky handling at the limit and resultant accidents, which soon stained its image (CC History here).
But Chevrolet got it mostly all wrong, as the Beetle and the other imports came only as high-trim versions. The Beetle was cheap in price, but it was not a stripper. And many VW buyers could well afford more, but were making a statement against the excesses of Detroit. The Corvair and the other 1960 from Ford and Chrysler rather missed that important point.
The Corvair’s design was very fresh and contemporary, although its “flying roof” had been seen on 1959 GM four door hardtops. But it was the Europeans that went ga-ga over it: unlike the giant full-size American cars that may have had some advanced design themes but were on a totally different scale, and way too over-ornamented, the 1960 Corvair was to their scale.
And it shocked them with its extremely clean lines, highlighted by its very strong horizontal break/accent line, as well as its front end that broke the European convention. The Corvair was an unexpected hit of the 1959 Paris Auto Show, and revolutionized global design, its influence lasting for decades. Our story on that has become a CC classic on that subject.
The Corvair coupe, also in 500 and 700 (above) models, arrived in January of 1960, as a mid year addition to the line. Why the coupe was a late addition is unknown, although Chevrolet did roll out other Corvair body styles over a three year period, with the ill-fated Lakewood station wagon (CC here) arriving in 1961 and the convertible in 1962.
The 500 coupe (above) did allow Chevrolet to offer a 1960 Corvair priced below $2000 ($1984), as the four door sedan ($2038) was priced some 3% higher than the Falcon four door, and above that psychologically-important $2000 barrier. Not that it helped sales much; these 1960 500 and 700 coupes sold quite poorly, accounting for just 16% of 1960 Corvair sales. The fact that their substantially shortened roof line meant less rear seat room was undoubtedly a factor; the sedan was quite roomy for a compact, and claimed to be a six-seater; the coupe’s rear seat was best for kids or compact adults.
The Corvair coupe’s roof has always been a bit of a mystery to me, as it was clearly designed to be a genuine sporty coupe, and these two clays from 1957 show that even early in its design evolution, that was the case, even though two very different approaches were being considered. The bottom one appears to have an even more fore-shortened rear seat. Perhaps Chevrolet had the Karmann Ghia in mind with it? (story here).
The question is just what Chevrolet did have in mind with its 1960 coupe. It straddles that line between a two-door sedan and a genuine sporty coupe, which might well have had a more flowing roof line or been a hardtop. But it’s quite clear that when the 1960 coupe arrived, it had no genuine sporty or sporty-luxury pretensions. And there were no plans for that in the works. That seems a bit odd, in retrospect.
In order to generate some spark for the new 500 and 700 coupes, in February of 1960 at the Chicago Auto Show, a one-off customized coupe (on elevated stand on right) was shown, with bucket seats, four speed transmission, full chrome window trim, full wheel covers and other details. The attendees were very enthusiastic about it, and the out-sized response triggered the decision to rush a version into production, in May of 1960, even though it was already very late in the production year.
Here’s a newspaper clipping about the process that led to the Monza’s production. Chevrolet General Manager Ed Cole is quoted: “(the) decision to add the (Monza) model to the 1960 line resulted from overwhelming reception it has received at three major auto shows”.
It’s a bit hard to imagine that Chevrolet really didn’t have a Monza in mind all along, as it really was the rather obvious true fulfillment of the coupe (and convertible, in 1962). But from everything that’s out there, that’s how it happened: it took auto-show attendees to convince Chevy that there was a demand and market for a compact sporty car. There’s no denying that the Monza coupe caused a rush to similar bucket-seat sporty versions of the Falcon and Valiant, and most of all, sparked the creation of the 1965 Mustang (I called the Monza the most influential car of the decade).
So we’re mostly caught up to 1963, when this coupe was one of 117,917 Monza coupes sold that year, a reduction from the all-time high of 144,844 in 1962. I ran into it recently, where it was sitting after having been found stored for many years. It’s not in the greatest shape, and was re-painted a somewhat garish metal-flake gold, but it tugged at my heart strings with the full force of its air-cooled flat six.
As mentioned earlier, my first car was a ’63 ‘Vair, but a (white, naturally) Monza sedan, gifted to me by my brother, (similar to this ’62 Monza sedan above). He had bought it from an elderly woman in Towson for $75, in the fall of 1972. It was leaking oil from its push-rod tube seals, an inevitable malady, and one readily fixed. He drove it out to Iowa, and gave it to me when he took a job in Greenland, where even the Corvair’s legendary traction on snow and ice was not going to be useful.
I was pleasantly surprised that it had the up-rated 102 hp engine (a perkier cam, mainly), as well as the four-speed transmission and the sports suspension package, which included the front stabilizer bar, stiffer springs, a lower ride height with some negative rear camber, and some rear swing axle limiter straps, that limited rear wheel travel downwards, to limit the dreaded “tuck-under” of the swing axles. Unexpected, that on older woman would have bought one like this. And even more unexpected, that my brother would lay this on me, as I had lusted after a Corvair ever since I first fell in love with it in 1960. And this one was equipped exactly as I would have ordered it in 1963, unless it was to be a Spyder.
I’ve had endless debates about the sedan vs. coupe design, and as much as I like the coupe, the sedan usually wins. The coupe’s roof is just a bit too short, for such a long rear end.
And the sedan is a lot more practical, with a rear seat perfectly comfortable for adults, not just an extra wheel and tire. And as well, there was that distinctive flying wing.
How I loved that car. And it was in great shape, except for some little rust holes on the tops of the fender, just behind the front outboard headlights. I understand that was a weak spot, from salty slush getting trapped there, in rust country, that is. Otherwise, it was very solid. No such issue with West Coast Corvairs.
I just couldn’t stop driving it; my first taste of automotive freedom. Almost right away, I headed off on a 3000 mile fall trip, out to Towson, and then down the full length of Skyline Drive and the whole Blue Ridge Parkway, during the fall color peak. In 1972, there were hardly any other cars on the road; I hear today it’s jammed during the fall colors.
It’s a 600 mile ribbon of winding road, following the spine of the Appalachians. It was the perfect place to become deeply familiarized with my Corvair’s handling, which thanks to its sports suspension, was perfectly suited for the job. No matter how fast I dove into the corners, it never once gave me the slightest disconcerting response. I knew what I was dealing with, and would never have hit my brakes in a corner, or over-reacted to the inevitable nudge of oversteer out back, unlike many of the folks who had bad experiences in Corvairs.
A properly set up Corvair, with the right front/rear tire pressures, will work its rear tires some, what with 62% of the weight out back. But as long as its balance isn’t upset by abrupt braking or steering inputs, it will track beautifully in the fast corners, with excellent grip. That’s not to say that the Corvair is a genuine sports car; its manual steering is light but woefully slow, with 5.25 turns lock-to-lock. There’s a reason that a lot of fast-steering kits were sold in after-market catalogs. That goes for the shifter too; the throws were long; but there were remedies for that too.
The other reason was of course out back. The Corvair’s air-cooled flat six was designed as an economy car engine, with zero sporting aspirations. The cylinder head had small valves and ports, and the camshaft was very mild. The original 1960 140 CID version was rated at all of 80 (gross) hp, which arrived at a very modest 4,400 rpm. It really was very VW-like in that regard.
Even with the up-rated 102 hp Turbo-Air engine in my ’63 (with 145 cubic inches), and the four speed, it was hardly fast. 0-60 came in about 15 seconds; not really bad for the times, but not exactly brisk either. Don’t even ask what one saddled with a Powerglide took. The turbo-charged Spyder helped considerably, and we’ll get to that another day soon.
Still, the Monza made for a satisfying driving experience, faster than many of the domestic compacts until they got V8s, and most import cars; certainly more so than the VW and such. But it couldn’t hope to keep up with a V8 in most American cars, until the road got curvy. And it did deliver decent mileage, up to 25 mpg, in my experience. The traction on snow was superb, which I soon put to good use in the Iowa winter that year, including experiencing the ultimate outer limits of its rear-engine dynamics on a frozen reservoir. My Corvair hijinks are here.
Having expressed my preference for the sedan, I’d gladly take a coupe home; I’m an equal opportunity gen1 Corvair sucker. A gen1 Corvair is pretty much on the top of my future toy car list; do I have to decide between one or the other? But in my dreams, I see an alternative body style that Chevy didn’t build, one that would avoid such a Solomonic decision. Stay tuned…until tomorrow.
More Corvair reading:
How The 1960 Corvair Started a Global Design Revolution
AH: 1960-1963 Corvair – GM”s Deadliest Sin?
1962 Corvair Monza (Lakewood) Wagon CC
Corvair Coupe Design Evolution
1960 Corvair Monza Coupe: The Most Influential Car of the Decade
My first experience with a Corvair was in 1988. Attending a car auction, there was a four-speed first gen coupe and a turbo convertible. Never having seen one up close before, it was quite the eye-opening experience and my head still turns to see one.
About ten years ago, when I lived an hour north of Kansas City, there was a woman there in town who had purchased a Corvair new and was still driving it every day. I don’t know what she did for preservation, as calcium chloride was flowing freely every winter, but it was immaculate.
I’m not at all surprised by the mixed heritage of the coupe. In 1958-59 while the Corvair was being developed and finalized, GM management was doing this rather unwillingly. Had the Beetle not been such a success, the Corvair would have never seen the light of day. Rather, I always felt that GM’s attitude was, “if the idiots are stupid enough to buy a Beetle over a real (full size) car, then we’ll give them a damned Beetle”. The coupe probably existed because the Beetle was a two door.
And the cheapness of the 500 and 700 was the first showing of the classic attitude of “You want a cheap car, we’ll give you a cheap car. And after a few years of that penalty box, you can come back and buy a real car.”
I often wonder what the Corvair could have been, had GM showed an Impala-like enthusiasm for it from day one.
I’d say that the 1960.5 Monza coupe with the sports suspension was pretty much what the Corvair should have been all along. It just took a little encouragement to get it there. Ed Cole clearly had plenty of enthusiasm for the Corvair.
The 500/700 were a marketing mistake; Chevrolet failed to understand the psychology of import buyers. They didn’t want strippers, and that’s why those models didn’t sell. It was a mistake, but one that at least was rectified fairly quickly. I really don’t think it was as you say: You want a cheap car, we’ll give you a cheap car. And after a few years of that penalty box, you can come back and buy a real car.” That wouldn’t have made much sense, given the mammoth amount of money GM poured into the Corvair/Y Body compacts.
The decision to go rear engine was dumb, as was the last minute penny pinching to leave off the stabilizer bar. But the idea that GM would purposely make a bad car to get folks into a big car is pretty absurd.
Which is why the Monza came out, as well as the Chevy II. They had to make compacts the market would accept, and they did. The Chevy II outsold the Falcon in its first couple of years. And gen1 Corvair sales overall weren’t that bad really either.
If it wouldn’t have had the rear engine, it would have just been a Chevy II?
I disagree, Chevrolet did have a lot of enthusiasm for the Corvair, I mean they came up with a whole car line around it, coupe, wagon, sedan, van, truck, if that doesn’t mean that there was interest, I don’t know what does, but I imagine that they miss-judged or were concerned about how cheap it would have to be to compete not only against pretty cheap imported competition, but against the domestic competitors too.
There had been a few “special” Corvair coupes that Chevrolet management had been driving around before they showed the Monza at the auto show, so there was a special Corvair in mind, I mean Chevrolet built the car to gauge reaction a sportier, specialty Corvair, and reaction to the car was positive.
This wire wheeled 1960 Super Monza was made by GM styling, I think Bill Mitchells daughter drove it around, it has a combination of what later became the Monza chrome trim and the 700 series chrome trim, along with a lux-grade interior with a seat pattern borrowed from the more upscale Buick Skylark.
If memory serves correctly, the Super Monza coupe was on the cover of Motor Trend in late 60. As a kid, I was startled to see all that luxury on what we thought was – as Paul notes – a cheap car. Seemed pretty incongruous at the time. Your mention of the interior mirroring the later Skylark coupe really hits a chord – I can see the pictures in my mind. A shocker but we soon became used to the idea of a luxury compact with the Skylark and Olds Cutlass coupes.
I wonder how much of that full range was somebody in management saying “Of course GM can build a better VW, let’s hit them at all levels. Model for model!” They must have known the truck, for one, would have been a dubious business proposition – but I suppose once you’ve okayed the van……
You can see that original 1960 Super Monza – the one that Bill Mitchell had commissioned for his daughter – at the new Corvair Museum in Decatur, Illinois. The Corvair Museum is in the same building as the Chevy Hall of Fame Museum, but it has its own wing in the building dedicated exclusively to Corvairs. In addition to the Super Monza, there are plenty of other Corvairs there, ranging from a stripper ’60 sedan to Spyders, Corsas, and various racing versions that did suprisingly well in competition.
https://www.corvair.org/index.php/preservation-foundation/corvair-museum
Shown below is a photo of the 1960 Super Monza’s luxury interior (with a clear plastic bag on the floor!)
Allan Lacki for the
Corvair Society of America
There also was this pink 1960 Convertible made for Ed Cole’s wife from what I recall, it had a leather interior, not to mention is a 1960 convertible, which should not even exist.
It was built round the time they would have been preparing the ’62 convertible, so it was essentially a prototype.
I know, what I’m saying is that there was interest in making sportier/special versions of the Corvair pretty much since the beginning.
Interest and spending the money thanks to a commitment for production by the 14th floor are two different things. GM was always making specials, and the Corvair was a favorite object for that.
But there’s no hard evidence (that I’ve ever heard of) to indicate that Chevy had a plan to build a higher trim Corvair until the enthusiastic response from the Chicago Auto Show. The timing suggests that: when was a new model ever introduced in May, just a few months away from the end of the model year?
I strongly suspect that Ed Cole was rather desperate to do whatever was possible to shore up the Corvair, which obviously wasn’t going to cut it as a true economy car. But that wasn’t know until the winter of 1960. So yes, they obviously had been noodling various Corvair ideas around. But the Chicago Show undoubtedly was the key hurdle to getting it approved.
Did you see my response to Eric’s comment elsewhere here? Until I checked those sales stats, I didn’t realize how totally different the impact of the Corvair and Falcon were to the big Fords and Chevy’s in terms of sales cannibalization. Falcon sales 100% came out of the hide of the big Fords; not at all so with the Corvair. It really was a lot more successful than folks give it credit for; it brought new buyers to Chevy, propelling their total division sales up 13% in 1960, while Ford’s fell.
Yeah, I saw the sales figures. The Corvair, realistically was a bigger hit for Chevrolet than the Falcon was for Ford. What I’m saying is that the 14th floor wasn’t sitting around with their fingers up their noses and then “duuuuhhhhh corvair sporty version us we make should!! duuuhhhhhhh!!
If someone else had made a sporty Corvair before Chevrolet did in 1960, like Fitch or someone, then you could point to it as an example of Chevrolet not really knowing what to do with the Corvair.
I mean, the sporty show car version was to gauge interest, meaning that there already was interest within Chevrolet to make it, but they wanted a 2nd opinion from the public, the fact that the Monza was out within the first year and that the turbo Spyder was out by summer 1961 as a 62 shows that there had to be something in the works.
I suspect that Chevrolet management didn’t expect the Corvair to carve out the niche that did, but higher spec versions had to be expected, when did GM make NOT extra money from slapping on a little extra chrome and better upholstery in a car?
My best friend in high school had a Corvair when we were seniors (class of 1969). I believe it was a 1961 but not really sure, I do know it was a Gen I Corvair. It ran okay, allowing for the inevitable oil leakage, but the body was seriously rusted. In addition to rust spots on all four fenders, this one had a 12 inch diameter hole in the front passenger floorboard. Needless to say having only the rubber floormat between your feet and the road was not a particularly good idea. To “fix” the problem we found a piece of sheet metal roughly the size of the passenger side floor and placed it over the hole. I want to say we used some kind of adhesive but don’t remember the details. I do know that we were going to weld the sheet metal to the floor pan but decided the remaining metal was too thin and weak for welding. In any case this did take care of the problem, more or less. About two weeks after graduation my friend went out one morning to go to work and the Corvair wouldn’t start. After fiddling with it we decided that the motor must have seized when he shut it off the previous night; have no idea how this happened. As you might guess, an eight year old Corvair that won’t run is pretty worthless; I think he eventually towed it to the scrap yard and just left it.
IMy first car was a ’62 Coupe with the 102 HP “Super Turbo Air” but the PowerGlide It was slow. It was what we affectionelty called Corroded Cream in color. I really liked the air cooled engine because I was studying to be an aircraft mechanic. It would go anywhere in the snow here is the hills of western Pa.
I wish I could get a 1965-67 Monza 4 door hardtop.
Just do it 😀 !!!
Oddly enough, that body style does the least for me, of all gen1 and gen2 Corvairs. it looks to much like a shrunken ’66 Malibu four door; not distinctive enough. But I can see the appeal.
The Corvair story is an easy one. They were POS and Ralph Nadar did the motoring public a favor by killing it.
Why do you even come to this site?
…and it’s Nader.
Easy Joe, everyone has their point of view. The great thing I like about this site its welcoming nature. No agendas, no politics – just a bunch of car lovers discussing their passion. The Corvair may very well have been the most controversial car Detroit ever built. No surprise it elicits strong opinions pro and con.
Or (perhaps, just perhaps) Nadir…
I used to mis-spell it as Nadir.
They were no worse than anything else in the era. So… troll elsewhere please.
Anyway, Nader didn’t kill the Corvair. His book didn’t come out until 1965; by that time the Corvair’s fate was already sealed. The Mustang, Camaro, and a general shift in the market is what killed the Corvair.
You’re right. I think the ultimate failure of the Corvair was GM’s indecision over what kind of car it had and how to market it. Early on it tried to be a cheap compact on par with the Falcon. When its unique design proved too costly, GM did everything it could to get the cost down, like eliminating the front sway bar and rear camber compensating spring. No problem though, the American customer could just compensate by having 30 psi in the rear tires and 15 psi in the front (or was that 15 in the back and 30 in the front? Eh, whatever. Just put in 30 all around). We all know how that worked out.
Then GM went the sporty route. But by the time the car found it footing as an American sports car with the great ’65, the Mustang had arrived on the scene. If nothing else, Lido knew how to sell cars and his simple Falcon in sporty clothing buried the ‘Vair. Nader’s book, which didn’t come out in stores until 1966, merely finished it off.
Good point on the timeline, Paul.
It’s an endlessly-regurgitated urban myth that Nader killed the Corvair. And you’ve only got to actually read his book (it was in my school library) to realise how little he actually says about the Corvair. What he says is undoubtedly sensational and unfortunately true, but it amounts to only one chapter. Read the other chapters. If Nader killed the Corvair, he would have also killed a lot of other US cars and probably done in the entire big three into the bargain.
Oh, just get one Paul! Corvairs are cheap! Clark’s Corvair is my favorite parts supplier, and can get you most of what you’d need for it. 🙂
Aaron, how much would a 1965-66 Corvair Corsa Turbo coupe be?
As with anything, condition makes the most difference. I could learn this lesson, of course, but Corvairs are affordable enough that you should get the best one you could find.
Corsas also were available in convertible bodystyles, which are more expensive. I would avoid making a turbo my first Corvair…Corvairs already take a little mechanical getting used to (they’re simple, but in a different way from a water-cooled, front-engined car), and the turbo adds complexity.
I would think a nice driver turbo-powered coupe would easily come in under $10,000 and that’s likely on the high end.
In 1960, the Corvair 500 coupe was under $2000($1984 as Paul lists). That same year the VW Beetle was about $1565 for a base model.That is less then a $500 difference in the price of the Corvair and the Beetle. It looks like the Vair is bigger and holds more stuff. Why did anybody opt for the beetle which was slow and odd looking when they could have gotten a Corvair for not much more money? The Beetle was out dated in 1946.
$500 is a quarter of the car’s total cost! That would be like a $5000 difference today…
You beat me to it. But there’s more: the Beetle was not a “stripper”; it was the highest trim version “Export” available, with full chrome moldings, nice quality upholstery, etc.. The Beetle didn’t scream “cheap”, even though it was, in the US. In terms of trim level, the Monza was more equivalent to the Beetle.
And the Beetle had a lot of buyers who bought it even though they could well have afforded more. It was a bit like the Volvo 240 of its time: a lot of college-educated bought them, as a statement against the excesses of Detroit’s “insolent chariots” of the time (think 1958 Detroit).
In fact, I’d say that Chevy specifically made a big mistake in trying to sell only a stripped/low trim Corvair at first, because import buyers were used to high-trim models, the only kind imported back then. Which explains precisely why the Monza instantly became the best selling Corvair mode once it was introduced; it was the genuine import-fighter, as well as a cute compact non-import buyers could warm up to.
Detroit had it all wrong with the 1960 compacts, selling them so heavily on low-end models and price. Even compact buyers didn’t want penalty boxes, for the most part. Almost everyone wants a bit of flair and style. Which is what the imports had been offering all along. When the Monza came along, it spurred better-trimmed versions of the other compacts.
It was a lesson Detroit was very slow to learn, at its peril. The Japanese took the game up one level, by also selling only higher-trim models.
Only Chrysler and GM had it all wrong with the 1960 compacts, Ford got it right from the start and the car was a big success and without seriously cannibalizing sales of their more profitable full size cars.
GM and Chrysler failed because their versions were too radical either in styling or engineering. There were a fairly large number of consumers who were still in shock from the recession that just wanted basic no frills but conventional cars that were economical to buy and keep. The Falcon hit all those points well enough to become the 3rd best selling car for 1960. It was exactly the right car for the time.
It wasn’t until the memory of the recession started to fade more that significant numbers of people were ready to spend more on an “economy” car. Initially that was a somewhat contradictory idea to purchase an economy car and then to spend a lot of money on extras.
Ford got it right from the start and the car (Falcon) was a big success and without seriously cannibalizing sales of their more profitable full size cars.
Let’s look at the actual facts of that: Ford full-size car sales were 1,396k in ’59; and plummeted to 910k in ’60; a 486k drop. Falcon sales in ’60 were 436k. No; no cannibalization there at all.
Meanwhile, Chevy full-size sales were 1,438k in ’59, and dropped to 1,391k in ’60, a loss of a mere 47k. Corvair sold 250k in 1960. The net effect is that Chevy sales overall increased by a very handsome 13% in 1960, while Ford sales overall dropped in 1960, all of it due to cannibalization from the Falcon.
Chevrolet gained substantial market share in 1960, and picked up new buyers, directly as a result of the Corvair. The Corvair didn’t cannibalize from the full-size Chevy, because it was so different, and appealed to non-typical Chevy buyers, whereas the Falcon was just a cheaper Ford, with a smaller profit to boot. There was a good reason why Iaccoca wasn’t wild about the Falcon: it not only cannibalized sales from the big Fords, also the attendant bigger profits. Which is exactly why he pushed the Mustang: based on Chevy’s experience with the Monza, a small sporty car was less likely to cannibalize sales from the big cars, as the Falcon had been doing.
The facts show that reality was 180 degrees opposite of what you said. Next time, I suggest using facts to form your opinions..
The sales numbers do not tell the entire story. By keeping the Falcon conventional Ford certainly spent far less money developing the Falcon undoubtedly making it more profitable. The other thing to consider is that the 1960 Ford full size adopted fairly radical styling while Chevy significantly toned down the 1960 full size.
For 1961 Ford took the total sales crown from Chevrolet when they toned down the looks of their full size.
Meanwhile GM went back to the drawing board immediately, to come up with something that would compete with the Falcon, the Chevy II.
My recollection, both from being around at the time and reading in retrospect, is that not only did the 60 full-sized Ford fail due to its strange styling (many people didn’t think it even looked like a Ford whereas the well-received 59 was pure Ford) but quality was abysmal that year, including doors that popped open under hard driving, and this got around quickly. Did significant numbers of potential buyers of the full-sized model go to another make as opposed to a Falcon? Brand loyalty was still quite strong at the time.
The styling of the 1960 Ford was not popular, and there were numerous quality bugs, as the car had been rushed into production once Ford got hold of the blueprints for the 1959 Chevrolet. Ford was afraid that the sleek Chevrolet would slaughter the boxy 1959 Ford in the sales race, and didn’t want a repeat for 1960. (The original plans called for the 1960 Ford to be a facelift of the 1959 model.)
Ironically, the 1959 Ford sold very well, and closed much of the gap that had opened up between Ford and Chevrolet in 1958. The 1959 Ford was also well-built for the time. The mid-year Galaxie series, with its Thunderbird-inspired roofline, was a huge hit. If the Galaxies had been available at the start of the model year, Ford may very well have tied Chevrolet in the sales race.
Popular Mechanics surveyed owners of both the 1960 Falcon and 1960 Ford for its “Owners Reports” series. What stands out is how much happier Falcon owners were than Ford owners, and how the Falcon logged far fewer complaints about poor quality and workmanship than its bigger brother.
The Falcon not only outscored the full-size Ford in quality, but it also received far fewer complaints about this than its immediate competition, the 1960 Chevrolet Corvair and 1960 Valiant (which wasn’t badged as a Plymouth for 1960).
I wouldn’t be surprised if a fair number of buyers decided to buy the Falcon instead of a full-size Ford – particularly the lower-level versions of the latter. I can also see where the full-size Ford was hurt by unpopular styling and a reputation for subpar quality. A fair number of people traded every 2-3 years at that time, so it’s not inconceivable that some Ford loyalists decided to wait another year when they saw the 1960 Ford, or heard horror stories from people who had bought one.
As far as Ford outselling Chevrolet for 1961 – I’ve seen this claim, but I’ve also seen where Chevrolet is placed in the number-one slot. I’m guessing it depends on whether we go by calendar year or model year sales. Remember that, with the fall introduction of new cars in those days, one calendar year generally included two model years of cars.
What’s indisputable is that Chevrolet definitely pulled ahead in 1962, and was well ahead until the Mustang began closing the gap. Chevrolet, much more than Ford, benefitted from the collapse of Dodge and Plymouth in 1961-62.
If I recall correctly, by 1963 Chevrolet alone was selling more cars than the entire Ford Motor Company, not just Ford Division. It really took the debut of the Mustang and the LTD for Ford to start making headway against Chevrolet, even though Ford dramatically improved the quality of its full-size cars after 1960. Ford was also helped by a revived Dodge and Plymouth, along with a very aggressive Pontiac, in those years. They stole a fair number of Chevrolet sales, too.
It’s known that the 1960 Ford was derived from an Alex Tremulis proposal called Quicksilver. It wasn’t a rushed response to GM’s 1959 designs. Ford already was competitive with the 57 Mopars and didn’t need to flush their existing products to get with the times. The 1960 Ford was just a bad guess about what the public wanted–especially what the public wanted from Ford.
I think the 1960 Starliner is a great looking car, and better than the 1960 Chevy, but I guess I’m in a minority.
The Monza trim series was out by mid to late 1960, so it’s not like they sold the cheap versions for years and years and years before hitting on the realization that a sporty version would sell.
Selling a stripped, low-trim version was probably the only way they thought they could make money from the thing. Price it higher and it would be too close to a Biscayne for management’s comfort – having sunk all those millions into all this new technology, they had to get some return. And it had to be price-competitive with the opposition.
What I can’t understand is them knifing the engineers and cheapening the suspension to the point of danger, just to get the price down. And having done that, not fixing is as soon as trouble became known. Unforgivable.
As I recall Beetles had developed a reputation for reliability and economy and the corvair was new. Not that they were actually any better than the corvair but the reputation was there. My first (non old and junky) car driving experience was with a 1960 ( I think) four door corvair in drivers ed.
If you are buying on reputation, and we generally do, you would have bought the vw. If on practicality I think looking back the corvair was a better choice.
The Beetle, besides being more solidly built and reliable than the domestics (which wasn’t that hard, considering the time frame), also had some very clever marketing. It quickly became Euro hip and cool to own one, particularly at such a low price.
The Corvair, no matter how radical and innovative, came from the most conservative of domestic companies. You were neither hip nor cool driving a Corvair. It was just a rear-engined small car from GM that was more expensive than a Beetle. You were more apt to be considered cool and hip driving a Falcon.
Still, the least hip and cool new compact had to be the wildly old-school styled Valiant. It would have been a success if it had been released in 1957 along all the other Forward-Look cars. But in 1960, it just looked old and weird.
I don’t quite agree with the second part of your comment. I remember vividly the image the Corvair had, as a kid in University town Iowa City at the time. Yes, the ’60 was ho-hum, because of its low content. But the Monza was instantly accepted as a cool car, because it was rear-engined, sporty, and different all the way around. It really did compete for buyers who might well have bought an import, or something else.
The convertible and Spyder added to that considerably.Very cool indeed. We knew a prof who bought a ’62 Spyder convertible, and it was the talk of Professorville (our neighborhood). It really made GM/Chevy look very progressive in the eyes of this community.
Maybe you lived in a very different type of place.
OTOH, the Falcon was NOT hip/cool in those days. It appealed to young families and older folks wanting a modern day Model A. Its image wasn’t decidedly horrible like a Rambler American, because it looked better, but it was seen for what it was. The Falcon didn’t become cool/hip until recent years, directly the result of it’s having been seen as uncool in its day. That’s what ironic hipster-ism is all about, eh?
With its rare (for the early ’60’s) bucket seats and floor shift the Monza coupe was indeed cool and lots of young folks wanted them. The Beetle was also cool in its own way, but appealed to a slightly different demogrpahic. By the early ’60’s it had established its reputation for reliability, so in addition to the college kids, many older customers bought them as second cars. The Falcon was the antithesis of cool. It was basically a cheapo econobox that sold to cheapskates. Like Lido after him, Robert McNamara knew the market and there were a lot of cheapskates that bought a lot of Falcons.
The weird Valiant with the toilet seat trunk was a non-starter and bought mostly by Mopar diehards.
Those Doyle, Dane, and Bernbach ads for VW were pure genius. Not only did they convey quality and cool (or anti-cool cool), they were very smart and made the VW driver appear intelligent and smug/superior. And as for those riding the NYC subway, no socio-economic status could be assumed for VW drivers.
Boy they sure were. College marketing courses today are still studying those DDB ads as models of advertising perfection. Volvo also ran interesting ads as did the early Hondas. As for domestics, ’60’s GTO ads were edgy and hinted at all the fun and illegal things you could do in one. Made me want one so badly. Early Mustang ads were also good. I recall one Mustang print ad titled “Six and the Single Girl” touting the economy of a 6 cyl. Mustang to the young female set. Don’t think that would fly today.
It’s quaint now, as the book is over 50 years old, but Helen Gurley Brown’s “Sex and the Single Girl” was on the cutting edge of feminine empowerment in the Sixties: It’s okay to just get a job and a lover; here’s how to do it. My mom was 20 when that book came out; her granddaughter is older than that now.
Times change, and the cutting edge moves. Here’s the ad that goes directly to her granddaughter’s experience. Click to embiggen:
http://cargocollective.com/rachelmarshall/Volt-Mom-Dad-I-m-Electric
Robert McNamara didn’t know jack about the market. He was a finance and operations guy, and he wasn’t enthusiastic about cars or other consumer goods, so an unstylish, inexpensive car was right up his alley. If that’s why the Falcon sold well, it’s a coincidence, not a carefully selected strategy.
Paul – here is another ’63 Corvair coupe. It’s mine; I have owned it for eight years.
It is, in Corvair culture, a rare but not a desirable model – a 700 Powerglide. The car was originally sold in Aurora, Colorado, lived in Utah, then moved to Wyoming where it had a brief career as an AACA show car. I am the fourth owner and my use of it is limited to summer cruise ins. The color is “azure aqua” which was a both a popular and common Chevrolet color from the sixties. The car is spartan.
It could be bought, if you feel a great need for a Corvair coupe.
Thanks; sweet car. But my interest could only be whetted by a Monza with the four speed; or better (Spyder). If I had one, I would drive it a fair amount on our beautiful winding mountain roads, and a PG just wouldn’t do to recapture my memories.
I can’t say that I ever fell under the Corvair’s spell, but I can see the appeal. The moderate power and rear engine were quite European. Unfortunately, Americans were buying power and torque in those years, and soon everything in the Corvair’s class came with a V8 – except the Corvair.
I will grant that the Corvair Monza was the first bucket-seat-4-speed coupe on the market, but the 61 Studebaker Hawk was the close second. Sherwood Egbert must have been at that show, because from the beginning of 1961 model production, the old Hawk was offered with optional buckets and a 4 on the floor. Unfortunately, its horribly outdated styling and odd proportions (width of a Mustang but on a 120 inch wheelbase) kept it from being a factor in the sales race, despite the 289 4 bbl V8.
I almost bought this ’62 at a show last summer..New paint and interior $4500
I really like 2nd gen Corvairs. The first gen is a little too “primitive” for my tastes.
I’m not exactly sure where the notion of the beetle being anything but cheap (in all ways)comes from because every single one I have personally seen has been about the most bare bones thing you could possibly have. They either had white or black vinyl upholstery without any sort of bolstering or texture to them. You like gauges? k well here is your speedometer and a fuel gauge enjoy.
If one were to compare the Corvair and the Beetle in a “tale of the tape” sort of way aside from price I just don’t see why someone would pick the beetle.
To me the difference between the beetle and the vair came down to marketing and price.
I wasn’t born until 1978 so I missed the whole craze about those cars I guess.
The VW was built in three versions: Standard (stripper), DeLuxe and Export. We only got the Export, which was mostly similar to the DeLuxe, but had some additional items like bumper over-riders. Believe me, the Standard (1200A) was drastically more elemental all the way around than what we got here, with no chrome almost anywhere, and an interior with just the basics, including mostly steel except for a cheap little panel on the front doors. It even used a steering wheel from the early 50s Beetle, well into the 60s. Go here to check out a ’65 VW standard in great detail: http://www.classiccult.com/blog/vw-1200-a-standard-beetle-1965-1966-details.html
The Export interior came in more than just those colors, including red. The quality of the vinyl upholstery was comparable to the Monza: genuine full-bodied pleated vinyl, not the cheap thin woven vinyl used in the 500 and 700 Corvair. The VW headliner, trim, etc was all of high quality material. It may all look very spartan in today’s eyes, but those were all details that counted back then. The VW was basic, but had very high quality materials, which was obvious to its buyers. The Corvair 500 and other stripper American compacts exuded a true poverty-mobile aura.
Gauges? and what did the Corvair have other than a speedo and gas gauge? Only the expensive Spyder package had full gauges.
There were a few advantages that the Corvair had that the VW couldn’t meet, luxuries like a gas gauge you read right in the dash instead of a dipstick, though VW did add a gas gauge by 1962.
As much as the Powerglide gets raked over the coals, the availability of a cheap simple to use automatic in a little cheap car mean that more women and inexperienced drivers could use it, which was part of the Corvairs original intended marked, mama bear’s little car next to papa bear’s Impala or Catalina.
Horsepower was another, the base 6 cylinder 145cid 80hp engine doesn’t seem like much, but compared to a 36hp VW, it was pretty peppy.
And the thousands of Chevrolet dealers coast to coast, though in hindsight, many of them also hurt the Corvair equally.
A couple of years ago, purchased a 1965 coupe, a 500 model with a radio delete and 3 speed non synchromesh first gear, this is a Spartan car, but this was also Americana, I agree with your sentiments to the roof line on the early coupes, the early sedans had a better roof line, this is something that Chevrolet corrected on the coupes in late model guise, fun cars!
VW tried the strippo basic approach in 75-76 on both the Beetle and Rabbit. They came out with the “Love Bug” with bare metal everywhere and no chrome, just painted bumpers and mouldings and plain rubber window gaskets. Super plain and cheap door panels with no armrests. The Rabbit was similar, only a small cheap headliner in the top area, bare metal pillars and small rubber floor mats with lots of exposed metal, And front drum brakes. VW wanted a car that could sell for under 3K. These car looked so cheap it was laughable. As I recall, they abandoned that approach pretty quickly.
Dunno whether Chevrolet stylists had the KG in mind but the Ford stylists at Dagenham sure had that second clay in mind for the Consul Capri not the rest of it just the roof profile.
My grandmother on my dad’s side had a ‘Vair and she LOVED the thing. That was up in NJ, and according to my dad it was a total tank in the snow. It would’ve been a 1st gen coupe with the powerglide. From what Dad said, off the line it would RIP up to speed if you got into it. Of course once you got rolling it was another story.
A few years later, she had a T3 VW fastback which supposedly was a notorious POS.
Im ok with the 1st gen coupes, really like the wagons since they look a bit like a bigger VW squareback. I loved the greenbriar vans and rampside pickups, WAY cool little rigs. The sedans…well, most of you know how I feel about sedans. If I were to have a corvair it’d be a 2nd gen coupe with the turbo setup and 4spd, although a Spyder like the one Mark Wahlberg had in ‘Fear’ would do just fine.
FWIW, 5/1/60 press announcement for the Monza:
Thanks. That confirms what I’ve read and known in the past. It’s good to see it in print.
Fascinatingly, Road & Track found that at least in dragstrip terms, the Powerglide was not a major handicap for the early Corvair relative to the three-speed stick — they actually got to 60 slightly quicker with the Powerglide. By the quarter mile, there was a penalty, but it was not vast. The four-speed was quicker than both, although it was hampered by oddly spaced gearing; the four-speed box was essentially a cleverly modified three-speed, and both first and second were two low for best performance.
The first car I ever drove was a ’63 Monza coupe when I was 13 years old. My dad bought it as a stop gap car for my mom when the ’62 Lark threw a rod bearing. He bought it for $350. if memory serves me right. I know he spent about that much to keep in on the road. Mom drove it about a year until they could afford a newish car. They bought a year old ’68 Vista Cruiser for dad and mom got the ’65 Belvedere. Dad then sold the Corvair for close to what he paid for it. All in all, it did OK for an in town car.
I was always short for my age (until high school), so I enjoyed the Corvair’s compact size. I could push the clutch pedal all the way to the floor without having to scoot myself up on the already fully adjusted forward seat. A few years later, when I was in the used car business, I came across several others, including a few 2nd generation styles. They were always (and still are) attractive to me, although I wouldn’t call them a favorite. They were the beginning of an interesting era of cars from the General.
It would have been very intersting to see a comparison between the 105 hp Corvair and the Tatra 603 of the same vintage (which I believe had similar hp)… All the accounts of the Tatra I heard or read do not point to inherently suspect handling; in fact it was considered to possess a very good roadholding/handling characteristics back then – ot maybe it was the familiarity of European drivers with rear-engined vehicles which spared the Tatra from bad rap?
From the last sentence of the opening paragraph, I thought you were going to comment on the styling of the roof line! It is very reminiscent of the Falcon’s really, more so than a ‘bubble’ Chev coupe roof line.
I am surprised I did not comment on this the first time around, as I have owned a ’64 Monza coupe for the past seven years. I believe the answer to the question of what did Chevrolet have in mind is answered by the debut ads for the coupe in 1960, which refer to it as the “club coupe.” From the late 30’s through the early 50’s, Chevy (and others) offered two two-door body styles, a close-coupled “club coupe” or a roomier two-door sedan with a longer roofline. The difference is that the Corvair did not offer an alternative “two door sedan” style. They did mock one up; it looks like a Corvair with a Nova-ish roofline.
Radical thought – what if Chevrolet had carried over the Corvair engine into the Vega? Not the entire floorpan or drivetrain, rear-engines were obviously on the way out, just that engine. Much the same capacity, sports tune already developed, and trouble-free. After all the trouble developing the Vega’s four, and the grief it gave so many owners in service, and the bad rep it gave GM as a corporation – what if?
A flat six wouldn’t exactly fit between the front wheel wells of a subcompact car, right? And even if it did, the air cooling was a total no-no. Never mind the heating issue, air cooling made emission controls more difficult. Also the Corvair engine was intrinsically expensive to make, substantially more than an inline four, or even an inline six. It may well have cost more to make than a Chevy smallblock V8, which they were churning out by the millions.
I have a distinct memory from when I was about 1 or 2 years old. It is of seeing a Corvair. Red. I already had some definite car opinions about what I like and didn’t. I knew that red car was different. I didn’t know why, but I liked it. Made me feel weirdly happy to look at it. They were so rare here that I don’t remember seeing another for a long time. But I still feel that way about the Corvair. I still get that same feeling when I see one now that I am old-ish. I have never driven nor ridden in one so I may never have that feeling expanded on. At least I have one in my 1/64 diecast collection. (’62 coupe)
I had to re-read the 0-60 in 15 seconds, because at first, I thought you had said it ran the 1/4 mile in 15 seconds!! Its not like the 6 cylinder Mustang would have been much better, but in the Mustang’s case, you could at least get the 289 hi-po and then reinforcements were on the horizon from Shelby if you still wanted to go faster. That undoubtedly had to be a killer of the Monza, because even with the turbocharged version, it was just never fast enough, and then, one gets the impression that GM didn’t really want too many cars competing directly with the Corvette (the “Corv” in the Corvair name; correct me if I’m wrong). The nail in the Corvairs performance coffin would have likely come from other cars in the GM stable; the GTO or even just full sized cars with a big block engine with tons of torque.
GM learned from their mistakes in one respect. When the Chevy II came out in 1962 it had a full line of top-tier Nova 400 models: sport coupe, convertible, 2- and 4-door sedans and a station wagon. I wonder how many Corvair buyers would have sprung for a Monza coupe or sedan if it had been available in 1960.
Team CC: It should be stated here that GM leadership wasn’t just looking at the VW but also the Scotsman, Lark and the Rambler upon debut. This thing gestated during the ’58 recession, and the low-spec finishes on release talk to that mindset. It was just that the market had changed, and they were smart enough to put the test balloon out on the car show circuit, and quickly tack in a new direction. Peak GM at its finest.
Agreed the roofline on the two-door is just… wrong. If they could have stretched it all back a little (here’s my Photoshop attempt at a redesign, middle image). And then I suppose it’s not possible with the rear-engine configuration, but what if the rear wheels could be pushed a little further forward—there we go. Better, I think?
Hey Corvair fans. Wanted to pass along something. There is a “National Corvair Museum” just off I55 in Chatham, Illinois which is about 10 miles south of Springfield.
Since I live less than 30 miles away and only learned about it this week on a trip from St. Louis to Springfield I figured most folks here wouldn’t have heard of it either.
Seems to be open by appointment. they have a website.