FORD MUSTANG AND

CORVAIR MONZA

Even sporty-minded Mustang owners may resent the menacing vent-window points, an oft-noted hazard of many hardtops

VW, copying Detroit for once, has replaced its horn ring with bars that may be hard to find when you are turning

396 AUGUST 1964

FORD MUSTANG CORVAIR MONZA

The Ford Mustang burst into the car market earlier this year with an appeal that seemed to put it into competition with the well-established Corvair Monza. Because interest in the Mustang was' so high, CU published last month­while road tests of both the Mustang and Monza were still in progress-a preliminary report on the wide range of Mustang options, with advice on which to consider, plus first driving impressions. Here we pick up the rest of the Mustang story and compare that car, in a full road-test report, with the M onza.

Readers can refer to the July issue for most details on Mustang's features. Suffice it to say here that CU's test car is a botlom-of-the-line hardtop using a 170-cubic-inch unmodified Falcon 6-cylinder engine, but equipped with an optional 4-speed manual transmission. This was selected as the combination most closely comparable with the Monza's .

Monza's features The Corva~r Monza models- sedan, coupe, and convert­

ible-are distinguished from the regular Corvairs mainly by flashier trim, bucket front seats, vinyl upholstery, and a fold-down rear-seat back rest. Over three-quarters of all Corvairs sold are coupes, like CU's test car. And most Corvair coupes are bought with a 4-speed, floor-shifted, all­synchronized transmission and an engine with a higher compression than Corvair's standard engine; this hotter power plant gives a little added power but requires pre­mium fuel. The neat rather than elegant coupe has fixed framing around the door windows; it is a true coupe, not a 2-door sedan, nor a 2-door hardtop like the Mustang. Its styling has been wlchanged-and popular-for five years.

The Corvair's basic mechanical details have remained much the same, too: a 6-cylinder, air-cooled engine, with horizontally opposed cylinders, mounted in the rear and driving through a 4.speed transmission that shifts fairly quickly (but not as smoothly as the VW's), with ratios well planned for general use. The 1964 enlargement of the engine displacement to 164 cubic inches gives the '64 Corvair more satisfactory acceleration than it had previously. Since much of the car's weight is on the rear wheels, the Corvair has quick and easy steering, and its rear wheel traction is outstanding. Like most rear­engined cars, though, the Corvair takes lots of steering at­tention in a crosswind ; but the oversteer, or tendency for the rear wheels to slide outward when cornered hard, has been almost completely eliminated, and the car handles

very well indeed on curving roads. The unit body structure of the -Corvair is considerably more resistant to shake than the structure of any other current General Motors U.S. car, and better than that of the Mustang, too.

The Corvair's suspension by coil springs all around, with independent swinging axles in the rear, a la Volkswagen, was never very comf~rtable, giving an almost constant fore·and·aft rocking motion, though on most surfaces with little harshness. And now, for 1964, ·Corvair has incorpo­rated a transverse rear spring, which adds occasional harshness and sharp trouncing motions to the rocking­chair effect. On the other hand, CU's consultants judged the ride of the Mustang, in which all components are con­ventionally arranged (engine in front, solid rear axle, etc.) as one of the Ford car's strong points.

In the handling department, Corvair and Mustang are also quite unlike. The Corvair really handles like a sports car, the Mustang like a good-handling sedan (though occa­sionally its rear wheels hop sidewise on a rough turn ) . Mustang's steering is slow, fairly precise, and, unlike Corvair's, not affected by road shock.

Performance and accommodations Though the engines in CU's Corvair and Mustang are

radically different in design, they are roughly the same in output, with the slightly smaller Corvair engine doing the better job both in acceleration, where it is superior at the higher speeds, and in use of fuel above 45 miles per hour. The Mustang's basic engine in turn has its superiori­ties as against COTvair's-it is quieter, much simpler, and more accessible than the C orvair engine, runs on regular fuel, and gets along with one carburetor instead of two. Mustangs fitted with automatic tran~missions have the advantage of a 3·speed automatic, against the 2-speed of similarly equipped Corvairs.

Both cars are very low, with close·to-the-floor bucket front seats; CU found the Mustang's more comfortable.

VOLKSWAGEN AND

OPEL KADETT

VOLKSWAGEN OPEL KAOETT

The passenger's seat in CU's Mustang has no fore·and·aft adjustment, but Ford has amended this inconvenient ar· rangement since CU's purchase. The rear seats in both cars are very cramped, suitable only for short rides or for children; again CU preferred the Mustang's. The Mustang has a regular though not capacious trunk; the Corvair has the badly shaped space under the hood for luggage. But the Corvair's rear seat back folds down, so that when only two passengers are aboard, the car has more total cargo space than the Mustang.

Both cars have heaters judged more than adequate. But the Corvair cannot supply wholly unheated air to the wind· shield; also, air from the heater may pick up engine smells on its way into the car. The interior noise level of the Corvair is substantially higher than that of the Mustang. The Ford entry not only has a basically quieter engine, but it is very well insulated besides.

Summing up Despite their .similarity in size, power, weight, and seat·

ing capacity, the Corvair and Mustang are not really the same type of car. The Corvair is quite close to being a sports car in many characteristics, both good and bad. The Mustang looks like a sports car, or Gran Turismo sports touring car, but-at least in the version tested here, as well as in the larger Six, which, CU understands, will be an· nounced in the fall-it's actually a "sporty" car, or run· about, of compact size and appearance, appealing because of its lowness, easy handling, and the fresh lines that are its chief stock in trade. The more powerful V·8 versions of the Mustang, culminating in a strictly competitive ver· sion, are progressively much more able (and are, CU understands, far and away the best-selling Mustangs ), but even these are likely to offer sports car speed and acceler­ation rather than handling. The buyer of a Corvair or Mustang, therefore, should choose between the two cars on the basis of whether he wants a sports car or a sporty car.

Seldom does CU encounter cars as unlike in design as the Opel Kadett and the Volkswagen. They are, however, similar in size and price and are aimed at the same small­car market in Germany, where both are made, and else­where. In the U.S. the Opel (named for Adam Opel, the original manufacturer; the company is now a General Motors subsidiary) is at present sold only regionally and only by Buick dealers.

The Volkswagen's unorthodox design is now familiar: a flat (or "pancake") air-cooled, 4-cylinder engine in the rear, able to run the turnpikes without "buzz" or strain and providing good traction in winter; independent spring­ing of all wheels, with a ride that few if any other small cars can match in comfort; a chubby, sturdy, very well­trimmed and well-finished body with solid structure and good vertical dimensions inside. VW's faults are also famil­Iar: hard-to-handle wind-wander and oversteer (swinging

CONSUMER REPORTS 397

t •

TWO PAIRS OF SPECIAL·APPEAL AUTOS continued

out of the rear-end in cornering), engine accessibility that's . not !IS good as it looks, poor vision of the car's extremities, a heater that produces warmth too slowly and too meagerly, even less defrosting, limited luggage space, and, unlike the Opel, rear windows that don't open (unless you order windows that do open, at an extra cost of about $30) .

The Opel Kadett was new in 1963-a unit-structure 2· door sedan, with excellent visibility all around and more leg room in rear and less in front than in the VW. It is powered by a high-revving and not very quiet 4-cylinder engine up front that is slightly smaller than Volkswagen's, but easier to get at and considerably more economical of gasoline. (CU's overall mileage on both cars reflects usage mainly in winter.) The Opel has a hard-riding suspension (independent in front) with leaf springs all around, a really roomy trunk, and tiny 12-inch wheels; and it carries 48% of its weight on the rear wheels, which is good for a front­engined rear-drive car. The Opel behaves much better than the VW in side winds and has a good heater and defroster. Its trim and finish are neat but unimpressive in quality.

Both cars hold four passengers and have individual fold­ing (or tipping) front seats with the hand brake easy to reach between them. Both shift with extreme ease.

On the road The Opel accelerated better than the VW and steered

more easily. CU's current test car, like half the Volkswagens tested in the past, had steering trouble-in this case, un· acceptably high effort (at which the vaunted VW service finally threw up its hands ) . The Opel also handled better around the sports car track, as well as in normal driving.

Opel's good handling may be due in part to several unique design features in its springing. If so, it was dearly bought, for Opel's riding qualities would rate as poor on any scale-choppy and tossing on almost all unsmooth surfaces. The VW, despite its almost constant but easy bobbing motion, was far more comfortable.

Although the Opel performed better than the VW, CU's staff found themselves driving faster over the road in the VW, chiefly because, with the VW's slower·turning engine in the rear, it was less noisy where the driver sits. This quiet-up-front characteristic, the relatively good ride, the absence of cheap or " tinny" impressions, and an out­standing resale value all have helped to make the car popular with those who prefer a truly small car.

Safety and convenience Convenience is one of the small car's reasons for being,

and built-in safety is at least as important in a small car as in a large one. The Opel is, on balance, a safer car than the VW primarily because of its better driver vision and better handling, being free, as the VW is not, from the sudden onset of severe over steer in hard cornering. Un­less promptly corrected, oversteer can result in loss of con­trol on slippery roads or loose surfaces. As safety features, Opel also has safety door locks plus latches to prevent the

398 AUGUST 1964

front seats from tipping forward in an accident (though these latches of course add to the inconvenience of enter­ing or leaving the rear seat) .

CU found the brakes on both cars capable, with only minor fading, except that Opel's brakes faded moderately on the downhill tests and required rather high pedal pres· sure for hard stops. The Volkswagen, however, tended to swerve slightly in stops from high speeds.

CU regards the hand choke on the Opel as not only in­convenient but hazardous in cold weather: until thoroughly warm, the Opel engine required a lot of choking, accom· panied by either very high engine speed or repeated stall­ing or else constant and distracting choke manipulation, whereas the VW's , with its automatic choke, required none.

Opel's front-seat safety belts were anchored at the base of the rear seat; they lay on the ofte.n wet and dirty floor, and also tripped people (one exiting . passenger actually fell from the car ) .

V olkswagen luggage space is inadequate under the hood and awkward to reach behind the rear seat. If only two travel in the VW, the rear seat can be folded down, allow­ing ample storage space; but it's still inconvenient.

Summing up Before long the VW will probably offer bigger windows

and better vision. Some day, inevitably, VW will follow Corvair in being cured of its tail-switching bad habit; but even now CU considers the VW a better choice than the Opel for traveling even moderate distances, especially over secondary roads. This choice of course rests on VW's superior ride and lower noise level at touring speeds.

As an errand-running or suburban vehicle, the choice is less clear-cut. Opel's far better vision, quicker heater, bet· ter defrosting, and easier steering are in its favor; so, to a lesser degree, are its better in-town gas mileage and more convenient cargo space. The simplest way CU can put it is this: its hard ride notwithstanding, if the Opel had a good automatic choke, or if the potential buyer has tried out the Opel in cold weather and doesn't mind the choke, CU would judge it a better suburban-use vehicle than the VW in locales where Opel service is available.

-The Opel's amazing trunk holds almost as much luggage as some U.S. compacts. The object on the right is its gas tank

GUIDE TO THE FACTS AND FIGURES

MFR'S SUGGESTED RETAIL PRICE at fac­tory or Eastern port of entry. Includes Federal tax, ocean freight, and sug­gested dealer preparation charge but not local taxes, inland freight, or op­tional extras except as indicated.

ROAD CLEARANCE_ Distance from road surface to lowest part of car likely to hit high spots in the' road.

TURNING CIRCLE. Path traced by outer­most tip of front bumper with wheels all the way to left, as for a tight U-turn.

STEERING FACTOR.. Number of turns of tbe steering wheel for a "right angle" turn of 30-foot radius, as at the inter­section of two city streets.

CURB WEIGHT_ Weight of equipped car, full of gas, oil, and water, ready (at the curb) for occupants_

TIRE CAPACITY_ Official but conservative load-carrying rating for the four tires (inflated to 24 pounds), minus curh weight of the car. Overloads of a few hundred pounds are not unsafe, but heavy overloads for long runs will shorten tire Iife_

ENGINE DATA_ From factory figures.

PERFORMANCE. 0-50 mph, 0-60 mph %-mile runs with engine idling at start, all gears used to maximum advantage: 35-55 mph, 45-65 mph and 9% grade runs with floored accelerator but no manual shifting except as indicated.

ECONOMY_ Constant-speed tests offer controlled comparisons among cars. In normal driving at comparable average speeds, mileage will be much lower_ Traffic pattern involves moderate ac­celeration, 35 mph maximum, and an average speed for the course of about 21 mph. Overall gas mileages are not precisely comparable because of un­avoidable differences in the kind of drIving, but they do indicate the range to be expected.

FOOTNOTES

iAl Includes $92 for 4-speed transmis­sion, $27 for llO-horsepower engine. ~ Includes $116 for 4-speed transmis­sion. ~ Includes $30 for vinyl up­holstery, $25 preparation charge (not charged extra on other cars). Il!l Third gear_ lEI Third and fourth gears.

FACTS AND FIGURES

MFR'S SUGGESTED ­RETAIL PRICE

with heater, front seat belts and 4-speed manual transmission

DIMENSIONS

WHEELBASE (in.) OVERALL LENGTH (in.)

OVERALL WIDTH (in.) OVERALL HEIGHT: loaded (in.)

ROAD CLEARANCE: no load (in.) loaded (in.)

TURNING CIRCLE DIAMETER

(wall-to-wall, in ft.) STEERING FACTOR: manual

LUGGAGE CAPACITY (2-suiters+ week-end cases; but see story)

WEIGHT AND TIRES CURB WEIGHT (lb.)

PER CENT WEIGHT ON REAR WHEELS

TIRE SIZE (in.) RATED TIRE CARRYING CAPACITY

(4-tire capacity minus curb weight, in lb.)

ENGINE TYPE

BORE AND STROKE (in.) PISTON DISPLACEMENT (cu. in.)

COMPRESSION RATIO

MAXIMUM ADVERTISED HORSE­

POWER AT RPM

MAXIMUM ADVERTISED TORQUE

AT RPM (pound-feet)

ENGINE SPEEDS OVERALL RATIO, HIGH GEAR

ENGINE REVS PER MILE, HIGH GEAR

PISTON TRAVEL PER MILE,

HIGH GEAR (ft.)

PERFORMANCE ACCELERATING, HILL CLIMBING

LEVEL ACCELERATION

o to 50 mph (sec.) o to 60 mph (sec.)

% mile from rest (sec.) 35 to 55 mph (sec.) 45 to 65 mph (sec.)

ACCELERATION ON 9% GRADE

from 30 to 40 mph (sec.) from 30 to 50 mph (sec.) from 30 to 60 mph (sec.)

TOP SPEED ATTAINABLE ON GRADE

(mph)

ECONOMY

CONSTANT-SPEED GASOLINE MILEAGE

at steady 30 mph (mpg) at steady 40 mph (mpg) at steady 50 mph (mpg) at steady 60 mph (mpg)

TRAFFIC GAS MILEAGE (mpg in simulated traffic test)

OVERALL GAS MILEAGE (mpg for 2000 miles or more)

OIL CONSUMPTION RATE AFTER

Corvalr Monza.

$2400iAl

108 180 67 51

6.1 5.0

41 1.16

2535 64

6.50xl3

805

Horiz.·op­posed OHV 6 (air-cooled) 3.44x2.94 164 9.25

no at 4400

160 at 2800

3.27 2825

1385

11.4 15.6 20.6

7.51m 9.21m

7.31m 15.1 1m 31.8 1m

64 1m

31.8 29.6 27.7 24.0

16.8

18.9

BREAK·IN (mi./qt.) 825

Ford Mustang.

$2461111

108 182

68 51 6.6 5.1

40 1.25

2585 45

6.50x14

935

OHV6

3.50x2.94 170 8.7

101 at 4400

156 at 2400

3.50 2870

1405

12.0 16.8 21.0

8.41l!l 11.81l!l

7.61m 17.51m

591!i1

32.2 29.4 26.2 22.3

17.0

20.8

1650

Opel KadeH 4

$1655

92 154 58 54 7.0 5.4

33 0.65

1530 48

6.00x12

890

OHV 4

2.84x2.40 61 7.8

46 at 5200

54 at 2600-3600

3.89 3725

1490

17.4 27.5 23.9 14.1 iii!

391l!l

55.8 48.2 42.5 34.7

30.3

28.9

1300

Volkswagen 4

$1666~

94 160

61 58 7.7 6.4

36 0.62

1700 59

5.60x15

1440

Horiz.·op· posed OHV 4 (air-cooled) 3.03x2.52 73 7.0

40 at 3900

64 at 2400

3.89 3235

1360

19.0 31.0 24.2 X6.31El

411Q1

47.5 42.5 35.2 32.2

24.2

27.0

None added

CONSUMER REPORTS 399