I frequently see these two Corvettes parked next to each other on a corner lot in Torrance.
While I’m no ‘Vette expert, around 20 or 25 years separate these cars, and seen from this angle there’s a notable difference between the two.
I’m assuming the camera angle gave that pop-up trailer some additional width, but the width differences between the two cars is not an optical illusion.
I stood beside a 2019 ‘vette the other day, and was shocked at how big these cars are now.
Hey, that’s my neighborhood!
Oh, come on-
We all know Mike Brady lives in the Valley with his wife Carol, their 6 kids, and Alice the Maid…
You forgot Tiger the dog!
And no bathrooms! I always wondered how they pulled that off, apparently the house backs directly on the LA River.
Adding to that illusion is the fact that the C3’s tail is tapered, while the C5’s ends rather bluntly. However, the C5 is indeed approximately 4.5” (114 mm) wider than the C3.
I never thought looking at two Corvettes would make me think of the AMC Pacer.
“Corvette – the first wide sports car.” 🙂
I think this is proof that the Corvette’s mission has moved dramatically between those two examples.
Same mission: baddest new car you can buy and GM can make money selling. The C3 was called an oversized, overweight, overstyled plastic pig 50 years ago.
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
I wonder if the demographics have significantly changed. The Corvette ads of the 1960s tended to feature fairly young people. I wonder whether the Corvette’s current target buyer is now upwards in age . . . and girth.
In general, it’s pretty weird to see retro designs that steal a few themes from the original but wrap them in an extra-large size. A particularly extreme case was the early-2000s Thunderbird two-seater. It had some decent lines but the platform was entirely too big.
The C5 has these dimensions because it’s intended to be reliably capable of nearly 200 mph in comfort and security (even if the cars don’t have quite that much power). It has huge tires, huge brakes, big suspension, advanced active and passive safety equipment and the same warranty as a Cavalier. The people are packaged into the mechanicals, not the other way around.
Chevrolet could have dropped the LS into a Miata sized car in 1997. The engine fits in a 97 Miata without cutting the hood. It would have been a scary irresponsible roller skate like a 90s Viper.
“I think this is proof that the Corvette’s mission has moved dramatically between those two examples.”
I am not sure the width demonstrates the change in mission? However, I do agree the mission changed. It was these mid 70s Vettes that changed the mission though. That’s when the Vette went from a world class performance bargain to a sporty GT cruiser. By the time the C5 rolled of the line, it was back to being a world class performance car.
Anyone who hasn’t driven a modern Vette should really do so before they pass judgment. From the C5 generation forward they are phenomenal driving machines.
Also, the wide rump served some functionality. The C5 had a large cargo area of approximately 25 cubic feet. Far larger than the nearly useless C3 cargo area. For the C6 generation the width was reduced at the back but the cargo volume was also significantly smaller.
The current and upcoming midengine Corvettes are bullshit designs – a small passenger capsule unnecessarily surrounded with masses of convoluted plastic intended to make them look like a teenage dream supercar. Like with the Camaro, everything is compromised for boy racer image. Both cars should be an embarrassment to actual adults.
Seventies supercars (although probably actually often ergonomic nightmares) generally have passenger capsules that blend right into the body without a break, and no huge fenders sprouting left and right.
Contrast the Corvettes with the original and C2. The oldies look like two seater sports cars designed to be used by humans. The current Corvettes look like cars intended to be seen and impress the rubes with the driver and passenger buried somewhere inside.
I don’t disagree, but I do believe that much of the volume surrounding the driver and passenger is to accommodate crush zones, something that was not part of the C1 and C2.
The Corvette’s primary market function has always been to impress the rubes and attract the buyer. A new Miata is better than a C2 in every possible way and impresses no one, because time and technology move on.
The C1 and C2 were styled to impress the rubes and attract the buyer. The C1 is pretty obviously derived from Jaguar, the most prestigious volume sports car of the day. The C2 is more imaginative, but it’s science fiction on four wheels. The rear of the original split window coupe is as close as GM could come to copying the Bertone BAT show cars without violating copyright.
“If you’re gonna rob, rob Tiffany, not Woolworth.” Bill Mitchell
“The current and upcoming midengine Corvettes are bullshit designs – a small passenger capsule unnecessarily surrounded with masses of convoluted plastic intended to make them look like a teenage dream supercar.”
This could also describe the C3 Vette when it was introduced. It had a tiny passenger compartment (the smallest of any Vette generation), almost no cargo room and it was all for the sake of radical styling that wasn’t even aerodynamic. At least the new Vettes have a functional design in terms of aerodynamics, cooling and down force.
The worst thing about the C5’s styling was its sheer, tacked-on enormous rear panel. It really ruined the whole car to me both at the time and now twenty years later. I think it says a lot about the C5 that the C6 looks so much more like a direct successor to the C4 as though the C5 was meant to be forgotten. Not that the C5 was a bad car, far from it, but the styling direction just didn’t lead anywhere and I can’t help but think for good reasons.
The poor C3s were around for so long and suffered humiliating restylings but at least they seemed honest to me about what they were, stereotyped and pigeonholed as they were but then again that might be just imagination as they were old when I was not. The C5s were contemporary with my youth and while they were competent they seemed to have lost something visceral in achieving that competence.
Seeing these side by side really makes me wonder about the kind of guy (and I know it’s got to be a guy) who would pick these two examples of all the Corvettes to pick from. They certainly would be far from my first picks even on a limited budget.
The C5 rear seemed to emulate the final C4s with the convex rear end and more oval lights. I agree, It’s the weakest point in the design, on both. The C6 rear looked great, I too see the earlier C4 similarities.
This combination isn’t too far from what my grade school friends dad had. One was a C3 1973 Convertible, the other was a C5 Zo6
I wonder what tows the camper. It being SoCal, the garage is stuffed to the rafters with..stuff, so it’s not in there.
It’s an interesting mix as I don’t see the Venn diagrams of Corvette Enthusiasts and Popup Camper Enthusiasts having much overlap.
Fiberglass enthusiasts?
Ooh, that’s good! Perhaps they’d want the Bradley!
I love the styling of the C5 Corvette, in my opinion its the best Corvette design, not counting the low volume original or the classics. The closest to GM’s mission too, cheapest interior, best performance (at the time, Z06 came out in this era), excellent reliability. The C6 looked cheap and Cobalt like and took a small step back, and the C7 was refined and luxurious beyond expectations, making it drive too numb, and the Z06 couldn’t go to a racetrack without thermal throttling. I can’t imagine a mid engine design is going to improve on an any of these. No actual safety law said flip up headlights are illegal, and I still think they could be useful especially now that flame surfacing is starting to crystallize and straighten out.