<VV> What's More Trouble-Prone? 140hp or 150/180hp?

[Eric S. Eberhard]

I have 62 Spyder cvt and 62 Monza Sedan with 102 hp (2 carb) that I just 
changed to Judson supercharger ... but ran for a long time with 2 
carbs.  The Spyder is fully restored and "perfect", the sedan is an ugly heap.

The Spyder is "finicky"  ... I am at some altitude (3400) and summers are 
hot (up to 105) and winters cold (down to 14) ... mixture and choke 
settings are tricky.  The Spyder always needs more fiddling and fouls plugs 
more often.  I would not recommend a Spyder if all you care about is 
driveability ... however, it is a pure JOY to drive ... fun, makes all the 
right noises, etc.  As far as performance ... it is stock, so I would loose 
a drag race with a mini van ... it is high performance for a 42 year old 
car, but not by modern standards.

The 2 carb 102 hp is a great daily driver (I actually have a PG in 
it).  Starts right up and has less fussing.  Never fouls plugs.  It is not 
exactly quick or sporty :-)  Adding the Judson has made it more finicky, 
but not as much as the Spyder.  I do have to reset the choke for summer and 
winter but that is about it.

There are two things you can do to greatly improve driveability in either 
--> install a Pertronix II ignition and coil as well as 8mm wires.  Second, 
you can install an MSD ignition which is fabulous but hard to hide (I hid 
mine so that things looks stock).

Good luck!

At 03:58 PM 6/7/2004, N. Joseph Potts wrote:
>I think most are agreed that the basic two-carb Corvair engine is simpler
>and easier to keep running as it should than either of the two
>high-performance designs, four-carburetor and turbocharged. But which of
>these is harder to keep in good fettle? I owned a two-carb long ago
>(bullet-proof), and I find my present four-carb example predictably
>more-demanding. I've never owned a turbo, and have been cowed by the
>complexity and stress of a turbocharging system. Reading VV for a couple of
>years has NOT quite answered my question.
>      I'd like to hear ONLY from people who've had BOTH, optimally
>concurrently and/or in the same year of Corvair.
>      Please be reminded that I'm NOT proposing a thread on which engine is
>BETTER. Tastes and needs vary, as do the characteristics of these two
>high-performance designs. I really only want to hear about how they compare
>in terms of amount, expense, and difficulty of maintenance required to keep
>them running as designed.
>
>Joe Potts
>Miami, Florida USA
>1966 Corsa coupe 140hp 4-speed with A/C
>_______________________________________________
>This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are 
>the property
>of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, mailto:vv-help@corvair.org
>This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, http://www.corvair.org/
>Post messages to: VirtualVairs@corvair.org
>List info: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualvairs
>_______________________________________________

Eric S. Eberhard
(928) 567-3727          Voice
(928) 567-6122          Fax
(800) 569-1122          Denver Office (I am never there, you can leave a 
message)
(720) 339-4765          Cell

http://www.vicspdi.com

Completely updated web site of personal pictures with many new 
pictures!  Includes horses, dogs, Corvairs, and more.

http://www.vicspdi.com/ourpics/index.html