Compare handling of a C3 to todays sports cars
06-14-2013, 05:23 PM
#141
Melting Slicks
Huum it seems like in 1963 chevy started to admit henry ford was right, by 1984 and to this day completely admitted he was right.
So i guess the only real suspension advancement on the vette is the model T ford transverse spring front and rear made out of better composit material today.
Lets see suspension is a longer word for what suspends the car vetts have advanced backward to the model T.
Was looking at a model T the other day top speed 40 no front brakes for the mostly dirt roads, i wonder if henry tested his suspension to see if it was good for 200+ mph for future use lol.
So i guess the only real suspension advancement on the vette is the model T ford transverse spring front and rear made out of better composit material today.
Lets see suspension is a longer word for what suspends the car vetts have advanced backward to the model T.
Was looking at a model T the other day top speed 40 no front brakes for the mostly dirt roads, i wonder if henry tested his suspension to see if it was good for 200+ mph for future use lol.
Ford has resisted going to an IRS setup in the Mustang since forever because of the cost (They tried it in the original Mustang in 1964 and decided against it because of the cost), and GM had the Corvette engineers put the ultra-simple setup into the '63-'82 Vettes for the same reason.
It's better than a live axle, but not nearly as good or as sophisticated as it could or maybe should be, and it IS inexpensive, with numerous parts that are interchangeable left-to-right, one spring, etc., and the ad-copy guys got to say it had independent rear suspension. Sort of ingenious, in a crude kind of way...
06-19-2013, 05:59 PM
#142
Instructor
We have owned our 69 c3 with 350 auto for about 28 years, when we got the car it had about 70,000 miles on it. in 85 we got a bmw m3 325 (I think) the car handled good in tight turns but it was also a lot shorter so of coarse it would turn tighter & quicker. Our vette likes you to brake early, roll thru the turn & stand on the gas & with the hp its like nothing else! No beemer is going to keep up with that.
By the way, we got rid of the beemer 5 years later & the vette still sits in its own spot in the garage
By the way, we got rid of the beemer 5 years later & the vette still sits in its own spot in the garage
06-19-2013, 06:51 PM
#143
Melting Slicks
Have we decided anything yet? Or does it really matter? I drive mine because I like to drive it. I don't really care if the preppie dude and dudette in the VERY expensive foreign something in the next lane can run circles around me. I'm driving a Chevrolet By God CORVETTE! They can kiss my split bumpered hiney... if they can catch me! "Refined Luxury"? Big deal. I'm driving American Muscle. And very proud to be doing so.
06-19-2013, 11:56 PM
#144
GM's bean counters put that sideways buggy spring in the back of the Corvette for largely the same reason that Henry did-packaging, simplicity, and low cost. Lots of T-bucket street rodders use Vette rearends in their cars because (among other things) they fit easily...
Ford has resisted going to an IRS setup in the Mustang since forever because of the cost (They tried it in the original Mustang in 1964 and decided against it because of the cost), and GM had the Corvette engineers put the ultra-simple setup into the '63-'82 Vettes for the same reason.
It's better than a live axle, but not nearly as good or as sophisticated as it could or maybe should be, and it IS inexpensive, with numerous parts that are interchangeable left-to-right, one spring, etc., and the ad-copy guys got to say it had independent rear suspension. Sort of ingenious, in a crude kind of way...
Ford has resisted going to an IRS setup in the Mustang since forever because of the cost (They tried it in the original Mustang in 1964 and decided against it because of the cost), and GM had the Corvette engineers put the ultra-simple setup into the '63-'82 Vettes for the same reason.
It's better than a live axle, but not nearly as good or as sophisticated as it could or maybe should be, and it IS inexpensive, with numerous parts that are interchangeable left-to-right, one spring, etc., and the ad-copy guys got to say it had independent rear suspension. Sort of ingenious, in a crude kind of way...
But wait a minute lol what about the coil springs in the front from 1953 to 1982 they also could have used a transverse spring front and rear starting in 1953 but then they already had the ball bearing spindle and coil front suspension off there 1953 passenger car to use along with the rear leaf springs. I replaced the ball bearings in a 1954 vette around ten yrs ago.
IRS has a slight advantage on rough surfaces, IRS is more costly and complex, Ford has many times wanted to go to IRS in the mustang but there customer feedback keeps telling them they do not want it. Allmost all mustangs have been used in drag racing since the 70s and the IRS is nothing but a problem for drag racing zero advantages and all problems. Every time over the yrs a new redisigned mustang comes out its not the slight cost ford could pass on to there customer, there customers tell them in huge numbers they don't want IRS its no good for what there interested in using there cars for.
Its funny the Japanese learned a hard lession when they first built V- twin motorcycles they would not use the weird no good 405-315 degree firing that Harley has always used. When they sold poorly they listened to customers not what they wanted.
Last edited by Little Mouse; 06-20-2013 at 01:44 AM.
06-20-2013, 12:03 AM
#145
Burning Brakes
You know, I can't help but laugh as all the comments about 'modern' suspensions and tech over 40 years....UH...hate to say this, but there is damn little in the inherent design that's changed, allmost nothing at all...
the use of glass springs, urethane bushings, and of course rack/pinion and above ALL ELSE....TIRES......well the last two things there TIRES and rack/pinion steering.....are all do able on a C3 by many of us....TIRES are the easiest and cheapest to do, usually....and bring about 90% of the improvements to be made....except rack/pinion steering....
you gotta be shaving tenths of seconds of lap times in a hot race to pick up any of the other differances than mentioned above....and I mean tenths....
I say the differances are much greater in the drivers than the cars at that point....
in other words.....it's not any big improvement....not in handling anyway...not from chassis engineering....
GENE
the use of glass springs, urethane bushings, and of course rack/pinion and above ALL ELSE....TIRES......well the last two things there TIRES and rack/pinion steering.....are all do able on a C3 by many of us....TIRES are the easiest and cheapest to do, usually....and bring about 90% of the improvements to be made....except rack/pinion steering....
you gotta be shaving tenths of seconds of lap times in a hot race to pick up any of the other differances than mentioned above....and I mean tenths....
I say the differances are much greater in the drivers than the cars at that point....
in other words.....it's not any big improvement....not in handling anyway...not from chassis engineering....
GENE
Gene, I am running 245/60/15 all the way around. Any idea how the car would respond by swapping to a 225/70/15 or going 235/60 in the front and keeping the 245s in the rear?
06-23-2013, 12:09 AM
#146
GM's bean counters put that sideways buggy spring in the back of the Corvette for largely the same reason that Henry did-packaging, simplicity, and low cost. Lots of T-bucket street rodders use Vette rearends in their cars because (among other things) they fit easily...
Ford has resisted going to an IRS setup in the Mustang since forever because of the cost (They tried it in the original Mustang in 1964 and decided against it because of the cost), and GM had the Corvette engineers put the ultra-simple setup into the '63-'82 Vettes for the same reason.
It's better than a live axle, but not nearly as good or as sophisticated as it could or maybe should be, and it IS inexpensive, with numerous parts that are interchangeable left-to-right, one spring, etc., and the ad-copy guys got to say it had independent rear suspension. Sort of ingenious, in a crude kind of way...
Ford has resisted going to an IRS setup in the Mustang since forever because of the cost (They tried it in the original Mustang in 1964 and decided against it because of the cost), and GM had the Corvette engineers put the ultra-simple setup into the '63-'82 Vettes for the same reason.
It's better than a live axle, but not nearly as good or as sophisticated as it could or maybe should be, and it IS inexpensive, with numerous parts that are interchangeable left-to-right, one spring, etc., and the ad-copy guys got to say it had independent rear suspension. Sort of ingenious, in a crude kind of way...
