(Note: the title is incorrect; it’s actually an L-82 engine) The C3 Corvette’s first significant change on what was to be its long life came in 1973, when it got a new front end and a number of more minor changes, but not all of them insignificant. One of the most impactful might come as a surprise: the switch to new standard radial tires made the Corvette more pleasant to drive in typical daily circumstances, but took the edge off its handling prowess that the former especially-specified belted bias-ply tires afforded.
Seems minor, but it was just the first step in turning the Vette from a genuine sports car into more of a boulevard cruiser. If R&T could see where that would go in the ensuing years, they’d have been a bit surprised. But that was the C3’s trajectory, and frankly, by 1973 the Corvette had already largely fallen out of favor with the genuine sports car set.
The new Corvette was bigger, heavier, the engines less raw, and most importantly,” it was not the exciting mid-engine car promised to us (and by us to you) for this year. R&T goes on: “the present Corvette…will be with us for three more years at least”. Ha! It was going to be an awfully long wait for that; almost half a century. The simple reality is that GM was not about to invest in an all-new Corvette given its limited production numbers and Chevy’s commitment to keep the price reasonable.
Back to the tires: the ’73 came with either Goodyear or Firestone, but these were not special high-performance, high-speed tires like the (expensive) Michelin XWX. Apparently these were essentially the same tires being used on other new cars in 1973, and had a speed rating of only 120 mph. That last detail was somewhat academic, as the ’73’s top speed with the optional LT-82 engine was only 124 mph.
But the tires were of course more pleasant in daily use, with longer life, better wet grip, and stable at speed. But cornering power was down, and Zora Arkus Duntov was not exactly happy about it. And no, GM wasn’t going to spend the money on expensive European radials. At least the new optional American racing Equipment alloy wheels were attractive. Looks beat performance, increasingly so in the Corvette’s playbook.
In addition to the base 190 hp 350 and the 250 hp L-82 350, there was also the 275 hp 454 still available, but it seems to have increasingly played an outside roll, and would soon be gone. If the big block wasn’t going to be massively powerful, it wasn’t wroth the trade offs. The tested car came with the close ratio four speed, and the highest numerical available rear axle ratio (3.70:1). The days of 4:11 and 4:56 gears was over; just as well.
The resulting power train made the Corvette quick (0-60 in 7.2 sec.; 1/4 mile in 15.5 @94mph), but not as quick as the former high-compression LT-1 in its heyday. Driveability was quite good. The close ratio 4-speed and the engine’s admirably wide powerband (it pulled well from 1500 to 5600 rpm) meant that there was no compelling reason to shift through all four gears in sequence except for maximum performance. Starting in first and shifting to fourth worked just fine; who needs a close-ratio four speed anyway, except on the track? Bring back the three-speed and overdrive!
The final verdict was positive: “equipped with the right options, it is a pleasant and rewarding car to drive…”
Speaking of overdrive, I’ve wondered for a while why (especially American) manufacturers took so long to embrace and promote overdrive transmissions in their vehicles, specifically in manuals. Was it that complicated to build that extra gear into one?
I’m guessing direct drive is the simplest setup and that’s why so many 3rd or 4th gears were that way. But I had a Nissan that 4th was not direct and 5th was the overdrive, so that made me think that line of thinking was off…
When I think off the pretzels manufacturers twisted themselves into to squeeze out more MPG, plus combat the loss of power in the strangled engines of the 70’s, an overdrive (plus the option of bumping up the axle ratios a bit) should have helped immensely- no?
Because automatics were so overwhelmingly popular, there was little or no incentive to invest in developing and producing new manual transmissions. There were just a handful of four speed transmissions designed in the md-50s and early 60s, and they were oriented to drag racers and others interested in maximum performance. These folks just didn’t care enough about another gear.
If this Corvette had the wide-ratio four speed and a higher (lower numerical) axle ratio, it would have been a tiny bit slower in the measured acceleration runs but much more pleasant in everyday driving, especially on the highway.
After the energy crisis, manufacturers were forced to come up with overdrives to meet the sudden demand (and CAFE regs) for better economy. One way was to turn the four speed into a three+OD box, as Ford and Chrysler did until they got 5 speeds.
Manual transmissions typically had very long lives in the US, many decades often.
I’ve always wondered the same of this era…doesn’t seem to matter manual or auto (but especially manual) the engines are pulling annoying revs at 60-80mph. Adding a gear in either trans wouldn’t have seemd so difficult even back then, but I’m no enigneer.
One clarification, as a proud owner of 69 280sl, I can confirm this issue is not limited to domestics…in fact maybe worse in imports. My 4 speed would turn well over 3000rpm at 60mph…converted to a short throw 6 speed that cuts it by 1000rpm. A world of difference, just not sure why it was so difficult 50 years ago.
I agree. My 79 BMW 733, as a premium European touring sedan was saddled with no overdrive. A 4spd manual or 3 spd automatic were the only options, and this from a country renowned for high speed machinery.
Even some cars that did have overdrive came with relatively short axle ratios such as my 84 Supra. Overdrive 5th is so short it may as well be direct drive.
I suspect their largest sales market, the USA, burdened by the low 55 mph speed limit influenced their gearing choice.
Dont forget also Japan has a maximum speed limit of 62mph/100kmh and JDM cars often came with an annoying overspeed alarm that kicks in at 100, so in that road climate the short 5th fitted to a lot of Japanese cars makes sense,
My daily drive comes from France and will break thru our 100kmh speed limit in 3rd gear, max rpm in 4th can have your licence cancelled and the car impounded on the spot,5th can get it to around 120mph at theoretical max hp, there is no red line on the tacho, diesel engine so it pulls well from 1000rpm wanna go faster just shift up.
Even the five speed in my ’92 325i was direct drive. Revs were high at freeway speeds, but the small six was so smooth I hardly noticed unless I looked at the tach. My Honda Fit on the other hand begs for a second OD (6th gear) with the 4.62 final drive ratio.
Baldwin-Motion loved to install very low (numerically high) rear ends in their cars. However, they also typically installed a Hone overdrive unit on the rear axle, which gave a 30% overdrive. It resulted in the cars having reasonable drivability on the highways, along with fast acceleration and top speeds.
That said, this Vette with a 3.70:1 rear ratio still only spun at approx. 2700 RPM at 60 mph, which isn’t too bad for the era. At least with a manual there was no torque converter slippage. While today it seems unusual to have such high RPM, it was the norm for the era. On the highway these big V8’s didn’t strain, and being in the higher RPM range resulted in very quick response (as no downshift was required).
To add to Paul’s comments about manuals falling out of favour, even the Vette which traditionally sold more manual transmission cars, was down to 41.2% 4-speed equipped cars by 1973 (compared that to 80% 4-speeds in 1968).
I had a 73 in the mid to late 70s . Maybe the best car I have owned. The car was 350 4sp very fun to drive seemed to be balanced well. Only problem was with those Firestone tires . Hit a small bump they get a knot on them. Every one got adjusted except one. I’m running on a country freeway got to 100 and the right front blew the tread off,it went through the front fender …hand full
Weirdest part is that O/D was pretty common before this. I have several cars from the early ’50’s that all have a Borg Warner manual O/D 3 spd in them, and all of them still work as designed. So we certainly knew how to do this!
Thank you for posting this . Unfortunately this review reads far more like Consumer Reports, and not at all like a car enthusiast magazine. Half the article is consumed in a boring dissertation on tire selection, and the car’s place in the world. And precious little on what it’s like to actually drive.
People don’t consider a Corvette to ruminate on the wiper switch or features that aren’t there anymore. They want opinion and review on the actual driving experience, which are sorely lacking here.
Back in the day I found such reviews typical of R&T, stuffy and incomplete, as if written by elderly people who just didn’t get the car enthusiast thing (Peter Egan excepted). Car & Driver magazine handled such assignments far better.
1973 was the last year for the classic, sharply defined, Corvette Stingray rear end. The soft front end is not that bad, but if I had to make a choice I’d aim for the ’72. For car guys of my generation the Corvette name was always pure magic, though I’ve never wanted one enough to actually buy one, not even a used one. There are many available, at all sorts of model years and price points. I actually went to look at the new models back in the early 1980’s, but was really put off by the “junk drawer” rattle when I closed the door after sitting behind the wheel. These still make great hobby cars, especially for old guys like me that don’t have a problem with insurance costs. For a long time I’ve always had an aversion to car’s image, which for me has always seemed a bit of a mid life crisis kind of car. By the end of the 1980’s it seems to have rehabilitated itself. These Stingrays can be easily updated and improved so I can see the appeal.
I’m guessing I’m close to you in age. When I was a teenager Corvettes were much desired by our group, but price and insurance costs were prohibitive. Today I can’t remember the last time I saw anyone under 50 driving a Corvette of any age, and that’s probably underestimating. It seems Corvettes are midlife crisis cars or the fulfillment of an old bucket list dream. I had a new Corvette in 1979, which was a nice care but a disappointment performance – wise. I also learned that it didn’t change my life, which I guess I’d been subconsciously expecting it to. I still fantasize occasionally of picking up a C5 or C6, but at this point I don’t want to be just another old guy in a Corvette. I guess to me it’s still a young person’s car, even though young people couldn’t seem to care less about it (or cars generally, in fact).
Points well made. All through my life it seems that as soon as I could afford the car of my dreams, I no longer wanted it.
The only problem is Chevy never made the 1973 LT1.the last one was the 1972 model year. They originally planned to continue the model but canceled it.
These were cool cars but some 1000 lbs heavier than a 911, though cheaper by about half as much.
I rebuilt my first car engine to 73 Vette specs. In a 73 Camaro circa 1983, it was a fun car.
R&T curiously titled the article wrong. There was no LT-1 in 1973, 1972 was the last year. They even reference that the engine is the L82 350 in the article. The L82 was a lower compression hydraulic lifter engine that replaced the old solid lifter LT-1 350. While a fair bit off the 1972 performance, the L82 was one of the few good hi-po smog engines. It performed well through 1980 when it went out of production. Unlike some of the early good hi-po smog engines, like the 351C Cobra-Jet or the Hi-Po 360, the L82 survived past 1975 having decent power.
Car and Driver also tested several 1973 Vettes, where Zora Arkus-Duntov was present for the testing. The article says “Zora Arkus-Duntov reckons the new Corvette to be the best ever, and after exhaustive testing of four different models, we’re inclined to agree.” Further, R&T doesn’t mention the HD suspension option, newly available in 1973 (F41). Previously it was very difficult to order the stiffest suspension as they were not really intended for a street driven Corvette, rather for those who raced. With the softer Radial tires and retuned body bushings, it helped reduce the noise associated with the road shock. So, the F41 option became a readily available option. C/D tested two of four Corvettes with the F41 suspension and said the “handling is truly exceptional. Transient response is very quick with somewhat less understeer than the standard setup. If feels like a racing car; that is if you drive at racing speeds. In normal street driving the only difference you will likely feel is the ride.” They also say the F41 Vette is “no more extreme than, say, a Maserati Bora.”
So while undoubtedly the somewhat lame Radials used on the 1973 Vettes hampered the road holding, a properly equipped Vette was still a great handler. That said, like Paul says, these radials are the first of many changes to the Vette that lead it to being a boulevard cruiser. The radials surely improved the ride and “handling” for what a typical non-enthusiast Vette buyer. While the Disco-era Vettes are by far my least favourite, they did sell better than any Vette in history by a long shot. The boulevard Vettes aren’t the enthusiasts favourites, but they sure were loved by the buying public at that time.
Thanks for the correction. I rather remembered the LT-1 going out of production within a few years, but I didn’t think to check this.
I had a 73 4 speed. Balanced and blueprinted mother as I bought it used.
It really needed a 5th gear. I got it up to 125 a few times…..😁
I wonder how it would have performed with a 454, 4 speed, and 2.73 gears…
I have a t top 73 stingray. With these up and down reviews, what is it worth?