You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Corvetteforum.com today!
They made bunches and bunches of 69's. Of course that does not mean anything either. look at the 69 camaro, they made a quarter million of them and the camaros get higher and higher prices. but everybody loves a 69.
looking at that c3 prices thread, looks like the 70 finally overtook the 69.
I realize magazine racing is relatively non-productive and that these cars were running bias ply tires, but did you look at those e.t.s and trap speeds in the article above? Not exactly smokin. My 69 Mustang 302 convertible, pastel yellow with a luggage rack, has run a best 14.308 @ 99.1 mph. Bring on them Vettes! Actually, I've got a magazine article from 1969 that showsw my Vette's drive line combo (L36, 427/390hp, 4 speed, 3.36 gears) turning a 15.02 @ 92 mph. Again, not striking fear into anyone's heart. But, back in the day, that wasn't bad.
BTW, the 69s are the best because buyers have voted them best with their money. End of argument.
Best can be many different things, most power, best handling, best looking, most collectable, best investment, most historic, most memorable, most moving. The answer would be a different year in many cases. My '77 does it for me because it was the last year of the fins and flat rear window and it was built in 1976, the year I graduated and the Bicentennial. Thats all the history that matters to me and I wrote the check! It also rides better and handles better then any chrome bumper car I've ever driven and mine is no garage or trailer queen its driven almost daily from April till December. '69 does have a great song written about it though! Bottom line I love all C3's.
68-72 are clustered together pretty well. Not a ton of choice between them.
Personally, I went for the 68-69 because I think the gills are that much better looking than the egg crates. The car really does look like a fish, and the gills are much more in line with that styling. I do prefer the flares of the 70-72, and the seats are a hair better, although the headrests are essentially the same function as the highback 70-78.
I also preferred the 68-69 because they were the last ones that came in black.
I would have taken a 68, but the 69 is just a bit more sorted out. So much of this is taste and subjectivity, but thats why I bought the 69.
It's not often that the newer models get improved materials in their making over the older models, but in the corvette model this was the case. Although I like the '68, '69 Corvette style very much, my preference is for the '70 thru '72 models with '71 being my favorite...why?
The materials used in their construction and styling changes. I prefer the cast metal front grilles over plastic, also the metal rocker mouldings over fiberglass, the metal side marker housings over plastic. I also prefer the restyled seats, center console and dash and door panels.
I think the flared wheel wells are more manly and the squared exhaust styling more aggressive in appearance.
Personally, I went for the 68-69 because I think the gills are that much better looking than the egg crates......car really does look like a fish, and the gills are much more in line with that styling........
The gills were so well liked, they were copied by Plymouth's 'Cuda (also a "fish" car) in 1971.....
The last year for the legendary 427. Also the only year for side exhaust and it was quickly cut short due to complaints. 1970 marked the beginning of the end for muscle cars in general. Sure, there were exceptions...but the direction was clear.
Besides, 1969 just sounds so much earlier than 1970...you know, back in "the sixties"
As a owner of a 69 I bought it because of the side exhaust and the 427/435 BUT I do like the 72's the best I think a lot of times the last of a model year is far more refined then the 1st production cars. As far as horsepower you can always add more. The 72's would be perfect if it had the 69 side gills
1969 is only c3 available with factory side pipes and only c3 with side gills with factory silver inserts. Last year for 427 engine. I love the side gills with silver inserts. Lots of improvements over the 1968, and 1968 did not have factory side pipes or silver gill inserts.I do however love all corvettes.
The LT-1 option was available as a Dealer installed option.
My friend has a 69 L-46, that has the LT-1 options. All components dated very early 1970.
One was featured in a magazine article, but was not running properly.
That dealer built 69 LT-1 shure was a slow SLUG compared to the one Car Life tested in the 1970 model year. The 70 model went 102MPH in the 1/4 mile where the "69" dealer modified car only went 99MPH. I'm thinking it was running a std points ignition rather than the K-66 that was amnditory on the 70-71 LT-1 Vettes.
Call it what you want, there were NO 69 LT-1 Vettes in my book, they couldn't spare the intakes from Z/28 production and now with more than 20,000 extra Z/28 clones, building a 69 LT-1 clone won't be easy either. Not having a 6500RPM redline on the tach and no screw in rocker studs makes it not desirable to a guy like me who appreciates the evolution of the species. Chevy spent extra $$$ on the 70 and up LT-1 motors after too many warranty claims on the 67-69 Z/28 motors as they spit valvetrain parts out at high RPM. The screw in studs and guide plates were invented by one of my heros Smokey Yunick for race applications and no dealer conversion would ever have these details performed during a conversion.
I'n reading that article I think th eowner of that Vette was something of a WHIMP and should have stuck with the 350HP motor as he didn't want to motor wound out during testing. I care for my Vettes but I also use them to their full potential just like Zora would want me to do