<VV> Re: Convert an afterthought

[airvair]

JR,

I don't mean that the LM convert was a "new" idea, just that it was a
"design afterthought" given its construction anomolies. I worked for GM
for 30 years, so I KNOW how they think. Consider that they would chop 6"
off the ground cable, then have to include it as part of the "heavy
duty" battery option. Remember that they figure everything out to the
tenth of a cent. Six inches of cable saved over (most) of the run of a
quarter million cars adds up to big bucks. And (considering the expected
demand for converts is hardly a one-of prospect) to make a die to do a
neat job of header trimming, rather than torching something off, makes
more economic sense, which is what GM is all about. Heck, I'd expect
them to have a full complement of dies just to make the header the way
it's supposed to be made, instead of looking (and costing as well) like
a quickie hack job.

I know about all the reinforcement that was required in a LM convert,
and the changes in parts that made. But that still doesn't explain the
kick panel anomolie of why the coupe/4door differs so radically from the
convert.

If, as you say, all '60's converts are built with similar anomolies,
then GM really DID consider converts, regardless of volume, to be
afterthoughts. Which is why I said that it goes against GM's normal
characteristics.

-Mark

J R Read_HML wrote:
> 
> Well...  There WERE EM converts, so it certainly was not a "new" concept.  I
> don't think LM converts are any more of an afterthought than, say the full
> line of FCs which starts with the '61 model year.  I'm sure they were NOT an
> afterthought - well maybe the ramp was!
> 
> Most of the "anomalies" on the verts have to do with adding strength since
> the roof of a coupe or sedan already provides that strength.  Compare the
> Corvair LM vert to other LM verts (mid - late '60s) from GM.  I think you
> will find similar construction techniques.
> 
> Later, JR
> 
> . Was the convert really
> > an afterthought or not? If not, why these anonomolies, so
> > uncharacteristic of GM?
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> >