The Corvair Was Safer At Any Speed

"Margin Of Error" (marginoferror)
09/25/2015 at 10:51 • Filed to: HISTORY

Ralph Nader built its successful polemicist career on the back of the Chevrolet Corvair by pretending that some of its handling characteristics such as a propensity to “snap-oversteer” made it unsafe for motorists. The thing is, Ralph Nader was wrong

I’m not here to pretend that the Corvair was not a bit tricky to drive, but I’m here to demonstrate that such characteristics can actually make cars safer by emphasizing driver involvement.

Launched in 1960, the Corvair was very Avant-Garde . It featured a flat 6 turbo engine located in the trunk just like the Porsche 911 Turbo. It was available as a coupe, a convertible, a sedan a wagon and even as a van and a pick-up. The Corvair was the embodiment of the future of the American automobile industry.

In the early sixties, Ralph Nader was a young polemicist looking for some exposure, but since he reality tv was not yet invented, he decided to pick one thing he hated : cars.

He decided to demonized driving involvement for the sake of security. In other words, Ralph Nader is the Mother of all electronic nannies. He’s is the reason we have plenty of Camry and not enough Mazda 6. By his actions, he castrated a whole generation of car enthusiasts and forced the industry to make “safe” cars that are so predictable that driver tend to get bored and do other stuff.

The Corvair was safe car in the sense that it was asking to be driven and understood. Driving a manual Corvair at night in an ice storm was by far the best deterrent to distracted driving. When you are busing steering, counter-steering, reading the tach, rev matching and heel-and-toeing, there is little time left for texting.

The Corvair was much safer that Ralph Nader wants you to believe.

DISCUSSION (21)

vondon302 > Margin Of Error
09/25/2015 at 10:57

Also gm never did any breakthrough engineering after this debacle. Neutered that company for decades.

Margin Of Error > vondon302
09/25/2015 at 10:59

Verily

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Margin Of Error
09/25/2015 at 11:06

Originally it was launched with a NA Flat Six, the turbo became an option shortly after.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
09/25/2015 at 11:10

Also, the Corvair Turbo predates the 911 Turbo by 12 years.

Margin Of Error > Snuze: Needs another Swede
09/25/2015 at 11:15

So it actually inspired Porsche engineers.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Margin Of Error
09/25/2015 at 11:16

No one who died in a Corvair in the 60s did so because they were texting. It’s not like those modern Volvos. Those things are just dangerous.

Berang > Margin Of Error
09/25/2015 at 11:19

Saying Ralph Nader was bad is the cheapest thing to do in automotive writing.

If you’re not stuck in the 1980s, you’d see that his whining is indirectly responsible for cars not being the total pieces of shit that they were, and would have gone on being had nobody intervened.

The second thing is, Nader was hardly the only person playing his schtick. He wasn’t even the first. He may not have even been the loudest. A lot of what Nader had said about the corvair was already being said by others. Had GM not gone and spied on him, and then been found out - most people would’ve forgot Nader and his book after a couple of years.

ttyymmnn > Margin Of Error
09/25/2015 at 11:20

Margin Of Error > Berang
09/25/2015 at 11:25

Are you saying that the Corvair was a shit car ?

GM spent 9 years of R&D on this project.

Übel > Margin Of Error
09/25/2015 at 11:31

No, he’s saying all cars back then were pretty shit. They did kinda have a tendency to kill their passengers, so he has a pretty valid point.

Also, time spent on a project does not directly equate to the quality of the finished product.

Berang > Margin Of Error
09/25/2015 at 11:43

Kinja'd!!!

I’m saying pretty much every car in the 60s was a shit car. And most of these faults had incredibly easy fixes, which is why they were inexcuseable and indefensible.

Now I like my old cars, and I have owned cars far less safe than the Corvair, but what is horrifying is that companies were perectly aware of major safety issues in their vehicles, but not willing to spend a couple bucks to fix them - and then whined and bitched and threw tantrums for decades after they were forced to.

And in the end? Cars today perform better, are more efficient, pollute less, and are far, far, far safer. So what was lost anyway? Nothing of value.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Margin Of Error
09/25/2015 at 12:08

I think yes and no. Turbos have been around since 1905 and were used with success in WWI and WWII aircraft engines - although the purpose of using them was not so much outright performance, but to offset the power loss due to the thinner air at high altitudes. They also became popular in diesel engines used for ships and locomotives. It’s possible, and probably likely that during this period people experimented with using turbos on race cars - superchargers were already very popular - but I can’t find anything to back them up.

GM, believe it or not, was the first to mass market turbocharged cars. The Oldsmobile F-85 Jetfire Turbo and Corvair Turbo both appeared in 1962 (there seems to be some debate as to which officially went on sale first). Both cars had lots of issues and eventually got canned. Oldsmobile went so far as to recall all the Turbo cars and refit them with a standard 4 barrel carburetor because the turbos had so many headaches.

Porsche also started experimenting with turbos in the 60’s in their racing cars, but didn’t release a street car until 1974. I think BMW released the 2002 Turbo in 1973, so not long before the Porsche. I think both makers saw the potential all along, but saw what GM went through with the Olds and Corvair and realized that the technology just wasn’t quite mature enough yet.

DogonCrook > Berang
09/25/2015 at 12:36

That looks like it was engineered to remove heads.

DogonCrook > Margin Of Error
09/25/2015 at 12:49

The first ones had a shit rear suspension. Which is what Ralph Nader actually had a problem with. It had nothing to do with the rear engine platform.

BobintheMtns > DogonCrook
09/25/2015 at 12:55

Nadar’s a badass. If you ever get the chance to hear him speak, go. Seriously, one of the more inspirational speakers I’ve ever heard. And remember that car companies resisted putting seat belts in cars... “it would be too expensive”... Here’s a video of modern car impacting a classic car... the difference in ‘injuries’ between the two ‘drivers’ imho has a lot to do with Nadar.

Berang > DogonCrook
09/25/2015 at 13:00

Corvair: the car engineered to remove heads

Berang > vondon302
09/25/2015 at 13:05

That had nothing to do with Nader, and everything to do with GM’s culture. Nobody in GM wanted anything to do with the Corvair. No other departments wanted to touch it. Pontiac’s Tempest was the only non-chevy model that shared any parts with the Corvair (and was a weird car in its own right). The lack of parts sharing and cooperation meant that the Corvair cost more to build than other GM cars, and nobody else wanted to develop anything off of it. So it died.

vondon302 > Berang
09/25/2015 at 15:32

I d.isagree. After the corvair gm never dared again. Culture of too big to fail or not. They played it safe with mediocre products and payed the price.

Richtofen, Baron von Pickup > vondon302
09/25/2015 at 18:56

Can we call the clack of neutering a company’s ability to develop good cars something like... Nader’ing?

Berang > vondon302
09/25/2015 at 20:17

Well you may disagree, but quite simply, and as a matter of fact, even without Nader - GM was never going to make another car like the corvair. It cost too much, and they realized they would make much more money on a conventional car like the Chevy II. And that’s that.

Frank Grimes > Margin Of Error
09/25/2015 at 21:18

This is where I mention all the people dead from GM ignitions. Maybe we should just stop believing corporations give a crap about us or anything other than money.