Carl F. Thelin

WHISTLE BLOWING

            So, with that background, having spent much time reading and rebutting Nader’s comments, I went to a Product Analysis Christmas party. This is the innocent statement that cost me my career at General Motors,

 “There are two cases that I prepared that I would not feel bad if we lost, because the people’s injuries would have been a lot less if they were in almost any other car. It was the unexpected spin-out that did them in. One couple was killed when their Corvair drifted into the shoulder and came back like the Rose Perrini case, almost cross wise, where an oncoming big Buick hit it. The other case we should lose is where a driver (yes he was under the influence) reached the end of the new expressway and spun out and overturned. Six other front-engine cars went off the end of the pavement. They had broken headlights and busted grilles but no one was injured.”

            Am I a pointy-headed liberal? Not at all. Many of us engineers, at GM and at Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, can be politically conservative but liberal in the social responsibility sense. We feel that it is the responsibility of the knowledgeable engineer and manufacturer to design every product without hidden hazards if it is feasible. I do not support greedy Personal Injury lawyers, but do support those crusaders who go after car makers that put profits ahead of personal responsibility. I was fortunate to work with many of them

            JUST LIKE NIXON

            The hazardous aspects of the Corvair became clear during the period from 1957 through 1960. It ended about 1969 when Chevrolet cancelled production. In August 1974, President Nixon resigned. Nixon was done in because his staff tried to protect him by not warning him what illegal things some people were doing on his behalf. He did not plan the break in at the Watergate Plaza, but he did attempt the cover up. The Corvair disaster was like that. Long before the Chevrolet management scheduled the release of Corvair for production, it was well know among engineers and technicians that the handling was not safe enough for the average buyer. I could see evidence of that in the Proving Grounds test reports and in memos sent from engineer to engineer. Edward Cole, a great engineer, developed the 1955 Chevrolet with the marvelous V-8 still used today. GM rewarded him by promoting him to Vice President in charge of the Chevrolet Division. We credited Mr. Cole with lots of neat ideas. One was his desire to meet the demand for small, fuel efficient cars that had to be on sale in 1960. He chose to follow the lead of the Volkswagen Peoples Car, the VW Beetle. That was the design, pre-WW II, of Ferdinand Porsche, a genius. However, Cole wanted a car with a six cylinder engine and sharper handling. That was to be the “Poor Man’s Porsche” - the Corvair. Mr. Cole did not have hands-on design responsibility for the Corvair.

            Industrial espionage allowed car company brass to know exactly what was going on at the other car companies. GM expected to outclass the mundane Ford Falcon and Plymouth Valiant with Ed Cole’s unique car with an air cooled engine in the rear. Who, among Ed’s underlings, would risk his career by telling Cole that his idea stunk? Who would dare say that the Corvair should not be ready for the 1960 production release, but should be modified, as it was in subsequent model years? Watergate was the cancer in the Nixon administration. If the Corvair had not been ready to compete with Ford and Chrysler, that would end Cole’s career. So, not one told him about the cancer.

            Do I agree with, or would I ever vote for Ralph Nader? No. He and his people have gone too far with their crusade by making it personal for people who are not the real bad guys. It was not personal. It was the NIH factor coupled with the emphasis on profits by cost cutting. I will tell you about the NIH factor later.  
NEXT: Surplused