Talk:Chevrolet Corvair

That engine photo isn't the turbo engine, it's the low end two carb engine. The turbo had a sidedraft carb with a cylindrical air cleaner mounted back (forward?) on the driver's side of the firewall (well, right behind the back seat) right on the turbo input. The big pie plate air cleaners as seen here were the two carb and four carb, and it looks like you can see only one air horn going to one carb on the left side head. (I owned a few two carb and one four carb version, and I saw a few turbo versions). Gzuckier 19:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, man, I was excited to get a shot of the turbo, too! The reason I thought it was a turbo is that it says "TURBO-AIR" on the air cleaner - I assumed they wouldn't use the word, "turbo", on a non-turbo car, but I guess I was wrong... --SFoskett 19:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, for some ungodly reason they called the more powerful 2 carb engine (in contrast to the less powerful two carb engine) the turbo air. ??? Great marketing strategies of the 20th century. Here's a good pic of the turbo engine[1]; that big chrome can on the left that looks like an air inlet is the air cleaner, that chrome thing on the right with a dent in it to clear the spare tire is the heat shield over the exhaust side of the turbo, and you can see the sidedraft carb in between and the chrome pipe out to the intake manifolds. Unmistakable. Gzuckier 04:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason it is called Turbo Air is because 'Turbo' didn't have the accepted meaning it has now. In the same way, a lot of cars in the 30s, 40s and 50s had what was known as 'air conditioning'. However, this didn't mean what we know it to mean today (refrigeration) - it just meant a regular heating and ventilation system, because the later kind of air conditioning hadn't been invented, so obviously it didn't strike anyone as odd at the time (just having a regular system was more than most people could aspire to!).

In the same way, as there weren't any other Turbo cars around at the time, calling the Corvair's engine 'Turbo Air' wasn't considered odd because Turbo didn't mean what it means now. It would only have been considered odd after the turbocharged engie gained wider aceptance, following on the lead set by (you've guessed it) the Chevrolet Corvair, which besides having an engine called Turbo Air, was in fact the world's first turbocharged engine (or the second, if you could the Olds F-85, which beat it by a month or two, but was another GM product and fizzled out after a couple of years).

'Turbo Air' confusion partly relates to US car maker anxiety caused by the threat of Chrysler to manufacture a full production turbine powered car, as alternative engines were increasingly explored after being field tested and proven in WW2. Moreover the Hitler VW and helicopter proven horizontally opposed engine layout.

Great marketing moves

But wait, there's more! The two carb engines (80-110 HP) were all "Turbo-Air," and the four-carb. 140 HP engine was the "Super Turbo-Air." The actual Turbo engine says "Turbocharged" on the air cleaner with a fireball for the cross of the "T." At least it's graphically interesting... I'll see if I have a nice photo of a 140 HP to pop in as well.

Most Chevy engines of that era had "turbo" marketing names. The small-block V8s were Turbo-Fire, the big blocks were Turbo-Jet, even the lowly sixes were Turbo-Thrift.

Again playing upon the turbine engine and avionics type higher technology themes and employing actual turbo-charging to a car engine, whereas turbo-charging was pioneered, developed and refined for airplane use in order overcome an altitude ceiling caused by lower density air pressure.

whats missing

There is the Greenbrier so I am trying to find a good picture for it:) Whopper 02:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Could someone please comment on this? It makes no sense.. what's so bad about taking the key out?: "The first Corvairs (1960 – 1964) were factory equipped with an ignition lock wherein it was possible to start the car and then remove the key. Doing so in Southern California and being caught by the Los Angeles Police Department was a guaranteed ticket to a weekend in jail." --JeffryJohnston 19:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the design, I used to drive a 64 Monza 900 with the keys in the speaker dish on the dash. But the thing was, the LAPD would see that there was no key in the ignition and instantly decide the car was stolen. And of course, once they decided to take you to jail, you were going to jail, end of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.112.236 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2006

Nader removed?

What happened to the Ralph Nader related information in earlier versions? I certainly think it's pertinent to the car's history. 65.9.150.134 21:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd go further and include a mention in the introduction. Nader is main reason I have even heard of the corvair. 204.58.245.247 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I grew up in the Detroit suburbs in the 1960's, and I heard of the Corvair long before I ever heard of Nader. The general view in our neighborhood is that the Corvair was a fine car and that GM had been railroaded by Nader. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Put back Nader--DeLorean too!

Charisma was never Nader's strong suit--he always tells us what we don't want to, but need to hear. I put much of it back. I've seen Nader (the man who refuses to hold a driver's license, nor to own a car) since the old days of The Tonight Show, with Johnny Carson. Unsafe At Any Speed is a must read for anyone considering buying an American Car. More than almost single-handedly leading to the demise of the Corvair, one needs to read the chapter on the Ford Mustang in Nader's book,to appreciate the incredible way the car had it's body design taken to the engineers, telling them, "This is how it's going to look, now make it into a car--and make sure to keep the cost below $3,000." The marketing was even more incredible than the engineering. Before anyone had seen one, there were folks who paid cash to be put on a list to get the "first one in town." One woman wrote to Ford, before its big pemier to say, "The new Mustang is more exciting than sex!" My wife's best girlfriend bought a brand new 1965 Mustang. I drove it partway through a blizzard to New York City. What a piece of crap. I don't know which was scarier, trying to get ahead of the storm, or the way the crappy thing handled going down the Empire State Thruway at 85mph.

I saw Nader at our church during the 2004 campaign. Again, he told me a lot of things I did not want to hear, (but needed to). When he left the building, he was driven to the airport (he always travels coach) in the back seat of somebody else's van.

I also referenced, On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors, by John Z. DeLorean. For every potential American car buyer, I believe it is an even more essential read than Nader's book. In it he talks about how GM would design front suspensions for their cars by getting them to fail after a few hundred miles on the test track, and then upgrade just as little as possible to save a production dollar or two. DeLorean is referenced in WP, but like most of the sites on Google, everybody wants to talk about his car fiasco and his cocaine problem, instead of his hard-won bad news about General Motors.

I am 60 years old, have been a motor-head all my life. Like DeLorean I grew up in the Motor City, where I still live. When I was ten, my old man put a wrench in my hand and said, "If you're gonna drive 'em, you're gonna fix 'em." Although I appreciate high performance, I much prefer quality. My first two new cars were Volkswagens, the second from Pennsylvania and the last two have been Hondas, built in Ohio by Americans. I cannot tell you how many times I have returned to my parked Honda to find a big glob of snot in the middle of the windshield, especially in Dearborn. For a while I was seeing bumper stickers that read, "REAL Americans buy American cars." I later saw one on a Volvo which said, "Real Americans buy what they want, (or QUALITY)"--W8IMP 03:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader made all sorts of allegations about all sorts of cars, and not too many of them had any real basis in fact. Chapter 2 tells of how the horizontal tailfins on the 1959 and 1960 Full-Size Chevrolets caused the rear ends of those cars to lift off the ground at speeds in excess of 70MPH. Tell that th NASCAR legend Junior Johnson, who won the 1960 Daytona 500 in a 1959 Chevy Impala Sport Coupe at an average speed of nearly 140MPH! Tell me: How can a car whose drive wheels leave the ground at 70 ever hope to attain 140? Perhaps Mr.Nader could explain that one, since his book was published FIVE YEARS after the fact! Yes, he did mention the Mustang in one brief chapter, but only to sustain the illusion of impartiality - he was on the payroll of the Ford Motor Company while he was writing his book!

If you read John DeLorean's book "On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors", pay special attention to where he says that it is incredibly stupid (Paraphrasing, as it's been nearly 25 years since I've read it myself) to put an engine as heavy as the Corvair's 400-ish lb, mostly aluminum powerplant out behind the rear axle. Then the genius goes into production with his own car, powered by a CAST IRON V-6 sourced from Renault/Peugeot/Volvo. This engine weighs more than 200 lbs MORE thanthe Corvair's engine! It's widely known that Mr. DeLorean left GM under circumstances that were less than favorable to him, and his book was just his way of exacting his pound of flesh from the automaker. CorvairJim

Independent Rear Suspension

All Corvairs had a fully independent rear suspension, not just the 65 and later. The swing axles were fully independent as well, just not as good of a design.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.209.173 (talk • contribs) 5 April 2006

Oh No, the IRS!

The definition of independent suspension I learned was that camber, caster, and toe all had to be independently controllable during suspension motion. Swing axles don't allow independent camber control, therefore aren't fully independent suspension. -- Aqmxv 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh they were independently controlled

just badly. Both rear wheels were totally independent of each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.209.173 (talk • contribs) 9 April 2006

Name

Is it fair to say that the name was artificial and doesn't mean anything? Was it a play on the words Corvette and corsair? Maikel 13:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

REPY TO Maikel....

The more common belief was that the name was a combination of the two most prominant GM lines, Corvette and Belair.. ala Corvair.

There was a 1953 Concept Corvette like car called the Corvair. The name was saved and eventually was used for the little air cooled wonder we all know as the Corvair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.38.58 (talk • contribs) 15 June 2007

Engineering

Someone needs to look into the engineering section. Someone wrote it referring to themself a lot. 75.37.67.193 08:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Its an awful section of the article, its written with little referencing and from a personal point of view. How's about removing everything referring to personal problems and ask for cites for the rest? Alastairward 12:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Junker, Clunker, Ball of Flames

Essay by some guy who never owned one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.243.248 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 The Corvair was a piece of junk. It leaked oil all of the time. It had an aluminum engine

which wore out in record time. It has to be taken care of like a baby or it would kill you via fumes, crush you if you were hit from the front, set you on fire if you were hit from behind.

 I lived through that era.  I was well aware of the many, many problems related to the Corvair. The only people who owned them didn't own them very long because consistant problems.
 The real problem with the Covair was that Ralph Nader took entirely too long to bring out his book "Unsafe at any Speed". Too many people died driving this death car.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.87.107 (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 

I cannot believe the Corvair was any worse than other American cars of its size. I am certain you were just as unsafe in
a Falcon, Chevy II, Valiant or Lark. The Corvair's superiority on the road was its ability to steer where you pointed it,
in contrast to its contemporaries.

My '69 Monza is a dream to drive, doesn't leak anything, and takes me reliably back and forth to work day in, day out, five
days a week, 52 weeks a year...Bill H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.27.244 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow too many unread ranting idiots are allowed to post on these pages....no...too many people werent killed....unfortunately the stupid ones survived and procreated begatting more inbred stupidity....leaving the world in its current pathetic state. Nowadays, merely stating something makes it fact...true are not. Please read the real history of Corvair (btw, the only car ever proved safe to drive on US roads) and do not depend on this Wiki stuff, because what most people know isn't that much. John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.25.103 (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Chapter for Corvan/Greenbrier/Pickups

Why hasn't anybody created a chapter on this article about the Corvan 95 commercial vans, Greenbrier passenger vans, Rampside pickups, and Loadside pickups? ----DanTD (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Somehow too many unread ranting idiots are allowed to post on these pages....no...too many people werent killed....unfortunately the stupid ones survived and procreated begatting more inbred stupidity....leaving the world in its current pathetic state. Nowadays, merely stating something makes it fact...true are not. Please read the real history of Corvair (btw, the only car ever proved safe to drive on US roads) and do not depend on this Wiki stuff, because what most people know isn't that much.

Production notes

Why is it impossible to fix the "Production notes" chapter? 1963 doesn't want to fix. ----DanTD (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-write

The article is ripe for a new editing team. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Engine?

 Someone should mention the Corvair engine was very popular in  kit planes and Benson Copters.  It had about the same weihght, and nearly the horespower, of a Lycoming flat six, while being MUCH cheaper.  The Corvair flies again!Tintinteslacoil 02:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

swapping V8 in place of original engine

I've seen lots of articles about swapping a small block chevvy into the rear of a Corvair or even a Porsche 911/912. Apparently it can work pretty well, not an abomination to drive. Of course, the mid-engine gives much better balance, but at the cost of the rear seat. Installing a radiator in the front helps combat the rear weight bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.227.251 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Backing a Corvair over Nader

Offhand, I can't source it, but C&D criticized Nader for ignoring the need of drivers to cope with changes in driving style when operating the Corvair, not least keeping the rear tires properly inflated. None of the issues Nader raised were problems among owners of the 911, which had the same layout (& similar suspension, IIRC), nor with the Type 1 (tho, granted, it was much less powerful). This needs to be addressed, IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I added your info to Criticisms - Handling (1960-1963 models)-

Car and Driver magazine criticized Nader for ignoring the need of drivers to cope with changes in driving style when operating the Corvair, not least keeping the rear tires properly inflated. None of the issues Nader raised were problems among owners of the Porsche 911, which had the same layout (& similar suspension), nor with the VW Type 1 Beetle (though granted, it was much less powerful). (Vegavairbob (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Handling section

The handling section does not clarify what the danger of oversteer is or indicate clearly the options that can ameliorate oversteer potential. The section fails to clearly designate tire pressure differential as a specific strategy used on the Corvair etc. The section now duplicates information on Nader, from the Reportage section.

Instead of protecting "my edits," (See WP:Ownership), clarity and communication need to prevail. Let's see if we can collaborate to improve the article. Isn't this much more clear and succinct:

The Corvair initially featured a rear swing axle design, which unless ameliorated by any of several design options, could allow rear tires to undergo large camber changes during fast cornering, leading to oversteer — a dynamically unstable condition where a vehicle can lose control and spin.

As one option to avoid potential oversteer characteristics, Chevrolet considered including a front anti-roll bar on the original 1960 Corvair, which would have shifted weight transfer to the front outboard tire, considerably reducing rear slip angles.

Instead, Chevrolet relied on a tire pressure differential — low front and high rear tire pressure — to avoid oversteer characteristics. The tire pressure differential allowed the front to understeer (increasing slip angles faster than the rear) before oversteer would develop. Vehicles such as the Volkswagen Beetle and Renault Dauphine also used tire pressure differential to avoid oversteer characteristics.

Owners and mechanics, however, could also inadvertently but easily over-inflate the front tires, thus eliminating the tire pressure differential and inducing oversteer characteristics.

• In 1962, the front anti–roll bar become available as an option.

• In 1964, the front anti-roll bar became standard equipment and the rear suspension was modified to include a transverse leaf spring extending between the rear wheels to limit rear wheel camber change, and carrying much of the rear weight combined with softer coil springs.

• In 1965, the Corvair received a fully independent rear suspension, reducing the rear roll center to half its previous height and using fully articulated half-axles that offered constant camber on the rear tires in all driving situations. Motor Trend called the 1965 Corvair "the first American production automobile on the road with fully independent rear suspension," considering the Corvette a limited production vehicle.

842U (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What is all this? I didn't change your edit. I simply added some of my sentences back in in modified form to fit your edit. None of your work was deletedVegavairbob (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Criticisms section I basically created first of all..The Handling section is not meant to be a crash course in oversteer or handling. It is meant to explain the Corvair's initial cost cutting compromises which you all but deleted, There is nothing wrong with the Handling section. It is, as I said, also a general history of the car's suspension development.Vegavairbob (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)