<VV> The New Corvair

[Mark Corbin]

I seem to recall that at one time a GM source denied the "high cost" notion
as being a popular myth, and that GM did indeed make money on the Corvair.
They also came close to carrying over the Corvair name when they introduced
their version of the Mustang, but that Ralphie's book made that impossible,
at least at the time. They later resurected the Monza name in the US and
even the Corsa name (which they still use) in Europe and Brazil. I wouldn't
be sure about the viability of the Corvair name domestically, though. But
at this point, whatever they would put it on wouldn't/couldn't bear any
resemblance with our air-cooled rear-engine cars, anyway. So the issue is
really moot.

-Mark


> [Original Message]
> Subject: Re: <VV> The New Corvair
>
> 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-----
> 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