One of the most memorable experiences on my third day in the US, on August 29, 1960, was a long drive through Manhattan in a relative’s white over yellow ’57 Bel Air Coupe. And the highlight was my first Corvette sighting, an Ermine White ’57 (possibly a ’56). That slammed my assimilation into high gear; I had found my new American lust object (full story here).
My passion for C1 Corvettes was very narrowly focused on the ’56 and ’57s, with their single headlights and relatively unadorned body. The ’58 and up versions were too fussy for me, although I would have gladly ridden off with either Martin Milner or George Maharis in their quad-light ‘Vettes on Route 66. And I was also rather intrigued by the original ’53-’55 model, which were not at all common back then, due to their low production numbers. Finding an actual road test of them on the web is seemingly impossible, so I bought a June 1954 Road & Track, which arrived this evening. And I’m eager to share it with you.
R&T raised the question that was (and still is) on so many minds as to the Corvette: is it really a sports car? It’s important to keep in mind that the definition of a sports car has changed over time. In the modern context, a sports car is often thought of something that’s “sporty”, a word hard to pin down easily, but generally thought of in the sense of delivering a certain driving experience subjectively different than a sedan, although in reality many sedans have long been able to equal or top the various performance and handling parameters of sports cars. And sports cars are now almost universally thought of as a two-seater, close coupled, often with a convertible top. But feel free to disagree; it’s an endless subject of debate.
But historically the definition of a sports car was different. In essence, it was any car that was suitable for use in sporting events, hence the name: road racing, hill climbs, endurance races, airport races, and other genuine competitions. That often included cars with four place seating, as in this 1910 Austro-Daimler (with F. Porsche at the wheel), considered to be one of the first great sports cars, and even some sedans. How is a BMW 2002Tii not a sports car?
Or a VW Beetle? Believe it or not, in the ’50’s the VW was seen as an affordable sporty car; a poor man’s Porsche, and commonly used in competitions, like this airport race.
The Great Sports Car Boom in the US exploded after the war, and Road & Track’s name reflects the intended use of sports cars by their enthusiast owners. Of course not all sports cars were raced, and the proportion that did diminished steadily as the Sports Car Boom continued to unfold into a mass-market fad of major proportions. But racing and other sporting events were the heart of the whole thing, and there were events in or near every city on many Sundays.
But the definition was inherently not rigid and highly debatable. The Jaguar XK120 was conceived to be a high speed touring car, and not one intended for actual competition. Needless to say, it was quickly put to the test in tracks all over the world, and acquitted itself quite well, although with the appropriate modifications. The XK120 was profoundly influential in the US, and influenced the Corvette most directly.
It’s clear that Chevrolet intended to create and build a sports car in their mind, and certainly the XK120 was foremost in their minds, as it was far from a harsh-riding uncompromising sports car. The Jag was very happy to putter down Rodeo Drive, take an extended brisk tour down Hwy1, and be a daily driver for its more affluent owner. So if the XK120 was a sports car, why not the Corvette?
One big reason: the Corvette only came with an automatic transmission, the two-speed torque converter Powerglide. That instantly raised a chorus of “heresy” from the died-in-the-wool sports car crowd. So the question asked was relevant. And the answer is somewhat surprising.
Part 1: R&T’s Road Test:
It will forever be a mystery why the initial Corvette didn’t also offer a three-speed manual; especially with overdrive, it would have made the question of the Corvette’s pedigree moot. And it would have made it more suitable for actual sporting events, as in downshifting for curves and such. It’s not because the PG didn’t deliver quite good performance, due to its wide-range torque converter and very efficient design. Its actual performance numbers (0-60 in 11 sec.) are competitive; the XK120 typically did that in 10-11 seconds itself. And its top speed of 107 mph was good too, if not quite up to the Jag’s 120 mph. The Corvette was faster to 60 than the vastly more expensive and manual-shift 140hp Nash-Healy by a half-second or so.
We know that Chevrolet Chief Engineer Ed Cole was smitten by the Powerglide; he also wanted to make it standard on the 1960 Corvair and almost got his way. Contrary to popular opinion, the PG really wasn’t much slower than a comparable three-speed car; in fact R&T found the 1960 PG Corvair faster than the three-speed version, and about equally fast as the four-speed. The issue with the PG (and many automatics) is the subjective experience; with a gently but firm whooosh, and no shift until some 60 or more mph, a PG car just feels less dramatic than a stick shift car with all the attendant revving and abrupt shifting and fast clutching.
But the obvious thing would have been to offer both. And one can only speculate whether the slow sales of the ’54 Corvette was in part due to it not having a manual available. In the third to last paragraph, there is some interesting speculation as to how the Corvette could be made into a more suitable genuine sports car. Adapting the close ratio Lincoln Zephyr three-speed manual (a popular hot rod swap), utilizing the new 261 CID truck block, or even swapping in a 320 GMC six, an engine that could readily make 200hp or more depending on the degree of modifications.
The Corvette’s handling was generally praised, especially so since it offered a quite comfortable ride in the process. In that regard, it had to be seen as a reasonably successful compromise, but of course that’s from the view point of 1954. There were a lot of harsh and rough-riding sports cars at the time.
As to the Corvette being a genuine sports car in terms of its abilities on the tracks, that was clearly not yet the case, except for more informal events. It would take Zora Arkus-Duntov’s deft hand to make the Corvette track-worthy, as in the biggest and most competitive events in the country. That would start to manifest itself in phases: in mid-year 1955, the new 195 hp 265 CID small block V8, now available with a three speed manual.
In 1956, the Corvette started to hit the tracks with the availability of a number of HD suspension and brake and other options. And by 1957, these were expanded, and the new fuel injected 283 V8 made the Corvette not only the fastest production car in the world, but a highly successful one on the tracks as well. It was a genuine sports car now, but only if properly equipped.
Ultimately, the question that R&T posed had already become largely irrelevant by 1954. Competition on the tracks had escalated rapidly, and realistically, and very few sports cars still lived up to the name anymore without modifications. The Corvette continued a trend that the XK120 (and others) had already well established, and the 1955 Thunderbird would soon expand upon further: the relatively comfortable and civilized two-seat high-speed touring car; or in other words, the newly-evolving definition of the sports car.
Part 2: R&T’s Tech Write-up on the 1954 Corvette:
Caroll Shelby’s definition of sports car was one which didn’t have anything attached that wasn’t there to make it go faster and I guess the Cobra and the original GT350 were as close to that as anything in a era in which such things were still lawful.
Changes in motoring conditions and legislative intrusions since the early 1960s meant sports cars, however defined, changed but as late as the early C3 models, I think one could still tick the Corvette options list and build a genuine sports car.
Didn’t Shelby always refer to them as “Sport Cars,” as opposed to ‘Sports’ Cars?
Loved the article, I always enjoy seeing what testers thought of these when new. I read the test as “Gee, Chevrolet is really trying and we don’t want to discourage them, so let’s not pile on too hard.” And the basics were certainly there – 2 seats, good handling and reasonable power.
I think the hard truth is that the 53-54 Corvette was a sports car, but one that didn’t do anything particularly well. And the Powerglide crossed it from the list of, what, 97% of sports car buyers of the day? I spent years reading about how the 55 was now the whole package with the new V8, but was shocked in doing some research to find that sales plummeted that year, down to less than 1/7 of 1954’s meager production. With the V8, and with the stick both available. And in a record-breaking sales year. I really like the car, but cannot see how this could be anything but a “hard no” from the sports car buyers of the day. But credit is due because two years later it was a heckuva sports car.
And as an aside, it utterly failed in the “fashion accessory” category where the Thunderbird made its bones. It is hard to feel fashionable when you are fooling with side curtains. I really wonder if roll-up windows would have made more difference than the stick shift.
The PG was probably in its best element in those RT tests. Straight acceleration was always the PG’s strength, especially with an engine with a high redline. The problem is in actual driving when you are in that 40-60 mph range and don’t really have an optimal gear available. Which, I would imagine, is a speed range that those who drove sports cars spent a lot of time in.
I think you’ve got it with the 40-60 range. I drove a lot of Chevies with 235 and stick, and they were all weak in that range. You could howl up to 25 in first with some satisfaction and a lot of noise, but second just didn’t have any oomph. It wasn’t even good for steep hills. A close-geared four speed might have been better.
Call me cynical, but I read the test as “Gee, Chevrolet is really trying, and we don’t want to discourage them, and we don’t want to piss off GM and lose their advertising dollars if this sports car of theirs takes off, so let’s not pile on too hard.”
😁
The longer I think about it, it’s clear who was buying 1954 Corvettes, and it wasn’t what we traditionally think of as sports car fans. Even though there was no busier place on earth than a Chevrolet showroom in 1955, Corvette sales evaporated once the Thunderbird came out. It was not as good of a sports car as the Corvette, but it did the fashion accessory thing exceedingly well.
It probably didn’t help matters that the Corvette was more expensive, at least in V8 form, and had a body of a material that was unfamiliar to most buyers and body shops.
And the “fashion accessory “ point is a good one, besides the fact that by that time most buyers of American cars expected things as basic as roll-up windows.
Finally, while styling is a subjective matter, in my opinion the original Thunderbird had a sleekness of line that the first three years of Corvettes lacked.
I was just going to suggest that the arrival of the brand-new 1955 Thunderbird was the primary reason there was a severe crimp in sales of the improved, V8/manual 1955 Corvette. Remember, this was back in the day of the two-year (sometimes one) model change and, by 1955, the Corvette’s styling hadn’t changed, at all. IIRC, the only appearance modification over those first three years was a wider availability of colors.
The problem is in actual driving when you are in that 40-60 mph range and don’t really have an optimal gear available.
The PG’s Low gear ratio (1.76:1) was essentially the same as the second gear in most three-speed manuals. That means top speed in Low (60-70mph) would be the same as in a three speed manual, and the acceleration in that 40-60mph range would have been essentially the same, and be quite brisk, as it was getting up into the power band of the engine.
I think you’re conflating the experience of driving a three-speed automatic (like the Torqueflite) whose gearing is functionally comparable to a four speed manual. But these didn’t really exist at the time.
As I’ve pointed out a number of times, a two-speed automatic = three-speed manual, and 3 speed auto = 4 speed manual, since the torque converter more than covers the effective gear ratio of the manual’s 1st gear in both cases.
As to the low sales of the ’55, the ’54 sold slower than expected, so there were plenty of unsold ’54s still on hand in the first part of the ’55 MY, so production was throttled back. And the three-speed manual wasn’t available until mid-year. Only 700 ’55s were built, making them the second rarest after the 300 ’53s.
But undoubtedly the ’55 T-Bird had a role in suppressing sales in ’55. It was a much better faux sports car.
The whole problem with the Corvette was that Harley Earl wanted it because of a vanity project; Nash had come out with the Nash-Healey, and he wanted one too. But he wasn’t ever a genuine sports car driver; it was all about the looks for Earl. Hence the Corvette’s flawed conception.
“As I’ve pointed out a number of times, a two-speed automatic = three-speed manual, and 3 speed auto = 4 speed manual, since the torque converter more than covers the effective gear ratio of the manual’s 1st gear in both cases.”
I agree completely with this, but don’t we have to factor in the slippage and/or torque multiplication when the driver smashes his foot to the floor at, say, 50 mph? Where a stick shift car in second might be right in the fat part of the torque curve, it always seemed to me that the automatic would send the revs up well past that.
And in any case, no matter how closely matched to a 3 speed, I think we agree that most sports car fans wanted to revel in the driving experience which included working a clutch and gearshift to put the revs right where you wanted them. The PG robbed them of the experience, if nothing else.
That sounds like perception issues. The torque converter does not/cannot provide any additional torque multiplication once it gets past the point of the two elements (impeller and stator) reaching a 1:1 ratio, which happens well below those kind of speeds. The torque converter’s multiplication happens ate the very low end of the rev range. It’s possible to get some torque multiplication at the low end of Drive gear, but that would be down around 25-40 mph.
Of course there’s always a little bit of hydraulic slip in any fluid coupling, but it’s typically in the low single digit % range, and it will not suddenly increase when the accelerator is pressed if the torque converter is past its point of hydraulic “lock up”.
Perhaps you experienced the rev increase at lower speeds, or because the transmission shifted down?
Causing a downshift in a PG car at 40 mph into Low is way beyond the range of any torque multiplication from the converter. But the torque converter was useful in speeds just below the ones you cited. From a comment by AUWM at my PG post: .One thing that a number of the more scholarly period reviews point out is that despite its lack of a passing gear, Powerglide did have advantages over a three-speed manual transmission in some slower driving situations, like climbing hills in the 30-40 mph range. Car Life and Road & Track used to do Tapley meter measurements, and the Powerglide’s torque converter did give it the edge both there and in off-the-line acceleration. Since Powerglide was being sold as an alternative to a three-speed stick, there’s something to be said for that.
This is good to know. I started to add something about torque multiplication in acceleration, but backed off as I wondered about that very point.
I think we would agree that if the early Vette had to be restricted to an automatic, it would have been hard to do any better than the PG, given what else was around then.
“Loved the article, I always enjoy seeing what testers thought of these when new. I read the test as “Gee, Chevrolet is really trying and we don’t want to discourage them, so let’s not pile on too hard.” ”
I observed the same dynamic at work when I did the vintage review on the Cimarron recently. It was surprising how easy both Motor Trend and Car & Driver were on it. Perhaps there was an element of not ticking off the advertisors, but C&D especially read like they genuinely wanted to like the car and encourage Cadillac for trying to build an enthusiast type sedan.
I always enjoy the ads in vintage car magazines. Do I see a sketch of a Lancia Aurelia in the ad for Fren-Do brake linings? 🙂
I suppose I t could be said that the C1 Corvette was just 60 years ahead of its time, seeing that how difficult it is to find a manual anything today, including sports cars.
Other than memories of that first 53 that dad brought home and promptly traded to a nearby dealer, I have no memories whatsoever of another Corvette on the showroom floor of Motor Sales Company or Hallman Chevrolet until the quad light 58’s. Partly due to my youth, but probably due to their relative unpopularity at the time.
I have very little doubt that dad didn’t sell one off the floor until 56, and it was probably only one per year in 56 and 57. In rural western PA, the sighting of a Corvette before 58 was incredibly rare. He didn’t have them at the annual Johnstown Auto Show during those years. And the earlier ones I’ve seen at antique car shows over the past 40 years were almost invariably out of state cars originally, the rare exception being a Pittsburgh area car or two. Which almost always came from Grabiak Chevrolet in New Alexandria, PA. During the C1 years, they were the only dealer in the region that took the C1’s seriously.
Syke: I’m also Western Pennsylvanian and I have to assume we’re of similar vintage. At the 1953 Clearfield County Fair GM brought a decontented “Motorama”; pretty much all production cars except for a Corvette prototype. All in a big white circus tent and the production cars may have been borrowed from the three GM dealers we had in town then, now we have none. I’m assuming the Corvette was either a prototype or very early production; this would have been early August ’53. With Clearfield being several degrees smaller than Erie, our Chevy dealer was also much smaller than Hallman and except for maybe a few special orders I don’t remember ours having a new ‘Vette “on the floor” until the C2. Interestingly, I got on Grabiak’s website a minute ago and there was not a single Corvette, new or used, shown in inventory. Back when traveling Rt 22 to Pgh. was the “way to go”, that place seemed to be away in Corvettes. Maybe Grabiak has a website devoted only to the Corvette side of business but I couldn’t find one.
Someone I know just parted ways with Grabiak, noting there were serious internal issues at the dealership.
I remember when they took ‘Vettes seriously, it wasn’t very long ago. Now they seem to be pushing accessories like window tint and 3M clear protectant for the nose.
Back in the C1 days (they didn’t call them that back then) Grabiak was the only dealership in Western PA that took Corvettes seriously. Most Chevy dealers in the fifties in our region wanted them as badly as they want Bolts today.
From dad’s recollections, this changed with the Sting Ray in 63. Nothing official, but the word came down from the Pittsburgh zone office that every Chevrolet dealership was going to sell Corvettes. No more trading them off to enthusiast dealers for Impala hardtops.
Dad’s dealership (he was the manager, not the owner, it became part of the Hallman chain out of Rochester, NY) was in Johnstown, PA. Clear field, might have been on the moon, as my family maybe made three trips per year to Pittsburgh, one of them being my annual piano competition. Never saw Harrisburg until I was 16, Erie at 17 to visit Gannon College. Ended up going there and living in Erie for ten years.
Great article. Given the time frame, I would venture the car was a better performer than the average driver was at the time, and better than it was given credit for in later years. I too can see dealers, especially Chevrolet dealers, taking this car seriously. Fun Fact: Those Carter YH carburetors were also used in marine applications.
What were “aluminum muffs bonded to the brake drums?” I assume they aided cooling, but I am having a hard time reconciling this term with my usual association of muffs with something you use to cover your ears.
My take on this article is that they liked the car very much and were impressed that it was as finished and well-rounded as it was, particularly for a first effort.
And that, even with the automatic transmission, it was as fast as it was. It could be improved upon with a manual transmission, better brakes, reduction of parts that could lower the weight, and better tires, but that was part of what racing has always been about. The technical article also explains all the changes from a standard Chevy in a way that indicates Chevrolet was taking this car very seriously, much more so than I would have guessed from previous reading. Thanks, Paul, for giving us the real inside scoop on this important part of American automotive history.
I also have always preferred the ’56 and ’57 models, whose simplicity of line (some of which was “borrowed” from Pininfarina) and V-8 power, along with a stick shift (and, in 1957, available fuel injection), made them an appealing overall package. The average fifties sports car buyer, however, saw himself (not many women drove sports cars back then) as a bit of an iconoclast, and preferred to suffer in silence with a British sports car featuring Lucas “electrics.” Alas, a Chevrolet just wasn’t exotic enough.
Any chance you could post that MG V8-60 article? I assume it would be an MG-TF.
That article may be found here.
How did you find that? Is the Corvette test available too?
I Googled “MG V8 60 conversion,” and the first thing that came up was a 2017 post in The MG Experience forum with a link to the scans.
I also Googled the Corvette test, and the only scans I found without digging deeply were yours, and a 2011 post on corvetteforum.com.
Regarding the manual vs automatic. The Corvette’s engine was an upgraded version of the automatic six. For the Chevrolet cars, the standard six was rated at 115 HP, while the automatic six was rated at 125 HP. They needed to revise the carburetor to get more power and to fit into the car. The third carburetor did not allow a column mounted shifter. The powerglide shift linkage was easily made into a floor mounted set up. I do not know if the three speed manual could have been made into the floor mounted set up easily or not. I suspect that they wanted to start off with a minimum amount of options.
My information is from a book on the Corvette.
I’ve read conflicting accounts of why Chevrolet didn’t use their 1953 standard issue three-speed manual in the original Corvette.
One source states that the gear ratios were all wrong, while another maintains that the transmission lacked the ability to handle the engine’s 150 hp. I’m more inclined to go with the first theory, but then again maybe Paul is onto something when he wrote that “Ed Cole was smitten by the Powerglide.” Perhaps Cole wanted to show the world that his Powerglide was a viable (and durable) alternative to manual transmissions that were used in all other sports cars of that time.
Transmissions are limited by max torque, not hp. I doubt very much that that was the issue. if they had wanted a manual and that really was a problem, they could have found lots of stronger ones at the other GM divisions, or at B/W.
The Corvette was Harley Earl’s vanity project, and it’s obvious he wasn’t a genuine sporty-type driver; it was all about the looks. And GM was all about the future, so the PG in the Corvette rather made sense, seeing that it really was a Futurama-mobile, until ZAD got his hands on it.
And the final point is a that the PG actually worked quite well in this application, but sports car enthusiasts were a very conservative bunch, actually.
My thoughts exactly; I’m highly skeptical of the statement that the three-speed couldn’t handle the “Blue Flame’s” power, and I’ve yet to see solid evidence to back up this claim.
What you wrote about Ed Cole’s fascination with Powerglide makes a heck of a lot more sense than anything else I’ve read, particularly since it’s well documented that he later intended to make his other pet project – the Corvair – available only with Powerglide.
The three speed manual was available toward the end of the 1955 model year and installed on 70-80 V8 Corvettes. Gear ratios are 2.94, 1.68 and 1:1. Also the PowerGlide low gear is 1.82:1 until the 1962 model year, when the 1.76:1 ratio is standard on larger engines.
Yes, but isn’t that a different three-speed manual than the one offered on Chevy passenger cars in 1953?
Yes it was different; it was a new close ratio box, which the Corvette really needed.
As I said earlier, even if the standard wide ratio box from the sedans wasn’t suitable, if they priority had been high enough, they could have found something fairly suitable. A B/W with an overdrive would have given a wide range of ratios to make it work like a four/five speed (as I now all too well).
But clearly it wasn’t a priority, for several reasons. The mandate was to use existing Chevy parts wherever possible. They were building somewhat more of a halo car than a genuine sports car.
According to a 1955 Chevrolet brochure, the three speed manual transmission is new. However, the gear ratios are the same as the 1953 transmission. For the 1956 model year, an optional close ratio (2.2, 1.3, direct) set of gears were available (GM Heritige Center). This same transmission is also available on the Corvette with the standard gears or the optional close ratio set.
For 1957 a 4 speed transmission is offered for the Corvette, not sure about the sedans without checking.
The reason I have seen cited for the use of the powerglide on the Corvette was because it used the version of the 235 six which was designed for the Powerglide (at this time there were difference between the PG six and the manual shift six). It was easier to continue to use the Powerglide transmission than to retrofit the three speed. It should be noted that the PG was modified for Corvette use, to make it more suited to the high performance six. That said, it did seem the engineering team thought that the Powerglide was more futuristic and would have a broader appeal. I think this is best said by Maurice Olley in the second article:
“The use of an automatic transmission has been criticized by those who believe that a sports car enthusiasts want nothing but a four speed crash shift. The answer is that the typical sports car enthusiast, like the ‘average man,’ or the square root of minus one, is an imaginary quantity. Also, as the sports cars appeal to a wider and wider section of the public, the center of gravity of the theoretical individual is shifting from the austerity of the pioneer towards the luxury of modern ideas..there is no need to apologize for the performance of this car with its automatic transmission”
In respect to the floor shift, it was indeed the fact that the third carburetor prevented a column linkage. So the easiest solution was to have the floor mounted shifter.
It was ZAD who pushed for a three speed, but there was actually quite extensive transmission testing. Maurice Olley asked ZAD to evaluate the 4-speed hydramatic and Jaguar’s 4-speed gear box. He also tested an Oldsmobile three-speed with 2.39, and 1.53 gear ratios. He felt the Hydramatic had a useless first gear that was far too low. The Jaguar third gear, of 1.21:1 he felt would be a useful addition to the Corvette and the Olds first gear was deemed too low as well.
Ultimately it was decided to use the Chevrolet three speed, which was modified to have the close ratios of 2.21, and 1.31, where the second gear ratio was pretty close to the Jags that ZAD liked. These ratios were only decided after further testing. ZAD was actually was pushing for a first gear of 1.84:1, but after extensive testing they found it was too tall for a first gear and hampered performance. The 2.21 first gear was found to be the best overall ratio and stayed as the first gear in the 4-speed transmission. When the 4-speed was created, they simply added a new second gear ratio of 1.66, resulting in 2.21, 1.66, 1.31 and 1.00 as the four ratios.
“The slight drip was however useful in putting out cigarettes.” That may be the funniest line I’ve ever seen in a road test.
In the late 1950s Life magazine, IIRC, had an article on the sports car culture as it then was in the USA. They said the Corvette’s fake scoops were one reason it was hard for sports car aficionados to accept it.
This statement followed an explanation of the ethic that anything on a sports car should be functional: “Don’t go lousing up a sports car with anything not integral.” The article mentioned a man who had a Peerless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerless_(UK_car)
The Peerless had two bulges in the hood, the right-hand one to clear the carburetor. When the owner explained this, he would then catch flak because the left-hand bulge was nonfunctional. He would say the left-hand bulge was to clear the carburetor on RHD cars, but this was bogus. The carburetor in a Peerless was on the right, regardless.
The Corvette didn’t have any fake scoops.
My take is foreign car enthusiasts were apparently always snobs, and the early Vette was a valiant effort for a first try at the segment, the bones that made the 56-57 formidable were already there and all it really needed was some massaging. It’s always interested me the most the 6 cylinder aspect vs the power glide aspect, as that is the point of derision by the Corvette enthusiast vs. the sports car enthusiast. Die hard Corvette fans don’t mind a slushbox at all, “but they better have a V8!” But the sports car world in 53 was all about sixes, and it’s refreshing to read a period review where that aspect is a given, even speculating on hop-ups to make it more competitive. For me the 6 actually makes the 53-54s a more legitimate sports car by the standard of sports cars of the time, dropping in the V8, while making it truly formidable, was more of an American concoction that would lead to numerous hybrids in the 60s-70s like the Cobra. Super cool cars in their own right, but I can’t help but think this challenged the purity of what a sports car is itself.
I prefer the styling of the 53-55 to the 56-57 too, which I’m certain is unpopular. The two tone and coves were something I never liked about them and the protruding headlights seemed retrograde to the original ahead of its time swept back design.
Good comments, and I agree.
Agreed to about the ’53-’55 front end; it’s the best of the C1 by far. But not a fan of the silly little fins/tail lights. A ’55 with a ’56-’57 rear end would be my pick. I wonder if anyone ever did that back in the day?
The fins and taillights are the most awkward aspect for me as too, they give the 53-55 a pudgy appearance from certain angles. The 56 back made the body look much more lithe, the 61-62 as well.
I agree, good comments Matt. When I was young, I also thought that the ’53-55 Vette seemed to be more “advanced” than the ’56 to ’57 design, at least when it came to the front end. To me the earlier Vette front end was more aerodynamic, at least in appearance and thus more advanced. That said, today I think the ’56-57 is hands down the best looking C1 Corvette and much better looking overall than the ’53. While I still can see in someways how the ’53-55 front end was “more advanced”, I think the ’56-57 Vette is just an great all-round design and one of the best styled cars of the 1950s. FWIW, they looked good with the coves colour matched to the body.
While you make some good points about the ’53-’54 Vette being a more legitimate sports cars in some respects, I don’t know if I agree with it. To me, the ’53-55 six cylinder Vettes and maybe even the ’55 V8 Vettes were more along the lines of a sporty boulevard cruiser than a sports car. Yes, they tick sports car criteria boxes, with the powerful six, the sportier handling, the great styling, but it wasn’t a great drivers car. The Chevy six was hardly a high revving performance engine, the handling while deemed okay, still needed a lot of work and the brakes were inadequate. And while the PG did provided decent performance for what it was, a sports car of that time needed a manual transmission. Furthermore it had no racing pedigree, and it wasn’t really competitive in that venue anyway.
R&T tested a ’55 195 hp V8 Corvette shortly after this ’54 road test. The addition of the V8 in 1955 lead to an improvement in the performance but most of the other shortcomings remained. And I don’t buy that the V8 made it less of a sports car. Sure, it didn’t match up with the European formula, but this was America’s take on things. The 265 was a good performance engine, it would rev, it did make high RPM power and it was also more compact and 41 lbs lighter than the archaic six. The fact was, Chevy needed the V8 as its sixes were simply inadequate in this venue.
Zora Arkus-Duntov was fairly in-tune with the sports cars of the time and he knew what it took to make to make a good sports car. He quickly identified the numerous problems with the original Vette and was able to have many changes made to the ’56 model. This included tweaking the chassis and suspension for better handling, better brakes, a manual transmission, and of course his Duntov cam for real power. On top of that, he knew that a sports car needed racing pedigree and got the Vette out there competing, specifically in the ’56 Sebring race. He quickly transformed the Vette from a fancy boulevard cruiser into a formidable sports car, and by 1957 was the quickest accelerating car one could buy. So for me, maybe the Vette didn’t follow the European formula to a “T”, but in my eyes, it didn’t really become a sports car until 1956.
It’s not that I think the a Corvette should have went any other direction or that the 53-54s were inherently sportier than the 56-57s, I certainly didn’t mean to convey that. Only as the question stands in the context of 1954, the 54 Corvette was very close to what defined a sports car of the time. In my eye it was a first effort on the level of the very earliest of Porsche 356s that used a high abundance of VW parts.
Beyond the 50s defining a legitimate sports car gets way more broad and vague than any trait the 56 Corvette possesses!
I own a restored stock ‘60 PG vette – I can no longer drive a manual transmission. It’s a fun car to drive- but in no way “modern”. Kingpin front end, manual (unboosted) steering, manual drum brakes. The fun is in the low belt line and windshield. You can smell everything (causing me to make one of two modifications – I replaced the downdraft crankcase vent with a pcv valve). It has17 zerk fittings, which must be greased regularly. The PG is fine, especially if you stay in the Carter’s secondaries, but most modern minivans will beat it to 60 MPH. It will do highway speeds, but I don’t like to push it that hard.
The second modification I made was Diamond Back radial tires. A 100% improvement over bias ply tires.
I’ve driven a 54, it was fun as well, it didn’t feel much slower than the 283.
It will do highway speeds, but I don’t like to push it that hard.
It will do 120. So it’s not like 60-70 is going to hurt it the slightest. You’d be doing it a favor. 🙂
For some great 1st gen Corvette scenes, I recommend the movie Kiss Me Deadly (1955) that I recently saw for the first time. Mike Hammer’s XK120 is smashed up in an early scene and replaced with this new Corvette. Fun LA period piece film (featuring sites such as the Angel’s Flight funicular), be prepared to howl at the ending – and at a lot in between.
I’d think Jaguar’s DOHC six would have had more cachet than the Blue Flame Six, but then many sports cars at the time also had pushrod engines.
Ca. 1990 a colleague of mine got a Mazda Miata, and we really ragged on him because it had automatic! Of course things were different then.
The C1’s never appealed to me, always seemed to remind me of fat fender cars of the late 40’s and early 50’s. The C2 was it for me until the C3 came along, never cared for the C4 and then the C5 came along and now its all over, here we have a beautiful car. The older cars all look like they are on a 4×4 chassis. Low down in the weeds is where its at, the C3 though has aged well.
I find myself appreciating C1s more these days, the humble sedan derived frame and evolutionary changes in performance that occurred from 55-62 are more interesting to me than having something superbly engineered from the ground up like more modern Corvettes or having stunning styling like the C2s. It always fascinated me that they’d actually preview the entire C2 rear end almost unchanged in the late run 61-62s, who does that? But it worked. The only thing I don’t like about C1s is they’re treated like fine wine by collectors, when’s the last time you’ve seen a C1 without the requisite wide whites?
I guess I’m a foo-gobble person instead of a foo-blap person, as long as you’re asking, Mr. Olley.
Interesting note that some of the early sketches in the Corvette’s development were labeled “Opel.” GM used a similar ruse when developing the Corvair, referring to it as a Holden project, all the way up to putting Holden badges on the first running prototype.
So, was any GM project kept under wraps by disguising it as a Vauxhall?
Probably the least qualified person to speak about this was my Grandmother (on my Father’s side) who never herself ever drove a car (neither of my Grandmothers ever drove) , who thought my ’74 Datsun 710 was a sports car (which of course it was not).
I think she was used to full-sized American cars, and any car that was smaller that full sized (which my ‘710 was) and non-American (ditto) was a “sports” car in her mind.
Guess my Father got me into “sports” cars, since he owned a ’59 Beetle and ’68 Renault, then a ’76 Subaru prior to or about the time she would have made this judgement. Funny thing, my Grandfather (on my Dad’s side) owned a ’63 Fairlane, which of course was not a full-sized car but a intermediate, though it was American.
(all of his cars were, till he passed away).
I don’t know what she would have classified a Corvette as, probably because there were so few of them around, it would have been easy to disregard. Probably by merit of smaller size alone, it was a “sports” car to her.
I did see a ’60 Corvette in the town where my Grandparents lived (once) but they were very rare, as it was definitely a blue-collar area, and one spending enough to buy a Corvette would likely instead have bought a luxury car