army

This thread is about changing the front and rear of the rubber bumper C3's to shorten up the overall length of the car. I'm interested in hearing what others think about how it could be done and whether it's feasible from an economic standpoint. I really don't care if someone doesn't think it's ok. It's my car and I get to do whatever I want with it.

There's a (closed) thread here which gave me some hope that the modifications I'd like to make to my `76 Corvette were finally going to be practical and affordable. Didn't work out that way but it was an informative thread regardless. It involved phenomenal workmanship but didn't really shorten the car up and it never did address the front bumper: http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-g...flares-11.html

What I'd like to see is for someone to produce a reasonably affordable kit to shorten up the overall length of 1974 to 1982 C3's by replacing the front and rear bumpers. I'm talking about a simple bolt-on deal. No significant modifications to the car by the owner should be required.

Here's a pic that I modified in Photoshop to show what I have in mind for the front. I am obviously not a pro `chopper so use your imagination as needed. The rear would need to be shortened by a similar amount.



This is not a chrome bumper wanna be thing. I'm happy with my rubber bumpers. They look good but they stick out too far at both ends. I'd like the length of the car to be more in proportion to it's width. If that involves removing the factory bumper system under the front and rear covers, so be it. Insurance companies like Hagerty don't care as long as the mods are declared (I asked). They will happily insure vehicles with no front and rear bumpers at all. And the legality of it is a non-issue. There's no rule or regulation that says C3 Corvettes must retain the 5 mph bumper system. I challenge anyone who disagrees to provide acceptable evidence to the contrary. Personal opinions do not qualify.

John 65

Not a huge fan of the body mods, but I must say that looks pretty clean. Perhaps getting a fiberglass front bumper, cut out the center area of it and graft the front and back peices back togther? Obviously the mounting area of the bumper cant be changed. Not even sure the 2 sections would match back up. Also, is there clearance behind the stock bumper for this, being it would be pulled in closer. Good luck.

markids77

It appears you would like to lose the bumperettes ala 1973 front and 1974 rear bumpers? A 1974 replacement rear should be a relatively easy project... you would certainly have to remove the crash structure behind the cover though. Ditto the front although the 74 front bumper lacks the center notch on your current set up so you would have to glass that notch in... a project probably best undertaken while prepping the entire car for a repaint. If and when I repaint my 77 next I intend to do just that to both ends, and I will bond the bumpers in as I think the seamless look also helps shorten the car a bit visually.

billcarson

interesting.i'm not sure if it's because i know the shape so well or i just think something looks out of proportion or what,but the front fender flairs would have to be reduced to keep the flow of the body line.

army

I'm actually a fan of stock looking Corvettes so I'd like something that doesn't actually look modified to 99% of the population and would require a second look by most C3 guys. I'm pretty sure the factory bumper system under the covers would have to go but that's fine with me. It's extra weight and all it really does is limit damage at very low speeds.

Cool old Kawasaki btw.

John 65

Thanks ! AKA the widowmaker !

army

Never rode a 750 like yours John but I did take a new 900 for a ride right after they came out. Scared the hell out of me. I remember trying not to shake when I got off it so my buddies wouldn't laugh

Clarification.. in my first post when I said 'No significant modifications to the car by the owner should be required', I meant other than removing the 5 mph bumper equipment. I probably should have said fabrication instead of modification.

I'd like to get rid of the bumperettes ..and about 2/3 of the bumper cover.

Not sure what you mean Bill. Are you talking about the side view where the curved upper fender line meets the bumper cover?

billcarson

yes,the shortened nose accentuates the fender flair and i think would look better made less extreme.

Alan 71

Hi A,
I think your picture does look quite good.
I'm not much of fan of long front and rear overhangs so to my eye this is an improvement.
I think the size and shape of the flair can remain just the way they are.
Regards,
Alan

Maybe an example of less being more?

HUSKEE73

A, i like what you did with the photoshop re do of the front bumper,looks good.makes that front end blend in nicely.now you have to take yours off and figure out how to fabricate a new mounting setup and fit a new cut down cover to match your photoshop picture.good luck with your project.

army

I can only wish I had the skills to do it myself. I keep hoping someone will do the R&D work and then market affordable front and rear bumper kits for the thousands of rubber bumper Vette owners out there, like me. Seems like a viable market, but.. I'm not a glass guy (or a business guy) so maybe it's actually not.

markids77

The parts already exist for the earlier cars but those require mods to fit our application. Yes there were 100,000 plus "bumperette" cars out there at one time, but the "mainstream" buyer probably wants either stock, or the later longer, even more cartoon like 81/82 front /rear treatments. We are in the minority if my informal researches are correct, and you can bet the parts manufacturers are better researched than I am.

blueray72

all it takes is some crazy fool to shape the foam to make the mold and lay the glass...sounds so easy

I really like the look. Imagine a fiberglass piece that didn't flex and took paint really well

I bet a lot of RBC3 owners would be interested in this option.

army

The parts exist to get rid of the bumperettes but that's only halfway to the goal line for me. I want to eliminate about 2" of the bumper cover too.

Check this out: http://www.cervinis.com/97-04dakota-...nt-bumper.html. I travel 60 miles of freeway to work and back every day and I've never seen a Dakota front bumper like that. Has to be a pretty low volume kit and yet the market was big enough for Cervinis to develop it. If you look at the rest of Cervinis products you'll see they're all low volume specialty items. Maybe I'm too optimistic but it seems like the 74-82 Corvette bumper market would be at least as viable as the Dakota 'Sniper' market.

Priya

That depends very much on which jurisdiction you live in. My husband does safety inspections and I'm pretty sure he says here you must retain the factory impact absorbing bumper system on cars originally built with them.

Personally when I looked at your picture I couldn't see any difference between it and the stock rubber bumper. It was only after carefully scrutinizing the picture I noticed a difference. For my tastes the change is barely noticeable at best and not worth the trouble.

army

No disrespect intended whatsoever, but hearsay is what I wanted to avoid. If there's a specific law on the books in Saskatchewan that says the 5 mph bumper on 1974 to 1982 Corvettes must be retained to pass a safety certification please cite it and, preferably, post a link to it.

The excessive length of the front and rear stock rubber bumpers on the 74 to 82 models is pretty obvious, to me anyway. A couple inches off the front and rear would change the look of the car considerably. You may not immediately notice or care about such things, but I do.

Trae1976

A couple of really big differences here:
- There were over 4 times as many '97-'04 Dakotas produced as there were C3s with the same bumper.
- Those Dakota bumpers were developed and produced while those trucks were still new and demand was at its peak.

And there are still many of those Dakotas still on the road, mine included. How many C3s do you see on your daily commute?

Not saying no one would be interested in your idea, but I just don't see much market for it. JMHO of course.

ezobens

I'm guessing most municipalities have some sort of generic ordinance on the books that state you cannot defeat the accident/safety systems that came with the car when manufactured-
But on the other hand, unless you are driving around with NO bumpers on the car I suspect no one would notice or care unless a lawsuit ensued for some wrongful death case etc.

The photo shop picture is cool-
Reminds me of how the 70's and 80's Mercedes looked in 'Euro' spec vs the the battering ram bumpers imposed by DOT. I had many Benz's that I reverted to 'Euro' spec lighting and bumpers just because they made the car look proper and not some crude afterthought.
Any examples of how the back would look?

Priya

I'll ask him about it tonight, but no, I'm not going to post the specific law or a link to it. He is licensed by the province to perform safety inspections and his word is law here - if he says a car that originally had 5mph bumpers and does not now needs to have them then it fails the safety, period.

What makes you think there's no such law in your jurisdiction? Did you check with your DMV and ask them? Anyone contemplating such a move should do so first, don't just assume its okay.

540 vette

How many people or state inspectors would even notice the nose is shorter and the 5 MPH impact equipment is even missing. How many of these guys have even seen a C3 corvette in person to make a comparison. In NY they donīt even require it be checked. And I am sure in most states you would get away with it.


I think it looks great and wished I had seen it before I molded in my bumpers. I would have given it a shot.