This review written by Griff Borgeson at Sports Car Illustrated was a treat, as it’s the first vintage review I’ve read about the Porsche Speedster. Like certain other automotive icons, its reputation, influence and most of all its valuation have grown all out of proportion over the decades. It’s all become myth.
But just how was that myth built? With a glorified 1938 KdF wagen with all of 60 horsepower (70 gross), swing axles and drum brakes? How could a chassis and engine design that were already twenty years old inspire these words? “The new Porsche 1600 is one of the world’s truly fine cars….one of the most significant technical achievements of our time?” (by “new”, he means the enlarged 1600cc engine that replaced the 1500 in 1956).
Griff will explain it; eloquently and convincingly. And I’ll stick to some related commentary and swing axle experiences.
This time I’m not going to quote the article, as you need to read it yourselves. But let’s just say the superlatives are not wasted on me. I have a very intimate relationship with Dr. Porsche’s work; both of them, Ferdinand and Ferry. It’s hard to put into words, but I’ve somehow internalized both the VW and Porsche 356; every detail is familiar and obvious to me. I understand why it is the way it is, and the thinking that created it. I’ve sort of channeled the Porsches, which may sound a bit pretentious or woowoo, but what can I say.
Maybe it’s being Austrian; maybe when one is from a certain locale certain automotive solutions tend to arise. Is it a coincidence that the Austrians Hans Ledwinka and Ferdinand Porsche both become the greatest exponents of rear engines, swing axles and aerodynamics? An inherent inclination towards solutions that were inherently the most effective and efficient for their time? As well as inherently embracing the crucial concept of a stiff unitized structure and supple suspension as the way to maximize both ride and handling with the same solution? A solution that evaded both the Brits with their punishingly hard suspensions and the Americans with the opposite? There was a way to do both.
Although very first 356-1 was an open mid-engine true-blood sports car (its first racing outing was in Innsbruck in 1948) the sports car market right after the war on the continent was terrible. Almost nobody in Germany or Austria could indulge themselves in such toys. Something much more pragmatic was needed.
So the production 356 was intended to be a compact high speed car that could carry two adults and two children (adults squeezed in the back was not uncommon) on any kind of journey, regardless how difficult the terrain or long the distance, or who was trying to catch up with you on that Alpine pass. It was much more than a mere sports car; it was a car intended to be the sole car of its owner, one that could carry kids and luggage in all weather and conditions comfortably, efficiently, economically and reliably. And yet still be a sports car too. There simply was no there car like it in the world.
Even one to go boar hunting in.
Or racing, depending on the mood and inclination. Porsche won its class in the 1951 LeMans, its first major outing.
This was the concept and image of the Porsche as I internalized it. A jack of all trades, not a specialized, fragile, or complicated “sports car”.
And the Cabriolet, which joined the coupe in 1950, had a fully insulated and lined top and roll-up windows, ready for the coldest Alpine winter outing.
But this all was not the Americans’ concept of a sports car. They could afford one as a second car. And they wanted something overtly sporty, with maximum impact, visually, image-wise, and even on the track, should that be the case.
Max Hoffman, another Austrian, was America’s biggest importer of European fine cars, including the new Porsche. He let it be known back home that something different was needed; a genuine roadster, or…Speedster. Stripped down to the essentials, and in price too. Thus in 1954 was born the car that became the icon. Coincidentally enough, that $2995 price adjusts to almost exactly $29,000 in today’s money. And a genuine Speedster will set you back at least ten times that again.
And it paid off, very handsomely; by the mid 50s, Porsche was sending three-quarters of their production to the US, and they were hard to find at that. Demand outstripped supply for many years.
I’m old enough to remember ratty ones in LA in the mid-late ’70s; paint fading and inherently with traffic dings on the very vulnerable front end. That seems like an eternity ago now.
Here we get to the inevitable characteristics of its rear engine and swing axles on fast curves. I’ll let you read it, but the bottom line is this: it’s not for everyone. One has to be able to transcend the instinctive fear that comes from the sensation of the rear end beginning to slip outwards. Actually, I’m going to break my promise and quote this key section:
“The Porsche does not break away suddenly. it drifts from inside to outside in a gentle, casual way. The sensation is very much like cornering on half-inflated tires….Is this bad? Only if you believe it is. Is it good? Emphatically yes, if you accept and understand it. You can corner a Porsche in a sedate and conventional manner if you chose. Just as easily, you can wag its tail and get through short, tight radius turns with amazing nimbleness and speed. In more open curves you can drift all four wheels and the smooth transition from bite to slip is almost imperceptible….the Porsche is hilariously controllable and agile”.
In the right hands, that is. With a heavy hand and foot, it could be a handful, as all of its kind could be. You either got it, or you didn’t. There was no middle ground.
I got it, on Skyline drive and The Blue Ridge Parkway, in late October of 1972. My brother had just gifted me his ’63 Monza, with the up-rated 98hp engine, four speed and handling package. I bought new tires, changed the oil, packed my camping gear and left Iowa City for my intensive lesson in rear engine swing-axle handling. 600 miles of endless curves, hills, mountains, and the road almost to myself, as was the case back then at that time of year. I took the curves faster and faster, and my confidence grew quickly. Set up the car in the transition, wait for the rear to start gently exceeding its grip, and then get back on the gas, gently but confidently. Never, ever hit the brakes once it was set up. And just ride it out, like a Disneyland E-Ticket attraction.
I was mostly alone on that trip, but I never got bored of boring through the curves, making the most of momentum to get up the grades and letting the car have its way as it wanted and was intended.
So many folks have this impression of the Volkswagen as a rolling relic, highly compromised in every way except perhaps its reliability and funny looks. But that’s not how the Beetle phenomena started in the US; in 1955, when its sales started to pop, it was objectively the best small car on the market, and not by a narrow margin. Veteran tester Tom McCahill makes the case eloquently here in his review of a ’56. It’s obvious: every quality that made the Porsche so good and desirable was also in the Volkswagen. Sure, a few less horsepower (which could readily be raised) and a somewhat taller body, but in 1955, the kinship between the two was still very great. Undoubtedly Porsche was still getting a number of parts from VW then, although they had been building their own version of the air cooled boxer for a couple of years.
It was those qualities that drove me into a series of two VWs after the Corvair, a ’64 and a ’63 with a hopped-up 1385 cc motor that ran surprisingly strong. After the Corvair, with its overly-heavy engine, the VW’s felt light and unshakable to me. Even bombing downhill on windy roads in the Rockies full-out, the Semperit radials humming in the curves, I never even remotely felt that its rear end wanted to actually beat me through the curve. ’nuff said; either you got, it, or you didn’t.
I can only imagine (rather readily, thanks to my overactive imagination) what that would have been like in a Speedster, ripping down (or up) Hwy. 36 between Boulder and Estes Park to buy some groceries and enjoy a bit of social life during my numerous extended camping trips way up in the Rockies. I remember barreling back up 36 late at night, with a running start and being able to keep the 1385cc engine in fourth gear the whole way, by keeping my speed up. That was thanks to a local VW mechanic who clued me in on advancing the timing quite a bit to compensate for the altitude. It felt like I had a 356 engine back there.
The Speedster got a totally different dashboard, with a three-dial cluster under a rounded dash cover. The seats were buckets in the true sense of the word: this is what was meant by that back then.
That wood steering wheel is not original. The long, spindly shifter most definitely is. It even came in for a bit of rare criticism here. I think it was the only one. Read it to understand how this car was the best all-round sports car in the world, 60 (real) hp, swing axles and all.
The Speedster was also available in 1600S form, with 75 DIN/88 gross hp. Or if you were really modest, until 1957 or so, you could still get the 1300cc engine, making 44 DIN/50 gross hp @4200 rpm, exactly the same specs as the VW Beetle 1300 in 1966, but with a single carb. That was the sportiest Beetle ever made, and I had a lot of seat time in my brother’s ’66, although my 1351 ’63 was faster yet.
The test 1600 (Normal) still managed to hit 98.1 mph, and given its light 1670 lbs, was livelier in real world driving than its acceleration numbers might suggest. But it was brand new and not yet broken in. 100 was just a few thousand miles away. You can only go in a straight line for so long…
That chassis cutaway looks to be from about 1949 or so, with the large and very narrow 16″ tires. It does show the 356’s built-up “frame” although that’s not really in the usual sense, as the bodies were quite rigidly joined with the frames, as was the case with the VW body and its platform.
The adulation continues non-stop here, for the ride comfort, although Griff did jack up the tires from 20/26 F/R to 28/32 F/R. That’s right about how I kept my tires inflated (26/32, actually). The steering in Porsches (and VWs) is not the kind of ultra-mechanical-direct feel of the classic British rack and pinion of the times, that can border on being nervous with too much feedback. The Porsche steering is like everything else about it: light, direct, but never intruding. And very stable; the author took his hands off for half a mile on a highway before he needed to make a minor correction. My VWs were like that too, unless a side winds kicked up.
The Porsche (and VW) transmissions were as good as it got back then; “the smooth, silent, butter-slicing engagement of gears is uncanny, positively spell-binding“. British boxes were notoriously not so, in these qualities.
His description of the Porsche’s engine power characteristics are also so familiar, if slightly toned down in the VW: First gear is low enough to handle even difficult forest roads and steep Alpine starts. Shift into second well before the engine runs out of steam. Third is a great gear for a wide range of applications, and fourth is surprisingly flexible, usable in town and of course all the way up to the end, which was 98 mph for this Speedster and right about 81 for my 1351 cc big-bore 1200. And of course 72 on the dot for the stock 40 hp 1200. All on level roads, of course.
Needless to say, the Porsche exhibited no squeaks or rattles, and everything worked as it should, but not as it always did on lesser cars. This is how reputations (and icons) are made. Everything works, and very well at that; from the solid thunk of a door closing to the ability to leave larger and more powerful cars in its wake thanks to its exceptional qualities.
WOW, PAUL! What a terrific explanation of this car! A friend had the coupe when we were young in the ’60’s. His was, I think, a 1969. It was a piece of handling, for sure and a fun vehicle. Marriage ruined that love affair! He and the wife need more capacity for the growing family and all of the accoutrements of traveling with small children for long distances. His Mom bought a Karman Ghia coupe. No power but what a sweet, well finished and stylish automobile.
Compared to the archaic English and Italian competition (and I use that word loosely) the Porsche was indeed the “reference standard: for this time period.
America would have nothing to offer up until the Corvair Monza appeared.
Thanks, very INTERESTING read!!
I’ve never driven a 356, much less a Speedster, but I did wobble my way up Topanga Cyn in a ’65 swing axle VW from our used lot in 1969. I knew what it had, but didn’t have a clue about what it really meant to the driving dynamics of the VW. I rapidly FELT the difference on the skinny, rail hard “bicycle” tires as I wound (pedaled?) my way up the Canyon.
Frankly the bug’s “feel” scared the H out of me on Topangas’ many, many curves. By the time I reached the top I had-sort of-developed a feel for it. However, I was simply much to used to HEAVY American iron of the time…none of which could really handle.
The closest-sort of-I ever came to a 356 was my 1968 Euro (sold in Italy) 912/5 speed. With Yokohama gumballs on the lil car and using the stick to keep the engine where it needed to be the car was a absolute DELIGHT to drive. Like the 356 not fast thru a 1/4, but remarkably quick if driven properly on a winding road!! Less is MORE :):) DFO
As Paul mentioned the Semperit radials on his, Pirelli (tube type) radials on my ’67 VW, with proper pressures, made handling on twisty roads a dream.
An excellent ode to an excellent car.
I had an uncle that used to pick up those ratty old Speedsters in the 70’s & 80’s to restore and resell. Although I appreciated his handiwork, I didn’t fully appreciate what these really were until later. I now understand the joys of craftsmanship and driving a “slow” car fast, as opposed more modern cars that have better objective numbers but none of the soul of the Speedster.
What a great capture of the essence of the car!
I completely get the appeal in the relentlessly purposeful efficiency of these spindly early Porsches, and the 356’s have always appealed to me over the altogether faster 911.
But that handling trick is not for me. The author captures the feeling of having “lost it” accurately (before going on to master the Porsche style). The only swinger-years Beetle I’ve ever driven with a bit of verve bit me at quite a low speed, then worse at a higher one, and I hated it. It is part of why I dislike swing axles. They are not a sensible invention for most motorists, made worse when the weight of a motor is where one’s suitcases should be residing. Lord knows how many VW’s ended up parked on their roofs, (something which is arguably the most dangerous type of accident too). I’d rather be driving hard in a Morrie Minor, cars which also responded well to a bit of tickling, incidentally.
I think I’d have been happier in a Guilietta Sprint Veloce – a good competitor for the Porsche and conventionally prettier – unless I had a personal track at my disposal.
It may, ofcourse, just be that I lack courage.
Excellent point you make that Porsche got quality right from the off, and that a reputation for such stuff is only ever earnt. That solid reliability is indeed a good part of the mystique still (rightly) traded upon to this day.
(Minor nit, the author is Griff Borgeson).
FWIW, there are a few essential elements required to explore, enjoy and survive swing axle school. The front/rear tire pressure differential is essential. If you have the same pressure front and rear, the rear will want to bite you in the ass very quickly.
The other is negative camber. It’s quite easy to adjust VW/Porsche torsion bars to achieve it. The VWs came stock with a bit of positive camber to maximize their load capacity. Not good. Note how the ’55 VW with the racing numbers has dialed in some negative camber. My Corvair had negative camber too, thanks to aging coil springs and the optional handling kit, which also had straps to eliminate excessive positive camber. The Porsches all had negative camber from the factory; more on the Speedster than the coupe/cabriolet, because there was no back seat, meaning no need to have to possibly carry four people, as well as a boar on the engine cover.
Without those two, it’s easy to have a negative experience.
Driving rear engine swing axle cars is a bit like skiing, except that the stakes are somewhat higher.
I’ve acknowledged Griff properly now; thanks. My eyes aren’t getting any better, unfortunately.
Ah, well there you have it – my few experiences of skiiing always resulted in short, passionate and painful encounters with bordering snowgums, some blood, and a then permanent position holding up the resort’s bar whilst I nursed injuries both actual and egotistic.
VW’s and Porsches were rational in this way: the motors are low down, all light materials , and extend only two cylinders long past the axle line. Fiat, Renault, Simca, Hino and Skoda all put inline, often-all iron, watercooled jobs upright, so the weight is much more, it’s jacked further out by virtue of the crank length, and it’s all much higher. That’s certainly where the rear-engine and swing-axle concept was wrongly applied.
Interesting that the VW you had and the Corvair were modified to some degree to reduce the inherent problems, as I’m fairly sure that on this site there was a review of an early 356 which mentioned that the oversteer of one tested earlier again could be vicious. In short, a car for an expert, or one with the cajones to learn it.
Every VW I saw grwoing up teetered away with the rear wheels in their factory positive camber. In our family splittie van, it was exaggerated even more by the reduction-boxes, and made even worse again by van-rated cross-plies of the time with (I swear) half-foot high sidewalls.
Somehow, we all lived, so it turns out that my old man was a better driver than his turgid average speeds would indicate to the impatient speedster that was the young and teenaged me!
Fascinating read, Paul!
If you missed out on this car, the R8 Gordini would offer a similar experience.
“Maybe when one is from a certain locale, certain automotive solutions tend to arise.” Indeed, if Mr. Porsche had decided to build his sports cars in Iowa City, he might have come up with a different solution. I know I have a hard time convincing my prairie brethren that there is more to handling than being able to traverse a large, constant-radius turn at speed. But, with the exception of a few river roads, that is the limit to the cornering challenges that they typically face. And thus, you rarely see an older Porsche where I come from, but 60’s muscle cars are a dime-a-dozen at the car shows (well, they were till this year. But we are hopeful.) Thank goodness the Speedster was developed where it was.
Thank for this, it is the first real description I have seen (with assisting commentary) of what it was like to drive a Speedster that does not resemble religious doctrine. The author enthuses, and then explains why, even marking his progress from skeptic to enthusiast. I remain amused by the 0 – 60 mph times, given current automotive writers’ insistence that anything that does not do 0 – 60 in less than six or seven seconds is dangerously slow. So often, in life as well as in driving, it is not the “what” of something, but the “how” that matters. Safe travels!
Great review and commentary — thanks for posting this and by annotating it further.
I’m somewhat embarrassed to admit that I’ve never been able to muster up much enthusiasm for early Porsches or VWs. This, despite my father having owned both a Karmann Ghia and a Porsche 356 well before I was born. He loved them both, but I just struggled to see what the appeal would have been.
This review helps put these cars in perspective. I still would probably not have considered buying one, but I certainly understand and appreciate them much more having read this.
I kept the tires on my ’70 Ghia inflated pretty much the same way, with 4 less PSI in front than back. I can’t ever recall it feeling dangerous to drive, even when curve crunching on Arkansas Hwy 7, which made the Top 10 roads of C/D a few times. I always shod it with Pirelli P6s which had a very good wear rate no matter how aggressive I got.
That will be as close as I ever get to experiencing how it is to drive a Porche…unless I check out that Porche 911 with at a local buy-here, pay-here. That thing has seriously cloudy headlights, like something from a 96 Malibu. It’s been there a while, too.
Your ’70 Ghia did not have the swing axle rear suspension. I have a ’69 and VW started using the newer rear suspension in ’68 on Autostick Type I’s. These are not as demanding on driver skill as the early ones. Chevy made a similar change in the ’65 Corvair.
I’ve driven a few of these cars in various iterations, including the Beck 550. They all felt like a hot rod VW. Not that it is bad but for what these cars go for I expect something more. ps I have a Lotus Elan which can be had for half of these Porsches.
I appreciate the additional exposure and explanation of these cars and the appeal they have had for a long time. This has been one of those cars that has been sort of an exclusive club. As you say, you either get them or your don’t.
I wonder if the ability to conquer the weight distribution/swing axle handling is similar in kind to the ability to handle a stick shift in the modern day – those who can do it tend to look down (if only just a little) on those who can’t. I suspect that if I were to happen into the ownership of one of these and spend a lot of time getting good at driving it, I would feel the very same way. But for now, I’m one of the outsiders.
That said, I have always appreciated the German philosophy of building a rigid body structure, and the feeling of rock-solid structural stiffness that goes with it. For too many years/decades, that was a minority view in a world of shuddering, juddering, squeaking and rattling cars that came from many other places.
I wonder if the ability to conquer the weight distribution/swing axle handling is similar in kind to the ability to handle a stick shift in the modern day
I get what you’re getting at, but I would say that learning to drive a rear engine swing axle car at or near its limits in curves is in a different league. I’ve taught a couple of kids (mine and others) tho drive a stick, and once upon a time everyone had to.
Millions drove VWs, but very few did so at 9/10ths (or more) on a fast downhill curvy road.
I’d say it’s a bit more like surfing or skiing (fast). It requires a significantly higher level of awareness of the sensations that are coming at you, and knowing how to respond. stick shift driving becomes pretty automatic soon enough; driving one of these not quite so much so. That’s how folks got stung.
The trial and error learning process might be similar but the big difference with driving stick is if you do it badly the worst case scenario is you’ll burn out a clutch early and be embarrassed when you stall in traffic. It’s really not that hard of a skill to master frankly, just spend a Sunday afternoon practicing in an empty industrial park and you’ll have it nearly down for life without even breaking any laws and risking your car or body.
Mastering rear bias and swing axles isn’t something you can really learn safely, as you purposefully or accidentally induced the rear end to break traction and if you don’t know what to do to get out of it or do it wrong you might end up in a ditch, wrapped around a pole, rolled over, smashed into another car… Oh and it’ll take several such events before you begin to learn to master the behavior, and you basically have to psychologically let go of fear in the process. I like the Ski/Surfing analogy.
I’ve been driving a stick shift since I was 15 and have taught numerous people including my kids (who in turn taught some of their friends in our cars, more than we ever heard about). And I’m from a generation where most adults of my parents’ age drove or had driven sticks. So it never seemed like a special skill to me. By contrast I never had the ability to master oversteer … whether it’s lack of talent or just some innate internal sensory defect. I’m not a great skier either, though I’m pretty good, or at least was when I was younger, at hustling a front wheel drive car around a racetrack, even a motorcycle.
My first car was a 1966 Beetle, purchased for $500 in March of 1976. One of these days I’ll write a COAL about it, but I’ll just say here that I longed for the 1967 as it had a 12 volt electrical system. I sold it in 1978 for the same $500.
Do write it up. And the 1967 was upgraded from the 1300 to the 1500 engine – quite an improvement. Headlight upgrade was an improvement as well. I went from a 1963 to a new 1969 with the 1500 – felt like a rocket ship☺ in comparison to the old car. And got the new suspension.
I had an unusual (for the North American market) ’67 Deluxe Sunroof Sedan, privately imported by a soldier stationed in Germany. Six volt, glass covered headlights, four bolt rims with single master cylinder front disc brakes and steering column locking ignition.
German Beetles also switched to the new vertical headlights in ’67, and also to 12V, except for the stripper VW1200. Also, four bolt wheels did not arrive until 1968. Something’s not right with what you’re remembering about your VW.
The ’66 1300 is my favorite year, and the best Beetle as many in the know will tell you. The 1300 engine was the sportiest VW engine, revving higher than the 1500/1600, and due to it having the same lower (higher numerical) axle ratio as the 1200, it kept up with the 1500, if not even out accelerate it. It had 50hp, whereas the 1500 had all of 53, but a higher axle ratio.
The 6V system was no problem as long as the connections were goo and not corroded. And it was easy to switch them to 12V.
The 1300 is considered to be the most durable VW engine, and exceptionally sweet-running. I’d love to have an original 1300.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-1966-vw-1300-the-best-beetle-of-them-all/
The National Highway Traffic Administration did comprehensive handling tests on the early Corvair, Falcon, Valiant, Type 1 Volkswagen, and Renault Dauphine. It’s floating out on the internet and is interesting reading. A piece of that report:
“For many of the tests the plotted data indicated that the Corvair
performance fell between the Valiant and Falcon on one side
and the Volkswagen and Renault on the other side. Outrigger
contact (representing vehicle rollover) did not occur in any
of the comparative tests for the Corvair, Falcon or Valiant.
Outrigger contact was made by the Volkswagen and the Renault
in some of the comparative tests.”
GM was pretty successful at making the Corvair handle similarly to front engine, solid rear axle cars under all but emergency conditions. Pushed to the limit Corvairs would oversteer, but pushed to the limit a Falcon would understeer. Neither of those cars were prone to roll over.
We rolled a VW in a dirt field one day. The structure did not crush so there was little damage to the car and no injuries. Rolled it back over and went on our way.
Very interesting, as always Paul!
I learned to drive on swing axled front engined cars – early 2 Litre Triumph Vitesses (Sport 6 in the USA) and I guess thought that was just the way cars handled. I used to think nothing of the rear ends jacking up mid curve and having to go “full oppo”. I doubt I have the reactions to do that now…
Rear engined cars do have a very distinct way about them. I guess you either love it or hate it. I drove modern 911s for many years and would love another 997. My current daily driver is a 50 year old aircooled VW (although with IRS). I crave a 356, having had experience of them on a pilgrimage from Stuttgart to Zell am See, driving the original Porsche test routes. My dream DD is a 66 Corvair coupe – I think that would combine the things I have come to love in one very sweet looking and individual package.
I’ve had a356 since 1967 . A 1600 speedster 1600 , sold a lot of cars an still keep my 56 speedster, 57 coupe and my 1962 corvair must .love the attention . room for one more corvair,
Next car Subaru,want an other..also.
You have a fine collection there, Jerry!
As Paul mentioned above: Correct tire pressure is a MUST DO for tractable handling in a rear engine, swing axle car.
Far too many people in the 1960’s failed to understand this.
A Jaguar-Porsche dealer in Salina, Kansas, in 1956. Who woulda thunk it?
It’s home to multiple colleges. And he also sold Ramblers. Even the Rebel!
Just about every college town except the very smallest had an import dealer during the 50s. It’s hard to overstate how big the sports car/import boom of the 50s was.
I have a ’66 Corvair Corsa 140 coupe. While I have our local tire shop replace the tires they always fill the tires to “30lbs all around” for what they claim are legal reasons. I gingerly drive it home the 2 miles and always adjust the pressures to 36lbs rear/ 26 to 28lbs front.
This started in 1960, or even earlier with the VW. It’s the single biggest reason why the Corvair (and VW) was excoriated. We’ll never know how many accidents and deaths could have been prevented if tire pressure differential had always been properly maintained.
It’s really too bad all this happened Paul. Although I run radial tires on it as well, with its factory front air dam it is one of the most stable, sure footed cars I have ever driven, even in crosswinds and past oncoming semis! They don’t even phase it! And takes corners like a go-kart! I did add quick steering arms and a more aggressive caster angle to add to the stability as well. It would be hell to carry bricks in the trunk, but I don’t need to do that with mine lol!
Bob! Great ride – must go well too, with the 140. Whats it like keeping the 4 carbs in synch? As I mentioned, a ’66 is my dream classic – please tell us more…
We need pctures!
I feel guilty Huey. I should do a COAL on it sometime.
Don’t feel guilty! I’ve been lucky enough to have had some very nice rides myself! Still have my C2 split and the Ghia., Your Corvair unites Bill Mitchell’s beautiful lines with rear engined architecture, air cooling, and that flat 6 sound, all of which I love.
I was very impressed by an all too short ride in a first gen. Corvair- it’s solidity, ride and refinement opened my eyes to what fine and satisfying cars these are, and what a revelation they must have been when new.
Paul’s stories of driving his Corvair foot to the floor may have had an influence too!
In a way Ed Cole had the last laugh – Tesla sedans, arguably the most innovative and game changing cars of recent times, are rear engined in their 2wd versions….
I wish you many more miles enjoying your ‘66 and I think many of us would love to see you write a CC article on it!
In an odd type of CC Effect, I had never heard of Manny Post (the owner of SCI’s test vehicle) before yesterday when I read this review. I was curious enough to look him up after reading this — interesting person.
Today, while researching another (completely unrelated) article, I came across another reference to Mr. Post. In the 1960s, he was evidently a member of California’s “Little Hoover” Commission, which was an oversight body. In examining state vehicle purchases, Mr. Post questioned why California Highway Patrol cars had always been Dodges for an entire decade. In digging a little further, he found what he thought was favoritism towards a particular well-connected Dodge dealer. In the following year (1967), CHP patrol vehicles amazingly wound up being Oldsmobiles… thanks to Mr. Post.
In addition to being involved in the film industry, Manny Post also owned a VW/Porsche dealership, and I think was one of California’s first VW dealers.