[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [New Search]
>The Corvair engine was a DOG! (note purposeful use of the offending capital >letters) Burned valves before 20,000 miles. Lotsa other problems. The >Chevy >mechanics had a what-do-you-expect-from-me-when-you-buy-this-junk attitude. > >I was soon disabused of the quaint notion that the Corvair was just a bigger >VW. The Corvair's quality (or lack thereof) was abysmal by comparison with >the VW. > >I would suggest one find out the status of the Corvair engine today (30+ years >later) in regard to reliability and repairability in addition to the issue of >installability. There's no doubt that build quality of GM products was even worse in the early 60s than it is now. The Corvair engine is actually pretty well-designed, though, and a competently rebuilt unit is at least as reliable as a VW. Then you also have to take into account the availability of a factory turbo version (actually two versions, rated at 150 and 180 hp), which would propel a VW rather nicely. The down side is that there are far fewer people still working on Corvairs, and parts -- especially hop-up items -- are harder to come by. Frankly, I like Corvairs a lot, and I'd be driving one now if there were the aftermarket supply stream for the engines that exists for VWs. Just my .02.