Good morning! Today we’re going to look at the two times in the past when GM tried moving the engine to the back of a small car, left it there for a few years, and then gave up. But in both cases, the idea left behind some pretty cool cars.
Yesterday we were out in the desert, looking at two sun-baked rarities. One looks desirable until you find out it’s not only a diesel, but also an automatic, and the other is a K-car, which I know is a hard sell around here no matter what. The Peugeot won, but not by as much as I expected it to. It sounds like it came down to a “lesser of two evils” choice for a lot of you.
For me, it’s all about the transmission. A diesel Peugeot would be a fun car to tinker with, but absolutely dreadful to drive with an automatic. I’d have to know about the feasibility and parts availability for a manual swap before deciding. If it’s too much work, or cost-prohibitive, I’d happily rock a convertible Dodge 400.
General Motors has this maddening habit of having a great idea, cost-cutting it to death before it even reaches production, fixing problems on the fly, and giving up on it just as all the bugs finally get worked out. So many GM ideas could have been revolutionary, if only they hadn’t sucked for the first few years. That was definitely the case with these two, which in their final model years were both awesome little sporty machines. These earlier examples, however, had a few issues. These two have survived, and it sounds like they both actually run and drive pretty well. Let’s check them out.
1963 Chevrolet Corvair Monza – $3,950
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4 liter overhead valve flat 6, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: Dallas, TX
Odometer reading: unknown
Operational status: Runs and drives well
By now, we all know the Corvair story: It was a sales success, but its unconventional design made it a handful to drive, and too many Corvairs ended up backwards in ditches. Chevrolet gradually tamed its handling with a series of tweaks to the rear suspension, and finally fixed it altogether with a redesign in 1965, but the damage was done, and it ended up as the poster-child for everything that was wrong with Detroit in that book.
The heart of the Corvair is an air-cooled aluminum flat six engine, mounted at the rear. GM engineers were looking over Volkswagen’s shoulder for sure. The advantage to putting the entire drivetrain at one end of the car is a nice flat floor, which makes it easy to have a roomy interior. The disadvantage is that the heavy engine at the rear acts like a pendulum, which, combined with its swing-axle rear suspension, led to the Corvair’s widowmaker reputation. This ’63 isn’t as unruly as the 1960 model was, but it still demands respect. If you’re brave enough, the seller says this one runs and drives very well, and has new brakes.
This photo of the seats may worry you, but fear not – brand-new reproduction seat upholstery is included. The rest of the interior looks pretty good, though there are a few issues: the speedometer doesn’t work, which is why we don’t know the actual mileage. And while it has air conditioning, which is very rare for a Corvair, it doesn’t work, and the seller hasn’t looked into reviving it.
It’s straight and rust-free outside, though it looks like it could use a good buff and wax. The windshield is cracked, which may or may not have to be replaced depending on where you live. But overall, it’s a good twenty-footer. The slotted mag wheels really suit it, and really complete the look.
1984 Pontiac Fiero SE – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.5 liter overhead valve inline 4, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Odometer reading: 130,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Pontiac Fiero’s origin story is even weirder than the Corvair’s. Pontiac wanted a two-seat sports car way back in the 1960s, but GM said no, and to add insult to injury, took its design and gave it to Chevy for the Corvette. In the late 70s, Pontiac tried again, but pitched it as a small, efficient economy car for commuters. Never mind that it was mid-engined and sports-car-shaped. It worked, and Pontiac spent five years developing it into the sports car it was always meant to be, before GM finally pulled the plug.
In its first year, the Fiero was available only with the 2.5 liter “Iron Duke” four-cylinder, with either a four-speed manual or a three-speed automatic. The entire engine, drivetrain, and suspension is simply the front end of a GM X-body (Chevy Citation et al) moved to the back. And the front suspension is basically that of a Chevette. It’s humble stuff, but it works. This Fiero has been recently brought back from the dead, it sounds like, and the seller has done a lot of work to get it running and driving well. It’s not complete, however, and a bunch more new parts are included to finish the job.
Half of those new parts are piled up in boxes in the interior, it looks like, so it’s hard to get a good look at its condition, but what we can see looks all right. The driver’s seat side bolster has a hole worn through it, but that’s not surprising; you don’t so much sit down in a Fiero as fall into it. Other than that, it looks like it just needs a good cleaning.
The paint is absolutely fried. You don’t have to worry about rust on the exterior, of course; all the body panels are plastic. The steel structure underneath is vulnerable to rust, of course, but the good news is that it sounds like Oklahoma has only recently started using road salt when the wind comes sweepin’ down the plain. It’s worth a peek underneath to make sure, but the fact that it has been off the road for a while makes me optimistic that it isn’t rusty.
I imagine you’d all rather have a ’65 Corvair Corsa or an ’88 Fiero GT, but you aren’t going to find those in our price range. But hey, at least these two are manuals, and they both leave room for improvement. So which evolutionary dead end are you more interested in fixing up – the good-looking air-cooled killer, or the sports car pretending to be an economy car?
The CORVAIR had nearly a decade run, how is that a dead end? They’re still TONS of them out there and cheap too. Hell I picked up one cheap just to have
General Motors has this maddening habit of having a great idea, cost-cutting it to death before it even reaches production, fixing problems on the fly, and giving up on it just as all the bugs finally get worked out.
Yep. I think the Chevy Volt is the most recently, most cited example of this phenomenon; the 2019 was just about perfect so naturally they made ~4950 of them and shut down the assembly line, because reasons!
Oh, and the Corvair for me, please.
This is where Tesla did it right. One, they made an electric car without any lightning bolts on it. Two, they went all in with EV (no other option with Tesla I guess). Three, they stayed the course. The original Teslas didn’t sell like they do now. But they didn’t bail. GM dabbles. Why would I put my money into a car that will be dropped in a year with GM?
You’d think the big three would be perfect to make a great EV line. They have financials with existing lines that will keep them a float. Existing map of dealerships in place. Brand that is known. Yet they put out these awful looking EVs. I swear they just want to sabatoge the EV market with these turds so that people keep buying the ICE vehicles they make money on.
“EV? Oh I had a Chevy Volt/Bolt/EV1… worst thing I ever bought!!”
Tesla only exists due to government rebates and reselling energy credits to other automakers. They could only do that by going all in.
It’s strange that their vaporware actually became real. Kudos for persistence.
I’ve owned and worked on both. I voted Corvair. The Fiero isn’t a bad car, but the condition isn’t great and the clutch on Fieros is way too hard for my aging knees.
The Corvair is easier to work on, has more space for stuff and people and I like the style.
I would put on disk brakes and a front sway bar and call it good enough. (ok, I might want to put in a collapsible steering column. The steering box is just behind the front bumper and it has a solid rod pointing right at your chest. I don’t know if I want to become a butterfly in a fenderbender.)
Crazy that people were losing their heads from this. The Nadar book talked about the solid steering shaft a lot. Scary as F.
Fieros are neat but I always had a soft spot for Corvairs and today’s example just seems to have a better vibe than the roached Fiero
Corvair for sure. The Fieros are cool, but I’d want an ’87 – the one with all of the bugs worked out. With the Corvair I don’t care – early or late, they all look great. The Old Man had a ’67 Corvair. He still swears it was one of the best handling cars he ever owned. Since he replaced it with a Plymouth Duster and remained a MOPAR or no car guy since, I’d say he’s correct :-P.
You want the 88, not the 87. As for the Corvair, the late model is one of the best handling cars of the 60s. This video shows how good the late model was. It’s a 73 BMW 3.0L CSL (race prepped) trying to chase down a late model Corvair (also race prepped). The BMW is better under braking and carries more cornering speed, but the Corvair absolutely launched off the corners and carries more speed down the straights.
https://youtu.be/6aP-ihYatzE
’88, that’s the one! Thanks for the correction – I had ’87 buried in my brain as the last year and didn’t do my customary google-check.
It’s a good thing for my wallet that Corvair is so far away from me…
I feel you brother! 😀 First thing I did was click the link to see which Craigslist the Corvair ad was from. 😉
I have the opposite problem- it’s right down the street from me but I don’t have the wallet for it
Today’s a Both day!
Oh my God, this is basically my garage right now, down to the colors
OK, so which one did you pick? I went with the Corvair. That Fiero isn’t in good enough condition for that price, IMO. I’d like to have a beater stick shift rallycross Fiero, but not for $3500.
Honestly, the Corvair is the better of the two to drive, better handling/better weighted steering, more comfortable seating position, smoother ride, the Fiero is sort of a factory built kit car kludge job, and it does show
Alrighty then, I chose well 🙂
Your recounting of the Corvair story is not really the Corvair story.
A few years ago, I read Unsafe at Any Speed and interviewed Ralph Nader for the Autoblog Podcast.
(Oh, and my pick is the Corvair because it’s an engineering masterpiece and that Fiero is disgusting).
Here’s what happened – it’s another classic GM pattern, actually.
Automakers noticed that, because of economic boom times post WWII and the panicked flight to the suburbs and evisceration of the cities enabled by the Eisenhower Interstate Act, the GI bill, and builders like Levitt throwing up little boxes filled with ticky-tacky, people were getting second cars “for the little lady,” or just simply out of necessity as they cut down trees and named the streets after them.
Now, these cars were often weird little things like that clattery Volkswagen or the Nash Metropolitan. So to cash in, the majors swung into action bringing low-priced alternatives to market while also developing their own compacts.
They set ’60 as the target year. Corvair, Valiant, Falcon all entered development.
And then a recession happened in ’58 (well, it started earlier and ended later, but really bit in ’58). That sent people looking at those smaller “wife’s cars” as primary transportation.
It saved American Motors, which was ready with the Rambler thanks to George Romney’s convictions (CHECK OUT THE LAST INDEPENDENT BY JOE LIGO AND FRIENDS!).
Anyway – of the three major automaker compact efforts, the Corvair was by far the most drastic. As had been the Cadet a decade earlier, which was the first use of the strut suspension designed by one Earle MacPherson; a compact car that was deemed “too much of a jewel of a car” and cancelled very late in its development because GM brass only thought of small cars as cheap cars and didn’t see a way to get their fat big-car margins on something that wasn’t both austere and small.
The Corvair re-imagined EVERYTHING. It was a Porsche 911 before the Porsche 911 – they solved how to cool that center cylinder in the air-cooled flat six. They adapted the Powerglide to it. It had unit construction, four-wheel independent suspension, turbocharging, dual carburetors, and on and on.
And it was EXPENSIVE to make. Because everything was new. The design, the engineering, the production process.
Yes, swing-axle rear suspension could be evil. They didn’t help themselves by cutting the swaybar to save money. They also didn’t help themselves by smearing Ralph Nader (while most of his book was NOT about the Corvair and actually dealt with it rather fairly). None of that character was much different than anything VW was offering. Same kind of swing axles under a bug, bus or Ghia (and redesigned in ’68).
Chrysler shot for the middle – the Valiant (just Valiant, not yet Plymouth – its own line. Basically DeSoto died for this till they got wise and decided it’d be a stupid waste of money to try and establish yet another brand) was a little larger than the others. Its engineering was still pretty clever and comprehensive (they used computer analysis to analyze structural rigidity, a first), and its styling was, ahem, “jazzy.”
Ford did what Chevy would do shortly; Bob McNamara, on his way to being a real life General Turgidson, demanded a car for the Puritans. Austere. Stripped to the bones. And, of course, the Falcon was it. After it became clear early on that the Corvair was getting shellacked – it was too different, too demanding, and too unfamiliar, GM whipped up the Chevy II – basically its copy of the Falcon.
SO – once again, GM shot for the moon, lost its nerve, and let its innovation wither before suffocating it.
The higher performance Corvairs were full of more potential than the Camaro, but the Camaro was Chevy II based and much, much cheaper to build. And it held a V8 easily in front, where, many a conservative car man would argue God intended.
So even after the ’65 redesign that made it look better and handle more benign, the Mustang caused the Camaro, and the Camaro drove the final nails in the Corvair’s coffin. I’m amazed it hung around till ’69.
I will say, too, that the gestation of the P-Car was long, winding, and equally fascinating.
Interesting HUGE subframe “Mill and Drill” jigs
No Fiero, no Saturn, either.
Unsafe at Any Speed is a really interesting book. I read it a couple years ago, and even this many decades later, it was a real eye-opener.
Agree! Everyone should read it. Most of you would wind up agreeing with a lot of what’s in it.
Much of the impetus really stemmed from the Armed Forces realizing most of its casualties were happening around bases within the U.S. and trying to figure out why.
Read it more than once. It’s amazing. 99% people think they know what its about but never read it. Ironically it’s out of print and tough to find. I found a copy at my county library.
Yes, I borrowed it from my local library – libraries are amazing.
I spent half my childhood in libraries and museums (and the other half in the ‘woods’ of my local park making mischief and keeping an eye peeled for abandoned moldering Playboys of course, like any other 12-year-old boy worth his mettle. 😉
Yes, definitely. I attempted to read it in high school (my high school library had it, and I was the first person to check it out in at least 10 years), but it was too dense and had too many broad implications for me to get through to my still forming teenage brain. At 42ish when I found another copy at my local library and finally attempted reading it again, I was able to deal with it all and found it fascinating.
And yes, I did agree with a lot if not most of the book.
The 68 and 69 Corvairs also showed off what GM was to become. With everyone on the line knowing that the production was over and the need to start looking for work, the morale went deep in the toilet and the QC of the last 2 years of Corvairs is legendarily bad. (One today would be fine since someone would have tightened the bolts by now). In this the Corvair was about 10 years ahead of its time there too.
The sad thing about the Corvair is that ALMOST made it. If the gas crunch had happened in say 68 instead of 72, then the Corvair would have been extremely well positioned. The 2nd gen Corvair (when screwed together right) is as good or better than any sports coupe of the mid-70s with good fuel economy (for the era), excellent handling, good passenger and luggage room. The engine and transmission are reliable and well sorted. It absolutely would have thumped the early 70s fuel sippers (like the Vega and Pinto).
The Vega was “GM Compact, Part III”
An equal amount of re-imagining everything (“we don’t need a radiator,” plasma-hardened unlined cylinder walls, Vertapak shipping…)
Again, fascinating. A swing for the fences with a side helping of toxic internal politics stew.
My dad was a regular at SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) meetings back when. He said in the late 60s, there were presentations that you couldn’t a cheap car that could last. Nearly everyone decided to make cars that were like Bics that worked ok, wore out quick, but were cheap to replace. There were presentations about arguing if 30,000 or 40,000 mile before failure was acceptable.
Dad told me that unfortunately, the Big 3 missed their design goals by a factor of 2 so that 15-20k miles was about as long as their cars lasted and that the Japanese hadn’t attended the meetings and missed the memo about how the industry was going to standardize on making cars that lasted 2-3 years.
What Corvair assembly plants closed at end of production? I thought they all went on to make something else.
This is a great summary review. Great post!
Dan, thanks for your post! It’s worthy of an Autopian article and then some! 🙂
If I was inclined to go vintage mid-engine sports car I’d choose a 914 or X 1/9; the Fiero never did it for me. On the other hand, I’ve always liked early Corvairs. Used to be, the 2nd generation Corvairs were my favorite and I still love the clean design that made all other GM cars look dumpy by comparison, but the older I get, the more I appreciate the original, especially In convertible form. Sadly, this one is not a drop top, nor a Spyder, but the coupe is handsome in its own right. Corvair today because it don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that swing.
The X1/9 was sooooo pretty.
I like Fieros, but I just couldn’t justify buying one in a world where the MR2 exists. The Corvair is one of the coolest things GM has ever done, and I think it’s wonderful that they’re still so attainable.
I voted for the Corvair. Under appreciated, imperfect classics are a great way to drive an interesting car for not much money. My only concern is the rust. The body looks decent (hopefully it is still all metal?), but the undercarriage looks concerning. If this thing is structurally sound, though, it is a solid deal.
I’ll be honest and say I have no idea why people like the Fiero. I think they are hideous. I also can’t imagine they are comfortable, and I doubt they are that much fun to drive given how weak the 4 cylinder engine is. That being said, I think this car might be a solid deal for someone who wants one. The exterior is a cheap paint job away from looking nice. I wish we saw more of the interior, but what we can see looks presentable. I think half of this car’s problem is that it is dirty; the paint isn’t great, but I think this car might look decent with a good interior and exterior cleaning.
My sister has a 1984 Fiero SE in nice, shiny white. Is it a “good” car? I don’t know – it does the job though. It also genuinely looks like a little spaceship tootling down the road, which is pretty darn cool if you ask me.
I agree with your hypothesis about the paint. Roached out Fieros do not look good, and they tarnish the perception of all Fieros.
I have to wonder why they didn’t put a buffer wheel to that car to remove the mildew at least. Peeling is less gross than black and peeling.
I don’t think that’s mildew. I think it’s the black plastic showing through thin spots in the sandblasted paint.
Regarding the Fiero, I’m 6’2″ and back in the 90’s was in the 210 lbs range and I fit in my GF’s friend’s 85(?) Fieros just fine as a passenger. Didn’t get a chance to drive it though. Getting in and out today would be more of a challenge for me, but it’s doable.
As for fun to drive, I take it you don’t subscribe to the slow-car-fast mantra? Several writer’s here have talked about how wringing the shit out of car with < 200 HP can be an absolute blast without breaking the speed limit. This Fiero would certainly fall in that category. Plus the sensation of speed when your butt is mere inches from the ground really amplifies the experience.
Years ago, I had a 94 Mustang Cobra with a boat-load of aftermarket goodies, including a supercharger. It was dyno’ed at over 350 rwhp. It was just frustrating as hell to drive due to traffic and the fact that really using the hp resulted in driving like a nutjob. I have a ’15 Mini Cooper now and with less than 1/2 the hp I have so much more fun driving it around town as well as country roads.
I completely agree with the idea it is fun to drive a slow car fast, but the Fiero is a bit extreme. Did the 4 cylinder even make 90 hp??? Its power to weight ratio is only slightly better than a ’70s VW Beetle. Sub 200 hp is a very different animal from <100 hp. I don’t doubt a V6 Fiero is fun to drive, though.
My biggest objection to the Fiero is the styling. I don’t like angular ’80s car styling, including high-end vehicles like the Testarossa or Countach. Obviously, taste in cars is subjective. While I don’t like the Fiero, I can see where other people would. Again, for those that want a Fiero, I think this particular car could be a good choice.
I don’t think horsepower is the issue with 80’s GM cars as much as power delivery from their basic engines paired with the ubiquitous 3-speed automatic transmission. My buddy and I took his dad’s 6-cylinder Fiero GT to a concert in the late 80’s, and even as an impressionable youth daily-driving a 1- year old, 4-cylinder Mustang II, I was unimpressed.
The best part of my classic Mini is that you can use all 4 gears and 60kph feels like 100mph. The sensation is similar in my wife’s Opel GT and my sister’s Fiero (probably the fastest of the bunch). Who needs triple digit HP anyway?
I love both but have a soft spot for the Fiero. I remember not too long ago when a Fiero without it’s sail panels was a $500 car all day. Man I should have bought one back then.
General Motors is such a strange company.
The company will produce stuff ahead of its time or have wild fits of mania that make it into production where other companies fear to tread. Some of it genius, but too far advanced for the reality of the time, some of it questionable even then. Then they sober up and realize they’re losing money badly then go back to being timid and staid.
The second version of GM produces conventionality ranging from poor to mediocre. That, combined with an aversion to putting in the effort to make their conventionality class-leading means even though they start out profitable, people eventually figure out the competition is better.
A more financially limited company would have not let the crazy ideas suck up so much resources and devoted their efforts to making their bread and butter better vehicles.
The world settled on front-engine, FWD/AWD or RWD a few notable holdouts aside (basically Porsche and a few supercars) for good reasons.
Long-winded post aside: uh, Corvair I guess. GM oddballs never really interested me. They’re just odd without much redeeming to them.
Been there done that with a ’63 Corvair, although I never actually got that car running. It was mostly just rust and bondo. It’s tempting since I’m gonna be in Dallas next week, tho. Maybe cancel my flight home and…
Have to go with the Corvair today. I’ve secretly always wanted one.
Corvair all day!
However, if anyone really wants that Fiero, it’s not too far from me. I could be persuaded to take a look.
I wanted to vote the Fiero as I really like them and really want one with a 5 speed and 3800sc at some point in my life but this one is needs way to much work to be a project car for that swap. So I voted to corvair as it looks like it could be easier to clean up and be a nice driver with less work.
Im with you, I want to do a 88 swap someday!
Yeah if I didn’t have so many other projects right now I would love a Fiero GT w/ T-tops with the swap as from what I have seen they get really great gas mileage while also being quick vehicles as a nice weather daily.
For me it was the ability to redo the fiero much more easily than the Corvair. And I like small cars.
While I do admire the Fiero, a manual Corvair is an instant vote from me: I’ll carry 4 fan belts.
and I do hvac, so the ac doesn’t scare me
This is tough choice.
The Corvair is begging for a flat-6 swap from a Porsche 911 and a turbocharger.
The Fiero wants a supercharged 3.8L from the GM parts bin.
You can’t go wrong with either…
Would the Fiero frame be able to handle the supercharged 3.8L? Or would it try to warp into a pretzel every time you accelerated?
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/139530.html
It’s been done!
I’ve seen a few LS2 and LS3 swapped Fieros, even one with a built LS7. Don’t know if there’s any chassis reinforcement, but certainly they can handle more power.
The Corvair looks have received an engine out of a wagon, van, or pickup . . . upon further review, it looks like the air cleaner setup was/is required for the (aftermarket?) A/C system (first time I’ve seen one like this in a Corvair). I’d still go with the Fiero, given the incipient Fred Flintstone floor on the Corvair (been there, done that, not fun).
Damn, such a both day! But I’m gonna pick the Corvair for the slots and that 3/4 rear view.
Gotta go Corvair. Both are weird cars, which make them fun, but I feel like the Fiero screams “Members Only” jacket, a Thompson Twins cassette in the tape player, and a rat tail under your painter’s cap. I was there for that the first time, and it was kind of meh.
This ☝️
Wow! That picture you painted was way too vivid and familiar!
Actually (pushes glasses up nose) neither of these cars were dead ends when they were manufactured.
Corvair by a nose. This Fiero is a little too crusty.