Anyone comment on the Corsa, the later model design?
Sue, I never got to drive a Corsa because I was teaching school and not working for uncle when the 66s were introduced. If you say it was good, I gotta believe it.
My overall take on the 'Vair: The first year had suspension problems, and could be treacherous if overdriven. I seem to recall the second model year was about half-fixed. By 1963, it was a well-handling car that would easily out-corner the Beetles of that model year. (More about the Beetles later.) I can give you a benchmark regarding the Corvairs I drove: IMO, the 1964 Monza Spyder 180 hp supercharged 'Vair was very close to the Porsche 914 "Volksporsche" (the 4-cylinder 914 for sure) of the late '60s/early '70s. I don't know whether it had the top end of the 914, but I think it was just as quick in the twisties.
[Tuesday 22:00 — I stand (somewhat) corrected on one point, and thoroughly confused on another:
Correction — According to numerous web gurus, the '64 Spyder was a
turbo, not a supercharge. (The Golden Hawk was a super. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! Regarding the Spyder, I'll stand corrected, but I'm by no means convinced. I've been under the engine bonnet of one, and it had more plumbing up on the manifold than any turbo I can recall. But I'll defer to the experts on that one, with one doubting question: it seems to my mechanically-ignorant senses that there would be horrendous heat problems with a turbo, six-cylinder airhead in an enclosed compartment. (Turbos required kid-glove treatment in liquid-cooled cars until the intercooler was introduced. Aside from the SCCA types and a few engineers, I don't think there were many American drivers in 1964 who knew how to treat a turbo so as to get any kind of longevity out of the engine. (To this day, I don't want a non-intercooled turbo because of the TLC it requires to prevent eventual damage from inadequate warmup and cooldown. (Again, intercoolers help somewhat.)
Confusion — The different web sites had differing opinions about the horsepower rating of the '64 Spyder. A majority view is that it was 150 hp, not the 180 that I remember. They write that the redesigned '65 had 180, up from 150 in '64. Again, my memory leans to 180 in '64, cut back to 150 in '65. (Wussing down the Spyder from a screamer to a relative whiner would be consistent with GM policy in that era. Remember the first GTO in '64? Later models were not as fast or as brutish as the '64 because Pontiac wanted to sell to older, richer buyers who might have been scared off by the '64 Goat's insane power, linked with marginal braking and so-so handling. To confuse matters further, one web guru thinks that the '64 Spyder began the model year at 150 hp, but during the model year Chevrolet juiced the engine up to 180 hp! :-? Anyway, I ain't so certain, anymore, and there isn't a Monza Spyder down the street that I might check in order to find out.
I don't think the '64 Spyder was as fast as the 914/6 (very few of those made it to North America, I understand). My colleague in Germany (73-75) had a 914/6 that was an adrenaline rush. Like the Corvair, the 914/6 was cursed by overheating of the inner cylinders, even worse than #3 in the Beetles. I suspect it was too much engine for the enclosure, and too little air circulating over the fins, but I'm not certain. Memory is hazy, but I think he made the Autobahn run from Würzburg-München once in about 2.5 hours, and likely, considerably less. Can't remember the road distances involved, but I seem to remember that he averaged >160km/hr, point-to-point.
As for Beetles of the period: Anyone who had a Bug Type I model earlier than '67 was familiar with the outboard swing-arm rear axle's tendency to curl under the car when cornered hard. (The older brother of one of my students in 1965-66 rolled his new bug by curling the outboard axle.) My '66 originally had a crude, (apparently) dealer-installed camber compensator consisting of a pair of brackets and two heavy canvas U-straps riveted to them. The canvas ripped from impact when the car was creamed by a hit-and-run in 1985. When I restored the Bug in 1994, I installed anti-sway bars on the front, a steel-strap camber compensator on the rear, and Bilstein gas-filled shocks, front and and rear. The outdated tire design might break traction, or the car might understeer, but I don't worry much about the outside rear axle going vertical and pole-vaulting me in a turn. (The car handles so well, I wish I could find a bargain Porsche 351 engine to drop into it.)
Back to the Spyder for one more quibble: One of the web gurus stated several times that the early 'Vairs were prone to the same wheel-and-axle roll-under that the Bugs had if cornered hard. But the guy erroneously stated, more than once, that it was the *inside* wheel that would curl under. Not correct; it *has* to be the outside!
