ENGINE PERFORMANCE.........DOES IT MAKE A CORVETTE A CORVETTE...COMMENTS
[Modified by Oldguard 7, 11:19 PM 12/13/2002]
Marck
:cheers:
Pat Kunz
But I'll wait and see the comments from the peanut gallery. :crazy: :lol:


I love Vettes, and I love horsepower ! The kind of just go so well together :D .
Corvette prices are driven by mystic. THe older the car, the fewer seen, the more mystic, the higher the price. Add a BB or a solid SB and chrome bumpers, the allure increases as does the price.
A Corvette is a Corvette is a Corvette.
My point is i am not sure stock for stock the vette has ever had enough horses to blow away every comeptitor. The big deal with vettes was allways they brought much more of a whole package to the show as well as good performance. Any c2 or c3 will out handle its American contemporary( and modst European ones as well). I feel that the car has allways lived up to its name and i dont think mustang people go through this stupid AZZ argument. If someone else prefers big block then more power to them, they can pay the outragious big block prices to buy one, buy their gas with 8-12 mpg, fix'em when they break, buy tires when they burn through them,....etc etc etc. The vettes wins because its the right car with the right package withe the best look with reliable GM.Chevy crap on it!!!!
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
AC
The motors, as stated above, were relative to the times. Even though I own one of the slowest production Corvettes of all time (it's stock), and my C5 could blow it away in reverse, I don't consider my '75 to be any less a Vette than my C5 or even an L71. It's still a Corvette, just slower and more mass produced.
Mr. Peanut here ;) . Let these people have access to your archives for goodness sakes. E.g. Road & Track:
January 1968
L-79 327cid 350(gross)hp, four-speed
0-60mph 7.7 secs, 1/4 mile 15.6, 92 mph
Flash forward, same mag
April 1979
L-82 350cid 225(net)hp, automatic (TH350)
0-60mph 6.6 secs, 1/4 mile 15.6, 91 mph
I do wonder at times why people think the later Corvettes were slugs compared to their earlier cousins. The GM engineers did a magnificent job in keeping performance up despite smog regulations.
[Modified by paul79, 10:57 PM 12/13/2002]


The '79 just makes better use of its power (tires and gearing) than the '68, but the '68 does not make any more power or it would have run significantly higher trap speeds.
I, too, believe that a Corvette is a Corvette.
With respect to the engines, _every_ US manufacturer took it on the nose to meet smog requirements. And look what that has done for us today. We have a 346ci engine from GM that makes 405hp (net), we have a blown 281ci V8 from Ford that makes 390hp (net...and is underrated), and we have a modern day big-block from Dodge that makes 500hp (net). And all these motors pass smog as well as anything around.
I would like to point out that a "smog motor" can make insane amounts of power. I recently sold a small-block (331 ci) car that put out over 700hp net, ran on pump gas if I wanted, got 22mpg on the highway, and was not a gross polluter. We're talking about something that could run 9s with proper suspension and gearing. Sure it was equipped with a blower, but so what?
Same thing can _easily_ be done with a smog legal SB. It can also be done with a smog legal BB.
If we're just talking straight-line and top-end performance, then you would have to toss just about everything built out there prior to the ZR-1 and Z06 and go all the way back to the L-88...which _stock_ didn't have the top-end gearing the former cars do (and thus probably couldn't do more than 125-130mph with 4.11s in the rear and 4 speed trans).
That's just not right. The Corvette has always been a great "performance for the dollar" SPORTS car. It is not a muscle car. Never has been, and never will be, although out-of-the-box it performs better than its contemporary late-model muscle cars in straight-line acceleration tests.
Whether any of us like it or not, if you're running pump gas (which a real street car does) then the newer cars are faster, stock for stock. This does not make them better than the older ones...just a new and improved version. That's how technology works, typically. ;)
But what is available out there in the aftermarket for SB and BB will allow someone who _wants to_, to make their C3 run with anything out there on the road.
If you fall into this category, then I say GO 4 IT! :thumbs:
For me, this is an important part of Corvette ownership...but it is not to all, and I respect that.
:seeya
For GM, it is a low volume car & ceasing prod. has been discussed several times so we are lucky it remained in prod.!
The base engine has been very popular (keeping it in prod.) & could be said to be along the lines of a MB SL, w/ "adaquate" power as RR says, for taking your g/f for a drive. Wait, that was a wild guess. What is left out of the stock power discussions is TQ. At least all C3 got a V8 & handling.
Nevertheless they are all Corvettes.
CORVETTES are performance sports cars designed for PERFORMANCE enthusiasts!
Since this is a relatively small group, there is a limit to what the factory can do since they need to keep the volume up. There was an effort to personalize them by offering many options. Then there was the deproliferation of options.
It would have been better if they all had as a base engine something like the L-82 , LT1 , etc.
I could never be happy w/ any stock car, even a L-88 or ZL-1.
When I am buying a car, I am far more concerned w/ the body than the engine since the engine will be built/replaced w/ more power.
Pick a body/chassis you like & build an engine for it !
:cool:


Kinda makes me feel like a kid in Dad's car looking over the steering wheel!
The world class shape of a C3 is tremendous and I love mine dearly. :rolleyes:
This is why when I decided to start modifying my Vette I wanted to stay with new tecnology. There was nothing wrong with my Vette in stock form. I just got tired of not being able to look at the Mustang beside me revving it's engine. A Vette is a Vette no matter what the state is though.















