I'm just doing as much research i can before i have to make a decision about buying a C3.

From my personal preference I hate the look of the rear bumper from the 74+

But i notice the 73 has the same rear as say the 68-72 years but with the different front end.

The front end doesn't bug me much at all i'm just wondering if there were other +'s/-'s in the 73 or the 68-72's for that matter.

Also a lot of people i know say to narrow my search down to a 69-71....
reason for that?

 

1. More horsepower due to higher compression, etc
2. Better resale value
3. With the '68 to '69, you could still get a 427
4. After '70, it was all downhill for the muscle cars

 

73 is unique in that it is a one year body style. Other than the front bumper I think the '73 is pretty much the same as the 70-72. 68-72 did have a door over the windshield wipers that opened whenever you turned the wipers on. In 73 they did away with the door (prone to problems) and just extended the rear of the hood to cover the wiper arms.

I have a '72 454 convertible chrome bumper Vette. I wanted a 454 so that limited my search to 70-72. I would have liked a 70 or 71 mainly because of the higher horsepower rating. They changed from gross to net hp rating in 72 so it looks like it is a lower hp - but in reality they aren't that much different. My 72 was rated at 270 hp. In 71 the same engine was rated at something like 360 hp. 72 has a lower compression ratio to deal with unleaded gas which made a little difference but the biggest was switching to net hp rating.

That probably explains why people say to limit your search to 69-71.

I also like the 70-72 becaue the fenders were flared more behind the wheels to help with rock chips on the body.

68 was known for problems and poor build quality - most of which can be fixed. There are some parts that are only on 68s so availability may be a problem.

The pre-72 Vettes had fiber optics that let you know if a light was burned out. Not sure when it started. There is a fiber optic line that runs from the different lights to the center console. I've heard stories about fiber optic lines being cut by unknowing mechanics or just plain damaged.

 

Hi PV,
Here's a couple of small points... you can decide if they're a plus or minus.

1970... 454 instead of 427, no tri-power, last year for headlight washers.
1971... lowered compression ratios, last year for fiber optics.
1972... last year for removable rear window, last year for LT-! (became L-82), last year for wiper door.

Tough decision, most people have an opinion and favorite years.
Regards,
Alan

 

yeah the engine options aren't really that big a concern to me because i'll have a very limited budget.

So basically the first nicest one i can find once i get my C4 sold i'll most likely be getting.

I just need to decide how bad a condition i can get one in and still be able to restore it with my limited knowledge and skills.

 

I wouldn't go that far...LOL...a '71 Cuda' 440+6 is a fine little car...only reason I dont have a cuda instead of a vette is I cant afford one !!!!

Anyone wanna trade ? LOL....

 

I'd rather drive a Ford Pinto the anything made by Chrysler. Junk, junk, junk. I worked as a parts person at a Dodge, Chevy dealer and sold Chrysler parts. While I worked off my bu-- with sales. The GM guy slept at the counter.

 

Just trying to answer the OP's question. What are you trying to do...insult us? What's your problem?

 

73 aslso has:
rubber body mounts vs. solid.
door crash beams.

 

It seems you are assuming that the 71 models had higher compression ratios than in 72 - not so - it was 1971 where GM lowered compression. Example - The 70 LT1 was 370HP whereas the 71 LT1 was 330HP (and also rated at 270HP net).

 

You could probably get a better 73 for the same money over the 68-72s. If you like them and I do, maybe more bang for the buck. Rubber mounts and more insulation I think may ride better.
And if they ever start a c3 chrome bumper club, you can get in for half price.

 

Sorry for your predicament. Why don't you think about moving? As far as panties go, maybe you wear them but I certainly don't.

Nobody was beating up on any year car. The OP just wanted to know why so many people, including a lot of people he knows, have told him to restrict his search to the earlier cars. You and I don't determine the market and why certain cars are more "valuable" than others.

If you don't want to get "sucked in" then just don't post! Mocking the posts of others just ain't cool........

 

I agree with the others.

You posting so much yet so little in actual content takes away from basically everything i'm trying to accomplish with this thread.

Not to mention you're coming off as an azzhat.

Stay in tune...

 

Depends upon what you want the car for.....

If you want a collector then one of the HP 68-71 with original motor and all correct parts is the only way to go. You will never see an engine like those again.

If you want a driver and fun car, then why pay the extra bucks for the 68-72, go ahead and get the '73. It is the best looking any way.

If you have an original engine 73, then the L82 is only 5 hp off of the 72's LT1 and when looking at the 454, the 73 LS4 has 5 more hp than the 72's LS5.

But the best rule is to decide what you want the car for and then buy the best one you can afford.

tom...

 

Gregg;

Always seems to be the 73 issue. why?

 

Pretty simple I think:
68 was the first year for the C3 and was reknowned for build quality issues. I have no experience first hand but that is what I have read time and time again.

72 was the beginning of the end for the good old days as far as many bench racers and others will attest as more and more smog stuff was getting added and compression took a hit. I don't know off hand how much difference there was between the 71 and 72 but I can't image it was all that much.

Just don't buy a car with a rusted birdcage or you'll spend countless amounts of money getting it repaired properly.

 

well with the limited budget i'll most likely only be able to get a pretty worn one. Meaning i'll have to spend a LOT of time restoring it. My plan is to make it into a more modern car so keeping it original isn't a priority for me.

But since i don't really like the looks of the 74+ years i'm limited in my search to unfortunately what is the more expensive years....

If I had any brains I should just get a 74+, add the rear wing looking thing to make is somewhat better looking IMO. That way it'll save me thousands in initial startup costs, will most likely be easier to improve it's handling,....

But....the 68-73 years are just soooo good looking.

 

Posted by Goody:

Pretty simple I think:
68 was the first year for the C3 and was reknowned for build quality issues. I have no experience first hand but that is what I have read time and time again.

Posted by SS Racing:

68 was known for problems and poor build quality - most of which can be fixed. There are some parts that are only on 68s so availability may be a problem

Guys, you are wrong. Cite the problems with the build quality you speak of? I will help you on this, ONLY the earliest '68 Corvettes had build quality issues and were corrected. You should take a minute and research a little before you make statements like this. Ask John Z about the '68 Corvettes. He can enlighten you.

 

Do you really dislike all from 74-82 that much? Because with a limited buget you can sure get more car for the money in those years. For what you will give for a decent project 69 you can be driving a nice 80. I question the purchase of my first Vette sometimes when I see a real nice late 70's driver for sale for less than where I'm at with my car in pieces in the garage. Then I remember its a big block and all is well again..

 

pretty much. That rear bumper that slants down just kills any possibility for me.

Which means the only other possibility might be to get the 78+ with optional rear spoiler/fender flare. I think they started in 78+ right? if not 80+?

Those wouldn't be as bad as the 74+ but then i'd always see a 68-73 and feel like i should have gotten one of those....