1965 was a banner sales year for Chevrolet thanks to great styling across the board. The rear-engine Corvair was given its first major design change since its 1960 introduction which resulted in a smoother, more sporty-looking car. Even the 4-Door Hardtop (that Chevrolet called a Sport Sedan) with its new formal roofline which replaced the flat top, greenhouse roofline of the ’60-’64 models, looked good. Here’s one of those 1965 Corvair Monza Sport Sedans that appears to be in great shape and with only 47,035 original miles. It’s currently residing in Washington, Pennsylvania, and is for sale here on craigslist for $12,400. A big thank you to Mitchell G. for sending this very nice Corvair our way.
The seller is kinda light on the details and history of the car, saying only that it was purchased from the local Corvair Club mechanic, is in excellent mechanical and overall condition, is fun to drive, and has always been kept in a heated garage. Fifteen paint colors were available for 1965 and this Corvair is wearing the familiar Ermine White with a red pinstripe that matches the car’s interior. The paint looks shiny and presentable and I’m not seeing any rust or scratches or boo-boo’s. The chrome, trim, glass, lenses, and full wheel covers on the period-correct whitewall tires look good as well. No photos of the Corvair’s underside are provided.
Along with the outside, the Corvair’s interior was also redesigned for ’65 and the red interior on this Monza is quite handsome, sportyish, and looks near perfect. The “easier-to-enter” cabin is decked out in red vinyl and the front bucket seats, rear bench seat, door panels, and color-coordinated red carpeting are in very good condition. (And, since it was the 60’s, both rear arm rests have shiny built-in ashtrays.)
The redesigned two-toned instrument panel and deep-dish steering wheel also looks sharp and this Corvair is listed as having a 2-speed Powerglide automatic transmission. The cockpit-styled shifter is on the instrument panel just to the right of the gas and temperature gauge dial.
The Corvair’s air-cooled rear engine is the optional Turbo-Air 164-cubic inch 6-cylinder that generated 110 horsepower when new. It’s listed as having only 47,035 original miles, but there’s no mention of documented proof. It was obvious that the car-buying public liked the redesigned ’65 Corvair as over 235,000 units were sold, up from 153,000 in 1964. The newer, more sporty positioning of the Corvair is also reflected in the sales numbers as coupes, including convertibles, outsold sedans 2-to-1. I know, I know, this Corvair has four doors, but of the 37,157 Monza Sport Sedans that rolled of the assembly line for model year 1965, this is the nicest, cleanest one we’ve ever featured here on Barn Finds. And with Hagerty estimating the value of one of these in #2 Condition at $11,700, the $12,400 listed price is in the ball park, especially if its low mileage can be confirmed.
The only year that the dash came in contrasting argent. Very nice, but on thar engine the dual exhaust is probably after market.
It’s common to see owners of the 95hp or 110hp engine add the dual exhaust setup from the 140hp engines.
Actually not. The 140 had larger pipe diameters and won’t fit a 95 or 110. There were, and still are, aftermarket kits to get the job done.
how many 1965 cars have an exhaust system that is not aftermarket? These cars were exposed to leaded gasoline for seven years and highly toxic lead destroys exhaust systems quickly.
Spare tire in the wrong place and the pinstripe shouldn’t have been applied, brings down the originality. Maybe it’s tape and can be peeled off.
I put the turbo exhaust on my ’65 Monza and it looked just like this one. Spare tire is probably in the trunk so we can all see the engine.
Did they move the spare into the engine bay in 65. I owned a 60 as a first car in 71 and I’d swear my spare was mounted standing up at the cowl (had 13″ wheels) right next to the gasoline-fired heater. Really like these little cars and I’d buy this in a minute but probably have to sleep in it.
Actually the Turbo used a single exhaust. The only OEM dual exhausts were used on the 140 engine, 4 Carburetor.
I have to question you on the exhaust… the Turbo exhaust was needless to say unique, and it was a single exhaust, not dual. They were also 2 1/2 inlet and outlet. Back in the day they were extremely popular on hotrods, fairly quiet with very little restriction. Factory dual exhaust cars tailpipes also exited out to the side, rather than straight out the back, but this is commonplace on ‘Vairs these days. No harm, no foul!
Exhaust note: Turbo exhaust just didn’t bolt on to the original engine. Used the pipes to put together a system where the lengths were the same on both sides and the mufflers matched to them. Made a lot of difference.
My 65 Corsa had a factory applied black pinstripe against the mist blue paint. I’m not sure if they applied red and it may have been at the Los Angeles plant only. I will need to consult with my Corvair historian.
My friend informed me only the 65 Corsa models got the factory applied pinstripe. 1/8” below the body crease. Doone you are correct and hopefully it’s tape but either can be removed.
Can you say Death Trap. Ralph Nader fought to get these rear engine totally awful enginnered car’s off our highways. A neighbor bought a new Monza for their son, a graduation present and he died when he simply hit the brakes sending the car over a cliff near Santa Cruz. I don’t understand why these car’s are not banned. Look at the rear differential. Its a spaghetti factory mess. Nader proved in court and Congressional settings these Corvairs were all death traps. Only after a few years, GM pulled the plug and has never made a true rear engine car since. Being also the fact this car is being sold on Craiglist where nothing ever works… run away and don’t look back. jv smashpalace
Maybe you should stick to cars with air bags and back up cameras. Obviously, you clicked onto the wrong website.
Is there anything in life that you do like JE? Maybe ice cream cones, cotton candy….
I drive a 65 Corvair Corsa. I like my death trap very much thank you! One of the best handling American cars short of a Corvette in 65. Even the early model 60-64 handled better than most American cars on the road for the period. Independent testing back in the period even proved this to be correct vindicating Chevrolet of any wrongdoing. Hagerty insurance tested the very same car in question a few years back and also vindicated the auto manufacturer.
I was going to counter with fact, but best to just say You have no clue.
OK……let’s see…..a high school grad with little to no experience driving a car through the mountains on a twisty road decides to hit the brakes and drove over a cliff….and somehow, that’s the car’s fault ? How about the parents for buying the child an adult means of transportation ? Nader proved he knows nothing about cars, as further studies proved him wrong….are we going to say that all electric cars are death traps, due to that (obviously drunk) woman who drove her’s into a lake and drowned ?? seems to be a biased outlook with no substantial evidence or objectivity to me….
@ JE… you obviously don’t understand what Nader’s issue was with the Corvair. It had nothing to do with the fact it was rear engine. His concern was over the swing axle, rear suspension design… which was actually replaced by a with a fully independent trailing arm design in the ’65 model year… the year of the car for sale here. And Nader’s criticism of the car is today now known to be overstated. The early Corvair’s handling at its limit was different than most conventional US cars as it tended toward oversteer and not terminal understeer. Different, but not unsafe. There were several other cars available at the time that had swing axle rear suspensions with the same characteristics as the Corvair. The VW Beetle (up to ’68) and early Triumph Spitfires come to mind. And the Spitfire was well known for it’s loose rear end. Why didn’t Nader go after those?… Sorry about your neighbors son, but his accident was more than likely due to inexperience and unfamiliarity than to any design defect in the car.
Additionally, Nader was a raving lunatic. That certainly endeared him to the govt. They started the NHTSA a year after he started whining about the Corvair.
Nonsense… you are still drinking the cool-aid. Maybe you should research some facts before spouting 50+ year old rumors!
My wife barfed driving highway 1 near Santa Cruz. I lived there in the early 70’s. There were several vdubs at the bottom of those cliffs. Porches and Vdubs both had as bad or worse drop throttle oversteer. Hey at least they all went downhill back end first, the safest way to go.
P.S. Nader was a tool.
65\69 corvairs had a new rear suspension similar to the Corvette, but with a transaxle. My 65 was a 110 3 speed that I revved the hell out of. I wish I had a nice 140 4speed coupe.
Pretty much everything you said here is incorrect. Nader never proved anything in court. The only court he was in was the court of public opinion. I owned a 63 Corvair as my first car. I used and abused that car. It handled fine. There is no way to kill yourself by simply hitting the brakes. You were obviously one of those people duped by Ralph Nader. They stopped building the Corvair after the 1969 model year due to poor sales. Poor sales because of ignorant people believing Ralph Nader. The Corvair was no more dangerous than the VW bug rear engine Porches of the day.
My information (admittedly from the 1970’s) is when Nader wrote his book he didn’t even own a car. He certainly was not an expert. The 1960/64 Corvair “swing arm” rear suspension design was very similar to the VW Beetle. I’m no Corvair expert but what I’m told is the 1965 up design was a true independent suspension that doesn’t have a problem if it’s driven correctly.
The reason a bunch of Corvairs got wrecked is people who bought a VW Beetle knew that they bought a rear engine European car that was not going to behave like a front engine car when you came to a curve. Chevy dealers usually went out of their way to not mention that to potential Corvair customers.
The simple truth is that when a front engine car starts to slide in a corner, turning the wheel towards the slide and letting off the throttle (usually) fixes things. If you do that with a rear engine car, and don’t know what you’re doing, it’s a wreck. for sure.
In regards to the Ralph Nader controversy: early Porsches, some Triumphs, and Volkswagen Beetles also had the same problem as early Corvairs with the swing axle suspension. Also Nader didn’t have a driver’s license. In short, Nader was a loudmouth jackwagon
Agree with that. Over a 22 year period we owned 15 Porsches with the swing axle rear suspensions. Drove them all over the country, autocrossed them, and never had had any handling problems. Built one into a race car and cleaned up on everything in the class. Our ’65 Monza with the upgraded fully independent rear suspension ran all over the country and was autocrossed on a regular basis and usually went home with a trophy.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Me too!
Nader this, Nader that, there’s a reason why they quit making them, they were junk, they couldn’t compete with VW, or any other compact on a good day. My sister had a 66 convertible, had nothing but grief, just about had to put on an oxygen mask every time she turned the heater on lol. Finally got the dealer to buy it back. Doug Spedding Chevrolet in Denver Co. I was just a kid, but remember it well. It was actually a cute little car, but what a turd lol
Lack of maintenance. Every Corvair owner knows too replace pushrod O-rings with better quality vitons. Engines will run forever – even when near worn out. Handling of ’65 through ’69s is superior to most anything from that era – and can easily be vastly improved. Believing erronious info from hearsay is plain ole laziness. They are delightful cars to drive, and very good sports cars when only slightly improved.
“Lack of maintenance”. The thing spent most of it’s time in the shop, it had plenty of maintenance lol. And right from the horse’s mouth, isn’t hearsay
It’s difficult to look at something we love honestly and objectively. The Corvair wasn’t particularly more dangerous than anything else out there at the time. But the fact that the rear suspension was redesigned for the updated Corvairs to eliminate the issues in the original suspension means, pretty much by definition, that the rear suspension had room for improvement. And you can readily find pictures of the rear wheels tucking under the car when cornering.
I had read that the best explanation for the problems with the Corvair is that people weren’t ready for or trained for a Corvair. I’m reminded of the Olds diesel. Forgetting for the moment engineering issues, when there was water in the diesel fuel, owners would think nothing of using “drygas.” That is just what you did back in the day. But that ate up the seals in the injectors, and led to a host of other issues. Nobody ever said “Don’t use drygas”. That’s not the fault of the car. You do have to question “at what point is it the manufacturer’s responsibility to design something that is safe to use in the manner in which people are expected to use the product?” I’m torn on that issue…
I’m not going to comment on Nader. ( not a fan). I am going to comment on this beautiful Corvair. When they redesigned them in 65 and came out with the 4 door hardtop. I really think GM just got it right. All the proportions, are just spot on. The Corvair 4 door hardtops are some of the nicest looking 4 door cars to have come out of the 60s. This looks like a beautiful example. The ONLY thing I’d preffer is a 4 speed over the Powerglide. This is just really nice.
A four speed? Yes! That was exactly what my comment was going to be.
In hindsight, Nader was a publicity hound, pure and simple, and the anti-corporate factions in Congress ate it up.
Nice clean car I personally have never had the opportunity to work on these or any rotary engine. I have a repair book that covers These and multiple cars from the 60s including Volkswagen someday I may get one when I’m still capable of fixing it myself.
What is there not to like about this car? It looks great, seems to be in excellent condition inside/out, represents a breakthrough and daring design from a US manufacturer in the ‘60s, it won’t run your checking account dry…..too bad I don’t have the space….lovely example of a meaningful automobile.
Rear engine cars by nature can be tail happy. Chevrolet’s solution was severely staggered tire pressure (16 psi front and 24 psi rear) to induce understeer. Every 1960’s grease monkey and gas pump jockey KNEW that the only correct tire pressure for any car was 28 psi all around. (This was before the days of the correct tire pressures posted on the driver’s door jamb; you had to (shudder) read the owner’s manual.) With these pressures, the Corvair was unstable.
Finally someone mentioned the tire pressure solution. The swing axle issues were rectified by the simple expedient of attaching a transverse leaf spring across the centerline of the back axles, thus limiting the perceived excessive travel of the suspension.
The illustration used in “Unsafe at any Speed” to show the evils of the design pictured the swing axle at a 35 degree angle tucking under the car, a condition unrepeatable in real life.
The true tragedy of the Corvair was corporate hubris that prevented GM from admitting that something relatively inexpensive (tire pressure, preventer springs) would have eliminated any legitimate complaints.
If the Corvair is such a death trap why are there so many devoted enthusiast clubs around the country? There will probably never be a small car so attractively styled ever again. Sure they were cheaply made rust buckets but what 1965 car wasn’t? Of the half-million ’65 Mustangs built try to find an original without serious rust.
A 65 Corsa was my 1st car. If it was dangerous I would not be writing this post. I did things we with the car was pretty crazy. It maxed out at about 115 mph. It was fun doing donuts in parking lots.
Hello, new here, had a 66 Corsa convertible, was car was 3 yrs old, when purchased, was 19 or so, other than pushrod tube seals, easy repair, had no issues, other than self inflicted mech issues, can’t drag race this car!! drive axle doesn’t like it, car had weights in all the corners, had to take out of course, 14” wheels, f70-14 tires, better top end ratio, took it to college in upstate NY, lots of snow, could drop the whole powertrain out in about an hour in driveway, for rear end or trans repair, carry a spare fan belt, great car, drove it everywhere, lots of fun back then, at 75 i’ve calmed down, just ride motorcycles, thanks
I had a new ’66 Corvair Monza two-door hardtop. Lovely car. I love all the Corvairs 1965-69. What other car from any decade, let alone over 55 years ago could still pass for a new 2020s design? We like to use the term “timeless”. The 2nd-generation Corvair is the one example that truly is.
My Corvair was nigh-on to bulletproof. OK, the original fan belt broke at 40,000 miles, and around 45,000 miles I began to smell a whiff of crankcase fumes in the heater output. A friend had that same problem with his Greenbrier van. I understand that in more recent years, we now have seals and gaskets that permanently solve the problem. I don’t recall any particular handling problems – the car always seemed very neutral, stable, and predictable. I was not aware of any special skills or knowledge required to drive a rear-engine car (not a rotary!), nor did I ever need any.
There was one exception regarding handling. ’Twas one time when we went on a 200-mile trip on Minnesota’s midwinter compacted snow and ice, WITH my wife’s 300-pound aunt in the back seat. On that one occasion, I experienced some difficulty keeping the rear wheels behind the front ones. It was like the voluminous aunt wanted to get there first. We got there just fine – just a bit slower than everybody else.
BTW, I read “Unsafe At Any Speed” BEFORE I bought my Corvair. Partly because of that book. How could a guy be so wrong about so much? I had to buy one just to prove him wrong. For my own purposes at least, I succeeded – or rather, the Corvair did – brilliantly!
Junk? You want junk? Try the new ’73 Toyota Corona that replaced it. Worst car I’ve ever owned. Long story for another time…
“How could a guy be so wrong about so much?”
It’s well known that Mr. Nader did not have a driver’s license and did not drive. He wrote about, and was critical of something he had no practical knowledge of.
Ralph Nader was nothing more than an opportunist. Saw a way to make a name for himself by writing a book and picking on GM. Inherently a good car, but the bad press sealed the corvairs fate. But the average bozo will believe what they are told(or read) without research themselves. Oh well, you can’t fix stupid
It’s interesting reading all of the comments about these cars after thinking for decades they were all junk. I always thought they were cool looking but I had a cousin on the north side of Denver who bought one (I think it was a ’64 but I’m not sure) and the engine fell out of it without explanation not long afterward, then later he loaned it to a friend one Saturday night and as fate would have it I happened to be coming the other way when his friend guy pulled into a country store going faster than he should have been probably and when he hit the potholed dirt parking lot the car started rolling. At the time I couldn’t see how it should’ve rolled from hitting a pothole because I’d done the same thing in my Plymouth dozens of times, but now I understand. The suspension just wasn’t up to crazy driving and potholes. This one is really cool though regardless.
Most of us Corvair guys know the the NHTSA folks completely exonerated the Corvair for it’s alleged handling issues. I’m in my 70’s… and I never saw a rolled Corvair, or any first hand knowledge of one, but I can tell you that I have seen numerous VW Beetles that rolled over. I’ve had at least 10 Corvairs and currently have two, including a mid-engine V8. You gotta love the stories you hear about Corvairs…
The best corvair built in 1966 Don Yenko Stinger. Gogel it and check out U-tube. About 3400 new, really a screamer and road racer animal
Ever car I ever drove was a (potential) death trap. My ex wife once remarked; my mom said a good driver doesn’t scare their passengers. Good for her.
As my memory serves me the swing axle problem was solved beginning with the 64 models.
The 2nd generation 65 and up got the beauty treatment.
Would love to buy this one, but someone else will get lucky.
Look at a Gen 2 Corvair and a Gen 1 Camaro. Then you’ll understand why the Corvair was dropped.
Do your research before speaking. The problem was with the cars thru 1963. Chevrolet redesigned the rear suspension and fixed the suspected problem in 1964. Tests showed the cars were not compromised and were not dangerous.
Fun to read replies to your post. I’m surprised that yours got even four upvotes, lol.
I grew up with Corvairs, a ’64 Monza 110/4speed, followed by a ’66 Corsa 140/4 that I still own, They were my mother’s “drive to work” cars, but my dad and older brother road rallied and autocrossed them. I did that and more in later years.
They are different, for sure. Unsafe? Hardly. Your opinion and attitude are in a serious need of revision. Check out what other people have to say, think it over, and then maybe…..
Any post re: Corvairs usually gets 60% negative comments – from those who heard the Nader story or their broke bro-in-law’s tale of the Vair that received zero maintanence (yet still ran). Trying to teach them the truth is but wasted keystrokes.