From: Gene McAloon 

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:21:33 +1200, dmhills{at}attglobal.net (Don Hills) wrote:

>In article ,
>"Tony Ingenoso"  wrote:
>>Nader dissed the Corvair unfairly.  If tires were inflated with differential
pressures as recommended, the overstear could be
>>minimzed.  Hard in the front, soft in the back was a formula for disaster
though.   Later models that went to IRS completely
>>eliminated the jacking issues associated with the swing axel.
>
>Uh huh. And Joe Sixpack knew to maintain his tyre pressures accordingly?
>I think not.

Millions of people drove those swing axle VWs and early Corvairs and experienced
no problems. The auto magazines faulted them for that swing-axle design
because their test drive routines put the cars through maneuvers that the
average motorist never experiences.  It was only under those test drive
conditions that the faults of the swing axle design became apparent.

Nadir never bothered to draw the distinction between normal driving and
test drive conditions. Whether that was deliberate or simple ignorance it
its hard to
say. Certainly he was right in claiming there was really no excuse for using the
swing axle design when similar cars selling at the same price, the rear
engined/rear drive Renaults for example, didn't use it.  Renault didn't
make the
mistake of using an air-cooled engine either.

GM's mistake with the Corvair is that it chose to copy the lousiest design
out there, the swing axle/air cooled VW. But then, it was that design that
was selling well in the US, not the better designed Renaults.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5