How to save GM and the Corvette

Sounds like you both agree that QC at GM has sucked for decades at least.

As for the handling of the big block - yes that was a common complaint with
the C2 and C3 - too much weight up front. That's the beauty of having a
"driver" - if I wanna try one of those 454 aftermarket small block they
sell - I can.

-W

"Uncle_vito" > wrote in message
...
> I will grant you that. Quality control sucked. Big gaps in the door
jams.
> My 64 in the garage still shows the uneven gaps. I bought it in 91.
> I love to run it through the gears. Sounds like tearing silk cloth.
>
> Newer vettes do not even have a lope and with a Flowmaster exhaust, sound
> like someone is giving a raspberry when they accelerate
>
> Vito
>
>
> "Dad" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Uncle_vito" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Is this you replying????
> >>
> >> Dad
> >> 05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51
> >> 72 Shark Black/Black/4spd
> >> 64 Red/red/white top/4spd
> >>
> >>
> >> You sure have a lot of pre 75 vettes.
> >>
> > Actually I have no pre '75 Corvettes. Very little is not new, rebuilt
> > and/or hand fitted and is the only reason most of them have survived.
I'll
> > say it again, looks has nothing to do with quality and that is the only
> > reason I own the C2 and the C3, looks. So I'll still disagree with your
> > statement that GM made the best cars ever in '63. They were sucking hind
> > tit until the C5 came out, prior to that Buick made better cars than the
> > Corvette. Why did it's assembly move out of St Lousy?
> >
> > Just one of the problems with my '63 was a cracked rear journal in the
> > crank. As the engine heated up the fly wheel would cock whipping out the
> > pilot bearing, transmission impute shaft, and bearing guide. GM's fix,
put
> > in a new transmission and scold me for driving it to hard. Second
> > transmission, same thing, miles driven 1,500, now it's my fault
> > completely. No more warranty and I paid for the third transmission which
> > lasted about 2,000 miles. When I tore it down this time I let the engine
> > run until warm and put a dial indicator on the fly wheel face. Dialed in
> > dead nuts until it warmed up and then showed .09 something runout,
jerked
> > the engine and replaced it with a '58 283. Problem solved and it ran
like
> > a kitten all the way to a dealer and was traded in. Less than a year and
> > 11,000 miles, then the '64 was worse and was gone in 3 months. The
Corvair
> > that replaced it was a better car by far and the next Corvette didn't
come
> > into my life until I got the '92 and it was gone as soon as the C5 came
> > out although it was a '98 because of GMs great planning and a short
> > production year. During that 20 some odd years without one I rejected a
> > '77 that I ordered because it had mat showing through the finish surface
> > 11 places and had already had the left front fender repainted.
>
>

"Dad" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Uncle_vito" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I agree with you. I own a C2. A 1964 roadster with 327. Best looking
>>car ever. Then GM basically crapped out. About 1975 onward they started
>>making ???? I am not talking about technical innovation here. Of course,
>>the newest Vette has the latest technology. But back in 1963, GM made the
>>best car(s) ever. The Vette was better proportioned than the Jag XKE that
>>was similar. Performance of the fuelly was on a par with the Ferrari.
>>Looks also.
>
> Snip>
> Oh get a life, I had a new '63 Corvette and it was junk, so was the '64
> that I traded for just to get rid of it. Design sucked and the front end
> started to float anything over 100. Looks has nothing to do with quality.
> That junk only got bigger when they went to the '68 design. It didn't get
> any better until the C5 came out.
I had an XKE at that time, a 64 with the 3.8. Drove a friend's Vette (1964)
and was appalled when the front end started to feel very floaty at around a
100 mph. The E model, despite it horrible reliability, worked just great at
speeds over the century mark. The 71 454 Vette I had was quite different and
worked well at least 130, so GM had sorted the problems out by the C3 . The
454 was a heck of lot better than the Jag in terms of reliability and much
easier to work on.

"tww1491" > wrote in message news:xaFIl.50587

>The 71 454 Vette I had was quite different and
> worked well at least 130, so GM had sorted the problems out by the C3 .

Are you sure you can say that?
Or was the real difference added weight of the big block up front in the '71
?

How much (if any) did the chassis design change from '64 to '71?
Or was airflow over the C3 nose enough to hold it down better in general ?

-W