On Fri, 1 May 1998, Allen Nugent wrote:
> This is not the 1st reference to Corvairs on this list. I am puzzled as to
> what Triumph enthusiasts would see in the car Ralph Nader had particularly
> in mind when he coined the phrase, "Unsafe at any speed". Could you
> enlighten me?
To begin with, Ralph Nader was only interested in Ralph Nader, as most "media
lawyers" are. His diatribe against
the US automotive industry brought about the first significant federal
regulation of automobiles in this country. Not so
indirectly, he was responsible for the demise of sports cars in general,
specifically low production cars. It just wasn't
profitable for many manufacturers to sell cars in the US... including Triumph.
Nader's treatise was against the industry in general (not making cars as safe
as they could have) with only a small part against the Corvair. It was singled
out because it was so different than any other American car. Though VW and
Porsche had similar configurations and suspensions, they were only sold in
relatively small numbers. (In the US, anything which is fundamentally
different, sold in large numbers, and belongs to a wealthy corporation is ideal
fodder for lawyers.)
Anyone remember the "unintended acceleration" fiasco of the 80's? Same basic
issues. (I'm an Audi fan, too.)
Why the Corvair as an enthusiast car? I got into them because guys were
autocrossing obviously poor cars very successfully, usually beating the higher
dollar sports cars, including my tricked out Midget. (Found out later it was
my poor driving rather than the car!) Technically and historically, they are
one of the most interesting American cars ever. First rear engine, first
extensive use of aluminum, first modern air-cooled engine, first high
production turbocharged car, first common use of floor shift and bucket seats
in a non-sports car. (The Mustang, while traditionally engineered,
capitalized on the styling aspects and thus beget the popular pony car. To
fight the Mustang, GM built the Camaro which for all practical purposes doomed
the much more expensive to produce Corvair.)
The basic design of the Corvair was a bit compromised due to manufacturing
procedures which caused the design weight of the engine to be significantly
increased, leading to a strongly rear-weight-biased car. Though the swing axle
cars were definitely less forgiving than a Falcon or Valiant (two main
competitors), they were not unsafe. In 1965, the entire car was redone,
resulting in a fully independent suspension similar to the Corvette. Handling
is world-class. While limited in practical displacement to about 2.7L and
carrying about 2500lbs, these are very capable cars. In SCCA Improved Touring
(street tires, stock compression, cam, and carbs) they race against BMW 2002
Tii, Porsche 912, and a other pretty decent machines. My engine of choice is
the 140: normally aspirated, 4 carbs, dual exhaust. 140hp, 160 ft/lbs, hooked
to a 4-speed limited slip 3.55 transaxle. Performance overall is similar to a
TR6, but in a 5 passenger car with a decent ride. Oh, and it's very reliable
and fuel efficient (if you keep your foot out of the carbs) as well.
They were the kind of cars America should have built in the 70's, but didn't.
If you get a chance to drive one sometime,
give it a try. (Only a handful in Oz.... never made any RHD models.)
Corvairs were completely exonerated after years of investigations and court
cases in 1972, three years after production ended.
I guess in summary: the technical and historical aspects, the "underdog" image,
the uniqueness, and the sheer driving enjoyment. Did I mention they're
extremely undervalued as well? They tend to multiply.
Bill Elliott
Lake Mills, WI
1971 TR6, 1966 Corsa 140, 1965 Corvair Dune Buggy, just about to pick up 1965
Corsa Turbo
Stored in NC: 1960 Sedan (project), 1960 Coupe (restored), 1962 Coupe (retired
driver awaiting restoration, 1963 Conv (in progress), 1964 Conv (parts), and
1964 Van (they made pickups and stationwagons, too)
|