C1 vs C3 performance

[David R.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

It's always subjective whenever a statement is made such as "Corvette performance started in 19XX and ended in 19XX". My 1972 LT-1 Convertible had plenty of performance, the largest difference from the previous year being the way the government decided to compute the horsepower ratings. My 1962 327/300hp has plenty of performance as well - especially in the context of 1962. True all-out performance cars were difficult to find anywhere in the world in the mid-70s, and the Corvette was no exception - but again, viewed in context of its contemporaries, they weren't the slugs they are often depicted as. Well, maybe the California-only version with the 307. In any case, Corvettes were always acceptable performers related to the cars they competed against when new . . . even the 1953-1954 Blue Flame sixes.

[Richard S.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

I selected the low point in Corvette performance to be 1975 because it was only rated @ 15hp more than the Blue Flame Six. In 1974 you could still order a LS4 big block 454 rated @ 270hp.

[Jim D.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

Well, maybe the California-only version with the 307.

It was actually a 305 and for only 1 year, 1980. A buddy of mine unknowingly bought a used one. He thought they all had 350's. That car was a major slug.

[David R.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

Yes, that's correct of course. Not sure how that "307" got in there. Must be old age.

[Mark H.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

There's more than just going in a straight line though. If you were to autocross a '75 against most solid axle cars with the possible exception of the '62 fuelie, given the suspension, brakes, and tires (or lack therof) in the solid axle car, the '75 would more than hold its own. I remember one Sunday coming up behind a '64 convertible on the freeway and thinking, "Damn those tires are skinny!" No way would I drive aggressively over Mulholland in that car.

[David R.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

And again, I submit that comparing nearly any 1950s or 1960s car to the same car ten or twenty years later isn't going to yield any astonishing results. Of course a 1975 Belchmobile is going to drive and perform better than a 1954, 1960 or 1966 Belchmobile. Sure, a fire-breathing 1967 L-88 is much faster than a 1976 Corvette. But which one is "nicer" to drive every day? The more meaningful comparison is of each year's car to its contemporaries . . . and in this respect, the Corvette comes off quite well - even in years when the performance envelope of all cars was reduced by choking emissions requirements and governmental regulation. Compare the performance figures of a brand-new V-6 Camaro to many cars considered "hot" in their day. It's called progress, and I'm a big fan.

I still enjoy driving my '62. It isn't the fastest car I've ever owned, or the best-handling. As has been pointed out, skinny bias-ply tires and a solid-axle leaf-sprung rear end have their limitations . . . but it's still a very rewarding car to drive and I highly recommend the experience. My wife says it reminds her of an old wooden 1950s Chris-Craft speedboat, with that big straight up & down 17-inch steering wheel and the big rounded windshield. If you've never driven a C1 Corvette, if nothing else it will give you a whole new respect for those drivers who raced them when they were new - and managed to turn in some pretty good lap times and pretty high speeds. Just don't be surprised if you have a hard time staying with a modern Honda Accord on a mountain road. Time marches on . . . but it will be a long time before a Honda Accord is as collectible as a Corvette.

[Mark E.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

It seemed as though GM designed emission controls to be easily bypassed or removed. A friend bought a '75 L-48 M20 in the late '70s, and what a difference in performance when the smog pump was removed, distributor recurved, carb jetted, and dual exhaust added. It felt comparable to a late '60s base engine car, but with a quieter, more comfortable ride. Plus the cowl induction sounded cool when the secondaries opened...

[Frank D.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

There's more than just going in a straight line though. If you were to autocross a '75 against most solid axle cars with the possible exception of the '62 fuelie, given the suspension, brakes, and tires (or lack therof) in the solid axle car, the '75 would more than hold its own. I remember one Sunday coming up behind a '64 convertible on the freeway and thinking, "Damn those tires are skinny!" No way would I drive aggressively over Mulholland in that car.

I drove my bone stock '61 around Sebring, at speed, during one of their "touring laps". If you dropped back from the pace car enough you could do some performance driving through the straight away and twisties for short sprints. Straight aways were fun; the twisties -- well let's just say your life flashed before your eyes....

I don't think there's any debate about the 70s gas crunch and emissions gestapo degrading performance. IIRC the carb on my '75 Pontiac LeMans even had the mixture screws sealed up and non-adjustable. Yes, you could bypass the emissions stuff and get a bump in performance - there were plenty of cars with the carb's protective plugs drilled out to allow tuning and emptied out catalytic converters. A lot of trouble and most didn't do it...they just put up with the retarded timing, run-on after shutdown, over-heating and all the other BS the detuning caused.

[Michael J.]

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.


Duke

[Mark K.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

The 74 L82 had 250HP, only 5 less than the 72 LT1. The real drop in performance was from 74 to 75 given the addition of the cats and loss of thru dual exhaust. The peaks in road Corvette performace were 1970 for small blocks with the LT1 at 370 (although one could argue that the 64 FI cars were faster) and 66/67s for the big blocks. For the big blocks, the 435s lost acceleration potential with the added weight and low riser manifolds in 68. 69 was worse with the 2" exhaust the only exhaust available. And then the 71s lost all that compression (also due to emissions). I guess my point is that performance in those days wasn't lost overnight, there were a number of steps along the way.

[Mark K.]

Re: C1 vs C3 preformance

I'm not sure comparing a 67 L88 to a 75 L48 is a good comparison if you want to compare drivability. If drivability is a concern, I would much rather compare (and use as a primary car) a 67 350HP 327 (or even the base 300HP) to anything from 75. Consider too that the quality of the mid 70s cars were terrible compared with the later C2s. The emissions technology was never truely sorted out by the GM calibration engineers in those days and led to many drivability problems.