my older brother, bought a used 61 Econoline van that had been used by a local TV Appliance store, in 1970, I think he paid $100 for it, high miles etc. It was a easy fix, he bought a used 6 engine and put it in, had it painted , carpeted the back, and drove it for some years. Actually, he and his wife drove it on a cross country trip, in 71, when they got married and she had a 66 Riviera. They liked it.
The gravel mining buildings in the background were in my home town Oxford Michigan. It was American Aggregates. It's a golf course now but that mining operation was in operation when I was growing up there. I still live near there.
my brother was almost killed in a corvair it rolled and burnt at 30 miles an hour , his girl friend and some passer bys pulled him out the back window because the rest was crushed in
@@1unsafe1 The Pinto got a bum rap; it was no more dangerous than its RWD 1970s competitors. Even the internal documents in which Ford supposedly traded off cost-per-car VS cost-per-lawsuit were not specifically related to the Pinto, which was one of the safest (mostly due to its size) mediocre small cars on the market.
They should have shown the ramp side gate. I remeber a Chevy comcial when I was a kid where they load a baby elephant into a Rampside Corvar. It was cool!
the econoline had the engine in the front between the seats, it made it top heavy. The corvair had the engine in the bed of the truck making the weight distribution much better. Either way they are both super cool and I would love to have one or the other.
The econoline has a counterweight at the back of the truck under the bed to balance it out. That weight was obviously removed to make this con advertisement video. Are you surprised?
@@enriquecortez1963 Actually, Ford did not put a "counter weight" back there. Customers got to where they would put a steel plate under the rear of the truck because of this issue. Ford didn't do it from the factory. Edit: Some would put the steel plate in the bed.
So the ones making the "Rigged" comments ever drive an econoline pick up?...PROBABLY NOT, I worked for a few Ford dealers,those econolines WERE heavy in front!,Also not totally sure but there was a big deal over Econolines catching on FIRE.. in early 60s...NOT from GM....So give your armchair opinions.... rather hear weather report in Siberia😁
The '61 didn't have the weight. Ford recalled them and they all had the wight from mid 61 on. epups and shorty vans. The supervans never had the weight. I believe I read somewhere that the service vans sold to Bell didn't have them either. My 66 shorty 6 door econoline was originally a Sears delivery van. It has the factory mounted weight right over the gas tank.
i have a 69 mustang too but that ford truck would get stuck easy..i know....but my corvairs never did ,,,ii lam in dayton ohio area...so we got hills an snow ..the corvair truck is what i want but gee i have a 92 k1500 so i am just wishing have 6 vairs now love them
The place the Corvair gets stuck is on the showroom floor despite it's shortcomings the Ford was a more usefull truck with a working heater/defroster and outsold the Corvair about 5 to 1. In the case of their car counterparts the Falcon also clobbered the Corvair in the sales dept
The Corvair Monza was the inspiration for the Mustang. This was the start of GM not being number one. The Corvair while thad a few issues, was a great and innovative car. I own a '65. After the Corvair, GM took less and less chances resulting in boring cars and losing market share.
The mis-matched tailgate & no rear bumper show how hard GM pushed this. Yeah, most pickups were sold w/o rear bumper, an dealer option, back in the day. Maybe they still are. My money says that Ford wasn't showroom stock. Ballast on the Ford's floorboards, behind its bumper, etc? Add ahead of front wheel, subtract behind rear. See a spare in the back? I owned a 70 VW bus single cab. Nothing like a Mazda or Datsun in the same decade. Carry a ton without doing wheelies. Same load, on all 4 tires.
The counterweight was removed from the econoline, and it was the light duty rear end that had wuss-o-matic leaf springs. All of that was improved on by Ford. I've owned a 61, two '63's and a '65 and no matter how I tried I couldn't get them to nosedive like that. I will give props to 'vair for better traction...but the econolines do the tightest donut burnouts around ha ha ha ha ha....the cab stays in one place while the ass end whips around....good, wholesome American fun!
Both Ford and Chevy would modify the competition's vehicle to make it look bad. Both trucks had their advantages, I'd buy the Corvair if I needed a small truck because of its superior traction and handling, but its drivetrain was very unconventional. The Late Corvair (1965-69) was one of the best American cars built during the 1960s.
@@dynodon8592 I've driven both, and the Rampside is the better truck hands down. I had a neighbor growing up that rolled an Econoline - never seen a Corvair of any type that's been rolled.
@@UPMOSTJEWEL Superior spelling... Try TRACTION and HANDLING when you try to put down a clearly superior product. I guess you didn't watch the movie...
First of all if you were going to be working construction sites I doubt you'd be driving the 1950's version of a small pickup. You'd be driving an F600 big job, or a 4x4 F1.
I have seen exactly ONE Econoline pickup in the last 5 years, while there are several Rampsides at every big (say, 1,000 vehicles), general-interest car show I go to. That one Econoline pickup was in the car corral for sale. It had a ramp rough cut into the side of the bed trying to mimic the Rampside!
The Corvair was ugly. I thought Ford put a counterweight under the bed to help with weight distribution. Looks like they conveniently left that off the test truck.
Fun to watch the corny old PR. BTW, "Unsafe" was about the first gen Corvairs with swing axles (same as VW). And any vehicle can be made to roll over with the right (wrong) braking and steering inputs. It's a good example of GM making an innovative vehicle, but skimping on upfront R&D, then killing it soon after the defects were fixed! (Same with Fiero.)
Studebaker built a prototype for comparable cab-forward powered by a 180 horsepower 259 V8. Probably no great loss that it didn't make it, and the design may be best forgotten.
Not sure if I believe that braking test- my father had an old econoline van and yes the traction was terrible in the winter but to see a vehicle react like that seems kind of hard to believe
There was a ballast (basically a heavy block of iron) in the back of the Econolines from the factory. Look at how high it sits. The ballast has likely been removed.
Weird sound track, drum rolls, groaning noises, gongs and cymbals when ever the ford truck fails its test. The announcer in his sarcastic timber really wanted you to know how much he hated the Ford product!
Ford should have placed the gas tank and spare tire under the rear overhang to act as counterweight. Tho, you can easily modify this Ford pick-up. Ford looks better than the Corvair pick-up.
J Mac As a mechanic, all cars from before the mid seventies were dangerous. In a head-on crash, many times the steering column was pushed through the driver's chest.
The POS was so Good it was history in 5 years! I knew of guys that got sucked into buying one of these crappy cars. they nearly froze to death in the winter then they had a gas heaters installed and the heater burned more fuel than the engine.
I never had a Rampside but I did have a Greenbrier van. Nice and warm with the gas heater which, when properly adjusted, cut mileage by roughly 1/2 mpg. I never had a problem with my 'Brier, even on 500-mile interstate trips.
No, never happened. Ford's bed was too high for a ramp to the bed to be practical. You know, that big, bulky FRAME got in the way, made the load floor too darn high.
GM was playing games with the Ford - I am GM man. Personally, I wouldn't own either of these model trucks as they are not particularly useful as a truck compared to the traditional models. However, they and the Dodge, Volkswagon and Jeep and I vaguely recall an International variant were all cool in the way of their uniqueness. Something the manufacturers could afford offer back then.
"Uniqueness"? Why do you think they called it a "RAMPSIDE"? The Rampside was more practical than any of those other trucks, because there is a RAMP in the SIDE of the bed! It lowers to ground level to make loading and unloading of the bed easy. Landscapers loved them - drive the mower right up into the bed, no trailer needed.
That Econoline braking looks scary- my Dad had a 63 Econoline back in the day and that thing would get stuck going downhill , that breaking test should have had Nader on their butt fast if it was real?
Also incorrect tailgate on the econoline.....what's up with that? Welp...Probably another attempt to reduce the rear end weight any way they could so they could try and make it look like Ford would actually put a vehicle out that nosedives like that...nice try :)
Leverage, the bed was empty, which would be extremely light and there were two people in the front of the truck with the engine, which would be extra heavy, especially since we didn't see exactly how big the people in the cab are ;)
+Mark G I had the gas tank out on one Ford and there was a big iron weight bolted in under the rear floor. The corvair van my dad had would do wheelies on bumps with the steering unloading,especially with paint in the back neither very safe, Ford had a way better engine though and you sat right next to it . kept you warm in the winter for sure, Corvair had no heat really and even then chevy did not offer rebuilt motors for them.
@@radioguy1620 The Corvair flat-6 was a very dependable engine. In roughly half a million miles of driving Corvairs, I've never had a major problem worse than a single dropped valve seat (after my wife put regular gas in my 220 h.p., 11:1 compression '66 Monza Mustang eater). The cheap gas caused it to ping and the seat came unseated. Oil leaks? None with Viton rubber seals. Fires? A myth. Flipped fan belts? Not when they're adjusted correctly and the engine isn't brutally overrevved.
my older brother, bought a used 61 Econoline van that had been used by a local TV Appliance store, in 1970, I think he paid $100 for it, high miles etc. It was a easy fix, he bought a used 6 engine and put it in, had it painted , carpeted the back, and drove it for some years. Actually, he and his wife drove it on a cross country trip, in 71, when they got married and she had a 66 Riviera. They liked it.
Did she have it naturally or by C-section.?
I believe the rear ballast was not in the early production Econoline pickups; it was installed because of handling problems like what you see here.
I'd buy an econoline precisely because it can stand on its nose. It's bloody hilarious.
I feel this was one sided
The gravel mining buildings in the background were in my home town Oxford Michigan. It was American Aggregates. It's a golf course now but that mining operation was in operation when I was growing up there. I still live near there.
1:10 "even on a solid lake of ice" What could possibly go wrong?
You'd find where the thin spots were.
Obviously, rear engine design is the future of light trucks....
Cool film, sounds like Bob Barker narrating.
They need to bring vans built into trucks back, 10 foot bed, but less length with the hood.
Digging that Econoline stoppie :) !
The music is "Mary Jane" by Bobby Rush .
The Econoline was a virtual Clownmobile.
my brother was almost killed in a corvair it rolled and burnt at 30 miles an hour , his girl friend and some passer bys pulled him out the back window because the rest was crushed in
Good thing he wasn't driving a Pinto !!!!!!!!!
+lesterclaypool1 They weren't any less safe than any other car of the era.
n0exit
I fail to see the part of my comment where I insinuated that they were?
Wrong. They were even worse.
@@1unsafe1 The Pinto got a bum rap; it was no more dangerous than its RWD 1970s competitors. Even the internal documents in which Ford supposedly traded off cost-per-car VS cost-per-lawsuit were not specifically related to the Pinto, which was one of the safest (mostly due to its size) mediocre small cars on the market.
I miss these old cars that got you where you were going without dozens of computers in them. Just basic, honest transportation.
They should have shown the ramp side gate. I remeber a Chevy comcial when I was a kid where they load a baby elephant into a Rampside Corvar. It was cool!
That elephant later spread in a Volvo t.v. commercial demonstrating the punishment that the car that could withstand 10 Swedish winters could take .
Awesome commercial
Nice looking trucks
Somehow these poor results for the Ford seem to be staged, especially the forward wheelie when stopping!
the econoline had the engine in the front between the seats, it made it top heavy. The corvair had the engine in the bed of the truck making the weight distribution much better. Either way they are both super cool and I would love to have one or the other.
The econoline has a counterweight at the back of the truck under the bed to balance it out. That weight was obviously removed to make this con advertisement video.
Are you surprised?
@@enriquecortez1963
Actually, Ford did not put a "counter weight" back there. Customers got to where they would put a steel plate under the rear of the truck because of this issue. Ford didn't do it from the factory.
Edit: Some would put the steel plate in the bed.
So the ones making the "Rigged" comments ever drive an econoline pick up?...PROBABLY NOT, I worked for a few Ford dealers,those econolines WERE heavy in front!,Also not totally sure but there was a big deal over Econolines catching on FIRE.. in early 60s...NOT from GM....So give your armchair opinions.... rather hear weather report in Siberia😁
The '61 didn't have the weight. Ford recalled them and they all had the wight from mid 61 on. epups and shorty vans. The supervans never had the weight. I believe I read somewhere that the service vans sold to Bell didn't have them either. My 66 shorty 6 door econoline was originally a Sears delivery van. It has the factory mounted weight right over the gas tank.
It's too bad Chevrolet discontinued the Corvair truck and van lines after 1965.
you can thank Ralph Nader and his book for that
@@themagicboy6548 Ralph Nader is full of shit! Any car can be dangerous, or any car can be perfectly safe. It depends on how one drives it.
@@themagicboy6548 Corvair van was dropped early in the 1965 model year (December 1964), before Nader.
i have a 69 mustang too but that ford truck would get stuck easy..i know....but my corvairs never did ,,,ii lam in dayton ohio area...so we got hills an snow ..the corvair truck is what i want but gee i have a 92 k1500 so i am just wishing have 6 vairs now love them
Ha! that nosedive was COOL!
is that Bob Barker narrating
3:45 That looks like it would be fun sport. I wonder why it never caught on.
fun to watch. not to experiance :D
Great stuff!
I see it has the optional 13s.
The place the Corvair gets stuck is on the showroom floor despite it's shortcomings the Ford was a more usefull truck with a working heater/defroster and outsold the Corvair about 5 to 1. In the case of their car counterparts the Falcon also clobbered the Corvair in the sales dept
The Corvair Monza was the inspiration for the Mustang. This was the start of GM not being number one. The Corvair while thad a few issues, was a great and innovative car. I own a '65. After the Corvair, GM took less and less chances resulting in boring cars and losing market share.
This must be where Dick Harding got the idea for The Original Backup Pickup.
Yes Because you would take a Cab Forward in a Off road Bumpy Area
Funny, the Ford was on a sheet of ice & the Corvair was basically in some snow at first then moved onto the ice. Nice deceptive advertising brah 👍
The mis-matched tailgate & no rear bumper show how hard GM pushed this. Yeah, most pickups were sold w/o rear bumper, an dealer option, back in the day. Maybe they still are. My money says that Ford wasn't showroom stock. Ballast on the Ford's floorboards, behind its bumper, etc? Add ahead of front wheel, subtract behind rear. See a spare in the back? I owned a 70 VW bus single cab. Nothing like a Mazda or Datsun in the same decade. Carry a ton without doing wheelies. Same load, on all 4 tires.
They are probably in private museums, guarded like the king's gold.
I'll take both. There's is something about driving without looking at the nose of a car/truck. All you'll see is the road.
i want both, take my money !😁
If you think the car makers don't steal off each other??!!!...Yeah right....
Who is the voice that's narrating the video?
sounded like bob barker
The counterweight was removed from the econoline, and it was the light duty rear end that had wuss-o-matic leaf springs. All of that was improved on by Ford. I've owned a 61, two '63's and a '65 and no matter how I tried I couldn't get them to nosedive like that. I will give props to 'vair for better traction...but the econolines do the tightest donut burnouts around ha ha ha ha ha....the cab stays in one place while the ass end whips around....good, wholesome American fun!
And of course burnouts really add to the trucks practicality and usefulness!
so why a TRD at the end
Chevy was even wasting their money trying to make Ford look bad back in the day 😂
Corvair engine weight on the back wheels. Almost over the wheels. Ford engine in front .
Mostly a Chevy Man,,, but, Pimp'd Out, Nothing looks as tough as the FORD!!!
I agree!!!
I do LOVE ME some VAIR BABY!!!
Amo mi econoline 1966
Both Ford and Chevy would modify the competition's vehicle to make it look bad. Both trucks had their advantages, I'd buy the Corvair if I needed a small truck because of its superior traction and handling, but its drivetrain was very unconventional. The Late Corvair (1965-69) was one of the best American cars built during the 1960s.
Corvairs the best car Bwhaaaaaa Now that is funny
superior traccion and handleling what are you talking about i think you're talking about a ford not a chevy
Joe
Usually FWD cars has better traction than RWD cars!
@@dynodon8592 I've driven both, and the Rampside is the better truck hands down. I had a neighbor growing up that rolled an Econoline - never seen a Corvair of any type that's been rolled.
@@UPMOSTJEWEL Superior spelling... Try TRACTION and HANDLING when you try to put down a clearly superior product. I guess you didn't watch the movie...
Neither of these were particularly attractive. Cab-forward design is safe, as the front passengers legs add strength to the crumple zones.
😂👍🏽
The econoline driver just can't drive 😂🤣
They removed the counterweight CHEATERS 😡😠
Yes but could you get a Corvair with a V8?
Completely unnecessary. Besides, an Econoline with a V-8 would be even MORE nose-heavy!
First of all if you were going to be working construction sites I doubt you'd be driving the 1950's version of a small pickup. You'd be driving an F600 big job, or a 4x4 F1.
I don't think they had 2018 trucks in the 60s--- how old are you?-never mind not worth the effort dumb -
Plus you wouldnt want a Cab Over
i wonder why you still see these old econolines, and no more of these corvair trucks?
That and the availability of parts.
I have seen exactly ONE Econoline pickup in the last 5 years, while there are several Rampsides at every big (say, 1,000 vehicles), general-interest car show I go to. That one Econoline pickup was in the car corral for sale. It had a ramp rough cut into the side of the bed trying to mimic the Rampside!
@@omepeet2006 Parts are readily available from Clark's Corvair Parts (www.corvair.com)
Still drive my 62 Rampside daily!
I have never seen any corvair van on the road but I have seen a few of the old econolines...maybe the corvair wasn't a hot seller in my area...
The Corvair was ugly.
I thought Ford put a counterweight under the bed to help with weight distribution. Looks like they conveniently left that off the test truck.
I read somewhere that GM's techs removed the weight before these tests.
The Econoline is REALLY ugly, and the Corvair doesn't need a counterweight in the first place!
Fun to watch the corny old PR.
BTW, "Unsafe" was about the first gen Corvairs with swing axles (same as VW). And any vehicle can be made to roll over with the right (wrong) braking and steering inputs.
It's a good example of GM making an innovative vehicle, but skimping on upfront R&D, then killing it soon after the defects were fixed! (Same with Fiero.)
Studebaker built a prototype for comparable cab-forward powered by a 180 horsepower 259 V8. Probably no great loss that it didn't make it, and the design may be best forgotten.
As a consumer, I sure want to take that Chevy truck out and put it through some turns...oops.
Not sure if I believe that braking test- my father had an old econoline van and yes the traction was terrible in the winter but to see a vehicle react like that seems kind of hard to believe
Econline was very unsafe. Even parked it looked it was tipping forward.
They MUST have weighted the front of the Ford. Too ridiculous lol.
They didn't need to , they were front heavy .
There was a ballast (basically a heavy block of iron) in the back of the Econolines from the factory. Look at how high it sits. The ballast has likely been removed.
Any car that has to have ballast added is poorly designed indeed.
@@BobbyLongshot You got that right, Rob!
wow
Carter Kinsman - bow wow..
Weird sound track, drum rolls, groaning noises, gongs and cymbals when ever the ford truck fails its test. The announcer in his sarcastic timber really wanted you to know how much he hated the Ford product!
Well, there WAS a lot to hate about the Econoline! How about the braking test - no way to fake that!
Ford should have placed the gas tank and spare tire under the rear overhang to act as counterweight. Tho, you can easily modify this Ford pick-up. Ford looks better than the Corvair pick-up.
Cool upload! What is that funky music?
The video compares Ford & Chevy trucks then there's a picture of a corvair being hauled by a Toyota truck.
I'm sure Ralph Nader would not agree.......plus these tests looked bogus.
+J Mac Nader was commenting on all cars of the era.
+Gerald Allen (lifetime Atheist) He was an alarmist......
J Mac As a mechanic, all cars from before the mid seventies were dangerous. In a head-on crash, many times the steering column was pushed through the driver's chest.
But then, Ralph Nader IS a horse's ass!
The POS was so Good it was history in 5 years! I knew of guys that got sucked into buying one of these crappy cars. they nearly froze to death in the winter then they had a gas heaters installed and the heater burned more fuel than the engine.
I never had a Rampside but I did have a Greenbrier van. Nice and warm with the gas heater which, when properly adjusted, cut mileage by roughly 1/2 mpg. I never had a problem with my 'Brier, even on 500-mile interstate trips.
Your talking VW ,!
Ford Econoline made a Rampside too, I had an extended Ford Econoline w/ the 240 6.. not a good choice for pulling trailers..
No, never happened. Ford's bed was too high for a ramp to the bed to be practical. You know, that big, bulky FRAME got in the way, made the load floor too darn high.
GM was playing games with the Ford - I am GM man.
Personally, I wouldn't own either of these model trucks as they are not
particularly useful as a truck compared to the traditional models.
However, they and the Dodge, Volkswagon and Jeep and I vaguely recall
an International variant were all cool in the way of their uniqueness. Something
the manufacturers could afford offer back then.
"Uniqueness"? Why do you think they called it a "RAMPSIDE"? The Rampside was more practical than any of those other trucks, because there is a RAMP in the SIDE of the bed! It lowers to ground level to make loading and unloading of the bed easy. Landscapers loved them - drive the mower right up into the bed, no trailer needed.
That Econoline braking looks scary- my Dad had a 63 Econoline back in the day and that thing would get stuck going downhill , that breaking test should have had Nader on their butt fast if it was real?
you could tell the were more careful with the corvair at stopping
Yeah, put a foot on the pedal and nail it, just like the Ford.
hehe ok maybe not THIS ford ;)
i call bs on this chevy commerxial
nope,,, junk
You DO mean the Econoline, right?
Also incorrect tailgate on the econoline.....what's up with that?
Welp...Probably another attempt to reduce the rear end weight any way they could so they could try and make it look like Ford would actually put a vehicle out that nosedives like that...nice try :)
ford for me ;P
Fake!!!!!
I'm not sticking up for FORD but they would have noticed this flaw in testing. There is no way two people could lift the back of the FORD so easily.
Leverage, the bed was empty, which would be extremely light and there were two people in the front of the truck with the engine, which would be extra heavy, especially since we didn't see exactly how big the people in the cab are ;)
+Mark G I had the gas tank out on one Ford and there was a big iron weight bolted in under the rear floor. The corvair van my dad had would do wheelies on bumps with the steering unloading,especially with paint in the back neither very safe, Ford had a way better engine though and you sat right next to it . kept you warm in the winter for sure, Corvair had no heat really and even then chevy did not offer rebuilt motors for them.
@@radioguy1620 The Corvair flat-6 was a very dependable engine. In roughly half a million miles of driving Corvairs, I've never had a major problem worse than a single dropped valve seat (after my wife put regular gas in my 220 h.p., 11:1 compression '66 Monza Mustang eater). The cheap gas caused it to ping and the seat came unseated. Oil leaks? None with Viton rubber seals. Fires? A myth. Flipped fan belts? Not when they're adjusted correctly and the engine isn't brutally overrevved.