Cars that create a paradigm shift don’t come often; the ’57 Corvette was one of them. With its sizzling-hot new 283 V8, especially the 283 hp fuel injected version, it utterly shattered existing records for production car acceleration numbers. No wonder that so many owners of even the hottest and most expensive imported sports cars traded them in for one; if you wanted to stay ahead of the pack on the race track, drag strip or just the street, you had to have one.
In mid-year 1957 the Corvette also got the new Borg Warner T-10 4-speed transmission, to up the ante one toothed and synchronized gear more. Road and Track wanted to find out just how fast it was, and they had their eyes opened; more like their eyeballs pressed against their skulls.
The tested car belonged to a private owner who had just installed the T-10 in his fuel injected Corvette. He was typical of Corvette owners at the time, having raced it at Palm Springs and Santa Barbara just before the transmission swap. It also had a 4.11:1 Positraction rear axle, heavy duty rear springs, and retreaded tires with a stickier compound. These options and the tires maximized the Corvette’s acceleration, reducing the severe wheelspin R&T had encountered in testing a 3-speed version.
The close-ratio 4-speed T-10 was primarily designed for road racers as that was Zora Arkus-Duntov’s primary focus for the Corvette. Its closely spaced second gear was ideal for downshifting in slower curves at speeds between 56 and 76 mph. The three-speed box, with the same ratio in second (1.31:1) as 3rd gear on the T10 would have either bogged the engine somewhat on the high-revving top Duntov-cam versions of the 283. And for slower curves. the 3 speed would have required a double-clutch downshift into its non-synchronized first gear. The T-10’s first gear was synchronized, a first for American transmissions and a genuine boon. The T-10 was highly praised for its quick, smooth shifts and quiet running.
R&T did point out that the new second gear had a very short spurt, as the acceleration graph above shows. In another article on Corvettes of this vintage, R&T recommended the three speed for most drivers, especially with the lower-output engine versions, as their torque curves made the the second gear essentially irrelevant. That applied to most American cars with powerful and flexible V8s, but the lure of the 4-speed manual was huge. The biggest real benefit in daily driving was the synchronized first gear, but that went away as the three-speed finally got one too.
As to the engine, R&T gushed, and not inappropriately. It was simply the best performance engine of its day, and had essentially no shortcomings. It was quiet and docile in city driving, transforming instantly into a raging brute with a stab on the accelerator. It pulled away from its 900 rpm idle in top gear smoothly without hesitation. Fuel injection didn’t necessarily increase power, as the dual-quad 270 hp version might actually have made a few horses more, based on a comparison of the two. But the fuel injection gave absolutely instant response from throttle inputs without any flat spots, and there was no risk of fuel starvation in fast corners. Its improved fuel economy was probably wasted on Corvette buyers.
Enough with the preliminaries; here’s the numbers that vaulted the ‘Vette to top dog: 0-60 in 5.7 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 14.3 seconds. Oddly, there’s no 1/4 mile speed in the traps, but 0-100 took 16.8 seconds, so probably about 96-97 mph.
As a frame of reference, a 3-speed version tested by SCI with a 3.70:1 rear axle took 6.6 seconds from 0-60. Since both of them did that in first gear, the advantage of one tested by R&T was not the 4-speed but its 4:11 rear axle, HD rear springs and stickier tires.
As to being quicker than a 427 Corvette, we recently did a vintage review of a ’68 with the 400 hp tri-power 427. Its time for the 0-60 was the same 5.7 seconds as the this ’57, and its 1/4 mile was a slightly quicker 14.10 seconds @102 hp. That’s with 117 more hp and 60% more torque (460 vs. 290 ft.lbs). Yes, a top-dog 435 hp version was a tick faster, with a 5.3 second 0-60 time. But given the huge jump in displacement, torque and horsepower, the ’57 was still very much in the running.
The point is: from 1957 on, there was little or no meaningful improvement in the Corvette’s acceleration capabilities. Weight crept up along with horsepower, largely balancing out the result.
As to the Countach, we covered that here, but here’s the salient details:
We’ll pick the 1978 Countach LP400S, which turned in the following stats, based on two different tests:
1978 LP400S 0-60: 5.8 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.3 sec.
LP 400S (year unstated): 0-60: 5.9 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.6 @ 101 mph
Admittedly, this test was a rather brief one; not much longer than it took the Corvette to hit 100. But we’ve got a number of vintage road tests (below) that go into more details.
Vintage SCI Dual Road Test: 1957 Corvettes, Dual Quad Carbs and Fuel Injected – Fast and…Fast
Which Is Faster, Part 2: A 1957 Corvette Or A 1978 Lamborghini Countach LP400S?
Automotive History: 1957 Chevrolet Fuel-Injected 283 V8 – Ahead Of Its Time And The Competition
Automotive History: From Powerglide to 4-speed – The History of Transmissions on Early Corvettes
Vintage Review: 1968 Corvette 427 – “All Of The Virtues And Vices Of American Technology”
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1959 Fuel Injected Corvette – “All The Speed You Need And Then Some”
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1956 Corvette, Powerglide And Stick Shift – Fast And Faster
That black ‘Vette looks menacing with those poverty caps! Great choice!
Standard ’57 Chevy hubcaps. My model 210 sedan had them, along with the new 14 inch rims. Standard Corvette wheel covers impeded brake cooling and were just removed for racing.
This car has the optional HD brakes and wider (5.5″) wheels designed specifically for racing, and they came with the little hub caps.
Yes, very impressive for 5, but the top speed was only 132mph at 6500rpm, how much fast would the Lamborghini go?
If you undergear you will always get more acceleration, but top speed is more important to Europeans.
When taking about cars, Europeans always mention top speed, it is taken as a given that fast cars can accelerate, priority is handling and braking which is the Achillies heel of US cars
Drag racing is very much a minority sport over here, and let’s be fair, how much skill does it take to accelerate hard in a road car up to 60
The review clearly states that with the right rear axle gearing (there were numerous choices available) it was capable of 150+ mph.
Although the focus of this particular review was the acceleration capabilities of the new engine, the primary focus of the Corvette’s sporting capabilities were on the race track. And it acquitted itself very well.
Neither pure acceleration or top speed alone make a successful sports racing car, although acceleration was typically more important on the kind of tracks that sport cars were raced on than pure top speed.
As to the skill for accelerating a car, back then with the skinny tires and primitive suspensions, I can assure you there was quite a bit of skill involved. Drag racing was a very competitive sport, and the best drivers were able to achieve significantly better times than Average Joe.
James, presumably “over here” means the UK, or Australia?
Getting good acceleration times out of these cars back in the day was an art you shouldn’t underestimate. The more powerful cars were traction limited by the tires of the day and required a lot of understanding to get consistently good times. Its not like modern cars where you have great traction and launch mode. Manual gearboxes were also usually slower changing, even when powershifting than the automated ones of today and had fewer, more widely spread ratios.
You will not always get great times by undergearing a car – the 0-60 or 0-100 times can be hurt by having to make too many gearchanges.
In speed limited countries I would say that top speed is less usable and therefore less relevant than acceleration. Germany is probably the only exception to that rule.
As to handling and braking being the Achilles heel of US cars – not all were so bad in this respect. My ’60s C2 Corvettes proved very competitive in German rallying and contemporary UK tests of C2s were impressed by their roadability – see Autocar’s test of a ’63 ‘Vette. My 2001 C5 Z06 was absolutely compared very favorably to my 911 of the same year, having great handling and brakes.
BTW, drag racing is a very popular sport in europe and especially the UK – look up attendances at Santa Pod….
Top speed at 132 mph in a light, open car, on skinny tires, had to be enough to scare just about anyone.
150 with the right rear gears.
Good timing on this post as a walked by a parked C8 (mid-engined) Corvette yesterday and thought that the Corvette name is must be by far the longest continuously used American model name, perhaps the world’s. The owner of the ‘57 test car featured here may have started as a typical Southern Californian amateur road racer, but he went on to win hundreds of SCCA races and almost always in Corvettes, well into the 1990’s. His name lives on in the high performance brake company (Porterfield Brakes) he started, and which still exists after his death in 2012; perhaps he was inspired by the “not ideal” fade performance of the brakes on this ‘57.
Aha. Good update. FWIW his ’57 didn’t have the optional HD brakes and wider wheels, a pretty critical one to have for racing.
I feel qualified to comment on the SB/BB debate. I owned both a small block ’63 fuellie coupe and BB ’66 427/425 roadster at the same time, so was able to compare them back to back.
The BB car was given a 3.08 rear end for the Autobahnen (it was originally a 3.70) and had the CR M22 Muncie 4 speed. The 327 in the coupe sent its power to 3.70 posdi via a BW Super T10.
The BB car was powerful all over, but come on cam over 4,000rpm, where the square port heads could really breathe. Then it was a case of “hold onto your hats” until over 6,500. I have seen times for these of 12.8 in the quarter and 4.8 to 60. Since my car would leave my then new 997S on acceleration I think this is believable. The 60mph first gear of my car was probably an advantage when street racing, as it helped mitigate wheelspin. My car was also aided by modern radials, monoleaf rear spring and Bilstein dampers, all of which gave it surprising traction, even on damp Black Forest rallies.
My 327 confirms a test by UK’s Autocar magazine, where they found a similar car didn’t like to idle under 1,000rpm, but got to 60mph in 5.7sec (fastest they had tested up to then) and achieved 25mpg (UK gallons, remember). Their car had Dunlop RS5 tires on the rear which would have helped traction and slightly raised gearing. From memory their car ran a 3.70 posi. The 327/360 just loves to rev and the throttle response is whiplash sharp, even up in the mountains, where the Holley of the 427 overfuels.
So I think this confirms what the test of the ’57 FI car implies: these powerful V8s were too much for the tires of the day and were hence traction limited, which is why the acceleration times recorded are so variable.
Certainly tire technology was a huge factor. And my point was not to say that the ’57 was all-round as quick and fast as a 427, but simply to point out that for 1957 these were rather startling numbers, a genuine leap forward and unequaled by any other production car.
Completely agree – nothing could touch that in ’57, even “supercars” like the 300SL.
Look at the specs on a ’57 Rambler Rebel….right up there with a stock 57 Vette in 0-60.. I’m not saying that it’s equal to the Vette, but it sure made for a surprising sleeper. This Vette has some tweaks that obviously improved its performance over stock.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/ccoty-1957-performance-explosion-including-the-rambler-rebel/
The Rambler was a sleeper ordinary sedan go like hell
Even in my street racing days in the early 80s, those kind of numbers would make your car one to be reckoned with. At least up to 80 mph, most of the 60s muscle out there would have a tough time with this car. 4.11s were not great to live with on the street though.
And anyone who thinks driving a first gen Corvette fast doesn’t require much skill has never driven one. These were indeed fast cars, but strength, experience and guts were required to get the speed out of them! After a couple of hours just driving around in a buddy’s ’59 with a 270 horse 283 and a 4 speed I came away with new respect for the guys who raced these back in the day.
There is a stock blue 56/57 Vette here on the Island that I see on occasion, and I think it’s the best looking Corvette I’ve ever seen.
What an awesome read. Thank you!
I love the look of this ‘vette. Nothing crass–rather it’s subtle and mean. Kudos to the owner.
1957 was indeed a seminal year for Corvette. It took a couple years for Zora AD to get his high performance ideas into production. The arrival of both the T10 full syncro 4 speed and fuel injection was only two years after the introduction of Chevy’s 265 cubic inch small block. The pace of development from idea to production was a reflection of what America had done with weapons development in WW 2. The war had resulted in huge advances in technology. The US Army was still using horses in 1939. The Air Force still operated biplanes. We had developed a nuclear bomb by 1945. A Can Do attitude changed American manufacturing. Soon every major car manufacturer was building Jeeps, Tanks, and bombers. After the war the race was on to design new age products for the rapidly expanding population. This race of technological development would find achieve full fruition in the race to the moon in the 1960’s.
The author’s comments about the 427 ‘Vette and the Countach being slower is a bunch of crap. They all had different drivers. If the same driver tested all 3 cars, the results would be much different. The BB ‘Vette and the raging bull would both walk that 283.
I have an early 57′ with 3spd. ,4.11 gears and original motor with fuel injection. The big advantage of fuel injection was cornering! Carburetor bowl floats are effected by inertia. Fuel injection was used in WW2 air craft.
Ok, ok, let’s not get crazy here. It is safe to say the low-production highest power ‘57 is quick, but comparing the best of one vs basic others is bad writing. Take a ‘67 427 Vette that runs low-13s or even an ‘86 Countach 5000S with mid-13s and the statement above is folly.
You stated that the 57 corvette was faster than a Lamborghini countach,I beg to differ the 57 corvette might do 120 to 130 mph while the countach depending on model could hit anywhere between 187 and 217 mph so I’m pretty sure the Lamborghini eats your old vette for lunch
If you’d read the stats I provided they show that the ’57 Corvette was faster to 60 from a start and was faster to the end of a 1/4 mile than one of the two Countachs tested.
Yes, the Countach had a higher top speed, although the ’57 Corvette was quite capable of hitting 150 with different rear axle gears.
Can’t read the fine print, but the pic of the engine shows a distributor too big for the chrome stainless steel cover which was standard in ’57 with the fuel injection. I still have the cover and wish I had kept the injection box+ after putting a low rise and Holley 4B, per NHRA allowance. What distributor is on the Vet in the pic?