Chevrolet innovation in the 60s

[T5_X]

Does anyone here know about the chevy corvair? I think it's probably history's most neglected vehicle. It was way ahead of its time in an era of muscle cars. Chevy brought it out in 1960, produced it till 1969. It died because of reports of "unsafe" handling by ralph nader (twitchy rear end in 60-64 models due to rear swing axels, which was proven wrong in another study in 72) which was corrected in the later models anyway, and also bacause muscle car competition (particularily the mustang) was too steep.

Anyway, when it debuted, the corvair corsa had an all aluminum, 2.3L air cooled flat 6. I believe that the base Hp was 80 and top was ~140
By 1965, displcement got bumped up and spyder models could be had with a 2.7L turbocharged flat 6 with 180Hp. I think it was one of the first, if not the first turbocharged engine offered by an american manufacturer.
here's that engine:
http://www.corvaircorsa.com/tech/DeFazio1.jpg
http://www.corvaircorsa.com/tech/DeFazio2.jpg
http://www.corvaircorsa.com/tech/turbo2.jpg
The engine was rear-mounted, and there was a fully independant suspension all around. The early models had lots of oversteer, but later models handled extremely well.
here's a cutaway of a 65 corsa:
http://www.corvaircorsa.com/cutaway/latecut.jpg

There were 3 trims: the base 500, Monza and Corsa. Corsa had the most options and was the most powerful. They made many 4 doors (only 500 and monza trim) convertibles (only monza and corsa), and even a wagon and a truck!

this is the model I'd want the most: a 66 turbo corsa spyder
http://www.corvaircorsa.com/corsa/marinab.jpg

There were also many nice concepts of the corvair made by chevy. I wish some of them made it into production :(
http://www.corvaircorsa.com/design/gtdark.jpg
http://www.corvaircorsa.com/feature/gtcolor.jpg
http://www.corvaircorsa.com/happe/GTopen76.jpg
http://www.corvaircorsa.com/happe/GTandSS.jpg


Anyway, this would have been a great car. I love everything about it. Too bad it died, I guess it just came out at the wrong time in the wrong place.

[E36M3]

The Corvair Spyder was the first mass produced American car with a turbocharged engine.

As for it being innovative, as far as *american* cars go, it was slightly innovative. It was basically Chevrolet's reaction the popularity of the VW Beetle, and used to test the water for smaller, more economical cars.

Unfortunately for Chevrolet, the rear suspension was extremely twitchy, and caused a myriad of accidents, injuries and deaths.

Although many people may 'blame' Ralph Nader for killing this car, it was unsafe ("at any speed"). Independently of Mr. Nader, the NHTSA did rule that the car wasn't any more unsafe than other comparable cars, but it did have major design flaws. I think it is fairly obvious that the NHTSA (at least at the time) was firmly in the manufacturers pocket. I wouldn't disagree with someone who would say that the 911s made in the 1960s had a similiar 'flaw' or characteristic.

In any case, Ralph Nader was also responsible for making it mandatory to put seatbelts in cars. The manufacturers of the time claimed that seatbelts would actually cause more injuries then they would prevent.. which tells you something about their priorities at the time.

The two most important innovations for Chevrolet from this car were four-wheel independent suspension and unibody construction, which they are still struggling to get right.

[T5_X]

Originally posted by E36M3
The Corvair Spyder was the first mass produced American car with a turbocharged engine.

As for it being innovative, as far as *american* cars go, it was slightly innovative. It was basically Chevrolet's reaction the popularity of the VW Beetle, and used to test the water for smaller, more economical cars.

Unfortunately for Chevrolet, the rear suspension was extremely twitchy, and caused a myriad of accidents, injuries and deaths.

Although many people may 'blame' Ralph Nader for killing this car, it was unsafe ("at any speed"). Independently of Mr. Nader, the NHTSA did rule that the car wasn't any more unsafe than other comparable cars, but it did have major design flaws. I think it is fairly obvious that the NHTSA (at least at the time) was firmly in the manufacturers pocket. I wouldn't disagree with someone who would say that the 911s made in the 1960s had a similiar 'flaw' or characteristic.

In any case, Ralph Nader was also responsible for making it mandatory to put seatbelts in cars. The manufacturers of the time claimed that seatbelts would actually cause more injuries then they would prevent.. which tells you something about their priorities at the time.

The two most important innovations for Chevrolet from this car were four-wheel independent suspension and unibody construction, which they are still struggling to get right.

You bring up some really good points. By the mid 60s though, the performance turbo corsa would leave the beetle in the dust and keep up to some of the less bulky muscle cars. And the later models had much better handling than the earlier models.

I wonder what happened to chevy's involvement with that engine though and what it contributed to the industry. I can't think of another american car that used an air cooled, all aluminum tubocharged flat 6... ever. Surely what was learned here helped out with the turbo craze in the 80s, but it doesn't seem like they learned anything else from the powerplant.
Why did it take so long for american manufacturers to make significant advancements in the mid 70s-mid 80s? I mean, chevy introduced the first american fuel injected engine in 57 with thier vette 283 small block, yet I lifted the hood on my dad's 89 suburban last month and the fuel injection system on that 350 just looks like an electronically controlled carburetor, seems like not much progress after 30 years.

Anyway, with the corvair, I wouldn't buy an early model, but in the mid-late 60s, If I was growing up then, it would've been my first choice in that price range hands down.

[E36M3]

The 70s and 80s were mired by crappy American cars due mostly to fuel shortages and the threat of fuel shortages. People wanted 'practical' cars with meager fuel consumption.

It seems that only some very crafty European companies realized that turbos are a great way to build an economical car. Turbo Diesels in particular are a great compromise, and some configurations can even deliver outstanding performance. American (North American) taste, though, makes a diesel engine a tough sell in a passenger car.

In the 70s and 80s American car manufacturers reacted to the 'Japanese threat' by promoting patriotism, instead of innovating. It is pretty clear to everyone that this was the wrong strategy. Trying to guilt someone into buying an inferior product only because it is assembled by American (North American at least) workers is a very weak tactic.

My hope is that the big three shape up over the next few years. The slowdown in the economy has seen some interesting things. Again, instead of innovating, the american car manufacturers have decided to compete based on financing, rather than innovation. That is sad. Hopefully Daimler will inject some new thinking into Chrysler, and force GM + Ford to wake up.


Originally posted by Ranger_X31


You bring up some really good points. By the mid 60s though, the performance turbo corsa would leave the beetle in the dust and keep up to some of the less bulky muscle cars. And the later models had much better handling than the earlier models.

I wonder what happened to chevy's involvement with that engine though and what it contributed to the industry. I can't think of another american car that used an air cooled, all aluminum tubocharged flat 6... ever. Surely what was learned here helped out with the turbo craze in the 80s, but it doesn't seem like they learned anything else from the powerplant.
Why did it take so long for american manufacturers to make significant advancements in the mid 70s-mid 80s? I mean, chevy introduced the first american fuel injected engine in 57 with thier vette 283 small block, yet I lifted the hood on my dad's 89 suburban last month and the fuel injection system on that 350 just looks like an electronically controlled carburetor, seems like not much progress after 30 years.

Anyway, with the corvair, I wouldn't buy an early model, but in the mid-late 60s, If I was growing up then, it would've been my first choice in that price range hands down.