Jump to content

corvair vs valiant


Guest bkazmer

Recommended Posts

Looking at Leonard's brochure I was reminded of my 1960 Falcon when I saw the tire size comparison. The 13" tires on the Falcon were too small, and handling (especially emergency handling) suffered. The taller tires on the Lark (and on most compacts by 1965) are much better. Also that car had a 2-speed automatic, which I always refered to as <span style="font-style: italic">Too Low & Too High</span>. Avoid automatics with fewer than 3 speeds.

I drove that Falcon for 3 years in graduate school, and restored it afterwards in the late 1980s. It was no ball of lightning, but good economical transportation. A later car with the larger 6 or a V8 would've been a much better ride.

This is a class of cars that is far undervalued in the U.S. in my opinion, in both historical and financial terms. These compacts were strong-selling, interesting, attractive cars with far more diversity and (eventually) performance potential than the "big" cars of that era (that draw much larger crowds at our shows today). If I were to bet on any class of American antique car coming into it's own and appreciating solidly in value in the next few years, it would be these cars. cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at Leonard's brochure I was reminded of my 1960 Falcon when I saw the tire size comparison. The 13" tires on the Falcon were too small, and handling (especially emergency handling) suffered. The taller tires on the Lark (and on most compacts by 1965) are much better. Also that car had a 2-speed automatic, which I always refered to as <span style="font-style: italic">Too Low & Too High</span>. Avoid automatics with fewer than 3 speeds.

I drove that Falcon for 3 years in graduate school, and restored it afterwards in the late 1980s. It was no ball of lightning, but good economical transportation. A later car with the larger 6 or a V8 would've been a much better ride.

This is a class of cars that is far undervalued in the U.S. in my opinion, in both historical and financial terms. These compacts were strong-selling, interesting, attractive cars with far more diversity and (eventually) performance potential than the "big" cars of that era (that draw much larger crowds at our shows today). If I were to bet on any class of American antique car coming into it's own and appreciating solidly in value in the next few years, it would be these cars. cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, All of these cars were relatively new creations in 1960, and virtually every car magazine printed that year did side-by-side comaparisons of (usually all of) these cars. The <span style="font-style: italic">Mechanics Illustrated</span> comparo from 1960 was especially intense.

From strictly a consumer-type perspective, a trip to the library to seek out these mags from 1960 would be most helpful. <span style="font-weight: bold">However be sure to keep in mind that many of the shortfalls of these cars were very quickly addressed in the next few years of production.</span> For instance the 1960 Falcon's front suspension was <span style="text-decoration: underline">totally</span> redesigned for 1961 <span style="text-decoration: underline">and again</span> in 1962, and tweeked each year thereafter, even though the car was essentially unchanged mechanically in those years. You can switch the front clips of any of the first four years of production, but almost <span style="text-decoration: underline">no</span> front suspension parts crossover!

Of course, also the travails of choices made in the early Corvairs' front suspension are well known! (Ralph Nader's book was not fiction, unfortunately. frown.gif ) The advantages of the later cars in that area has already been mentioned here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, All of these cars were relatively new creations in 1960, and virtually every car magazine printed that year did side-by-side comaparisons of (usually all of) these cars. The <span style="font-style: italic">Mechanics Illustrated</span> comparo from 1960 was especially intense.

From strictly a consumer-type perspective, a trip to the library to seek out these mags from 1960 would be most helpful. <span style="font-weight: bold">However be sure to keep in mind that many of the shortfalls of these cars were very quickly addressed in the next few years of production.</span> For instance the 1960 Falcon's front suspension was <span style="text-decoration: underline">totally</span> redesigned for 1961 <span style="text-decoration: underline">and again</span> in 1962, and tweeked each year thereafter, even though the car was essentially unchanged mechanically in those years. You can switch the front clips of any of the first four years of production, but almost <span style="text-decoration: underline">no</span> front suspension parts crossover!

Of course, also the travails of choices made in the early Corvairs' front suspension are well known! (Ralph Nader's book was not fiction, unfortunately. frown.gif ) The advantages of the later cars in that area has already been mentioned here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course, also the travails of choices made in the early Corvairs' front suspension are well known! (Ralph Nader's book was not fiction, unfortunately. frown.gif ) The advantages of the later cars in that area has already been mentioned here. </div></div>

It wasn't fiction, but it was greatly exaggerated truth. I drove a succession of Corvairs through high school, and considering the maniacal way I drove, it's a wonder that I'm alive. Corvairs are totally safe if they are properly maintained and driven with a brain.

BTW, the federal government's study totally disproved many of Nader's studies and vindicated the Corvair in 1970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well back in 1963 I bought a new Valiant signet convertible, with a stick shift and the optional 225 slant six. Yup it was red with a white top. Back in those days Chrysler Corporation sold what was known as a hyper-pack-kit. It consisted of a hot cam four barrel carb and headers. Now that slant six with dual exhaust really sounded sweet. But what was sweeter yet there wasn't ANY Corvair turbo Monza that could touch me. They were quicker out of the hole because of the weight over the rear end and they hooked up better, but in less than a block I was gone. The only mustangs that could beat me were the 289 4bbl. The Valiant also handled quite well because of the torsion bar suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of road tests. Popular Mechanics used to poll owners of new cars and publish the results along with their tests. One comment by a Lark owner sticks in my mind. He said at first he was thinking of buying an import car but didn't want to be classed with the foreign car drivers in their black rimmed glasses and screwball hats Ha ha ha.

Ralph Nader is a notorious liar and hypocrite.If you don't believe me go read "Unsafe at any Speed". Not to mention some of his other works.

There was nothing wrong with the Corvair's handling. It was proven by official government tests in 1972. Of course these were hushed up, if the Corvair was safe there was nothing to report. Besides Corvair was dead by that time - along with the possibility that Detroit would take a chance on anything really new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">along with the possibility that Detroit would take a chance on anything really new.</div></div>

Truer words never spoken. Explains succinctly why the American auto industry is now considered hopelessly behind in R&D. The brains and talent are still there, but the bean counters and lawyers stifle any innovation in the name of zero financial risk.

Thank you, Nader, insurance companies and the federal government, whose collective conspiracies started the decimation of all American industry. No wonder it wanted to get out of this country and go offshore.

BTW- having never owned any of the cars in question, I can't say which would be best. I will say I think anything mentioned in this topic so far would be a ball to own and drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I owned a 63 Corvair convertible for a few years. Was my daily driver. Other than the pool of oil it left in my driveway it was a fun car. (Finally fixed that) Good mileage, fun to drive, and cheat to maintain. I'd buy another in a heartbeat if the opportunity arose.

Oh... one downside - i had it drive it with the top down all the time, otherwise my head always touched the roof. I did end up putting seat rail extenders on it so i could avoid that problem. smile.gif

post-31494-143137976514_thumb.jpg

post-31494-143137976515_thumb.jpg

post-31494-143137976516_thumb.jpg

post-31494-143137976517_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'm still looking forward to getting my 60 Corvair on the road, and prefer the looks of the earlies. If I had my choice I' be looking for a 64 convertible, but they never made it here. I think Corvairs are sportier than the Valiant/Darts.

Parts for the Vair are super easy from Clarks or Corvair Underground, as well as many forum members.

I saw an early Valiant or Dart last week that I was tempted to inquire about (I had a 62 Dart, before the shrunk them, and it was great for the 45,000 miles I put on it in 18 months, mostly between 70 and 130 mph).

But first need to get the Vair on the road. And look at a couple of other cars I've heard about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course, also the travails of choices made in the early Corvairs' front suspension are well known!</div></div>

Maybe a trip tp the library is in order, Dave@Moon...nothing wrong with the Corvair's front suspension, but unsavvy drivers could get a real surprise out of the swing axle <span style="font-weight: bold">rear</span> suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lent my '65 Corvair coupe to a friend once. He gave it back and told me that my front tires were low, so he pumped them up to 32 psi. The recommended pressure is, I think, 17 psi. I wonder how many of the Corvair's problems could have been avoided if it weren't for such helpful friends. I sure do miss that car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Growing up my family had both a '60 Corvair and a '66 Valiant. I really like and have enjoyed both cars, as an adult I've owned a '66 Valiant (V-8 with original disc brakes) and a '69 Corvair convertible (140 HP four carb eninge and four speed manual trans). Both are good cars, I think the Valiant should get the nod as it had a V-8 engine avilable and with front disc brakes (an option starting in '66) these are fine cars even in todays aggresive traffic. The "frame" or structure on the Valiant seems to be superior in terms of low weight and stiffness, coupled with the torsin bar suspension it is a fine chassis and it really is the foundation on which all Mopar muscle cars are based. The Corvair is cool in an odd ball sort of way. I think the important thing with choosing between the two is which one you find in better condition or with better equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Skyking

Last Saturday I was at a cruise with a frend of mine that worked for Chrysler for many years. We were looking at an early 60's Valiant with a slant six. He told me something that I never knew. When they were designing the Valiant they had to lay the engine down 30 degrees in order to clear the low hood. That's how the slant six began......... Because of that design, it was one of Detroit's best engines ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bob Kinker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to agree , the Valiant would be easier to get repair parts for. </div></div>

With all due respect, you guys who say parts are easier to get for the Valiant don't really know what you are talking about. Virtually every part you need for a Corvair is available from Clark's Corvair Parts (www.corvair.com). I have restored about 20 Corvairs and have never NOT been able to find the part I needed.

As far as which is best? Well I have owned 20 Corvairs and currently own a 1964 Dart - the Dart reminds me a lot of the Corvair but I don't think it handles as well personally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have a little sample of Mopar and vairs. Got my first Corvair in '83, a62 Monza 900 coupe 102hp 4 sp and fell in love with them...parts are very much available for them (Clarks corvair, Corvair Underground and Ebay) currently doing a mechanical and cosmetic resto on a 65 Corvair coupe (Evening Orchid in color) Fun and economical to drive and still very reasonable to buy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...