Comments on: How the Corvair’s rise and fall changed America forever

By: GaryCee

GaryCee — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:13:28 +0000

As a teen ager I watched the Cole-Nader debate on TV . It was a real game change for me . I had been a left leaning person till then . Ed Cole came across as calm,candid and knowledgeable . Ralph Nader came across as deceptive and ignoratnt..a lawyer !
Two elements said so much. When Ed Coleconfronted Nader with the fact that the liberal icon,the VW Beetle was proven to be inferior to the Corvair from a handling and safety standpoint . Ed Cole then asked Nader why he chose to go after the Corvair . The bungling Nader mindlessly blurted out the real issue . He stated that he went after the Corvair because “General Motors made the Corvair” That was a turning point . It occurred to me that Nader was after the company , at that time an icon of capitalism . During the same debate the arrogant Nader , chiding Ed Cole over an answer said something to the effect ” I would expect you to say that ; You work for GM ” To that , Ed Cole responded that we all know who I (Ed Cole) work for . Ralph , you seem to be doing well . Who pays you ? ” Nader dodged a real answer …( Still a lawyer )
BTW Bush won the 2000 election fair and square . The recount showed that he indeed had the majority . The only likely vote fraud was on the Democrat side , based on the Democrat offiical toting a voting machine and cards in the trunk of his cards . Add to that the hanging chads are formed when someone attempts to punch more than one card at a time . If the preponderance of hanging chads favored Gore by a wide margin it points to obvious manipulation from that one side .
Get over it Ralph . You know , like our current administration you are out to destroy our country . Many of us have your number .Your little book was laden with lies . You still lie about the 200 election

By: catfish252

catfish252 — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:17:09 +0000

Great story — until you brought the George Bush election part, don’t understand why thats in there.

By: dilligras

dilligras — Fri, 18 May 2012 00:36:01 +0000

I have too much to do already, but dang it, somebody’s wrong on the internet.

If Corvairs were as bad handling as Nader said, why would a bunch of car fanatics still be racing them 50 years later?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJVjJVdj4 T4&feature

GM didn’t bow to any pressure — in fact, they reacted to Nader’s book by extending the car’s production several years longer than previously planned.

Poor sales due to competition with a 289 cu in Mustang with a 4 on the floor (drool) is what really killed the car. If it had lasted another few years, until the gas shortage of the early 70′s, it might still be with us today, just like the cars that inspired it, the Volkswagen and Porsche.

By: RockinRonny

RockinRonny — Sun, 13 May 2012 13:38:38 +0000

There was a song by the Newbeats The group that sang “Bread and Butter” in 1964. Infact this song called “Tough little buggy, My little Corvair” was on the flip side of the Newbeats hit “Bread and butter” witch reached #2 on the charts 8/15/64. Remember the other car songs like Little GTO and 409 and Rocket 88 etc., and etc. but have you ever heard this song about “My little Corvair”? Go to youtube and type in the title “Tough little buggy/The Newbeats and give it a listen. And ,oh ya Fieros where a MID ENGINE car NOT A REAR ENGINE CAR.FYI.

By: grill

grill — Sat, 12 May 2012 15:46:00 +0000

A couple of technical notes of interest:

The statement Ingrassia makes:
“…GM had belatedly improved the stability of the 1964 Corvettes by adding a stabilizer bar under the car’s front end to improve the front-rear weight imbalance…”
is a twofold problem. First & most obvious, the seeming typo where he says “Corvettes” when he most likely means “Corvairs” and mentioning the “stabilizer bar” when referring to the addition of an anti-roll bar to the front end. He should be noted that the addition of a transverse leaf spring to the rear suspension at the same time would have arguably had a greater effect on correcting the inherent problems caused by the swing axle setup up the earlier style Corvair (pre-1965).
In the same category, it’s important to note that Nader’s book had diagrams of the Corvair swing axle suspension system which are exagerated to the point of deception and apparently meant to prove his assertions. But he is, after all, a lawyer . See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_ Corvair) for a much more accurate depiction.
And to totally condemn the Corvair’s rear engine (behind the rear axle as opposed to rear/mid engine) is to ignore the historical facts of the state of automotive engineering theory of the times – late fifties. Also ignored is the current manifestation of the same configuration in the revered (not by me…) high performance Porsche 911 – introduced in 1963 (after Corvair) & having undergone continuous development ever since to overcome the handling & roadholding deficiencies of the design.
None of this is meant to condone GM’s characteristic hubris of the 50s, 60s and continuing up until the downfall of the 2000s. To this day I am amazed that a corporation could, by force of its own selfish and greedy will, manage to behave so badly AND produce so many stunningly stupid products (with admittedly some brilliant ones interspersed) for over 50 years and continue to exist.
But believe it or not, I still support all the efforts to save them. Go figure.

By: dmt98239

dmt98239 — Sat, 12 May 2012 14:20:04 +0000

As a current 1964 Corvair Monza Convertible owner I can disagree with most of what is said. Some 47 years later and my car handles beautifully. Sure it doesn’t have power brakes or power steering but you have to “drive” this car and brings you back to when driving was enjoyable – not just a “chore”. Think the topic we should be talking about is how cars today have no personality. 47 years from now who is gonna want to see Kias in a museum?

By: samcleveland

samcleveland — Fri, 11 May 2012 01:12:12 +0000

I bought a 1965 Corvair new for about $1,700 while in college. It had a heater and a radio. I drove that car like a “bat out of hell” and it handled superbly. To this day I still think it was one of the best cars I have ever owned. It was not perfect, but had a great future had it not been for Ralph N. He may have been correct about the earlier models, I do not know, but GM buckled under pressure and dropped the car. I lalso bought a Pontiac Fiero many years later (another GM rear engine car). This was another great rear engine car that GM dropped. My only complaint about the Fiero was stiff steering. The Fiero did not have rack & pinion and steering was a little stiff… which seemed odd for a rear engine car.

Bottom line: GM seems to have compromised on some fundamental engineering and shot itself in the foot on both of these rear engine cars. It seems short sighted to me and maybe that is why GM ultimately failed. I hope they have learned something and I hope to see another rear engine car from the new GM.

By: tsc_ma

tsc_ma — Thu, 10 May 2012 21:45:02 +0000

My first car’s were rear engine beetles and I drove a Corvair though college in the 90′s. My ’64 Corvair Spyder coupe was a joy to drive. Handled great! Drove through New England snow without a problem. I think the Corvair might have even been road and track car of the year. If it was horrible to drive I doubt that would have happened. People make mistakes driving. Remember the fake floor mat issue that Toyota had to deal with? Every car handles differently. The fact that a few people could not learn to drive a rear wheel drive car does not mean it was flawed. I drove few of the 70′s fords and they were worse. I think the Torino was the name… big heavy wagon with soft power steering. It felt like you were floating. Scared me to death. Anyway, the Corvair was and is a great design.

We need more innovative designers and corporate leaders like Ed Cole and less parasitic lawyers like Ralph Nader.

By: alwayslearning

alwayslearning — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:05:55 +0000

Anyone remember the Pinto?

By: dddavid

dddavid — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:58:48 +0000

Just to add to the story. Top Brass at GM never believed a small car was the answer. I spoke with the Chairman of the Board on about late 1950 (very early 1960) that it is my thought America needs a small car. The answer by the Chairman was: “Americans are in love with large cars” They will never buy smaller ones”. I beg to differ at that time.

After the Corvair was made the Chairman himself being about 6’6″ drove a Corvair every day to work from his home “Applewood” to his office in Flint. If I was Chairman and single largest shareholder and creator of GM (along with Durant) I’d be driving a Cadillac.