(first posted 5/16/2015) Last week, Paul Niedermeyer posted a feature on an orange ’75 Corvette which had taken a pretty nasty hit to its front clip (CC Outtake: 1975 Corvette – Not What It Was Cracked Up To Be). Ensuing comments ranged from acknowledgement that the ’75s lacked performance compared to previous ‘Vettes, to praise of this generation’s distinctive styling and ease with which performance could be enhanced, to straight-up disgust with the whole malaise-era package. I was born in the mid-70’s, and by the time I was in elementary school in the early 80’s (when the C3 was still being produced and on its way out), many kids my age had no frame of reference to know how relatively fast or slow these Corvettes were. We just knew we liked seeing them on the street, that they were a cut above a Camaro or Firebird, and also that we wanted one, one day.
Instead of rehashing the comments on Paul’s aforementioned post, I’d like to present a simple, pictorial essay as to why these cars are still my jam.
How many American kids born in the 1960’s and 70’s imagined an older, successful version of themselves driving down a main street (perhaps Main Street) in one of these C3’s with the t-tops off and an arm out the window? I imagine quite a few. (I know I did.) In my mind, these cars – however fast or slow – represent the inalienable right to dream big.
Lakeview, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, September 10, 2011.
A friend has a ’68 and like many of us I always lusted after them. That changed after I rode in it; wasn’t particularly fast, quick, or comfortable but at least you look good in it. I’ve decided that these are best admired in poster form, or in someone else’s driveway.
I agree, I wanted one until I drove one. Meh.
My upcoming ’75 that I’m doing a budget resto on:
Love it. Those 5-spoke wheels look great with the lines of the car. This looks like it will be a fun driver.
Nice project! Good luck with the resto.
It was the worst of times. As kids, we had to hang our automotive hats on something. We all had that same Countach poster on the wall. Look at the numbers on that Lambo – a modern V-6 Camry could out-perform it by any measure… except looks.
…except looks… and sound, and feel, and handling, and braking, and top speed….
…and fun
…and operating costs per mile…oooh nooo…heck with the Lambo!
Not me!
I had a pic of a plain white Porsche 911 turbo targa slantnose getting air in a downtown American midsize city intersection.
The kind where one crossing road is a slightly different elevation than the other road it crossed. Do they still have intersections like that in small towns?
Texas is full of roads like that. It’s popular anyplace where torrential downpours are common, done for drainage.
It’s funny during ice storms when people block the intersections because their vehicle can’t climb the grade and absolutely hilarious when the stuck vehicle is a pickup/SUV where the owner fitted 22s and crappy pass car street tires.
The only measure a Camry outperforms an early Countach in is braking. I will grant you that the numbers are much closer than most people would believe. But still, the Camry does not outperform it.
Is it impressive that a Camry can even come close? Well, that depends on how far you feel cars should have come over the past 41 years.
If only I could find a way to have that same flying buttress rear look in a sporty RWD 2-seater but maybe something modern, more reliable, better handling, faster, etc….
Found it!!
I’m growing tired about all the malaise-era comments & other statements about how these cars were/are underpowered.
They can be made to go as fast as you WANT them to go, with just some minor work. Yes, this generation of vette languished a little too long, but damn are they very capable and fun cars to fool around with.
We’re in a much bigger malaise era now. Sure cars now are statictically excellent in every measure, but they wear their efficiency and safety compromises(real and pedestrian) no better than the 74 bumper mandate cars did, and unlike in the malaise era cars simply aren’t tinkerable, they’ve become throwaways like smart phones. Even Mustangs, long the darling of the aftermarket and arguably it’s most appealing aspect for enthusiasts for most of it’s life, has pretty much graduated to throwaway high performance car, pretty much where the Vette has been since 1984. I don’t see people spending the kind of time and money modding the crap out of the current 5.0 compared to the old 5.0, even if the old one couldn’t match it, that’s not what it’s about.
Cars are no longer a current thing for DIYers. Us DIYers still grab on to the odd old car when we can find it. But the future of DIYers is not cars. ATVs, computers, acreages, drones, electronics, and backyard workshops.
Yes and no. Today’s performance and dynamics are simply excellent and make most cars and even a lot of trucks enjoyable to drive. But yeah, they are getting to be disposable, the technology too expensive to fix when it goes bad after 10 years.
People do still mod though, just in a different way. Performance tunes are what is done now. They can make a significant difference, but it’s not really a “hands dirty” kind of upgrade. Exhaust and cold air intakes are still done, but today that is mostly for sound and add little if any performance. Wheel/tire and suspension upgrades are still very popular as well. More serious mods are more expensive and involved than they used to be due to how complex modern engine management systems are, but if you look around the internet forums you will find plenty of people still doing it. You even still have the snake oil products out there like K&N and Lucas selling well because people want to try improving their cars however they can.
I disagree about being in a 2nd malaise era
With today’s technology, it looks to be a new golden age for high horsepower cars all getting great mileage and causing low pollution.
Case in point in 2009 when my folks went looking for a new car and stopped at the local Ford Lincoln Mercury dealership and looked at the 2009 Mercury Grand Marquis and the 2009 Ford Taurus.
The 2009 Grand Marquis had a 224hp V8 that got 16/24 mpg
The 2009 Taurus had a 263hp V6 that got 18/28 mpg
Both cars are around the same size interior wise (the taurus loses some space in the front due to the center console while the GM losese some space in the rear due to the transmission hump
The taurus actually has a slightly bigger trunk then the GM
In the end they bought the Taurus as it was a more modern design and it was more comfortable to them.
The taurus was around the same size as the GM but had a more powerfully smaller engine then the GM and yet still got better gas mileage and had more power.
Take the 2015 Mustang. The base V6 engine puts out 300hp(enough to dish out some serious whoop ass to a 1960’s high horsepower muscle cars) That is pretty impressive.
The next 10 years should be a golden age in the horsepower game
As I said, I acknowledge the fact that technology is great today but there’s just no soul anymore. I guess I romanticize things too much but what often made cars of the past so interesting was the different approaches, and the benefits and compromises of those approaches that could be tried. Modern cars just aren’t that way anymore, suspension design, engine design, driveline, and what wheels are being driven are all practically sacrosanct, there’s very little new in the world of refining internal combustion that’s truly new, it’s mostly long lived technology that’s making it’s way across the board, and suspension/chassis innovation is stale. Mandates and social media pressure certainly don’t help matters, every pimple faced blogger just loved pointing out the Mustangs they never drove suck because they had a solid axle, well Ford answered their prayers with IRS and now those same people call the car fish faced.
Stylistically cars now are as compromised bloated as they were in the 70s only with less color and less bodystyles. High beltlines are the new railroad tie bumpers and infotainment is the new CB radio.
It is the 2nd malaise era because there is NO WHERE TO DRIVE THESE CARS ANYMORE. Include DMV enforcement and insurance data-sharing and it is financially suicidal!
$200 for 1000hp SBCs is BS
Or they could call it fish-faced because it’s been a pastiche of the 1969-1970 fastback for more than 10 years now.
Then stop reading. We all know the small block Chevy can make a 1000hp for 200 bucks.Old news…yawn
They are good to look at too.
I agree these look better from afar, rather than sitting in, at least in my case. At a Mecum auction a couple of years ago, there were several for inspection. I thought well this is the time to see if I fit. Well, I fit in but had a hard time getting out! Not for tall and big-boned people like me, so it’s off my list. I still have a big 1/6 scale model, that will have to do.
A neighbor on the next block had one of these and, as kids, whenever it drove by we would stop whatever activity we were engaged in (when kids played outdoors).
So cool. And I recall its distinctive rumble…like that of my older brothers ’69 Cutlass x10.
I had the chance to buy a 1980, 4speed, back in 97ish. I passed. Car made my 71 Maverick seem almost fast, and it was a total rattletrap. Great to look at however, while sipping a beer. And if I was gonna have one of these, it would have to be a 1969 or 1970. In my opinion, probably the best years for build quality
…..it would have to be a 1969 or 1970. In my opinion, probably the best years for build quality
Only because they had a lot of angry customers who bought ’68s. To this day the ’68 has the reputation for being the most poorly made Corvette.
Aha, maybe that’s partly why I was so unimpressed with my friend’s ’68. What a rattle and squeakfest. Perhaps a later model without T-tops would go a long way towards user-friendliness, at least as far as irritating noises go. It would still be a poor fit for the larger among us.
The real nadir was the 1980 Corvette California, made for the Golden State’s tighter smog regulations, with a feeble 180hp through a sluggish 3-speed auto.
Yeah… I think those ones came with a 305.
The early Corvette’s with the six were not fast either. There was a 305 for 1980, but two higher performance 350’s. Not sure about where the engines were or were not available.
Edmunds does have a historical review of Corvette performance LINK HERE
One of my least favorite Corvette body style.
This model frequently seemed to be driven by balding, recently divorced suburban guys looking for double jointed stewardesses.
The 1963-67 models were THE ones I’d give up eating out and tolerate holes in my underwear and socks for.
LOL it does seem to be a car for a middle aged Lothario!
I remember seeing a yellow one in the mid 70s driven by a local “financial adviser”,he also had a Rolls Royce,Mercedes and a few bikes(Kawasaki Z1,Ducati 750 Sport and a Norton Commando).One week he sold everything very cheaply telling everyone he was buying a Jensen Interceptor and vanished(along with his clients money)!
Not my favourite shape, but the really interesting thing about the C3 is how well it accepted its body upgrades. You could look at every one, from a chromey smallbumper 68 to something like this one with its body-moulded bumpers or even a later one with the different rear window; and each looks like it was the first model designed. This is the one US car that made best use of the changing bumper laws. As always, great pics Joseph.
Obviously the power was down compared to earlier models, but how good or bad were they otherwise when new? Did they handle ok, were they screwed together well etc? The ones I’ve seen of this age are either trailer queens or hand grenades waiting to go off!
The pictured example is a great looking car, really like the color. Add a nicely built 350 with a 5 speed stick and park it in my driveway. This is my second favorite body style after the ’63-’67 generation. Don’t forget to leave me the keys.
I’m part of that generation, and I never cared for these cars. I always saw them as a bad cliche. The Midlife Crisis car for the Tony Manero crowd. Something a loud, obnoxious, middle-aged, shirt-collar-spread-over-sport-jacket jerk would drive to impress younger women. Own one of these and forever relinquish your street cred. That kinda thing. I can almost tolerate these Corvettes at vintage car shows nowadays, but back in the day they were a joke.
As iconic as the C3 Corvette is, most years of those cars were real junk – horrible crash-thud ride, rattle-traps, interior parts that tended to break in your hand, asthmatic engines.
They’re only worthwhile as resto-mod material and even then you can easily throw tens of thousands of dollars down the rathole.
Saying “resto-mod” to a bunch of true “Corvette people” is akin to insulting the Pope at a Knights of Columbus meeting. They actually try to preserve or replicate the factory’s faults and look down upon anything that wasn’t present when those cars left the 1920s vintage dungeon in North St. Louis where they were born. For them dropping a crate 350 in a 1980 305-powered California Vette would be like dropping a slant six in a documented Hemi Challenger.
I’ve witnessed this first hand with the Bloomington Gold crowd, ie Concours d’Elegance rejects. I used to attend the event pretty much every June when it was at the Pheasant Run resort, since it was close by, and it seemed like every non 100% original Corvette was relegated to the spectator parking lot, I rarely saw a truly modified classic Corvette on the grounds, at most I’d see a C2 with a non-original 67 style stinger hood(which I assume required verification that the owner had the original hood protected in lucite in a climate controlled storage facility), full blown restomod though? Fuggedaboutit. No chance at Bloomington Gold certification for you!
I went back in the ’90s when they held BG at the State Fairgrounds in Springfield. When explaining to people just how crazy that bunch can be I always cite the rule regarding pebbles in the tire treads. If it’s a St. Louis-built car, a few pebbles are allowed because the spray tank where they were tested for leaks was on the opposite end of the building from the end of the assembly line and was only accessible from outside. Theoretically a few pebbles could be picked up while driving across the lot.
Pebbles are strictly forbidden on ’53s (Flint) or Bowling Green-built Corvettes.
Do they stll test the gasoline to make sure it’s 100 octane Sinclair or Texaco? The engine oil, all filters and antifreeze have to be period specific GM as well.
They don’t go quite that far, but the filters, hoses, tires and other wear items all have to be NOS or period-correct reproductions and stamped with the correct date codes. The judges use inspection mirrors to verify that the date codes on engine castings are both legit (frauds are all too common) and correct for the car’s date of assembly. They’ve gone through GM records and talked with folks who worked at all levels of GM assembly, engineering and parts distribution to come up with the acceptable date ranges for a given item.
A typical car being judged for Bloomington Gold certification always has such things as the paper sleeve on the driver’s visor with starting instructions, the yellow tag that hung from one of the radio knobs on the C2s, or the “to be removed by dealer” tag attached to the convertible top on C2s and C3s. If some of the interior trim screws on C1s and C2s don’t match, that’s OK. Sometimes they had to get some from the main Chevy car/truck plant next door or go to the hardware store down the street when they ran out of them on the line.
The judging criteria can best be compared to a dog show. Rather than judging on the individual merit of the Corvette/dog, it is judged against a “breed standard”.
I once saw a reader’s letter in the April edition of a classic car magazine where an aerosol company had spray cans of air from any year between 1962 to 79 and these would be perfect to inflate the tyres of a classic car.Quite a few were taken in despite it being written by a Mr Wayne Kerr!
Yeah, I understand the existence of such people, it’s just the taste and judgment I’m questioning.
It’s like a movie buff whose favorite Spielberg flick is Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
For a couple of years, my mother owned a (roughly 15 years old) ’79 with the L-82 and 4-speed. I only drove it maybe twice, and that was enough. It handled and stopped very well, better than any car I had driven to that point (mid-60s American beaters almost exclusively), but it was the most uncomfortable I’ve ever been in a car. It felt like I was driving laying down, and the swoopy front fenders looked even more ridiculous from inside the car. They seemed to tower over me. What’s more, compared to the well breathed-upon ’66 Rustang I had at the time, it was disappointingly slow – though being deprived of any real dangers when taking curves at their posted speed limit may have made it seem slower than it was. My biggest mistake though, was volunteering to give it a tune-up for her. It was a rude awakening in how complex cars had become, and it only hardened my resolve never to own a car younger than myself.
Never been much of a fan of the first rubber bumper Corvettes. Didn’t really warm to the styling (especially the rear), and it just got worse as the years went by. With the accompanying severe downgrade in power, there’s just not a lot to like there. Maybe it was because the pre-1973, chrome bumper C3 cars looked and performed so much better.
I owned a 1982 Corvette, somewhere around 2001, and used it as my daily driver for three years, summer and winter. Never gave me any troubles, only thing I ever changed was a dead battery and the sensor for the cooling fan. The Crossfire engine always started, and gave me decent mileage, for a V8. Loved that car, for me also it was a childhood dream to own one.
*edit* just realize it is in my profile picture,lol.
The CC effect struck for me this weekend. The 1976 edition of this car – down to the color – was parked in our neighbor’s driveway on Saturday.
I love it when that happens. It’s particularly cool the CC effect struck right next door to you.
Ergonomics and vision were the worst foibles in C3s.
I have one of these – in 1/25 scale.
Sure I like the earlier models with the real engines, but there’s still something sleek about the style of these, which the pictures capture well. Besides, in scale it’s easy to fix the engine’s shortcomings!
Love your action shots Dennis. The driver fits the car perfectly like Rockford in a Firebird.
The C3 is an interesting case study into what happens when you let your flagship model go 15 years without a redesign. 15! My primary question is, what were they thinking?? I know there was rumored to be a wankel-engined ‘Vette in the works in the mid 70’s, and it’s probably a good thing that didn’t materialize, but was the design so specialized for the smaller engine that it had to be tossed and back to the drawing board?
Regardless of that, I still like these plastic-bumper C3s, but more as period pieces. I was born in ’80 so I grew up with the C4, next to which the later C3s did seem like disco-era relics. Attractive ones, mind you. But there is, at least for me, a clear break between the chrome-bumper C3 and its plasticized sibling. I know they did the best job they could with the 5 MPH standard, and it’s actually pretty impressive for looking like it belonged there all along. But the early C3 has a lightness about it, a muscularity, imparted by the chiseled nose and convex tail. The later cars can’t match it. Combine that with the truly wild engines available, and the early C3 becomes every bit the equal of the late C2 for my “ultimate ‘vette” nod. Make mine a ’69 with a 427 and T-tops, please. A far cry from a bubble hatch ’80 California with a 305…
I’ve never owned or even driven one of these, but as a young space-nerd teen thought they were very cool because a number of Apollo astronauts drove them.
I bought a 1979 new; I was just out of college and it was my grad present to myself. I had loved ‘Vettes since I first spied a split window while car shopping with my dad in early 1963. That 79 looked good to me (I bought the light blue for some reason lost to memory and time) and performed respetcfully for the times, but that dream of driving down Main Street with t-tops off and arm on the sill definitely lost some grandeur coming true. I guess I expected it to change my life somehow – it didn’t.
I sold it in 1987 to finance the purchase of my fiance’s engagement ring. At least it kept its value pretty well in those eight years. I agree with those that see the early C3’s as superior to the late ones, both in performance and styling.
Occasionally I dream of reviving my ‘Vette relationship; perhaps with a C6, the last iteration I see as classic Corvette. But then I think – When I was young, ‘Vettes were young people’s cars. Now, I cannot remember when I saw a Corvette driver under the age of 55, and I don’t want to be a stereotype. Also, since I now have two grown daughters with significant others, I want the option of taking a couple of passengers along for the ride, which eliminates any Corvette. Lastly, and especially, there is a time for everything, and putting on a ‘Vette for me right now would be like putting on my shiny shirts and polyester pants, and searching the AM dial for the sounds of Donna Summer – fine in their time, but that time has come and gone.
Hello friends of great curb appeal cars…
I came accross this article and list of comments, and thought I might add on to the experience of being captured by true love with long-lasting fibre glass on wheels.
Strongly inspired by my sisters ex-boyfriend back in the late 80’s driving the 1979 Pontiac Firebrid Trans Am…I was blown by the 8 cyl. sound and the look of american cars in general (uhh…sorry, I’m from Europe, born in a tiny country called “Denmark”) -and European cars at that time were sh*t…unless you (as a teenager) could afford a Porsche.
Leaving secondary school back in 1988, I started my apprenticeship as a fitter, and not knowing anything about cars…I started using most of my pocket money buying car magazines, and suddenly got my hands onto the Haynes Automotive Repair Manual, covering Corvettes from 1968 through to 1982.
This maybe turned into being the most life-chaning book I’ve ever read and studied…(yes… this was years before the famous internet -so information was almost limited to what could pass through my parents letterbox).
Shortly the fascination for C3’s became allmost like an obsession to me, and 1 year into my apprenticeship, I managed to be the happy owner to a 1974 Coupe…bought as an 18 years birthday present to myself in 1990. Fortunate to receive a car unspoiled, still in its original paint and interior…but obviously -at this time- with the sign of 16 years wear and tear…mainly from driving around in the cold and wet Danish climate. From being imported by the previous owner from US, Oklahoma…I got all the car’s driving history and previous US owners included as a treat.
I felt like the most lucky kid in the world…still living at home, my dad extended the garage…and I started getting to know the -for me at the time- biggest investment in life.
Not having a driving license… haha…”Who the heck buys a snazzy car without being able to drive it??” (uhm…”Me I guess”) -that’s true, so I started to take things apart, after replacing all my existing tools, keys and sockets from metric to inches.
-and at this point, knowing the Haynes Manual inside out, there were no bigger surprises other than visually replacing the Haynes’ illustrations with IRL parts.
One year after (1991) more books have been bought, taking me into lifting out the standard L48 350 cu.i. -and performing a complete engine make-over, after discovering several oil leaks and a slacky timing chain. Having the engine fully assembled and fresh painted -I felt like I needed to do more (to the rest of the car…) and another year later, I was facing a complete frame-off restoration project. Not having many believers in my own success around me…even my parents I guess doubted my abbility to ever get the car back into one driveable piece…. -I completed my apprenticeship (at least) and went into engineering.
Now as a student (…a proper “bachelor in enigneering” I suppose) meaning “No or little finances…no going out nor girlfriend”….I financed my personal project by working part-time as a fitter/welder…and completed my engineering study in 1997.
The Corvette was finally completed halfway through my study…resulting in BIG TIME jealousy from my student friends, driving to and from uni the first summer in this 100% fully restored beauty.
Back in shape, I got the body re-painted in its original dark green metallic color, blending nicely with the medium saddle interior…all squeezed back onto a sand blasted and recoated main shiny black main frame, including suspension, drivetrain, brakelines, bushings etc.
Polyur
What I’ve learned… Well. admittedly not the easiest car to work on in generel (general access…harness layout, maintenance etc.) however I do love the “Full-frame” concept and the ability to remove the whole body during restoration.
Did I enjoy this 4 year project?: The answer is YES!!
Would I do it again?: If I end up retired and bored then YES!
Driving the car afterwards is close to a whole different chapter, (I’ll save that for another time for now…) -however, I still have the car…in my parents garage, despite I’ve moved on in my life….started travelling the world, living and working elsewhere in Europe, including France, Germany and the UK….and for this reason I haven’t been driving the car for some years now….
I still struggle with the idea of letting it go, instead I’m building up the justification for just having the car on a display in a future living room, in case the whole world goes eco-nuts and only allows electrical vehicles on the road for leisure transportation.
This car (at least to me…) represent an historical era within car design, where most things were, despite from being somewhat simple, repairable and replaceable, still beautiful from the outside…fully equiped with great sound, poor fuel economy and terrible driving perfomance….unless you’re going straight forward 🙂
Hope you guys enjoyed my input…-feel free to reach out.
Thanks for reading.
Cheers
Pete