Winner of the thread.

 

Classic case of "Is the glass half-empty, or half-full?"

It's all the OTHER cars that are out of proportion.....

 

Good eye, Mick. They are 17's I use to keep miles off the 15" rally's/tires. The 63 is receiving a rolling restoration by Don, the owner. It's pretty sweet. Here's another shot against other Vettes.

 

I was pondering this just the other day. Even up on jack stands my C3's roof still doesn't come up to that of my DD's, and it's only a compact (Cruze LTZ).






BTW Bullshark, is that a factory blue?

 

They look good on there.

The C3 looks tiny compared to the others in the photo below.

 

Love the Grand Prix...I had a 70 455HO, amazingly fast for a 4300lb car

My Vette is about the same length as my wifes Pontiac vibe and lower with about 400 more hp :-)

 

Same frame for the C2 and for the C3. Go figure???

 

I haven't measured them, but the C2 seems noticeably roomier inside, especially shoulder room.

 

I never realized the size of the vette in relation to other cars. But seeing them side by side like this does make it look small.

kdf

 

It only has one 'row' of seats....

 

freakin tiny!!!!!

 

I'm reading Dave Mclellan's book, Corvette From the Inside (Christmas gift from wife) and he talks about this topic in some detail. The C3 platform was carried over from the C2 (1963) with modest modifications. The C2 platform and power train was Zora Arkus-Duntov's Dream racer based on his own experience racing the highest performing Italian, German and English cars of the day, with a mission to spank them on the track. He ceded very few trade-offs to comfort if it sacrificed performance at all, including ride and handling. He had significant say on the body/interior but not really - the design team ruled that roost on both the C2 and it's grown up brother that got the looks and more refined (technology) brawn, the C3. The XK Jaguar was a major benchmark for the C3 body. The C3's 'Coke bottle' design was Bill Mitchell's brilliant idea which defines the car along with the 'razor edge' style that he started on the C2. Mclellan's book explains that the engine in most cars is mounted over the wheels - but the C3 engine was set a full 12 inches back from the wheels to give it a more balanced "mid-front engine design" with a 50/50 distribution in mind when including fuel and passenger weight. A tremendous amount of thought went into every detail of the C3. The rear wheels are placed directly behind the driver's back, including seat, carpet and even wiring thickness which determines the wheelbase. The desired width of the tires plays a major factor in designing the width of the car, hence, one reason why the C4 was widened, along with the need for them to make room for routing more wiring and body stiffening "stuff" throughout the body so that they could lower it and get less drag - largely so they could avoid the $500 guzzler tax. He mentions nothing about the inexcusable growing asses of prospective buyers driving larger body design which increases cost, weight and overall cost of ownership (MPG).
He writes hundreds of straightforward insights like this in his excellent book. Bottom line, it is amazing that the C3 has withstood the test of time so incredibly well when you consider that it's benchmarks were mainly the little toy sports cars designed and built in Europe at the time. And, Mitchell had a bug thing for the P51 Mustang (check out the looong front section of that famous plane), as well as ... sharks and rays in the ocean as he admired their designs. But, this answers the "proportion" question that started the string.. compliments of Mr. Mclellan himself.

 

Nice GP!

I have a 69' GP 4spd as well.. Anything looks small compared to a GP...lol

 

From right to left.... "His, Hers, & Ours!"

 

Yes. The C6 windshield is wider than my fenders.

 

Love that shop space, oldgto. Looks like a fun place to park assembled cars and get your groove on.

I noticed how small-ish the size of our C3's looked when I parked mine next to the shell of my '72 Z-28. Stood there and went, "...hmmmnn, I never noticed how little the 'Vette looks next to the F-body...".

Then I opened another Budweiser, to celebrate.

 

Thanks! Hard to see in this pic, but in front of the Vette is a pool table, in front of the Mustang is a row of old gas pumps, and in front of the Grand Prix is the 66 GTO.
If the Vette was any bigger, it wouldn`t have fit in there!

 

The C3, viewed from the front or the rear, look smaller because of the body rounding from the wheelwells to the ends of the vehicle. Again, an effort to reduce frontal area (and keep the rear in proportion).

The rear panel for the C3 (pre-'80) is merely the width of the inside of the rear tires! As mentioned, that shape is similar to the XK Jags.

 

True 7T1... add to that the lower stance to make it look even smaller. Then, the narrow mid-section makes for a snug fit.... in the seat I usually take up ALL the room, and I`m not all that big, 6 feet about 200.

 

This is what I hate about the C6's and C7's . Their front ends are massive and just plain ugly. At least the C5's were smaller and lighter looking but you can have them all. It's early chrome bumper C3's and back for me. The later C3's were where they started growing and it never stopped. Most cars seemed to do that . Look at the Ford Thunderbird , it turned into a huge back seat family car for a while . Then when they tried to bring it back as a smaller car it wasn't excepted and went away.