Jeffrey67

I'm planning on purchasing a #'s matching investment quality C3 coupe, and I need some advice on what to pick. I want a big block, and I guess it's a toss up between a 1969 427/435 or a 1970 454/390. I like the smoother body lines of the '69, but the 500 ft-lbs of torgue in the '70 is exciting as well...Will the 427 run on unleaded? I've heard the 454 will...Which is easier to maintain? Which is louder??
PS my 1st (and only) Vette was a '99 convertible. I had it for 3 years, and I want to get back into it, but with a classic, not a C6...
Jeff :chevy

Rowdy Rat

Jeffrey,

Considering the criteria in your post (1968-69 L-71 or 1970 LS-5), if you are looking for an "investment" type car, then a 1969 L-71 (or L-89) is the way to go. Currently the 1969 carries a premium over a similar 1968, but if you're willing to accept a $5,000 or so difference in value between similar L-71s, then you might want to consider the '68 as well. The 1970 LS-5 is a neat car in its own right and might be a better choice if you absolutely, positively must have air conditioning... But from an investment standpoint, it's not going to be worth as much as an L-71 in similar condition.

The 1969 and 1970 model years are both desirable... It comes down to your preference in body styles and the available engines dictated by the particular model year. As noted, the 1968 model year is not looked upon well by many in the resale end of the hobby. Between a 1968 and a 1969 Corvette, you can usually get a lot more car for your money by going with the '68, but be aware that you'll have to deal with this perception of inferiority if you should decide to sell it in the near future.

The LS-5 is marginal on available pump fuel... Generally not a problem unless you encounter high temperature/high load conditions on a regular basis (lead content of fuel/valve seat issues become a serious problem at that point as well). An L-71 or L-89 isn't going to run on pump fuel without resorting to retarding timing or more drastic measures like lowering compression ratio. Something to consider if you want to drive the car on a regular basis.

The LS-5 is much easier to maintain... Without a doubt. Single quadrajet and hydraulic lifters play a big part here. As far as "louder"... Both cars used mufflers with three baffles as OEM equipment (with the exceprtion of N-11 equipped 1968 Corvettes) so the noise level should be similar in that respect (although the operating rpm range of the L-71 covers a greater area). The L-71 will have the typical "clatter" as a result of the solid lifters... An N-14 equipped 1969 Corvette will be much louder... Mainly due to the exhaust dumping right next to your ear.

Understand that vintage Corvettes, especially the type that you are considering, aren't going to be anywhere near as "user friendly" as your 1999 was. They are relatively crude and unrefined and typically anything that you might do to correct those issues will negatively affect the value on an investment type vehicle.

The old Corvettes are an absolute blast to own and drive... Within the limitations of the design and your intended purpose(s) for owning the car.

Best of luck in your search Jeffrey!

Regards,

Jeffrey67

Thank you, that is valuable info...I really like the tri power set up, but I think I will go with the LS5 and enjoy the higher torque and user friendliness...plus I like the square exhausts and turn signals better...Plus there is definitely something about saying "It's got the 454" that sounds good.

markdtn

I would go with a 69. Get as many options as you can afford. Convertibles always go higher than coupes, and I think it will stay this way. I like the 69 exhaust tips and definately the side gills better than the 70. Me, I'd rather say it has a 427, it sounds more mysterious than a 454. A 427 will wind higher than a 454 all things being equal due to the shorter stroke. Whatever you decide, enjoy.

sb69coupe

Jeffrey, I agree with everything Stan has to say above. I would also like to emphasize what he says about these cars being unrefined and very much unlike a modern Corvette. Even if you buy a fully restored car, it will require frequent maintenance, tuning, adjustments, and repairs. If you are not comfortable or capable in performing this kind of work (brake bleeding, carb tweaking, adjusting points, changing plugs, etc) then you'll end up relying on a local mechanic to do this for you. There are many more "Bubba's" out there than there are competent mechanics who understand how to work on a 30+ year old Corvette.

But I wouldn't trade mine for a new one, you gotta love these classic Corvettes. I wish you the best of luck in finding what you're looking for. If you truly are after an investment grade vehicle you'd be wise to get a knowledgeable NCRS-type to inspect any car that you may be considering.

Shannon

Solid LT1

Don't overlook the 400HP 427 in a 69. I know a guy who just picked up a 69 400HP tri-power with AC roadster for under $20K. the DEAL was a STEAL dosen't eve do the car justice. The 400HP has tri-power but no solid lifters and the 4spd and AC in a roadster make this a $40K in my book.

Gage

I owned a 69 427 390hp L 36 4 sp roadster and if it wasn't for someone hitting me and totaling it I would still own it today. I have driven a 70 454 and the 427 just seat of the pants felt peppier and the 460 lb of torque was plenty. Both are great choices, but 427s only came in vettes in regular production cars and 454s were in many cars and trucks. Something to think about. And saying "I have a 69 vette" vs "I have a 70 vette" sounds better...I will be buying another 69 vette once I am done restoring my 72 slug

SuprJames

Cars in general are typically horrible investments. There are better places to put your money if you're looking for a solid return. If you buy a car as an investment, make sure you enjoy it while you have it.

Jeffrey67

I think I am going T-top, because the T-top is a cool American thing that you really won't see too much of in the future...but my real concern is whether or not the 427 will be happy getting fill ups at my local station...my 99 pinged (that's why I'm getting back into Vettes with a classic, not a C6 but that's another story) and I really don't want to have to "retard" anything to enjoy the car. So, if the verdict is that a 454 will be happier living in 2004 than a 427 will be, I guess I'm going that way. But I'm still open to discussion...

LemansBlue68

Jeez!! It's about time this notion of the inferiority of the '68 model year is FORGOTTEN!! Any of the bugs that the '68 model year may have experienced when production started I'm sure have long ago been addressed over years of ownership. Any '68 that is still around these days is still around because it has either been well maintained (which means any "issues" were probably not that significant to begin with) or the car has been restored and any issues were addressed in the process. The others are in a scrap heap somewhere. For an investment grade vehicle, the notiion that the '68 is inferior to other chrome bumper sharks is ludicrous!! I'd take a '68 L71 (or any '68 big block) any day over just about any other model year of the shark body style.

This is not an attack on you, Rowdy Rat, It's an attack on this ridiculous perception that I know is out there--and I'm not one bit biased! ;)

They 1970 454/390 was still high compression and still used non-hardened valve seats so technically is not unleaded fuel compatible. The valve seat issue may be addressed with hardened seat inserts if the heads are rebuilt. If the car is driven very little over the years, unleaded fuel won't be much of an issue (with repect to valve seat recession) anyhow. The 1971 and later years were unleaded fuel compatible but suffered from lowered compression ratios as well.

I'd go for the '68 or '69 big blocks (especially the L71, L89, and L88) any day over any other shark model year. For pure show appeal, a tri-power is hard to beat when the hood is up!

One other thing: There's an addage that says "When the top goes down, the price goes up". This is a trend in any model of classic car, Corvette or not. The 'verts always hold a price advantage over the coupes. The only exception I can think of is the '63 splitwindow because it is so unique. :auto:


[Modified by LemansBlue68, 12:35 PM 4/7/2004]

Jeffrey67

I was waiting for a 68 guy to go bananas... Do all pre-71 guys add lead to their gas? What's the deal here...I like the 69 tripower motor, it looks great, but I'm not dealing with adding lead, or "retarding" my timing. So what's the smart move here, if I want a big block...

1974ta

I just can't resist chiming in.

The fastest appreciating with lowest prodution number is the 70 with standard motors. They only made about 6,600 Roadsters. Most of the early problems were resolved by 1970, they still had 11:1 compression except for base engine and the big block has 500 ft/lbs. of torque!

One of the best investment grade user friendly vettes is a 70, 4 speed, 454 with A/C. They made very few and it is a great car. The car will not run well on pump gas and as mentioned in previous post, they do not have hardened valve seats for unleaded fuel. I have to add racing fuel(available in Maryland) and my 70 350/350 Roadster runs great, runs cool, and idles almost perfect at 120k miles with the right fuel.

If money is no object buy a 71 LS6. They go for 100k plus! Awesome machine. The factory claimed 425hp. Don't kid yourself. Easily 450 plus!

Yes I am biased but I also did a lot of research and the 70 Roadsters have appreciated the fastest over recent history except for the extremely rare big block 68 and 69s. Whatever you buy, if it is for an investment, make sure it has all the documentation from day one! Make sure you have a list of all the owners, especially the first one.

Sorry to say there are a lot of fakes when it comes to big block roadsters especially.

Enjoy your hunt. Nothing like a 75 degree day with the top down in a roadster.


Bill

Rowdy Rat

Eric,

No offense taken. I hate to say it, but until the people buying the high dollar cars start paying the same kind of money for 1968s as they do for 1969s this isn't going to change... They are the people who set the market prices.

It is true that the 1970 Chevrolet engines did not use hardened valve seats, but the truth is that there isn't much of a problem with valve seat recession unless the engine sees continuous high load (such as pulling a trailer) or continuous high rpm operation. The frequency of operation isn't the issue... How the car is operated is. The 1971 and 1972 Chevrolet engines did use lower compression in anticipation of lower octane fuel (caused by the removal of tetraethyl lead) that was to be phased into service; however, induction hardened valve seats were not used in production Chevrolet engines until 1973 if I'm not mistaken. So while the 1971 and 1972 engines did handle lower octane fuels better, they really weren't any less prone to valve seat recession than the earlier engines.

True enough... Those three carburetors look very impressive! As far as which on to buy, that's obviously a personal preference. I know that if I had a spare $50,000 laying around, I'd have another '71 LS-6 in the garage... Another $100,000 and maybe a decent L-88 (both coupes at those prices). Those are the two best bets in the 1968-1972 model year range right now.

Also true. From an investment standpoint, a convertible is the way to go.

Regards,

page62

:lurk: If you buy an "investment grade" car, you won't get any driving pleasure from it because you'll be too worried about your investment.

As for your '99 having a pinging problem -- which was probably caused by a faulty knock sensor -- if that is what's keeping you from buying a C6, be warned the C3 will give you MANY more challenges than that! Just look around this forum...we talk about REAL mechanical issues. Over in C5 they talk about which aftermarket exhaust to bolt on! :lol:

Buy a nice early C3 big-block "driver" and enjoy life...not to mention having a few bucks left for your mechanic's bills :yesnod:

LemansBlue68

Nah, not going bananas or offended in any way. Hopefully not offending anybody either. Just pointing out an unjust myth. Rowdy Rat is entirely right about the guys throwing the money around controlling the prices. I just think the whole the whole price desparity between the '68's and '69's is silly and driven mostly by perception...but then again, so is the stock market. What's hot today may not be tomorrow and vice versa. I will concede that the '69's offered the most awesome list of options ever!! The Corvette has been refined continuously as it has matured so there is no dispute that a newer model year will have more refinements than an earlier year.

I like the '70 the best out of the '70-'72 year run because of the high compression engines. I like the eggcrate fender vents and the mild wheel flares. It's too bad that the Corvette didn't get the LS6 in '70 that the Chevelle got. That would've been one heck of a machine (how'd Zora let that happen?).

If you run a 93 or 94 high octane unleaded, you should be fine with the 10.25 CR of the '70 LS5 454. If not, the distributor can be recurved to take out advance at cruising RPM's and still give proper advance at trompin' on it RPM's.


[Modified by LemansBlue68, 5:50 PM 4/7/2004]