When it was introduced in 1960, the Chevy Corvair broke the typical U.S. car mold. It was GM’s first unity car mass-produced within the U.S.; it was the first American postwar car to feature independent suspensions front and back; the Corvair was also the first mass-produced U.S. car with a rear-mounted air-cooled engine. That led to production exceeding 1.8 million copies over 10 years, including this turbocharged 1963 Monza Spyder. It appears to have been restored in stages and is a turn-key car for the buyer to immediately enjoy. Located in Albany, New York, this Chevy is available here on Facebook Marketplace for $16,900. Thanks for the tip, Steve Clinton.
As cool as the history of the Corvair is, most people remember the car for the bad safety rap it got from Ralph Nadar in the mid-1960s. That put a crimp on sales for the second generation that began in 1965 and the car quietly slipped away into obscurity after 1969. The performance version of the Corvair was the Spyder package, RPO 690. You could only get in during 1962-64 in the upscale Monza edition and it came with a turbocharger that increased the output of the 145 cubic-inch motor to 150 hp. 130,000 Monza coupes were built in 1963 and 9,600 Monza’s in general (including convertibles) had the Spyder option.
This ’63 Spyder wears Azure Aqua paint with a matching interior and both look to have been restored, but no mention of that is made. After all, at 87,000 miles, how could it still be this nice for this long without a makeover? The wire covers are a nice touch and we’re told they came with the automobile when it was brand new.
The motor and transmission are original to the Monza and recent repairs/ maintenance have been done in several areas, including the clutch and flywheel, transaxle seals, input shaft seals, rear main seal, a rebuild of the turbo carburetor, generator, voltage regulator, and it got a valve job. So, this Corvair is almost as good as new, it would seem. We’re told it starts and runs well and is currently registered and inspected, indicating that the Corvair just doesn’t sit in the garage all the time. It might be hard to find one any nicer than this Spyder.
These are really nice driving cars. The carburetor can be finicky to set up and get right but once dialed in run well. A lot of turbo owners change the carb and a few have done EFI throttle body fuel injection. There is no waste gate like modern cars. Instead Chevrolet opted to restrict the carb to limit boost. Also the distributor advance curve is lazy and boost reduced ignition timing even more. Many opt to install a SDS ignition system that uses a knock sensor which really helps performance. Still others such as the 63 Spyder convertible I’m working on opt to go N/A and install a 164c.u. engine. Also worth noting is the endless debate over who was first to offer a factory turbocharger. Be it Chevrolet or Oldsmobile I consider the Corvair to be the first car to make turbocharging successful for 4 years.
Also I believe Ralph Nader didn’t have as much impact as what people believed. Blame the Mustang and Chevy’s own Camaro which captured the buying public. Try as they might Chevrolet could not convince the buying public that something unconventional could be better so in 1967 further development stopped and Chevrolet continued to build the car into 69 until newer safety laws took effect.
Indeed, I’ve often said that if anything Nader’s responsible for the ’67-’69 models existing in the first place. GM probably already zeroed out the Corvair development budget and certainly started the crash program to come up with the Camaro by the time the gen 2 ‘Vair launched for ’65, but didn’t stop building them because someone on the Fourteenth Floor felt it would be an unacceptable loss of face in the aftermath of “Unsafe at Any Speed”.
There’s a tendency among car guys to overblame “do-gooders” and the gummint when things were actually done in by market forces. Someone the Youtube algorithm once tossed me, tried to pin the demise of the Ford Pinto on those when the truth was it was fundamentally obsolete by 1980.
Looks like a great early model Corvair for a very fair price. I’ve never driven a turbo, but hear they are a lot of fun. I don’t think this will last long.
Minor suspension tweeks and you have a fast, good handling car. Those wheel covers came on our new ’65 Monza and are one of very few that look good in my mind. Nice car.
My ’62, owned in the 70’s, wasn’t a turbo, but was otherwise identical. I transplanted a gasoline heater into mine from a junkyard ’60 model and was the warmest kid in the high school parking lot with the engine off. With bias ply tires, felt like power steering and still reasonably light with radials. I swapped ends on every Corvair I ever owned and not on any of the 100 other cars I had in the 70’s, so I can’t really doubt Ralphie.
Nice clean car, always wondered if these were good in snow since heavy in back, with snow tires on it.
Absolutely. In the Blizzard of ‘66 our four door 700 was the only one that could get out of the neighborhood to plowed roads. We made grocery runs of the neighbors.
The only challenge was keeping the front end pointed where you wanted it to go, as the tires tended to ride up on top of the snow. One or two big bags of sand in the trunk up front was a miracle cure for understeer.
I always thought that “Spyder” meant it was a convertible. Having said that I believe that was its use on European cars (Alfa Romeos for example). Perhaps when this was given that name in 1963 it did not yet mean “convertible”?
At Chevrolet, it meant ‘fancy Corvair’.
wuz just gunna post that. Never heard c’vair called this. (Not mean not true, a statement bout me). – 2dor, 5 speed vert, a sports car (esp 50s/’60s Italian).
Now we have a porche spider so anything goes I guess. The kinda cars Chad (dat’s me) usta restore in the late ’60s early 70s.
Is this in English or modern text speak ? I know I’m getting old so maybe its just me , but I really have no idea what you’re trying to say
Spyder just meant that it had more omphff to the basic car!!
My grandfather sold his 59 Impala to buy a 1960 Corvair.
Being a rather large woman, grandma wasn’t too happy getting in and out of it.
That was my first car. I remember negotiating a curve in the rain and spinning around three times before coming to a rest unscathed. Maybe Nader had a point, maybe it was the 18 year old driver.
Is this in English or modern text speak ? I know I’m getting old so maybe its just me , but I really have no idea what you’re trying to say
Had one just like it, nice car, great in snow, except when one hit a snow bank, was like a tobagon, right up to the top, then flip the belt trying to get
off
Must love oil leaks! Although fun to drive; these cars leaked oil worse (or at least as bad) as your typical British car.
I had a cream color ’63 Spyder 4 speed, metallic brakes. Mine did NOT leak oil. Really a fun car. And yes it was one of the only cars that would go in the snow.
My mother had a ’60, with tires properly inflated, 15 in front, 35 in rear, or something like that, it never tried to flip around on her, or on me, I drove it fast and furious on twisty roads. It was a lot easier to handle than my uncle’s Porsche 356 which wanted to go anywhere but in a straight line. And, in snow, it was amazing. It had no problem going in snow higher than its belly. Rust killed it.
This was my first car, my college car, a 63 Monza minus the Spyder options, that looked exactly like this one. Got it in the summer of 65. Drove it back and forth to the Univ of Texas at Austin and on to grad school. Overall, loved the car. Had a glass pack on it so you could always hear me coming or going. Never had any difficulty with steering or handling. The spokes on these wheel covers were loose and “tinkled” at low speeds which annoyed me. Tended to have some regular engine problems that others have recounted above, carburator, etc. But this was a terrific college car for me.
Never should have traded off that ’59’ Impala for a corvair !!
I always loved these cars, and they were great for snow….not sure about the miles per gallon issue since I never owned one….I just thought that they were extremely practical cars..looks like they would be fun to drive….to bad they did not make it into the 70’s when the gas crisis hit us in 73’…