Heard of Church rd. back in PA in the same area your speaking of, I don't know, so many great country back roads around that area. Yes, I agree there is nothing like that in FL, but you can't beat the weather down here, well the high humidity I can do without but you can't have it both ways, right!
I sure miss the snow around Christmas time, and hunting with my old buddies, but then not having to scrape the frost & snow from my windshield or shoveling my sidewalks is well appreciated. It's still very difficult to have Christmas with green grass, palm trees, wearing just a sweater. I get a real kick when it drops below 50 degrees and floridians walk around in sub-zero coats wearing gloves and ear muffs ha ha ha, what a bunch of wimps down here... Overall, it's a a good trade off. Peace!

rustylugnuts

 

More annoying to me are the creaks, squeaks and groans of the 50 year old chassis in bumpy conditions. But then I'm never sure if those noises are coming from the car ... or me.[/QUOTE]



I think you know Frank.

 

I think you know Frank.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you there....

 

Drive a stock 1960 Biscayne. Then drive a stock 1960 Corvette.

Case closed. The Biscayne wallows and dives and rolls like a pig. The Corvette, in comparison, is on rails.

Doug

 

My '58 feels like an sledge hammer hitting an anvil each time I roll over even the slightest bump in the road. The steering is suspect; however, the addition of radials made a world of difference. As someone else said, the creeks and squeeks make for an intersting background noise to the road noise.

 

Good point Doug.

I drove a 1960 Impala years back as a teen so I was far from gentle with it and remember having to hang on tight to the steering wheel to avoid sliding across the bench seat on hard cornering...used to make
killer right turns so my dates had to slide up next to me too...the car was definitely a pig in the twistys. My '61 (thank goodness) is not THAT bad...

 

A C1 that has all new suspension parts and has been aligned properly will handle just fine. You can feel the road and it's tight and true.
I believe many complaints are from cars that need work.
Larry

 

Every piece of my suspension is new and it's aligned properly. With bias ply tires, it drives like crap. With radials, it drives fine but nothing like a car that uses a newer style suspension, as in BALL JOINTS. I have no idea why Chev. went to ball joints in 1955 on pass. cars but kept the antiquated king pins on the Corvette until 1962.

Jim

 

To avoid having to design a new low production frame and probably to use up a bunch of old parts.

In 1955 and 1956, the future of the Corvette was in serious doubt.

Doug

 

A solid axel tends to amplify the bumps quite a bit more than cars with modern independent suspensions and one tends to get air under the tires more frequently than modern cars (that's why it has a grab bar on the passenger side), but I find the cornering quite good with radial tires. I like to call it a firm ride. .

 

I'm glad they didn't change. Ball joints on the '55 to '57 Chev (and later models) used to wear out really fast. It was one of the biggest sellers at the auto parts store I worked at in the '60s. Was with a friend once in a '56 Chev convert. Not many miles on the car, driving along and the balljoint separated !

 

The old-timers who raced C1s when they were new would stiffen the suspension at all corners for handling at the limit. Tied down tight, you could slide the car like a dirt-tracker on the skinny bias-plies of the day.

A 300SL gullwing coupe with a 283 and its IRS probably would have run away and hidden from a '50s C1, but fortunately they only had 183 cubes that were just getting on the cam at the end of a typical U.S. road race course straight. Torquey C1s would run away from them on the straights and they couldn't catch up.

Later, the C2 was the answer for taking care of E-Type Jags, but the unsophisticated small-block Cobra pulled a C1, outdragging the Sting Rays with its V8 and much lighter weight.

 

I do not road race the 56, although there are times that I'd like to (just to see how it does). If ANYTHING breaks, I can fix it, EXCEPT the body. I DO NOT do and I do not like paint and body work! YUK!!! I dispise it with a passion. Thus, I'm not willing to risk body damage. If I blow an engine, shred a Muncie or rearend, I'll rebuild it or put in a spare. I can do anything to the suspension, brakes and electrical system------------BUT NO BODY WORK! YUK! Thus, even a calm vintage racing exercise is out.

Now, I have considered setting up the 56 for some fairly serious drag racing. That doesn't bother me, because as I said, if I destroy an engine or something in the driveline, I'm OK with those repairs.

Tom Parsons

 

The folks from Modena, Italy might argue the "top notch" point vis a vis their machinery. In addition, the E-Type Jaguar was far superior in handling than any C1. Hell...even the MGs had rack and pinion steering back then.The big problem with the C1/C2 was really a weight issue. They were, simply, 600-800 pounds heavier than they should have been. That issue always irked Duntov. The physical demands placed on a car that is over 3,000 lbs vis a vis one that is comparably built at 2,000 lbs. are worlds apart. Just ask Shelby.

 

do people agree on what "handling" is?
Once i test drove a THEN new 88 FIERO, salesman riding along.
He says TRY OUT THE HANDLING
me: you want me to see how it handles?
him: YES
me; are you sure?
him: GO RIGHT AHEAD, TRY WHATEVER YOU LIKE
So i give him my version of GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS.
He says nothing.
He gets out, white as a sheet.
him: well i'm sure you won't buy THIS car.
me: Why?
him: you beat the crap out of it.
me: you said TEST THE HANDLING. IT handles GREAT, way better than i expected.
him: walks away mumbling, doesn't try to close sale.
.
so in my mind, i'm impressed, it handles like my 61. What does good "handling" mean? At the cars' limit, i'm in control, and it doesn't take any practice to find the limit, and it's fun, and doesn't spin out or bottom out, and it is not at all dangerous. That's good handling.
But, i don't think any 2 people would agree with each other, let alone me,
So, define
what is your "good handling"?

 

C1’s handle like a truck compared to most of the sports cars in its class, at the time. I’ve had the opportunity to drive many of the corvettes peers and they beat the Corvette, hands down. Those Vette drivers back then had to work their butts off to win any races against a Jaguar, Porsche, AC, Healey, Aston Martin and Ferrari, (never been in a 50’s Ferrari, still looking for a ride;-) ). The smaller company’s wanted a car that handles good, that’s what they were making. They didn’t have to compromise by using “off the shelf parts”, and it showed in the cost of those cars. Those cars were costing way more then the Vette and often time, still are today. Chevrolet knew how to make their car handle better, but it wasn’t going to make them money. So to answer your question, Chevrolet was just trying to sell cars using hype, because they really handle like crap. Corvettes could only catch up to most “foreign cars” on the straights and that was only after they put the V8 in. When you look at the race results from the 50’s & 60’s, Corvettes never really did that well in the big races, where they had to compete against exotic cars. I have a 1961 Corvette and I’m trying to make it handle like my E Type. But have not quite gotten there yet.
Just my 2 cents, Dave

 

Interesting comment Frank. I was out driving my '65 GT fastback on Saturday, and then the '62 on Sunday.
Both have had full nut and bolt restorations, including all suspension components. Both are bone stock and ride on original equivalent sized radials, both have power nothing, but the Mustang does have the original manual front disks (standard as you know on the GT in '65).
I gotta say that I find that the Mustang drives eons ahead of the '62, mostly in terms of the steering, precision of the front suspension, and of course the brakes. I have no problem coming into a corner a little hot in the Mustang, but the imprecision of the Vette front end always causes me to back down (probably a good thing). Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate the '62 for what it is, but the front suspension was designed for the Chev sedan in the mid forties, or maybe even prewar?
Even though the Mustang uses lowly early sixties Falcon hardware, I find the feedback and steering response much closer to the cars of today. The feedback is linear right up to it's limited max, I can trust what it's telling me.
I know that any modern day econobox could out handle it no sweat, but man I find it fun to drive it a little con brio.




Paul

 

Paul, why don't you weigh the 65 GT against an equally equipped 65 Corvette, that would be fair, or weigh your 62 Corvette against a 62 equally equipped Falcon.....oh sorry! That doesn't exist.... Let's keep it close to the same years for this to be fair.....

rustylugnuts

 

I should qualify that...I had two '66 Mustangs I called the beauty and the beast....1st and 2nd pics. The convertible was a tame 2bbl 225 HP, automatic, pussycat with all power....normal driving between this car and the vette (again normal speeds) are both pretty tame experiences...the 17" steering wheel and rear sway bar on the '61 vette add to its stability and ease of steering. (No rear sway bar on regular Mustangs). I think the vette has better weight distribution as well. I may be older than you by a few years...unmodified Mustangs were terribly 'skittish' cars (including 'bump steer' symptoms)....moreover if driven hard without the Shelby underhood bracing the shock towers were prone to collapse inward....they did not hold up well at all to spirited driving.

The fastback (the beast!) on the other hand was an all manual, 4 speed brute with a 'street boss' engine (souped up 289 with 351 heads). There were too many mods to the suspension to list here...beyond what Shelby did with them even. My C1 can't compare to this car which I specifically set up to drive 'on the edge'.... I could flip the fastback into a 4-wheel drift and go round corners steering with just the accelerator. Not sure if I could do it with the bone stock '61 vette but I'm sure it would be a life-changing experience...

The above comments would be a more accurate comparison... And you're a lucky man to have both a vintage vette AND Mustang....I had to sell one to get the other...

 

Since only 4 were built, and maybe 2 are known to exist, VERY FEW, if any of you know that the Vette DID get trimmed down in weight--------------back in 1956, to about 2400lbs------------but only had a 265 V8.
John Neas has one of the ORIGINAL, factory prepared (as in Chevrolet in Detroit, NOT an aftermarket vendor) 56 Sebring race cars. That car is pure gutted!!! It went to Sebring with almost no trim, no guts. The trunk is empty, no right seat, no interior, the doors are empty shells. No washers, wipers, radio, heater, windshield, top, etc, etc. Those were the only production line cars to be modified AND lightened. The 57 Sebring cars had windshields and hardtops.
With a 283, or even a 327 transplant, the 56 Sebring cars would be awsome. True, they had the stock type suspension, but with approx 600+lbs removed, the handling changed. Also, they had cut down steering columns for more arm maneuvering.
I built the std bore 265 and dual WCFBs in that car and it runs great! But it just needs cubes for lower end torque. It doesn't even start to work until about 4000rpm-----------------and John doesn't like for me to drive it like that!
The two SS cars (mule and real one) don't count since they are essentially prototypes.
The 1956 SR1 production cars were fully equiped, 2900+lb cars. The SR2 cars for 57 got a longer, thus heavier, nose. Without tops and windshields, they probably weight about the same as a production 57 car, but that longer, heavier nose kind of cancels out any weight savings.
So, from my observations, the only shot that Corvette ever had at a lightweight EARLY car (I DID NOT say Gran Sport) was the 56 Sebring prepared cars.
I know how my 56 runs with a healthy SB400. I cannot imagine how a stripped down Sebring car would run with a factory perpared big cube engine. John's SR2, with a professionally built ALL ALUM FI 350 is just incredible. That same engine in the Sebring car would just be pure terror!
And, once again, let me reitterate, the 56 Sebring cars and the 56 SR1 cars ARE NOT the same cars. Yes, they have some similar appearances, mainly that big rear air scoop for the rear brakes. But the scoops are even different.

Tom Parsons