Just finished reading another Corvette book published by the Auto Editors of Consumers Guide. A lot of chatter about the later C3's poor performance but you look at the numbers for the small block for 0-60 of that era compared to other years and they are pretty interesting. The dreary 70's look respectable despite the dramatic cutback in HP output.

Year Engi HP -Wt- 0-60 1/4 MPG --By
1958 283 250 2912 7.6 15.7 15-18 Sports car Illustrated
1963 327 360 3150 5.8 14.2 N/A --Motor Trend
1967 327 300 3150 7.8 16.0 N/A --N/A
1968 327 350 3260 7.5 15.5 11-15 N/A
1974 350 250 3450 7.5 16.0 12-15 N/A
1975 350 205 3660 7.7 16.1 12-15 GM
1979 350 220 3655 6.6 15.6 12-15 N/A
1981 350 190 3345 8.1 N/A -N/A- -GM
1982 350 200 3425 7.9 16.1 19-21 N/A
1984 350 290 3200 7.0 15.5 16-20 N/A
1987 350 240 3325 6.5 15.0 16-18 GM
2005 364 400 3179 4.3 12.7 N/A --GM

Of course, I happen to own an 81
Looks like I need to start saving for an '05!


Mark G

 

Im surprised that the 68 327/350 didnt break into the high 14's in the quarter, wonder what rear end gear and trani. What happened to 69 through 73? Missing all the LT-1's!

 

1968 - 4spd tranny, 3.70 axle.

You know how these books are, they only list certain configurations. They listed HP ratings for the LT-1's but didn't list any acceleration times. For some years they only list acceleration times for big blocks, which I didn't include, and not small blocks. Yes, there are a bunch of combinations of engines/axles and tranny's that would be better performers. I tried to list the vanilla small blocks for comparison sakes.

If someone has that info I can add it to the table.

Mark G

 

Interesting, but there are too many variables to really do an accurate year by year comparison. I'm often surprised when I read these type of stats, that the mid-late C-3's compare well to the early, high compression C-3's.

 

I agree.
I think a lot of it also has to do with a couple factors: 0-60 is less time for much variance compared to, say, 0-100. Secondly, how much power can you get to the pavement: the tires on C4's and C5's are at least twice as wide as the early C3's.

 

Transmission auto or manual and which one, rear end ratio, options and accessories along with coupe or convert all play a role on 0 to 60 times. I have the 1969 L46 with the close ration trans and 370’s. It’s a bare car otherwise. No air, or power anything except for steering assist. Owned it since 69 and remember going from 0 to 60 in first gear alone. WOT of course. Been a long time since I did that but curious if others could share their experience with max 1st gear speed.

 

Looking at the specs on the '79 ..... Thats not the vanilla flavour. That was the fire breathin' L-82.

I weighed my '79 about 6yrs ago. I remember 34XX lbs. I could be wrong though. As far as saving for a '05 - don't do it. Zip up your small block and save a ton of money . the '81 is a nice car

 

'81 driver here.

Don't know or care what my 0-60 time is, I LOVE driving it!

 

I think the transmissions in four speeds were also different. In some years the ratios of the four gears were different in the mid 60's from the mid 70's and in some cases it actually slows them compared to 70's for 0-60, quarter and 0-100 times. The 70's in some cases still had pretty good torque numbers...my 76 has a torque number much higher than the horsepower, for example. Add that torque through the right gears, rear end and wider tires and you have at least respectable. You do not have big block or the more modern Vettes with 200 hp more performance though.

Still....fun to drive.

Lance

 

And this is the point with the C3. They are fun to drive.

My 74 is an L-48 with automatic and 3.08 rear gears. 0-60 is a blazing 8.5 to 9 seconds (yes I have timed it). This is a full two seconds slower than my daily driver, a Ford Fusion.

But the Fusion does not get the same attention from other drivers like the vette.

 

According to this link, Motortrend tested a 1977 L-82 with automatic. It did 0-60 in 8.8 seconds with a 16.6 quarter mile time.

http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/1977-specs.htm

 

Mine hasn't made it to 60 in the three years I've owned it, but I know it will go as fast as my bank account will allow. I've got nothing to prove.

I have since installed a crate engine that purportedly will make ~100hp more than the stock rating. After accounting for exhaust and accessory differences, we're talking maybe 50hp better, I figure.

I intend to have fun driving it and working on it. If I race anyone at the strip, I fully intend to lose.

I would be curious what an otherwise stock 74-80 car would do with a distributor re-curve, headers and open exhaust, higher stall converter and a gear.

 

Yea, the miid 70's were pretty dark day's for performance car's. Kinda triple whammy. Restrictive catalyst/emission's, scarce fuel, and general public frowning of perfermance car's. Fact is these are Chevy's SB's, so easy to make them run with some back yard mechanic wrenching. Later 70's L-82's were geting lot's better though. Shame getting dusted by some of the modern grocery getter's now. 3.5 litre twin cam V6, 6 speed auto 60 in low 6's, mid 14's quarter's and 30 mpg highway. That's progress, but still not cool as an older Vette.

 

There's also the change in horsepower measuring standards, too. Gross horsepower rating (blueprinted engine measured on a dyno with no accessories such as alternator or AC) was the standard up until 1972 when they started using net horsepower ratings (all accessories in place plus exhaust).