Comments: 1-15, 16
Bent push-rods on the first one I owned.
I broke the tranny on the third one I owned.
I've owned three '65 Corvairs, two 90 horse automatic Monza models, and a quad-carb 140 hp Corsa. I've driven all of them, a lot.
The two 90 horse automatics were like electric cars, amazingly smooth, effortless, and reliable even in constant city driving. Their fully-independent rear suspensions gave excellent ride and control over even the worst of rough roads. The first one I bought had bent push-rods on one bank, I have no idea why. I replaced them myself, and never had this problem again, on any of these cars.
The 140-horse Corsa had a 4-speed manual transmission. I replaced the tires with FR -series sizes on the front and GR-series sizes on the rear, mounted on 5" and 6" wide 14" Chevy wheels, which bolted right on, then installed HD shocks all around. The handling became amazing. Porsche switched to the late Corvair rear suspension in 1991, in case you still have any doubts. I didn't.
Greedy fool that I am, I pulled off the four carbs and installed an aftermarket cross-ram maifold and an WCFB Carter 4-bbl; it kicked the torque peak up to around 4000 RPM, and the torque went WAY up. In second gear, it could out-accellerate our 1969 GTO 4-speed in second gear. My four sons, teen-agers then, and I subjected this lovely little hot rod to what probably constituted new dimensions of abuse for several years; one of them told me, years later, that he'd had it up above 130 mph indicated, and I don't doubt it at all. The tranny finally broke under the strain. For those who'd like to repeat this experiment, the '66 and up 4-speeds used the internals of the Corvette 4-speed, and they bolt right in. For that matter, the '66 140-horse 4-speed Corsas wouldn't have that problem.
I rebuilt this engine myself, and was amazed at its quality. Every Corvair boasts forged-steel connecting rods and crank, and a gear-driven cam; They're extremely reliable, and keep sharp tune as a consequence.
Best handling cars I've owned, very reliable, and excellent both in small and large design matters. Superb panel fit and paint. After 50 years (!) the doors still fit perfectly and body rust is minimal. The full instrumentation on the 140-horse Corsa was among the best I've ever seen, nearly as good as our '62 Studebaker Hawk, which is the best I've seen in 30 years working as a mechanic and automotive journalist.
The high performance versions were genuinely fast.
I like Corvairs, too (formerly owned a 69 convertible and a 69 Monza 140 hp, among others) and belonged to CORSA... but I have to question your rating reliability as 10/10?
According to your review, you have only driven the car 45,000 miles in 36 years of ownership which is average of 1250 miles a year, so the car has spent the majority of its life sitting idle, probably in a garage? Even a Yugo would likely be reliable with such little use...
Are we in 2015 already?
"After 50 years (!) the doors still fit perfectly and body rust is minimal."
1965+50=2015.
Any car which spends less, on average, than 12 hours a day running spends the MAJORITY of its life idle.
Doh!
Actually, to be super-anal, if this were 65,000 miles on one car at an average speed of 30 mph that would mean it had been idle for an astonishing 99.5% of its life.
But I'm more interested in how the pushrods got bent - that's very odd.
This is the car that brought Ralph Nader fame when he published his book "Unsafe at any speed".
The early versions were said to be accident-prone.
Gear-driven camshaft sounds a good idea, much better than silly belts, although chains work well.
Actually if you read the final US gov safety report on the early model vairs- they were safer than the competition.
Simply, younger less experienced drivers were driving them faster and hence the accident rates appear higher.
Nader also said anything other than a solid rear axle car is UNSAFE and hence so is the corvair. Guess almost all the cars today are unsafe=0)
Michael.
The earlier cars were prone to extreme camber changes at the back axle so that under some conditions the rim of the wheel would dig into the road and then nothing would stop the wheel from digging in and flipping the car over.
The later Corvairs were much better engineered and not prone to this problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong. but I don't think Nader ever said a car without a solid back axle was intrinsically unsafe.
I wrote the original review above, and in the light of your questions, feel like I need to clarify some matters.
One, the "50 year old car" mistake. Pure brain fade on my part. I should have said '40'.
Two, the low mileage. I meant that the car was made 40 years ago, not that I had owned any of them for 40 years. I bought the first one in Berkeley, California, in 1969, for $60 from a tow service, which had run out of storage space for unclaimed cars. I'd bought it for resale, and sold it two weeks later for $550. During those two weeks, after replacing the bent pushrods, I used it as an everyday driver, and became thoroughly impressed with it. The foreign car specialist I worked with at the time was driving a customer's BMW 2002Ti, and he and I would swap back and forth; despite its bias-ply, unbelted tires, the Corvair handled better than the BMW did on its radials.
By 1974, I had a farm in the Midwest, and was stacking up cars that I liked. I bought the 140 big-valve Corsa mentioned above, and because it was cheap, another 90 hp Monza like the first one I'd owned. I still own them both.
As to why I haven't put more miles on them in the years I've owned them. With 6 licensed drivers in the family and 40 acres to stack cars, I never got around to selling any; cars were the family hobby. Of the cars I had the choice of driving at any given time, I should mention our 1962 Studebaker Hawk, 1961 Pontiac Catalina convertible, my wife's 1969 GTO 400, our 1968 350 Nova, my Olds 455-powered 1963 Chevy pickup, and our 1969 Chevelle 350, not to mention a number of others.
Oddly enough, I don't drive much, since I work at home, both as a mechanic, and in writing the Auto Shop Series for HOT ROD Magazine, and publishing in other car mags, such as Road & Track and CAR CRAFT.
And, no, none of these cars are for sale. A man's gotta have a hobby.
I have a 1965 Corvair Corsa 180 (factory turbo) with a 4spd. I LOVE the car. Fantastic handling, body integrity and looks you can't beat! One of the coolest instrument clusters and interior you can find.
I also have a 1967 Corvair 500 that has been converted to a mid-engine V-8 car with a small block Chevy where the back seat used to be. FUN!
These cars are going strong with a 5500 member national and international club. Check the net for CORSA. (Corvair Society of America) There is a 5 day national convention every year.
As I suspected for so many years, Hot Rod and Car Craft might just as well be called "Super Chevy". No wonder I quit buying them.
Just for the record, in homebuilt airplanes, the Corvair is the engine of choice for it's torque, light weight, reliability, and cost. It is the # 1 choice by the world's foremost expert, a fellow named Wynne, I think. I have owned two Corvairs, and my son's 66 Corsa is still the only car in his heart. He's been thru the Civic/Celica/Mitsubishi stuff. The internals from the factory were top of the line, and modern seals have cured the only real weaknesses.
Speaking of alternate engines for homebuilt aircraft, the Corvair engine, with some mods, is a good choice for those homebuilts requiring 100 to 120 reliable horsepower and a firewall-forward weight of less than say, 250 pounds.
But to suggest that it's the most common choice or the standard by which all other auto-conversions are judged is stretching things a bit. The Subaru EA81 and EJ22 engines are far more common, as are the Mazda 13B rotary (an excellent, powerful and reliable choice - good for up to 200 hp without compromising TBO) and, in smaller planes requiring less than 80 horsepower, highly modified versions of the air-cooled Volkswagen engines.
Still, the Corvair engine offers good power without the necessity of a reduction drive and the simplicity of air cooling. Besides, it's far more durable than the VW engine.
As for the Corvair being "unsafe at any speed", keep in mind that Ralphie Nader is a flaming liberal (and a lawyer) who has always had an agenda and a nose for where money could be made over a given controversy. Many civil lawyers don't make their money from finding solutions, but rather, from finding problems. The odd few (like Nader) will make up problems if none seem to be forthcoming.
My corvair story. Bought 66 110hp auto from disgruntled lady down the street for $25 in 1972. Replaced pushrod seals with help from the former chevy service guy across the street. Tuned up, replaced battery, put on set of michelin radials. I drove the car, my mom drove the car...hell, everyone in my family drove that car and it never let them down. My dad loaned the car to a bible salesman who managed to drag the bottom out of the gas tank... thank you jb weld!! My father set the unofficial landspeed record from Whitewright texas to shreveport la due to broken spedo cable. The spedometer never worked for more than a couple of months at at time because I was too cheap to buy the whole assembly. I got the car with over 60,000 miles on it and it was a daily driver for the next ten years. Absolutely the best car gm ever made. I am ashamed to say that I let it get run down and didn't keep up with the maintenance on it. It self immolated after taking my parents to church one morning. If I had known about viton oil seals when I first bought it, that car would be running today. I cried when it died. But, we made 1475 dollars due to insurance. Best Damn car ever!!
In my opinion Corvairs were some of the best cars ever made in the USA in modern times, along with Tuckers (...)
These cars had a wonderful configuration and there are many important points that made them so great:
Porsche has been credited for introducing turbochargers in the 70's -in the 911- but Corvairs already had introduced them in the 60's.
Flat piston engines have many advantages and they have been very popular and great in European and Japanese cars (Beetles, Alfa Romeos, Citroëns, Porsches, Subarus, etc), but almost in-existent in American cars. I don't know why.
The power of sporty Corvairs was very high, even higher than some 911 of equivalent years.
The independent suspension in the 4 corners is very important for good handling. Also very rare in American cars.
And the engine in the back is also a good idea for an sports car. The only important thing is that Chevrolet didn't indicate with high precision that tire pressure was extremely important. As in the Beetle, tire pressure can seem a little odd in this cars, but it is just a question of following at the letter.
I am not too fond of American cars, although I am very fond of cars in general, but Corvairs were great engineering. I think it is a shame that people believed it was a bad product because of the opinions of an ignorant in technology.
Best wishes to all Corvair owners and congratulations for your cars.
Actually the 1962 Oldsmobile F-85 Jetfire was the first production car with a turbocharger. The turbocharged Corvair arrived on the scene a about a month later. The engine in the Olds was an aluminum block 215 ci (3.5 litre) V8. The turbocharged version of this engine was rated at 215 hp. Ironically there was a fellow named Art Silva who designed a kit to swap these engines into the engine bay of late model corvairs. By all accounts a very nice swap.