<VV> Novas and Vairs

[airvair]

I had a '75 Nova stripper (inline 6, 3 in the tree) once. Don't even
think it came with a radio. Anyway, it was miserable on slippery
pavement, despite the relative lightness of the 6banger. Then there was
the '71 Buick Estate Wagon. For all its weight (hood the size of an
aircraft carrier), it was so bad you could (and I did) stick it on a
flat sheet of ice.

No wonder the public has such bad memories of conventional cars vs front
drivers (since their general intro in '80.) I think most conventional
cars ARE miserable beasts. But as I've always said, they praise front
drive for the wrong reasons. Had the "conventional" cars been REAR
engine/FRONT drive, the public would KNOW just how bad an idea front
drive really is.

Having driven Corvairs thru most of 15 midwest winters, I KNOW that the
real reason front drive is any good at all is because it puts the weight
over the drive wheels, and NOT because it's driving the front wheels.
There's but one advantage I can think of, but many, many disadvantages
with driving the front wheels (regardless of where the weight is
concentrated.)

Give me a Corvair any day!

-Mark C

"Bill H." wrote:
> 
>                                          B"H
> 
> I have to add my 2 cents here.  I've never driven a
> Nova, but I would say that the IRS on the Vair,
> combined with the traction offered by the rear engine
> configuration, makes the Corvair a better handling car
> than the Nova.  My vair handles better than any other
> rear-drive car I've ever driven, including the host of
> torsion-barred A-body MoPars (which were pretty good)
> as well as full size Ford wagons from the Eighties
> that I've owned.
> 
> I do remember my aunt's 1971 Chevelle Malibu Sport
> Coupe which she got brand new in the spring of '71.
> It had a 307.  She was very unimpressed when on the
> highway on a windy day.  The Malibu would get buffeted
> all over the road in those circumstances, and it was
> definitely heavier than a Nova...Bill Hershkowitz