Anyone else here prefer c5 over c6?
Discussion
Aha!
The 454 was still available in 1974 (just) so 1975 was the transition year albeit with two different 350's - the 165bhp L48 and the 205bhp L82. (Yes, I have got the book in front of me!)
However, in 1980, it actually had the really bad option of the LG4 305 (but in California only) so watch out for those C3 Cali imports! Strangely, that was the only year. The 81 went back to a Hobson's Choice 350 - the 190bhp L81 while the 82 went to the 200bhp L83 350.
I can understand the attachment to the classic 350 capacity as I always identified proper Jags by their 4.2 or 5.3 engines. The 3.6 and 4.0 never seemed to have the same charm.
Mind you, sharing your 6.0 capacity with a Lamborghini is a bonus for bar room bench racing.
The 454 was still available in 1974 (just) so 1975 was the transition year albeit with two different 350's - the 165bhp L48 and the 205bhp L82. (Yes, I have got the book in front of me!)
However, in 1980, it actually had the really bad option of the LG4 305 (but in California only) so watch out for those C3 Cali imports! Strangely, that was the only year. The 81 went back to a Hobson's Choice 350 - the 190bhp L81 while the 82 went to the 200bhp L83 350.
I can understand the attachment to the classic 350 capacity as I always identified proper Jags by their 4.2 or 5.3 engines. The 3.6 and 4.0 never seemed to have the same charm.
Mind you, sharing your 6.0 capacity with a Lamborghini is a bonus for bar room bench racing.
Afraid the looks do nothing for me at this stage whereas I thought the C5 was a massive improvement when it first came out. Agree on the interior and looking forward to seeing that in the flesh. Hopefully that will be a little higher quality.
The cars should hit the dealers here in a month or so. I'll reserve final judgement until then
>> Edited by Dee Gee on Friday 23 April 11:52
The cars should hit the dealers here in a month or so. I'll reserve final judgement until then
>> Edited by Dee Gee on Friday 23 April 11:52
In short, I feel the C6 is a terrible missed opportunity from a styling point of view.
It was time to go back to basics and produce a 'vette that has a shape people go 'wow' over. One that really bowls them over and kicks them in the teeth.
The C2 was such a car, and the C3 when it first came out was (as Jeremy Clarkson described only last week in the latest 'Top Gear' magazine) like something out of the starship enterprise when compared with what else was available at the time.
The interior of both C2 and C3's (chrome bumper) makes the occasion of driving a special one too.
The latest car only morphs on from the C5. Chevrolet should have had the guts to design something as groundbreaking as the original "Sting Ray" and the later "Stingray"
For my own part though, the absence of such a groundbreaking car only continues to make me even more confident that early C3s will become more desirable and catch up with some of the lesser C2s before long.
I am also relieved that the 'Stingray' designation has not re-appeared to either tarnish or deflect attention from the original.
It was time to go back to basics and produce a 'vette that has a shape people go 'wow' over. One that really bowls them over and kicks them in the teeth.
The C2 was such a car, and the C3 when it first came out was (as Jeremy Clarkson described only last week in the latest 'Top Gear' magazine) like something out of the starship enterprise when compared with what else was available at the time.
The interior of both C2 and C3's (chrome bumper) makes the occasion of driving a special one too.
The latest car only morphs on from the C5. Chevrolet should have had the guts to design something as groundbreaking as the original "Sting Ray" and the later "Stingray"
For my own part though, the absence of such a groundbreaking car only continues to make me even more confident that early C3s will become more desirable and catch up with some of the lesser C2s before long.
I am also relieved that the 'Stingray' designation has not re-appeared to either tarnish or deflect attention from the original.
Captain Chaos said:
In short, I feel the C6 is a terrible missed opportunity from a styling point of view.
It was time to go back to basics and produce a 'vette that has a shape people go 'wow' over. One that really bowls them over and kicks them in the teeth.
The C2 was such a car, and the C3 when it first came out was (as Jeremy Clarkson described only last week in the latest 'Top Gear' magazine) like something out of the starship enterprise when compared with what else was available at the time.
The interior of both C2 and C3's (chrome bumper) makes the occasion of driving a special one too.
The latest car only morphs on from the C5. Chevrolet should have had the guts to design something as groundbreaking as the original "Sting Ray" and the later "Stingray"
For my own part though, the absence of such a groundbreaking car only continues to make me even more confident that early C3s will become more desirable and catch up with some of the lesser C2s before long.
I am also relieved that the 'Stingray' designation has not re-appeared to either tarnish or deflect attention from the original.
I reckon the best combination of looks / performance / driveability has to be a 68-72 (pref '69 'cos of the side vents) updated with a 6-speed, sensible rear gears (for acceleration + top speed + economy) and fuel injection.
Speaking of which...
http://blue69l88.homestead.com/blue.html
Only thing I'd do is add somthing like Holley Pro-Jection or TPI to help the economy (ho ho) and drivability.
Gassing Station | Corvettes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff