Bob,
I'm in general agreement with your post, I've just been too lazy to
peck it out on my own. ;^) I think it should be pointed out that the
Corvair wasn't the only GM vehicle of the time that was had treacherous
handling. There was the Pontiac Tempest, with a slant 4 (half a 389 V8)
in the front and a rear transaxle with swing-arm suspension that would
tuck the inside wheel inand spin, ala Corvair. The Tempest died before
the Corvair, eh?
I think I have to take issue with references by others (not you) that
claim Road and Track mag "debunked" Nader's assessment of the Corvair.
Anyone want to provide the date of the R&T 7I owned several of the early
Corvairs and was in on modifying the the suspension on several cars,
mine and others'. You couldn't change the tire pressures and magically
make the car handle well. Tire pressure adjustments were only a part of
retuning the suspension. The pre-1964 Corvairs were treacherous pigs
as they came from the factory and that's that. Been there, done that,
even bought the T-shirt. ;^)
Cheers,
CR
Bob Howard wrote:
> It's difficult, when assessing the guy, to separate what we don't
> admire in him from information that he brought to public attention. WIth
> reference to Unsafe At Any Speed, he was not lying in the assertions
> about unpredictable Corvair handling, undersize tires and hostile
> dashboards.
|