C1 vs C3 performance

[Richard S.]

Back in the day I owned both a 75 & 80 (L48) Vette and never considered either to be excessively under powered. I recently read that Car & Driver tested the 75' and produced a quarter mile run in 16.1 seconds @ 87.4 mph. The 75' performance was then compared the 150 hp Blue Flame Six in the 53 Vette and the numbers were similar with 17.0 seconds & 76 mph. If you were to only look at the 53 corvette and the 75 corvette you might think that performance had remained stalled for 22 years.

[Loren L.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

Is there a question here?

[David R.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

Having owned both, the differences are mainly the same as any 1954 - 1974 vehicle comparison would be. The modern car is, well, more modern. It starts, stops, turns and drives more smoothly. The overall performance level difference is not really that great, depending of course on how the car is equipped - a 1971 454 is obviously going to spank a Blue Flame Six. But you are correct, driving one of the low-performance C3s doesn't give you a lot more performance than a C1. My 1962 327/300 hp 4-speed moves right along nicely, but my 1972 LT-1 I bought new had a much higher performance level. I don't think the OP's post was a question, more like just an observation.

[Frank D.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

My '61 dual quad 283ci 270hp Duntov car with the timing curve tweaked to the max surprises everyone who rides with me on a 'performance' drive.
I'd put it up against many of the lower-end 327ci cars in a head to head cook off...

[Gary R.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

Personally I really like the 75's, probably because I was 16 at the time and used to stop at the dealer and dream about buying a L82 4 speed coupe.

I did buy one like that in original but worn out condition years ago and found the performance was ok, not what I would call a 1/4 mile car by any means but a car I could drive everyday and enjoy. I gave it to my son to rebuild and once it got to about 400hp became a little different ! That car is gone now and replaced by another 75 coupe that is in the 10's with a supercharged 350 and other mods. I never had a 53 or 54 to compare the two but I'm they are a world apart same as comparing a 75 to a 2015.

Bottom line enjoy what you have.

[Duke W.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

1975 represented a low point for base engine net horsepower going back to at least 1962. The highly restrictive single catalyst and lazy spark advance map took a big toll on both power and fuel economy. Plus the '75 was several hundred pounds heavier than the C1 era cars.

Actually, I doubt if a base engine '75 was that fast. C and D performance data from that era was highly optimistic.

R & T performance test data was a lot more realistic and you can probably find a R & T road test from that era on the Web.

Duke

[Richard S.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

That was my point. Between 1956 and 1974 we enjoyed an explosion of performance and then it all went away. However, by 1975 the refinements were enough to over look the loss of performance at the time. I was just reflecting on how poor the performance was in 1975 and how it was still acceptable given the car that surrounded it.

[Duke W.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

... and I explained the reason for the loss of performance.

Also, the mid-seventies was the point that pre-emission era Corvette prices began to climb, and guys started restoring old Corvettes. Up until then they were just old used cars, but guys began to realize that that they were faster and more viseral, especially with SHP/FI engines, which were a thing of the past due to emission regulations.

Duke

[Michael J.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

... and I explained the reason for the loss of performance.

Also, the mid-seventies was the point that pre-emission era Corvette prices began to climb, and guys started restoring old Corvettes. Up until then they were just old used cars, but guys began to realize that that they were faster and more viseral, especially with SHP/FI engines, which were a thing of the past due to emission regulations.

Duke

Frankly, when I was finally able to afford a new Corvette, in 1981, I thought I had died and gone to heaven, I would never have even considered getting an old C2 and fixing it up. The '81 was such a comfortable and high tech (I got the CB option) machine, rode smooth and was very quiet, had all the options. Not much performance of course, but no new cars had any in those days, but the thing I loved best was the way it looked, a beautiful Corvette shape, all the spoilers, and the two tone paint was to die for.

PS Duke, just a little over 48 hours until "The Game".

[Duke W.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

Ah, yes... and I notice that "The Enemy" is a 3.5 point favorite. We'll see. The PAC-12 has been all about upsets this year.

Back on topic:

In the mid to late seventies when I was working on my SWC at the Los Angeles Air Force Station auto hobby shop I noticed a new Corvette Coupe parked in the adjacent parking lot. One day I saw the owner walk up the the car so I approached him - a forty-something GS-14, and asked him about the car. It was decked out with all the luxury options including AC and TH400.

I asked him why he bought a Corvette, and he said he always wanted a Corvette and finally got to the point where he could afford one.

I further asked him if he had considered a vintage Corvette from the pre-emission era, but he said he wanted a new one with A/C and automatic - a comfortable, reliable, and stylish car that he could use as a daily driver.

I think there were a lot of guys like that back then - more interested in luxury and style rather than 0-60 times (which is okay), and by the standards of the day, Corvettes were still among the best performing new cars since every car was effected by emission and safety regulations that reduced power and increased weight.

That feeling was reflected in sales figures, which were about double the previous decade, and that was one reason why GM management resisted a new Corvette design. It was selling in record numbers, was very profitable, and engineering resources were tied up in meeting ever increasing emissions and safety requirements.

Duke

[Richard S.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

In 1980 I remember having to decide, do I want the "big" L-82 engine with the mandatory automatic or the L-48 and the optional 4-speed. I chose the latter, at least I had the feeling of performance. Then in 1984 the order sheet only had one engine and one transmission-automatic.

[Michael J.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

In '81 you had no engine choice, but could get a 4 speed. But living in Houston and fighting that traffic daily, no way I wanted a 4 speed.

[Jerry W.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

I bought a new 62 340 SHP at the age of 19 and it was a fun car to drive...No fear..had it for 6 yrs 130K miles

Fast forward 50 years...My Son just restored another 62 340 SHP and took me for a ride....Holy Crap..Just a matter of prospective I guess.

[William F.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

No the explosion in performance was from '56 to '70 with a little left over in the '71 LT1. Performance was not "stagnant from '54 till '75; what happened was performance went WAY down after '70 for many years with low point being '74-75 until engine computers, variable vale timing, etc., gave a second tremendous upswing in power.

[Michael J.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

I always consider 1971 the last year, and those are the cars I have always wanted. Like the LS-6/ZR2 Corvettes and LS-6 Chevelles, the last Hemi Mopars in multiple bodies, and the last Cobra Jet Mustangs and Fords. All disappeared in 1972, but luckily today, you have many choices of new and old muscle if you want it.