When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
St. Jude Donor '09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19-'20
I've always said the 78 and 76 are the ugliest, and weakest of all. The 1980 Vette with the 305 cid was a California only car, and needless to say that was due to the SMOG laws.
if the morons who wrote that ever got one of them given to them, they'd be like us the the forum.....loving thier vette...posting the same pics....I was taught in college to never believe what you read and only half of what you see.....this article proves that theory....
IMO, this strikes me as just another self-proclaimed "expert" car rag writer, full of shallow, personal perceptions and preferences; right up there with Jereme Clarkson (another self-indulgent moron car critic).
Read the responses to the article as well. pretty much "spot on".
i like this quote:
"The base L48 version of the 1979 Corvette had a 5.7-liter V8 that made only 195 hp, barely enough to keep the 3,372-pound lump moving."
someone was probably up all night thinking of that line!!!!
I had a 79 corvette with the L82. I was the 2nd owner and that car was a piece of crap. everything rattled, the t-roof leak, your feet got so hot it would melt the shoe laces, sucked gas, couldn't get anything let alone out of the back end (no hatch) but I always liked looking over that long hood line and seeing the front fenders sticking up. the c4 is so much a better car in handling, ride quality and power.
The B2K was fragile? I am sure they had typical issues with the early cars, but the later ones were much better. Also, limited production was a cross between Callaway capacity and the advent of the ZR1.
The rest of his Huffman's bitches comes from appearance packages, and the sad reality of the auto industry in the 70s and 80s.
If he was a real Corvette person, I would expect complaints about the optispark or what not...
St. Jude '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-‘19-'20-'21-'22-'23-'24
John Pearley Huffman :
1995 Corvette Pace Car
There was nothing mechanically awful about the 527 replicas built of the Corvette Convertible that paced the 1995 running of the Indianapolis 500. But they looked like white cars that a couple of lunatics in the GM design studio had drawn all over with Magic Markers.
1998 Corvette Pace Car
There's only one thing that makes the 1995 Corvette pace car less hideous — and that is the 1998 Corvette Pace Car. It was painted an even more repulsive shade of purple and then it got worse.
1953 Corvette
Yes, this is the first Corvette. And yes, it's also on our 10 Greatest Corvettes list. Consistency, after all, is the hobgoblin of little minds.
By anemerikan on 05/25/13
These criticisms of the Corvettes seem based on nothing more than personal preferences by someone who does not like Corvettes. Some of the items mentioned have some warrant but most of them are simply a matter of personal taste. Who says everyone agrees with John Huffmans superior insight just because he says it? So it is just silliness to read this and take seriously.
To the OP, my opinion of Edmunds is so low I would never have known about this article if you had not posted it here. Other than the comment about the twin turbo C4 and the 1975 base Corvette, the remaining comments are all someone's opinion.
IMHO, Edmunds needs to pray that no one posts a list of the ten most useless automotive websites, cause they'd be #1.
I have always found it interesting that when car ratings are etc are made are reported, there are definately people in two different camps. If the comments are positive, those that have the car think its the best article written...if the comments tend to be negative, it must have been written by someone who really doesn't know much about the subject
I have always found it interesting that when car ratings are etc are made are reported, there are definately people in two different camps. If the comments are positive, those that have the car think its the best article written...if the comments tend to be negative, it must have been written by someone who really doesn't know much about the subject
The problem is, how can someone form a credible opinion on something they know nothing about or have zero first hand experience with?
If being an expert is just a function of doing some internet reading, especially when talking about cars, then most on this forum would be experts with regard to every supercar ever made despite never having sat in one.
I have owned one of those models and almost bought another model on that list. Sure glad I did not pull the trigger. A lil time can keep one from making a bad decision.
Yet, when some of those models came out, I thought very highly of them. I am old, so if I live long enough, maybe I will change my mind. No way....
That's a really good point! The author of the article is probably not old enough to remember the quality control and design problems that happened in 68. With so much time passing, we tend to forget coupled with the fact that chrome bumper C3s bring top dollar today, the author probably went right passed that year. Thanks for the reminder.
08-18-2014, 04:55 PM
Edmunds isn't very C4 friendly
:
and almost bought another model
on that list. Sure glad I did not pull the trigger.
I am old, so if I live long enough, maybe I will change my mind. No way....
