Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars the almighty corvair
43 messages, Last post on Nov 16, 2009 at 1:03 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 12, 2009 8:45 am) As the Corvair was born a-dying, GM shoved the Chevy II into the mix. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 12, 2009 8:13 am) In 1950, I remember Regular Mobil was 5 gallons for $1 on Saturday mornings. Funny how first time experiences make an impression, fueling my '39 Chev 4 door. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 12, 2009 8:13 am) Yes, very nice. On my commute I used to know exactly when, by location, to roll down the windows to ventilate the blue smoke that was about to billow out of the heater. (1964 Spyder convert). I seem to recall that the heater boxes covered both the block and headers so that a gasket leak would vent carbon monoxide into the interior There were stories of unconscious drivers running off the road. WVK
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: wevk (Nov 12, 2009 10:12 am) My favorite GM defect was defective motor mounts on the Impala V8s. They'd break, causing the engine to fall to one side on the steering, thereby locking it. Furthermore, as the engine fell, it would pull the throttle wide open; then as a final touch, the moving engine would pull the vacuum line out of the power brake. An assassin couldn't have planned it better, no? I'm no defender of very early Corvairs. I think they really did flip over pretty easily, and in fact I eye-witnessed one.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 12, 2009 8:13 am) It had a small knob on the floor that operated the heater. You had to turn it about 40 turns to full open the heater which took hot air off the manifolds. Same as with a Corvair. Any exhaust leaks would suck fumes right into the cabin. And, weak? After driving 20 minutes, you might be able to feel something. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 12, 2009 10:22 am) Funny you'd mention that. I saw "Capricorn One" the other night, and NASA pretty much did the same thing to Elliott Gould's Mustang in order to shut him up! As for that '65 Chevy motor mount issue, am I just imagining things, or when the engine shifted over, couldn't it jam the shift linkage to the transmission as well, possibly keeping you from being able to shift it into neutral? Or is that just a little TOO consipracy-theoristic of me? I've heard that the 1961-63 Pontiac Tempest, which also used swing axles, was actually worse than the Corvair, but somehow Ralph Nader missed that little scandal-in-the-making. I wonder what about the Tempest made it worse, though? Was it simply because it was more powerful, especially with a V-8, and that would make it much more catastrophic if you lost control?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 14, 2009 12:56 pm) Corvairs were low cars, with normal, for their day, 13' wheels and tires. The Tempest featured 15" wheels and relatively skinny tires. Normally, 15" is preferable to 13", but when the rear wheels tend to buckle under, when driving in a spirited manned (way less than recklessly), the greater diameter of the larger wheels and tires tend to exaggerate this aberrant behavior. Conversely, the lesser distance from the road to the axle in the Corvair, worked in the Corvair's favor vs. the Tempest. Quite aside from the handling, that 4 cylinder in the Tempest belonged in a farm tractor, not a car. |
|
|
|
|
In answering andre's specific question, I gave a one-sided view of the Tempest. In fairness to Pontiac, the Tempest was quite innovative, and it was different from GM's other '61-'63 compacts. For example, in addition to the independent rear suspension and 15' wheels, which the Tempest didn't share with its Olds and Buick counterparts, the Tempest's drivetrain employed a unique drive shaft. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Tempest's driveshaft design, it consisted of a tunnel that spanned almost the length of the car. This tunnel housed a flexible steel driveshaft running on bearings residing inside a steel box. This unusual design forced it into a curve. This driveshaft became known as "rope drive." It connected the engine to a rear mounted unified differential and transmission in the rear. This combination of front-mounted engine and rear-mounted transaxle gave the Tempest a nearly-ideal 50/50 weight distribution. This was years before BMW made a big deal of this weight distribution. Another advantage of this driveshaft is that it eliminated the floor hump for front seat passengers. While Pontiac deserves credit for trying to make its compact better than Olds' and Buick's, it made the mistake of introducing this car before the bugs had been ironed out. The result was the handling problems covered in my previous message, plus the rope drive was prone to early failure. It lacked sufficient strength. It makes me think of how different automotive history would be if GM had learned from these mistakes.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 16, 2009 8:04 am) Geez, how many times did GM do THAT !? 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 16, 2009 8:04 am) And, that "rope drive" axle made the BEST prybar in the world! If you were lucky enough to get your hands on one in a junkyard you really made a score! Once in awhile in an old time shop you can see one in a corner somewhere. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars the almighty corvair
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
