Dummy early lovers, was: <VV> dummy Late lovers

airvair airvair at richnet.net
Sun Mar 20 18:25:04 EST 2005

Simpler is not always better, if they improve it. I won't argue about 
the merits, or rather lack thereof, of GM's rust protection efforts. 
It's a subject that wasn't taken seriously by auto companies until the 
'80's, as ALL cars earlier than that rusted out badly, even early 
Corvairs. It's that the early and late Corvairs rust out differently. I 
once pulled the entire front end off a Monza wagon while trying to move 
it, simply from rust. I've even seen a Greenbrier collapse in on itself, 
the frame broken in five places. No car is immune.

The early Corvair was built with an unknown structural requirement in 
mind, being it was GM's first venture into unitized bodies. As it turned 
out, it was overbuilt. It will still rust out, sometimes worse than a 
late (like in the floorboard and fender areas) but since it was 
overbuilt, it still holds more of its overall structural rigidity. The 
late model was merely the first progression towards more sane structural 
needs, and the idea of capitalizing on the unit body's promise of 
structural integrity WITH the light weight of a frameless chassis. As I 
said, rust protection wasn't taken seriously. The wheellip problem that 
you fault the late models with are nothing compared to the ENTIRE 
(linerless) fender rot problems of early Corvairs.

As far as the "like every other GM car" element goes, you obviously 
haven't driven enough late model Corvairs AND its peer group cars to 
know better. Yes, it doesn't drive like an early Corvair's tail-happy, 
bouncing rowboat ride. It's more sophisticated and civilized, but still 
far removed from (and better than) "other GM cars." It simply drives 
better (IMHO) than either the early Corvair OR other conventional cars.

I consider late models better on the issues of styling, ease of repair, 
and overall pleasant ride and handling. The early wins only the point of 
an overbuilt body structure.

Finally, it's debatable as to the merits of a gas heater. Especially in 
this time of skyrocketing gas prices, why would a gas-guzzling feature 
be desirable, when you already have built-in engine heat for free? And 
why pay for the privilige of throwing it away?


Shaun wrote:

>In my eyes, simpler is better. I don't mind Lates, but around here they all
>have that disgusting rustout around the bottom corners of the windshield.
>When they get bad, the entire wheelwell lips rust out along with the hinge
>post for the front doors, all seriously compromising the structure. Earlies
>rust, but in non-critical parts of the structure.
>The fact that GM designed out the 'fun to drive' factor so Lates drive just
>like every other GM vehicle is another reason I like Earlies better.
>Out in my driveway right now is about the ultimate daily driver Corvair.
>It's a restored 1960 700 4dr with a '64 95hp/pg and complete '64 front and
>rear suspensions.
>If any of the 1960-only parts need replacing, they are dirt-cheap, and the
>icing on the cake? A gas heater!
>>Earlies aren't "superior." Just unsophisticated. Proof is that you don't
>>have to pull the axles out of a late model in order to drop out only the
>>engine. As a result, engine removal (like in a clutch job) is much
>>simpler on a late model.
>>Shaun wrote:
>>>Late Models require a diff to be mocked up so the lower control arms can
>>>connected to it.
>>>The superior Earlies only need you to remove the yokes from the rear
>>>and slide an appropriately sized piece of tubing over the two axles to
>>>them in line.
>>>yea, Vairily ... Shaun 'Late Earlies are best' McGarvey

More information about the VirtualVairs mailing list