<VV> Another slam on Corvair.

[Paul Rollins]

At 06:07 PM 1/26/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Message: 12
>Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:06:58 -0800
>From: "Ron" <ronh at owt.com>
>Subject: Re: <VV> Another slam on Corvair.
>To: "Jim Burkhard" <burkhard at rochester.rr.com>,
>         <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
>
>On the unibody, Corvair followed Nash and can't claim any first there.
>RonH


Corvair wasn't particularly innovative, but it didn't need to be innovative 
to be an interesting and worthwhile car. It stands on what it is. Even 
taken in the narrow context of the U.S. auto business, it didn't break any 
new ground in chassis construction. In the worldwide view, it didn't do 
much new at all. Many unitized-body vehicles were built before it -- 
Citroen (Traction Avant), Lancia, and Chrysler Corp. (Airflows) were using 
this style of construction before WWII, and even the Vespa motor scooter 
was using a unitized body-frame in the 1940's. The Austin/Morris Mini came 
out before the Corvair, and it was unitized. The rear-engine format was 
certainly not new -- KdF (Volkswagen), Tatra, Porsche, FIAT, et al. had 
used it earlier.

The original Mini, E-type jaguar, and M-B 300SL are no longer built, but 
stating the fact doesn't mean  the cars were and are not worthwhile.

Paul