Just downloaded “Corvette – The First Fifty Years”. Wow, Dave McLellan and Jerry Burton really bash the shark – pretty much regarding it as an embarrassment, especially the mid ’70 models.

That’s too bad – look around and see what Ford and Mopar were doing during that period. The 1974 – 1978 Mustang II ?!? Mopar wasn’t even on the Radar screen as the Barracuda, Challenger, etc. were long dead.

Hell, even Camaros have always been available with a V-8. At least we could still get a 4 bbl V-8 in our Corvettes. Chevrolet (and the EPA) could have killed the Corvette but guess what, people kept buying them in record numbers. In fact, Corvette had some of its highest production totals during 1976 – 1981.

Granted, C3 build quality has never been a Corvette hallmark but NOTHING that Detroit was churning out during the ‘70s had any “quality”. I can't think of any other car that prospered for 15 production years using the same body style.

Anyway, to each his own I guess. People tend to gravitate toward the cars they grew up with as a kid. Rant over.
:rant:

 

:U :U :U :U :U :U

 

UHH>...I can't think of ANYTHING out of the 70's that was much if any better than a vette in build quality, and that includes the much vaunted *** mobiles....

they got good fuel economy, but other than that, they were certainly not memorable for any reason....

GENE

 

Considering that the C3 was on a frame and suspension designed in the early 60s and that the assembly line in St. Louis hadn't had major upgrades in many years, it's not surprising that the authors had many complaints about the C3.
The C4s jumped 20+ years in design (aero, suspension, ergonomics, noise levels) and technology (computers, tires, sound systems) and had a new assembly line with fresh employees. They had to be better!
Also, the target market for Corvettes had matured and was looking for a more refined, more capable vehicle. The C4 was aimed right at these folks and had to be better to compete with imports (Porsche, Nissan, etc).


[Modified by flynhi, 4:00 PM 4/14/2003]

 

I agree that C4s have many improvements but, They are definitely not better looking. C4s look too much like a Camaro. :U :U

C3's look :cool:

 

IIRC, Zora Arkus Duntov's favorite Corvette was either a '74 or '75. Personally, I've loved Sharks since I was a little kid, despite never having ridden in one until I went looking for my first.

 

:iagree: It's just too bad that they feel the need to talk sheet about our cars.

 

The sales numbers and profits weren't an embarrassment were they?

Don't worry about it. It's easy for anybody to have 20/20 hindsight. Where were Mclellan and Burton, and what were they doing at that time to make improvements? These oh so smart people didn't have the gonads to make C4 type changes earlier so fug their opinion.

 

I think that people who dis those years of cars are just in it for differnet reasons.

The 75 that I have is still mostly original. It will change when I get funds or when something breaks. Its still a very fun car. Its got alot of TQ, a 4-speed, T-tops, and great styling. The IRS handles very well. In fact most newer cars have trouble keeping up unless its a newer performance car.

I think the sales numbers speak for themselves. They sold the most during these years. Yes they have problems, but the C4 isn't the best on the road anymore either ! Does this mean that they aren't great cars? No.

If your looking at it from a racing standpoint then there is alot that needs to be done to any car. Lower the roll center of a C3, add better tires and some other suspension work and you could roast newer vettes on a road course. An all out race prepped C3 would kick butt. :cheers:


[Modified by flood, 11:18 AM 4/14/2003]

 

It was a '74 - I can dig out the source if necessary, but there's an old Road and Track or Car and Driver article where he's quoted about the 1974 big block being his favorite.

It's my favorite too!

 

I can't understand why anybody would bash the C3 era, outside the lack of horsepower towards the end of the run.

I think the C3 body style is the sexiest of the entire line, and perhaps one of the most awe inspiring of the muscle car era. Not many cars turns heads as a clean C3.

Of all the muscle cars I've owned, my 76 vette is the only one where I've had kids on bicycles follow me through neighborhoods with that "Oh wow!" look on their faces.

:steering:

 

....and now they all bad mouth the quality, the fit and finish of the C4's. But it is easy to do so once you made the C5 and made giant leaps ahead in performance, handling and quality.

 

if you think about it, all cars during that era pretty much lacked quality, performance ......... blah blah blah we've all heard it. I'm sure the C5 will get bashed in 5-10 years too. heck it gets bashed now for its huge butt

 

You have to take that with a grain of salt. He said the same about the '73. As a Chevy employee he had to stay that the latest was the greatest. But I do believe that the '74 was the last Vette that he had. Didn't he retire with the '74 model?

tom...

 

I don't know... What kind of quality are we talking about here? Our cars are between 21 and 35 years old now and still on the road. I'm sure the percentage of C3's that have survived until today is much greater than most other cars from the era. How often do you see a 1978 Honda on the road? They sold tons of 'em. If the quality was so great, where are they?

So IMO, the quality that really matters: Frame/suspension/driveline/electronics etc is very good. If it does have problems, it's all fixable. Could the quality and fit & finish on the body and interior be better? Sure, but that's icing on the cake. The C3 has quality where it matters.

It's also fun to surf over to the C5 section. For all the improvements made, the C5's have their share of problems. Not bashing, just saying that ANY car will have its share of issues.

 

People try to put us down
Just because we g g g g g get around!!!!
Talkin bout my generation!
My generation baby!!!!!!!

As I recall, McClellan's point was that they were under tremendous budgetary constraints from GM which forced them to cut corners and prevented innovation, while the increasing sales provided little incentive to improve the product. Things like the Vega steering wheel (forget which model year). He does practically apologize for the late 70s vettes, tho many here feel no apology is needed. :rolleyes: MJ


[Modified by MNJack, 4:28 PM 4/14/2003]

 

The first thing you have to do to understand where the book comes from is separate yourself from being a C3 owner. Since I try to do that every time I sit down to write my column, let me take a stab at explaning in Corvette-fanatic terms.

The C3's biggest problem was the success of the C2. Journalists and racers and consumers loved the '67, especially in 427 tri-power form. When the '68 came out, everyone wanted to see something that took the car to the next level. Lamborghini had released the Muira and Ferrari was floating the Dino -- both mid engined cars. Chevy was playing with that too.

But instead of bringing out what everyone expected: a mid engined rocketship with power ranging from great to out-of-this-world, it released the '68 which was perceived as gaudy body panels thrown on a 1953 frame, '63 suspension and with '65 brakes. (And if you think that Corvette people don't mind style over substance, check out what the C5 forum had to say about a style-only package for the 50th Anniversary edition!)

And no matter what we say, the '68 did have horrible build quality, fenders that even Zora hated because they hindered vision, little improvement in power, handling and gauges that were impossible to see in heavy glare. Car and Driver refused to publish a complete test drive, instead just listing off all the faults.

So not only was the C3 fighting the C2, it had to make up for its initial failure with the press and racers. Now from a sales perspective, the public still didn't care, because it was America's sports car (and let's face it, the American public for the most part doesn't understand much the difference between a mediocre sports car and a great sports car, because it's all how the marketing is received.)

Then we get into the declining horsepower, and while all cars in the American market suffered, the C3 is still compared against the C2, and that Trans Ams could still be had with big blocks. And again, let's face it, the styling which was based on '66 cool looked very out of place in 1981. It didn't wear well into 1990, when many still were used as primary drivers.

In fact, we can blame GM for letting it go with the same style too long for delaying the upswing in the C3 values.

But at the end of the day, it's not that the C3 is a bad car. Nobody says that. The apologies are that the car didn't offer anything new or better than the previous generation and didn't live up to what it could have been.

 

Hmm........ why does my old 75 get all the schoolbus kids "noses on the windows", the "high sign" and the "rush to the rear of the bus" at the stop light?

Until the last few years "OldSlowVette" could run with all but the latest high performance models...... and still run the ramps with the best.

Ever notice how the the new imports have returned to familiar "shark" styling lines. In fact, isn't it BMW that calls one of their models a "shark"?

Try out one of these new models and enjoy the cabin space...... chuckle.

OldSlowVette

 

As I was going to our local main street in Pleasanton, CA, I got more looks from adults and kids than any other cars I see.

As a previous thread stated, the C4's looked like the camaros.. not a lot of styling.. performance (in the '90's) but it was still generic. C5's look pretty good, but I am seeing alot more around.

Long Live the C3! And keep waving! :hurray:

 

The "getting looks" phenomenon applies to any car that looks significantly different than the cars normally found on the streets. The instant feeling by adults is that something they don't see a lot is that it's valuable, and for children that it's valuable and fast.

For instance, I'd drive my C5 on the road here in Olympia and get all kinds of looks. Why? It's one of probably 100 C5s in all of Thurston county, and one of probably 20 convertibles. Add in that I usually have my 2 year old daughter in the passenger seat, and it makes for good "hey, look at that." Kids love it, and when they get the chance, it's always "how fast does it go?"

Driving my '70 911T (which I sold on Saturday) I never got any looks. Why? Because it looks much like any of the other Porsche 911s made from 1963 to present. Nothing new.

Now driving my TR3, it turns heads like Sadaam Hussein walking naked through DC. I get "wow that must be fast" and "what is that, an Aston Martin or Jaguar?" People don't understand that for what I paid, I couln't buy a new Hyundai, and that the Hyundai could outrun it on any track.

So, not to say that C3 shouldn't get looks, but don't think that just because it gets looks necessarily wipes away all of its perceived shortcomings. The real test is when a bunch of cars are lined-up at a show, where do the people flock? Usually (at least in the many places I have lived) it hasn't been C3s (or C4s.)