A recent feature story by The Detroit Bureau illustrates the dangers of a current events website trying to get into the automotive history business. Executive Editor Larry Printz’s (2022) ode to the Chevrolet Corvair included some rather shrill — and sloppy — bashing of safety advocate Ralph Nader.
While reading the piece I wondered whether I had been magically transported back to the 1970s, when auto buff writers routinely demonized Nader. I was particularly surprised to see The Detroit Bureau stoop to such cheap shots. My impression has been that this website offers some of the most thorough, nuanced and balanced reporting among the U.S. auto industry media.
Printz seemed to be operating from a different journalistic paradigm in writing a historical account of the Corvair. His punchline was that Nader’s “zealotry” led to the automobile becoming “the most heavily regulated consumer product in the world.”
Corvair advertising for 1960 emphasized the car’s unusual engineering, such as independent rear suspension. Click on images to enlarge (Automotive History Preservation Society).
Printz blames Nader for . . . better door latches?
In order to paint the above picture, Printz left out some inconvenient facts. For example, he wrote that the “very allegations that Nader levelled against the (Corvair) were fixed by the time of the book’s publication.” What Printz didn’t say is that Nader’s book, Unsafe At Any Speed (1966), discussed the suspension changes made to the 1964 and 1965 models in admirable detail.
Printz went on to argue that after the Corvair was discontinued in 1969 “Nader wasn’t happy. Then again, is he ever?” Nader called for the National Highway Safety Transportation Board to study the Corvair’s safety in comparison to smaller U.S. and imported cars. When the resulting report concluded that the Corvair compared favorably, Printz stated that “Nader considered it a whitewash. After all, he didn’t get his way.”
Also see ‘Why does The Daily Drive repost discredited anti-Nader rant?’
According to Printz, Nader’s “zealotry led to further safety standards being mandated, including shoulder-lap belts, collapsible steering columns, strengthened door latches, shatterproof windshields, padded dashboards, passive restraint systems, tire pressure monitors and rear-view cameras, along with higher fuel economy standards.”
Let’s stop here for a moment. Does Printz think that requiring strengthened door latches, shatterproof windshields and padded dashboards represents government overreach? He didn’t say. Instead of coming clean about his ideological agenda, Printz snarkily criticized the persistence of a lone citizen activist who challenged an automaker so large and powerful that even the Johnson administration shelved major antitrust action against GM “despite virtual unanimity among the staff lawyers and economists that the suit should be brought” (Cray, 1980; p. 445).
Corvair advertising for 1964 touted the performance features of the top-end Monza Spyder. Click on images to enlarge (Automotive History Preservation Society).
Printz goes easy on General Motors’ management
I do give Printz credit for three things. First, unlike some other Nader bashers, he acknowledged that the Corvair was already on its way out before the publishing of Unsafe At Any Speed because the car wasn’t very competitive with the Ford Mustang.
Second, Printz noted that the Corvair did handle differently than what most American drivers were accustomed to, partly because a front sway bar was not made standard equipment. “Certainly the Corvair’s handling became an issue with the introduction of the high-performance 1962 Chevy Corvair Monza Spyder,” Printz noted.
Also see ‘DeLorean’s book is still one of best critiques of General Motors’
Third, Printz acknowledged that automotive safety laws were passed partly in response to GM executives “faring badly” in congressional hearings and the disclosure that the automaker hired “a private detective to dig up dirt on Nader.”
Even so, Printz was ginger in criticizing General Motors for how it addressed the Corvair’s safety. He chalked up the lack of a front sway bar to “accountants” cutting it “for cost reasons” because the “engine proved pricey to build.” Printz did not acknowledge that even car buff magazines such as Car and Driver, Car Life and Road Test had heavily criticized the early Corvairs’ handling — which Nader’s (1966) book duly noted. Nor did Printz mention that GM management reportedly knew about the Corvair’s safety issues even before the car was introduced (Wright, 1979).
Corvair ads for 1965 highlighted the car’s new styling and gingerly addressed its improved engineering. Click on images to enlarge (Old Car Advertisements).
So is this series supposed to offer serious analysis?
The Corvair story is part of a relatively new series called “The Rearview Mirror.” I could deal better with Printz’s happy talk for Corvair fanboys if the rest of series presented a consistent editorial tone. However, in an earlier story about Packard’s demise, Printz (2022) ventured into more serious historical analysis by noting that “management lost its way” and “Packard Chairman Alvan Macauley made a crucial blunder.”
Also see ‘Lee Iacocca got lucky with the 1964-66 Ford Mustang’
I should add that the Packard story was more in keeping with The Detroit Bureau’s stated mission of offering “insightful, in-depth reporting.” After reading the Corvair piece, I wondered whether the website’s long-time publisher Paul Eisenstein had retired. Nope — he’s still there (The Detroit Bureau, 2022). So what’s going on?
One possibility is that Printz didn’t have time to write a fully formed Corvair piece. If so, I can empathize with deadline pressures. However, this story — much like the early Corvair — shouldn’t have come out of the oven until it was better cooked. And if Printz continues to substitute cheap shots for thoughtful analysis, The Detroit Bureau would do well to send the “The Rearview Mirror” series up to that same parking lot in the sky where the Corvair resides.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Cray, Ed; 1980. Chrome Colossus: General Motors and its Times.McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
- Nader, Ralph; 1966. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile. Simon & Schuster, New York.
- Printz, Larry; 2022. “The Rearview Mirror: Studebaker Kills Packard.” The Detroit Bureau. Posted Feb. 26.
- ——; 2022. “The Rearview Mirror: The Car That Begat Automotive Safety Laws.” The Detroit Bureau. Posted May 14.
- The Detroit Bureau; 2022. “About Us.” Accessed June 6.
- Wright, J. Patrick; 1979. On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors. Wright Enterprises, Grosse Pointe, MI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): Chevrolet Corvair (1960, 1964)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Chevrolet Corvair (1965)
Two pivotal books.of the era changed America’s relationship with the automobile. Unsafe at Any Speed (Safety) and The insolent Chariots (buying cars).
Very little of Naders book had to do with the Corvair. It was a polemic about automobile safety generally and an argument for standards.
Back in 09 the IIHS crash tested a 59 Impala and an 09 Malibu. The videos are on YouTube. How far has safety come? Like the difference between staring at the moon in 1869 and walking on it one hundred years later.
Some critics of the IIHS have claimed, without documentation, that the 1959 Chevrolet was completely rusted out. Another critic, again with no documentation, claimed the 59er did not have an engine.
By the way, the 59er was a Bel Air, not an Impala. 🤪
Reading the road tests of the Corvairs at the time, all of the major buff books were careful to write about the Corvair’s handling characteristics, including tire pressures. In follow-up articles, especially “Road & Track”, “Sports Car Graphic”, “Sports Car Illustrated”/”Car & Driver”, recommended sway bars front and rear. And remember, when G.M.’s top management promoted Semon E. (Bunkie) Knudsen to become V.P. / G.M. of Chevrolet from Pontiac, Knudsen insisted that the 1964 Corvair suspensions be revised. I remember as a teenager, discussions among my father’s engineering friends about the Corvair in early 1962, following the death of TV comedian Ernie Kovacs in the early hours of New Year’s Day in a Corvair. I remember my father suggesting to a good friend and G.M. co-worker whom owned two Corvairs for his college-age son and daughter, that he add sway bars on the cars, just in case.
Every year, the highway death tolls were increasing. One of the long-time TV and radio news anchors for Indianapolis’ top stations, the late Dick Reed, included the Indiana highway death toll in his newscasts. The safety standards itemized in the article above were the least the automobile manufacturers could do. Many of the 1966 safety features had been options anyway !
On a personal note, on February 12th, 1971, going east on U.S. 40 in the late afternoon from Terre Haute to Indianapolis, in a wet, heavy snowstorm (which is why we did not take parallel Interstate 70), my student classmate lost control and hit the end of a guardrail at about 35-miles-per-hour. No seat belts. The 1965 Dodge Coronet sedan’s engine stopped the guardrail, but my Sony TC-255 and I went through the windshield, landing on the hood of the car. The driver, a member of the school football team destroyed his knees and had chest and head injuries as well. We survived thanks to our heavy winter coats, both the concussions. I always wear seat belts. They save lifes.
James, that was a powerful comment. It’s important to share personal experiences such as yours. If Larry Printz had a similar experience, I wonder if he would still consider Nader’s championing of basic safety standards to be an act of zealotry?