<VV> The New Corvair

[jwcorvair at aol.com]

I agree with the comments below. One of the major issues with the profit margin on the original Corvairs was that Chevrolet was not able to distribute the cost across other models within its division. That is, the Corvette could share a gear box with a truck, and everyone used a version of the?small block?engine. The Corvair did not share any of its major engine/drive line parts with any other car. (Certainly some transmission parts were shared, but not much else.) In addition, Chevrolet was unable to get other divisions interested in models based on the Corvair drive line.

The situation is a bit different now. General motors (or its subsidiaries) make mostly front wheel drive passenger cars, in which the engine and drive line are a single unit. It might be possible to use such a unit as the base for a "rear" engine compact (I think that it might be more mid engine) and build a nice series of two door and four door hard tops.

I think, however, that even if Chevrolet built such a car, they would not call it a Corvair. I am of the opinion that the name would be a limiting factor. I still run into people that think the Corvair was the worst car ever built. One woman that I work with tells continually that "everyone" knows the cars overheated badly all of the time. So, to name a new model the "Corvair" could be inviting nothing but ridicule, regardless of how well built the car might be.

My $.02,
Joe White (62 sedan [that never overheats], 66 Porvair)
CORSA, RMC


-----Original Message-----
From: JVHRoberts at aol.com
To: kenpepke at juno.com
Cc: virtualvairs at corvair.org; bwschug at charter.net
Sent: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 5:07 am
Subject: Re: <VV> The New Corvair



 
The engine, for one, is unshared with any other car. There is NO spreading  
of development costs. Also, that all aluminum engine costs more to build, with  
all its extra pieces, than a water pumper. Just the fact it takes SO much 
more  time to assemble a Corvair engine than a water pumper should tell you  
something!

In a message dated 9/10/2007 6:29:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
kenpepke at juno.com writes:

JVHRoberts said [in part]:

>If GM stuck to the rear engine  formula, (tough to do given the relatively  
>high production costs  of the Corvair), 

I have heard that claim for many years and always  wondered about it ... I 
mean, 
'high production costs' compared to  what??  The vast majority of cars built 
today 
feature  'Unistrut' bodies with the complete power package on one end of  the 
car.
Does which end of the car make a dramatic difference in  the 'production 
costs?' 

Does this make sense to  anyone?

Ken Pepke


 



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
 _______________________________________________
This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are the 
property
of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, mailto:vv-help at corvair.org
This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, http://www.corvair.org/
Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
Change your options: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs 
 _______________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com