Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, thats your opinion. I like the concaved bumper, the quad raised taillights (not a fan of recessed lights), the flat trunk surface, the small bumper, and the Ferrari-ish vents below the bumper. Its unique and I like it, simple as that.
Very true. Some people like economy cars with plain-looking rear ends.
I see the Corvair's a$$ end is still a hot item here! The car was designed for two basic reasons. #1 was to win back customers who had defected to VW, Renault, etc. Unlike Ford and Chrysler's smaller cars, which could be considered down-sized versions of their big cars, the Corvair wasn't. It was radical for its time and didn't leach many of it's buyers from GM's big-car drivers' pool. #2 - It was designed as an economy car. Nothing about it's looks was overstated - unlike the finmobiles that were ubiquitous in the Corvair's early days. And of course, they placed the engine in the back. Over time, larger engines and a turbo became available. The body redesign in 1965 had Chevy written all over it - except for that back end. And this is what we are here to discuss. I like em' but you already knew that. Here's another...
I see the Corvair's a$$ end is still a hot item here! The car was designed for two basic reasons. #1 was to win back customers who had defected to VW, Renault, etc. Unlike Ford and Chrysler's smaller cars, which could be considered down-sized versions of their big cars, the Corvair wasn't. It was radical for its time and didn't leach many of it's buyers from GM's big-car drivers' pool. #2 - It was designed as an economy car. Nothing about it's looks was overstated - unlike the finmobiles that were ubiquitous in the Corvair's early days. And of course, they placed the engine in the back. Over time, larger engines and a turbo became available. The body redesign in 1965 had Chevy written all over it - except for that back end. And this is what we are here to discuss. I like em' but you already knew that. Here's another...
I never cared for them. Their repair record was below average. The base engine was very slow. Even the turbocharged ones took 18 seconds to run a 1/4 mile. I would take a "finmoblile" any day! (Especially a '57 Chrysler 300-C or a '59 Cadillac.)
Of course, I am used to cars with big and powerful engines.
I'd never argue that the Corvair was a great or fast car. And I do agree with you, Fleet, regarding their repair histories. Design flaws were apparent. The early models had to have wickedly under-inflated front tires just so they wouldn't swerve off the road. I just thought the back end was pretty snazzy for an economy car.
You and my dad would've gotten along well. He drove Packards, then Caddies. The Caddies were a 57, 59, 62 and a 65 - all great rides.
The Koenininininingsegsegsegseg still needs a spoiler.
It has one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like the concaved bumper, the quad raised taillights (not a fan of recessed lights), the flat trunk surface, the small bumper, and the Ferrari-ish vents below the bumper. Its unique and I like it, simple as that.
The car was designed for two basic reasons. #1 was to win back customers who had defected to VW, Renault, etc. Unlike Ford and Chrysler's smaller cars, which could be considered down-sized versions of their big cars, the Corvair wasn't. It was radical for its time and didn't leach many of it's buyers from GM's big-car drivers' pool. #2 - It was designed as an economy car. Nothing about it's looks was overstated - unlike the finmobiles that were ubiquitous in the Corvair's early days. And of course, they placed the engine in the back. Over time, larger engines and a turbo became available. The body redesign in 1965 had Chevy written all over it - except for that back end. And this is what we are here to discuss. I like em' but you already knew that. Here's another...
