Corvair Lies, Myths and Facts

[vairchet]

As far as I'm concerned, Chevrolet Chevettes were a far better car than any Vega (except perhaps, a Cosworth).

[66vairguy]

As far as I'm concerned, Chevrolet Chevettes were a far better car than any Vega (except perhaps, a Cosworth).

Probably true, the U.S.A. Chevette was based on GM's world platform, but was highly modified to improved corrosion resistance after the Vega's horrid reputation for rusting away (the early Vega's were truly bad in the rust belt, but improved). The Chevette engine was designed by GM Brazil engineers IN GERMANY for initial use in the Opel version of the Chevette. The engine program was expensive compared to the Vega engine development and faced resistance, but since it was planned to use in many GM world cars it got the go ahead and proved to be a durable engine.

Chevrolet sold nearly twice as many Chevettes as Corvairs in the same time period!!!! While assembly quality wasn't the best, it did seem to be a reliable low priced car and did it's job by meeting the CAFE mileage averages so GM could sell bigger cars and trucks at a profit. Without the CAFE regulation it is doubtful Chevy would have sold the Chevette. I had one as a day rental once and around town it was fine, but slow. On the highway there clearly was LITTLE sound deadening in it!!!!!

[vairchet]

Have you ever driven a Datsun PL521 pickup? Talk about a tin can! Or worse, an early '70s, Japanese made Ford Courier. Or about the Honda 600 and early Civics. Even Mazda RX-3s of the era weren't insulated very good, but that exhaust note when accelerating was music to the ears!

[Dennis66]

The diesel Chavettes had an Isuzu engine. Said Isuzu right on the valve cover. GM had their fingers in both Opel and Isuzu. With Chevette sales passing Corvar sales, interesting how many Corvairs there are compared to Chevettes. Dated two different gals that had Chevettes. Neither of them worked out well either.
Regarding tin cans, I was always irritated at the way everyone compared Suzuki Samurais to higher priced vehicles and tore the Sammis up. Had two of them and liked them. Not something I'd want to crash in, but neither was any of my motorcycles. Apples to oranges.

[66vairguy]

interesting how many Corvairs there are compared to Chevettes.

True --- I also haven't seen a Vega in many years, just one Cosworth Vega at a car show. A couple years back I saw a fellow driving the "Mercury" version of the Pinto. It was actually in very nice condition!! Even the older Japan made compacts have mostly disappeared, even in rust free Southern states.

[Gasman63]

Ive not been a Corvair owner for long but the one Ive heard the most is "is that a Corvette" even after saying its a Corvair. Then they see the emblem on the rear engine cover/hood and say "I knew it was a Corvette". The dual flag emblem throws them off often.

Or they are completely confused when I say its a Chevy.

[Doug Ward]

dennis66, Yes, the Tucker used a modified Franklin Helicopter engine, but they modified it to have water cooled heads. The heads were embossed with the Tucker name on them. Had about 500 cubic inches displacement.

[Frank DuVal]

Credit Ford with the first (U.S.A. company) mid car gas tank safety design

Baloney! Our favorite car has a mid tank that is safe! I can not find a video of it, but Nader was on a talk show back in the 80s, in a Pinto gas tank discussion, and He (!Ralph himself) said the Corvair gas tank was in a very safe location! Also look at all the full sized Chevrolets where the tank was ahead of the rear axle! Those cars are distinguished by the really deep trunk. 61 to 64 models IIRC, as I owned both a 62 and a 64 with that design (The 65/66 design was under the shallow trunk).

Also Exploder was a truck.....

I was buying a fuel tank for my 84 F-150 recently and discovered there were rear gas tanks for those vehicles as an option, and by rear I mean just in front of the rear bumper. I wonder where the spare tire went then? Mine had the "standard" location, under cab and bed nestled between the outer frame rain and driveshaft.

[Frank DuVal]

Had about 500 cubic inches displacement.

Maybe we should start a Tucker Lies and Myths section.

NO!* It was 335 cubic inches. OK, some say 334....

The engine was made by Air Cooled Motors, who made the Franklin 0-335 engine. Preston bought the company so they would design one for car use, including the water cooling adoption (why?).

Our Corvair clubs visited Dave Cammack's Tucker collection in Aledxandria VA several times. He had three of them, the first test mule (with 13" tubeless tires!) and a 1947 Cadillac open for comparison. Plus all the drawings upstairs. Oh, and a floor full of engines and transmissions showing development of them. He gave the stuff to the AACA Museum (no longer affiliated with the AACA, long story, hope not to be replayed by CPF, warning here ) upon his death, where a tenth of it is on display now, and untouchable.

* OK, Yes, the test mule had the Preston Tucker designed 589 cubic inch(!) on it with the hydraulically operated valves (no, not hydraulic lifters as we have but a hydraulic solenoid operating them, lots of little pipes feeding all 12 valves. But, this engine was not used in production cars, as it did not test run properly, nor was it a helicopter engine.

If you go to the Wikipedia page you can pictures of these two engines. The pictures are from Dave Cammack's garage! The 589 truly is wild!!!!

[Volktales]

I took my '66 Monza to a big car show a couple of years ago. Given I had just refinished the luggage compartment, I had the lid open to display it, but left the lid closed on the undetailed engine compartment. One younger guy earnestly asked me if it was an early electric car... Several others where visually confused as they walked past...

[caraholic4life]

In answer to some of the comments already made....

The Mercury Bobcat was their version of the Ford Pinto.
The first "Mid Tank" vehicles I seem to recall were Pick Up Trucks that had the tank in the Cab behind the Driver's seat. My Brother's 1938 Ford Truck has the Gas Tank located ahead of the rear axle like many vehicles of that era.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Cammack collection of Tucker's and related items with the Northern Virginia Corvair Club about a dozen years ago. I recall that it was a memorable experience well worth the time invested.

Since then I have visited the AACA Museum in Hershey PA. I think that the Museum has done an admirable job setting up the Tucker Display.
The Cammack Family donated many other unrelated items including a Train Layout that was set up in a room of it's own on the lower level.
Many of these other Items, I learned were donated by the family only due to the plaques placed by each display.
It was nice to see one man's eclectic collection preserved and displayed for many of us to enjoy.

[66vairguy]

Oh yes the trucks with gas tanks INSIDE the cabin behind the seat. Many years ago a bottled water truck rolled over in an accident locally. The gas tank leaked and the truck caught fire. Of course someone had a cell phone and caught the driver exiting ON FIRE. The poor guy lived, but that was the beginning of the end of inside gas tanks.

A buddy had a 1956 Chevy 1/2 pickup truck and he told me - "I keep hearing the BOOM, BOOM, BOOM from behind the seat!!!!!!!!!!!! We disconnected the battery and pulled the fuel sender out of the tank and it had scorch marks on it were it was ARCHING. Apparently it would ignite the gasoline, but there wasn't enough oxygen to keep it going. Just a minor BOOM and it would go out. My friend thought about the possibility of the tank exploding and SOLD that truck after installing a new sender. That said I've never heard of a gas tank exploding outside of an accident, but when I looked at that scorched sender it was an eye opener.

[Torskdoc423]

My understanding of the early Pinto problem was that ford used STUDS for the pumpkin cover instead of normal bolts. The studs stuck out something like an inch, allowing punctures of the gastank in a rear end collision. Ford either replaced the studs with bolts, or there was a plastic cover for the stud ring which inhibited punctures. I've heard both solutions mentioned. Whether it's true or not is anyone's guess.

[Wittsend]

As the owner of a '73 Pinto (Wagon, 2.3 '88 T-bird Turbo Coupe engine/5 speed, 8" rear) I can comment on the gas tank issues.

Pinto's had four engines over the years (1.6, British Kent, 2.0 German EAO, 2.3 American Lima, 2.8 V6 German Cologne). The lesser powered Pinto's had a 6-3/4" rear end that had rearward facing bolts on the cover. And, yes, they would puncture the gas tank if it was pushed hard enough into them. Ford had a recall and Pinto's going forward had a plastic shield that prevented the tank from being pierced. As to stud over bolts I can't confirm either way. I did a Google Image search and the few pictures I found only had bolts. That does not preclude that maybe one bolt was a bolt/stud combined to hold a brake line or something???

Pinto's with larger engines got the 8" rear end which it shared with the higher powered Mustang II. The 8" rear had a removable center section. Thus the back side facing the gas tank was smooth and the shield was not needed.

Ford also lengthened the gas tank filler neck. This helped keep the neck from sliding out in a collision.

One thing the Pinto did share with the Corvair was a side mounted fuel sender.

[66vairguy]

The Pinto got a lot of bad press about the gas tank fires in collisions, but one article I read had the number of "incidents" per mile for all cars, the Pinto was hardly any worse than other cars with the gas tank between the bumper and rear axle.

I've seen two cars catch fire after severe rear collision impacts, both were larger cars decades back with rear gas tanks between the bumper and axle.