<VV> Corvair Production Termination

Wed May 14 12:34:42 EDT 2008

A couple of notes on your narrative.

It was confirmed at the Detroit convention last year that Pete Estes wanted
the "first" gen Camaro to really be the third gen Corvair, but marketing
prevented that. I imagine that the sketches of "future" Corvairs were just
idle design excercises, and probably not real serious proposals. Had
Ralphie not published his book, what we would have had is a rear-engine
Corvair for two generations, and a conventional drive Corvair for another
five+ generations. So you are right that we can thank Ralphie for giving us
the '67-9 Corvairs, arguably the best of the best (IMHO).

For the record, the Valiant was discontinued before the 1970 model year,
while the Falcon WAS produced for '70. It was an odd model year for it, as
the first part of the year it was issued with the original compact body,
while the latter part of the year, the nameplate was pasted onto a stripper
Torino body. Afterwards, the nameplate vanished from the US, only to be
carried on in Austrailia.

In between the demise of the Corvair in '69 and the front drive X-car
(Citation, Phoenix, Omega, etc.) the Willow Run plant produced the
conventional drive Nova, etc. for about 10 years. The front drive X-car was
introduced in early '79 as an early '80 model. The really compact market
(which is where marketing wanted the Corvair to be) was filled thru the
'70's with the Vega, then its derivitive the Monza.

-Mark

> [Original Message]
> From: james rice <ricebugg at mtco.com>
> Subject: <VV> Corvair Production Termination
>
> All:  This version of history down at the bottom is so bogus it is
> appalling.  GM/Fisher Body never did anything about '70 Corvairs.
>
> Chevrolet/GM decided to tremininate Corvair production at the end of the
'66
> model year.  They made this decision before "Unsafe At Any Speed" was
> printed.  The reason was two fold: they needed the added production
capacity
> for the Chevy II, and they didn't want the in house competition for the
> Camaro due out in '67 (fall '66).
>
> After "Unsafe" was published, with all the controversy over the hamhanded
> investigation of Nadar and the Congressional hearings, the 7th Floor
decided
> to continue production of the Corvair for awhile, with little effort to
> actually sell Corvairs while only doing Federally mandated updates.  Thus
> they went out of production in '69 due to low demand.  Image that.
>
> So the ugly truth is we can basically thank Nadar for the '67-'69 cars,
> while saying unkind things about him, only some of them deserved, out of
the
> other side of our mouths.
>
> The styling drawings we've seen over the years are just evidence of what
> Bill Mitchell's Design Staff were thinking before the edict was handed
down
> to stop production after the '66 model year.  While Mitchell loved the
> Corvair for it's styling, he didn't have his staff continue working on a
> dead horse.  He wasn't stupid.  Some of the "3rd generation" Corvair
styling
> themes may have filtered into other cars, but I'm not aware of any.  But
> I've never tried to do a cross reference.
>
> Of course, there probably would not have been a "3rd Generation" Corvair
> without the above reasons and events.  It should be noted that a great
many
> cars have a 10 year or so production cycle.  Both the Falcon and the
Valiant
> went out of production by about the '72 model year, if I remember
correctly.
> The Corvair was expensive to build.  Lower profit margin than either the
> Chevy II or Camaro.  What would it have cost to make a high cost car
conform
> to the pending and proposed Federal regulations.  Why try, when
traditional
> configurations, being a know quanity, can be made to work and build
cheaper?
> Which is mostly the reason there's no mid-engined Corvette.  And probably
> never will be.  We all know, assuming we all have been paying attention to
> the big picture(s), Corvette staff have tried often enough!
>
> Three of the X-bodies were produced at Willow Run.  The Chevy, Old & Buick
> versions were done there, the Pontiac someplace else.  And No!, I neither
> know or care where "someplace else" was.  Those at the '79 CORSA
Convention
> in Detroit had the chance to visit Willow Run and see the X-bodies go down
> the line.  Ken has totally missed the cars between the Corvair/Chevy II in
> his time line.  Oh Wait!!  Vega's and Monza's!!  They were forgettable
> (except for the Cosworth Vega, another chance GM missed), so he is
forgiven.
>
> Historically Yours,
> 			James Rice
>
> ***********************************************
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:06:52 GMT
> From: "kenpepke at juno.com" <kenpepke at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: <VV> Re Why 6000?
> To: virtualvairs at corvair.org
>
> But Fisher Body was well into producing a 1970 Corvair ... The 'carry
over'
> parts (Those that would be used unchanged from 1969) were determined
> and new body parts for the changed rear end were being planned.  These
> parts included the deck lid, rear end panels and crossmember pieces that
> resembled a sort of squared off Buick Rivera 'boat tail' with the inside
> tail
> lights and the center portion of the rear bumper moving rearward several
> inches.  I had jumped to the conclusion that an 8 cylinder engine was to
be
> offered for 1970 but Chevy engineer and long time Detroit Area Corvair
Club
> member Bob Kirkman straightened me out with photos of the 1970 10
> cylinder engine.  GM had built test engines but to the best of my
knowledge
> Fisher Body never stamped out any of the new body parts.
>
> As I recall GM was having troubles with a new plant opening and ended up
> taking over the Corvair production lines with the new X car and relegated
> the
> assembly of the final Corvairs to a former plant cafeteria.
>
> As for what happened to #6000; for legal reasons the disposition of each
and
> every vehicle built it well tracked and recorded under the watchful eye of
> 'Big
> Brother.'  As much as some would have it believed that the car was
scrapped
> the fact is there are no records of it's disposition ... It just sort of
> 'evaporated'
> leaving no paper trail ... a mystery which may or may not ever be solved.
> Ken Pepke
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >Legal Reason:  A bunch of new safety regs kicked in in 1970
> >(steering/ignition interlock, new door regs, new glass regs, etc) There
> >was no cost / benefit for going into the 1970 model year.  (not to
> >mention no sales)
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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 
>  _______________________________________________