Re: Corvair...Hmm..

[Philip Stevens <pstevens@cats.ucsc.edu>]

>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.