The Corvair debuted in 1960 as Chevrolet’s first compact car. It followed along the lines of the Volkswagen Beetle with its rear-mounted, air-cooled engine. The car would prove popular at first, but demand faded around the middle of the decade as activist Ralph Nader challenged the car’s safety characteristics. The vehicles were redesigned in 1965, and those troubles were largely remedied, but the PR damage was done. Chevrolet canceled the Corvair in 1969 with just 6,000 copies, including this one.
These were fun cars to drive. A good friend had a Monza (from 1966, I think) and we would tool around in it from time to time. Until he got bitten by the muscle car bug and migrated to a Chevelle SS 454 (huge difference!). The later Corvairs were powered by a 164 cubic inch “Turbo Air” six-cylinder which had grown from the 145 CI versions from earlier in the decade. The Monza was the most popular series, which comprised most of the sales in the Corvair’s final year.
We’re told this is an original machine with just 37,000 miles. That includes its Frost Green paint that is faded in spots but looks good enough to avoid a repaint. The matching interior is solid, too, for being 55 years old. The seller says the car drives and stops as it should, which should include the 2-speed Powerglide automatic transmission that was modified for the Corvair.
From the photos, it looks like this Chevy was lowered and is wearing a set of 14-inch Rally wheels that likely came off another Chevrolet from the same era. If you’re into Corvairs, this should be a rare find as a survivor since so few were built in the finale season. Located in Orange, California, this air-cooled remembrance from the 1960s is available here on Facebook Marketplace for $9,000 OBO.
Nice car. Makes me miss my 4 speed ’65 maroon Monza every time I see one of these come up for sale.
Same sentiment here, Bob. I miss my ’65 Corsa. It was fast and nimble–one of the more remarkable of the many cars (too many to recall them all, actually) I’ve owned. I don’t know which model years Ralph Nader directed his criticism toward, but my ’65 evidenced none of the handling problems he famously cited.
Nader directed his criticism towards the first-gen Corvairs (’60-64). By the time his book Unsafe at Any Speed was published in Nov. ’65, GM had already started producing the second-gen Corvair over a year earlier, with a true IRS replacing the early cars’ swing-axle setup that contributed to the handling issue Nader critiqued/contrived.
If anything, Nader’s book provoked GM into continuing production of the Corvair longer than they otherwise might’ve, out of sheer spite and to avoid appearing to capitulate to sensationalism, tho’ this also helped them get more return out of the Corvair’s development and tooling costs.
What really killed the Corvair was the Mustang, and GM’s response to it in developing the first Camaro. There just wasn’t a sound business case to make for producing two completely different compact sporty models — one a bit underpowered and sharing nearly nothing with any other GM model, the other based largely on common GM hardware and targeting a wildly successful and lucrative competitor’s model.
Wasn’t just Ralph that hurt them, the pony car craze hit the US car market. GM was late to the party and with the numbers Ford was selling they wanted a piece of that pie too. These are great cars, I am sure you’ve heard it before, but quite easily been an American Porsche, Yenko, raced these with quite a bit of success, and he wasn’t alone.
Like Samari rollovers, Pinto gas tanks, Ramblers, and such half truths, we just can’t get through one Corvair post without mention to Nader. Say what you will, that guy made an impression we will never forget. One of the great automotive mysteries of America, why didn’t the Corvair succeed? No, it wasn’t Nader, it was Americans steadfast denial that nothing could top their beloved V8 Impala. The Corvair was a wonderful car, and surprised it wasn’t more popular overseas, where drivers had more common sense. An air cooled flat 6 was practically the best Porsche could put out. Yet in America, no interest, not when we had V8s that could pull a reefer trailer. Can you imagine, a simple car like a Corvair, doesn’t catch on, but some modern crap with self driving info screens does.
They made almost 2 million of them, so its hard to say there was “no interest” in them…..
Really enjoying mine Howard, everywhere I drive or stop I get lots of interest. It’s not perfect, but tons of fun.
I couldn’t agree more… they do get attention! The white Corsa is a mid-engine Crown conversion, blue is a 140/4 speed factory AC car.
Howard,old buddy- It took me a minute to realize “Samari rollovers” aren’t a type of sushi. Plus, you don’t strike me as a sushi guy. Me neither. Yucko.
For those that don’t know Ralph Nader, he was a consumer advocate not government related. He got the mercury out of batteries and our poluted waters, he pushed for better workplace safeguards and went after FORD for the Pinto firey deaths. But GM took his advise and got the Corvair
Monza off our highways for good. My own neighbor on his high school graduation day was killed in his new Spyder Monza was was his graduation present. The wheel to axle rear drive is flawed and it creates a horrible push from side to side with normal driving, BTW a problem Preston Tucker had figured out years before. But GM had to quickly compete with FORDs idea of compact sports models and their Corvette was still niche. So the Corvair was born sharing its name with our fighter Jets. Deaths from normal driving started to happen quickly and the safety of this car came into major media question solely because of Nader. jv smashpalace
I’ve often wondered why GM even put out the swing axle setup in the first place. The Corvette designed rear suspension was simple and could have been easily copied for the Covairs. I autocrossed my ’65 and in stock condition turned out to be the most stable street car I’ve ever owned.
It still would have been more expensive to manufacture, and the Corvair was conceived as an inexpensive compact (in large part a VW bug competitor) and the bean counters had a field day with it.
The early model Corvair started in 1960. The Corvette became IRS in 1963. When the Corvair came out, the Corvette IRS didn’t exist. That’s why. When the late model came out in 1965, it had the Vette rear suspension with coil springs instead of the transverse leaf spring of the Vette.
Even in its’ original form it wasn’t too bad *IF* the recommended tire pressures were RIGIDLY maintained. 16psi front, 26 rear (with the original bias-plys).
That, of course, is a big ask even now when it’s a rare car owner who checks regularly, but in an era when cars had been all-but-standardized since forever and the Merry Texaco Men were used to putting about 25 pounds in front and 20-22lbs in back of just about everything.
The government investigated the Corvair in 1972 and found that it was no more dangerous than any other car at the time.
Reply to J.E. Vizzusi: I read all Corvair ads on these sites – mainly to see who is still repeating the endless and long ago disproven rumors. Many cars used those same swing axles, including Mercedes, and our NHTSA exonerated Corvair handling. “Horrible push from side to side in normal driving”??
That tells we Corvair enthisiasts that you never owned a Corvair. I have purposefully swung my ’64 convertible from side-to-side to try and spin it, w/o success. You would have to drive VERY erratically to upset the car. My ’69 with firmed up suspension will out-corner most every modern car. The fact is, that all Corvairs are delightful to drive, which is a main reason that they still have a large devoted following.
Thank you. Finally, someone that knows Corvairs. (not the guys that say ” my brother-in-law’s second cousin’s college room mate had one and I know all about them”)
Fighter jets? What? Are you thinking of the Chance Vought A7U “Corsair II”? (The first F4U Corsair was a WWI prop-driven fighter, not a jet.) The swing axle problems had already been solved by the time the second generation Corvair came out for the ’65 model year. The ’65 Corvair was an example of GM styling at the very top of its game. Sporty, yet elegant, beautifully curvy, the second generation Corvair was one of the most beautiful cars of its time…or any time. But during the Bill Mitchell years, GM could almost do no wrong in terms of styling. No wonder they hit 60% market share.
The big problem with these cars was a pair of short halfshafts connected the wheels to the frame-mounted differential. Only the inboard ends of the shafts could articulate, so as the suspension compressed or extended, the wheels tilted at extreme angles. This had the effect of dramatically reducing the rubber touching the road. In an aggressive turn, the rear end tended to lose traction before the front, causing oversteer and fishtailing.
There was also a chance the outside rear wheel could tuck under the body and potentially trip the car into a rollover. (as pictured) I am close to this because my ex wife lost 2 brothers in a 62 model on the way to church in 1969.
Is that a picture of them on the way to church?
Your comment needs to be taken down soon. What a stupid thing to say. Not funny in the least.
Thanks Frank, they’re not worth it. I have learned of late there are just some mean and nasty people who visit this site. Moving forward I just think to myself …”would they say these things if we were all sitting at the bar” and that makes smile and move on.
Uncool, insensitive, inappropriate. Seriously.
Gippy, if you were a half decent human being you would apologize for your tasteless, thoughtless remark. But I am guessing you won’t…..
bt
Obnoxiously insensitive comment.
Worst part is that foolish comment gets three “thumbs ups” from three losers who had to remove their thumbs from their normal resting places. 2nd worst is BF editors are still asleep at the switch. The comment should have been zapped hours ago and “Gimpy” should be banned. Get with the program, boys!
Well…., it needs a set of springs right out of the gate, but yeah, this does look like a very nice, solid, original car.
The remaining 69 Corvairs were basically hand assembled in a corner of the Willow run car factory called the Corvair room. It has been said Chevrolet continued to build the model because of the lawsuits brought to the company concerning the swing axle design. They didn’t have to build them in 69 but did so out of pride. Later Chevrolet was vindicated in an independent report.
Tire pressures were more important on the early Corvair models. If you didn’t follow the manufacturer recommended air pressure schedule adverse handling would result in an accident avoidance citation. I just recently purchased a 61 Lakewood station wagon and on the inside of the glove box lid there is a large sticker indicating correct tire pressures. In fact I just saw a quick reference guide they installed on the drivers sun visor in the 1960 model that highlights the correct tire pressure. Does anyone remember the Ford Explorer Uniroyal tire debacle? Lots of finger pointing but Ford was at fault for having tire pressures set too low.
Ralph Nader didn’t kill the Corvair it was competition with other manufacturers who offered their own version of the compact car based on conventional manufacturing of the time. The Corvair got squeezed out of the market. I personally love the cars and have 2 of them. Brilliant engineering when GM led the world in automotive design.
True and wise words Alfasud. I love mine, it’s different and somewhat quirky, which by the way so am I. I’ve always thought the design is the 2nd generation is beautiful and timeless.
The Ford Explorer “tire debacle” as you call it involved Firestone Wilderness tires, not Uniroyal. The Wilderness tires were made in two different Firestone plants. Only one of those plants had the quality control issues which lead to tread separation and in turn rollovers. It was manufacturing defects in that one plant which caused the problem, not the pressures specified by Ford.
As for the Corvair, after reading your post I went out and opened the glovebox on my 1961 4 door Corvair. The sticker you refer to calls for front tire pressures of 15 cold and 18 hot. Basically GM ran very low front tire pressures to reduce the grip of the front tires in order to compensate for the extra weight on the rear tires and reduce the tendency for oversteer.
Wow, there is the problem. I don’t recall typical pressures then, but intuitively that sounds dangerously low. I wonder how often that was followed, especially at the typical full service gas station where tire pressure was checked.
Had a ’69 Triumph Spitfire, just out of HS… curb weight @1800 #. Stupid me inflated tires to 30 psi. First rainy day, hydroplaned into the rear of a C10.
Left some red paint on the twin exhaust pipes.
Had to replace the whole damned bonnet.
Recommend (nay, required) tire pressure on fronts? 18 psi. On the driver door placard… as I recall.
Lesson that cost me a used bonnet.
I’ve ALWAYS checked & run recommended tire pressure since
BCB42: In 2010 I was given a 1970 Triumph Spitfire that was a great candidate for the crusher. The only things in “perfect” condition that I eventually sold were the bonnet and a working radio!
Yes, but what about their tendency to drive upside down!
Nader always pictured himself as a David vs Goliath. In the end, he revealed himself to be just an average fool. But he sure did make the law firms happy.
Not too sure how “happy” the law firms were due to Ralph Nader, at least with respect to the Corvair considering GM never lost a single lawsuit filed against it for the Corvair and its handling at the limit.
Whoever mentioned putting the Corvette suspension under the Corvair…GM did just that for the 1965 and later cars up through the end of production. My condolences to any reader who lost loved ones as drivers or passengers in a Chevrolet Corvair. My cousin being one of them. I agree with some comments that Nader always comes up when Corvairs are mentioned but seriously were there any more crashes or near-misses compared to any other car on the road? The photo of the green early sedan comes from a recent article in Hemmings Classic Cars. That 1960 sedan was pushed to its limits and the photo captures a scary moment. In the end, that test car came to rest on all four wheels and the professional driver reported his results for publication. Again, I am not trying to downplay any family’s fatalities or injuries caused by traveling in a Corvair.
All it took to tame the swing axles tuck-under was a ‘camber compensator’ accessory, dirt cheap, and effective. These were factory installed standard on 1964’s, the last year of the swing axles.
There were numerous cars built in the 60’s with swing axles… VW’s were the most common, and I’m willing to bet there were more rollovers in them than the Corvair. Triumph Spitfires and the Herald, Porsche 356, Mercedes, Renault Dauphine and Fiat 600’s also used the swing axle design. The Corvair was originally designed as an economy car, not sports car. Push any vehicle beyond it’s design limits and trouble is in your immediate future. Combine that with the importance of proper tire pressures, what could go wrong?
Many forget that the1961-1963 Pontiac Tempest had swing axle IRS too. I helped tame my 1963 Tempest 326 V-8 (260 gross hp ) w/3-speed manual transaxle by adding an EMPI camber compensator.
That was me Little_Cars. My mother had 2 pre ’65s and no trouble with handling for her or me. I upped the air pressure on her cars and my ’65 and it made better driving cars. BTW, I used the camber compensators on my 356 Porsches with much success.
As far as why GM manufactured this car the way they did (including the swing axle), I worked for GM Corporate in the 1970s. Decisions were made based on pennies of cost and individual executives who wanted things a certain way. (Roger Smith, then CEO spent billions on Saturn as the new, different, independent car brand. GM lost billions and Saturn is long gone.) Not surprising they went bankrupt.
If the swing axle was such a major flaw for the Corvair, bringing with it so much negative attention, then why was the VW Beetle not similarly dismissed. It too had a similar rear engine with swing axle design. I’m no engineer, but were these two rear axle designs so dissimilar? Having driven many VWs I’m rather familiar with the resulting oversteer at the limits and the dangers that follow.
I own a 66 Corsa convertible 4 speed. Great car, and fun to drive. Gets lots of attention at local car shows.
I had my 1st big pay check as a Master chief Commander, UDT , in 1964 I bout my 1st new car a !(^$ British Green Corvair, I drove it straight from the dealer in Columbus Ohio to Yenko Stinger, & months later I picked it up with close to 300 horse and a Corvette beater, my Ist time at national trails dragstrip east of Columbus I came hmoe with 12 trophies and beat Don Garlets in a mismatch race, , Wish I knew how to show that photo of the rear with all those trophies.
The Yenko Stinger Stage lV, ready to race in D/Production made 240 horsepower, and later offered a Stage V with 250 HP. Yenko started production of the original Stingers starting in 1966.
19sixty5 — Maybe he’s thinking of Fitch Sprints, which were conversions done on the early models as well as some late models. Concurrent to the Yenko releases.
UDT FROG: YEEEEE… “300 HP”? What are you smokin’, boy?
Must be gross HP, not net HP with driver, glass, spare tire and a full tank of gas. LOL
Starting in the ‘30s Tatra made a large sedan that used an air cooled engine mounted at the rear. Very elegant art deco design but with swing axle problems. I have read in several narratives that after a series of fatal accidents involving the behavior of the rear suspension, the German high command ordered senior officers not to ride in any of these captured luxury sedans.
My first new car (to me) out of highschool was a Monza Spider convertible.
Lovely car and it handled perfectly. I still wish I had that wonderful car!!
I knew about Ralph’s claims and drove it with respect.
SOLD – not surprised.
Not a Monza. Monza’s had bucket seats
My ’65 4 speed 2 door Monza had a bench seat.
The 1964 1/2 Mustang was the real reason for the demise of the Corvair. The Nader thing didn’t help, but it was the Mustang that killed it.
Many forget that the1961-1963 Pontiac Tempest had swing axle IRS too. I helped tame my 1963 Tempest 326 V-8 (260 gross hp ) w/3-speed manual transaxle by adding an EMPI camber compensator.
I don’t think anything (except for an LS swap in just about *anything* non GM) gets the gearheads going like Ralp Nader and the Corvair.
We become Autoshop lawyers, everyone of us!
back in the early seventies street rod builders discovered the Corvair front suspension could be easily removed by taking out six bolts, what you got was a nice narrow front end that was easy to adapt to most of the narrow old car frames from the thirties, I used one in a 1935 Chevrolet master, it was just about a bolt in, gave the car a great ride, I converted the drum brakes to disc using parts from a 69 Camaro.
My 1934 Chevrolet Master that I’ve owned since 1980 ran a late model Corvair front end for ten years . . I corrected the Ackerman problem by having the steering arms heated and bent toward the backing plates about an inch . . It drove very well . . It now has a Mustang ll which is not an improvement other than brakes . .