According to popular lore, consumer advocate Ralph Nader put the Corvair out of business. But Nader didn’t do it. So who or what did? We could say it was an inside job.
There’s a familiar narrative in the car enthusiast community that goes like this: When Ralph Nader published his book Unsafe at any Speed, which included, among other things, a damning indictment of the Chevrolet Corvair, it unfairly turned the American car-buying public against the sporty compact, defaming its image and sealing its fate. Curse you, Ralph Nader.
It’s not true, of course. By the time Nader’s book appeared in the fall of 1965, the Corvair was already a thoroughly controversial vehicle, mainly due to complaints about its pronounced oversteer and quirky swing-axle behavior. There were multiple lawsuits in play and a number of well-publicized accidents, including the fatal 1962 crash of popular TV comedian Ernie Kovacs.
Meanwhile, Nader and his book did not find national fame until early 1966, when he appeared before Connecticut Senator Abe Ribicoff’s hearings on auto safety.. Soon it was revealed that General Motors had hired a clumsy private detective named Vincent Gillen to manufacture dirt on the abstemious activist. As much as anyone, GM made Nader a household name. Another irony: By that time, the handling defect described in Nader’s book had already been totally corrected by GM with a rear camber compensator in 1964 and a revised rear suspension in 1965.
These are all remarkable events, for sure, but they don’t directly relate to the Corvair’s demise. The truth is that by then, the car was already on its way out. In April of 1965, nearly a year earlier, GM management issued a memo declaring that the Corvair was effectively frozen in place. There would be no further engineering or styling development performed except to meet future government regulations. While the Corvair remained in production into 1969, it was the lame duck in the Chevrolet lineup. To study how that decision was made, we could back up to the Corvair’s introduction in October of 1959.
With its transaxle, independent suspension, and rear-mounted, air-cooled engine, the Corvair was an expensive car to manufacture, overrunning its cost targets. To keep the price competitive at launch, Chevrolet stripped the car to the bone with a plain interior and minimum standard equipment. In this form the car was not terribly popular or profitable, prompting two quick responses from the division: first, a crash program to develop the more conventionally engineered Chevy II, and the introduction of a dressed-up, higher-margin Corvair model called the Monza.
Introduced in April of 1960, the Monza featured bucket seats, deep-twist carpeting, full wheel covers, and other deluxe trimmings designed to appeal to a younger, sportier audience. It was an instant success, quickly becoming the most popular Corvair model, accounting for nearly half the volume. The Monza was so successful, in fact, that it caught the attention of the Ford Motor Company and product man Lee Iacocca, who could see a market segment emerging that the Monza barely tapped. Ford immediately went to work developing the Mustang, and according to Iacocca himself in his autobiography, the Monza was its direct inspiration.
A runaway hit from its introduction on April 17, 1964, the Mustang broke every sales record in the Motor City. Naturally, Chevrolet had to craft a response and in August, Chevrolet started work on its Mustang competitor, initially designated the XP-836 and finalized in November of ’64—not long before the Corvair memo. Just as the Corvair Monza begat the Mustang, the Mustang begat a Chevrolet pony car, and now there was no longer any clear place or purpose for the Corvair in the Chevrolet lineup. Announced on June 28, 1966 and officially introduced on September 26, below is the car that killed the Corvair: the 1967 Camaro.
I’m sheepish to admit that I bought a `64 Corvair new. Endemic to that was breakage of a rear wheel hub sealed bearing assembly. The wheel would travel outwards, so that the drum would be outboard of the brake shoes, and the splined half shaft would pull out of the transaxle. The wheel would bind against the rear fender, wrenching the car to a lurching stop. It happened to me in an unsafe neighborhood in East Cleveland….
The General has a long tradition of name juggling. Seemingly un-related factiod #1 The Special in the 1950s was the bottom of the line Buick. In 1961 it became the Buick ‘senior’ compact. Factiod #2The 61 thru 63 Pontiac Tempest was a front-engine rear tranny car that use a modified Corvair transmission and swing axle rear suspension. In 64 it became a 100% conventional mid-sized car. FActiod #3 Up to 1966 the Cadilac Eldorado was the top-of-the Cadilac convertible. In 1967 it became a front-drive personal luxury coupe. Thruout the summer of 1966 the press was refering to the up-coming Chevy as the “Panther”. CORSA insiders found out the tooling for Camaro nameplates wasn’t ordered until just one month before production was to begin. That is about as last minute as you can get in the auto industry. Reading between the lines that should mean Chevy had another nameplate with tooling in place in satisfy the production requirements. With the above history (and several others) of name juggling, could that name have been…Corvair?
GM bean counters killed the Corvair, right from the beginning. There’s no reason the 1965 rear suspension couldn’t have been done properly in 1960, the technology existed. Instead Chevy cheaped out with the swing axles and created a bad reputation that doomed the car. And to make matters worse the front ant-roll bar, which would have tamed the handling a bit, was eliminated on early models to save a few dollars. Of course, air cooled engines and rear engine designs were on the way out anyway. I had a 61 Corvair and I enjoyed driving it even with all it’s quirks, but a mainstream sales success it was never going to be.
Our next Corvair feature will be called, “How Chevrolet could have fixed the Corvair from the start.”
Swing axles were common on European cars. VW, Porsche, Renault, Triumph and Mercedes Benz all marketed cars with this suspension. Mercedes used a “low pivot” design which alleviated jacking to some degree and had it on some models as late as 1972. As far as I know VW was the only manufacturer to be “painted with the same brush:” as Corvair in Nader’s book.
It’s a shame that Chevy didn’t use the same suspension system as Mercedes-Benz or Triumph for the Corvair. I imagine the Corvair might’ve handled better.
All those European cars that used swing axles had one thing in common… they all eventually abandoned swing axles for a proper suspension system. Even the Mercedes “low pivot” swing axles were just an effort to tame the bad qualities of swing axles without spending the money to make a proper double jointed independent suspension. Same thing with the Corvair “camber compensator”. (And the awful “Twin I-Beam” front suspension Ford used on their trucks). I always found it hard to believe that any self respecting automotive engineer would design a suspension system that incorporated drastic camber changes into the wheel travel. But as I said, the bean counters were, as always, ultimately in charge of the design process.
Close your eyes and wait a few years and all that because you just got through saying will become horse poop
Swing axles are inherently unsafe, but can be tolerated under mild circumstances. The military put out an advisement regarding the M151 “Mutt”
Jeep, requiring that a mandatory training film be viewed prior to one being certified to operate the vehicle due to its “unique handling characteristics” (and accident record). The 2nd gen. ‘Vairs with independent rear suspension handled well enough to hold the D Production record in competition for several years. 1st gen. enjoyed other maladies in addition to the suspension ills, such as gas fumes entering the passenger compartment. Like so many other cars, once problem areas were addressed, the Corvair became a good car…albeit it too late to save it. Had friends and relatives who owned and loved Corvairs.
The early cars with asphyxiation danger had combustion heaters. So, it was switched to engine hot air, like VW.
Not necessarily so for the gas heaters. Those had thier own exhaust system. The ones with the forced air heaters were the ones with the carbon monoxide problems. Oddly, most were not due to exhaust leaks. The lower row of head studs did double duty as rocker arm pivots. Over time the movements of the rockers would ease the torque on the head studs just enough to cause combustion gases to escape but not enough to cause head gasket failure. Back in the day. just about every Corvair engine I disassembled had the lower head studs just over hand tight.
I see too little thought given to the impact the rollout of our interstate network had on cars of this timeframe. My mid 60s formative years were centered on VW. Great little city car however when pressed into commuting on the interstate they had 50K engines. I suspect the air-cooled Corvair engine suffered likewise.
Yes, air cooled engines were pretty much a dead end street, and emissions standards only accelerated that. Consider that the last really new air cooled car designed was the Porsche 911 in 1963, and they stopped being really air cooled and became mainly oil cooled years ago. The Corvair did have almost twice the power of a VW Beetle though and was much more highway capable.
My `64 had the intermediate of the three engine options and 4-on-the-floor. I once drove it 119 mi in 60 min. It was not your uncle’s VW Beetle (or Fastback, for that matter). I’m so glad neither of the rtear wheels fell off that day.)
GM Brass showed their inability to learn from their mistakes two decades later by completely fumbling the next sporty compact, the Fiero. Had they not strangled the Fiero’s development budget, they could have had a car to compete with the Honda CR-X. Instead, Honda made tons of profit, and GM once again killed off a car that was great in concept, but failed due to its initial execution.
Or possibly the Toyota MR2. Typical GM Brass.
GM Brass did the same thing with the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn sky, which was pretty good car right from the start. The Brass was more interested in next weeks stock price than they were in promoting the car.
I have a friend that has a Solstice and just loves it. He keeps getting unsolicited offers to sell and always turns them down.
I grew up assuming Ralph Nader killed the Corvair with his book “Unsafe at Any Speed”.
I purchased a new 1964 Spyder (turbocharged). Very reliable. Very quick. The 3 to 4 shift at 85 mph would leave 20′ of black marks on the highway. Would easily bury the needle on 120 mph speedometer.
Another car that was inspired by the Corvair Monza was the Plymouth Barracuda. Unlike the Mustang, which appeared to be an all new car despite the lowly Falcon underpinnings, the Barracuda was – like the Monza was a tarted up Corvair – obviously a tarted up Valiant, and it looked just like a Valiant only with a big rear window. It was of course no where near the runaway success the first Mustang was, but it was a good seller in its own right. In fact, the 1965 Barracuda was the best selling Barracuda ever, A or E body.
My uncle had several Corvairs. I drove two: a 63 convertible with the 110 hp motor and a 4 speed, and a 66 2dr hardtop with the 140 hp motor and a 4 speed. The 63 was fun to drive around town and on two lane country roads. No idea what its top end was. The 66 I got up to 115 on the interstate. No muscle car, but pretty peppy and also fun to drive.
With all its aluminum die castings, 36 O-rings, six individually centrifugally-cast iron cylinders, Stainless exhaust ports, and extensive machining to install valve seat inserts and guides, a Corvair six may have cost more to put on the loading dock than a 427 cid Cadillac V8.
Corvair,, at its worst a much improved VW Beetle. At best a true Porsche competitor.
Air cooled? And ofcourse oil cooled, the Germans are still making them. And its ooohh aaahh its a Porsche. An overgrown VW Beetle!!
I had the 2nd generation Corvair Corsa with 4×1 carbs, which I used in sports car competitions. The car had a split personality. Except for a weak clutch, the rear end and engine were good, the front end felt like it was taken from a shopping cart. Hopelessly slow steering for a sporty car, capped off by a long throw and sloppy shift linkage. Chevy didn’t get things right until late generation Camaros.
I think that car had a lot of potential from the beginning, especially if it had been focused on safety from the beginning, and had GM had a long-term plan for the vehicle. Pontiac could have had its version, called the Nautilus, and maybe the other divisions might have had a use for this car as well. The Corvair could also have had an impact on GM’s overseas operations, which meant they could have developed a world car in the process. I was and still am a HUGE fan of the 1965-1969 generation.
I consider the 2nd-generation design very contemporary even by today’s standards. It even served as a platform for two of GM’s early electric prototypes. The 4-door hardtop Electrovair matched the standard Corvair’s performance despite an 800-pound weight penalty!
Why do some sporty cars fail to sell well? Here’s a common sense theory: Let’s say my wife and I want to drive somewhere for the weekend. Or easier yet, maybe my friend and I want to go golfing for the day. Either way, my sporty car needs some minimal space to put a couple of weekend suitcases for the two of us. Or room for a couple of golf bags. Camaro? Yes. Mustang? Yes. Miata, in later years? Yes. They sold well. Corvair? Nope, unless you use the back seat for your storage. A bit awkward. Fiero? No way, unless you want your things melted by the engine. Solstice/Skye? Nope, unless you don’t want to lower the convertible top, which fills the trunk. Which also defeats the whole purpose of buying a convertible. None of these sold well. Why is this basic need in sporty cars so difficult for the General to understand?
This has always been an issue. It took years before GM finally configured hardtop Corvettes with a working hatch (you could only access the cramped rear cargo area from behind the seats). With the Mach-E, Ford has disguised the Mustang as a small crossover SUV with more usable interior cargo space.
This seems like a lot of work in order to recycle an engine that even in the 60s was using dying technology. There’s a reason there have been no air cooled cars built for many decades now. (Porsche 911s don’t count because they have actually been almost entirely oil cooled for many years). Emissions control requirements have made air cooling a thing of the past; even motorcycles are increasingly becoming water cooled although there are still exceptions.
Word of mouth tends to influence buyers too. The Corvair wasn’t for everyone, regardless of its low price. Chevy needed cars that could sell to anyone to get the numbers they were looking for. Nova for example was the most consistent seller of all of them.
It’s a shame GM didn’t pivot straight to FWD for their compact by moving the Corvair powertrain to the front of the car. Once it had double-jointed IRS it would’ve been relatively trivial to juggle gears in the transmissions, turn it 180 and move it to the other end (designing a whole new car around it wouldn’t have been “trivial” but would’ve still been within what should be GM’s core competency.
If anything Nader gave the Corvair a stay of execution. The ’67 Camaro was its’ replacement, but to discontinue it just a year after the book would’ve looked too much like losing.
Perhaps Corvair could have had a brilliant success with a flat front engine water cooled FWD. Instead of “Corvair,” they might have called that “Subaru.”
The Corvair’s Fate: Let’s get it straight once and for all
The redesigned 1965 Corvair was introduced September 1964 and sold thirty thousand more than the 1964 models, nearly a quarter million cars, That was more cars than the Camaro would sell in 1967 or 1968. Ralph Nader’s book “Unsafe at Any Speed” wasn’t released until November 1965, two months after the 1966 models were introduced. Chevrolet had already stopped development six months before Nader’s book was published and cut production of 1966 models before phasing the car out of production over three years.
Spectators at car shows still believe Nader killed the Corvair. I tell them he didn’t go after this car (1965-69 second generation). His allegations were specifically on 1960-63 models. (A federal study by the NHTS refuted Nader’s charges in July 1972). The hundred or so law suites out of nearly one and a half million first generation owners was the only effect the book actually caused and GM won all but one case which was settled out of court. Does anyone ever get the history right. No wonder it’s misunderstood.
GM chose to move on with a two-punch. First a Mustang copy Panther renamed Camaro, introduced in the Fall of 1966 (same as the Falcon copy Chevy II had been rushed into production in the Fall of 1961). Second, Ed Cole’s new baby by GM Engineering, XP-887 later named Vega 2300 by Cole, approved in 1967 for a Fall 1970 introduction, a four-cylinder, four passenger subcompact (including hatchback and wagon models) to compete with the small imports getting fifteen percent of the market. Given to Chevrolet to build and sell, it’s $2,000 base price was announced in 1968 and production was estimated at four hundred thousand per year. Wonder why GM made the announcement two years early? it coincided with the Corvair’s limited availability while giving import buyers an early heads up of the new car’s lower price.
At the same time, development ended on the third generation Corvair and its new modular air cooled engine. The 1971 Vega 2300 base MSRP of $2090. (with std. equipment bucket seats, front disc brakes, electric fuel pump and crash door beams) was $551. less ($4,029 less in 2022 dollars) than the 1969 Corvair Monza’s base MSRP of $2,641.
GM invested $200 million on the Vega (a billion in today’s money) designed from the ground up with advances such as a modular body (with 400 fewer body parts than a full size Chevy) while modernizing the Lordstown Assembly plant including the first use of “Unimate” robots performing 95% of the welds all to produce the cars at twice the rate of any auto assembly plant in the world, 100 per hour, 1,600 per day at the lowest cost in hopes of turning a decent profit from the program despite its low base price. This hadn’t been possible with the Corvair built at a higher cost with a relatively low price at a lower production rate while sharing no components with other Chevrolets.
The redesigned 1968 Chevy II/ Nova was derived from and shared components with the Camaro introduced the year before. Weren’t the Falcon and Mustang based on the same car? I see a pattern here, lower production costs. Development of the second generation Corvair was halted in April 1965 six months after it was introduced to favorable reviews and increased sales only to have production cut in 1966, planned as the final year for the car but a three year phase out while sharing the plant to build 1968 Novas was instituted instead as the pending law suites against GM and the Corvair along with a production stoppage in August 1966 wouldn’t have helped their legal defense. Corvair enthusiasts were just happy the car remained in production from 1967-1969 with over fifty eight thousand produced.
So for the record, “The Sporty Corvair” chapter in Nader’s assault on the American automobile, Unsafe at any Speed, didn’t kill the Corvair just as his 1972 book Small on Safety didn’t kill the rear engine VW Beetle. The 1965 Mustang didn’t kill the Corvair just as the 1967 Mustang didn’t kill the Camaro. which was outsold two to one. So much for duplicating Ford’s designs. The Camaro was nearly cancelled by Cole after 1972 a year before the Mustang morphed into a Pinto-based subcompact. Chevy might’ve taken a lesson from Ford. Their lowest priced car should be the lowest cost to build. The second generation Corvair was simply too costly to produce relative to its low price.
In the mid seventies, after the oil crisis the Corvair could have made a comeback ten years after it was put on notice. The still-born third generation Corvair would have found a new and growing market, entry-level foreign sport sedans (BMW 2002, Datsun 240Z etc.) with the car accordingly priced upward returning a decent profit to the company. But without the support of Ed Cole who retired from GM in 1974, the Corvair didn’t stand a chance. Luckily, Corvairs are survivors, not to mention five hundred small aircraft are currently powered by specially modified 100-120 hp Corvair engines!
The Corvair lives.
–
You left out a side story that influenced the third generation Corvair’s future (and demise.). Ed Cole could not get approval on a third generation Corvair because GMs main goal (after the Mustang killer) was a smaller foreign car killer because they 15% of the market and rising. Cole submitted his XP-887 (Vega) four passenger, 4 cylinder car in 1967. It was approved over Chevy and Pontiac’s proposals and that ended any chance of a third generation Corvair.