<VV> early vs late

[Bill Elliott]

Sure, since I posted the claim, I'll give you my views.

'64: Construction quality, fit and finish, chassis rigidity were top notch. Only bettered by the extremely well built '60 when considering earlies.  Design better 
with the larger diaplacement engine and improved rear suspension.

'65: Design much improved (primarily to the rear suspension and availability of the 140) but put together more more "loosely". Fit and finish suffered as 
compared to the '64 (likely due to building a substantially different car), the chassis was less rigid (part design, part build quality) and the car simply felt not 
put together as well.

'66: Design improved even further (primarily a better transmission) AND the factory got their act back together in assembling the new cars. Fit and finish 
seem much improved, chassis more rigid (than the '65, not better than the '64) , etc. Basically back up to the construction standards of the '64.

'67 was even better in fit and finish, but then focus shifted and '68's and '69's were well below the '65.

Now it could ALSO be that there were simply more 65's and I've seen more bad ones. I've dealt with a lot of Corvairs and you quickly get the subjective 
feeling on whether a car is "good" or "bad".

 I've never dealt with a "good" 68, or '69, have dealt with only a few "good" 65's, '61s, 62's, only a few "bad" '63s and even fewer "bad" '64's and '66s, 
but have never dealt with a "bad" '60 or '67.

Subjective? Probably.

Bill Elliott

>Could some one describe the differences of the 65 vs 66
>65 poor quality better design? and what made the 66 quality equal the 
>64?
>thanks in advance
>  Doug Dunlap
>CNYCC