![]() 10/29/2013 at 13:36 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
Enjoy.
![]() 10/29/2013 at 13:40 |
|
But but but I thought they were unsafe at any speed? There's no way protectionists could have lied about that is there?
![]() 10/29/2013 at 14:41 |
|
As a Corvair fan, I approve this message. Looks like Cleveland airport? Cool to see this car dusting off 914s.
![]() 10/30/2013 at 09:24 |
|
66 was after GM revised the rear suspension. Made the Corvair a pretty good handling car. This thing sounds great, as well.
![]() 10/30/2013 at 10:12 |
|
Actually the funny thing I noticed is that we preferred the earlier cars more lively rear to the later cars understeering configuration. I have always been interested in Corvairs and played with one when I was racing my MR2 in autocross. All of the "handling problems" of the Corvair were just the nature of a mid engine car. They were accentuated by the bump steer issues and GMs absurdly large steering wheel, but I found it to be a very reasonable car.
I would love to get to try to drive one of the V8 conversions with some upgraded suspension and see how that does.
![]() 10/30/2013 at 11:49 |
|
I've ridden in both versions, but I was in elementary school, so I can't comment on the handling. I know bump steer was a problem, and most of the rest is just how swing arm work. I have a Z3 that is basically the same suspension, but without all that weight hanging on it. You still don't want to lift in a corner. Americans in 1960 were not used to anything but massive understeer, so they were scared by "that weird car".
![]() 10/30/2013 at 12:28 |
|
Mid and rear engine car rule #1 - Lift at your own risk. Seriously, more 911 and MR2 drivers ended up spinning out on their runs because of lifting in a slide than anything else. People don't realize how fast mid and rear engine cars snap when you completely let off.