On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:06:42 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:
snip
Corvair was never going to survive "unsafe at any speed". Nader found an
easy target and hit a bull's-eye. Same suspension on the original VW bug.
And the Bug was top heavy. But the bug was loved, and Nader would have shot
himself writing the same book about the VW.
snip
=======
True, but the VW was never sold as a sport scar or with a factory
installed turbo. Corvair Engine power ranged from 80 to 180 HP,
while VW ranged from 25 to 54.
In hindsight, it was a corporate cost cutting move to save 6.00$
by eliminating the front anti-roll bar that doomed the Corvair,
although its marketing as some sort of inexpensive
performance/sportscar, ala Porsche and its targeted sale to
younger first time [more sporty] drivers was also a considerable
contributing factor.
A major Corvair design flaw was the factory inclusion of far too
powerful an engine for the chassis, suspension and brakes,
compounded with skimping on materials such as heat resistant
engine o-rings. While GMC may have saved a few up-front dollars,
this cost the new Corvair owners dearly, and ultimately trashed
what had the potential to be a long running money maker.
It appears that even at this early date [c. 1962-64], internal
sabotage was rife at GM, and absolutely nothing was learned about
"penny wise, pound foolish" cost savings from the Corvair
debacle. The Vega [*NOT* designed by Chevrolet] is an example of
this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Vega
snip
Chevrolet and Pontiac divisions were working separately on small
cars in the early and mid '60s. Ed Cole, who was GM executive
vice-president of operating staffs, was working on his own
small-car project using the corporate engineering and design
staffs. He presented the program to GM's president in 1967. When
the corporation started seriously talking about a mini-car,
Cole's version was chosen with the proposals from Chevy and
Pontiac rejected, and Cole's new mini-car was given to Chevrolet
to sell. Not only did corporate management make the decision to
enter the mini-car market, it also decided to develop the car
itself. It was a corporate car, not a divisional one.
snip
Opel was commissioned to tool up a new 3-speed derivative of
their production 4-speed manual transmission. Opel had a 4-speed
available that was in high-volume production, but the GM finance
department insisted that the base transmission be a low-cost
3-speed, with the traditional profit-generating 4-speed as an
extra-cost option. Opel did just that, and tooled up a new
3-speed from scratch, just for the Vega application, whose actual
cost was higher than the optional 4-speed due to the tooling
investment and low production volume. Both transmissions came by
ship from Germany 100 transmissions to a crate, and arrived in
shipments of thousands of transmissions at a time.[14]
snip
Although the optional L-11 engine with 2-barrel Weber carburetor
became a mainstream part of the program in December, 1968 (and
ran at a 75% level in production), the Chevrolet engine group had
an intense dislike for the tall iron cylinder head with its
unusual tappet arrangement and side-flow “Heron” combustion
chamber design that had been thrust on them from engineering
staff, and set out to design their own. The design evolved
rapidly as a “crossflow” aluminum head with a single
centrally-mounted overhead camshaft and roller rocker arms
operating intake valves on one side and exhaust valves on the
other, remarkably similar to the Ferrari V-12 cylinder head
design of that period; it was almost 4” lower than the production
head, was a lot lighter, had true “hemi” chambers with big
valves, and made excellent power. Numerous prototypes were
built, and manufacturing tooling was started in anticipation of
approval for production. The real story never came out, but some
combination of corporate politics (“You don’t need another
cylinder head – mine will work just fine”) and additional program
investment killed the program. Had it gone to production, it
would not have had the differential expansion head gasket
problems that plagued the iron-head engine, and would have
provided significantly higher performance than the optional L-11
engine.[14]
snip
Jerry L Brockstein, assistant to Henry Haga, head of the
Camaro/Corvette studio where the Vega prototype was restyled,
recalls finalizing the Vega bodies: "Chevrolet was trying to
build this car as cheaply as possible and wanted us to take a lot
of money out of it. At first the metal was so thin on the
Kammback wagon that in the test facilty it kept buckling under
its own weight, as Fisher Body had to come back and put
stiffening ribs in the roof." The prototype wagon body being less
rigid than the coupes.[94] John DeLorean stated: N.B. =="The
first prototype was sent to the GM proving grounds for
durability testing. After only eight miles on the Belgian blocks,
it broke in two.== {emphasis added}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvair
snip
The base 95 hp (71 kW) and optional 110 hp (82 kW) engines were
carried forward from 1964. The previous 150 hp (112 kW) Spyder
engine was replaced by the normally-aspirated 140 hp (104 kW) for
the new Corsa. The engine was unusual in offering four
single-throat carburetors, to which were added larger valves and
a dual exhaust system; The 180 hp (134 kW) turbocharged engine
was optional on the Corsa, which offered either standard
three-speed or optional (US$92) four-speed manual
transmissions.[12] The 140 hp (104 kW) engine was optional on
500 and Monza models with manual or Powerglide transmissions.
snip
Although the Corvair was a competent handling vehicle as
delivered from the factory, "the average buyer more accustomed to
front-engined cars, did not take [into] account the car's
different handling characteristics."[18] Due to the swing axle
design the rear tires would undergo large camber changes during
fast cornering. These characteristics were quite similar to many
imported cars, such as Mercedes and Volkswagen, which also used
swing axle rear suspensions with similar handling attributes.
The criticism of the 1960-'63 Corvair handling was not entirely
groundless as some cost-cutting was applied to these early
Corvair models, specifically, in the lack of an anti-roll bar.
Chevrolet had considered adding a front anti-roll bar for the
original 1960 car, which would have shifted a significant part of
the weight transfer to the front outboard tire and reduced the
rear slip angles considerably in severe cornering.
N.B. ==Unfortunately, Chevrolet decided that the extra cost ($6
per car is often cited), with the confidence in tire pressures
adequately compensating for the inclination for oversteer- led
them to delete the front anti–roll bar from production models.==
{emphasis added} They used different recommended low front and
high rear tire pressures to combat the oversteer. As the Corvair
was designed to avoid terminal oversteer by using very low air
pressure in the front tires, typically 15 to 19 pounds per square
inch (100 to 130 kPa), so that they would begin to understeer
(increase slip angles faster than the rear) before the swing axle
oversteer would come into play, this pressure was quite adequate
for the very light-weight Corvair front end on the relatively
wide (6.50-13) tires. However owners and mechanics, either
through ignorance of the necessity for this pressure differential
between front and rear or thinking that the pressure was too low
for the front, would frequently inflate the front tires to
current "average" pressures. If this pressure difference was not
maintained, in very hard cornering, the rear slip angles would
exceed the front slip angles, and could lead to oversteer at high
speeds. The anti–roll bar did become available as an option in
1962, and was finally made standard in 1964.
1964 swing axle with transverse leaf spring & 1965 four link
fully-independent suspension
Although much is said about jacking (tendency for swing axle
suspensions to go into very severe positive camber in extreme
corners), the bias ply tires used at the time were very
insensitive to camber and did not significantly reduce cornering
grip (unlike radial tires).Although Nader arguably overstated the
severity of these handling problems, as was later claimed by U.S.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
investigators. Part of Nader’s evidence against the Corvair was a
promotional film created by Ford Motor Company, in which a Ford
test driver purposely turned the Corvair in a way to make it
appear unstable.
snip
Compare and contrast with the VW Beatle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle
"Its success owed much to its extremely high build quality, and
innovative, eye-catching advertising. "
snip
The car was designed to be as simple as possible mechanically, so
that there was less to go wrong; the aircooled 25 hp (19 kW) 995
cc (60.7 cu in)[12] motors proved especially effective in
actions of the German Afrika Korps in Africa's desert heat.
snip
The Volkswagen Beetle underwent significant changes for the 1967
model. While the car appeared similar to earlier models, much of
the drivetrain was noticeably upgraded. Some of the changes to
the Beetle included a bigger engine for the second year in a row.
Horsepower had been increased to 37 kW (50 hp) the previous year,
and for 1967 it was increased even more, to 40 kW (54 hp).
snip
-----------
It should be apparent that while Ralph N. may have shot GM in the
butt, it was GM itself that put one in both of their feet, and
ultimately put one in their own head [with the taxpayers on the
hook for life support].
Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).