Reply With QuoteWhen I was in high school, I really wanted one of them! At the time, they were just used cars.Originally Posted by Eric
Here are a couple of shots of my '64 Chevy Corvair Monza coupe.. which I stupidly sold back in '03 and now wish I had not!
When I was in high school, I really wanted one of them! At the time, they were just used cars.
They're lots of fun; and still quite cheap to buy. A very nice Monza coupe like mine can be found for well under $10,000; presentable "drivers" for much less than that.When I was in high school, I really wanted one of them! At the time, they were just used cars.
I really enjoyed the thing and truly regret having sold it. I would like to get another one someday...
That is a nice set of wheels. Is it completely original?
How did it drive? Was it as "unsafe" as Nader said it was or was that a bunch of malarkey? What kind of acceleration did you get out of that flat 6?
It was mostly original (I restored it myself) with the few departures from stock being a transistorized ignition and dual exhaust. It had the 110-hp engine with dual carbs; 4-speed on the floor (a desirable feature; most were three-speeds or had the Powerglide automatic).
Nader was full of scheisse; the cars were actually quite nimble (esp. relative to other American cars of the period) and provided you kept the tire pressures set per the factory and didn't drive like an idiot, the oversteer issue was no worse than it was with a comparable swing-axle Porsche or VW. '64s like mine came with a transverse rear spring that also made a big difference. And in '65, the whole car was redesigned - and featured a true IRS very similar to Corvettes. It was a great handling car.
Here are a few more shots of mine. The car was Daytona Blue metallic and the interior Parchment. If you have a good eye, you'll notice the Corsa wood steering wheel, among other things....
I miss the thing a lot sometimes...
Malarkey is the proper term. Its strong points and its vices were very similar to the Beetle. Nader just didn't know what he was talking about, as was highlighted by the testimony of Sterling Moss in a landmark CA damages suit.
Not only was Nader not an engineer, he didn't even have a driver's license at the time. He was a shyster lawyer. Nothingmore.Malarkey is the proper term. Its strong points and its vices were very similar to the Beetle. Nader just didn't know what he was talking about, as was highlighted by the testimony of Sterling Moss in a landmark CA damages suit.
I don't think he has a driver's license now.
I just love those cars..... Nader is/was an idiot..... The start of the Nanny state??
Rex
On the Sunshine Coast, in the Sunshine State Queensland (QLD), Australia
Absolutely. Nader is plain awful. I met the guy. He has the personality of a brick.I just love those cars..... Nader is/was an idiot..... The start of the Nanny state??
Nader was, however, an excellent shyster lawyer... and what he helped tolaunch was the birth of of our "sue everyone!" litigious society ...I just love those cars..... Nader is/was an idiot..... The start of the Nanny state??
I thought some of the points that he brought out in "Unsafe at Any Speed" were good. Cars did handle like a wastebasket on wheels, however, sitting with Abraham Ribicoff's committee, he helped created one of the worst departments in government: the NHTSA.Nader was, however, an excellent shyster lawyer... and what he helped tolaunch was the birth of of our "sue everyone!" litigious society ...I just love those cars..... Nader is/was an idiot..... The start of the Nanny state??
He did create the "sue everyone" society, which has helped drive industry after industry out of this country. As a result, normal people who take on the system to get redress get the shaft, while lawyers like Nader and John Edwards get their pockets lined, spouting platitudes and stupidity in courtrooms across this once-great land. People like Nader have strengthened the hand of government and corporations while leaving the middle class in this country poorer, jobless and afraid of our government.
Was that air filter assembly from a later model?
It bears a familial resemblance to the four- legged filter assembly on my '65/140 Corsa ... which I also regret selling.
I could swear my '64/110 Monza had a pair of oil- bath air cleaners that sort of hung down next to the carburetors, connected by an oval cross- tube with an oval snorkel pointing up and aft.
The bottom portion was original to the car, which had the dual carb 110-hp engine. The chrome lid was aftermarket. The earlier cars (and non-Monzas) had a diferent air cleaner...Was that air filter assembly from a later model?
It bears a familial resemblance to the four- legged filter assembly on my '65/140 Corsa ... which I also regret selling.
I could swear my '64/110 Monza had a pair of oil- bath air cleaners that sort of hung down next to the carburetors, connected by an oval cross- tube with an oval snorkel pointing up and aft.
It just hit me, my Monza was a 63, without the sway bar.
Yep!
The transverse leaf helped tame the handling considerably -
Isn't it weird to look at a photo of an engine compartment that actually had room in it? Nowadays, you open a hood, and the compartment is chock full of Stuff (none of which appears to be an engine). I realize there would be no radiator or hoses in a Corvair, of course, so that's one thing missing.
I note there's no spare tire there, either. Did you remove it on purpose for the photo, or what?
For the 65..69, and I think for the 60..64, the normal spare location is inside the rr fender, with the bottom outside the frame rail and the top angled in over part of the engine. There was a fair amount of storage available in that area, at least until the bottom of the fender rusted away.
The spare would fit in the (front) trunk, but not very neatly. It was too big to fit down in the deepest part between the wheel wells.
Yep, took it out for the photo... it sat on top of the engine, off to the pasenger side.... mine stlll had its original bias-ply spare, too!Isn't it weird to look at a photo of an engine compartment that actually had room in it? Nowadays, you open a hood, and the compartment is chock full of Stuff (none of which appears to be an engine). I realize there would be no radiator or hoses in a Corvair, of course, so that's one thing missing.
I note there's no spare tire there, either. Did you remove it on purpose for the photo, or what?
The Corvair was the last time GM ever did anything quirky.
Posting Permissions