how does the early chevy independent suspension handle? i'm looking at the 63-67's but am also considering a 62? (the one w/ 4 lights) b/c i've heard the solid axles were better than the early IS anyone have experience w/ both?


thanks

 

I had a 61 and currently a pure stock 66. IMHO the 66 does everything better. Great disc brake set up, crisp steering, tight compliant suspension. I enjoyed the 61 but it was scary to steer and stop - especially in rain (I drove it for real for 5 years but the 66 is just so much better. I drive it frequently in modern demanding traffic and it is superior to many modern cars in all around performance. It does get "squirley" because of bias ply tires but I adjust for that.

 

It's good to see a new face on here and you must be [U]very[U] new to Corvettes. The difference in handling between a '62 and the '63-'67 series is as different as they could possibly be.....like the difference between a '63-'67 and a C5 0r later. I'm sure you're gonna get a LOT of posts from owners who have had both and they're gonna tell you you just can't compare them any better way than to drive both.
A '62 is a fine example of Corvette history, as are the mid years...it's gotta be a question of how much you prefer one over the other, not just which one handles better...
BTW, before another member beats me to it, you might wanna fill out your profile....

 

I had a 57 and now I have a 65. The C1 corvettes are the one's who started it all. Great styling,loaded with character,but geez they ride and handle like a fifties pickup truck. The last time I sat in a C1 vette,I thought they were going to have to get the "jaws of life" to get me out of it. Funny,none of this stuff bothered me when I was 18 and had my 57.

 

They share some parts with 50s pickup trucks, too.

 

I have a restored 62, on bias ply tires (remember that point for later), and a pretty-correct 65 on new radial tires plus a composite rear spring.

The 62 rides like a go-cart, no A/C, no power steering or brakes.

The 65 rides much nicer (due in part I'm sure to the radial tires), does have A/C, power steering and brakes, etc. My 65 is incorrectly sprung, having a small block engine but big block front springs, plus this composite rear spring that is the wrong rating for my car. As a result it's a bit bouncy on rough roads but that is a function of the wrong parts being on my car on both front and rear. Even then, it still rides much nicer than the 62.

From handling as well as overall daily usability I'll pick the 65 over the 62 every time. For going to a cruise-in, either car will turn heads, although a 62 is a less common sight than a 63-67 at the car get-togethers.

I'm 6' 2", and to get into the 62 involves the following:
1) Open door
2) Stick right foot in all the way to the gas pedal
3) Get butt in seat
4) Slide right leg between huge steering wheel and seat
5) Grab long left leg with my left hand, and pull/tuck it into the car, working around the door pillar
6) Shut door.

To get into the 65 (a coupe), involves the following:
1) Open door
2) Get in
3) Shut door.

Now, I also have an 07, and the difference between the 07 and the 65 is about 200% larger than the difference between the 65 and 62.


Jeff

 

but, the 62 rides like a buckboard, not a go-cart...
Bill

 

There is no comparison in handling between my 61 and 65. The 61 handles slightly better than a 54 Chevy. The 65 is very well balanced and predictable. The early mid years handled the same as the later mid years.

 

Maybe to help you a little, C-2 and C-3 Corvettes used the same suspension (except for a modified strut rod bracket, and larger front wheel bearings).

 

62Jeff - the description of entering your '62 is a riot. I thought about it and that is exactly the process I use, just never wrote it down. Getting out is similar except I start with left foot on the ground and do a 1/2 body roll to the left to get moving out of the car; dragging the right leg along.

My '61 drives exactly like a truck going from a stop on straight aways (I drove 2-1/2 ton trucks in the Army) right down to the clutch action needed to get rolling. These cars are not for auto-crossing; they just plain get attention. My '66 Mustang convertible turned lots of heads; the vette turns them all.

 

Through 79, at least. 80-82 got a new rear suspension/differential.

 

Yes, differential and mounting.. but, suspension geometery remained unchanged. Plastic spring did make an appearance though, didn't it?...

 

I owned a 68, then a 1960 vette and now a 1965. My '65 is bone stock as were the other two cars. neither of the 3 cars handle like modern but the 1960 was rough while my 1965 is a good cruiser. The car with power steering, disc brakes and AC is a decent ride although more for nostalgia then performance.

I love them all but it really depends on which appearance you like better. They just do not compete with modern cars in handling or acceleration. They are just fun.

 

Rickybobby, I RACE with real factory Cobras, and I am competitive. The C1s race with Morgans. Please think about that, 'cause there is no comparison between the two as far as handling and ride.

 

thanks for the input, leaning towards a late c2.. this is offtopic now but can anyone fill me in on the trunk space issue coupe or vert??? i know the earlier ones had a trunk the sting ray apparently does not?

 

No trunk, but quite a lot of space behind the two front seats. The convertible is a little easier to access the space than the coupe with the soft top on. You can raise the lid, raise the rear of the top, and place two large suitcases beneath the top folded down. The top folded rests on the rear wheel wells.

More space (a little, but perhaps not much more usable) in the coupe, but it's like the convertible with the hardtop on, only practically accessible by going thru the doors and behind the seats.

Really, a surprising amount of luggage space in either of the cars, in my opinion.

 

each and every car is going to drive different. You just have to get behind the wheel and see if it suits you. When I bought mine I drove 11 different cars and the one I own drove the best. That included every year in the C2 category. enjoy looking and enjoy what you purchase.

 

God no bad words about the 64s that is good

 

The composite spring did make it's first appearance in 1980. The geometry changed a bit, the 80-82 strut rods are angled, rather than straight light the 63-79 units.

 

Same guy designed the Conastoga (covered) wagons, then went on to design the C1 suspension.

Plasticman