@@wmason1961 People were more concerned about passenger seating and luggage space back then. No wonder Ford sold a lot of these. They had a lot of room.
I have to believe that quite a few female Corvair passengers were not wearing slacks in the back seat. There are probably dozens of Baby Boomers who came to be from this subset of 1960s women. 11:52
1960 corvair weighed 2300 pounds vs falcons grotesque 3250 pounds. I guess that big bumper, trim, huge bumper jack, was worth all the gas spent on the extra 950 pounds to haul around? ! Corvair's power to weight ratio (1 hp per 24 pounds) vs the falcon's (1 hp per 36 pounds) was NO CONTEST !
My sister drove a second generation '63 Plymouth Valiant and liked it so much she and her husband bought a '66 as their second car. Back when MoPar engineering was solid.
The Falcon won in Argentina where they never need to alter the original design, it was only improved it during the 30 years it was manufactured. The Australian version is only nominally a Falcon since they constantly changed the design. But the Argentine version is still a very popular car even today where it is constantly celebrated.
In 1972, the NHTSA found that Corvair was as safe or safer in its handling as its contemporaries. It was really a case of the cover up being worse than the crime.
@@chuckster3629 They don't "shake themselves apart" . Flat-6 engines have excellent primary balance, just like straight 6's. A Corvair engine should be quite smooth unless something is wrong with it or the mounts
@@LN997-i8x I owned a used '63 Corvair Monza 990 convertible that was less than 5 years old. It had factory dual carbs, one on each side of the engine. Trying to keep those carbs balanced and in synch was a chore. I had to replace the clutch and two flywheels on that car. The main problem with the Corvair was Porsche designed the engine, but G.M. built it.
I had a 64 Spyder that was a fun car to drive, bu a bit cramped as noted in the video. The pedals were a bit too close together, also. I had to be careful not to hit the brake when using the clutch. I have a 2007 Jeep now with 6-speed. The pedal arrangement is s bad as the Corvair.
@@corvairjim1 Ha! I owned a '63 Monza 990 convertible in 1967 and had to rebuild the entire engine, rings and valves along with pushrod tube seals of course. It had the two two barrel carbs that were difficult at best to sync. Spark plugs were a real chore to get to and you had to be extremely careful to not crossthread the holes as you installed them in those comparably soft aluminum heads. The Falcon had a cast iron block and cylinder head. And the Falcon's spark plugs were very easy to access. I don't know what experience you have with Whorevairs, but mine sucked. I had to pull the engine-transmission assembly three times over a year to replace the three piece aluminum riveted (!) flywheel. They had a bad habit of coming apart and rattling then the engine really vibrated. I've learned since then aftermarket manufacturers have developed once piece flywheels. Why oh why couldn't G.M. have done that in the first place?
@@chuckster3629I don’t understand anything you are saying about the corvair! I’ve had 5 different corvair auto and manual trannys and never experienced any problems you described! I’ve learned this often when a person has persistent problems with vehicles that they are often more the problem than the VEHICLE!!!
funny how they saw " if your air cooled engine overheats you have to wait until it cools down " but that is much better than losing your coolant if a water cooled engine overheats if you are out in the middle of nowhere and don't have any water or having your head gasket blow out or your head or block crack . with an air cooled engine it does'nt really hurt anything when it gets hot you just lose a bit of power . i like the simplicity of an air cooled engine and the traction advantage of having the engines weight over the drive wheels
You gotta love these ads, and how they're skewed in favor of the maker. The Corvair has no legroom in the back with the front seat all the way to the rear and no legroom in the front with the seat all the way forward. Imagine that!
Thanks for uploading this. Wonderful bit of automobile history. Truth is both these cars were cheaply built, were deadly in a crash, were prone to rusting, and like every thing of that era, pollution bombs. 1959 was an interesting time in American auto manufacturing with the decision to offer smaller cars. The full size cars had grown to enormous proportions so any of the compacts offered an option for folks that did not need or want a large car. The Falcon and Corvair station wagons were popular for years. The GM decision to go with a rear drive air cooled engine was to be in direct competition with VW, whereas Ford and Chrysler were just trying to offer a miniature version of what Americans were used to: front engine, water cooled and choice of two or four doors. Much different from a VW.
The 1960-1963 Falcons were not prone to rusting at all. The Falcon also a lot safer in a crash than most of the imports of the time, Mercedes and Volvo being the two main exceptions. You wrote "The Falcon and Corvair station wagons were popular for years". Well, they only made Corvair wagon for 2 years, only 32,120 were built, and was cancelled in favor of the more conventional Chevy II wagon.
My cousin had a falcon just like this one. She was sitting at a red light waiting to turn left when a hook and ladder fire engine turned in front of her hitting the front with the trailer wheels on the fire truck dragging her backwards up the street hitting parked cars on the side of the street as they went. 1 city block later she was fine, not a scratch. The falcon was a mess!. She ran out and bought another falcon!
Ha ha ha. In Russia, such stories are called "tales from the smoking room."IN fact, there are much more chances to survive an accident in Corvaire. I WILL JUSTIFY MY WORDS at the Corvaire disc brakes + 3-point seat belts + protective frame of the car interior + motor at the back that will not fly into the cabin in an accident give a much better chance of surviving in the Corvaire than in Ford
Actually, the Corvair has 4-wheel drum brakes, not discs. Still, it stops much shorter than any other car in its class. In fact, in a chart of various performance statistics published by Road & Track magazine in 1965, the only cars available in America to stop shorter than the Corvair from 60 mph were the Jaguar E-Type and the Corvette, both sports cars with 4-wheel disc brakes. Good company to be in!
We never got the Corvair in Australia but we did get the Falcon from day 1. It looked really good but after a few months Ford was on the back foot. Our tougher roads destroyed the ball joints and suspension towers on the Falcon which was designed for American freeways. The next Australian Falcon had ball joints and towers which were twice as strong as their American counterparts. GM's Aussie car (the Holden) had been designed in Australia at the outset and was as strong as grandpa's axe!
... And I've made my share of basic repairs on Corvairs with basic hand tools as well in nearly 40 years of Corvair ownership. The Corvair has always been a fun little car to drive, but the Falcon is little more than a downsized, 3/4 scale full-size Ford. Notice they didn't get into how the Falcon's interior is smaller by a bunch?
@@thomasfitzgerald1027 Ha ha ha. This book was written by a lawyer who has never been driving himself because he has never had a driver 's license .YES, the "expert" is 100%.In Russia, such "experts" are called "professors of sour cabbage soup or doctors of toilet sciences"
@@MichaeljRichter Maybe so but I would much rather have the light smooth handling Corsair sports car than the slow and cumbersome mustang which is less practical than the corvair
Having owned 6 Pintos they were as safe as the comparable two door cars from Japan. They all had the gas tank behind the axle so in a crash the diff would tear a hole in them. The real problem with the Pinto that was fixed after the 3rd year of production was the doors would jam shut in a rear end collision locking the the passengers inside. After those problems were fixed the car went on to become a very fine little car. What garnered the noteriety was the memo from Ford to pay out the lawsuits rather than fix all the cars. If you will notice it lasted longer in production than the Gremlin or the Vega. It also spun off into the Mustang II. The Station wagons were the best as they had a somewhat better suspension and much better weight balance. The wagons were great in the snow. My son has a Pinto he restored and he loves it.
Not true. The Pinto's gas tank location was pretty much where everyone else put them. Further, the Pinto's statistical performance show it was no better or *no worse* than other cars of it's size and weight with regard to fuel tank failures during rear end crashes. Those are the facts.
Pinto did not replace Falcon, the Maverick did, and the Pinto replaced the English Cortina in North America and was Ford USA first true small car ever.
+inurtrash Shut up trashboy! The Pinto is shit with the Fiesta, Escort and Probe and it won't survive in a demolition derby, it''l get crushed like an egg and i'll be laughing, hahaha!!!
I love the Corvair, but a lot of their small points are fairly valid when it comes to the 1960 models. It's important to realize just how much they ended up adding and changing for the 1961 models!
Haha! I loved when we got to watch a film strip! But it seemed like the teacher always let the dorkiest, most distracted kid turn the film and they always got behind!
Floor shifters low seats 5 passengers door locks on the handle small steering wheel sound familiar yep that's standard equipment today on all makes not just models. lol
I had a 65 Corsa turbo in '71 and it was a sports car. I would never have had a Falcon then. I moved to Argentina in 82 as a missionary and the Falcon was the most popular car in the country and they made them until '91. All were 4 door 6 cylinders, and it wasn't long until I wanted one too!! I ended up years later with a V8 Fairlane which they made til '81
This is 2015 and I see a LOT of Corvairs on the road and at car shows but very seldom a Falcon, In the summer, I drive my Crovair every day the sun shines (it's a convertible) and it handles great. I drive it and park my Montana van and people are always talking to me about it and I'm not the only one in this town of 5,000 that has one, there are at least two more in town. Mine is the '63 Monza 900 and looks great ! The nicest thing about this car is my current wife says she will never ride in it (it blows her hair) however she will drive her '75 GT VEGA hatch back but not take me with her.
I agree with you. I have one and it runs and drives like a Caddy, I'm serious, Never have I ever had an issue with the belt falling off. And I would never put a Christmas tree in or on any of my cars. This advertising film is Ford biased. The all new Ford Falcon, a car styled for the nerds with pocket protectors. Just my opinion. lol.
I bought a 1965 Corvair 500 in 1972 with 20,000 miles on it. Loved it. Was very stylish and had ice cold factory air. This car was much better looking than the 1965 Falcon and had a European look to it. Only paid $330.00 for it from an old lady and sold it 7 years later for $1,200.00 with 69,000 miles on it. Wish I still had it!
Wow, I agree the cars are comparable. If it's 1960 and you're looking for a smaller car, but want to stay American your choices. Ford offered the Falcon and the Comet, a unitized body with a 6 cylinder front mounted cast iron OHV water cooled engine, you could have two doors, four doors or wagons, and after a few years add a convertible to the mix, Ford even came out with a van using the Falcon moniker, some of the early Econolines also had Falcon name plates on them.So I guess Corvair had more models as you could get a 1960 Corvair convertible If what Ford offered wasn't you cup of tea the folks over at Chrysler Corporation had the Lancer and Valiant, put they didn't hit their stride and have a totally competitive design until their 2nd generation cars arrived and again two doors, four doors and wagons, convertibles to come with the 2nd generation cars. Let's not forget the independents American Motors had already been producing Rambler Americans for two years (two door sedans and wagons, four doors starting in 1960), Studebaker had the Lark out for a year before the Corvair (and Falcon) in two door, four door wagon and convertible models BUT with the Studebaker you could choose between six cylinders and eight. Granted the AMC & Studebaker 6 cylinders were flat heads. In the GM camp of course their was the Corvair in 1960, but in 1961 Pontiac came out with the Tempest (rear transmission, rope drive shaft, problems on the hoof) with a four cylinder engine and a rarely found optional aluminium V-8, of course Buick and Oldsmobile got into the market with their F-85 and Specials/Skylarks with V-6s or the previously mentioned aluminium V-8. 1962 rolls around and Chevy comes out with the Chevy II, full body styles (2 door,4 Door, convertible and wagon) about that time the Corvair wagons and vans disappear. The Corvair was a car designed to capture the blossoming small car market back form the Europeans who had been making inroads into the US market like never before. Of course the major player in the compact market had become Volkswagen, but Renault and Morris Minors and a smattering of Hillmans, Simcas and Fiats made it interesting. Note the Corvair's design mimicked that of the VW's in that they both used aluminium alloy air-cooled horizontally opposed engines. I suppose you could even make a case that the VW type III's moved VW design closer to the Corvair. Bottom line was the Corvair was innovative, unfortunately GM wasn't a corporation with a history of successful innovation. The second generation Corvair was a much better car put was stilled plagued with an engine that tended to leak oil, and it was still a rear engined car, a layout that was already on the way out before GM made the Corvair. With GM bringing out the Chevy II it was almost admitting that the Falcons, Darts, Valiants, Larks and Americans was what America wanted.
S Baker Ironically enough the Comet was supposed to for Edsel and when it was discontinued that they sold it at Mercury dealers and it finally got that division's name plate in 1962.
My sister had the Corvair Monza. It was fun to drive and handled great. I never had a problem with the location of the clutch pedal, and found the four on the floor preferential to the three on the tree. In the service, I had a friend who drove a Corvair in road races. He was running radial tires up front and wider bias ply on the rear. Never had a handling issue.
HAHAHA... its the gas fumes that are obnoxious and hazardous.... lol YA... wouldnt want to confuse that with the healthy cigarette smoke now, would we....
I actually owned a covair and had never had the problems this video portrais and I even had races with the 64.5 ford mustang and could beet them from stop light to stop light as the ford 265 v 8 just didn't have the power to out race me . If I had the chance to buy another covair I would do so but I would rather have the covair spider as it had the four barrel carb or a turbo charger to boost the horse power .
3:46 - The Falcon's sharply-curved filler neck was not without its problems. I remember in the 70s going to the ONE pump at the ONE local BP because its pump nozzle was slightly more curved than the others. This reduced the risk of the attendant spilling a gallon of gas down the back of the car, lol.
The GM brass and beancounters were responsible for a lot of the 1960 Corvair's missing standard features, like coathooks, door lock buttons, painted interior trim, etc. They had a target price in mind and moved many amenities to the options list to reach it. They realized their mistake and corrected a lot of it for '61.
I love the Corvair I was alive when it came out brand new and loved it then still love it to this day. Ralph Nader didn't do Chevrolet Corvair any favors.
Saw a guy stop at a stop light in a Corvair the motor fail onto the street this was in 1967 the car was just a few years old.At different times I have owned a 1960 Falcon, a 1963 Corvair, and a 1960 Valiant. I beleive that of the three the Valiant was the better car.
We had a Valiant, also, and it was better. Not that anything was any good back then. Imagine taking a cheap car today back to 1960. They'd think it was a Rolls Royce.
My Dad brought a VW bug new in 1966 for $1700 dollars And I brought it from about 6 years later. It was a very good car very reliable. Man ran a stop sign in a T-Bird and totaled my little bug.
Living in foothills outside of Denver when it snowed the Corvair really shined ! People with Mustangs and Falcons learned not to drive in snowy weather but sometimes caught rides with Corvair owners ! Also below 0 degrees weather wasn’t a problem
The Ford guy was right...the Falcon was a much better car. The Corvair is now just s curiosity with nutty fans...the Falcon platform would live on for 17 years and was a sales hit and a reliable car.
I remember a school teacher owning one like your 63. It was a two door and pretty white. I was a kid and watch him drive by the house and he had both his hands tightly on the steering wheel. It's weird how I can remember that. I've always loved cars and that's probably why I remember him and his Falcon.
The Falcon won in so many categories, however, I purchased a 1964 Corvair. Reason? Adventure! Imagine flying through the air after leaving the road at 70 mph and free-falling down a steep embankment with a double-roll to finish! I wasn't hurt. I drove the Corvair for another 18 months and bought a 1966 Corvair. Adventure never ends! Oh, and I became a Corvair collector, having about 6 at any one time for a while. Great car!!!! My gem was a 1967 Corsa convertible, still running today.
My late half-brother's uncle worked for GM from the '50s to the '70s and was, of course, a big fan of the Corvair. After the 1960 model was introduced late in the model year, there were a lot of complaints about things mentioned in this production and that Ford dealerships had to show customers across the nation. Over the next three years, the vehicle was lengthened to reduce the wheel well intrusion into the cab, the brake and clutch pedals were spread apart further and the shifter was moved forward with an optional console. This reduced seating to five but... Corvair wasn't a family car. It was a fun car. The Ford Falcon was never about fun, lol. The Ralph Nader book, 'Unsafe at Any Speed' (1965) was the next step from this video, to eliminate America's ONLY automobile with a rear engine that enhanced performance and mileage. Had Chevrolet not surrendered, chances are there might well still be Corvairs in production today. Thanks for sharing this video. I haven't seen it in decades.
The Corvair, with it's engine mounted directly over the drive wheels, was great in the snow. Even with snow tires, my 1963 Falcon fishtailed. Other than that, I much-preferred my Falcon over a similar-vintage Corvair.
+5610winston I had a 78 pinto that wieghed 2700 LBS and had reinforced quarter panels, a heavier feul filler neck and a plastic sheath over the differential. The pintos weighing 2000 LBS were dangerous and this was Iacoccas idea- in any case more people died in corvairs as opposed to pintos
+5610winston Well, the Mustang isn't a Pinto, and for anyone interested in facts, they should know that most small cars of the era were built with similar gas tank mounting as the Pinto, and, the Pinto was no more prone to explosion than any other small car. Statistics bear this out. The Pinto became notorious when some teenagers decided to swap drivers on an expressway and stopped to do so and were then rear-ended at full speed by a truck. Just about any car would have exploded under similar circumstances.
In 1964 I had a choice between a Ford falcon or a corvair turbo spyter. I went with the Chevy and never looked back. Note I also have a trophy sitting on my desk. 89 in the 1/4 mile.
Having owned a '67 Mustang Convertible, and a '65 Mustang Notchback, I am definitely biased against Chevy. I'll give them credit for taking a stab at rear engine drive, but the Corvair died a quiet death in '68, after Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at any speed" came out in the nid 1960's . The only thing that hurt Falcon sales was Mustang sales, and the Falcon (successfully) morphed into the Torino in 1970. My restored 1/63 Falcon Tudor Sedan is a study in simplicity-even backup lights were optional! Although underpowered, the 144 ci six was the progenitor of a long line of small block six's that are VERY durable:)-Gearhead222
Last Corvair was the ‘69, not ’68. The Torino joined, and then replaced the Fairlane line. The Falcon begat the dreadful Maverick, which begat the even worse Granada, which begat the horrid Lincoln Versailles, the latter deriving its nameplate from the 17th-century French royal palace. Coincidentally, the oxcart rear suspension in the Falcon and its progeny mimicked those favored by French peasants of the 17th century, when building farm wagons.
I spent years as a teenager restoring a '65 Mustang with a straight 6. When the riveted on Mustang emblem came out from the chrome horn piece, under it it said, "Falcon Sprint". A car in those days needed a complete rebuild every 100,000 miles, not to mention rusted through floorboards, exhaust pipes, (remember all the Midas shops). I will say the Mustang was far more reliable than my first car, a 1973 Capri, which also rusted terribly.
But the Studebaker Lark had the optional V8, up to 195 horsepower, and the Rambler Classic offered OHV sixes and the Rebel offered a V8 as well, and the Ambassador had a 327 rated 250 horses.
Funny stuff for sure.I'm old as dust and was a kid when they came out.The corvair was kinda cool but the falcon got the job done for a lot of people.I remember seeing a many a corvair broken down on the side of the road,along with those old renaults.
When i was 6 there was one in the family. I remember it well. I did not like it. I do remember it was getting fixed a lot. The ford wagon was my favorite, heat that worked and a better radio. Torque that would push you back in the seat.
I restored a 1963 Sypder convertible. Seriously, antiques are antiques. I don't expect such cars to fit modern requirements ... and they do NOT! All the "Corvair issues" are real, but that only adds to the charm of the little car.
It was "No Contest" Both of these cars were junk The falcon was a slow POS, the Corvair would toss off it's fan belt & over heating and even a fire could occur. Actually the Valiant of the same era although ugly, was a far better car with a 3 speed Torqueflight transmission, bulletproof "Slant Six" engine.
This is 2021, and I tell everyone how happy I'd be if I drove a 62 Plymouth Valiant or Dodge Lancer. No computer chips to worry about and the durable slant 6 engine. First Lady Mamie Eisenhower owned a 62 Plymouth Valiant and if a Valiant was good enough for her, then I'm really prepared to step up to the 1962 Plymouth Valiant.
These comparisons range from petty to significant, but overall, for a Ford salesman, many of them would be very helpful for pure practicality. If a buyer in 1960 was deciding between the Falcon and the Corvair, luggage space and the cramped position of the driver's left foot were important considerations for the usefulness of either car. The type of insulation on the ceiling and the composition of the decorative interior door panels, not so much. But if it could sway someone to buy a Ford, then by all means toss it out there. The weirdness of the respective tire pressures for the front and rear Corvair wheels could have made an important difference in handling. I suspect, but don't remember for sure, that this could've been one of Ralph Nader's complaints against the car.
Cramped foot position and awkward clutch operation? When I shopped for a new pick-up a couple of years ago, the Tacoma looked better than the Frontier on paper, but there was no way for me to get a comfortable driving position in the Taco due to a poorly placed rearview mirror. I realized that having to slouch to see around the mirror was a far more intolerable situation than a couple of miles per gallon.
I hate Corvairs for a good reason. My friend had one that was nothing but trouble, I had to go rescue him when his Corvair quit running or had other bad trouble, several times !
That's not a good reason to hate a Corvair. Any car is going to need proper care. And old cars are especially going to be cantankerous and/or faulty if their scheduled maintenance isn't done right. And while the Corvair was an odd little car, certainly not known for its reliability per se, it wasn't an awful car when PROPERLY taken care of. So your friend either wasn't working the maintenance schedule, or he didn't go through the car when he first got it, to correct the damage that the previous owners' neglect may have caused.
GM had to cut back on the furnishings, upholstery, carpeting, etc. on the Corvair because it was costing too much to build and the price per unit was going up. BTW, you see alot more Corvairs on the road compared to Falcons, I would say.
Not around here. I can't remember the last one I saw. I've seen a Borgward Isabella, a Crosley HotShot, and even a Tucker, all being driven in traffic since the last time I saw a Corvair. Even a DKW!
My aunt and uncle bought a brand new VW Squareback in about 1966. It was leaps and bounds better than the Corvair or Falcon. It has always struck me odd that in the USA so many Beetles were sold and so few Squarebacks were sold. A lot of people my age never even remember seeing a Squareback in the 1960's. Also, we had a 1963 Falcon and it was nothing to brag about but was still a lot better than the Corvair. A Corvair was almost a novelty to own because it was SO different.
My family had multiple squarebacks when I was growing up. Even my Grandpa had one. They were basically bettles with more practical and useful features. They should have sold better.
How can one argue with this simple, unbiased fact filled film. Thank you Ford for this much needed public service educational format! i can't see how those scoundrels slinking around through those dark, dank, poorly lit hallways over at General Motors can show their faces in public after the sneaky underhanded way they tried to pull one over on the unsuspecting American public with the shoddy, poorly designed, cheaply made junk witnessed here! If only someone besides Ford cared...dared..to take on General Motors and the "Corvair" My owning a 1963 Ford Falcon, personally has absolutely no bearing on my views in This matter! God bless you Ford for all your good works!
I’m with you, that woman. Imagine if she wasn’t wearing slacks, and loosing 7 inches in the rear seat, while sitting between two big American women. Don’t get me started on no ashtrays in the backseat either. They could not even put one. What am I supposed to do after a ride between those two big American women. If I am driving, and have six big American friends with me. My big American woman is not going to be too happy to be sitting next to me, with that outdated shifter on the floor. I would end up having to rest my big American arm on her leg. Now, she would not enjoy that. Shame on you Corvair. You don’t quite measure up. Just take your rear mounted engine, tucked between your rear wheels, and check your tire pressures before you go home. I am going to Dodge. It is not going to last, but until then, it will be fun. Thank you, Dodge brothers for all that you have created so far, and I have a feeling. I feel really weird saying this, but one day if I live long enough. I really believe that I could walk into any Dodge dealership an buy an over 700 horse powered vehicle, and that’s in different body designs. Imagine two door, four doors, station wagon, and trucks, all with over 700 horsepower, and a warranty to boot. But until then. I will stick with what Dodge pumps out, and when that one falls apart, onto the next I go. But for everyone else, you all need to Go buy a Chevy.
I had one of each and liked them both. My Corvair Monza with turbo was fast, but prone to vapor lock. Not too good in Okla and Texas summers. Falcon was better made and was not prone to aqua planing, as was the Corvair on rainy streets. On balance, I prefer the Falcon.
I mean yeah but you have to bear in mind that this was the 60s: Smaller steering wheel is a liability without power steering (the bigger wheel gives more leverage) And shifter on the floor is not something you want in a 6 passenger car: (unless you really like the middle passenger). However the Corvair does have some some genuine advantages like a much better engine.
I saw bugs with gas heaters, but not corvairs. Air cooled cars stock heaters were barely functional.you could turn on gas heaters with 2 ft. Of snow on VW ,it would all melt in 5 min. In below zero Colorado mtn.
Yes, it was a training film for Ford Dealership Sales Staff produced for Ford Motor Company. The company that produced this training film did so for the Big Three Auto Makers of Ford, GM and Chrysler.
I drove a 1962 Corvair for over five years and it was a dandy little car. It would do things I would never consider trying with another small car. It was a four door and 105 hp, four speed and it did get 25 MPG, would corner like a sports car and reliable as can be. The rear seat folded down too.
Having owned both, I will say , The Corvair, was a far better built car, the Falcon, loved to rust, and also had way less performance, , now just remember, Ralph Nader never owned one,
This brought back so many memories because I drove both of those back in the day. My dad was a car salesman and I would go to work with him on Saturdays to clean cars and make extra money. Dad never let me take the Corvair out into the streets. Lot only. That car should never been made. Many people died.
Didn't Edie Adams very quietly threaten Chevrolet with a lawsuit when her husband, Ernie Kovacs, died in a Corvair in 1962? Did this result in a settlement?
Kovacs was intoxicated and leaving a late night party and was traveling at a high rate of speed when he attempted a 90 intersection in the rain . He was making a left turn but the car impacted on the driver's side indicating excessive speed .
Have you seen the pictures of the Kovacs death car? I some it can be seen clearly that the engine/transaxle had separated from the unit body. I have a friend who witnessed a Corvair losing its power train on a rough railroad crossing.
These US spec Falcons were released in Australia, with disastrous results regarding front ball joint failure. Couldn't handle our shit roads. It took Falcon till the mid sixties to get over that stuff up in the buying public's eyes. After that they became an Aussie icon till 2017, when production finally ended.
I would take the Corvair any day over the 1959-60 Falcon. While its front engine, rear-wheel drive layout may be what people are used to, with the Corvair, it has a fairly new look that no one has seen before.
If I were a customer in 1959/60, considering a Corvair and walked in to a Ford dealership to see what Ford had to offer, I would be convinced if the salesman showed me this filmstrip. And just for perspective, the $72 price difference mentioned equals $754 today. Not as trivial as it may sound today.
All the cars back then were pretty cheaply made and most of the things they talked about were improved in subsequent years, but the Ford engineers, (and the GM engineers) failed to identify how much of a problem the rear swing axles would be. I only had to put my dad's '60 into a 180 position once to realize what not to do.... From that first ''60 to my last '68 they were always so much fun to drive.
Regarding comment below: A big problem with the Ford Pinto engine is that it could easily be damaged if the oil became low or excessively dirty. Also, my 1976 Ford Pinto and 1982 Ford Escort were hard to start in the cold, and shaky once started . . unlike the '76 Chevy Chevette and a 1986 Mitsubishi-built Dodge Colt that I also owned. The latter two started like champs in cold weather. I think Ford made good large cars back then, but lousy small cars. Of course, Chevy also made the lousy Vega and Monza. Thus, Japanese cars became popular.
No engine will escape damage if the oil is allowed to get low or if the owner doesn't change it and it gets dirty. Oil does 3 things -- lubricates, cleans, cools.
I'm a GM man, but I'd take the Falcon over the Corvair. My brother had a 63 Falcon Futura convertible, 6/stick, bucket seats. It was a really nice car. My cousins had several Corvairs. They were OK, but always leaked oil. I don't like the gasloine heater in the 60 Corvair. I don't think they're safe at all. That was eliminated in 1961, a big impovement.
Don't forget to mention the Ford Cop car "Crown Victoria" fireballs. Admittedly, if you collide with most any vehicle at high speed, the chances of rupturing the fuel tank are pretty high. However, the Crown Vic tank was placed between the rear differential and the trunk. Those tanks popped like a PIMPLE !
The fuel tanks on virtually all rear wheel drive cars were placed between the rear bumper and axle at one time, for decades. In all of the cases involving the crown vic fires they were hit at speeds of around 70 mph and higher.
We Australians are probably lucky the Corvair was never available in Australia. My dad had a 1963 Ford Falcon Futura four door, it had a gorgeous red and chrome interior, separate front seats with a chrome lidded console in between, full carpeting, padded dashboard, tinted band laminated windscreen, reversing lights, 170 cubic inch six, not the asthmatic two speed automatic but a three speed column shift manual.
Boy oh boy you can see how they move the front seat all the way forward on the corvair.... and all the way back on the falcon until they look in the back seat then they move both the other way around. and they remove the shift boot on the corvair. Just to say unfinished look (after they take parts off the corvair they claim it unfinished. ....... I say they should take it out on the road and the corvair would put the falcon back in it's place! ( I have never had an overheat with a corvair ...... but have on the weak engine on the falcon. And the corvair like the VW bug is extreamly good off road!
I believe that Chevrolet targeted the Corvair more towards the VW, than Falcon.
Yes that is true, but the Falcon was also directly aimed at VW. That made them direct competitors for the same dollars.
@@wmason1961 People were more concerned about passenger seating and luggage space back then. No wonder Ford sold a lot of these. They had a lot of room.
"Imagine if this woman wasn't wearing slacks"... I laughed out loud!
"The Brittaney Spears Test"
I have to believe that quite a few female Corvair passengers were not wearing slacks in the back seat. There are probably dozens of Baby Boomers who came to be from this subset of 1960s women.
11:52
Corvair beaver shots!! Advantage....Corvair.
I did imagine. Oh, my...
Yeah, I wish she had a skirt on! :-)
1960 corvair weighed 2300 pounds vs falcons grotesque 3250 pounds. I guess that big bumper, trim, huge bumper jack, was worth all the gas spent on the extra 950 pounds to haul around? !
Corvair's power to weight ratio (1 hp per 24 pounds) vs the falcon's (1 hp per 36 pounds) was NO CONTEST !
They were both unibodies that crumpled more than ladder framed cars for safety, but the heavier Ford would probably win in an accident.
Funny hearing Ford talk about possible fire due to gas tank location isn't it?
My sister drove a second generation '63 Plymouth Valiant and liked it so much she and her husband bought a '66 as their second car. Back when MoPar engineering was solid.
The Falcon won in Argentina where they never need to alter the original design, it was only improved it during the 30 years it was manufactured. The Australian version is only nominally a Falcon since they constantly changed the design. But the Argentine version is still a very popular car even today where it is constantly celebrated.
In 1972, the NHTSA found that Corvair was as safe or safer in its handling as its contemporaries. It was really a case of the cover up being worse than the crime.
It's ironic that the company that was later to make the Pinto complained about the danger of the Corvair's gas tank.
we had a 63 or 64 falcon as a kid. by the time it died it probably had 200K to 250K miles on that poor 6. ran great, not fast, but very reliable
Meh. I've had a few Corvairs that have gone past 200k miles on the odometer. No big deal with proper maintenance.
I had both cars. The Corvair was more fun to drive but both were good cars.
Amen, Jim!
Corvairs were prone to leak oil after about 30K miles. The engines literally shook themselves apart.
@@chuckster3629 They don't "shake themselves apart" . Flat-6 engines have excellent primary balance, just like straight 6's. A Corvair engine should be quite smooth unless something is wrong with it or the mounts
@@LN997-i8x
I owned a used '63 Corvair Monza 990 convertible that was less than 5 years old. It had factory dual carbs, one on each side of the engine. Trying to keep those carbs balanced and in synch was a chore.
I had to replace the clutch and two flywheels on that car.
The main problem with the Corvair was Porsche designed the engine, but G.M. built it.
I had a 64 Spyder that was a fun car to drive, bu a bit cramped as noted in the video. The pedals were a bit too close together, also. I had to be careful not to hit the brake when using the clutch. I have a 2007 Jeep now with 6-speed. The pedal arrangement is s bad as the Corvair.
Back when tuneups were every 10K miles due to leaded gas, the Falcon six was much easier to tune than the flat Corvair 6.
I see you have never done a tune up on a Corvair. Nothing at all difficult about it. Everything is right there in front of you.
@@corvairjim1
Ha! I owned a '63 Monza 990 convertible in 1967 and had to rebuild the entire engine, rings and valves along with pushrod tube seals of course. It had the two two barrel carbs that were difficult at best to sync.
Spark plugs were a real chore to get to and you had to be extremely careful
to not crossthread the holes as you installed them in those comparably soft aluminum heads. The Falcon had a cast iron block and cylinder head. And the Falcon's spark plugs were very easy to access.
I don't know what experience you have with Whorevairs, but mine sucked.
I had to pull the engine-transmission assembly three times over a year to replace the three piece aluminum riveted (!) flywheel. They had a bad habit of coming apart and rattling then the engine really vibrated. I've learned since then aftermarket manufacturers have developed once piece flywheels. Why oh why couldn't G.M. have done that in the first place?
@@chuckster3629I don’t understand anything you are saying about the corvair! I’ve had 5 different corvair auto and manual trannys and never experienced any problems you described! I’ve learned this often when a person has persistent problems with vehicles that they are often more the problem than the VEHICLE!!!
funny how they saw " if your air cooled engine overheats you have to wait until it cools down " but that is much better than losing your coolant if a water cooled engine overheats if you are out in the middle of nowhere and don't have any water or having your head gasket blow out or your head or block crack . with an air cooled engine it does'nt really hurt anything when it gets hot you just lose a bit of power . i like the simplicity of an air cooled engine and the traction advantage of having the engines weight over the drive wheels
The Ford automobile is named after Mr. Henry Ford of Detroit, Michigan who pioneered the assembly line method of automobile manufacturing.
You gotta love these ads, and how they're skewed in favor of the maker. The Corvair has no legroom in the back with the front seat all the way to the rear and no legroom in the front with the seat all the way forward. Imagine that!
Thanks for uploading this. Wonderful bit of automobile history. Truth is both these cars were cheaply built, were deadly in a crash, were prone to rusting, and like every thing of that era, pollution bombs. 1959 was an interesting time in American auto manufacturing with the decision to offer smaller cars. The full size cars had grown to enormous proportions so any of the compacts offered an option for folks that did not need or want a large car. The Falcon and Corvair station wagons were popular for years. The GM decision to go with a rear drive air cooled engine was to be in direct competition with VW, whereas Ford and Chrysler were just trying to offer a miniature version of what Americans were used to: front engine, water cooled and choice of two or four doors. Much different from a VW.
I vaguely remember the popularity of having a bomb shelter, and us kids having nuclear bomb drills in grade school.
The 1960-1963 Falcons were not prone to rusting at all. The Falcon also a lot safer in a crash than most of the imports of the time, Mercedes and Volvo being the two main exceptions. You wrote "The Falcon and Corvair station wagons were popular for years". Well, they only made Corvair wagon for 2 years, only 32,120 were built, and was cancelled in favor of the more conventional Chevy II wagon.
My cousin had a falcon just like this one. She was sitting at a red light waiting to turn left when a hook and ladder fire engine turned in front of her hitting the front with the trailer wheels on the fire truck dragging her backwards up the street hitting parked cars on the side of the street as they went. 1 city block later she was fine, not a scratch. The falcon was a mess!. She ran out and bought another falcon!
Ha ha ha. In Russia, such stories are called "tales from the smoking room."IN fact, there are much more chances to survive an accident in Corvaire. I WILL JUSTIFY MY WORDS at the Corvaire disc brakes + 3-point seat belts + protective frame of the car interior + motor at the back that will not fly into the cabin in an accident give a much better chance of surviving in the Corvaire than in Ford
Actually, the Corvair has 4-wheel drum brakes, not discs. Still, it stops much shorter than any other car in its class. In fact, in a chart of various performance statistics published by Road & Track magazine in 1965, the only cars available in America to stop shorter than the Corvair from 60 mph were the Jaguar E-Type and the Corvette, both sports cars with 4-wheel disc brakes. Good company to be in!
What is the stopping distance of the ‘37 La Salle and the ‘56 DeSoto Fireflight?
@@fairfaxcat13123 horses and two ponies
We never got the Corvair in Australia but we did get the Falcon from day 1. It looked really good but after a few months Ford was on the back foot. Our tougher roads destroyed the ball joints and suspension towers on the Falcon which was designed for American freeways. The next Australian Falcon had ball joints and towers which were twice as strong as their American counterparts. GM's Aussie car (the Holden) had been designed in Australia at the outset and was as strong as grandpa's axe!
They were basic transportation cars. Fun to drive, and good on gas. You could do all your own repairs on the Falcon with simple tools.
... And I've made my share of basic repairs on Corvairs with basic hand tools as well in nearly 40 years of Corvair ownership. The Corvair has always been a fun little car to drive, but the Falcon is little more than a downsized, 3/4 scale full-size Ford. Notice they didn't get into how the Falcon's interior is smaller by a bunch?
A separate gasoline heater what the hell..
And turn yourself into a V2 rocket with the Corvair if you hit someone head on with that front gas tank!
4:35 oh how those words would comeback and haunt ford a decade later with the pinto.
We need to see a comparison with the Vega! I loved Vega. Both were rust buckets back east
Unsafe at any speed!
@@thomasfitzgerald1027 Ha ha ha. This book was written by a lawyer who has never been driving himself because he has never had a driver 's license .YES, the "expert" is 100%.In Russia, such "experts" are called "professors of sour cabbage soup or doctors of toilet sciences"
I'll have a valiant, thanks. First year corvairs and falcons were slow as hell
5 years later the Falcon got restyled, a 260 CID V8 installed and renamed "Mustang". The Mustang is still available. Can't say that about the Corvair.
@@MichaeljRichter Maybe so but I would much rather have the light smooth handling Corsair sports car than the slow and cumbersome mustang which is less practical than the corvair
Those slant 6 engines proved their worthiness and durability.
¿Isn't it funny that Falcon's replacement, the Pinto, had the worst located fuel tank of any car???
Having owned 6 Pintos they were as safe as the comparable two door cars from Japan. They all had the gas tank behind the axle so in a crash the diff would tear a hole in them. The real problem with the Pinto that was fixed after the 3rd year of production was the doors would jam shut in a rear end collision locking the the passengers inside. After those problems were fixed the car went on to become a very fine little car. What garnered the noteriety was the memo from Ford to pay out the lawsuits rather than fix all the cars. If you will notice it lasted longer in production than the Gremlin or the Vega. It also spun off into the Mustang II. The Station wagons were the best as they had a somewhat better suspension and much better weight balance. The wagons were great in the snow. My son has a Pinto he restored and he loves it.
Not true. The Pinto's gas tank location was pretty much where everyone else put them. Further, the Pinto's statistical performance show it was no better or *no worse* than other cars of it's size and weight with regard to fuel tank failures during rear end crashes. Those are the facts.
Pinto did not replace Falcon, the Maverick did, and the Pinto replaced the English Cortina in North America and was Ford USA first true small car ever.
Stephen Whited the Pinto was still a worst car made and a piece of junk.
+inurtrash Shut up trashboy! The Pinto is shit with the Fiesta, Escort and Probe and it won't survive in a demolition derby, it''l get crushed like an egg and i'll be laughing, hahaha!!!
I love the Corvair, but a lot of their small points are fairly valid when it comes to the 1960 models. It's important to realize just how much they ended up adding and changing for the 1961 models!
Exactly!
Yes, but too little, too late!. The damage was done. Oh Mr. Nader, I have a great subject for your next book!
Thanks for posting this. I drove a corvair for years until I could afford a real car.
I still like Corvairs, but if my first car had been a Falcon, that would've been nice.
I love the "bink" that tells you to change to the next slide! We watched a many a film strip like this in elementary school!
Haha! I loved when we got to watch a film strip! But it seemed like the teacher always let the dorkiest, most distracted kid turn the film and they always got behind!
I so miss the simplicity , and sense of openness these old cars had. I feel like I am in a cave in these little economy cars of today
Floor shifters low seats 5 passengers door locks on the handle small steering wheel sound familiar yep that's standard equipment today on all makes not just models. lol
Shawn Haynes, they were decades ahead of their time!
I had a 65 Corsa turbo in '71 and it was a sports car. I would never have had a Falcon then. I moved to Argentina in 82 as a missionary and the Falcon was the most popular car in the country and they made them until '91. All were 4 door 6 cylinders, and it wasn't long until I wanted one too!! I ended up years later with a V8 Fairlane which they made til '81
This is 2015 and I see a LOT of Corvairs on the road and at car shows but very seldom a Falcon,
In the summer, I drive my Crovair every day the sun shines (it's a convertible) and it handles great. I drive it and park my Montana van and people are always talking to me about it and I'm not the only one in this town of 5,000 that has one, there are at least two more in town. Mine is the '63 Monza 900 and looks great !
The nicest thing about this car is my current wife says she will never ride in it (it blows her hair) however she will drive her '75 GT VEGA hatch back but not take me with her.
I agree with you. I have one and it runs and drives like a Caddy, I'm serious, Never have I ever had an issue with the belt falling off. And I would never put a Christmas tree in or on any of my cars. This advertising film is Ford biased. The all new Ford Falcon, a car styled for the nerds with pocket protectors. Just my opinion. lol.
I bought a 1965 Corvair 500 in 1972 with 20,000 miles on it. Loved it. Was very stylish and had ice cold factory air. This car was much better looking than the 1965 Falcon and had a European look to it. Only paid $330.00 for it from an old lady and sold it 7 years later for $1,200.00 with 69,000 miles on it. Wish I still had it!
Corvair with factory Air?
Wow, I agree the cars are comparable. If it's 1960 and you're looking for a smaller car, but want to stay American your choices. Ford offered the Falcon and the Comet, a unitized body with a 6 cylinder front mounted cast iron OHV water cooled engine, you could have two doors, four doors or wagons, and after a few years add a convertible to the mix, Ford even came out with a van using the Falcon moniker, some of the early Econolines also had Falcon name plates on them.So I guess Corvair had more models as you could get a 1960 Corvair convertible If what Ford offered wasn't you cup of tea the folks over at Chrysler Corporation had the Lancer and Valiant, put they didn't hit their stride and have a totally competitive design until their 2nd generation cars arrived and again two doors, four doors and wagons, convertibles to come with the 2nd generation cars. Let's not forget the independents American Motors had already been producing Rambler Americans for two years (two door sedans and wagons, four doors starting in 1960), Studebaker had the Lark out for a year before the Corvair (and Falcon) in two door, four door wagon and convertible models BUT with the Studebaker you could choose between six cylinders and eight. Granted the AMC & Studebaker 6 cylinders were flat heads. In the GM camp of course their was the Corvair in 1960, but in 1961 Pontiac came out with the Tempest (rear transmission, rope drive shaft, problems on the hoof) with a four cylinder engine and a rarely found optional aluminium V-8, of course Buick and Oldsmobile got into the market with their F-85 and Specials/Skylarks with V-6s or the previously mentioned aluminium V-8. 1962 rolls around and Chevy comes out with the Chevy II, full body styles (2 door,4 Door, convertible and wagon) about that time the Corvair wagons and vans disappear.
The Corvair was a car designed to capture the blossoming small car market back form the Europeans who had been making inroads into the US market like never before. Of course the major player in the compact market had become Volkswagen, but Renault and Morris Minors and a smattering of Hillmans, Simcas and Fiats made it interesting. Note the Corvair's design mimicked that of the VW's in that they both used aluminium alloy air-cooled horizontally opposed engines. I suppose you could even make a case that the VW type III's moved VW design closer to the Corvair.
Bottom line was the Corvair was innovative, unfortunately GM wasn't a corporation with a history of successful innovation. The second generation Corvair was a much better car put was stilled plagued with an engine that tended to leak oil, and it was still a rear engined car, a layout that was already on the way out before GM made the Corvair. With GM bringing out the Chevy II it was almost admitting that the Falcons, Darts, Valiants, Larks and Americans was what America wanted.
S Baker Ironically enough the Comet was supposed to for Edsel and when it was discontinued that they sold it at Mercury dealers and it finally got that division's name plate in 1962.
Capt. Beak, but the Chevy II was superior to the Falcon, and the Dart and the rest...
My sister had the Corvair Monza. It was fun to drive and handled great. I never had a problem with the location of the clutch pedal, and found the four on the floor preferential to the three on the tree. In the service, I had a friend who drove a Corvair in road races. He was running radial tires up front and wider bias ply on the rear. Never had a handling issue.
Monzas were later, better cars. Probably the best looking car GM ever made.
HAHAHA... its the gas fumes that are obnoxious and hazardous.... lol YA... wouldnt want to confuse that with the healthy cigarette smoke now, would we....
+PETER MAINWALD Because everyone wants to smoke while refueling, hahaha.
Go back to 1955 and see that MARLBORO CIGARETTE ADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD which has a man smoking while working with gasoline, MMHMM!
I love how they imply that it’s fine to puff away while gassing up you Falcon
YA how old are you 15 16?, Amazing your all experts on things of 60 or 70 yrs ago
@@MidwestFarmToys I smoked 28 yrs less than pk a day,
YOU'LL BE SORRY!!.
I CAN BARELY BREATHE!.
I forgot to turn the record....
I actually owned a covair and had never had the problems this video portrais and I even had races with the 64.5 ford mustang and could beet them from stop light to stop light as the ford 265 v 8 just didn't have the power to out race me . If I had the chance to buy another covair I would do so but I would rather have the covair spider as it had the four barrel carb or a turbo charger to boost the horse power .
I can't wait for this falcon to be finished. this channel is amazing keep us updated
3:46 - The Falcon's sharply-curved filler neck was not without its problems. I remember in the 70s going to the ONE pump at the ONE local BP because its pump nozzle was slightly more curved than the others. This reduced the risk of the attendant spilling a gallon of gas down the back of the car, lol.
I bet when the GM top brass saw this film, they wanted to kick some of their engineer's asses
The GM brass and beancounters were responsible for a lot of the 1960 Corvair's missing standard features, like coathooks, door lock buttons, painted interior trim, etc. They had a target price in mind and moved many amenities to the options list to reach it. They realized their mistake and corrected a lot of it for '61.
I love the Corvair I was alive when it came out brand new and loved it then still love it to this day. Ralph Nader didn't do Chevrolet Corvair any favors.
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son"
Saw a guy stop at a stop light in a Corvair the motor fail onto the street this was in 1967 the car was just a few years old.At different times I have owned a 1960 Falcon, a 1963 Corvair, and a 1960 Valiant. I beleive that of the three the Valiant was the better car.
We had a Valiant, also, and it was better. Not that anything was any good back then.
Imagine taking a cheap car today back to 1960. They'd think it was a Rolls Royce.
My Dad brought a VW bug new in 1966 for $1700 dollars And I brought it from about 6 years later. It was a very good car very reliable. Man ran a stop sign in a T-Bird and totaled my little bug.
The Corvair was not a well built car The air cooled motor was not a good design,and after it got some miles on it was a oil burner
Fantastic to have found this relic.
The falcon got anywhere you wanted to go, any day, any time!!!
Living in foothills outside
of Denver when it snowed the Corvair really shined ! People with Mustangs and Falcons learned not to drive in snowy weather but sometimes caught rides with Corvair owners ! Also below 0 degrees weather wasn’t a problem
The Ford guy was right...the Falcon was a much better car. The Corvair is now just s curiosity with nutty fans...the Falcon platform would live on for 17 years and was a sales hit and a reliable car.
I had a 63 Falcon two door, 6 with and automatic. I love that little car.
I remember a school teacher owning one like your 63. It was a two door and pretty white. I was a kid and watch him drive by the house and he had both his hands tightly on the steering wheel. It's weird how I can remember that. I've always loved cars and that's probably why I remember him and his Falcon.
The Falcon won in so many categories, however, I purchased a 1964 Corvair. Reason? Adventure! Imagine flying through the air after leaving the road at 70 mph and free-falling down a steep embankment with a double-roll to finish! I wasn't hurt. I drove the Corvair for another 18 months and bought a 1966 Corvair. Adventure never ends! Oh, and I became a Corvair collector, having about 6 at any one time for a while. Great car!!!! My gem was a 1967 Corsa convertible, still running today.
My late half-brother's uncle worked for GM from the '50s to the '70s and was, of course, a big fan of the Corvair.
After the 1960 model was introduced late in the model year, there were a lot of complaints about things mentioned in this production and that Ford dealerships had to show customers across the nation.
Over the next three years, the vehicle was lengthened to reduce the wheel well intrusion into the cab, the brake and clutch pedals were spread apart further and the shifter was moved forward with an optional console. This reduced seating to five but... Corvair wasn't a family car. It was a fun car. The Ford Falcon was never about fun, lol.
The Ralph Nader book, 'Unsafe at Any Speed' (1965) was the next step from this video, to eliminate America's ONLY automobile with a rear engine that enhanced performance and mileage. Had Chevrolet not surrendered, chances are there might well still be Corvairs in production today.
Thanks for sharing this video. I haven't seen it in decades.
Enjoyed this. Our family had a Falcon.
That's not a comparison. It's a Ford ad for Falcons. The Corvair looks very interesting and it was built as a budget vehicle with good economy.
The Corvair, with it's engine mounted directly over the drive wheels, was great in the snow. Even with snow tires, my 1963 Falcon fishtailed. Other than that, I much-preferred my Falcon over a similar-vintage Corvair.
4:30 Isn't it ironic that Ford points out the vulnerability of the Corvair fuel tank in a collision? Can you say "PINTO"?
+5610winston Even as a Ford man I picked that one up... !!
+5610winston they did not blow up ..now my 69 tang well i never want to get hit in the back vairs are very safe
+5610winston I had a 78 pinto that wieghed 2700 LBS and had reinforced quarter panels, a heavier feul filler neck and a plastic sheath over the differential. The pintos weighing 2000 LBS were dangerous and this was Iacoccas idea- in any case more people died in corvairs as opposed to pintos
+5610winston Well, the Mustang isn't a Pinto, and for anyone interested in facts, they should know that most small cars of the era were built with similar gas tank mounting as the Pinto, and, the Pinto was no more prone to explosion than any other small car. Statistics bear this out. The Pinto became notorious when some teenagers decided to swap drivers on an expressway and stopped to do so and were then rear-ended at full speed by a truck. Just about any car would have exploded under similar circumstances.
+arkhsm ford
Same here
In 1964 I had a choice between a Ford falcon or a corvair turbo spyter. I went with the Chevy and never looked back. Note I also have a trophy sitting on my desk. 89 in the 1/4 mile.
Having owned a '67 Mustang Convertible, and a '65 Mustang Notchback, I am definitely biased against Chevy. I'll give them credit for taking a stab at rear engine drive, but the Corvair died a quiet death in '68, after Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at any speed" came out in the nid 1960's . The only thing that hurt Falcon sales was Mustang sales, and the Falcon (successfully) morphed into the Torino in 1970. My restored 1/63 Falcon Tudor Sedan is a study in simplicity-even backup lights were optional! Although underpowered, the 144 ci six was the progenitor of a long line of small block six's that are VERY durable:)-Gearhead222
Last Corvair was the ‘69, not ’68. The Torino joined, and then replaced the Fairlane line. The Falcon begat the dreadful Maverick, which begat the even worse Granada, which begat the horrid Lincoln Versailles, the latter deriving its nameplate from the 17th-century French royal palace. Coincidentally, the oxcart rear suspension in the Falcon and its progeny mimicked those favored by French peasants of the 17th century, when building farm wagons.
I spent years as a teenager restoring a '65 Mustang with a straight 6. When the riveted on Mustang emblem came out from the chrome horn piece, under it it said, "Falcon Sprint". A car in those days needed a complete rebuild every 100,000 miles, not to mention rusted through floorboards, exhaust pipes, (remember all the Midas shops). I will say the Mustang was far more reliable than my first car, a 1973 Capri, which also rusted terribly.
My grandparents had a gray covair, and one of my aunts had a white falcon, I of course was about 7, but remember both cars.
'65 & later Corvairs were vastly superior to Falcons of ANY vintage. [Thanks, Mr Nader!!]
+Rick Steeb Total bullshit : PUT UP THE BEST Covair against any 2016 Aussie Falcon, hahaha !!
ok mate put your corvair up against a an fpv f6 typhoon or any single other australian built falcon ever built.
True the '65 and later Corvairs were great...Aussie platitudes (I did not say platypuses's) aside..another 100 hp would have been nice tho..
You know that Nader had a corvair!..... his biggest problem was HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO DRIVE!...... LOL@Nader
He is what we call "UNSAFE IN ANY VEHICLE! EVEN WHEN IT IS PARKED!"
FILMSTRIPS! I remember helping show them, complete with the "bing" tone!
Robbi496 Showing your age Robbi!
I used the pause to turn the record.
Both good cars - yet the contemporary Valiant was superior to them both!
...said Hellen Keller - and Stevie Wonder agreed!
But the Studebaker Lark had the optional V8, up to 195 horsepower, and the Rambler Classic offered OHV sixes and the Rebel offered a V8 as well, and the Ambassador had a 327 rated 250 horses.
In 1960 Mopar made far better cars than either ford or chevrolet, and did so right into the 70's.
Funny stuff for sure.I'm old as dust and was a kid when they came out.The corvair was kinda cool but the falcon got the job done for a lot of people.I remember seeing a many a corvair broken down on the side of the road,along with those old renaults.
When i was 6 there was one in the family. I remember it well. I did not like it. I do remember it was getting fixed a lot.
The ford wagon was my favorite, heat that worked and a better radio. Torque that would push you back in the seat.
I restored a 1963 Sypder convertible. Seriously, antiques are antiques. I don't expect such cars to fit modern requirements ... and they do NOT! All the "Corvair issues" are real, but that only adds to the charm of the little car.
I would see a video on a comparison of the Ford Falcon to the Plymouth Valiant for 1960.
It was "No Contest" Both of these cars were junk The falcon was a slow POS, the Corvair would toss off it's fan belt & over heating and even a fire could occur. Actually the Valiant of the same era although ugly, was a far better car with a 3 speed Torqueflight transmission, bulletproof "Slant Six" engine.
You forgot to mention the Valiant's superior torsion bar suspension setup, and alternator :)
Slow POS? Falcon was available with a small block V8.
My Corvair did throw a belt once. It reset the timing and I had to limp to the mechanic I used.
If you opt for a manual transy Valiant, the shifter would be floor mounted, not on the hump but just beside it on the driver's side.
This is 2021, and I tell everyone how happy I'd be if I drove a 62 Plymouth Valiant or Dodge Lancer. No computer chips to worry about and the durable slant 6 engine. First Lady Mamie Eisenhower owned a 62 Plymouth Valiant and if a Valiant was good enough for her, then I'm really prepared to step up to the 1962 Plymouth Valiant.
These comparisons range from petty to significant, but overall, for a Ford salesman, many of them would be very helpful for pure practicality. If a buyer in 1960 was deciding between the Falcon and the Corvair, luggage space and the cramped position of the driver's left foot were important considerations for the usefulness of either car. The type of insulation on the ceiling and the composition of the decorative interior door panels, not so much. But if it could sway someone to buy a Ford, then by all means toss it out there.
The weirdness of the respective tire pressures for the front and rear Corvair wheels could have made an important difference in handling. I suspect, but don't remember for sure, that this could've been one of Ralph Nader's complaints against the car.
Cramped foot position and awkward clutch operation? When I shopped for a new pick-up a couple of years ago, the Tacoma looked better than the Frontier on paper, but there was no way for me to get a comfortable driving position in the Taco due to a poorly placed rearview mirror. I realized that having to slouch to see around the mirror was a far more intolerable situation than a couple of miles per gallon.
Haters of the corvair have no imagination or taste.
You need a lot of imagination to drive one of these POS. As it goes for taste I guess you think Mogan David is a premier wine.
I love my corvair loadside pickup
I hate Corvairs for a good reason. My friend had one that was nothing but trouble, I had to go rescue him when his Corvair quit running or had other bad trouble, several times !
That's not a good reason to hate a Corvair.
Any car is going to need proper care. And old cars are especially going to be cantankerous and/or faulty if their scheduled maintenance isn't done right.
And while the Corvair was an odd little car, certainly not known for its reliability per se, it wasn't an awful car when PROPERLY taken care of. So your friend either wasn't working the maintenance schedule, or he didn't go through the car when he first got it, to correct the damage that the previous owners' neglect may have caused.
@@1SqueakyWheel The valve covers on corvairs were flimsy and leaked oil, sending smoke and fumes into the passenger cmpartment.
As a teenager back in the 70s I remember in the high school parking lot there was some old Falcons still at work. Not so much for the Corvair.
For some reason I'm getting the feeling that there is no contest between the two lol
GM had to cut back on the furnishings, upholstery, carpeting, etc. on the Corvair because it was costing too much to build and the price per unit was going up.
BTW, you see alot more Corvairs on the road compared to Falcons, I would say.
Not around here. I can't remember the last one I saw. I've seen a Borgward Isabella, a Crosley HotShot, and even a Tucker, all being driven in traffic since the last time I saw a Corvair. Even a DKW!
My aunt and uncle bought a brand new VW Squareback in about 1966. It was leaps and bounds better than the Corvair or Falcon. It has always struck me odd that in the USA so many Beetles were sold and so few Squarebacks were sold. A lot of people my age never even remember seeing a Squareback in the 1960's. Also, we had a 1963 Falcon and it was nothing to brag about but was still a lot better than the Corvair. A Corvair was almost a novelty to own because it was SO different.
My family had multiple squarebacks when I was growing up. Even my Grandpa had one. They were basically bettles with more practical and useful features. They should have sold better.
How can one argue with this simple, unbiased fact filled film. Thank you Ford for this much needed public service educational format! i can't see how those scoundrels slinking around through those dark, dank, poorly lit hallways over at General Motors can show their faces in public after the sneaky underhanded way they tried to pull one over on the unsuspecting American public with the shoddy, poorly designed, cheaply made junk witnessed here! If only someone besides Ford cared...dared..to take on General Motors and the "Corvair" My owning a 1963 Ford Falcon, personally has absolutely no bearing on my views in This matter! God bless you Ford for all your good works!
I’m with you, that woman. Imagine if she wasn’t wearing slacks, and loosing 7 inches in the rear seat, while sitting between two big American women. Don’t get me started on no ashtrays in the backseat either. They could not even put one. What am I supposed to do after a ride between those two big American women. If I am driving, and have six big American friends with me. My big American woman is not going to be too happy to be sitting next to me, with that outdated shifter on the floor. I would end up having to rest my big American arm on her leg. Now, she would not enjoy that.
Shame on you Corvair. You don’t quite measure up. Just take your rear mounted engine, tucked between your rear wheels, and check your tire pressures before you go home. I am going to Dodge. It is not going to last, but until then, it will be fun. Thank you, Dodge brothers for all that you have created so far, and I have a feeling. I feel really weird saying this, but one day if I live long enough. I really believe that I could walk into any Dodge dealership an buy an over 700 horse powered vehicle, and that’s in different body designs. Imagine two door, four doors, station wagon, and trucks, all with over 700 horsepower, and a warranty to boot. But until then. I will stick with what Dodge pumps out, and when that one falls apart, onto the next I go. But for everyone else, you all need to
Go buy a Chevy.
I had one of each and liked them both. My Corvair Monza with turbo was fast, but prone to vapor lock. Not too good in Okla and Texas summers. Falcon was better made and was not prone to aqua planing, as was the Corvair on rainy streets. On balance, I prefer the Falcon.
Some of the corvair disadvantages are now considered to be the best designs today. i.e. Smaller steering wheel
I mean yeah but you have to bear in mind that this was the 60s:
Smaller steering wheel is a liability without power steering (the bigger wheel gives more leverage) And shifter on the floor is not something you want in a 6 passenger car: (unless you really like the middle passenger).
However the Corvair does have some some genuine advantages like a much better engine.
Falcon had slow, heavy steering. Corvair had quicker ratio and was lighter to park as no dead engine weight on steering wheels.
The Corvair looks much better and more modern
You got an awfull taste
If that "ding" noise dinged again I was gonna punch my screen. Made it half way before giving up.
Corvair had a gas(petrol ?) heater burning inside the front cargo area? Can anyone confirm this.
Steve Ala Thanks, I’ve since researched this. I’m flabbergasted I never came up against this fact before. XD
I saw bugs with gas heaters, but not corvairs. Air cooled cars stock heaters were barely functional.you could turn on gas heaters with 2 ft. Of snow on VW ,it would all melt in 5 min. In below zero Colorado mtn.
Obviously this film was produced by Ford.
Yes, it was a training film for Ford Dealership Sales Staff produced for Ford Motor Company.
The company that produced this training film did so for the Big Three Auto Makers of Ford, GM and Chrysler.
Corvair is much more sought after by collectors than the Falcon ever is, or will be.
Funny what five decades will do to collector value, eh? On the other hand, the Falcon platform became the foundation of the Mustang!
That depends on which version of the falcon you are referring to, the falcon version, or the mustang version.
I drove a 1962 Corvair for over five years and it was a dandy little car. It would do things I would never consider trying with another small car. It was a four door and 105 hp, four speed and it did get 25 MPG, would corner like a sports car and reliable as can be. The rear seat folded down too.
Having owned both, I will say , The Corvair, was a far better built car, the Falcon, loved to rust, and also had way less performance, , now just remember, Ralph Nader never owned one,
Ralph nater did own one...
This brought back so many memories because I drove both of those back in the day. My dad was a car salesman and I would go to work with him on Saturdays to clean cars and make extra money. Dad never let me take the Corvair out into the streets. Lot only. That car should never been made. Many people died.
BS. The Corvair was as safe as any car on the market.
Many people died? Show your evidence
Didn't Edie Adams very quietly threaten Chevrolet with a lawsuit when her husband, Ernie Kovacs, died in a Corvair in 1962? Did this result in a settlement?
Kovacs was intoxicated and leaving a late night party and was traveling at a high rate of speed when he attempted a 90 intersection in the rain . He was making a left turn but the car impacted on the driver's side indicating excessive speed .
Have you seen the pictures of the Kovacs death car? I some it can be seen clearly that the engine/transaxle had separated from the unit body. I have a friend who witnessed a Corvair losing its power train on a rough railroad crossing.
These US spec Falcons were released in Australia, with disastrous results regarding front ball joint failure. Couldn't handle our shit roads. It took Falcon till the mid sixties to get over that stuff up in the buying public's eyes. After that they became an Aussie icon till 2017, when production finally ended.
Ford Falcon Sprints were awesome little cars i like the 1964 and 1965 Sprints
Synopsis: With Falcon, you get the engine in the front. With Corvair, you get it in the rear.
The Falcon had a 23 cu ft trunk, sure like to see a big trunk like that on modern cars, way to many have trunks 10-12 cu ft.
Check out the figures for the Rambler Six or the Valiant.
The fact that they even made this is significant evidence that Ford, and others were very much concerned about the Corvair stealing their sales.
I would take the Corvair any day over the 1959-60 Falcon. While its front engine, rear-wheel drive layout may be what people are used to, with the Corvair, it has a fairly new look that no one has seen before.
My father didn't see this video, he bought the Corvair.
I'm sorry but if I can't smoke a cig while I'm gassing up I'm done 😂
If I were a customer in 1959/60, considering a Corvair and walked in to a Ford dealership to see what Ford had to offer, I would be convinced if the salesman showed me this filmstrip. And just for perspective, the $72 price difference mentioned equals $754 today. Not as trivial as it may sound today.
When the record turns over... 8:00 is that Dick Estell narrating?
All the cars back then were pretty cheaply made and most of the things they talked about were improved in subsequent years, but the Ford engineers, (and the GM engineers) failed to identify how much of a problem the rear swing axles would be. I only had to put my dad's '60 into a 180 position once to realize what not to do.... From that first ''60 to my last '68 they were always so much fun to drive.
Ford really called it with the Covair tire pressure....
the Falcon did beat the corvair for sure for 2 years till chevy came out the ChevyII /Nova
Regarding comment below: A big problem with the Ford Pinto engine is that it could easily be damaged if the oil became low or excessively dirty. Also, my 1976 Ford Pinto and 1982 Ford Escort were hard to start in the cold, and shaky once started . . unlike the '76 Chevy Chevette and a 1986 Mitsubishi-built Dodge Colt that I also owned. The latter two started like champs in cold weather. I think Ford made good large cars back then, but lousy small cars. Of course, Chevy also made the lousy Vega and Monza. Thus, Japanese cars became popular.
No engine will escape damage if the oil is allowed to get low or if the owner doesn't change it and it gets dirty. Oil does 3 things -- lubricates, cleans, cools.
I'm a GM man, but I'd take the Falcon over the Corvair. My brother had a 63 Falcon Futura convertible, 6/stick, bucket seats. It was a really nice car. My cousins had several Corvairs. They were OK, but always leaked oil. I don't like the gasloine heater in the 60 Corvair. I don't think they're safe at all. That was eliminated in 1961, a big impovement.
Don't forget to mention the Ford Cop car "Crown Victoria" fireballs.
Admittedly, if you collide with most any vehicle at high speed, the chances of rupturing the fuel tank are pretty high. However, the Crown Vic tank was placed between the rear differential and the trunk. Those tanks popped like a PIMPLE !
The fuel tanks on virtually all rear wheel drive cars were placed between the rear bumper and axle at one time, for decades. In all of the cases involving the crown vic fires they were hit at speeds of around 70 mph and higher.
We Australians are probably lucky the Corvair was never available in Australia. My dad had a 1963 Ford Falcon Futura four door, it had a gorgeous red and chrome interior, separate front seats with a chrome lidded console in between, full carpeting, padded dashboard, tinted band laminated windscreen, reversing lights, 170 cubic inch six, not the asthmatic two speed automatic but a three speed column shift manual.
The Corvair was available down under in 1960. I have magazines from Australia featuring Corvair i.
And he winner is... The Valiant!
Boy oh boy you can see how they move the front seat all the way forward on the corvair.... and all the way back on the falcon until they look in the back seat then they move both the other way around. and they remove the shift boot on the corvair. Just to say unfinished look (after they take parts off the corvair they claim it unfinished. ....... I say they should take it out on the road and the corvair would put the falcon back in it's place! ( I have never had an overheat with a corvair ...... but have on the weak engine on the falcon. And the corvair like the VW bug is extreamly good off road!
Holy crap. The beginning of this video is freakin scary
"The falcon is way ahead" except nobody at Ford or GM could be bothered to include seat belts in either car...
Not to mention those shitty old cross ply tyres both cars were wearing.
@@farnthboy You mean those Hostess Donettes? Yeah, really pathetic.
My '61 Corvair had seat belt attachment points in the front, but no seat belts. I added them soon after buying it in 1966.
It sounds like I should wait for the 1965 Corvair. Thanks Ford for selling me a Corvair!