<VV> Corvair vs Falcon

[airvair at earthlink.net]

Good question, Bob. My only answer is that the marketing people just could
not get it out of their heads that it had morphed into a sporty car. And
the fact that all the late models were hardtops (which was at the time
considered THE premium body style) only adds to their tunnel-vision myopia.
And of course, the dealers didn't help, as they always over-ordered the
500's and under-bought the Monza and Corsa models. Plus there were so many
options that "made" the car that were under-ordered. A look thru Kent
Sullivan's recent articles on the '65-7 option codes reveals that.

Some of the other marketing blunders I think GM's marketers and design
engineers committed (and this is with the full realization that hindsight
is 20/20) were the late adaptation of three-speed automatics, larger
wheels, and disc brakes. When you consider that, it's sometimes almost
amazing that GM held as much of the market against F**d and Cryco as they
did. Certainly the Corvair would have benefitted greatly had those items
(at least the first two) been on late models, even as options.

-Mark


> [Original Message]
> Subject: Re: <VV> Corvair vs Falcon
>
>  James P. Rice wrote:
>
> >The question I wish I had an answer for was why the Corvair was kept 
> >in production so long, given the sales compared to Falcon's and Chevy
II's.
>
> My question has been, why did the Corvair -- a car more expensive to 
> build than the Chevy II -- remain marketed as an "economy car," when 
> the Chevy II so easily fit there and the Corvair had by then 
> developed a sporting following?
>
> Why was the Corvair not moved a little upmarket when the Chevy II 
> came along?  It seems to me that the 500s and such should have been 
> dropped, and the Monza and the Corsa promoted as the sports car for 
> the family man, and the price adjusted upward, too.  In 1967 the 
> Corvair 500 was being advertised as the "lowest priced hardtop in 
> American," a mistake, I think.
>
> --Bob