<VV> Corvair Fan

[Dave Morris "BigD"]

A photo of my 110 Corvair with a 60" vertical fan: 
http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Corvair%20Test%20Run/ItRuns.jpg

:)

Dave Morris



At 04:56 PM 7/10/2005, you wrote:
>Well, for one thing, production numbers on the Corvair were super-low
>starting in 1967. The Corvair was almost canceled after 1966. Why invest in
>a car that is in its twilight years?
>
>--Kent
>-----Original Message-----
>From: virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org
>[mailto:virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org] On Behalf Of Crawford Rose
>Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 2:39 PM
>To: JVHRoberts at aol.com; virtualvairs at corvair.org
>Subject: Re: <VV> Corvair Fan
>
>Forget mine, consider GM's clever reverse logic. When it couldn't adapt the
>car to changing emissions conditions in California, it deleted the
>inadequate Air Conditioning, turbo charger and 140 heads. After protest, it
>gave back 140 heads but detuned cam timing. Consider all those extremely
>costly redesigns to the product line necessitated by the limitations of the
>cooling system and emissions regulations. There was a redesign of the
>cooling system but it never made production. Despite the incentive to
>implement its redesign of the cooling system in 1966 (profit), the company
>did not put any redesign the cooling system into production to enable basic
>air conditioning to accompany emissions equipment. Why do we suppose GM made
>that choice?
>
>Also, elimination of the 1960 choke mechanism and the direct air heater
>accommodated the creation of station wagons and expansion of the vehicle
>line for trucks/vans.
>
>Crawford
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: JVHRoberts at aol.com<mailto:JVHRoberts at aol.com>
>   To: crawfordrose at msn.com<mailto:crawfordrose at msn.com> ;
>virtualvairs at corvair.org<mailto:virtualvairs at corvair.org>
>   Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 3:47 PM
>   Subject: Re: <VV> Corvair Fan
>
>
>   Given that ALL turbo Corvairs overheat if you keep your foot into it long
>enough, AC Corvairs seem to struggle in hot weather, and 140 HP Corvairs run
>better cold than hot, I'd say it's inadequate, and Chevy opted for a one
>size fits all solution that only works on the lowest HP models. The more
>powerful engines simply need better cooling than Chevy gave them. And
>regardless of your reverse logic, the market demand for air conditioning and
>more power was clearly there. No need for water cooling, just a better fan.
>   Parts cost over the counter will ALWAYS be a LOT higher than the
>manufacturing costs. By a BUNCH. The revision to the 1961 cooling system was
>done to accomodate the Direct Air heater, a cost savings over the gasoline
>fired unit.
>   So, why is the stock cooling system marginal on the high output and AC
>engines? Simple, Chevy never designed the right cooling system parts for
>these engines.
>  _______________________________________________
>This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are
>the property of the writer, please attribute properly. For help,
>mailto:vv-help at corvair.org This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of
>America, http://www.corvair.org/ Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
>Change your options: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
>  _______________________________________________
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are 
>the property
>of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, mailto:vv-help at corvair.org
>This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, http://www.corvair.org/
>Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
>Change your options: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
>  _______________________________________________