Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
On the serious downside, they are wound up so tight at 70 mph it is really annoying to drive them. The axle ratio must be like 4:56 or something.
Fitting a 5-speed from a European model would be a great idea for this car.
The P1800 is another rock solid sporty car from the 60s, and with fuel injection and some good IPD performance components they can move out nicely. Bone stock they are kind of a slug, with heavy steering.
Major downside on this car is the seating position. Next time you see one go by, look at the driver and you tell me if he doesn't look like a groundhog popping his head up from his hole.
350/450/500 SLs absolutely, but not the 230/250/280SLs, not then and certainly not now when the majority of owners are middle aged professional MEN.
To me the earlier cars were very strong looking with their wide track and squared corners. I am aware that they are not sports cars the way 911s or Lotus Elans are sports cars, more like a, ahem,
gentlemen's express.
The 350/450/560SLs are certainly favored by the ladies. I don't think I know a single female that doesn't like those, I'm relatively unimpressed.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
If you sit in a 280SL, it really has some femininetouches. Very dainty gearshift, that big but oh so dainty Martha Stewart steering wheel. Little tiny heat and air levers, that pagoda roof letting the sun in. It's so romantic, isn't it?
I always feel when I'm driving one that I'm for sure going to break something.
Of course, one could argue that the neck-snapping automatic is a man's trans, that's for sure...LOL!
In my experience Z's tend to turn into a pile of iron oxide with an engine in the middle.
Other than the rust problem they were great cars. The 260 and 73 240 were dogs in stock form but a few mods made them perform well. The introduction of the 280ZX pretty much took it out of the sports car category.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
This may have been the original "segment-buster".
Was it a Sportscar, Pony car or Sedan?
Any other nominees?
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
It wasn't the fastest, best-handling or even best looking but there's something about them that for me captures the essence of what 60s sports cars were all about. I came lose to buying a '65 Mk. III in 1967 and I still regret that I didn't (I was afraid that NYC potholes would wreak havoc on that low-hanging exhaust system).
The emissions and crash testing laws of 1968 doomed the 3000 and it's replacement in the '70s,the Jensen-Healey was a huge disappointment, utterly lacking the style and presence of the 3000 but not lacking the design flaws that plagued all British cars of the era.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
While not as refined as a Mercedes, the Corvair handles great, sounds great. The flat six is smooth...no vibration. I have a late model (65) turbo. Bone stock, 265 ftlbs gross torque. Goes like scat. More of a sports car than the Mustang, Camaro.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
However, as clumsy as it was, it did have a few commendable features in my opinion. The brakes, while only drums, where as good as any import of the time, and the ride on the highway was extremely comfortable. Also, for the price, build quality was much better than Falcon or Valiant.
Also to the car's credit--a clever owner could, in fact, make it steer and handle like a sports car with only a few modifications--modifications that GM could easily have done. Stiffer roll bars, good radial tires, Koni shocks, a quicker steering ratior using different track rods, etc., and a short-shifter kit. John Fitch, racing car driver of renown, actually did this to Corvairs and called them "Fitch Corvairs".
If you like Corvairs and you want to see what the car COULD have been, you should drive a Fitch someday.
The Mercedes W112 300SE (1967), which my Dad owned had swing axles in the back. I also owned a '72 Pugeout 504, with a trailing arm rear suspension. Rivals a Mercedes on the highway. I know these are not sports cars, but the suspension techology is the same.
Lotus I think built the best handling cars, but the Corvair is a better touring-transportation vehicle. No way does it handle like a typical American car. Also, in '66 the trans switched from Saginaw to Muncie (?). American cars can shift pretty well. MAy examples here
The W112 300SE (1967), a 280SEL4.5.
First, Car and Driver defined the gen2 Corvair as the best-handling American of the time, vesting even the Corvette. And before I get a knee-jerk reaction about THAT assessment, allow me to say that it was the very time I was in the midst of Alfa ownership.
In fact, the local Alfa dealer in Chicago, where I lived at the time and bought my first two Alfas, was very taken with the Corvair. The VP of the company raced a Stage Two Yenko Stinger that he further modified, and cleaned the track with.
These cars, however imperfect, were powerful, handled extremely well for the time, and were just flat beautiful, styling-wise. The proportions were perfect, and it had the usual understated Chevy detailing that most of us have come to know and love. That GM abandoned this car is just one more nail in the coffin of my disdain for that stupid corporation.
Much as I hate to defend GM, they dropped it because it wasn't selling, and it wasn't selling because it wasn't what the market wanted by 1966. Maybe if GM had taken the Corvair to Fitch Corvair levels there would have been a very small "tea bagger" market for it. But it was both ahead of its time and behind the times to have much appeal to the mainstream market. In fact, the Corvair might not have lasted as long as it did if it hadn't been for the '62 Monza psuedo-sportscar that virtually created a new market niche. The Mustang took that formula and ran with it, right over the Corvair.
I really, really want to spit coffee up my nose when you use the term "sportscar" and "Corvair" in the same breath. It's a perfectly nice little harmless passenger car, and I LOVE the styling of this car, but I simply cannot see even the remotest connection to the precise handling, shifting and steering of an Alfa Romeo of the 60s. As for a Mercedes of the 60s, they aren't sports cars either, so if you wish to compare handling, I have no problem with that. The 230-25-280SL was also a pretty clunky handler with a terrible shifter and weird power curve. BMW had the snappy 1602 at the time of the Corvair, but I'm sure it would run rings around a Corvair even today, if for no other reason that it would outbrake it in the turns and certainly steer much faster.
You go out in a stock 1965 Coprvair and push it hard and you are in deep kim-chee. Do be careful! Remember, Car and Driver is comparing it to 1965 Buicks and Ford Galaxies. Your mom's sofa could handle better than those cars.
This is why Fitch and Yenko and others did the modifications, isn't it?. They were sorely needed. The Corvair needed better tires, a better shifter, quicker steering, firmer shocks and springs, different carburation to improve response, and ideally, different gear ratios. And this is exactly what the pros did to make it a really nice handling and driving car.
GM should have done this out of the box, but they didn't. And Mustang stole the show with a far less technically interesting car. Goodbye American Porsche, it coulda been in 5 more years.
But 5 turns on the huge steering wheel makes the car very forgiving in fast highway sweepers.
The brake setup works pretty well.
And, the shifter well it doesn't take to downshifts very well but that is not a great necessity with the flat-6.
And remember, the XK chassis and basic running gear won Lemans any number of times. I can't imagine a Corvair doing that no matter what the modifications. If nothing else, it would not endure.
I drove a Fitch Corvair many times, and as good as it was, even that wouldn't qualify as a sports car in my definition, because it was simply too big and the engine just didn't have the revability and "heart" of a sportscar. The Fitch was more of a modest muscle car in look and feel.
But I loved that car and I wish I had one. It was tail-happy, though, you had to respect it.
I imagine one reason GM slowed up the steering in the gen2 was in response to criticisms of the gen1, whose steering was so quick and the chassis so unbalanced it led to Nader's crusdae against it (and GM's gutless defense).
As for slow sales, I have a feeling they were do much more to Detroit's lack of commitment to small cars than anything else. Detroit has ALWAYS been half-hearted about small cars, and their ambivalence rubs off in their products, marketing and reception by the car-buying public. Somehow, in the midst of Detroit's hand-wringing over Americans' lack of desire for smaller cars, the lowly and primitive VW bug stole their hearts and paved the way for the Japanese invasion of the 70s.
Fact is, the Corvair was, at least potentially, a far more attractive propostion than the cars that followed. The car was small, but it didn't look cheap, and the potential for awesome levels of performance and handling was there from the beginning. That GM chose to abandon it and start over again (as they do repeatedly, when things don't go they're way instantly) just shows their lack of vision and commitment to product.
I had forgotten about the slow steering--it's been thirty years since I've driven a Corvair--but they had a few of the essential ingredients of a "sporty" car. For one thing, Corvairs were fun. They were involving, especially if you drove an early one hard. And with their oversteer Corvairs could hold their own with more powerful machinery on a tight winding road, as long as you drove like you wouldn't mind going over a cliff tail first.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
One, They set it up to give a small amount of boost up way, way up on the rpm band, for a motor that hated to rev in the first place. What were they thinking on this one? Maybe they thought that with the same CID as a Porsche it would run like one? Pushrods, hydraulic lifters and low compression didn't make it a very lively powerplant.
Two, the engineering for the turbo was not very refined, as it was designed so that the turbo drew air/fuel mixture into itself from a single carburator (turbo between carb and engine). Modern designs of course ram the turbo air into the intake prior to introduction of fuel.
Three, The intake geometry was not very efficient by modern standards (well, pioneers often make mistakes, that's a given, there was no textbook to go by.
Top speed was 100 mph and 0-60 was 10 seconds. Not a fast car, but considerably faster than a stock Corvair and as good as most inexpensive sportscars of the day.
To GMs credit, Porsche didn't figure out a good turbo system until 1976, and Saab until around 1979, so maybe automotive science needed to catch up a bit, and 1962 was too soon for this innovation.
As for Porsche, they have managed to take a wickedly treacherous car and refine it over the years in such a way that the inherent weaknesses of the concept have been completely neutralized. That's called "commitment" (although, to be fair to GM, Porsche tried to move away from the rear-engine concept themselves, and were only prevented from doing so by their legions of crazed American fans).
However, the first 930s could really bite you if you got silly. The problem, as I understand it, was the turbo lag on these early cars. The cars had a lot of power and if you put power down while the car was unstable or turning, you'd go from nothing to everything and suddenly tons of power on the rear wheels. Well, you can imagine. On the bright side, it was a good way to get rid of obnoxious drug dealers.
If you want treacherous, there are some good candidates. The Tatra V-8, the first VWs, the first Corvairs, the first Kawasaki 750 motorcycle. I've driven all of them, and I would say I got some bad feelings while underway. (front fork shimmy at 80 mph often requires new underwear) Generally, it is under-engineered suspension that causes problems, and that takes testing, development and a few years on the road of experience.
Most sports cars of the 60s are still really fun to drive. Without power steering and fat tires, and if the steering mechanism are good and tight, you get a sensation that modern cars cannot duplicate. There is a kind of "feedback" from these older 60s sportscars that has been completely lost in the modern car, along with a lot of the fun. In a sense, the modern driver is getting more and more isolated from the road, even though his car is putting up some great handling numbers.
Some of the most fun I ever had was coming down the mountain from Big Bear in my TRD-suspensioned 96 Tercel. You could put that car into a perfect drift and just dance all the way down. Lovely.
I was watching a World Rally Cup race. The TV camera was mounted in the car, and you got to experience a lot of slippin' and sliddin' around icy turns. While WRC cars have AWD and tenacious grip, the visual experience was much the same as an old Austin Healey Bugeye Sprite driven on skinny tires at 10/10th.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Still fun, and something that little Tercel did really well...
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
The Morgan-You could argue it's really a 1930s car but today's Morgan Plus 4/4 is pretty close to the Morgan V-8 that debuted in the late '60s(if I remember correctly.
The Lotus 7-lives on as the Caterham Seven and it looks and goes pretty much like the Lotus original.
The 911-sure it's changed a lot what with the water-cooling and all but spiritually it's close to the original Type 901/911.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93