What to Buy: Corvair vs Falcon vs Valiant!

In their January 1960 issue, Motor Trend tested the three new compact cars from the Big Three. All were four-door sedans equipped with manual transmissions and were deluxe trim level cars. Thirty-seven years later SIA attempted to recreate this test. It was not easy because 1960 Corvairs, Fal­cons and Valiants are not easy to find at this late date. There are still a few out there, most not running or in such tired condition that they are not suitable for a comparison report. We ended up using photographs of a Valiant from Sacramento, California, that had been the subject of a previous SIA drive report. The Falcon was found at the famous Knott’s Berry Farm All Ford Picnic in Anaheim, California. The Corvair was the most difficult of all three to locate. Eventually we found one at the Peterson Automotive Museum in Los Angeles. We never did find three cars with standard transmissions; all three tested had auto­matic transmissions, meaning that the performance times were not quite as fast as in the original Motor Trend comparison.

A comparison of these first year US compacts was a controversial subject in 1960. Now that these cars have fallen into collectordom, any comparison is probably an even more controversial subject. We suspect that not every reader will agree with our conclusions, especially our disappointment with the Cor­vair. Just remember, we compared all three as introduced in late 1959, not as improved later on. Our analysis agrees mostly with the Motor Trend comparison of January 1960 and disagrees in some detail with the Popular Mechanics comparison of January 1960. Clearly, even the contemporary press was not entirely in agreement when comparing these three makes.

The engines of all three compacts were the first engines designed specifically to fit compact American cars. Each manufacturer took a different approach, Chevrolet the most different approach of all three.

1960 corvair

The Corvair, with its air-cooled rear engine, is arguably more competitive with Volkswagen than with Falcon or Valiant. The Corvair we tested is a mostly restored Deluxe Series 700 four-door sedan with two-speed Powerglide. The car was restored by Jeffery P. Williams, of Anaheim Hills, California, and then do­nated to the Peterson Automotive Mu­seum.

The engine is a flat “pancake” six with opposed cylinders, air-cooled, aluminum block, 139.6-c.i.d. with hy­draulic lifters and two single-throat Rochester downdraft carburetors, one for each bank of three cylinders. Alumi­num was used to prevent excessive rear-end weight. The compression ratio is 8:1, lowest of the three engines. It develops 80 horsepower @ 4,400 rpm, the least horsepower of all three cars tested. A lower compression ratio and lower horsepower than the other two was dictated by the air-cooled engine, which ran hotter than a water-cooled engine. The rear-engine layout required cylinders opposed in pancake fashion to keep down the overall length. This re­quired special carburetion, which made it difficult to obtain maximum fuel economy. Another unusual feature of the Cor­vair engine is lack of crankshaft coun­terweights. The crankshaft weighs only 25 pounds.

This engine, plus the suspension system and rear-mounted transaxle drive, makes the Corvair so unique. The front suspension is independent ball joint with coil springs and long and short control arms. The rear suspension, also independent, has swing axles with angle arms and coil springs.

The Corvair sits on a 108-inch wheelbase, is 180 inches overall and stands a mere 51.5 inches off the ground. The body is unitized.

The only body style available at introduction time, October 2, 1959, was the four-door sedan, offered in two series. In January 1960 a two-door club coupe was added. In February there was a sporty Monza club coupe with front bucket seats. By this time a much-needed 95-horsepower engine and an optional four-speed manual transmission were available for all models. This was a unique “four-on-the-floor.” Most all cars at that time (other than the Valiant three-speed) had the manual transmission shifter on the steering column.

Sitting behind the wheel, one feels more like he is in a sports car than a scaled-down version of a full-sized Am­er­ican car. The only disadvantage to this sports car position arrangement is that a tall or long-legged person will feel cramped due to limited seat adjustment. While rear seat width and leg room are quite adequate for three people, the front seat is a tight squeeze for more than two even though there is no transmission tunnel. Thin window posts and a wide expanse of glass, especially the massive curved rear window, provide for excellent visibility.

Instrumentation is simple but adequate, and regrettably has only two red warning lights, one for engine temperature and oil pressure, the other for generator and fan. Proper tension of the fan belt, monitored by these warning lights, is far more critical than with a water-cooled engine. The only gauge on the instrument panel, other than the speed­ometer, is for fuel. The automatic shift lever is not on the column but on the instrument panel to the right of the driv­er. Its detents are Low, Drive, Neutral and Reverse, no Park. The tiny shifter takes some getting used to and is not particularly easy to read, even when il­luminated at night. To start the Corvair you must press the accelerator all the way down to the floor, then turn the ig­nition key to start. The parking brake is neither a foot pedal nor notched release. It is an old-fashioned handle set horizontally under the instrument panel.

Two widely separated, single-throat downdraft carburetors on the Corvair receive their air supply through a common air cleaner. Intake air to the cleaner is through an oval tube in which the choke butterfly and automatic choke mechanism are housed. A slight depression on the foot throttle “cocks” the butterfly in choke position, and the starter is then engaged in the conventional manner by turning the ignition key to the right. Rapid transmission of heat through the aluminum cylinder head and thermostatic control of both engine (through the oil radiator) and air (through the plenum chamber or shroud around the cylinder head and barrels), allow rapid engine warm-up. The Corvair engine, being air cooled, is en­tirely dependent on the curiously routed fan belt and the blower to supply a sufficient volume of air for cooling purposes. A carburetor heat control valve must be adjusted for seasonal operation. This is no instrument panel control. The adjustment is right at the carburetor.

Short overhang provides good clearance for ramps and driveways, but we were disappointed at the large, 39-foot turning circle required for the short, 108-inch wheelbase. Five turns lock-to-lock also seemed like a lot for such a small car. The lightness of the steering is extremely satisfying.

You might think that there would be a lot of noise from the rear engine, but there isn’t. There is also very little wind noise unless the vent windows are opened to the maximum. Zero to 60 time of 23–24 seconds is better than the Falcon’s, and not nearly as good as the Valiant’s. Top speed of about 85 mph makes it adequate on the highway.

While we found the Corvair adequate on the freeways, we were very disappointed on sharp hilly corners. It was not simply a case of slow steering but a strong tendency to oversteer, and we ex­perienced rear-wheel shudder on sharp corners. We also noted excessive body lean. For a car that has all the first impressions of a sports car the Corvair is a big disappointment. (See “Unsafe at Any speed,” page 25.) On the positive side, the rear-engined Corvair has good traction on dirt roads and wet surfaces. More­over, the four-wheel independent suspension smoothes out washboard roads and chuckholes better than either the Falcon or Valiant.

Another thing we disliked was trunk space. Like the Tucker, the trunk is up in the front. Normally there is more en­gine room than trunk room; hence if you move the engine to the rear you would think you would have more trunk space. This is not the case with the Corvair. It has only 10 cubic feet of usable luggage space, not even half that of the Falcon. Moreover, the heater is located in this front luggage compartment. However, there is room behind the rear seat, and an optional fold-down rear seat makes the Corvair a handy hauler. The heater is a gas heater and was standard equipment in 1960. In 1961 and 1962 it was optional. When this heater was operating it lowered the gas mileage even more than the figures we have quoted.

Our overall impression is that it is put together better than the Valiant, but not as well as the Falcon. On the highway it rides every bit as well as the Falcon and Valiant but falls short of both of them on curvy, hilly roads. While overall it is not a bad car, it should be better considering its unique engineering, and it certainly should be easier on gas than it is.

Overall, we were disappointed in the Corvair, and the biggest disappointment of all is the gas mileage with Powerglide, 18 mpg average, 22 mpg best, and 17 worst.

Stopping is excellent. Whether it is stop­ping hard at high speed or stopping suddenly in traffic, the Corvair’s drum brakes do an excellent job, aided by the extra weight in the rear from the engine.

1960 Corvair History and Development

The 1960 Corvair was not directly competitive with the Falcon and Valiant. Ob­vious­ly, Chevrolet was more interested in beating Volkswagen at its own game with a somewhat larger and definitely more Am­ericanized car. Initially, the Corvair had two trim levels, the base 500 and the deluxe 700. They were offered in a two-door coupe, and four-door sedan which was far more popular the first year. Four months into the year a Monza 900 coupe was added. It had front bucket seats and featured upgraded trim. This soon became the most popular Corvair and led to the Cor­vair becoming more of an enthusiast’s car than a true compact There were no Corvair station wagons the first year.
By 1962, Corvair production, including Green­briers, reached 310,538. That year the smartly styled Monza convertible was introduced. This same year the now highly collectible Spyder package became available for Monza convertible and club coupe only. The Spyder featured a turbo-charger that boosted the pancake engine’s horsepower from 102 to 150.
But the Corvair came increasingly un­der attack. First there was Ralph Nader and his infamous book, Unsafe at Any Speed. The motoring press also criticized its handling and safety.
For 1965, Chevrolet introduced a second-generation Corvair that pretty much overcame the objections to the original models. However, by this time the Corvair had such a reputation for being an unsafe car that sales slipped dramatically, and early in 1969 the car was discontinued.

1960 Corvair what to pay*

• Low: $2,598
• Average: $13,842
• High: $47,300

*2024 Classic.com

1960 ford falcon

The Falcon we tested in Fullerton, California, has quite a history. Owner Erkan Tan’s mother bought the car new, then drove it for 25 years and nearly 400,000 miles. In 1986 Erkan Tan began a 10-year, ground-up restoration on the car to restore it to the showroom condition that his mother bought it in 37 years ago. She bought it new from Beverly Hills Ford for $2,099. That price included Fordomatic, white sidewall tires, radio, heater/defroster and the safety package “A.” In restoring the car, Erkan added many accessories, but not air-conditioning, which was not available until 1961.

The Falcon is the most conventional of the three makes. Even its styling is like that of a scaled-down full-sized car. The Falcon we tested was a four-door sedan with two-speed Fordomatic, the deluxe exterior trim package and loads of options. The overhead-valve, 144.3-c.i.d. in­-line six engine has a single carb mounted on the side, and develops 90 horsepower at 4,200 rpm, 10 more horsepower than the Corvair. Compres­sion ratio is 8.7:1. You would never guess this in performance. Cursory ex­amination of this engine could lead one to the conclusion that it is very conventional. But this is not quite the case. To begin with, the head and intake manifold are cast as one unit. Then there is extensive use of aluminum, fewer parts than the conventional Ford six, and so much simplification that at 345 pounds it weighs only 35 pounds more than the aluminum Corvair engine. In fact, an article could be written on the uniqueness of all three of these 1960 compact engines, Corvair, Falcon and Valiant.

The Falcon came in only one series with optional deluxe exterior and interior trim packages. There was a two-door sedan, four-door sedan, two and four-door station wagon and Ranchero pickup marketed through the Ford Truck Division. The Falcon had no Monza model until the Futura two-door in 1961. The Falcon has a 109.5-inch wheelbase, is 181.2 inches overall and 54.5 inches high.

Slipping behind the wheel, we felt very much like we were entering a full-sized Ford with chair-high seats, a conventional looking instrument panel and conventionally placed controls including the shift mounted on the steering column with a Park detent. Instruments are very easy to read. The only gauges are for fuel and water temperature. Generator and oil pressure monitors are red warning lights. This is the only one of the three with a manual choke. The parking brake is the very conventional ratchet type, while the windshield washer control is a very unconventional tiny foot pedal.

The car’s greater height than the Corvair, lack of a deep crown in the roof, thin doors, thin seats and recessed floor allow it to seat six-foot-tall passengers with as much room as in a 1952–54 Ford.

Steering in town is fairly slow and slightly heavy, and 4.64 turns lock to lock is too many. Turning diameter is 38 feet, 9.5 inches. At higher speeds the steering lightens up considerably. With Fordomatic, the car is a real snail at lower speeds; acceleration is somewhat better on the highway. The Falcon cruises comfortably up to 70 mph. Zero to 60 time is 25 seconds plus, poorest of the three. Top speed of 85 mph is the same as the Corvair. Both Falcon and Corvair lose a lot of acceleration above 60 and do not do very well in the highway passing department.

The Falcon’s ride is stiffer than that of large cars, in fact stiffer than the other two compacts. Wind noise at high speed is quite low even with the vent wings open. The well constructed and cushioned unitized body eliminates most body noises even on washboard roads.

The Falcon handles well on twisty roads. Even though it has conventional suspension, coils in the front and semi-elliptic rear, it definitely handles better than the Corvair in tight turns and going up and down hills on serpentine roads. In addition, stiffer suspension than the Corvair contributes to stability. The one problem we noted in going up hills is acceleration, and we were constantly down-shifting into low by pushing the accelerator pedal to the floor.

While the traction of the Falcon is not as good as the Corvair on dirt or gravel roads, it is remarkably good for such a light car. Taking this car out into the back country poses no problems.

This car has a lot of good points, and the best one of all is gas mileage, best of all three cars tested. The Falcon, with Fordomatic, averages about 22 mpg overall and gets as high as 27 on the road at a steady 60 mph.

We believe that the Falcon is put together better than either the Corvair or Valiant. The 400,000 miles on this particular car pretty much prove it, although we have heard stories of 400,000-mile Valiants, none of 400,000-mile Corvairs.

Falcon History and Development

The Falcon began in 1957 as a paper plan in Ford market research. The idea was to build a car that would weigh 3/4-ton less than a conventional car, give 50 percent better gas mileage and sell for under $2,000. To accomplish all of these goals it would have to be of unitized construction. Originally it was planned to have a four-cylinder, in-line, cast-iron-block engine. As the plan developed, a six-cylinder engine and a somewhat larger car than originally planned won out. In typical Ford tradition, high level meetings and endless research went on. The further the car progressed the more like a conventional full-sized American car downsized the Falcon became. The reason why the car ended up so conventional looking and performing was that this was what extensive research dictated.
Some of the Falcons proposed had a distinct Thunderbird flavor with a front-end treatment similar to the Edsel. Also considered was the Lavion, which looked somewhat like a 1958 Lincoln from the rear with rear grillework, squared-off tail, tail fins and a reverse-slanting rear window on one version. The final Falcon was but one of 20 designs that went to full-sized clays and it was one of the most conservative designs of all.
The research proved to be correct. Fal­con sales in the first year nearly equaled those of Corvair and Valiant combined. It seemed that if a price- and economy-conscious buyer wanted a European type of car he would buy an import. If he had his mind set on an American compact, then he would go the most conservative route, the Ford Falcon.
The 1960 Falcon was introduced as a two-door, four-door sedan, and station wagon, plus the Ranchero through the Ford Truck Division. There was only one series; deluxe trim, exterior and interior, were optional packages. The Falcon was the only one of the three to offer a Ranchero model. Interestingly enough, the Falcon sedan had about the same interior dimensions as the 1954 Ford, weighed some 1,500 pounds less, cost $150 less, and got 50 percent better gas mileage than a 1959 Ford V-8. Like the Falcon or not, Ford’s marketing strategy for the car was right on target, and Falcon production about equaled the Corvair and Valiant combined through 1962. Later the Falcon platform became the basis for the Mustang. Looking back, one would have to conclude that the car was politically correct for the times. Dull and successful, like just about everything else built under the direction of Robert S. McNamara.

1960 Ford Falcon what to pay*

• Low: $4,000
• Average: $7,656
• High: $9,500

*2024 Classic.com

1960 valiant

The 1960 Valiant was generally rated by the press as the best of the three: best looking, best performance, most car for the money. The car photographed is a red Valiant V-200 Series four-door sedan that was featured in Special Interest Autos #144, November/ December 1994. This car is owned by Cliff Fales of Rancho Cordova, Califor­nia. This is a sound, 60,000-mile car, which, like the other two, has been restored. Due to the distance from Southern California, we did not road test this exact car, but found one like it locally, dependable, but not in good enough condition to photograph.

The engine is a 30-degee inclined ohv six, with a displacement of 170.9 cubic inches, 8.5:1 compression ratio, solid lifters and single-barrel downdraft carburetor. It develops 101 horsepower at 4,400 rpm, making it the most powerful of the three cars tested. It has a 106.5-inch wheelbase, is 184 inches long overall and has a height of 53.3 inches. This engine was developed not simply for the Valiant, but to serve as the six-cylinder engine in larger cars.ngine is a 30-degee inclined ohv six, with a displacement of 170.9 cubic inches, 8.5:1 compression ratio, solid lifters and single-barrel downdraft carburetor. It develops 101 horsepower at 4,400 rpm, making it the most powerful of the three cars tested. It has a 106.5-inch wheelbase, is 184 inches long overall and has a height of 53.3 inches. This engine was developed not simply for the Valiant, but to serve as the six-cylinder engine in larger cars.

It is easy to slide behind the wheel of a 1960 Valiant, easier than a Corvair, about as easy as a Falcon. Our first im­pression of this car was that it’s not as strange as the Corvair, but not as familiar as the Falcon. You sit slightly lower than in a Falcon, but not as low as in the Corvair. There is good visibility all around. It has nice legible instruments in two pods, and gauges for temp, fuel and amps, a red warning light for oil. Con­trols are all very convenient, and we particularly liked the pedal type emergency brake.

An automatic choke control brings engine revs on cold starts to the 800-900-rpm range, and a reasonable wait is required before it will shut off by a jab at the accelerator pedal. In-town driving was about the same as the Corvair and Falcon. Steering is extremely light, but rather slow at four and a half turns lock-to-lock. Turning diameter is 37.1 feet. Valiant was the only one of the three to offer power steering in 1960. We see no need for it. They also offered power brakes, and again we wonder why.

While acceleration will hardly pin you to the back of your seat, it is certainly an improvement over the Falcon and Corvair. Zero to 60 mph is reached in just under 20 seconds, and top speed is around 100 mph. On the highway the Valiant definitely has better passing speed than the Corvair or Falcon. The car is also quiet and rock steady, and in our opinion was a much more stable car at high speed than the other two. The car performed extremely well in the turns and in the hills. We definitely liked the Valiant’s suspension and handling best of all three. We did not experience nearly the body lean on fast curves of the Corvair or even the Falcon, a tribute to the TorsionAire front suspension.

Stopping is good at all speeds and under all road conditions. No brake fade was experienced, even after three panic stops. Gas mileage is disappointing: with TorqueFlite, about 15 average and 20 at the very best. Gas mileage is the poorest of the three cars tested, and it is the poorest feature of the Valiant.

Despite the imitation tire cover on the trunk and slanted decklid design, the Valiant has the greatest luggage capacity of the three, nearly 25 cubic feet.

The pushbutton automatic transmission, while a bit odd to all but Chrysler enthusiasts, is certainly more driver friendly than the Corvair’s lever on the dash. It has three drive positions, but no Park position. This car is the only one of the three with a three-speed auto­matic transmission. The standard Valiant transmission, like the Corvair’s, is floor mounted.

Other than the European styling, the car’s most distinctive feature is the slant six engine. This new over-square engine gave the Valiant superior performance to the other two, and the years have proved it to be the longest lasting engine of all three. Another Valiant first in 1960 was an alternator. Not Valiant firsts, but two other important features were TorsionAire front suspension and TorqueFlite automatic transmission, which in our opinion were superior to the front suspension and automatic transmissions of the other two makes.

Like the other two, the body and frame are unitized, perhaps not as well put together as the Falcon body/frame but arguably better than the Corvair. This was a time when all Chrysler products were suffering from quality control problems.

In our opinion, the Valiant was the best buy of all three, even though it was slightly more expensive than the other two. It falls short only in assembly, which can be corrected in restoration, and in gas mileage which is not even as good as the Corvair, significantly less than the Falcon. We like the Valiant’s refreshing styling and many Chrysler engineering features. We don’t know why it was not more popular when new other than manufacturing capacity and dealer organization problems.

Valiant History and Development

The Valiant was the result of Chrysler’s “Project A-907,” which began in 1957 following 25 years of research and experimentation with a small car. Both Chev­rolet and Ford had experimented with small cars for many years, but Chrysler had done the most serious work of all three. This partially explains why the 1960 Valiant was such a thoughtfully en­gineered car. Chevrolet was rushing to produce something totally unique and paid the price. Ford played the conservative role. Chrysler came up with a compact that had everything.
Interestingly, in the first year the car did not bear the Plymouth name. It was a corporate endeavor built by the Dodge Divi­sion, then marketed through Plymouth dealers. It did not become a Plymouth until 1961 when Dodge introduced the Lancer, sharing the same body.
The concept of the slant six ohv engine came out of a desire to lower the hood line in years to come after 1960. Chrysler engineers ingeniously canted this new engine 30 degrees to the left. This not only balanced the weight of the engine but provided a more convenient location for the manual floor shift lever, and resulted in a lower transmission tunnel in the front compartment. The manual transmission on the Valiant was also inclined at 30 de­grees. Another benefit of the slant six en­gine was a long-branch intake manifold which improved breathing capacity. Other benefits were an extra rigid crankshaft and larger bearings than several of the Chrysler V-8s. The result was an indestructible engine whose praises are still sung by collectors decades later. This en­gine was offered in the smaller size in the Valiant and in the larger size in the Ply­mouth and Dodge. So good was this en­gine that it was still offered as late as 1983 for Plymouth Fury, Dodge Diplomat and Chrysler Cordoba cars. It remained through 1987 for Dodge trucks.
The Valiant was introduced in a four-door sedan, four-door six, and nine-passenger station wagon. There was no two-door version the first year. The Valiant came in two series, V-100 and V-200.

1960 plymouth valiant what to pay*

• Low: $3,500
• Average: $14,151
• High: $151,250

*2024 Classic.com 1960-1976 models

The post What to Buy: Corvair vs Falcon vs Valiant! appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

Source link