<VV> 68 Vette, C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's.

[moonpie8n at comcast.net]

The flat motors wouldn't work at INDY either. They would have to make the cars wider which screwed up the "AERO" package. Even though the 180 motor has some real advantages, .... Since it has equal thrust on the crankshaft from each side [not down on a 45 dgree angle], ...,friction can be reduced. That' s why you never saw one of "Enzo's" engines at "Indy". They were obviously powerful enough [kick butt in Formula "1"]..... 
Bob Isaac 
Moonpie Racing 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: jvhroberts at aol.com 
To: moonpie8n at comcast.net, rodneyspooner at corvairgarage.com 
Cc: virtualvairs at corvair.org, dougmackintosh at yahoo.com, virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org, dnoneal at bellsouth.net, ricebugg at mtco.com 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:41:33 AM 
Subject: Re: <VV> 68 Vette, C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's. 

Well, apparently Subaru agrees! Although the Alfasud, Lancia, and 
Citroen used them as well. 

The issue for the Corvair is it needed an entirely new engine. A flat 8 
would've been too long, but it sure could've used better cooling, a 
more robust bottom end, etc. The clearance problem could've been solved 
with the cam above the crank ala aircraft engines, although that may 
have made the engine a bit too tall topside. 
A 3.5L or so flat 6 with decent breathing and cooling would've made all 
the difference. Being considerably lighter than the Camaro, 8 cylinders 
probably wouldn't be necessary. Alas, GM was seriously doing things on 
the cheap, and deviating significantly from the 1960 engine and 
transaxle design just wasn't in the cards. By 1970, the innovation of 
the 60s for GM was completely over. The only notable success that 
continues to today is FWD via the Toronado, although today it lives on 
under other names. But by 1970, OHC engines, aluminum engines (the Vega 
was done on the cheap, with the predictable result) air cooling, fully 
independent suspensions (yes, the Corvette kept it, only because it had 
to), and on and on, were all over. GM was squarely in the cast iron 
engine, front engine/rear drive business, with anything different from 
that being a distraction unless it made money. 

Flat engines still aren't crazy popular. For F/R cars, they're so wide 
they interfere with the front suspension. For rear engine cars, it 
seems it's all that used, with other designs being the exceptions. 
Obviously, lots of mid engine cars use them, but there's also lots of 
inline and V engines too. For F/F cars, well, the world seems to love 
transverse engines, and that is clearly not well suited for flat 
engines! 

Also, flat 4s cost a bit more to make than inline 4s, and if you'll 
notice, Subarus aren't exactly entry level cars! 

So, yes, a better Corvair was certainly possible, but its parent was 
the wrong company to do anything new with it. 

John Roberts 

-----Original Message----- 
From: moonpie8n at comcast.net 
To: rodneyspooner at corvairgarage.com 
Cc: Virtual Vairs <virtualvairs at corvair.org>; Doug Mackintosh 
<dougmackintosh at yahoo.com>; virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org; David 
O'Neal <dnoneal at bellsouth.net>; ricebugg at mtco.com 
Sent: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 9:24 am 
Subject: Re: <VV> 68 Vette, C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's. 


10-4 Rodney , .... Porsche and Ferrari did ok withe 180 degree "V" 
motor for 
decades 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: rodneyspooner at corvairgarage.com 
To: moonpie8n at comcast.net, virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org, "David 
O'Neal" 
<dnoneal at bellsouth.net> 
Cc: "Virtual Vairs" <virtualvairs at corvair.org>, "Doug Mackintosh" 
<dougmackintosh at yahoo.com>, ricebugg at mtco.com 
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:17:05 PM 
Subject: Re: <VV> 68 Vette, C.Jordan, Astro I and Opel GT's. 


Moonpie8n wrote: "I think the Corvair was run off the road by GM'S own 
cars." 

Sure. But the Corvair WAS Chevy's future platform. Just look at the 
concept cars 
it inspired (including electric.) The Corvair could have been so much 
more if 
R&D funds hadn't been pirated away for the Camaro. 

What could Corvair have been if it only had a bit more distance between 
the cam 
and crank for more stroke, bigger bore, plus 2 more cylinders? 

I for one believe it could have corralled the Mustang. 

No one can ever convince me that a horizontally opposed engine isn't 
the best 
engine design with one of its biggest advantages being its lower center 
of 
gravity. 

Rodney 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 
_______________________________________________ 
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 
_______________________________________________