I have passing experience with swingaxle VWs, Corvairs and Fiats. The only one that I've driven fast is my 850 Spyder and it has travel restraints to keep from jacking up in the rear. I plan to buy a '64 to '68 Corvair in the next year, have done lots of research and talking and have a pretty good understanding of what's going on. But there's one simple question that I haven't really seen addressed:
Nader ripped swingaxle 'Vairs a new posterior. Ironically, Chevrolet had already fixed the problem by the time the book came out, but that's a rant for another day. But he gave Beetles a pass. So how did the Beetles handling stack up versus 1st gen Corvairs? In certain ways, I'd expect the Corvair to be better, what with a wider track and possibly lower cg. And with their additional length, the polar moment of inertia would seem to promote a slower breakaway, so why did the 'Vair end up the whipping boy, and not the Bug? Was it just because the Corvair was an easy target for a man wanting to make some admittedly good points about vehicle safety? Or was it actually more dangerous than the Beetle?
If you stayed committed they handled fine, but if you lift your toast.
I think Nadar was focused on American industries. The VW was a foriegn product, and If you lived in that timeframe, I think most Americans just assumed bettles were not safe. There was no expectation of safety. They were viewed just like Mini-Coopers, Fiat 600s, etc. You just assumed the risk to gain economy. Nadar relied on the opinion that US manufacturers should be concerned about safety.
As one who has rolled at least two swing-axle bugs, eventually you learn about droop limiters, Z-bars and such.
I never heard of a Corvair roll-over. Another instance when GM gave up too soon. Always thought they could have been the US Porsche.
In reply to Purple Frog (Forum Supporter) :
Yeah, I was very impressed by the '65 Corvair Corsa that I drove. It's a terrific looking car with a better ride than the domestic competition. The motor just paled next to V8s of the time.
Getting back to the swing axle, I suppose that it's also worth noting that the beetle was basically a late 1930s design, and it shouldn't be too much to ask that in 20+ years Chevrolet should have been able to improve upon its suspension design given a clean sheet.
It's been a long time since I read Unsafe, but I remember him also criticizing the Beetle to a lesser extent? The argument was that the 'vair was worse due to the heavier 6 cyl, and that no one paid attention to the suggested staggered tire pressures (15 psi in front IIRC? )
In reply to flat4_5spd :
It was ridiculous for Chevrolet to expect people to adhere to the PSI specs. Perhaps in an enthusiast car, but not one that you are marketing to the general public.
prowlerjc said:
Nader devoted an entire book to the vw..
https://www.amazon.com/Small-safety-designed-dangers-Volkswagen/dp/0670652490
Well I'll be darned! Never heard of that one.
Tatra and Skoda also had swing axles ,
I never saw a rolled over Corvair , but rolled over VW bugs and buses were common with an occasional 356 Porsche that lifted in the curve !
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to flat4_5spd :
It was ridiculous for Chevrolet to expect people to adhere to the PSI specs. Perhaps in an enthusiast car, but not one that you are marketing to the general public.
in an era of full-service gas stations where the attendant checked your oil and washed your windshield and checked / filled your tires, which was simultaneously an era in which 32/32 was the default for every american car, you could definitely drive out of a gas station with a drastically different car than the one you drove in.
Triumph Herald and it's sports car spinoff the Spitfire.
They even wrote a song about it.
"Hark, the Herald axles swing..."
