Hi guys im new to corvettes as i live in a country without a single corvette !!!
thats going to all change over the next year but i need a little help first.

I looked everywhere on th net and couldnt find the answers to 2 of my questions.

1 It is stated that the 1967 model was the last sting ray and then it was re introduced in 1969, however i continually see 1968 model corvettes on the net which the owner calls stingray and i cant really see much difference.
Is there a 1968 stingray or do they all look like the stingray anyway.

2 I have been an avid fanatic of tuning modern cars for quite a few years and i know that it is relatively easy to produce good acceleration out of a couple of hundread hp especially with japanese cars.
However i was quite distressed when i noted that the corvette i like 68 model , pushes out a whooping 400+ hp with the 427ci model (i think this is right) but has a 0-60 of only 6 seconds.

Why is this ???
An example is
68 corvette 400+ hp roughly 1600kgs 0-60 6.0 sec
nissan 300zx 280 hp roughly 1600 kgs 0-60 5.0 sec

Im not comparing the cars and i know one car is much older its just that I thought that hp was the indication of go power could someone shed some light.
On a side note all ferraris and cars like that ar around 400 bhp and they are a good couple of seconds faster Cant we make a vette thats not highly 800+ nitrous driven to have a good acceleration also.


thanks a lot for your time guys
:cheers:

 

#1 -- There was a Sting Ray model, which was started in the mid-years, I think 1963 -- don't know my Vette history very well. That was the C2 generation. In 1968 the first C3 came out, without the Sting Ray name. Shortly after that Chevy brought back the name as Stingray - all one word. Then at some point, mid-70's I think, they dropped the name again.

Many refer to the body style of the C3's as either "shark" or "stingray"

#2 -- are you looking at performance tests from 1968, or current tests of a 1968. Back then they had narrow crappy tires that would not give decent traction. So your 0-60 times from early tests were really off. Also, Vettes are mass produced cars, not like Ferrari. They have wider tolerances and more power loss in the drivetrain. Newer cars or older "performance" cars will do better than the 1968 because they were better built cars.
You could always take a 1968 and build it to your liking.
Hope this helps.

 

P.S. -- welcome to the group !!!

 

ok thanks a lot about the vette history part, basically if you like it then you buy it

about the power output
im still a little confused the 400+ hp is stated at the flyweel as opposed to the wheels, a normal drop in power is say 15% a large drop would be 25% meaning the car runs at 300 wheel horsepower which makes more sense for its 1/4 mile and 0-60 times, taking into account petrol quality etc, this makes sense.
okay then is it difficult to get 500+ rwhp out a 68 corvette engine ? im sure this would equate to good 12 second runs and 0-60 of around 4 sec.
Can you bore the engine
or is it a matter of upgrading parts such as high compression pistons headers cylinder heads etc.
Lastly do new engines fit in the 68 bay ? or if i buy an engine for a 68 i'm guaranteed an engine from 1968 or there abouts that may or may not be reconditioned?


oh and lastly can anyone recoomend a good catalogue that has a list of all parts which can be purchased for this model i see too many sites of buy the corvette t-shirt or they sell 1 or 2 chrome bits and pieces. I already tracked down a couple of manuals and will be getting them soon.

sorry to drive you guys nuts , im just a bit thrilled about a car that looks so good and doesnt cost 4000 pounds to get 5 bhp out of a nice titanium exhaust system.
I thought these old vettes would be like minimum 80,000 dollars !!!but they aint
:D

 

There's a lot of confusion on the gross to net conversions, your talking a pretty good hit in figures changing over to net, pretty close to 25% would be my guess. So something rated at 400 gross would be close to 300 net at the flywheel, then you knock another 15-25% due to drivetrain loss depending on your combination for what's at the rear wheels. Also acceleration has a lot to do with power to weight ratio, alot of these old big block cars would get up around 3700 pounds or slightly more. But they were also handicapped with very narrow tires in there day which really hurt the big block cars which made huge gobs of torque. There are many sources of parts for these cars, Zips, Ecklers, Mid America, etc. for restoration parts, for Performance parts, places like JEGs or Summit will cover most bases. The great thing about the old chevy big and small blocks is the overwhelming amount of aftermarket support and great prices due to competition. You can get 500 horse out of a small chevy for a 1/3 of the money it would take you to do the same in an import, plus you get good ol torque to go with it.

:cheers:
Pat Kunz

 

Another point to consider, is the way the two engines make their power. The 300ZX you cited uses turbos to make its power. Turbo lag is always an issue, when you use turbos. The Vette, will almost always feel faster, because the torque it produces peaks at really low RPM's, and the torque curve is as flat as can be.

With modern tires and a patient driver (read: someone who knows how to launch the car) the Vette should be in the high 4's to low 5's, zero-60 mph.

But again, it really boils down to what you enjoy. I think the 300ZX Twin Turbo is one of the best cars ever made. It's very well balanced, looks awesome, and it's reliable as all get out.

On the other hand, the Vette is different (especially where you are), easy to work on, and is a classic.

Good luck!

 

Welcome to the forum! Do you have a particular vette picked out yet? If not do as much research as possible first (which it looks like you have been) and get exactly what you want, don't settle with a smaller engine or other year or coupe/convertable. Also good job finding the forum before buying your vette, I wish I would have.

 

wow thanks a lot guys, basically maurice the model i like is the 1968 as i mentioned above, i dont really know why but i just have this liking to it and am drawn to it, i know the 70/80s models have a lot more sports car appeal but the 68 model just says look im the original bad racer i donno why.

im happy to hear about the fact that the power loss isnt as great as the specs say it is and the car runs a lot quicker than that, either way some time next year im gonna have the money saved up ill start looking to buy one and recondition it. 90% of the satisfaction would be reconditioning it and driving it, any fool can spend 1 miliion if they have it and buy a mclaren ... you know.
anyhow ill hover around the forums learning bits n pieces....

 

In 63, the new body & chassis was called a Sting Ray. When the body was redone in 68 at first called Sting Ray & then used Stingray. Emblems are for identification, some can not identify w/o the emblem. Seems some place far more importance on emblems than the factory ever did, the factory wanted to change the new car so that it could be identified as new at the time.
Chassis essentially same from 63-77, body essentially same 68-77 & interior essentially same from 68-77.
There can be no question that 68-77 are Stingrays. Can be debated on 78-82.

68-69 are very similar. 68 has some unusual parts that may be harder for you to get so consider 69 also. Many of these cars have already been rebuilt &/or altered for more performance. Much newer engines will fit, however there is nothing really wrong w/ the original ones. 425 gross is 325 net & larger c.i. engines have a lot more torque so low rpm will push you back in the seat.
See my website for what these cars can do w/ tires (traction). If it doesn't have enough power that is easily corrected. :cool:

When you find one, just ask about it on the forum.

 

I'll pretty much concur with what the others have said. I'll clarify a little on the horsepower though. The GROSS Hp ratings back in the 60s were for the engine alone. No accessories, not a full exhaust, just all of the stuff that MAKES power and none of the stuff that EATS power. So the losses are more than just driveline losses. Combine that with some skinny poor 1960s tires and you have lots of wheelspin.

Consider also though that even back then RATED horsepower wasn't always accurate. It was often UNDERestimated. :yesnod:

I'll second Ganey on the 68 vs 69. Especially with you being in a different country, some of the parts for a 69 are going to be easier and cheaper to get than a 68.

Dave

 

Welcome to the forum! Another point on '68 vs '69 for small block is '68 is the last year of the 327 in the Corvette (it lived on in other Chevy's for one more year) and '69 introduced the 350.