why not a 68?
11-24-2014, 12:27 PM
#21
Burning Brakes
Ha Ha ... I guess I'm a fool with my 16.00 second ,rubber bumper , bubbleback window ,non-StingRay, Crappy CFI motor vette ... BUT I do have a 1970 Chevelle .... does this make up for my C3 short comings ??? 😊 .... LOL
Seriously , I love all C3s...... Can't get enough of them .
Seriously , I love all C3s...... Can't get enough of them .
11-24-2014, 12:36 PM
#22
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: Eustis ( Area 51 Bat Cave ) Fl
Posts: 11,608
Received 771 Likes
on
644 Posts
Whew.... round them up and hose them down..
....I really didn't take this as trolling and I do know a couple of people on this forum who sadly all they seem to do is troll.
I have heard different year c3's dissed and being a modder none of that applies to me, I build the c3 "I" want because GM didn't,
For example Mike has 68 door molds I could easy-o add the push button door handles to my 69,
I like the ignition on the dash but that would take more work,
and sure I need fender lips...well, in my case I need flares but if you wanna diss a year vette go look at the 84.....
But a 68 besides having a few one of a kind parts is no better no worse than any other 69-72
....I really didn't take this as trolling and I do know a couple of people on this forum who sadly all they seem to do is troll.I have heard different year c3's dissed and being a modder none of that applies to me, I build the c3 "I" want because GM didn't,
For example Mike has 68 door molds I could easy-o add the push button door handles to my 69,
I like the ignition on the dash but that would take more work,
and sure I need fender lips...well, in my case I need flares but if you wanna diss a year vette go look at the 84.....
But a 68 besides having a few one of a kind parts is no better no worse than any other 69-72
11-24-2014, 02:34 PM
#23
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2014
Location: California
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies accepted. I own a '74 too and as far as I'm concerned, the only difference between 'good' years and 'bad' years is their desirability. All of them (1968-1982) are a PITA to work on, worth less than their Camaro and Chevelle brethren and take a certain kind of owner, to even own any C3!
All cool now
Thank you guys!
11-24-2014, 02:42 PM
#25
Melting Slicks
I do not take offense at the original message
so what? looks like an opportunity to exercise some of your remaining free speech, 
(for now) to say what you either like or dislike.I like ALL Corvettes, and very particularly the ones I am very fortunate to own
Last edited by 20mercury; 11-24-2014 at 02:44 PM.
11-24-2014, 03:14 PM
#26
Team Owner
Member Since: Jun 2000
Location: Southbound
Posts: 38,928
Likes: 0
Received 1,468 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Cruise-In II Veteran
1968 First year for the body style. One year only parts. Run Forrest.
1969 Strike year. Not as pretty as 68s.
1970 Shortest production year. Not enough of them.
1971 Strike year. One year only funky C11 VIN derivitives.
1972 No fiber optics. LT-1s with AC.
1973 First year for rubber nose. Not good.
1974 Strike year. No fuel door emblem.
1975 Last year for convertibles which GM should never have discontinued. Shun these.
1976 Vega wheel.
1977 Hybrid interior; part new, part old. Blue engines.
1978 Identity crisis. 25th Anniversary? or Silver Anniversary?
1979 Way too many of them. Dime a dozen.
1980 New nose and rear bumper. No 4 speed with the L-82.
1981 Computer. No optional engine.
1982 Crossfire and no 4 speed.
Let's see...which "worthy" year does that leave us?
11-24-2014, 03:52 PM
#27
Le Mans Master
You've been listening to the wrong people. Here's the skinny on C3s:
1968 First year for the body style. One year only parts. Run Forrest.
1969 Strike year. Not as pretty as 68s.
1970 Shortest production year. Not enough of them.
1971 Strike year. One year only funky C11 VIN derivitives.
1972 No fiber optics. LT-1s with AC.
1973 First year for rubber nose. Not good.
1974 Strike year. No fuel door emblem.
1975 Last year for convertibles which GM should never have discontinued. Shun these.
1976 Vega wheel.
1977 Hybrid interior; part new, part old. Blue engines.
1978 Identity crisis. 25th Anniversary? or Silver Anniversary?
1979 Way too many of them. Dime a dozen.
1980 New nose and rear bumper. No 4 speed with the L-82.
1981 Computer. No optional engine.
1982 Crossfire and no 4 speed.
Let's see...which "worthy" year does that leave us?
1968 First year for the body style. One year only parts. Run Forrest.
1969 Strike year. Not as pretty as 68s.
1970 Shortest production year. Not enough of them.
1971 Strike year. One year only funky C11 VIN derivitives.
1972 No fiber optics. LT-1s with AC.
1973 First year for rubber nose. Not good.
1974 Strike year. No fuel door emblem.
1975 Last year for convertibles which GM should never have discontinued. Shun these.
1976 Vega wheel.
1977 Hybrid interior; part new, part old. Blue engines.
1978 Identity crisis. 25th Anniversary? or Silver Anniversary?
1979 Way too many of them. Dime a dozen.
1980 New nose and rear bumper. No 4 speed with the L-82.
1981 Computer. No optional engine.
1982 Crossfire and no 4 speed.
Let's see...which "worthy" year does that leave us?
That's just too friggin' funny and some it is true too!
11-24-2014, 05:06 PM
#28
Safety Car
11-24-2014, 07:14 PM
#30
Pro
You've been listening to the wrong people. Here's the skinny on C3s:
1968 First year for the body style. One year only parts. Run Forrest.
1969 Strike year. Not as pretty as 68s.
1970 Shortest production year. Not enough of them.
1971 Strike year. One year only funky C11 VIN derivitives.
1972 No fiber optics. LT-1s with AC.
1973 First year for rubber nose. Not good.
1974 Strike year. No fuel door emblem.
1975 Last year for convertibles which GM should never have discontinued. Shun these.
1976 Vega wheel.
1977 Hybrid interior; part new, part old. Blue engines.
1978 Identity crisis. 25th Anniversary? or Silver Anniversary?
1979 Way too many of them. Dime a dozen.
1980 New nose and rear bumper. No 4 speed with the L-82.
1981 Computer. No optional engine.
1982 Crossfire and no 4 speed.
Let's see...which "worthy" year does that leave us?
1968 First year for the body style. One year only parts. Run Forrest.
1969 Strike year. Not as pretty as 68s.
1970 Shortest production year. Not enough of them.
1971 Strike year. One year only funky C11 VIN derivitives.
1972 No fiber optics. LT-1s with AC.
1973 First year for rubber nose. Not good.
1974 Strike year. No fuel door emblem.
1975 Last year for convertibles which GM should never have discontinued. Shun these.
1976 Vega wheel.
1977 Hybrid interior; part new, part old. Blue engines.
1978 Identity crisis. 25th Anniversary? or Silver Anniversary?
1979 Way too many of them. Dime a dozen.
1980 New nose and rear bumper. No 4 speed with the L-82.
1981 Computer. No optional engine.
1982 Crossfire and no 4 speed.
Let's see...which "worthy" year does that leave us?
11-24-2014, 09:14 PM
#32
Le Mans Master
This topic keeps coming back like a bad rash. Some people can't get over the stories about some early production problems that the 68's had which happens any time that a new model is released . It's been 46 years since these corvettes were built and many have been rebuilt several times . Do you seriously think that any factory problems still exist ? There is virtually no difference between the basic 68 and 69 and the 68 has all of the unique features . I have had three C3's and two of them were 68's and I loved them both. If there were any strange problems , I never found them. If you are passing up a 68 because of this nonsense , you are missing out on a great car.
11-24-2014, 09:28 PM
#33
Team Owner
I do not recommend the 1968 corvette for people who:
seek approval from others
are not sure of themselves
have thin skin
need others to tell them what is desirable
worry about what other people think
have a chip on their shoulder
Honestly I bought my 68 because I could get more car for the money than other similar model years and I found a car in good condition that had all the features I was looking for, within my budget. But, after owning the 68 for 15 years I have come to love the uncluttered lines of the original 1st year C3 without the distraction of Stingray emblems... and I don't give a flying #### what Corvette experts or Corvette ignoramasses think about the 68 model year.
So my advice is, if you like the 68, buy one. If you don't like it, stay away. And if you can't figure out by yourself if you like it or not, definitely stay away.
seek approval from others
are not sure of themselves
have thin skin
need others to tell them what is desirable
worry about what other people think
have a chip on their shoulder
Honestly I bought my 68 because I could get more car for the money than other similar model years and I found a car in good condition that had all the features I was looking for, within my budget. But, after owning the 68 for 15 years I have come to love the uncluttered lines of the original 1st year C3 without the distraction of Stingray emblems... and I don't give a flying #### what Corvette experts or Corvette ignoramasses think about the 68 model year.
So my advice is, if you like the 68, buy one. If you don't like it, stay away. And if you can't figure out by yourself if you like it or not, definitely stay away.
11-25-2014, 09:10 AM
#36
Melting Slicks
the 68 and the 64 (for that matter) are a bit of a red hair stepchild, had both and are nice cars.
11-25-2014, 09:27 AM
#37
Nam Labrat
Member Since: Sep 2013
Location: New Orleans Loo-z-anna
Posts: 33,881
Received 4,153 Likes
on
2,726 Posts
As a Corvette Rookie, I have suddenly realized that......if I replace all the moving parts on a '68 with later model parts, I have a great-looking one of a kind car...........................
that is...........................
dependable!
that is...........................
dependable!
11-25-2014, 12:17 PM
#38
I was watching and waiting for a thread like this from you, Wolfrano02. Sure enough, here it is; a controversial, in-your-face, kind of thread, designed to **** somebody off. I saw it coming, based on not only what you post, but your comments as well
So let's See what we can expect from you:
"1974-1975 are these Vettes as gutless as their owners?"
"Only a fool , would want the '78-'82 bubblebacks"
"Why does the '73 only look half good?"
"Do the '82 TBI cars, really suck, that badly?".
There, I already have done half your job for you, just being yourself here, is the other half of that job, which is why are you working so hard at stirring up things and being an __________?
So let's See what we can expect from you:
"1974-1975 are these Vettes as gutless as their owners?"
"Only a fool , would want the '78-'82 bubblebacks"
"Why does the '73 only look half good?"
"Do the '82 TBI cars, really suck, that badly?".
There, I already have done half your job for you, just being yourself here, is the other half of that job, which is why are you working so hard at stirring up things and being an __________?
11-25-2014, 04:22 PM
#39
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Dec 2009
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
Posts: 6,397
Received 640 Likes
on
463 Posts
I'm thinking of buying a 69 project. I was initially considering 68s as well but I read somewhere that extra bracing was added to the nose of the 69 that the 68 didn't have and for this reason the nose can sag on older 68's. Is there any truth to that? I would think few 68s have had the extra bracing of the 69 added to their nose.
11-25-2014, 05:54 PM
#40
Le Mans Master
All 1968 Corvettes are junk. They were so bad, Car & Driver couldn't test drive the new one they received for the tests. Ask any Corvette "expert". You shouldn't accept one if it is given to you.
Now if you stopped at the above, you deserve not to get a good car.
The real scoop is the '68 had a lot of teething issues on start of production, mainly with the t-tops, something very new. Those were held up several months into the production run before they got them working right. The '63 also had a lot of teething issues, but have you ever heard anyone suggest NOT buying a '63 and buy a '64 instead?
Yes, there were issues with the cars, but there were running changes made to fix those like all cars, and a few months later Car & Driver not only tested it, but they gave a glowing report on how wonderful the car was, unheard of for a magazine that loved European/hated American.
NOBODY ever mentions that second article in Car & Driver.
Interiors changed with door panels to make them better. Braces were added to the rear frame to stiffen the chassis. By 3/4 of the way through, there were only cosmetic differences between them and the '69. Yet many believe that '69s are vastly superior to a '68.
And also this below. VVVVV
It is incredible that people think a car built 46 years ago is exactly like it was then today. Yet most Corvettes have been rebuilt or restored at least once in that time, and any imperfections have long since been fixed or removed.
Of course, people think they can look at any old Corvette and it is exactly the original condition, not looks like original, but the original parts and condition. You might find a '68 Impala like that, but odds are many things have changed on a Corvette over the years.
Now if you stopped at the above, you deserve not to get a good car.
The real scoop is the '68 had a lot of teething issues on start of production, mainly with the t-tops, something very new. Those were held up several months into the production run before they got them working right. The '63 also had a lot of teething issues, but have you ever heard anyone suggest NOT buying a '63 and buy a '64 instead?
Yes, there were issues with the cars, but there were running changes made to fix those like all cars, and a few months later Car & Driver not only tested it, but they gave a glowing report on how wonderful the car was, unheard of for a magazine that loved European/hated American.
NOBODY ever mentions that second article in Car & Driver.
Interiors changed with door panels to make them better. Braces were added to the rear frame to stiffen the chassis. By 3/4 of the way through, there were only cosmetic differences between them and the '69. Yet many believe that '69s are vastly superior to a '68.
And also this below. VVVVV
This topic keeps coming back like a bad rash. Some people can't get over the stories about some early production problems that the 68's had which happens any time that a new model is released . It's been 46 years since these corvettes were built and many have been rebuilt several times . Do you seriously think that any factory problems still exist ? There is virtually no difference between the basic 68 and 69 and the 68 has all of the unique features . I have had three C3's and two of them were 68's and I loved them both. If there were any strange problems , I never found them. If you are passing up a 68 because of this nonsense , you are missing out on a great car.
It is incredible that people think a car built 46 years ago is exactly like it was then today. Yet most Corvettes have been rebuilt or restored at least once in that time, and any imperfections have long since been fixed or removed.
Of course, people think they can look at any old Corvette and it is exactly the original condition, not looks like original, but the original parts and condition. You might find a '68 Impala like that, but odds are many things have changed on a Corvette over the years.