The fuel injected Corvette was top dog in its day, an unparalleled combination of performance, tractability, handling and…looks, although some might well say that the gaudy 1958 restyle was hardly an improvement. At least the ’59 was cleaned up a bit, losing the phony hood louvers and the two chrome bars on the rear deck lid. Ugh.
Although power for the top fuel injected 283 V8 was 290 hp now, due to the Corvette’s somewhat increased weight it wasn’t quite as fast as the ’57 with 283 hp, although it’s questionable if there really was an extra seven ponies at work anyway. But it was still top dog, in a straight line…or not.
It may not have been noticeable from the outside, but the seats were new in ’59. “These have been redesigned and are now among the most comfortable seats in any car, sports or otherwise.” They actually helped keep their occupants in place during spirited driving. CL does note that seat belts might be a good idea, “if much hard driving is to be done”, to keep the occupants in place. No reference to their safety.
The test was done at Riverside Raceway. Tapley readings were lower than the fuel injected ’57 tested by R&T, which had resulted in rather astonishing acceleration figures: a 5.7-second 0-60 time, and a 14.3 second 1/4 mile time. That instantly propelled the Corvette to the top of any production sports car in the world, and by a healthy margin.
The additional weight and having only 500 miles on the engine were the presumed reasons for the ’59’s slower numbers: 0-60 in 6.8 sec., the 1/4 mile in 14.5 @96 mph. Still extremely quick for 1959; the 1966 street hemi could only tie it in the 1/4 mile, and took longer in the 0-60.
According to Zora Arkus Duntov, the 3.70 rear axle made the Corvette quicker in most of the standard acceleration timing runs, as it eliminated a shift in the 0-60, 0-80 and 0-100 run. And in the quarter mile. And the 4.56 axle was the way to go on the drag strip.
This ’59 struggled with its starts out of the gate; the Positraction rear end limiting wheelspin, which bogged the engine down some. These high-strung Chevy V8s did not exactly have much torque down low; its 290 ft.lb. didn’t peak until 4400 rpm, which may well be an all time high for American V8s in the 50s and 60s. Even the original 302 Z/28 engine had its torque peak at 4200 rpm. Oh wait; the fairly rare 315 hp FI 283 from 1961, with the new big valve heads, had an even higher torque peak: 295 ft.lb @4700-5100 rpm!
Meanwhile, peak power (290 hp gross) came in at 6200 rpm. So obviously, there was going to be a bit of lag before the power came rushing in. There’s a reason Chevy called them “Turbo-Fire” V8s.
The B/W T-10, designed by Chevy engineers, continued to delight its users.
Despite having 53% of its weight over the front wheels, “there was a marked tendency to oversteer“. But with judicious use of the throttle and steering wheel, a nice power-on drift could be set up and maintained. Between the available power and fairly quick steering, the Corvette could be readily placed for optimum speed.
The tested Corvette had the optional suspension with stiffer springs and shocks, “which contributed to the ability to negotiate curves at maximum speed.” As part of the suspension package, “racing brakes” with Cerametalix linings, finned drums and cooling ducts were included, and the brakes “proved to be entirely satisfactory during the test, with no fade being evident, and brought the car down from high speed in a straight line on every application.” Hurray!
Driving on a race track brought home the biggest advantage of fuel injection: immediate throttle response and no threat of fuel starvation in high speed curves. Some enthusiasts at the time claimed that the dual 4-barrel version was actually more powerful at the top end, regardless of its lower advertised gross hp rating (270), and there may well be some truth to that; fuel injection in and of itself does not automatically increase peak power. But its benefits were very real too, including excellent tractability at low engine speeds, despite the very aggressive camshaft.
CL finishes up by predicting that 1960 “will be the year of the big changes for the Corvette“. That’s a trap that journalists fell into endlessly.
More on the FI 283:
Automotive History: 1957 Chevrolet Fuel-Injected 283 V8 – Ahead Of Its Time And The Competition
I do so love the old stick antennas (antennae?) installed on rear fenders. Gives a sense of elegance at the expense of only a few feet of cable.
That was done to place the antenna far from the spark interference of the engine. There are no steel body and hood on a Corvette to provide shielding. My 1963 Corvette came from the factory with no radio and a prior owner installed one but with the antenna in the front fender. While the engine is running, the radio is useless.
There should be an ignition shielding cover around the distributor on a C2 – maybe yours is lacking this (they often are) and the antenna, as you say, should be on the rear, not front fender. The radio in my ’63 works fine, without interference.
I know reasonable people say the C1 Corvettes were “Ox carts” compared to subsequent models, that the cars were over baked in their design, and that their performance was (by current standards) modest.
I agree those are mostly factual statements.
But, I got my driver’s license in 1960, made a dollar an hour cooking triple-nickle burgers, drove a rusty and leaky 1953 flat head six Chrysler convertible, and wondered how I could ever pay for college by myself.
Under those conditions, the C1 Corvette was an unreachable dream of speed and beauty, and almost a guarantee that even I could get a date with the girl(s) of my dreams.
One can grow up, think more maturely, make wiser decisions, even pay off that darn college loan, get married, have children, and work at interesting jobs. But just the sight of a C1 Corvette takes me all the way back to my high school, burger flipping, self.
Forget the heart – the brain wants what the brain wants.
Surprised to see that all the R&T photos show the ’59 with narrow width whitewalls.
As a 10 -yr old in 1963, I seem to recall that ’63 was the year of widespread use of narrow WW’s.
Perhaps the R&T article wasn’t written until later than ’59. Otherwise, I’m confused on the appearance of narrow WW’s on this spectacular Corvette.
That’s a good point, about the whitewalls. This article was definitely written and published in 1959. But, it did have the optional racing-oriented suspension, brakes and special wider 5.5″ wheels, which came only with the little hubcaps. Although the article doesn’t mention it, the tires that came with those wheels were special high-speed tires, several, actually, from various manufacturers, and in larger sizes. The exact make is not indicated in the article. Presumably that was the origin of the narrower whitewalls.
This would be a point worth following up on, the history of different whitewall widths, and certain exceptions, like these.
Not a Corvette, but I remember all 1960 Corvair ads showed wide-whites until the Monza was introduced mid-year and was pictured in ads with narrow whitewalls. But I’ve seen lower trim level 1961 Corvair ads with either. By ’62 Corvairs were only pictured with narrow-whites.
The dog dish hubcaps look identical to the ones on our ’59 Brookwood wagon. Probably helped with brake cooling compared to standard Corvette full wheel covers. Do you think the narrow white walls were kind of like the red or blue stripe high performance tires in later years.
I have never read that the Borg Warner T10 was designed by Chevy. It’s seems quite odd that GM would turn the design over rather than have Muncie build it.
In my golden years I consider any of the C1 Corvette flavors to be the best looking of all, even better than C2. I took a survey of my friends and they agree, although some say the C2 is a tie.
There is a whole article about the development of the T-10 on CC:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-from-powerglide-to-4-speed-the-history-of-transmissions-on-early-corvettes/
THANK YOU VINCE ! .
I just read that article .
-Nate
Thanks and now I see the big picture. The clever engineer at Chevy used the 3 speed Borg Warner trans as the basis for the T-10 so therefore Chevy didn’t own the intellectual property for the majority of the design. The compromise between GM and Borg Warner was giving Chevy exclusive rights for a few years.
Looking at that last picture of the silver gray Corvette brings back a flurry of emotions. Cue up the great Nelson Riddle theme from Route 66! That show, that music, this car, blended together all my youthful yearnings for adventure, romance, and freedom. I dreamed of escaping my humdrum existence and living like Tod and Buzz, experiencing life on the road! Of course, my life was boring because I was just a little kid in grade school. I couldn’t wait until I was old enough to drive.
For me, the Corvette was magic, in my eyes, any year or model, and they still are. But for some reason I’ve never had one. Though I’ve had several sports /performance cars, and Harley Davidsons, I just haven’t made the commitment and gotten a Vette. Who knows, that may change in the future, I’ve still got a few good years left.
I only have experience of the later, larger 327/360 FI motor from 1963 which certainly does love to rev, but does not feel too gutless low down. Pretty quick, too – mine also has the 3.70 rear end. If, however, you try pulling away with less than 1,000 revs it will stall. The idle is not great either, but I read these same complaints in the road tests of the time.
Other than that these Rochester FI motors have wonderful throttle response that remains consistent in varying temperatures and altitudes and give surprisingly good fuel economy.
I like the looks of this ’59 although I didn’t when I was young .
Truly, the BW T10 tranny was a magnificent thing for those who’d only had three speeds previously .
-Nate
The paired headlights looked very “B-52”