When Chris Poole (2019, 2013) waxed nostalgic about 1965’s “groovy” cars, he also revived an ugly auto buff media practice of yore: Let’s vilify Ralph Nader! Poole is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Poole blamed Nader for the demise of the 1965-66 Corvair Corsa. In a post for The Daily Drive, Poole wrote that Nader was “starting to crucify” the Corvair just as a better-handling 1965 model came out. “But what did he know?” Poole asked.
The Corvair’s bland, corporate ads contrasted with the offbeat approach used by Volkswagen (Old Car Advertisements).
The better question is, “What does Poole know?” If he had read Nader’s book, Unsafe at Any Speed, Poole would have seen an image from Car Life magazine that showed the superiority of the 1965 Corvair’s independent rear suspension compared to the earlier version’s swing axle (1966, p. 13).
Poole went on to blame Nader for weak 1965 sales of the high-end Corsa model. This is problematic for two reasons.
First, Corsa output was 65 percent higher than the previous year’s equivalent model, the Monza Spyder. Second, Unsafe at Any Speed was not published until November 30, 1965 (Wikipedia, 2014). This was too late to impact 1965 model year sales.
Poole ignored Mustang’s impact on Corvair
Poole was correct to suggest that Nader’s critique helped fuel a 61 percent drop in total Corvair output for 1966. However, since he focused on the Corsa, Poole might have noted that its 1966 output was less than 7 percent lower than that of the 1964 Monza Spyder’s.
More importantly, Poole did not point to the Ford Mustang’s impact on the Corvair. For 1965 Mustang output almost reached 560,000. Then, in 1966 production hit 608,000. This was remarkably high for a two-door hardtop. As a point of comparison, in 1964 Chevrolet produced less than 443,000 units of its best-selling Impala sport coupe.
The auto editors of Consumer Guide state in The Encyclopedia of American Cars (2006) that General Motors had already decided in April 1965 — well before Nader’s book was published — to stop the Corvair’s development. Meanwhile, How Stuff Works, another website that includes Consumer Guide content, states point blank:
“Contrary to myth, the Corvair was not scrubbed because of Ralph Nader’s attacks. Chevrolet documents examined by several writers prove that the word had been passed to start development of a front-engine, rear-drive car in 1964, before the new Corvairs hit the streets. This was likely prompted by the phenomenal success of the Mustang. . . . ” (auto editors of Consumer Guide,2014)
1964-65 Pontiac GTO outsold the Spyder/Corsa
One might also add that the Mustang’s success happened at the same time that sales took off for GM’s mid-sized sporty coupes. For example, once the Pontiac Tempest was upsized from a compact in 1964, output almost doubled for its LeMans model. In addition, a high-performance GTO variant generated almost 33,000 units. This was three times as many as the Monza Spyder. In 1965 GTO production rocketed to 75,000 units and in 1966 hit 96,000.
The graph below compares Corvair production with that of the LeMans and GTO. The GTO started as an optional package in 1964 and become a separate nameplate in 1965. At that point Pontiac added a four-door body style to the LeMans line, but it averaged less than 6 percent of output from 1965-68.
In 1965 Corvair production rose 19 percent but was less than half that of the Mustang. In contrast, the sporty versions of Pontiac’s Tempest saw production double between 1964-68.
Meanwhile, Volkswagen’s sales were also booming in the mid-60s, but they wouldn’t hit a half-million until 1968. This is why GM could logically conclude that more cars could be sold by ditching its early-60s experiments in exotic engineering in favor of V8-powered American iron.
The Corvair’s future was shaky even without Nader
Poole did make one good point — the 1965 Corsa was quite beautiful and roadworthy. But in the end he blamed the wrong party for the car’s demise.
The sad truth is that, even in better circumstances, the Corvair’s days were numbered. If the car never had safety issues that drew Nader’s ire, its rear engine would still have limited its long-term viability as anything but a sports car along the lines of a Porsche 911 (go here for a what-if scenario of a front-engined Corvair).
Poole’s factually-challenged rant would be more understandable if it had been posted on some obscure blog. However, The Daily Drive is associated with Consumer Guide Automotive, which is one of the more prominent auto media enterprises in the U.S.
You’d think that its army of writers would have access to basic information — and that editors would fact check.
You’d also think that when readers raised questions about a story’s accuracy — as some did about Poole’s post — that editors would either fix the problem or pull the story. That has not happened thus far. Instead, Poole’s piece has been reposted and critical comments have disappeared.
Might sloppy history like this drive readers tothe likes of Curbside Classic and Ate Up With Motor? Both of these websites have offered a more nuanced discussion about the Corvair’s fall (Niedermeyer, 2012; Severson, 2010).
NOTES:
This is an updated version of a story originally posted September 6, 2014. Production figures are from the Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975 (Gunnell, 2002) and Standard Catalog of Volkswagen (Gunnell, 2004).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
The marketing wizards are trying to present the 2022 Wagoneer as a big grand deal; a triumphant return of a legendary nameplate. The only problem is that the forthcoming new Jeep is as generic as […]
Peter DeLorenzo (2023) recently raised a useful point: Too many of today’s auto industry executives “have no concept of historical perspective at all.” His full column is worth a read, but here’s a key passage: […]
(EXPANDED FROM 1/24/2022) The LTD was one of Ford’s biggest successes in the 1970s because it attacked General Motors’ hierarchy of brands in multiple ways. After failing to beat the popular Impala at its own […]
Be the first to comment