<VV> Corvair/Camaro
James P. Rice
ricebugg at mtco.com
Fri Aug 20 16:40:06 EDT 2010
All: There was no "pony car" before the Mustang. Plymouth had a tame
Barracuda but Mustang invented the class. The '67 Camaro was built off the
chassis for the 2nd generation '68 Chevy II. Chevy needed an answer to the
Mustang - the LM Corsa turbo was not it - and liberated a work in process
from the Nova people, finalized it for their application and went to
production.
Yes, there is a styling connection - a family tree - as the Camaro was
styled by the same people who did the LM Corvair. There was family
resemblance across Chevy's product line. No surprise there. But the only
Corvair connection between Corvair and Camaro is that Pete Estes wanted to
call what we know as the Camaro the new Corvair. He was soundly booed down
by his marketing people. Hence they invented the name Camaro.
Which, if you think about it, is a piece of evidence that the Corvair was
scheduled to die with the '66 production run. Otherwise, if "our Corvair"
continued in production, what was it to be called? Oh wait, the Camaro
would have been the Corvair II. No evidence of that plan.
The death notice for the Corvair probably came down from 7th floor in about
April '65. A date that comes from three sources independent of each other.
Chevy did have suppliers, purchase orders and contracts to modify or cancel.
That does take some time if you want to be orderly. Plus they needed
something until '67 production of the Camaro started.
I actually believe the death knell for the Corvair first rang in early '60
when production of the Chevy II was given the go ahead. This about 6 months
after the Corvair's introduction. The Falcon outsold Corvair about three to
one, and GM realized there was a market for the unconventional, but it was
not big enough. The FL didn't sing then, but she was moving onto the stage.
Thank Ralph for the '67-69 Corvairs.
Historically Yours,
James
******************************************************
All I heard was competition from the other marques who were making
quicker and faster ponycars, including Chevy itself with the Camaro
which was an offshoot of the 'Vair in the first place. Let's not
forget how GM was making less profit on each Corvair sold than
anything else they made.
Oh, and that stigma about how Corvairs were "dangerous" (even if
untrue) may have had something to do with the decision to quit the car.
But since the initial decision to cease production first came down
the pike in 1966, long before the smog factor had become a genuine
issue, it seems unlikely that any emissions issues were to have had
any sort of serious effect on GM's decisions to kill the
car. Let's also not forget that the 'Vair was retrofitted with
smog gear only AFTER the initial decision to cease production was
made... and production still continued for almost 3 more years.
Other marques only (relatively) recently have dropped air cooled
engines from their inventory because of the high engine temps that
make it more difficult to control fuel mixtures/combustion temps
along with the inherent "noisiness" of the typical air cooled engine
which anymore is undesirable among all the car makers...
tony..
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
__________ NOD32 5377 (20100818) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:33:31 EDT
From: Sethracer at aol.com
Subject: Re: <VV> Corvair smog issues
To: tony.underwood at cox.net, virtualvairs at corvair.org
Message-ID: <18234.1bfbed89.399e0e1b at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 8/18/2010 8:15:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tony.underwood at cox.net writes:
But since the initial decision to cease production first came down
the pike in 1966, long before the smog factor had become a genuine
issue, it seems unlikely that any emissions issues were to have had
any sort of serious effect on GM's decisions to kill the
car. Let's also not forget that the 'Vair was retrofitted with
smog gear only AFTER the initial decision to cease production was
made... and production still continued for almost 3 more years.
Tony - That isn't true. In mid-1965 all California Corvairs (with a couple
of small exceptions) were produced with smog pumps. And those were
designed in the year or two preceding release. The GM engineers - knew what
a pair
the Corvair smog equipment was - way before 1966. Believe me, a 1966 140
Smog motor was a pain to work on! A little less of a pain for most of them
today. <grin>
Seth Emerson
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:41:33 -0400
From: Tony Underwood <tony.underwood at cox.net>
Subject: Re: <VV> Toyota - some Corvair
To: <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20100819013504.037a3f30 at pop.east.cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 03:39 PM 8/16/2010, Dave Keillor wrote:
>More torque does not necessarily equal more horsepower. It depends on
>what rpm the "more torque" occurs. I do agree, though, that torque is a
>more meaningful measure than horsepower.
It's also meaningful that FI for some reason still seldom seems to
ever make as much top end raw horsepower as a properly set up carburetor.
This has been proven time and again on drag strips for many
years. You wanna see the record holder in door slammer
classes? Look for the race car with the carb... and NO I'm not
talking about classes where the car's restricted to carbs only, I'm
talking about open induction classes... which used to run FI until
modern carbs kicked their asses which meant that everybody went to
carbs... even the bracket classes and modifieds that used to run
injection are now running quicker with carbs.
But on a road course it's a different story altogether.
tony..
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:40:58 -0400
From: jvhroberts at aol.com
Subject: Re: <VV> : Toyota - a tiny bit of Corvair, and NOT just a
theory
To: tony.underwood at cox.net, virtualvairs at corvair.org
Message-ID: <8CD0D783BFD63FF-11BC-B062 at webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Except Microsoft has NOTHING to do with ECMs!! The engine management
operates purely in machine code. Jeez....
Now:
Does ANYBODY remember that stupid-ass joke that was circulating
around during Windows-95's first introduction to the masses... and
how a car would function if it was built by Microsoft?
Now we know.
tony..
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
xce
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:54:55 -0400
From: Tony Underwood <tony.underwood at cox.net>
Subject: Re: <VV> Toyota - some Corvair
To: virtualvairs at corvair.org
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20100819014657.03a261c8 at pop.east.cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 04:08 PM 8/16/2010, BobHelt at aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 8/16/2010 12:39:16 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
>dkeillor at tconcepts.com writes:
>
>More torque does not necessarily equal more horsepower.
>
>
>Hi Dave,
>In case you forgot, horsepower is equal to torque X rpm divided by 5252.
>So if the torque is increased, then by definition the horsepower is also
>increased. It's the "law." Maybe this doesn't affect MAXIMUM horsepower,
but
>there IS a Horsepower increase.
But that increase is at lower rpm. ;)
I just finished reading an article about a 1969 non-Vair musclecar
with a 400+ cubic inch engine that was retrofitted with state of the
art electronically controlled fuel injection to compliment it's high
tech electronic ignition. Driveability improved as did fuel mileage
and engine idle and starting, which required only a bump of the key,
hot or cold. The car "felt stronger" in city driving.
On the dragstrip, it ran slower than with the carb, and this was with
an (advertised) 1000 cfm throttle body. Less top-end
horsepower. The performance car magazine made mention of the fact
that this was "as expected" what with other EFI installations on
other cars demonstrating similar gains, and losses.
Something about carbs... ;)
tony..
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:59:36 -0400
From: Tony Underwood <tony.underwood at cox.net>
Subject: Re: <VV> Corvair smog issues
To: virtualvairs at corvair.org
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20100819015632.03bb2fa8 at pop.east.cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 12:33 AM 8/19/2010, Sethracer at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 8/18/2010 8:15:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>tony.underwood at cox.net writes:
>
>But since the initial decision to cease production first came down
>the pike in 1966, long before the smog factor had become a genuine
>issue, it seems unlikely that any emissions issues were to have had
>any sort of serious effect on GM's decisions to kill the
>car. Let's also not forget that the 'Vair was retrofitted with
>smog gear only AFTER the initial decision to cease production was
>made... and production still continued for almost 3 more years.
>
>Tony - That isn't true.
Yes it was... ;)
>In mid-1965 all California Corvairs
...in California ONLY, since they had their own way of doing things.
Everybody else in the USA who bought a 'Vair before '68 got one
without any smog plumbing all over it.
And YES it's a genuine pain in the backside to mess with a smogged
140 in a '69 Monza. I know.
tony..
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:34:27 -0700
From: "Charles Lee" <Chaz at ProperProper.com>
Subject: Re: <VV> : Toyota - a tiny bit of Corvair, and NOT just a
theory
To: <tony.underwood at cox.net>, <virtualvairs at corvair.org>,
<jvhroberts at aol.com>
Message-ID: <CF0E197BB0A24CC9968AA0ACEBF516E8 at DellMusicPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
No kidding - That was a joke ;>}) !!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: <jvhroberts at aol.com>
To: <tony.underwood at cox.net>; <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: <VV> : Toyota - a tiny bit of Corvair, and NOT just a theory
> Except Microsoft has NOTHING to do with ECMs!! The engine management
> operates purely in machine code. Jeez....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now:
>
>
>
> Does ANYBODY remember that stupid-ass joke that was circulating
>
> around during Windows-95's first introduction to the masses... and
>
> how a car would function if it was built by Microsoft?
>
>
>
>
>
> Now we know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> tony..
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> xce
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Frank Ness <aircoolvair at yahoo.com>
Subject: <VV> Windshield and Door panels
To: VV <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
Message-ID: <791389.41577.qm at web45608.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi All,
I'm getting ready to have the windshield and back glass re-installed in my
65 Monza two door. Does anyone know the dimensions of the spacer block you
put at the bottom of the glass? Clark's doesn't sell them anymore.
I am also looking for some decent used door panels for the same car. It's
daily driver. Hard to justify spending a quarter of what the car cost to get
new ones. TR-733 is the code. Light blue.
Thanks in advance,
Frank
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are
the property
of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, mail to:
vv-help at corvair.org
This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America,
http://www.corvair.org/
VirtualVairs at corvair.org
http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualvairs
Change your options: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
End of VirtualVairs Digest, Vol 67, Issue 99
********************************************
More information about the VirtualVairs
mailing list