Somebody just tipped me off a few days ago about a 170ci '63 Falcon, original paint and interior, all pretty damn good for being 48 years old. It's been parked since 1977 inside a garage without moving. I have a '62 Corvair that I got as my first car 2 years ago and I've replaced all the brake lines, rebuilt the carbs, done most everything I need to drive it but I put it in gear and it won't move above 5. New Powerglide isn't a problem, there are a few laying around but to paint and do the interior on my car is another 1000 or so bucks I'm ***uming, and a motor would be another grand. I could also sell the thing (GREAT time to do that) if I do all the rust repair and primer it if it's running and driving with new brakes a few months down the road. It would be cheaper to buy the Falcon than make my Corvair as nice as I want it. I got a quote from a very fine engine builder for 800 bucks for a rebuild on my 200ci Falcon.. They're both in the 20 second quarter mile, but which one is superior? Here's some reading material. This is sort of stupid but considering selling my first car I've gotta put SOME thought into it.
what year corvair? if 63 falcons are anything like the 64-65 mustangs handling wise (they should be they both have the same front suspensions) it would be a hard call if that falcon has been sitting as long as you say its gonna need ALOT to make it road worthy if not right away it will very shortly after you start driving it is the corvair a driver? if it is stick with it you'll be money ahead in the long run are you a chevy guy or a ford guy? or do you just buy whatever id take a ford over MOST chevys anyday its your call which car do you like better , your the one who has to live with your decision
I have a 61 vair w/ the powerglide, so you know where my vote is.. Although, a friend had a 63 falcon for a while and it was a neat car too.. So maybe I'm not much help.. Know what?? You already have a bunch of love into the corvair, and it is the only first car you'll ever have.. Stick with it, make it run and drive, build and engine later. But don't drive it in the snow.. Trust me.
Pick the FALCON!I left the rear engine air cooled stuff(foriegn) behind after helping a buddy with his 62 Falcon wagon.I now have a 62 two door myself.90% of the parts for the running gear for these cars can be had pretty cheap at the boneyard or the corner parts stores.Almost everything on the underside will interchange with the 70's granada/fairmount,including the 8 inch rear being a direct bolt in.the disk brakes,upper and lower control arms will also bolt onto the falcon.A 30 dollar master cylinder and you have a complete up to date running gear.I have less than 3 grand in my car including the purchase price.Also anything you want new is repopped through alot of diffrent vendors.Just something to think about.
my falcon is my first car I've ever bought so I claim it as my first car. considered selling it but I can't now. it's been too fun to get rid of. I wouldn't sell the corvair. you could convert it to a front engine car and put in a v8 and be fast!!!!!
There's a paragraph or two about the Corvair in that book. Made a big deal about the swing axles, did'nt mention the VW that has the exact same set-up. Dumn!!! As far as your car delima; Get a Valiant.
I had a 66 Corvair and a Greenbriar van both with 4spds and loved them both. A good friend had an 63 automatic Corvair and it was a real turd. I would never own an automatic Corvair. It was a running joke about his turd. He used it to commute down town and it was a very low mileage car when he got it. I thought that they were scary for their lack of power. With a 4spd, you can keep the engine RPMs in it's narrow power band. With the 2 spd Power Glide you can't. It's no fun to drive. I love stick Corvairs. It's the automatic ones that I'll never own. If the Falcon is a stick, I think you would enjoy it more. Another friend was a big Falcon fan back then but I never drove any.
Ralph Nader couldn't find the engine in a Corvair...even if you put a "Look In The Rear, Dummy!" sign on the hood! I really like both. But I am of the "different is better" school, so I'd pick the 'Vair!
Currently owning two Corvairs (61 & 66) and two Falcons (63 and 65) I would argue that superiority is all about personal bias. Choose the car you like better because no matter which one you end up with someone out there will tell you that you are crazy. Of the two you are comparing, neither in stock form is very fast or are stellar handlers although both respond well to mods. While the Falcon may be more conventional, there are several Corvair spe******ts and vendors ****tered throughout the country so if you shop wisely costs are not all that horribly different. You mentioned rust, depending on how bad that could be your main deciding factor.
I had a '61 Corvair automatic and it was a real dog! I personally would choose the Falcon because of the easy small block install later down the road. Untill you actually drive the 'vair on the road registered and tagged it isn't actually your first car. I grew up in the sticks and had four cars before my '41 Chevy pick-up on the road which I consider my "first' car. IMHO It's totally up to you!
Love them both, but would have to vote with the Falcon. Parts availability and "updateability" are much better with the Ford. I have had my '62 for thirty years, and the girlfriends Ranchero joined the flock last spring. That said, A friend is currently sell a '62 Corvair and she is jumping up and down begging to buy that too! Keep them both, but all things equal, I bet you drive the Falcon more.
They were meant to be comparable at the time. Resale value for a 60-63 Corvair is slim, much less if it has an automatic, no resale if it's a 4 door, and you'll have to pay someone to take it if it needs rust repair and it won't drive above 5mph. You might as well finish what you started. At least then, you'll have a driver that you can sell. Falcons and Corvairs are easy to find. FWIW, Nader fabricated his data. The NTSB proved him wrong later, but that has been covered ad nauseum everywhere... yet these myths persist.
It's always tempting to think, that you can buy another project for what it'll cost to finish the first one. But that's usually because you don't see the cost that the second one will need. The danger here is that you'll buy another project before finishing the first, and then you'll tear into it until you get to a point where something expensive needs to be done. Then you'll want to look around for something else, something that needs less work to finish. The money you save buying the Falcon is wasted when you have to dump your unfinished Corvair for pennies on the dollar considering the time and money you've spent on it. And you don't want to end up with 2 unfinished projects. I suggest sticking it out with the first project and seeing it through. It's not about which car is better than the other, it's about seeing your vision through to the end and not getting tied up in the "investment" part of it.
what kind of question is this ? Put the beer down & think . bowties rule ...... But not always. 68 VAIR...4 CARBS...4 GEAR 62 COMET (SHAME THING) S22
Only 140 Corvair motors had 4 carbs. Most had only 2, even in '68. 4 speeds were more common, but you also find 3 speeds and Powerglides. Suspension changed dramatically in 65 models as did the body, so comparing a '68 Corvair to a '62 Merc is like comapring apples to oranges. '62 to '62 would be a better comparison
As someone already said, Nader was proven to be full of **** years ago, but people still point at "Unsafe At Any Speed" as if it's some sort of gospel. Nader didn't even have a driver's license; how much stock would you put in a *** manual that was written by a virgin? I'm with Tommy---4 speed 'vairs are fun little cars, PG 'vairs are not. That being said, I owned a '60 Falcon with an automatic once---for about three days! Guys on ten speed bikes p***ed me pulling a grade. Even turbocharged Spyders can still be had reasonable, and my '63 was lots of fun. Radials make a night and day difference on Corvairs. Trivia: the Corvair Monza was what inspired Lee Iacocca to come up with the Mustang.
The Jalopy Journal
