cannon11

So Im kind of confused. To me, the 1969 corvette is the best c3 there is. Simply because it fixed 1968's problems yet isn't held back by the government. Anway, I look at some performance specs.
I look at a 300hp 1969 corvette, and a 1975 corvette. the 69 does 0-60 in 8.4 seconds and 0 to 100 in 21.7 secs.
Then I look at the 1975 corvette, which had the lowest power of any c3 corvette. I realize in 1969 horsepower was measured differently, but it woulds till be roughly 260 horsepower in todays numbers.
The 1975 matches and even beats those numbers.
I realize the technology was better in 1975 then it was in 69 but is it really that much better to give a corvette with 100hp less go faster?
I just don't really quite get it, and some details would be appreciated, thanks!!

Dan Furr

IDK.........maybe it's the gear ratios and rear end?

LT-1 kid

I would think a 69 base sb would do 0-60 in less than 8.4 seconds. more like 6.4

cannon11

I would think so too, here is the website I got it from
http://www.howstuffworks.com/1969-corvette1.htm

mirage2991

over inflated hp numbers of early cars perhaps... since later they started ro really standerdise the hp ratings...

Easy Mike

68s had no problems.

1977L48

i would also say tire tech, you couldent do much on a 6" wide poly-glass tire, so hp dosent really matter if you cant put it to the ground, look at any of the old "factory claims" i read i test someone did in the late 80's against a 69 L88 vette and an AC cobra, they were both mid 11's with slicks and a good driver. its all how you have useable power and a tire that can handle it.

ddawson

Too many variables and while most like to talk HP, TQ is what gets to moving.

Big Block Dave

Id be willing to bet you could look on many different websites and find many different answers for the 0-60mph time for each vehicle.

1. I'll bet the source of information is from a car magazine from the time.
2. Different magazines have different drivers
3. What trans? Auto? Close ratio 4 speed? Wide ratio 4 speed?
4. Who knows what gear ratio was in the cars being tested.

FWIW I just pulled a book off the coffee table "Corvette 50th Anniversary by the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide"... it cites the same numbers you posted for the 69 300hp, but get this, for 1968 it states 0-60 in 6.5 seconds for the 300hp 4speed

Capkunu

Related question: why was the convertible heavier?:

Convertible curb weight: 3425
Coupe curb weight: 3260

You'd think the coupe's roof structure plus removable tops would add weight; the ragtop would be lighter.

ddawson

The bracing for the top is heavy.

When I but the top up you can feels it's weight.

1977L48

and the frame is different, more bracing

Mike Ward

Any magazine that quotes 0-100 times in seconds vs. minutes for a '75 is outright lying.

jesse10886

torque is what matters and gearing if it doesn't list that both cars are equally equipped they probly aren't a car with 3:73 is much more impressive 0-60 than a car with 3:08s


also every thread needs pictures or videos this should be a rule lol

jesse10886

Speaking of hp an toque you will like this one
800hp vs a rated 18hp.. new tech year2010 vs 1800s

Capkunu

Thanks to both of you for the answers.

1977L48

thats whats nice about steam, you have 100% power as soon as the steams starts flowing.

Mike Ward

Not really true. Bumper brackets are different but the frame has no additional 'bracing'.

jesse10886

frames are the same that has come up in many many post here. The same weight issue is common in most all cars coupe vs vert. The vert framing is very heavy and newer cars have sub framed body panels an extra impact protection to make up for it. Coupe v8 mustang or camaro weigh less than their convertible counter parts. On the c3 vette it is just that the all steel convertible raising and lowering frame work is very very heavy for what it is

bb62

The 300HP (Gross) 69 would be lower than 260HP Net you suggest. Consider that in 1971 GM published both sets of numbers. The base Corvette measured 270HP Gross but only 210HP Net for a 60HP difference. The same would be true of the 69. It would really be putting out closer to 240HP.

You should also know that the 69 used 2" exhausts rather the the 2 1/2" exhausts previously used. While this did not affect the base models, it had a big effect on the higher HP engines. This is one reason why 69 magazine test are generally slower than comparable 68 tests and invariably slower than 66/67 tests.