Although the major car magazines mostly lost interest in the Thunderbird once it gained a back seat, the “buff book” love affair with the Corvette only deepened through the run of the C1 and C2. One reason was that even a fairly basic Corvette offered strong performance — and judicious use of the options list could produce a fearsome dual-purpose GT, driveable on the street and yet highly competitive on a weekend road course. This 1964 Motor Trend road test samples some of that racing-oriented equipment, including the state of the art in Corvette drum brakes.
Chevrolet was not in racing — not officially, and there were occasional ominous memos from senior corporate management about the unofficial stuff — but a decent number of Corvette owners were, and Chevrolet had an obvious interest in keeping them properly supplied and equipped.
Taylor Shenuski via RM Sotheby’s
Power was only part of the story, although there was plenty of that on offer. There were also many other interesting items on the options list for the weekend warrior, from “special” heavy-duty suspension to an “off-road” exhaust system and an oversize 36-gallon (136-liter) fuel tank. Not many people ordered these options — only 38 ’64 Corvettes had the big fuel tank, and only 60 exercised the option to save a few pounds and $100 by deleting the heater — but just offering them helped to maintain the Corvette’s racy image.
The Sting Ray coupe tested here (in the September 1964 issue of Motor Trend) has about the hottest powertrain you could order on a 1964 Corvette. In 1964, the only engine size offered in the Corvette line was the 327, but there were four versions, producing between 250 and 375 gross horsepower. This car has the 375-hp “fuelie,” with a long-duration, high-lift cam and solid lifters as well as Rochester mechanical fuel injection, plus the close-ratio four-speed gearbox and a Positraction limited-slip differential with a 4.11 axle ratio. (There was also a 4.56 rear end in the catalog, although it wasn’t well-suited for freeway use unless you could tolerate 3,800 rpm at 65 mph in high gear.) This wasn’t cheap: The fuelie 327 added $538 to the price tag, and you paid an extra $231.35 for the four-speed and Positraction. However, these options gave you one of the very fastest, best-handling production cars available anywhere in the world.
Taylor Shenuski via RM Sotheby’s
With an engine as flexible and free-breathing as the 327 cu. in. (5,354 cc) SBC — with or without fuel injection — you didn’t really need a close-ratio gearbox, or for that matter a four-speed. Almost 2,500 customers in 1964 ordered Powerglide and were probably perfectly satisfied with its performance. However, the close-ratio four-speed had its advantages. Even with the deep 4.11 axle ratio, you could stay in second gear (1.64:1) to more than 85 mph with this engine, which made for ferocious passing power: Motor Trend needed only 2.5 seconds for its 40 to 60 mph and 50 to 70 mph tests, which technical editor Bob McVay proclaimed “a tremendous safety factor.”
Taylor Shenuski via RM Sotheby’s
The text makes various references to the Corvette’s potential top speed that may be confusing if you don’t have a clear perspective on how fast the Corvette was. With the solid-lifter 327, top speed was largely a function of gearing. The test car topped out at an observed 134 mph on the back straight at Riverside International Raceway, but at that speed, it was out of revs, not power. With a 3.36 or 3.08 axle, a fuelie Sting Ray was most definitely “capable of well over 150 mph,” as McVay remarks in the last paragraph of the right column.
About those brakes: Until 1965, when four-wheel discs became standard, Corvette buyers had three choices: standard drums with standard organic linings, with or without power brakes; standard drums with sintered metallic linings and power assist; or the “special brake system,” RPO J56, which had finned drums with metallic linings and integral cooling fins to help carry heat away from the linings, plus air scoops (popularly known as “elephant ears”) to duct cooling air to each brake. It also included dual hydraulic circuits (not yet required by law in 1964) and power assist, which was essential with the higher pedal effort required with the metallic linings. Here’s a close-up from the following page.
These brakes were specialist equipment, and very expensive, listing for $629.50 on top of the $769.35 price of the fuel-injected engine/four-speed/Positraction powertrain, which was the only way they could be ordered. Zora Arkus-Duntov later called them “brutal,” and they were even less practical than the normal metallic brake option for street use. Not only were they noisy, sintered metallic linings didn’t perform well until they were warmed up. Even then, as you’ll see if you scroll down to the spec panel, the stopping distances they provided weren’t exceptional. For road racing, stopping distances are less important than ensuring that the brakes don’t fade to oblivion in repeated use at 100+ mph speeds, which was where the special brake package thrived. Only 29 Corvette buyers selected this expensive option in 1964, and you can bet that all of them intended to race.
1963 J56 brake with sintered metallic pads / 63Corvette via Corvette Forum
The C2 Corvette offered aluminum wheels with real (not simulated) knock-off hubs, which I think were technically illegal in some states. They were also expensive; $322.80 list in 1964 is the equivalent of $3,287 today, although I think these are still a very desirable option for Corvette fans today, so if you bought them in 1964 and kept them for 60 years, you’d likely get more than you paid for them now. (How often can you say that?)
Taylor Shenuski via RM Sotheby’s
In the later C3 model, Corvette handling didn’t keep pace with improvements in suspension and tire technology, even with their independent suspension, but in the first half of the 1960s, the C2 was still near the top of the heap, with neutral balance, minimal lean, and about as much grip as you could hope to get with 6.70-15 bias-ply tires. The fuel-injected engine helped by preventing the carburetor starvation that could become a problem for some contemporary cars in hard cornering. It was also quite civilized for real-world driving. McVay remarked:
Not only was the Sting Ray a fine-handling automobile on the road course, it also proved a very comfortable and refined sports tourer. We took it through the mountain, the desert, and on long weekend trips and found it one of the most comfortable and quietest sports cars we’ve driven in ages. Naturally, it’s happier when covering ground rapidly, especially if the road’s an interesting one, but it’d put up with traffic as long as we kept it above 2000 rpm and in the right gear.
Ventilation tended to be a sore spot for the C2. The 1964 and 1965 Sting Ray coupes had an electric ventilation fan behind the left rear wheel that was supposed to help exhaust air through the vents behind the doors, but the effect was weak, and Chevrolet abandoned the fan and the vents for 1966.
In terms of volume, the Sting Ray had decent luggage space, although the lack of a rear decklid or lift-up rear glass would make loading or unloading those suitcases an unpleasant chore, and keeping baggage in place in a hard stop or brisk cornering was also a concern.
Civilizing the Corvette was obviously a priority for Chevrolet, which was always keen to increase Corvette sales volume — weekend racers might boost the image, but hardcore sports cars didn’t sell in large enough numbers for GM’s comfort. The 1964 was a bit quieter inside than the ’63 and benefited from an ongoing campaign against squeaks and rattles. Still, there were limits to how much refinement one could expect of a car in this class — which went for contemporary European rivals like the Jaguar E-type as well as the Corvette.
The as-tested price listed in the data panel is $6,367.27, which is the equivalent of about $64,800 today. (If you’re wondering about the odd decimal figures in the list prices, they reflect a federal excise tax that was rescinded during the Nixon administration.) That was enough to buy you a respectable amount of Cadillac in 1964, although if you weren’t planning to race your Corvette, could save yourself over $1,000 by skipping the fuel injection system and fancy brakes in favor of the 300 hp L75 engine and regular sintered metallic brakes, which many buyers did. (In 1964, 10,471 Corvettes had the L75 engine and a surprising 4,780 had the cheaper J65 metallic brakes.)
Last, I want to draw special attention to the straight-line performance figures:
| Type | MT Test Result |
|---|---|
| 0 to 30 mph, sec. | 3.0 |
| 0 to 45 mph, sec. | 4.4 |
| 0 to 60 mph, sec. | 5.6 |
| Passing, 40 to 60 mph, seconds, feet | 2.5 seconds, 183 feet |
| Passing, 50 to 70 mph, seconds, feet | 2.5 seconds, 220 feet |
| Standing quarter mile, seconds, mph | 14.2 at 100 mph |
| Observed top speed, mph at rpm | 134 at 6,700 rpm |
These acceleration times were very, very, very quick for 1964. There were few cars in the world at this time that could match a Corvette in a straight line, and not many more that could follow it through a fast curve.
Taylor Shenuski via RM Sotheby’s
As for slowing down, well — there was definitely still room for improvement, but by the time this test appeared in the summer of 1964, that wouldn’t be long in coming.
Related Reading
Automotive History: 1963 Corvette Sting Ray – A Ravishing New Lust Object Appears Out Of The Depths Of The Ocean (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1964 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible – Float Like A Butterfly, Sting Like A Ray (by Tatra87)
Corvettes, Shelbys, and the SCCA – The Rules of the Club (by Dutch 1960)
Vintage Road Test: 1957 Corvette 283 Fuel Injection 4-Speed — As Fast As A 427 ‘Vette And Faster Than A Lamborghini Countach (by Paul N)
A friend of mine had a 1964 Sting Ray convertible when we were teenagers. His father had a significant paving stone manufacturing firm, and the Sting Ray was one of the perks. It had an engine built by a NASCAR shop that was reputed to make about twice the power these were ever meant to have, and somewhat more than any of the Grand Sports ever raced with. It still had its drum brakes and knock-off wheels though, and I don’t know if the brakes were even of an upgraded variety. My friend used to crash the car every time he drove it, but that wasn’t much of an inconvenience since he also had a couple of new vehicles. I wanted to buy the Corvette one of the times it was emerging from the body shop, but he insisted that he wouldn’t be responsible for selling it to a friend.
It had an engine built by a NASCAR shop that was reputed to make about twice the power these were ever meant to have, and somewhat more than any of the Grand Sports ever raced with.
Heavy emphasis on the word “reputed”.
Nice detailed info on the racing drum brakes.
Yes, the C2 was my dream car during its first few years. By 1966-’67, I’d moved on to more exotic stuff.
I have a friend in Port Orford with a ’65 he’s had since the mid-’80s; a yellow convertible. He’s added reproduction alloy wheels with the real knock-offs; they were eliminated in the ’65s due to legal issues.
These acceleration times were very, very, very quick for 1964.
Very true. But still not materially quicker than the ’57 fuelie. I suspect the real limitation for why that was the case was the tires. That would change soon…
Sintered brake linings, how tragic is that on a car like that, GMH used sintered brake linings to enable their EH S4 model Holdens to race at Bathurst, those brakes are why they did not feature on the podium, and those weighed in at 1040kgs with 115 hp, Ford Cortina won, it was lighter slower but had disc brakes so still had some brakes after 3 laps.
Tires and weight. The newer the vette, the heavier they got.
I’ve driven a few C2 Corvettes, from milquetoast 327 powerglides, to absolutely brutal 427 convertibles. Going from a disc brake car to a drum brake model (especially the higher power solid lifter cars) is terrifying. The ones with organic linings suffer from potentially fatal fade, and the cars with metallic shoes require a confident foot to warm them up. Every one of them pulls in one direction or the other. But there’s nothing like feeling that rear suspension squat and squirm around under hard acceleration, unlike any other car of its era…save the Shelby Cobra. I always say I’d have a C2 big block if I won the lottery, but realistically I’d be safer in a C5.
What was the other V8 two seater that “could hope to match it on a road course in street trim?” Aston Martin?
Nope — Cobra. Dutch’s article on the SCCA (linked in the “Related Reading” section) talks about the Corvette-Cobra rivalry.
Interesting! I can vouch for the performance of these – mine is a ’63 with 360hp and a 3.70 rear end, but goes really well with razor sharp throttle response. I’ve had it to well over the 134mph listed in the article on the Autobahnen (higher gearing) and it would stop reasonably well from high speeds on freshly rebuilt standard drum brakes, but needed some recovery time after that. The other thing with drums is that if one side is cooler than the other, they will pull unevenly. My ’66, which I had at the same time, had the ventillated discs and there was no comparison – these would dependably haul the faster 427 down from higher speeds allowed by a 3.08 rear end and really solved the C2s one glaring weakness. These were really quick cars in the day – a 3.8 XKE was nowhere near as quick and even early Miuras could not toch the acceleration of them.
The article mentions the Sting Ray’s traction being limited by the tires of the day – on even fairly prosaic radials (mine were on 215/70/15 Pirelli 4000s), their 49/51% weight ditribution makes these cars’ ability to put their power down impressive, especially if one uses a monoleaf rear spring and modern dampers. The posi also has the benefit of mitigating lift throttle oversteer, giving C2s pretty benign handling on the limit.
It was a shame that the C3 didn’t really advance much in practical terms – it retained the C2 chassis and had less interior room. It was arguably more derivative in its styling, although early C3s are perhaps more conventionally beautiful than the C2.
I feel lucky to have experienced my C2s as daily drivers, often driven to their limits, as it has enabled me to dispel the myths (no, they dont take off at 150mph+) and appreciate them for the wonderful sports cars that they are.