school me on the corvair

I've always liked how they look (prefer the '65+ style), never driven one though. Whats it like? I've been seeing some pretty nice cars listed fairly cheap lately. Bad idea or not?

Not a bad idea at all. Corvairs are cool, nice driving cars that are cheaper than they should be.

They have their share of issues, but nothing to run away from. We have an early car as a CMS project and it's a hoot to drive:

http://classicmotorsports.net/project-cars/1963-chevrolet-corvair-monza-spyder/

Ours is an early car, but mechanically both generations are very similar.

Well there goes my morning. Thanks... reading now.

Buy the nicest one you can budget for.

Gearheadotaku wrote: Buy the least rust you can budget for.

FTFY

they're cool, quirky, fun cars. buy one today!

Very underrated and an excellent value. A friend had a 1965 Corsa. Adequate power - nothing special by modern standards, but enough to feel comfortable in modern company. Best drum brakes in an American car that I've used. Very good looking. Airy greenhouse. But what really sets them apart was truly superior handling for the day. Yes, they will oversteer if pushed too hard, but it's not a concern up to 9/10ths. Very refined ride. Made my old Falcon look like a brute by comparison. If I were to get one in good shape, I'd put in the quick steering arms, swap the seats for modern ones (Sorry, just can't abide 1960s seat ergonomics) and GO!

IMO the turbo sucks eggs. If you want more power, stay NA, make the head and intake manifold breathe better and you'll be styling.

kreb wrote: But what really sets them apart was truly superior handling for the day. Yes, they will oversteer if pushed too hard, but it's not a concern up to 9/10ths.

I recall seeing a bunch of the later Corvairs - which apparently used a Corvette based IRS instead of a swing axle setup - racing against much smaller European sports cars at the Mitty. I had expected the big sixes to pull ahead on the straights and the little sports cars to beat them in the corners. Much to my surprise, the racing was the exact opposite - the Corvairs being underpowered, but making up for it by carrying way more speed through the corners.

IMO the turbo sucks eggs.

Well, as someone who grew up with semi-modern turbo setups, the first time i saw the corvair turbo setup i threw up in my mouth.

It's the setup that sucks, but a GOOD turbo setup would be undeniably great.

My friend has an SHO V8 he doesnt know what to do with. I want him to put it in a Corvair.

I definitely want one. Within a few years I hope to be able to find a decent example of a convertible Corvair to pick up and restore- would cover both having a convertible again as well as the Corvair angle.

Vigo wrote:

IMO the turbo sucks eggs.

Well, as someone who grew up with semi-modern turbo setups, the first time i saw the corvair turbo setup i threw up in my mouth. It's the setup that sucks, but a GOOD turbo setup would be undeniably great. My friend has an SHO V8 he doesnt know what to do with. I want him to put it in a Corvair.

A good turbo setup would require much better cooling as well. A head clean-up plus a good oil cooler at a minimum. Might need a fan upgrade as well.

I think a good turbo setup would just require a better flowpath (less 90* angles would be good) and a better turbo. If you only want to make the same amount of power, a better setup would do it with LESS heat.

So the 104 engine was dual carb and the 140 was quad carb. Was the only difference the intake manifold and carbs? (Seems unlikely?) Did the 140 have more compression, different cam, better heads, etc? What about the turbo? Was it just a 104 or 140 with a turbo bolted on or was it internally different from the NA models?

As Joe said, they do has their little issues but its nothing uncommon with a car of that age.

I prefer 140s and my dad prefers 180 Turbos (even though he owns two 140s and a 110). I have actually seen some quick Turbo cars with the factory set up, but for reliability N/A is the way to go.

Stick to the 4-speed. There are a lot of automatics out there, but there are a lot of 4-speeds too, so don't settle for an automatic.

Right now is the time to scoop one up for cheap, they are actually becoming more valuable, so it's going to become hard to find a cheap one in descent condition. Hagertys has a new guide out and my Dads '69 Convertible is worth about $15k according to them which is WAAAY up from a few years ago.

old_ wrote: So the 104 engine was dual carb and the 140 was quad carb. Was the only difference the intake manifold and carbs? (Seems unlikely?) Did the 140 have more compression, different cam, better heads, etc? What about the turbo? Was it just a 104 or 140 with a turbo bolted on or was it internally different from the NA models?

If you are looking at late models, you had a 95hp, 110 hp, 140hp, and 180hp engines.

95 and 110 engines have two carbs, the 140 has four, and the 180 Turbo has one.

There actually is no intake manifold, the carb(s) is bolted directly to the head.

The 95 and 110 have the same head, they are just a different compression.

Treat horsepower ratings as the fiction that they are. The intake manifold on the 110 is abysmal. Slightly better on the 140.

If you only want to make the same amount of power, a better setup would do it with LESS heat.

You're going to go through the trouble of correcting the turbo design to only make the factory HP ratings? Vigo, Vigo, (shakes head) I had so much faith in you.

I learned to drive in a 66 Corvair 4 speed on my 15th birthday back in the 80's. What a fun car. My day had 6 at one time in various states of build and they seemed like easy cars to work on except for maybe pulling a motor from the bottom when it's just you and dad and some too short jack stands. The 140 cars feel a lot faster then the power number sounds but the 110 cars are plenty fun too. We had an IECO (IIRC) 4 bbl conversion kit on a 140. This is basically a Carter 4 bbl carb on a box with 4 tubes running down to replace the 4 1bbl carbs. It had manual secondaries so it sometimes bogged off the line but do it right or clutch in once after the launch and the front wheels would come off the ground. That car was fast and nimble even for mid 80's car the handling and brakes were good.

So other than the carbs what was the difference between the 110 and 140?

Intake manifold, carbs and larger valves as I understand it. There are stories about dropped valve seats on the large valve heads, but I don't have a handle on how common that problem was or is.

The 110 actually makes a bit more power down low, but runs out of breath much earlier.

I've heard criticisms of the large single carb conversion. It breathes well up high, but worse down low, and since the intake fan is drawing cold air right over it, it takes a long time to warm up in cold weather.

There is a very reasonably priced fuel injection/electronic ignition kit out there (around $1400) which sounds like a bargain if you aren't trying to stay authentic.

old_ wrote: So other than the carbs what was the difference between the 110 and 140?

the 140hp cylinder heads have larger intake ports, larger intake valves, larger exhaust ports, larger exhaust valves, and of course the secondary carb per head.

140hp exhaust manifolds have larger inlet and outlet ports and larger manifold cross-section.

i'm pretty sure compression ratio is same between 110hp and 140hp. pretty sure the 140hp cam is slightly bigger in lift and duration.

ignition timing is different too, in fact the 140hp distributor assembly carried a different part number than the 110hp, but the weights / springs / vacuum advance cans are interchangeable so you can put the 140hp parts inside a 110hp dizzy and vice versa.

kreb wrote: There are stories about dropped valve seats on the large valve heads, but I don't have a handle on how common that problem was or is.

it is / was a pretty common problem. deeper valve seats as well as various methods for retaining the seat within the head have been developed and implemented over the years. deep seats, installed with a proper delta-T (ie hot head / frozen seat) is a pretty robust solution.

because the overall packaging space for the heads did not change, but the ports got bigger, the 140hp heads actually have less cooling fin surface area than any of the other corvair heads. directionally incorrect given the generally "more enthusiastic" nature of the throttle foot of a 140 owner. ;-)

old_ wrote: So other than the carbs what was the difference between the 110 and 140?

As mentioned, heads are different. They also have a larger oil cooler, dual exhaust, bigger exhaust logs (headers), a bit more cam (not really much), different distributor (curve). The pressure plate was also different. It was heavier to make up for the loss of low end torque.

In every day driving the 110 and the 140 are almost identical, you need to get the secondaries open (3/4 throttle) and get up in the RPMs to notice the difference. As I remember the true crank HP of the 140 is right about 110 HP.

Also of note with the 140. Unless you get into the car a lot, the secondaries will tend to clog stick (common problem with show queens). So if you get a 140, drive it.

Valve seat loss in 140's happens but is not wildly common. The primary cause of it is overheating. The process is: Overheat engine, park car, start car in morning, seat drops. If the car is never overheated, the chances of a dropped seat should be very low.

In regards to the turbo engine: The don't "feel" fast, and are rather bad on gas. But you do have to give the stock ones a bit of a break, they are pretty much the FIRST production turbo car (missed by a few weeks actually).

Turbo cars can be made pretty quick as you can imagine with a bit of work, but cooling really isn't much of an issue unless you plan on road racing it (even still, oil temp is more of a concern). Even the stock turbo engine was not cooling stabilized, it would eventually overhead if you ran it at full throttle. GM figured you would either run out of road or guts before that happened.

The Corvair drives much nicer (by modern standards) then other cars of its day and as mentioned, the drum brakes are very good for the time, and still pretty good for today. The car travels through time much better then other old cars. Probably the funkiest thing you will notice about them though is the stock steering is REALLY slow (I thinks its 4.5 turns lock to lock), but that can be fixed pretty easily.

Damn you GRM I am going to spend all week looking for a Corvair for which I have no place to keep.

Two items I know of for checking out corvairs.

A) pull out the dipstick while the engine is running. If there is blow-by oil will spit out of the dipstick tube.

B) check for leaking o rings on the pushrod tubes. The engine layout puts the pushrods externally from the heads. O rings often leak. This is not a deal breaker but rather a negotiation point.

Was it 67 when the dual reservoir brake master cylinders came out?

I have a friend whose father has 18 well sorted basket cases out in 3 out buildings. Refuses to sell anything.

"Well sorted basket case"

I think i'm going to use that line the next time i try to sell one of my modified junk heaps on CL.

In reply to GTwannaB:

Actually you are not going to see the pushrods tubes without removing the lower engine shrouds (unless they're missing, which is very common and dumb). The most obvious sign of leaking tubes are oily lower shrouds.

You could also open the damper doors on the back of the engine and look in with a flashlight. That will give it away too.