if you want i will gladly take your money because i am keeping the gto. there are some not so nice people on this site. i happen to like the gto a lot. i also like corvettes a lot. in fact i like a lot of cars different make and model. its what you like that matters. if its an investment do your research and buy what holds value. if you want a driver get what you want and do what you want to it and dont give a dam waht anyone else thinks.

 

I've always considered the Corvette a sportscar rather than a muscle car.

However, if you really want to compare bada** muscle cars; Buick GSX Stage 2 (Stage III was aftermarket). 'Nough said.

 

I found the opposite to be true. Don`t get me wrong. I love Vettes. But I have always been a die hard Mopar fan. Mainly Dodge. Chargers and Challengers. I went looking for a 69 Charger. But found that a really nice base coupe was out of my range much less my dream of a SE/RT. So I started looking at my second love Vettes. Again my holy grail was a pipe dream any way.(63 split-window coupe) So I found a nice reasonably priced Laguna grey base coupe. I love it. But life circumstances was responsible for my eventual purchase. Other words, not deep enough pockets. But the vette has worked it`s way deep into my soul.

 

Eh? Have you every tried driving a 50s Caddy on a tight, twisty mountain road on the downhill? 4 wheel discs are a good thing...

I just went through this thought process myself.

Are you using the car for a daily or a garage queen? I'm sure you'll read online that Corvettes can rust obviously, but not as easily as the full steel bodied cars. So for a daily in NJ, the Corvette has a strong argument there. The T-tops can leak, but I'm sure you can find a solution to this. The 68-77 cars are also not so practical and visibility looking over your shoulder could be better. I think the 78-82s are best classic for a daily on those fronts.

My '80 'vette is currently parked behind a '71 Camaro SS in the driveway. I have to say, the Corvete really looks miles better. Sometimes you're in the mood for the Corvette's lying down driving position, sometimes not. So that's something else to think about.

In the end though, it all comes down to what's the best example of the models you're looking at available in your area in your price range. I'm sure other, more experienced folks will tell you, if you want a classic muscle car but are flexible on the model, just get the best condition car you can afford.

 

My understanding is that GM planned to make the vette a low production car so the cost of tooling for a steel body would have been prohibitive. For a low production car fiberglass was ideal.

 

No anger, just a few comments...
At least two of them are NOMs, one heavily modified. A chrome bumper Corvette with a NOM or modified as extensively would sell for no more than the asking prices listed, probably for less.
I don't follow the market for Chevelles, Camaros, etc. Are those markets less sensitive to NOMs? Prices seem a bit high...

 

I think the MAIN reason Corvettes don't bring as much money is their buyers are WAY too picky and think all the cars are worth next to nothing until they own one.

Muscle car guys go out and race and beat on their cars. Corvette guys pamper them and cruise around at the speed limit. Sure some get raced, but not many. I pass plenty of geezers in last C3's driving the interstate below the speed limit.

Also, a Corvette has two seats so no good if you have a family and like to go to cruise ins etc.

And, the muscle cars get all the media attention. Shows, etc. all go for muscle cars. I think FOOSE did a couple Corvettes on OVERHAULIN, but that is it as far as Corvettes go.

Since the overall image of Corvette owners from the general public is snobby rich guys, the average joe aspires to more average cars that fit them.

Also, the reputation of muscle cars being fast is an allure, even though most were not that fast, especially by todays standards.

PLUS, most in the day could not afford Corvettes, so they go out and pursue the cars they used to own which were the more common and cheaper muscle cars.

Since it costs so much more to restore a Corvette, that is also a deterrent. YOu can buy a muscle car and restore/resto mod it and get 20-25k out of it. If you restomod a Corvette it is considered garbage. Again the snob attitude comes out.

Also, sorry to say, IMO, the muscle cars have more aggressive looks. Many do not like the way the C3's ride....very rough and low, which also makes getting in and out harder for the older crowd, who are usually the ones buying the stuff.

Finally, they had the C3 line run WAY TOO LONG and they also diluted down the brand with the anemic mid to late 70's Corvettes that could not get out of their own way, which leads back to my point that the public does not associate old Corvettes with speed, but instead wealth. They know they are fast cars, but not really any more than a muscle car in perception.

 

This is the problem with Corvettes. There are tons on NOM and modified muscle cars. Many like that. It is only Corvette buyers that turn their noses up at the thought of buying a car like that. In fact, I would say that many muscle car resto mods now bring more money than all but the most rare and desirable muscle cars.

 

I think this is good thinking.

BTW my built Stage 1 BUICK tears a** and is a total TORQUE monster.

 

And this has to do with?................................... .......

Yea this site reflects that!

Yes as with the famous 425 horse 350 cid, im sure its quit tame and very streetable manners, for about 5 mins until the new owners gets sick of it and puts it back up for sale at the first cruise in.

I don't get this?
They will go 70mph on the interstate, 30mph down main street USA.
Some people like an American car they can drive without all the valve adjusting, low gear, loping, car shaking, scaring little old ladies attitudes.
If you can't get into a 77 Vette and go riding around and enjoy it you might as well just go back to driving for John Force because your just too much of a man for the normal masses you God like phenom you.

 

As others have stated directly or indirectly, it's all a matter of personal Taste. I have a 70 chevelle I've had since high school, Just recently picked up a 72 vette cuz I too was surprised at the reasonable prices. I love driving the vette, especially with the top down, but I can tell you way more people give me the thumbs up in the chevelle. And neither one is as fun to drive in anger as my CTS-V. The vette is the one I look for excuses to drive though.

 

Let's put those anemic late C3 Corvettes into perspective...

What's faster - a 1978 Corvette, or a 1978 Camaro, both stock?

The 1978 Camaro came stock with a whopping 250 CID V6. It was a pure muscle car, wrenching 110 HP @ 3600 RPM, with a massive 195 foot-pounds of torque at 1600 RPM.

The top-line Z28 had a 350 pulling 185 HP @ 4000 RPM and 280 foot-pounds of torque at 2400 RPM.

The Z28 would do a standing quarter mile in 16.0 seconds @91.1 MPH with a top speed of 123 MPH, and would do 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.

The base Corvette had a 185 HP 350 with just 185 HP @ 4000 RPM and 280 foot-pounds of torque at 2400 RPM. The L82 had a slightly less anemic 350, with just 220 HP @5200 RPM and 260 foot-pounds of torque @3600 RPM.

The L48 Corvette would crawl through from 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, and if it could actually make it a full quarter mile it would take all of 16.1 seconds @88.3 MPH. It's top 'speed' was only 123 MPH.

The L82 wasn't much better. It took all of 6.6 seconds to do 0-60, needed 15.3 seconds to do a standing quarter mile @95 mph, and had a top speed of 127.

The Camaro's top of the line Z28 runs neck and neck with that anemic L48.

Just for comparison.. The big-block 1972 Turbo-Jet LS5 did 0-60 in 6.8 seconds and a standing quarter mile of 14.10 seconds @ 93 MPH. Performance in 1978 wasn't really that far behind...

It's a pretty good rule of thumb that in a straight line, the top of the line Camaro will match - but not exceed - the performance of the weakest Corvette of the same year, and get it's doors blown off by the top-line Corvette.

 

Just saying, plenty of Corvettes got dusted bad by muscle cars, people remember that. Yes, they are fine for a cruiser, but so is a CADILLAC. Except for the guy with the CTS-V.

 

I like your GTO too. I almost bought one just like it but it was a convertible in the same color for $2K (along time ago) but dad wouldn't let me have it He also made me pass on a 70 challenger R/T 440 for $2.5K. I remind him of those cars frequently

 

A nice original restored 69 V8 350 Camaro will sell higher than a 300 HP base chrome bumper vette in the same condition all day. The 68-9 chrome bumper vettes may be equal, but 70-72's would certainly be less. Its sad to say but true - 69 camaros have always been the ticket. I'd say that a 78 Z28 in original condition with a 4-speed will sell higher than a comparable 78 vette all day too.

 

I've driven a 70 stage 1 and owned a 70 W30 and the torque is scary. That's why I only buy big blocks now

 

For me there is no choice, I like muscle cars but the Vette is special and will always be.

It was made for one thing, driving, the other type cars were made to do many things, from hauling people and kids to go shopping with a big rear trunk.

Big Seats and bench seats do not make for a great feeling when driving, you are not connected the same way to the car.

The Vette was made for driving, that is the purpose of the car, not going to the store, or hauling kids or family around, or loading the trunk with garage sale items

With the Vette, you and one other person got to enjoy the driving experience.
that is what a Vette is for....

 

I guess your from a different generation, but the reason I drive these cars (vettes and chevelles) is the 0-60 put you back in the seat, jamming through the gears, and going sideways in a smoky burnout once in awhile. I can go cruising all day in my daily driver that is faster than a 77 - thats no fun.

 

Birthplace of Legends by Peter J. Licastro

 

PM Sent.