<VV> Reflections on newer cars, Corvairs

[Tony Underwood]

At 01:29 AM 12/26/2010, Karl Haakonsen (cityhawk at pobox.com) wrote:

Karl brings up some interesting points in his commentary here.



>During my adolescence and formative years in the 
>1970s, there was a sense that cars had reached their peak in the 1960s.


Same here, and with a pretty good reason to 
support such a position in the eyes of many.


>Sure, there were improvements in emissions and 
>some improvements in mileage, though the 
>improvements in mileage were mostly due to cars 
>being made lighter (in other words, more flimsy).


Exactly.   There was a bit of a paranoia among 
government regulators who feared that cars were 
going to "destroy the planet" thus came the 
almost frantic rush to make cars cleaner, as well 
as lighter and thus flimsy compared to most cars from the '60s.


>Cars were made of thinner sheet metal and tended 
>to rust out faster. Cars of the 1960s still 
>seemed "modern" in terms of driveability.

Compared to cars of the '70s they certainly 
were.  Many of the '60s cars simply outperformed 
their '70s counterparts in not only power but 
fuel economy as well.   There were a lot of cars 
from the '60s that easily got over 20 mpg and 
more than a few that could manage 30.   Today we 
see that Ford commercial with Mike hawking an SUV 
that gets something like, what, 28 
mpg...?   ...And saying it as if it's a 
breakthrough or something.   That wasn't all that 
difficult in the '60s.   Back in the dark ages we 
had a '61 Plymouth Valiant with a 170ci engine 
that could easily manage 30+ highway and still 
wasn't half bad around town either.


>They were able to maintain current highway 
>speeds, handled at least as well as the current cars, and held up better.

Maintaining highway speeds was non sequitur... 
everything that got built here in the '60s by the 
Big Three was pretty much able to break ANY speed 
limit on any highway in the country, and then 
some.  There were "antiquated and obsolete" cars 
of the '60s that could hit off 150 mph or more.

>The 1980s were spotty as well, though there were 
>some improvementst to some cars, but the 
>American economy cars were still, by and large, pretty crummy.

Indeed some were... basically throw-away items 
that were intended to last a few years then 
trade, then sold for a few hundred bucks to some 
teenager, and a year later it's already recycled to become a new Toyota.


>Anyway, since the early 1990s, cars have been 
>improving in most respects leaps and bounds, 
>with a few periods of bean-counter cutbacks here 
>and there. But the fierce competition and 
>technological improvements have created cars 
>that are faster, smoother, cleaner, more 
>reliable, and for the most part, hold up at 
>least as well as the cars of the 1960s...


Here's where we tend to part company, or at least where our paths diverge...

I am not so sure that cars made today will last 
as long as cars of the '60s, all things being 
equal.   There are large numbers of cars of the 
'60s still here... albeit seldom actually driven 
anymore.  However, they lasted this long.  True, 
lots more are gone, having been used, abused, 
battered and beaten, then discarded in search of 
that "American Dream" of a "new car every 4 years".

Sure, modern cars have enjoyed many improvements 
over the years, but it does NOT make them 
invulnerable.  They're going to suffer the same 
way cars of the '60s suffered.  And just as many 
of them will meet an early demise for exactly the 
same reasons as most of the '60s cars.


>though their technological complexity may make 
>maintaining them for decades too much of a 
>headache compared to their older brethren.

And THAT is the point that makes those '60s 
vintage cars so much more substantial in the eyes of so many people.

They had simplicity.  They had durability.  They 
were serviceable.   They could be trusted to be 
easily corrected should something actually go 
wrong with them.  They were built to be DRIVEN 
(I've ranted on this before) by people who KNEW 
HOW TO DRIVE and not by vehicle operators who 
have today gotten used to getting into a car and 
pushing a button to make it go and then pointing 
it in the direction they want to travel with no 
feel for the road or the vehicle or much of 
anything else.    They have become a passenger, not a driver.

>Yet, improvements notwithstanding, can anyone 
>here imagine a faithful, dedicated following of 
>any of today's cars (with the exception of 
>expensive sports cars and luxury cars) 40-50 years from now?

NO.   It's that simple.  Because most of them 
will have long since been recycled, destroyed, 
battered into submission, or simply fallen apart, 
particularly the interiors and trappings which 
will NOT stand the tests of time the way steel 
dashes and sprung seats and brass instead of 
plastic has stood up.   Add to this the 
planned-obsolescence in today's cars, compared to 
the construction of most cars from the 
'60s.   Today's cars simply aren't going to last 
as long as a '60s vintage car, -=[ALL ELSE BEING 
EQUAL]=-.    (needed to throw that in there to 
deflect the rhetoric I'm sure to get from modern 
car advocates who claim '60s cars were all crap)


>  Someone mentioned the small number of Corvairs 
> on the road as a testimony to their lack of 
> durability compared to new cars of today, but, 
> seriously, they are 40-50 years old!

I'll quickly take exception to THAT claim as well.  Example:


Look how many Corvairs still survive... against all odds.

There was the throw-away mentality.  There was 
Nader.   There was the stigma of "6 cylinders" 
compared to 400 hp ponycars.  There was its own 
manufacturer that spent the last few years 
throwing the Corvair under the bus.  There was 
apathy.  There was neglect.   There was 
bandwagoning with every so-called "expert" yelling UNSAFE!

So:   How many Corvairs remain today, compared to 
other similar cars of its generation?

When somebody talks about most Corvairs having 
long since vanished... what's the defining 
number?   Pick ANY marque from the '60s and 
nearly ALL of them are long since gone, vanished, 
recycled into refrigerators and washing machines.


Pick percentages of the survivors and rack them 
up against surviving Corvairs.  The numbers are 
likely to be a bit of a surprise.  More than one 
automotive authority has said that a surprising 
number of Corvairs have survived to current times 
compared to their contemporaries.

How many 1963 Corvairs are around?   How many 
1963 Tempests?   Olds Cutlasses?   Buick 
Specials?  Chevy Novas?   Dodge Darts?   Plymouth Valiants?



>. T ime will only tell what percentage of 
>today's economy/everyday cars are still around 
>in 40-50 years. Actually, the main reason why 
>most Corvairs are long gone has more to do with 
>Corvairs being persistently undervalued in the 
>marketplace of antique cars due to the old 
>(ill-informed , yet persistent) Corvair 
>"stigma." This stigma keeps the value of 
>restored Corvairs much lower than it should be 
>as well as the value of rust-free cars. Today, a 
>person can find a relatively rust-free Corvair 
>for a couple thousand dollars (or less), so a 
>great many restorable cars get relegated to the 
>scrap heap because they have a little rust and 
>nobody wants to bother with it because, why 
>bother when a rust free car can be had for so little money?


Again, you hit the mark.   I keep seeing people 
on THIS list talk about how a Corvair with some 
rust holes isn't worth the time and effort and 
they pass on it, with its owner eventually 
relegating the car to scrap because there are 
still better examples available.

It's almost cliche... reminds me of an example, a 
parts-car '41 Chevy a bud bought for a few 
hundred bucks, for its stainless and chrome trim 
pieces to use on his rust-free example.  The 
parts car had some rust holes here and there.  He 
removed all the chrome and some other fittings 
and sold it for what he paid for it to another 
guy who was "gonna restore it".   Some years 
later the same car, still untouched, showed up in 
the classifieds for sale, also displayed on a lot 
beside a major thoroughfare.   It lasted a week 
before selling for SIX TIMES what my bud had sold 
it for, minus all its chrome trim, rust holes and all.

...I guess the supply of perfect-body rust-free 
'41 Chevy coupes had dried up.

Corvairs are gonna experience something 
similar.   As time passes, those same cars passed 
by years ago because they were "too rough" will 
become sought after and bring some serious money, 
even after weathering additional years... IF they survive.

Beauty seems to be subjective... eye of the 
beholder I guess.   People oft times see only 
what's visible and not what's actually there.

This is why the newest car I own is an '88 Yugo 
GVX, followed by an '88 Subaru XT6, then an '85 
Jeep Cherokee.   Then the Corvairs begin.   Oh... 
that '66 Plymouth Satellite is in there too.

They all suit me just fine...  I'm in no hurry to 
buy anything new.  Call me a Luddite if you want.



tony..