The "Early" Corvairs were sort of troublesome. But by '65 & the 2nd series, they'd got pretty much all the bad bugs out of 'em. There was an old guy in my church who drove a 'second series" 4 door til he died in the mid '80s... Another problem w/Corvairs, & this is likely what REALLY killed 'em, was that they were sort of "Dead Ends", virtually nothing on them could be used on more mainstream GM cars, & vice versa.

I still have owning one of these beauties on my bucket list! Congrats, Greg. :)

All the weight was in the back end, so it made sense that it would be good in the snow.
The design was a good cencept, but GM messed up, with very poor quality. They were in the market to compete with VW, but they were more expensive and a lot less reliable. :sigh:

Thanks Tom! Start looking for one, you will get tons-O-fun from it. We love our 62 and have driven it many miles, the furthest being Ventura California. Now to get to know the 65, found the major oil leak last night. It was missing one of the seals in the oil cooler, that sure explains the volume of oil it was using.


Gregb

GM-Well, ALL the Big 3- had a massive redesign of their "Standard size" Car lines for '65. In GM's case, it kicked off the look that sort of looked like a partially inflated bodyshell over a wire skeleton, which more or less lasted til the end of the traditional "Big" cars in 1977. It must have cost a fortune, but by the mid sixties, America's economy was generally doing VERY well, & the Big 3 sold about every one they could cram out the door. IMHO,the Corvairs looked especially nice, the 2 doors being rather light & "Airy" looking, & the 4 doors had a strong resemblance to their big brother Cadillacs..

I remember, either hearing or reading about one of the GM big-shots stating that they weren't crazy about building small economy cars, as there was little profit in them, compared to the larger cars. He also claimed that the labor cost was about the same. :scratch2:
You can't really argue with a bean-counter. :thumbsdn:

My brother bought a brand-new 62 Corvair in early 1962. Extremely poor fit-and-finish. The thing, leaked like a sieve in a hard rain. Before he could drive it, he had to bail out the front floor pan, there was that much water in it!
In the front hood compartment, he had to carry a three pound coffee can and a spare fan belt, with wrenches to change it, as it failed every 6 to 9 months.
One of the good things about it, is it did get 30MPG, premium fuel, as it had a high compression engine and a 4 speed.

The fan belt issue has been resolved as well as all of the oil leak issues. I have not had any trouble with the 62 since I went through it some 40k miles ago. Very reliable, starts and runs great and isn't to bad on fuel if I don't push it to hard. They did have growing pains for sure but time and technology have solve all the problems.

Gregb

Greg, a question, if I may? Since Corvairs were built before 1971, what do you use for fuel, since the valves and valve seats are not hardened in order to compensate for unleaded gasoline? Have you updated the valves and/or seats on yours? Or do you just take it easy when driving and don't put unduly excessive loads on the engines? Just curious!

I remember buying Super Shell for 28.9¢ a gal when I had my Corvair, '69-70. It needed high octane. That Shell station had a blue pump to the side by itself "Shell of the Future" unleaded gas.

Fan belt.. used to buy Gates steel cord reinforced belts at an industrial supply house. Never had a problem with one.

I use premium in the 62 and the 65 because they need it and I don't take it easy on them. They have aluminum heads with a hardened stainless valve seats so no lead is no problem.

Gregb

PS: I have in stock at least 2 corvair engine gasket sets - NOS GM.

I haven't studied nader's work even tho i would if i had the time but...
 

I drove a very charming 63 corvair spyder turbo convertable a very little but. If only for being so small it seemed scary unsafe to me just like the vw bugaboo.
I would not want someone i know driving one but in the most safe road conditions of minimal traffic.
It is very difficult to argue against doing all to protect anybody's safety.
My mark v makes me feel like i am as safe as in a rolls royce. I guess i am spoiled:no: in my mind. Ha ha!

I personally strongly dislike that mentality that others should not be allowed to take risk. Even if a car is not safe by someone's standards, that does not mean someone else should not be allowed to take a calculated risk.

I drive a Mark V regular in the summers, and while it feels a good bit better than many others I've driven it ain't perfect either....I've hydroplaned and fishtailed in it many times. I've also taken calculated risks in/with that car...For a while I was having braking problems that I eventually traced to a leaky master cylinder, but while I was trying to figure it out there were a few months where the first press of the pedal might not do anything every 3-5th time...I drove it such that I could deal with that quirk till I fixed it.

I personally dislike small zippy cars like corvettes, preludes, and the like, as I feel they temp drivers to bring out their worst habits, and often offer poor safety in a crash relative to a larger car...Would I tell someone not to own one, no, but I would probably not ever have one of my own.

U misread my mentality... i am just a little mental
 

:D
I understand everybody should do whatever they want like... let it all hang out baby yeah!
However, those of us that study reality over fantasies have an obligation to warn everybody for the hope of helping others to protect themselves. My wife and children and anybody that wants my advice will not be put at such risk. Really, multitudes of little cars are just as dangerous.
If you ever see someone you care about misled into harm you will adjust your thinking.
No offense intended as i am merely some sirt of loose nana i suppose:banana: