Hello. As a C4 owner, I am not well equipped to shop for a C2. While I really enjoy my beautiful 96 LT4, it is not what I had originally desired. Anyhow, I was curious as I was looking at C2's in various places...I saw someone mention that there is a significant price difference between a 64 and a 65. If so, could someone give me the basic reason? Would like to find a 64 driver at some point and was just curious. I enjoy this site a great deal and would appreciate any info/advice.

thanks guys

 

'65's had 4 wheel disc brakes. Engine options were: fuel injection and big block engines. These options make the year more pricy.

 

OK, let me see if I can add a little bit to this.

There is a perception in some peoples minds that the 64 is a lesser C2 than the others. This is somewhat based upon the desire for the 63 SWC and the 65-67 disk brakes. I have always wondered where the 63 convertible fit into this logic, but it seems to hold its own pretty well. The drum brake issue goes beyond the actual workings of the brakes and seems to be at the core of the "disk is better than drum and = more value." Looking at the interior of the 64 you see some things that are actually more stylish than the 65-67. The guages are conical and the only year of the silver color (63 is conical but different color) and the door panels are ribbed. Seats are different style as well.

Overall, I think the 64 is also saddled with the hood design looking like the 63 inserts are missing and the fender indents are not to the liking of some who favor the louver style (shark gills) on the 65-67.

It's to each his own though. All the 64's manufactured were bought and in 64 this was as good as it got. I just sold my 64 and would not hesitate to buy another - there are some real deals out there to get in the C2 club when you look at a 64 and let the perception of lesser car drive the deal.

Rich

 

ALL C2'S ARE SHARP LOOKING......

 

64's do sell for a little less than than the other C2's. The reasons are because not a lot was happening in 64. Thats not really true IMO because in 64 they fixed some of the faults of the previous year and 64 was the first year of the L76 and the famed 30/30 camshaft. 1963 sells for more because it was the first year of the model line and of course because of the split window coupe. The 65 sells for more because its the first year for disc brakes,L79 and 396 engine,functional side gill vents that help keep engine compartment cooler,and I guess because of a little more updated interior. The 66 has the 427 and of course 67 is the last year of the C2. IMO,the 64's are under priced and the 67's are over priced, but the market is,what the market is and you cannot argue with that. If I was going to buy a C2,I certainly would not rule out a 64.

 

I agree, the 63 has many “one year only” and implemented running year changes. It would be the red headed step child if not for the unique split window. 64 was the first year for the 30-30 cam, and Holley carb. They also got the ignition MAP figured out for the SHP engines. And a host of other things such as rubber body mounts etc.

Mark

 

Thanks for the valuable insight. As I suspected, there is no glaring issue. I appreciate the views of people who have learned the ins and outs over time..no substitution. I know that simply a "perception out there" can have a big impact. And admittedly, I would be attracted to the lesser thought of model.... I also have an all original 69 Firebird..the heck with those Camaros.

 

My first ever Corvette was a blue '64 roadster. It was a four speed with 300 hp and ran real well. Purchased it used for around $3400 as memory serves me. That was in the fall of 1965 and got drafted in early 1966. My wife drove the car while I was gone and she loved it dearly. Upon my return we sold it for the down payment on our first home. I miss that car to this day and would never say anything bad about a '64. Kinda hacks me off when I hear others bad mouth the '64.

Earl

 

As far as functionality goes, disk brakes are the only big issue compared to later Sting Rays. Dick brakes can be added. I've owned at least one of every year 63-67 and they all drive about the same. So let price be your guide.

 

Louie.

I've been around cars all my life and have never heard of "dick brakes" on a car. Could you elaborate?

 

They are special brakes that keep you from running over morons.

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me Jeff.

 

You know, "dick brakes"... as in "I brake for dicks" .... very useful daily here in California

 

I remember having this conversation once with another Corvette nut. His theory about the lower value of '64 Vettes was a bit more complicated. He made an argument that seemed convincing at the time (and no we weren't drinking or smoking anything) that the same thing applies to non-Corvette cars and to cars from other decades. In other words, cars from 1954, 1964, and 1974 also have a lower value than cars from other years in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

This theory may not be perfect, and I haven't given it that much thought. But what would you rather have? A full size 1954 Chevy or a 1955 or later Chevy from the '50s? And do you know of anyone who would want a 1974 Chevy?

 

I think that was the special LARGE push rod option.

 

Actually it was a rarely mentioned birth control option on the C2's.

 

It is what I call my brakes when they are sucking air and giving me trouble.

 

Rich

very well put.

 

I had a '67 coupe, and sold it about 15 minutes before the prices started going crazy. I started missing it almost immediately. I suffered for about 4 years without a C2, and desperately wanted to replace it, but the prices on the '67's was going insane. I lucked into my '64 vert last year and love it. It has more power than the '67 (365hp 4 spd vs 300hp auto), and is a blast to drive. There are some good bargains on '64's compared to other models and I wouldn't hesitate to buy one again.