"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Lewis Hartswick wrote:

Did you ever read it, Lew? Or did you read *about* it?

I read some of it. Couldn't stand to do the rest.
...lew...


I read it, the latter Corvairs were safer, too late to save the brand.
Compared to today,
the 60's cars are death traps for the most part.

Wes

The pre-'65s were the ones with the swing axles, and a frame that had
serious weaknesses in the central bay. The swing axle was just fine for
moderate driving. But, pressed hard, the car was a wild thing that took
some experience to handle. On the racetrack it absolutely needed heavy
modifications. (I spun mine at Old Bridge Speedway in NJ, even with a
bunch of modifications, because, en extremis, the rearward weight bias
took over and that was all she wrote). In '64, there was a
factory-installed transverse spring that had the same effect as a
stabilizer bar -- it reduced the tendency for the suspension to jack.

Starting in '65, the car had a better unibody and they went to a
four-link rear suspension that was functionally the same as double
wishbones. At the time, it was the most advanced suspension on any
US-built car, along with the Corvette.

But GM screwed the pooch by putting up so much resistance to Nader's
assault, particularly by trying to entrap him with a prostitute and some
other underhanded things. I think the Corvair could have weathered it
all, but trust in the company was shot to hell.

--
Ed Huntress


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.

Well, they were about the same at the rear. The VW bug had trailing-arm
front suspension. So did the Porsche 356. The Corvair was double-wishbone
at the front.

And the Bug was top heavy. But the bug was loved, and Nader would have
shot himself writing the same book about the VW.

How do you know what he was thinking, Bill? I owned both cars (a '63
Corvair and a '64 Beetle), and you could have picked either one to
illustrate obsolete safety engineering. As a Corvair lover at the time, I
despised what Nader was saying, and I felt the same way as you about why
he chose the Corvair to attack, rather than the VW. But years later I
realized he was attacking the safety-be-damned mindset at the Big Three
(then four) and he would have had no point in attacking a 30-year-old
import design that was known to be a ludicrous anachronism.

VW and Corvair finally added the same thing Empi had been furnishing for
years. The Camber Compensator. Don Yenco and the Corvair Stinger did
very well at speed.

Bill, the Yenko Stinger was based on a '65 and after Corvair. It did not
have swing-axle rear suspension, even as it came from the factory. It was
A-arm and single-link, effectively the same as a double-wishbone
suspension, in terms of geometry. And physically it was very similar to
the Stingray and later Corvettes.

The different suspension produced an entirely different car. The post-'64
Corvair's suspension was advanced and very capable of good handling.

But by then there was the 4 wheel indepent suspension similar to the
Corvette. Corvair was always going to oversteer. Nature of the rear
engine, just like a front engine car will always understeer.

Yes and no. We don't want to get into this one. g

At least without judicious power application. As to spinning on a race
track. Only way to prevent that is not to push a cars limits. My B
Production Vette did a few spins over the years. Mostly my trying to go
5 mph faster than physics allowed. :)

If you drove a B production Corvette (I assume a pre-'63), then you know
what anachronisms are all about. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress




I drove a 1964 Coupe, Mouse Motor Corvette. Is the silver one getting a
little sideways in the original Herbie movie during the Laguna Seca start.
I would still love a 1962 Corvette. May still buy one. Understand they are
only about $10k for a nice one.