When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I agree. The best years are the late 60's, early 70's.
80, 81 and 82 are the least collectible, dispite some fancy paint. All the smog crap destroyed the car by then. Think about it, a KIA has more horsepower than a stock 81.
The latter are perfect for gutting and customizing. Suspension is better in the later cars.
I guess it sort of depends on what you want the car for. Big block wise I like the 69's. When it come to small blocks I like the 70 LT-1. wow I guess that make me different lol.
I'd never sell the Porsche. What a great car. I've had my 70 conv for 41 years and really love getting it out and doing a little cruising but it isn't near the fun that my 930 is. I guess I'd go for the 70 if I were you. I'm prejudiced of course but the flairs really set it off from the earlier ones and it is the last year of full HP. Figure out a way to keep the Porsche and get the Corvette.
1970 was the turning point. Other than opinions about the side gills, it incorporated all of the improvements of the 71 and 72, but didn't have the down-rated engines. I guess that doesn't matter as much if you replace the engine, but it was the last "no holds barred" year.
A bonus is that it was a relatively low-production year with the strike and all...half of 1969 production and 10k units fewer than 1968 and 1972 production.
My 'perfect' years are 1969 or 1970, but prefer the 1970. Funny that I ended up with one...
i got 68 convertible, i read that the down falls in the 68 were tackled in the next models
You know you are opening up a can of worms but I vote for the 69/427 because I have one. I have had a 71/454 also a 77 /350 all of them had good and bad but I would still go for the 69.
That 69, 427 is definitely the bomb of all vettes.
But just to add a little flame to the fire, I am really partial to the 70 to 73, 454 cars as well.
Not as powerful in raw horsepower, but still a mind blowing drive.
I 'needed' a '68 or '69 convertable and I ended up with a '68.
My opinions:
-- '68-'69 look like '60s era cars and '70-'72 look more like...well '70s era. So much for the obvious. For me it's more than just the gills vs crates, the round vs angular lights in the front grill play a part as well. To me, there is nothing prettier than a '68-'69 with shiny hooker sidepipes and shiny TTIIs...somehow the bumpers, exhaust primaries and wheels spokes are the perfect compliment and along with this compliment, the rounded features of the '68-'69 pull it all together the best.
-- I prefer the '69 and on's "Stingray" fender script...I think the 'plain '68 fender looks great, but if I prefer the script
-- I prefer the '68s Ignition set-up and overall simpler/spartan interior look
-- The unique push-button door opener of the '68 is almost a wash, but I prefer it because it's different and less utilitarian...a lot like the ignition switch
-- The engine/tranny options are a wash to me, but only because I'm gonna run what I want regardless of the year. With that said, for stock spec cars it would be a factor.
-- With my '68 I did have to add a few items from the later chrome bumper cars to get and maintain good front end fitment (hood to front surround levelling). Again not a big deal, but I wanted perfect panel alignment.
-- For an NCRS car, a '69-'72 car will be easier/cheaper to find a few parts whereas with the '68 you may be looking for a while or have to settle for '69 on parts...I've seen lists on the forum of '68 unique items like the smooth finish instrument bezel / push button linkage / door panels / all red tail lights...
Hope this helps, and I agree with what has been said, except for all the this is the best becuase it's what I own type stuff...
Settle on which 'you' prefer or would prefer to drive, heavily consider condition and whether or not you desire NCRS correctness...
Also, with regards to your "Best Buy" question, like equipped '69s generally demand more $ than '68s (an error in thinking imo) and the '70 LT-1s generally demand more than the later LT-1s
Why does everyone say that the '70+ cars are "flared" compared with the '68 and '69? They aren't flared, they just have little mud flaps moulded into the lower fenders. You can't really fit wider tires to them, they just stop road debris striking the fenders.
I like all chrome bumper Corvettes, but I think that the coke-bottle look of '68-9 looks more 1960s muscle car and yet elegant at the same time.
Why does everyone say that the '70+ cars are "flared" compared with the '68 and '69? They aren't flared, they just have little mud flaps moulded into the lower fenders.
support your local gas co.,get a 69 435-427,like mine. I get a whole 8mpg(if I keep my foot out of it).
I had a clone L88 (427) engine in my 69. The compression had been lowered from 12.5:1 to 11.5:1. It had a 3.08:1 differential. Hooker header side mount exhaust; i.e. almost no mufflers. I could drive from Torrance, Ca to Las Vegas..about 300 miles..and still arrive with a comfortable amount of fuel in the tank. I was probably getting about 18 miles per gallon. I was probably turning something like 2000 rpm at 70 mph. Made this trip several times.
I think the best year for the all chrome bumper cars was 1969. I have a 68 and a 70, I really am inclined to pick the 68 as second best!
For people who complain about the parts problems for 68's...I'd like to tell you to go buy a pair of the front parking light/turn signal cast grills for a 70...in like new condition....if you can even find a pair....$$$ Also, try to buy a set of the front quarter panel louver grills in like new condition...$$$$. You can't just buy a set of slightly corroded units and re-chrome them....These parts are cast aluminum and require a specialty shop to re-chrome. I'm restoring my 70 and already it has a 68 rear valance with the 68 backup lights and four red tail lights (instead of the 70 two red tail lights). Also, I've bought all the stuff to rebuild the front turn-lights/parking lights to duplicate the 68/69, in case I can't get the turn-signal grill rechromed . I'll not abandon the 70 front quarter panel louvers, since you can remove them and access the lower engine firewall area.
I like the 68 ignition being in the dash panel. On my 08, it's in the dash panel also.
Last edited by 68/70Vette; 11-25-2014 at 10:57 PM.
I prefer the mud flaps & egg crates over gills, but that's just personal preference, and it's kind of like saying that one like Carmen Electra better than Pamela Anderson. (back when they were young & hot, that is) With that out of the way...I really wanted to comment on the greatly over-stated performance difference between 70 and 71 when they dropped the compression ratios. Much gets said about the big drop in rated HP, but when you compare the actual 0-60 and quarter mile times, the differences are barely noticeable. Realistically, under normal driving conditions, even "spirited" driving, the most significant difference you would notice is that the 71/72 had a better torque curve and was easier to drive. I could make the same general argument about the difference between the vaunted L71 427 from 67-69 and the maligned 454's that came afterward. A well tuned L71 in the hands of a skilled driver may be superior, but the average person would probably put up better times with the stump-pulling and broad torque curve of the LS5 454. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're buying for investment, try to get the best possible deal on one of the cars most south after by the crowd, but if you want the best driving experience, don't listen to all the hype.
02-24-2012, 03:36 PM
