Krystal

When new......based on drive train choice alone.........I'd agree with your assessment.

But a lot of time has passed since the 1970s. Neither car in it's original form comes even REMOTELY close to the benchmark suggested by the term "performance car" today. It can get there but you'll have to make a lot of changes.

But really I gotta ask, "Is a 1970 Corvette a performance car?" If so you'd have to explain why it is and yet a '79 isn't.

Then there is the idea of trying to remedy the situation of **** POOR performance of BOTH the '70 and the '79 vs today's expectations.

Does a 1970 Corvette have more potential than a '79?

I'd actually argue that the newer C3 is the easier car to make the changes to. I'd likely have to struggle with the idea of tearing into a numbers matching LT1 or Big Block from the Chrome bumper era. A dilemma I never faced in my '79. I mean really...... a matching numbers L82 and trubo 350 transmission? Who cares? Certainly no one cares in the way the market cares about a matching numbers car from the Chrome Bumper years.

Krystal

Yeah, I guess that's probably true. You don't have to look real hard either. Soon as you get behind the wheel.

You know GM was taking it's Premium car buyers for granted in the middle of the 1970s when they were willing to slap a Vega steering wheel into a "sports car" that cost a buyer 2x-3x as much to buy vs the economy car that shares that same steering wheel.

Kacyc3

Thats easy the 70 corvettes lowest hp rating was 300, the 79 highest hp rating was 220. info from corvette museum website. Its not just limited to the corvette, the Camaro/Firebird, Mustang of the same era are not thought of as performance cars because of their low power in stock form compared to the early 70 models.Agreed about the newer cars being easier to mod and cheaper to buy also.

jb78L-82

Oh I see now.

I am just am not fan of the horizontal aftermarket sway bar endlink on the rear bar using the same style endlink as the front bar since I think that it potentially can restrict the rear trailing arm movement causing unwanted oversteer AND GM purposely did not use a rear sway bar endlink like all the front sway bars used by GM on other cars for a very specific reason and on purpose. I like your choice of sway bar sizes, BTW.

Also, there are some very clever and simple endlinks that a few folks have devised using heim joints as the endlinks that allow the horizontal aftermarket sway bar endlinks to pivot with little restriction.

gkull

I grew up in the era of 60's muscle cars. my older brother had a 63 with a 327/350 hp kind of fun to drive when you are 15-16 year old. His GF had the 69 427 tripower higher HP model and it was a fast machine for the day or should I say time period. The real kings were the mopar 440 or rare hemis. then you had the ford products with 427/428/429, 389 goats, then the 455 ci olds, Pontiacs, and Buicks.

I've rebuilt and fixed up 70's Lt1 vettes and the later 454's. The LT1's were only 375 HP and not really a performance vehicle because of small ci and lack of TQ. The 454 vettes were already hit with the end of the HP era smog and low compression. As to racing whether drag or road racing it takes lots of mods to make a competitive vette.

jb78L-82

This confusion and misinformation comes all the time!

Prior to 1972 all cars were rated as gross HP and after 1971 NET HP. This ratings are NOT the same!

A 71 LT-1 rated at 330 GROSS HP is about 250 NET HP, the same as the 1974 L-82...sorry!

A 78/79 smogged L-82 rated at 225 HP is about 25 HP short of the non emissions 71 LT-1. Remove all the smog equipment, performance tune the 78/79 L-82 along with headers and 2.5 inch exhaust, and the 1978-80 L-82 will probably make more HP than the mythical 1971 LT-1. Krystal is exactly correct.

A modern performance built 355/383 will easily make more HP than a stock BB C3 back in the day......no comparison....

Kacyc3

They didnt come from the dealer with a performance tune, headers and duals so you cant say with these performance parts it would make more power than that engine did stock. My comment was stock vs stock and agreed about modern builds.

JasonAndrew

Cool video! I like watching someone "get it", especially live!

C3DeedlyDee

I'm a big fan of the later model glassback C3s. It's why I went with my '80, along with the lower curb weight and superior aero compared with the early models. Great cars for a starting template.

jb78L-82

Ok Let's try and make this easy.

Krystal

So again.......I'd ask if a 1970 Corvette is a Performance car.......are you sure a '79 or some other '74-82 isn't?

Funny thing happened on the way to the late 70s. The engines offerings got pretty weak and the emmsions equipment was added..... yet the car itself was largely unchanged.

In the end I posted this thread because while I don't actually expect to change the OVER-ALL view of the late 70s Corvette in minds of the short sighted magazine racers.......but I did expect that actual owners of C3s might see more to like in these last years of the C3. Maybe even something to like enough to actually recognize potential they had previously over looked.

Today you could find a REALLY GOOD LT-1 1970 Corvette all matching #s and in need of very little to nothing. It'll easily cost you 2x-3x what a '75-79 will cost you when found in similar condition.

Which car you SHOULD want will depend on what you want to be as an owner.

The 1970 car is YOUR CAR if.......you see yourself as a CUSTODIAN of Chevy history. You can take it to car shows but you don't DARE to change anything or you run the risk of destroying the value of a car you probably also bought with it's potential to hold value and maybe even appreciate in value during the time you own it.

The 1975-'79 car is YOUR CAR if...... you actually want a PERFORMANCE CAR! this car is a BLANK SLATE for anything you might want to do to it today. Originality adds no decernable value at all. Fact is if you can UP the power.......you like get more for the car when you sell than if it's all original and pretty incapable of making a move on a modern economy car.

Trust me when I say this. My car turns and stops and will GO........ in any measured testing you might want to do that would leave a PERFECT example of an 1970 LT-1 Corvette in the dust and it's owner wondering if his car is an actual performance car at all. This is a result of changes any 1970 Corvette could also receive........but to avoid devastating the value of it vs. a rubber bumper C3 you'd have to find a plain Jane base model small block 1970 and preferably one that long ago lost it's originality anyway.

This long winded thought.....I freely admit that but I guess what it boils down to for me.......all C3s are now so very out of date vs modern cars NONE can be considered performance cars unless you're willing to change 'em. The one thing they all still have, regardless of the year we might be talking about from the long 14 year run, is that engine placement behind the center line of the front wheels and the near 50/50 weight balance as a starting point to work with. It's a GREAT starting point and the long run has given us too many bolt in upgrades to even count concerning what you might do in the quest for a C3 Corvette that may never be able to make a move on a thoroughly modern Corvette but it can still impress vs most cars out there today.

Any C3 can be a PERFORMANCE CAR!!! But you gotta build it today if you really want to say this and be able to actually back it up in a drive that reveals it to be true vs the standard set for the term all these years after that last C3 left the factory floor..