You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??
Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.
come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,
So you've just agreed with me and torpedoed your own point.
Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.
Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.
Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.
I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.
You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?
It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?
That's where the phrase "kind of" comes in. Sure you can do it, but what's the point undoing the advantage you just gave yourself?
Literacy -- a lost art.