LOL....honestly - I'd be doing good to ever get back $.25 of every $1 I spent on her....

 

As long as they make ME happy while I'm still around That's all that counts. After that I' won't know or care what gets done with mine. I'll try to leave them to someone who understands them and enjoys them. Projected long term, when gas isn't the means of power making, they'll either be in museums or scrapped and come back as some kind or road worthy golf cart.

 

I'm 31. I have been a vette owner for 5 1/2 years now.

I love the C2. I have a true 900 code black on black convertible. Its a nice car, just havent been using it much lately because the 69 has an extra 100 cubes and side pipes.

My 69 is a 427 4 speed car with factory AC. I love the Chrome c3's, but must admit, beyond seeing the later c3's on the street and waving, I have little interest in them. The lack of chrome just doesnt do it for me.

I grew up in Florida...my friends and I always joked around by calling c4's trailer park vettes, because here in florida you could drive into any trailer park and find one parked under an awning next to a double wide.

c5 and c6 cars are just not my style. I understand that they are the best drivers for the money, but I dont like the looks.

The new vettes are fast, but that is it. Not really interested in them. I have driven a friends ZR1. It hurts it is so fast. I would never buy one. Much more interested in Euro Cars. Waiting for a diesel cayenne right now.

Gary

 

I think at some point in the not too distant future chrome bumper cars will take a jump up,if and when the economy ever turns around. how much of a jump it will be is anybodys guess.
people have said the C-3 lasted 14 years and thats true but 68-72 and maybe even 73 are very different animals because they have chrome bumpers.
that being said i also believe base 350 T tops are going to drag behind a good percentage of the "more desireable" convertibles and big blocks especially those with factory air.

the reason i tossed factory air in there as being at a premium is that i believe as people get a little older (read that more descretionary $) is comfort becomes a pretty big factor.

no research or market analysis ,just an opinion

 

Might be a stretch to say "very different animal" solely based on the bumper material....my '74 is darn near the same as a '73.....(and a '75 for that matter!)

Just sayin'......

 

very different animals style wise, like it or not ther are people who just don't like "rubber bumpers". and those rubber bumpers change the look of the car.
67 & 68 were basicaly the same car under the glass.....big price difference,that was my point

 

Minor point, but the C3 lasted 15 years, not 14.


While that may be true from a component to component perspective, from a perception of performance perspective they are totally different cars. The 73 and 74 could at least get the big blocks and a decent hydraulic lifter based L82. The previous high compression solid lifter supercars being long gone by 73/74. The 75 however dropped performance to a level similar to the inline 6 Corvettes in 53/54 with the V8 choked by the inital attempts at cleaning the exhaust with catyltic converters and a lack of true dual exhaust. Tiny base engine Ford Fiestas on sale today are faster than the 75 base engine Corvette.


I often wonder if the dislike some people have for the rubber bumpers is due to the perception of them as slow cars rather than their looks. If they had been blazing fast, people might look at them different.

 

noted, 15 years

i'm sure the performance perception is a factor with some.
i'm also convinced that rubber bumpers have a great deal of effect on the look of the car.that is a factor for others,some love em ,some hate em.

then you toss in the 80-82,same C-3 but totally different in many ways.

i think the chrome years reach back to the heyday of everything horsepower.

whatever the reason ,logical or not the chrome bumper cars bring more money.

 

The C3 series is very clearly broken into 3 categories..."flavors" if you will:
--The Chrome Bumper Years
--The Rubber Bumper and Tunnel Window Years
--The Hatch Glass Years

Granted they are "the same car", there were HUGE differences in the "flavor" of the car.

And I'd offer that when someone has a preference for one of those three "flavors", they won't stray from that very much.

I'll put it this way: How many people who know the differences between the three "flavors" look at a 1970 and a 1980 and see "the same car"? While it IS the same car, it is at the same time VERY FAR from the same car.

Heck, if you look at a 1965 frame, it is nearly identical to a 1982 frame. Other than the body that is sitting on top, there are a great many suspension/mechanical aspects of the C2 that were carried over to the C3. Are THEY "the same car"? Largely, YES. But really, no.

I'm hear to tell you that my thin seat, manual brake, manual steering, 4-speed, hairy chested 1970 is "a different animal" from a more compliant, thick seat, power steering, automatic, tilt wheel, fuel injected, hatch glass 1982.

Doesn't make the 1982 a bad car. Or the 1970 a great car. Or vice-versa. They ARE different animals, though.

 

Late models are great cars. And a good one pulls good money. Many people prefer thier look, and don't want chrome. But as far as appreciation....who cares.

 

Like it or not there are those of us who prefer the looks of the rubber bumper cars. My 81 gets as many comments as any other car in our club when we are parked somewhere usually more.

 

i never meant to imply that nobody liked rubber bumper cars,some i like, some not so much,but its all personal opinion.
good cars of any year will bring good money.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just like the taste of beer,two guys = two opinions.
bottom line is you better buy what you like because you are not going to get rich owning any of them.