"traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn" (el-peasant)
02/26/2015 at 21:12 • Filed to: None
1
12|
"traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn" (el-peasant)
02/26/2015 at 21:12 • Filed to: None | 1
| 12 |
I did a search on Hemmings for 1968 Corvettes, and in good condition, Most are between $25,000-$50,000. Most 1963-1967 Corvettes are $50,000-$90,000. None are special editions nor split window 63s. I don't get it. The same basic drivetrains and chassis were used for both, they don't look too different to the untrained eye (speaking from experience), and asthmatic V8s were still a few years away. Makes the early C3s a great bargain though!
Aesthetics?
Nostalgia?
Supply/Demand?(Most likely)
CPT Speedbump
> traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
02/26/2015 at 21:18 |
|
In my opinion..C2's are old enough to be classics, and very pretty cars. C3's..aren't..either of those things...well, I guess 68 is pretty damn old..but they still ain't pretty.
For Sweden
> traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
02/26/2015 at 21:19 |
|
The C2 is far better looking
|
traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
> For Sweden
02/26/2015 at 21:20 |
|
I agree
norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback
> CPT Speedbump
02/26/2015 at 21:22 |
|
I think the technical definition for a classic is 25 years old so a C3 is a classic. I just think that the C3 is both less desirable and less aesthetically pleasing.
|
traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
> traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
02/26/2015 at 21:28 |
|
Slightly related: I remember seeing either a C2 or an early C3 just chilling by itself in a Lowes Hardware parking lot in 2012. I was then a semi-Jalop with an untrained eye but I still got excited, just cause it looked like nothing else.
"Yeah I need a washing machine and some PVC pipes, I think this little 45-year old car with no trunk will do just fine!"
crowmolly
> traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
02/26/2015 at 21:29 |
|
C3's had their rep dragged through the mud by the smog years. That impacts the entire generation.
StingrayJake
> traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
02/26/2015 at 21:39 |
|
I love the early C3s... but I love C2s more. C3S have a bit if a stigma too, even though the early ones were essentially the same as the last C2s. A 1969 coupe was always my dream car when I was a kiddo.
MysticStick
> traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
02/26/2015 at 21:39 |
|
There were only about 100k (117,964) c2s made and almost the same number of c3 chrome bumper cars, but there were many many (542,861) c3s made total. I love the c3, even the rubber bumper cars.
daender
> traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
02/26/2015 at 21:46 |
|
'68s carry a blemished reputation: they're the first year of the C3 in both good and bad ways.
Good: First year of the C3 and the only C3 where all four tail lights were just tail lights and the reverse lights were separate.
Bad: They were rushed to production after Hot Wheels accidentally released a die-cast of it during the summer...lot of teething issues that were fixed in 1969.
AdverseMartyr
> traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
02/26/2015 at 22:08 |
|
How is it that you say the 68 looks a lot like a '67. There are some similarities of lines, but it doesn't take the trained eye to spot them. And if you had chosen a T-top '68 it would be readily apparent.
It takes a trained eye to spot the differences between a '68 and a '69, and to a lesser extent either of those from later C3 years.
But from a performance standpoint there is no reason to ignore a '68.
JDIGGS
> traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
02/26/2015 at 22:17 |
|
Because the c3 is in most cases a pile of junk.
The car is essentially the same in many ways but the c3 is when they car started becoming less hand made, which wouldn't be a problem except the quality of everything took a dive. At this time the special group of guys @GM had left (not Duntov or Shinoda) but the guys who pushed and helped breed the ingenuity of the c1/c2 , the company had changed at this point along with it's mission. It's really the beginning of GM junk. I really believe once they changed to the newer front end and the 70's hit, this is when they stopped thinking about making the best corvette and only the most profitable one.
Combine this with the 70's being a huge gas crisis and SMOG requirements coming into play and GM only trying to make mass profit without foresight. If you do get a c3, get an earlier one, preferably and early bumpered c3. I think hp was down to 165 by this time.
We still have my dads orig 327/300hp 6, Ill be taking it out tomorrow. While I didn't drive my dads purchased new 75 corvette convertible, it had horrible horrible problems in every way starting with a small electrical fire the first day. Steering issues, brake issues, issues galore. He got rid of it after a decade, just wasn't worth it. I did drive my grandmothers 76 orig car about 15 years ago. I'll never forget it, what a scary pile to be honest. Our c2 is nicer in every way from the intricate chrome, and far superior interior to the way it drives and steers. The drum brakes however....
briannutter1
> traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn
02/27/2015 at 09:56 |
|
Yeah, the C2 was at the height of it's popularity and beauty. c3's were terribly built in '68 and dragging them into the rubber bumper malaise era is what has tarnished them. The '68-'72's are making a resurgence finally.