BusTalk

[Dieseljim]

It would seem to me that General Motors' troubles began well before the energy shocks of the 1970s and began with the Corvair, introduced in 1959 as Chevrolet's answer to the VW Bug, which had the engine in the rear. Tragically, the Corvair developed some very nasty (and deadly) vices that cost people their lives while driving the car. Partly because the front end of the car was so much lighter than the rear, due to the rear placement of the engine, the Corvair developed a nasty habit of flipping over during attempts to turn too tightly, (tucking under) and there was the small matter of fumes leaking into the cabin of the car as well. The growing number of Corvair crashes caught the attention of Ralph Nader, whose crusading eventuallly put an end to the Corvair's production in 1969 after10 years. By that time, many of the car's problems had been fixed, but the damage had already been done. An uncle of mine had a Corvair in the 1960s and we got in a rear end crash during January 1965 or 66 with it. Luckily no one was seriously hurt. As a result, my uncle never bought another Corvair. Granted, with this car, the creativity and imagination were there, but, believe me, the execution left a hell of a lot to be desired. Thus, the Corvair cast the die for other cars that would add to GM's troubles, such as the VEGA, for one. Thus as we look at a General Motors on the verge of bankruptcy, we see a company that has reaped the seeds that it has sown for itself and the workers.

[Catfish 44]

I don't necessarily agree that the Corvair is at fault. Perhaps more symbolic than anything else. I believe that it was a general malaise among workers whose shoddy craftsmanship shone through in the 70's. The saying was to the effect "Don't buy a car built on a Monday or Friday" More than anything GM, Ford, and Chrysler did not build cars that people want. They went out of style before they went out of business. All of these factors that lead to the point the big 3 are in today are a result of some coincidence in terms of competition from Asia, a younger generation that wanted something Detroit did not make, fuel crisis. I doubt the Corvair had that much to actually do with the whole thing, rather than serve as a symbol of GM trying to bite off more than they could chew.

[Dieseljim]

Good point, there is also incompetent,nonresponsive management, shoddy marketing as well as workmanship. True, the Corvair may not have had that much to do with GM's troubles, but after reading Ralph Nader's UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED, that car gave GM one hell of a black eye during the 10 years it was in production. Of the Big Three, at least Ford seems to have gotten the message to an extent that they do build at least some cars people want. Overreliance on the SUV's and full siz e pickups helped get them into trouble, too. Dominance by accountants of these companies is a big part of the problem as well. That and the US vs THEM stance taken by both labor and management had a big hand in this mess as well.

[Catfish 44]

For sure. This is a good conversation and brings up a point in GM's history that most probably don't recall or even know about. By the way I've always wanted to get my hands on one of those cars being that I once was a big VW guy. I almost bought a '63 blue 4 door but it was sold before I could come up with the cash. A neighbor of mine told me about how he bought a used one for his wife in 1966 but sold it by say '69 or '70. They loved the car but the maintenance on it was too much. Unsafe At Any Speed injured the VW as well. To me when I look at American cars in general I look at something for the elderly to drive. Honestly.

[ripta42]

To say that the Corvair was the cause of GM's troubles ignores the successes they had in that era with cars like the Impala, Corvette, Camaro/Firebird, and Chevelle/Nova, or the pioneering use of fuel injection in the Bonneville or front wheel drive in the Toronado and Eldorado.

Furthermore, Ralph Nader had nothing to do with the Corvair's demise; GM had already ceased development of the Corvair before Unsafe at Any Speed came out in 1965 because it couldn't compete with the Mustang. It has even been argued that Corvair production would have ended sooner, but GM didn't want that to coincide with Nader's book. A 1971 NHTSA study found that the handling characteristics of the first-generation Corvair were no more or less safe than those of the Falcon, Valiant, VW bug, or a 1967 Corvair.

As far as your uncle's Corvair, if no one was hurt, what was the reason for not buying another Corvair? Unless the brakes had a tendency to apply themselves or the transmission shifted itself into reverse, how could the car be to blame for a rear-end crash?

[Dieseljim]

As for the Corvair, it did not cause GM's troubles,actually, but gave GM one hell of a black eye despite the successes it had with Impala, Corvette, et.al. I suspect that the brakes on the Corvair could have locked up when my uncle was trying to avoid rearending a parked car in bad weather in January 1965 or 66. My nephew almost bit his tongue off as a result of the collision. I almost supect the brakes could have locked up. Actually I didn't say the Nader book had anything to do with that car's demise. It pointed out some of the questionable decisions taken at the time and some design practices. At least the Corvair had one favorable aspect to it- the air cooled engine, which dispensed with the radiator and other plumbing necessary for coolants. ignores the successes they had in that era with cars like the Impala, Corvette, Camaro/Firebird, and Chevelle/Nova, or the pioneering use of fuel injection in the Bonneville or front wheel drive in the Toronado and Eldorado.