Corvair DiagramCorvair Photo
Corvair Center
home forum corvairs calendar links Corvair Podcast
California Corvairs
Clarks Corvair
Clarks Corvair
“CORSA"



Chevy Corvair License Plate
Chevy Corvair Chrome Wheel
Corvair Center Forum :  Corvair Center Phorum The fastest message board... ever.
Corvair Center 
Pages: 123Next
Current Page: 1 of 3
Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: Peeeot ()
Date: May 06, 2019 07:07PM

I have been soaking up specifications, vintage hot rodding articles, dyno tests, forum posts, and engine design articles for a while now trying to understand as much as I can about what makes a given engine perform the way it does and what effect different alterations to everything from spark advance curve to quench distance might have on that performance. I have learned a lot but have far more still to learn and may never really grasp it all.

This study has led me to the puzzling case of the 84-hp Turbo-Air vs. the 85-hp Falcon Six. The Corvair engine has many design advantages over the Falcon Six, yet the Falcon engine outperforms it (on paper). I thought you who are well-versed in all things Corvair might be able to account for the discrepancy.

The contenders:

Turbo-Air (1962)
Displacement: 145 ci
Bore: 3.4375”
Stroke: 2.60”
Compression ratio: 9.0:1
Horsepower: 84 @ 4400rpm
Torque: 130 @ 2300rpm
Carburetor venturis: 2 @ 1” diameter, 1 per each 3 cyls
Intake: 2 cast integral logs, 1 for each 3 cyls
Exhaust: 1 manifold for each 3 cyls, combined to single pipe

Falcon Six (1962)
Displacement: 144 ci
Bore: 3.5”
Stroke: 2.5”
Compression ratio: 8.7:1
Horsepower: 85 @ 4200rpm
Torque: 138 @ 2000rpm
Carburetor venturis: 1 @ 1” diameter for 6 cyls
Intake: 1 cast integral log for 6 cyls
Exhaust: 1 log manifold for 6 cyls to single pipe

These engines are very closely matched with very similar design objectives: maximum economy, durability, and torque at minimum cost. The Corvair has the upper hand (narrowly) in displacement, stroke, and compression ratio. It has the significant advantage of double the carburetor Venturi area, split intake manifolds, and split exhaust manifolds. Despite all of this, the Falcon makes more power at a lower RPM, and more torque also at a lower rpm— both advantageous for the designed purpose. What’s more, a Falcon six when blessed with a small 2-barrel carburetor and a split exhaust will produce more HP and torque without further internal modification, indicating that the stock single barrel and common log exhaust are holding the engine back—-even if only by 5-15hp. Both engines have poor-flowing heads, small valves, and conservative camshafts.

I recognize this isn’t an exhaustive comparison, but it really seems like the Turbo-Air should have beaten the Falcon six by at least 5 hp and 5 ft-lbs torque in its stock form. Why didn’t it?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: MattNall ()
Date: May 06, 2019 07:12PM

You'd have to ask the GM engineers!

MODERATOR
Sea Mountain, between Charleston Harbor and Coos Bay! SW Oregon Coast
Click HERE for My Website...Click HERE for My TechPages!
..............................110-PG.................................................Webered-Turbo

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: 66vairman ()
Date: May 06, 2019 07:29PM

Oh the Falcon vs. Corvair spec war was notorious. Why? Both Ford and Chevy believed that a new first time buyer would stay with the brand and "buy up" as time passed (mostly true back then). So Ford and Chevy did everything to convince the first time buyer to buy "their" car. Someone (sorry I've forgotten) wrote a great article on the stuff both companies did in the first few years.

In 1960 the Corvair engine was 140c.i. and the Falcon was 144c.i. - in 1961 the Corvair was increased to 145c.i. (advertised as the BIGGER engine). Ford made a big deal about poor Corvair fuel mileage due to the gasoline heater. In 1961 the gas heater was relegated to an "option" and the forced air heater became standard. That bump out in the Corvair front panel was done so the advertised trunk space was larger (and the reason the tire was moved to the rear). That fold down back set - again more load carrying ability.

Interesting enough by 1963 the recession was over and compact car demand slowed. The Corvair moved to a more sporty image (to meet sales demand). Then the Mustang and Camaro arrived - good bye Corvair.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: 63turbo ()
Date: May 06, 2019 07:42PM

Reasons: Hp numbers in those days were a bit of a crap shoot to begin with, and even if the "rating" was done exactly the same way, cam and head air flow would easily explain the difference... its telling that gm sold that same engine with 80 hp, 98hp,and the next year, 102hp. The other thing is that even at the same hp that Corvair probably would show faster 0-60 times as it would HAVE to be lighter than the Falon by a good 500 lbs, and front engine water pumpers then would usually show only 70% of their rated hp at the rear wheels and the Corvairs would show something like 80% of their rated power at the rear wheels... its anyones guess why that was.
You cant look at engine specs alone!

------------------------------------

Kevin Nash
Friday Harbor Washington
63 Spyder, Daily driver, EFI read about my project here: [corvaircenter.com]
first test start on EFI here:[www.youtube.com]
first official EFI boost test here:[www.youtube.com]
My new fan! [corvaircenter.com]
engine less 62 Spyder
Canadian 64 Monza Parts car



Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: flamingchariots ()
Date: May 06, 2019 08:05PM

I remember driving the 1961 144ci automatic Falcon when it was only a few years old.
My grandfather bought it new, and it then went to my mother and then me.
I well remember how GUTLESS it was.
As a teenager, I "drag-raced" a VW bug in a church parking lot.
Oh, the shame of being beat EASILY by a lowly VW...

Kevin
Medina, OH

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: john.jackson ()
Date: May 06, 2019 09:33PM

My wife's first car was a 1961 Ford Falcon with a 2 spd Fordomatic transmission. Helen's grandmother purchased the car new and drove it like the little old lady she was.

Very shortly after getting the car Helen took her foot off the brake at a stop light, hit the car in front at a crawl. That sent her sister into the windshield. No seat belts in 1961! Next day her dad had seat belts put in the car.

The Falcon was really a terrible car even with only 24K miles on it. But the price was right when new and even better when Helen got it from grandma.

A friend's mom had a 62 Corvair powerglide in high school. Scott would borrow it for years. I remember it being a better, more rattle free car than the Falcon at the same time.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: MarkDustan ()
Date: May 06, 2019 09:46PM

Here is the real answer
[m.youtube.com]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: American Mel ()
Date: May 06, 2019 10:47PM

MarkDustan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is the real answer
> [m.youtube.com]


BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! ! !
Ahem. . . grinning smiley

.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
WA. state, 1 mile south of the Canadian border,
I am not at the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
'66 Monza Coupe - 4spd, 140 Daily driver beater
'67 Monza Vert. - PG, 140 Daily driver beater
'67 A/C Moredoor Monza - 140 4-spd. driver

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: curt ()
Date: May 07, 2019 05:03AM

I remember a friend with a Falcon 6 cyl. He had to put an extra oil line in to properly oil the valve train. He said the Facons 6 cyl were deficent in valve train oil without the added line. NO idea if he is correct or not.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: Peeeot ()
Date: May 07, 2019 09:27AM

I haven’t driven an 84-hp Corvair with powerglide. Is it as gutless as the 144 Falcon?

I have been surprised to find that the Corvair community seems to discourage most of the traditional hop-up treatments: headers, dual exhausts, adding bigger/additional carburetors, bumping up compression, hot-rodding the spark advance curve, etc. I get the impression the Turbo-Air is not as responsive to these treatments, or is limited by its cooling capabilities or the comparatively fragile nature of its aluminum construction.

With the way manufacturers fudged numbers, perhaps the real world difference is much more than the published specs suggest, and favors the Turbo-Air.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: American Mel ()
Date: May 07, 2019 10:26AM

Peeeot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I haven’t driven an 84-hp Corvair with
> powerglide. Is it as gutless as the 144 Falcon?
>
>
> I have been surprised to find that the Corvair
> community seems to discourage most of the
> traditional hop-up treatments: headers, dual
> exhausts, adding bigger/additional carburetors,
> bumping up compression, hot-rodding the spark
> advance curve, etc.
I get the impression the
> Turbo-Air is not as responsive to these
> treatments, or is limited by its cooling
> capabilities
or the comparatively fragile nature
> of its aluminum construction.
>
> With the way manufacturers fudged numbers, perhaps
> the real world difference is much more than the
> published specs suggest, and favors the Turbo-Air.


People do all of the things that you mention.
But, you are correct in that COOLING is the limiting factor with Corvair engines.

.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
WA. state, 1 mile south of the Canadian border,
I am not at the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
'66 Monza Coupe - 4spd, 140 Daily driver beater
'67 Monza Vert. - PG, 140 Daily driver beater
'67 A/C Moredoor Monza - 140 4-spd. driver

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: j3m ()
Date: May 07, 2019 10:30AM

For the correct answer, you only have to look to the introduction of the Chevy II in the 1962 model year.

The anemic 144 cid Falcon six for all its gutless wonder was the better powerplant between what was offered then in the Corvair and the Falcon.

Only the much later 200 cid Ford Falcon / Mustang six with better crank bearings, could be actually considered a "decent" powerplant to provide both fuel economy and propel the curb weight (approx 2600 # ) of such cars. True, the 170 cid Falcon engine was a huge improvement over the anemic 144 cid, but it was still very weak in useable powerband. (mainly accelerating on to Freeway/Interstate onramps, and 65mph to 75mph passing acceleration. Durable though these anemic Ford 144 and 170 sixes were, they were a product of that time, when auto engineering was crude and poor at least in comparison to what the Germans and Japanese would build less than a decade later. US (Detroit) auto companies would continue to lag the Asians from 1970 until the end of time it seems and the Germans too in automobile engineering excellence.
The Corvair, the Falcon, the Dart/Valiant, the Chevy II and the Rambler American, all part shoddy and yet with some positive attributes just incredibly highlight just how awful sixties era American economy cars were. Just compare the 1968 Datsun 510 to any year model of the Falcon/Corvair/Chevy II/Valiant-Dart/American from 1960 thru 1969 models and that first year model 1968 510 from Datsun beats all of them. Not only that, but the late sixties offerings from Toyota, especially the CORONA do also. Detroit just built horrible junk and they didn't give a hoot because they felt that they didn't have to compete with anyone except their crosstown rivals. They largely viewed anyone that purchased foreign cars as "nuts" and "goofballs". Few folks under the age of 60 today, will remember General Motors' captive import, sold at Buick dealers. GM's German engineering arm, OPEL built a crude but decent car much like the early Falcon in that it was anemic and weak with the 1100cc and 1500cc four but those engines kept going no matter how noisy and slow. Few of you may recall that the OPEL was the LOWEST priced car sold in the US circa 1966/1967 for the barebones 2 door Kadette coupe, the sedan and wagon was more than VW and closer to barebones Falcon/Corvair/Valiant/Rambler American. Until all of Toyota and datsuns became supremely reliable, Opel was the best selling import behind VW from about 1966 to 1971. The OPEL KADETTE with the 1900cc engine is a far better economy car than any Corvair, Falcon, Valiant-Dart, Rambler American, '62-'67 Chevy II, and any '71-'80 Vega/Monza/Sunbird/Starfire... The Kadette was a mid-sixties design and unchanged through its last year model of 1972. The Opel Ascona series known in the US as the nineteen hundred series arrived as the Kadette replacement for the 1971 model year. Are these cars better than the Pinto/vega/Gremlin of 1971, 1972, and 1973.....well heck yes........unfortunately the German mark began to soar versus the US dollar and it drove the prices of all German imports up. Still Detroit could not change its ways of making turds, and the Japanese and the Germans too slaughtered them with superior engineering.
The Japanese did everything well, such that though they followed a conservative path of basic rwd, front engined cars, they did see great ideas, and set about to copy/improve, and perfect them...........e.g. the '74 VW GOLF( '75Rabbit/ '74dasher in usa) and the Japanese did what the British who pioneered fwd with the Mini in 1959 could not do, by building perfection in small fwd economy cars.....the Italians tried in the sixties after the British and could not , and VW after purchasing NSU, developed the GOLF ("Rabbit") which was revolutionary but like the Corvair, early Rabbits had a frequency of repair that was greater than average,......unlike the Corvair, VW engineering improved this and once cis fuel injection arrived for the 1977 model, the Rabbit was really decent, but less reliable than any conventional rwd Toyota or Datsun. Toyota and Nissan were much later with fwd but when they offered them, they had them perfected before releasing them and the cars were bulletproof reliable, something that Honda cars before 1978 were not and US built cars and the seventies era "Rabbit"/GOLF never were.

TURBO-AIR vs FALCON SIX
could be better termed Turdo-air vs Falcon Slug
..........JUST ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE AS AVAILABLE for 1960 model

........If you want to see which competitor from DETROIT had the best of the little car powerplants for the 1960 model year, there is only one answer: MOPAR engineering...........as the little SLANT SIX was better than the Turdo-Air and the Falcon Slug, even though there is evidence that the Falcon Slug was slightly better in mpg than all others. 0.6 mpg or whatever is not enough to recommend something as dangerously slow in freeway acceleration as the Falcon 144 in my opinion. The Valiant was butt ugly and its interior and trunk space wasn't as good as the Falcon, but it was the better car among the Valiant/Falcon/Corvair/Rambler/Crudebaker for 1960.

Horrible.....horrible...horrible
I doubt anyone on earth with any sense would drive any of those garbagemobiles from the big three and Rambler and Crudebaker without some modifications!
Nobody would choose to drive them today on Freeways/expressways in BONE STOCK form as from the manufacturer in 1960!!!

For the era, the engineers didn't know any better because they better engineers in Detroit were concentrating on large displacement pushrod v-8 engines and improving automatic transmissions to make them more robust, reliable, and capable of withstanding greater torque and horsepower numbers that these newer larger v-8 engines were capable of. Imagine what a disgrace it might have been to someone in GM, Ford Motor Co,, or at MOPAR engineering to be shuttered off to the economy car skunkworks...........wasn't that the mindset of that time..........they wanted to be building Cadillac, Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile engines and transmissions....anything except the lowly, problematic Chevy Corvair. It is no wonder that the Corvair was still plagued with the many of the same problems in the 1965 and 1966 models (when the engineering development ended) that the first year 1960 model had.

Now the huge limiting factor in power output on those small Detroit built FORD inline sixes of the sixties and seventies is the cast LOG intake that is part of the head. FORD did it that way as a simple and crude way to provide reliable carburetion under all driving conditions in all kinds of weather and altitudes. Ak Miller at one time was the hot-rod, go fast expert on those small Fords, milling/grinding the log to accept a two barrel carb mount, and then also deleveloping a crude basic turbo unit to mate to them.
None of the American hot-rodder advances to the small Ford inline six made much improvement compared to FORD Australia 's development of the engine with a FORD Australia designed cylinder head with separate intake.
This separate intake design alone, probably allowed for a real 30 horsepower increase. It doesn't sound like much but that is huge when the power output of a 1960 Falcon is around 67 hp, and a 1970 Maverick with the larger displacement better crank bearing small Ford inline six is still barely adequate because of the LOG and one barrel carb. The positive thing that people forget is that those 144/170/200 cid FALCON/Mustang/Maverick/Econoline sixes were among the lightest inline sixes and probably the most compact and very fuel efficient.
Yes, the 144 is terrible because it is so underpowered, but the later 200 cid FORD six is quite good for what it was. It is a shame that FORD's transmissions that mated to that during that era and the seventies and the '79-'82 era when that engine was revived and called the 3.3 litre, were not as good as later transmissions. A T-5 borg warner five speed transmission circa the late eighties/early nineties mated to a late 200 Ford inline six along with hydraulic clutch conversion WILL MAKE FOR A NICE vintage Mustang, Maverick, or FALCON, as there are enough versions with complimentary gear ratios that will suit that egg-beater six with the log intake and single carb as long as you go with the later electronic ignition. Doing that might be almost as nice as having a completely rebuilt 164cid 110hp Corvair engine equipped with Brown EFI / dis and your choice of 4 speed or Powerglide in your favorite Late Model CORVAIR or in the swingin' nader-mobiles if you prefer them.
Find as rust free LATE MODEL convertible or coupe or even 4 door, as you can find................rebuild the engine completely...split the case...machine everything...new cylinders, new pistons....don't do it 1/2 azz, then go Brown with dis and make certain you've got a brand new remanufactured fuel tank and a Dale type bolted flywheel if you're Corvair has manual transmission.
HUGE IMPROVEMENT!! One Small step for Ted, One Giant Leap for Corvair!....
Is there anyone making a bolt on EFI kit with distributorless ignition for the Falcon/Mustang/Maverick six, or the Slant six , or the Chevy 230/250 six, or Ford 250 six, or AMC's excellent but large/heavy 232 six of the late sixties/seventies???

Perhaps one should focus what has made the CORVAIR engine as great as possible compared to its early sixties engine peers, instead of focusing backwards on the pile of rubbish that it once was BEFORE efi and dis significantly improved it!
Who in the heck wants to go back to the old days?
Not me, I recall loading my band's amps and gear into Falcon stationwagons and Chevy Nova stationwagons, Ford econolines(1st gen) and other horrible sixties era cars and wagons............the worst cars of today are all better than the best cars of that era. Nostalgia is one thing but reliability and improved drivability, comfort and safety is a whole lot better. Like I tell my younger neighbors, the old cars might have better colors and different and distinctive shapes but nobody really had a clue on how to build a "good car" back in the old-days. If it is horsepower and top speed that you're after, well todays cars can do that too better than any 409, 454, 426 hemi, or boss 428 or 429 or 351 cleveland...... On the other side of the spectrum, an inexpensive Kia Soul or a Honda Fit will provide better fuel economy than any Corvair/Falcon/rambler/Valiant ever imagined and those inexpensive Souls and Fits still have the power to out-run every stock 180hp turbocharged CORVAIR!!!
Celebrating garbage is just wrong......turdo-air vs falcon slug.....
Perhaps, a much better way to view it is from the perspective of how far we have come from those old days when everything was Junk! Amazingly, the CORVAIR has been hugely improved thanks to the bolt on EFI / dis. Not every vintage marque has been so lucky to have such significant improvements that transform them from the dark days of junk to something reliable. We should be celebrating the thousands of rag-tag seat of the pants MacGyvers who found solutions to improve and refine these cars beyond the hunks of junk that they were originally from GM back during the sixties. Fondly remembering them for the original junk that they were is almost insane, as you wouldn't dare drive one without making any improvements or upgrades.
.....Corvair vs Falcon vs Valiant vs Rambler vs Crudebaker for 1960 just highlights how awful the cars were compared to now or even to the Japanese cars of the seventies. CLARKS and all the others no longer with us, like Underground, each made huge contributions to the advancement/improvement of the Corvair automobile and all of these improvements came after the May 14, 1969 date of death of the Chevrolet Corvair as a GM product. Those thousands of improvements should be celebrated and not the crummy, crappy original version as received from the General. The lasting legacy is that because it was so crummy that ALL CARS BECAME BETTER because of the numerous federal legislation that began with and followed the Highway Safety Transportation Act of 1966. The Corvair was not alone in being severely flawed but it rightly served as the poster-child for poorly built, poorly engineered, and highly flawed automobiles because if mighty General Motors with an army of engineering talent and an economy of scale that no other automaker could match at the time could and did produce and release such rubbish as the Corvair.....well then there was no bettter poster child than that for that time.
The Corvair and the US built FALCON are both synonymous with that era of Westinghouse, General Electric, Zenith, Philco, Motorola, Emerson TELEVISIONS/RADIOS etc before SONY and Matsushita (National/Panasonic) wiped them all out with superior technology innovations and 100% reliability. SONY and PANASONIC did this even though SONY and PANASONIC products were premium priced relative to US electronics makers..... ......Well as you know, the quality did not go on before the name went on............. SONY and PANASONIC pioneered so much technological improvement that was worlds ahead of anything the US makers were doing. The Trinitron picture tube (1968) made everything else obsolete.
The US firms did well in the technological transition to solid state in the early sixties before getting crushed in the late sixties and early seventies by Japanese technology and innovation. The parallels do not end with cars and electronics. Earlier in the sixties, the watchmakers, and then in the very end of the seventies and beginning of the eighties, the bicycle makers all were bankrupt, out of business or near bankrupt because they failed to innovate and/or modernize and provide competitive product. Asleep at the wheel once again, as the bike makers became lazy and fat from the profits of the bike boom of 1970 to 1974 such that they didn't pay attention to the public's desire for super light bicycles that the Italians, French, and British had been making for 15 years and that the Japanese had begun making with even better reliability.
Things get better and more refined and those products of earlier times may become obsolete and undesireable depending on the degree of usefulness.
Those Falcons and Corvairs in BONE STOCK original form are something that perhaps nobody wants to drive today without making modifications. I am talking about modifications other than just radial tires.....(nobody makes bias ply tires except for "show" use as there is no comparison between a radial and old timey bias ply tire......better technology, better ride, better everything)
.....Just remember that before you decide to jump into the time machine for a trip back to 1960, just remember how primitive and crude cars and technology was. Turbo-Air and Falcon Six.............furgettabout it........just junk by a different name and a different corporate headquarters in downtown Detroit! The Falcon did improve a great deal from 1960 through each revision until the last 1969 small US Falcon, the Corvair still had largely the same problem areas as it did in 1960 and its rating from Consumer Reports remained "WORSE THAN AVERAGE from a frequency of repair standpoint". The Falcon outsold the Corvair by a huge margin, such that GM rolled out a "Falcon-clone", the ChevyII for 1962 model year. One can certainly argue that the Corvair was prettier than the Falcon as far as the body but the Falcon proved more economical (mpg and cost of ownership), the Falcon also proved to be more reliable than the Corvair by a wide margin. The Falcon also had better trunk and interior space than the Corvair. The Falcon's seats were horrible except for the Futura and later sixties models but they weren't that much worse than the Corvair. The Falcon accomplished more of its objectives than any of its peers.......reliability, economy, and useful space, and value for the money spent...... The valiant/dart was not a bad car during any years, and very good from 1967 onward and the NOVA was only very good from 1968 onward.
Only the 1964-1969 Rambler American was as good as the Falcon was during the sixties unless of course you consider the Mercury Comet, Ford fairlane, or the Ford Mustang of that era. Like them or not, FORDS of that era were possibly hum-drum but were as reliable as they got for each year during that era. The same cannot be said of other crosstown rivals who had poorer reliabilty with their economy models and solid reliability for the era with their land yachts.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: Phil Dally ()
Date: May 07, 2019 10:47AM

Just so you know Peeot about 99% of us just skip j3m's posts.

Why use five thousand plus words when about fifty will do.

He is our "King of Trolls" here at Corvair Center Forum.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: joelsplace ()
Date: May 07, 2019 10:51AM

He's back...

Neither one came with fuel injection so aren't they both junk?

Joel
Northlake, TX
4 Ultravans, Lost count at 100 Corvairs...




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 10:52AM by joelsplace.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: American Mel ()
Date: May 07, 2019 12:04PM

joelsplace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Neither one came with fuel injection so aren't
> they both junk?


grinning smiley hot smiley grinning smiley hot smiley grinning smiley hot smiley grinning smiley hot smiley grinning smiley

.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
WA. state, 1 mile south of the Canadian border,
I am not at the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
'66 Monza Coupe - 4spd, 140 Daily driver beater
'67 Monza Vert. - PG, 140 Daily driver beater
'67 A/C Moredoor Monza - 140 4-spd. driver

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: MoxyRamone ()
Date: May 07, 2019 01:21PM

Aye, dios mio. j3m is back? That dude is like VD... Unwanted and hard to get rid of! I think from now on I will call him "Mr. Clap".

John Carver
Simpsonville, South Carolina

1964 Monza Convertible


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: stitch ()
Date: May 07, 2019 01:59PM

J3m sez:

.......If you want to see which competitor from DETROIT had the best of the little car powerplants for the 1960 model year, there is only one answer: MOPAR engineering...........as the little SLANT SIX was better than the Turdo-Air and the Falcon Slug, even though there is evidence that the Falcon Slug was slightly better in mpg than all others. 0.6 mpg or whatever is not enough to recommend something as dangerously slow in freeway acceleration as the Falcon 144 in my opinion. The Valiant was butt ugly and its interior and trunk space wasn't as good as the Falcon, but it was the better car among the Valiant/Falcon/Corvair/Rambler/Crudebaker for 1960.

I actually read his whole post this time...

I had a 61 Valiant slant 225 back in the day, and that engine was bullet proof!
Could almost run it a day without water or oil, refill, and it would keep on ticking!
Throttle pick up was good too, compared with some of the "Boats" of other makes that were out at the time...drinking smiley

BTW Push button Tranny! (Like some people SWEAR that Corvairs had!) grinning smiley

"If you can't fix it with a Hammer, you have an Electrical problem."
Stitch...
Schertz, Texas.
(Smallish town/burg 17 mi. NE of San Antonio)

'Ms Penny'
!967.. 4th body
8th off the line



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 02:02PM by stitch.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: pulsar ()
Date: May 07, 2019 02:40PM

Curt, You are correct. My Mom bought a 1960 Falcon and at some point
later, an extra oil line had to be added, an externanal bronze line that
went threw a hole drilled in the valve cover. I was too young to remember
(or was never told) if it was a factory recall, or if it was done by an
independent mechanic at her expense.

Brad Taylor
Glendora, CA
1966 Monza (Corsa clone)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: flamingchariots ()
Date: May 07, 2019 08:10PM

stitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> J3m sez:
>
> .......If you want to see which competitor from
> DETROIT had the best of the little car powerplants
> for the 1960 model year, there is only one answer:
> MOPAR engineering...........as the little SLANT
> SIX was better than the Turdo-Air and the Falcon
> Slug, even though there is evidence that the
> Falcon Slug was slightly better in mpg than all
> others. 0.6 mpg or whatever is not enough to
> recommend something as dangerously slow in freeway
> acceleration as the Falcon 144 in my opinion. The
> Valiant was butt ugly and its interior and trunk
> space wasn't as good as the Falcon, but it was the
> better car among the
> Valiant/Falcon/Corvair/Rambler/Crudebaker for
> 1960.
>
> I actually read his whole post this time...
>
> I had a 61 Valiant slant 225 back in the day, and
> that engine was bullet proof!
> Could almost run it a day without water or oil,
> refill, and it would keep on ticking!
> Throttle pick up was good too, compared with some
> of the "Boats" of other makes that were out at
> the time...
>
> BTW Push button Tranny! (Like some people SWEAR
> that Corvairs had!)





I agree with you stitch. The '73 Dodge Dart slant six I had was indeed bullet-proof.


BTW: Anybody ever notice that BOTH the '60 Corvair and '60 Falcon had concave grills?
'61 and after for both was convex...


Kevin
Medina, OH

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Turbo-Air vs. Falcon Six
Posted by: Frank DuVal ()
Date: May 07, 2019 08:26PM

Quote
Curt
I remember a friend with a Falcon 6 cyl. He had to put an extra oil line in to properly oil the valve train. He said the Facons 6 cyl were deficent in valve train oil without the added line.

It was common to see the copper line going from the crankcase to the valve cover on Falcon sixes sitting on used car lots in the late 60s through the mid 70s.thumbs up

Frank DuVal

Fredericksburg, VA

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: 123Next
Current Page: 1 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.