<VV> RE: THE MARVELOUS CORVAIR

[Bill Elliott]

If by "defeat for the original Corvair engineering concept" you mean 
that an expensive to build low displacement drivetrain designed for an 
economy car was not suitable for a high power sports GT car, yes, it was 
defeated.

By 1965 the Corvair mission had changed... the Corvair (almost by 
accident) had created an entirely new genre of car (the pony car) where 
it was ill-equipped to compete due to not only the displacement 
limitations, but also the expense to produce. A 
conventionally-engineered car like the Camaro better met the 
expectations of this new market while simultaneously being cheaper to 
build.

Bottom line is that the market of the time did not value the attributes 
(handling, braking, economy) that the Corvair offered...

Bill

Rod Murray wrote:

> 
>re:  mark's note below, it's easy to see the bodyline similarities
>between camaro and the late vair.  But if this is true, how did jim
>explain the significant redesign of going from an air-cooled rear-engine
>vehicle to water-cooled front placement (along with whatever other
>engineering differences)?  Wouldn't this be admitting defeat of the
>original corvair engineering concept?  Or is it possible that the
>original camaro body might have been Corvair Phase III and thus remained
>rear-engine and air-cooled???  I'm not disputing anything here, it's
>just interesting and i'm curious...thx   
>
>Snip "At the convention Jim Musser...worked for GM at
>the time the Corvair was built...he confirmed...that management
>wanted to put the Corvair name on the '67 ponycar, but that Ralphie's
>book
>made that impossible. So in reality, what was named the Camaro was
>REALLY
>supposed to be the third generation Corvair." end snip
>
>Rod
>Vintage Corsa Publicity & Website Guy
>66 Monza Convt 140/4
>
>  
>