If anyone had even dreamed in 1968 that the new C3 Corvette would be built for fifteen years, they would have been dismissed as an LSD-addled nut job. At the end of the sixties, America was on a roll, despite that highly inconvenient little conflagration in Vietnam. Neil Armstrong would walk on the moon, incomes were rising along with hemlines, and the performance car era was in full eruption. Thus the expectations for the new Corvette were very high indeed. And in terms of its new Mako Shark styling, it delivered. But how about the rest of the package?
It was a very mixed bag; numerous practical qualities like interior space and luggage room were sacrificed on the altar of St. Mark of Excellence by the high priest Bill Mitchell. In apparent compensation, various questionable gimmicks and doodads were added. Quality was abysmal. It rode harder, and there were the inevitable unpleasant noises. But of course it was fast, lusty and handled well, and its performance per dollar was unbeatable. A Corvette, in other words, but one that was more compromised than its celebrated C2 predecessor.
In case some of you younger readers are not familiar with the references to Barbarella, it was one of the big movie hits of 1968, a cheesy science fiction story that made the most of Jane Fonda’s assets. Like the new Corvette, both were very obvious in their appeal to men. Add a 400 hp tri-carb 427, and the Corvette’s siren song “was distinctly throaty”.
As a frame of reference, the 400 hp version of the 427 was the mild one (along with the 390 hp four barrel version); the solid lifter L72 425 hp was also available, and of course the legendary L88, rated very conservatively at 430 hp. But those were both bears on the street; realistically the 400 hp version was a much better choice in the real world, unless that world mostly involved race tracks.
The new federal mandatory emission regulations that took effect in 1968 required an air pump, but it’s not clear if that played any role in the issues C/D experienced with the engine, as in the engine taking a giant cough after a 5600 rpm 1-2 shift when warm during acceleration testing. It was fine once it cooled off, but who has the time to do that repeatedly? Otherwise the power delivery mechanism was a splendid device, breathing happily through its middle two-barrel carb until the two end carbs opened up “with a great sucking roar”.
On stumble-free runs, the Corvette, equipped with the 4-speed manual and an optional 3.70 rear axle (3.36 standard) yielded a brisk 1/4 mile time of 14.1 seconds at 102 mph and a 0-60 time of 5.7 seconds. Coincidentally, both of those times are the same as those of a 1957 fuel injected 283 Corvette tested by R&T at the time. Progress? The FI ’57 was noteworthy for its perfectly linear and immediate throttle response under all conditions; no stumbles, stutters, gulps or coughs.
Under the skin, the new Corvette wasn’t really very new at all; the same basic frame, chassis, suspension and drive trains. The main difference was a wider track and wheels now 7″ wide shod with low profile F70 x 15 tires. But the suspension tuning was changed, with firmer springs resulting in a harsher ride. The rear roll center was lowered, to increase understeer, because the C2 was deemed a bit too neutral, with its tail quite willing to hang out in brisk driving. With the advent of the big block engines, that was deemed a bit to risky, hence the increased understeer. But thanks to the wider tires and track, the new Corvette did have more ultimate grip and the ability to get through a curve at somewhat higher speed. This was the beginning of the trend to turn the Corvette into a skid-pad master at the expense of every day balance and comfort, especially on roads that were less than ideal. That’s precisely what Porsche had shown the world as being an attainable goal.
The new technique required the willingness to grind the front tires with plenty of power to push it through curves. C/D said “we liked the old ones better”. Me too.
The optional power steering was recommended if one was to spend any time parking a 427 Corvette, and although higher speed feel was reduced and took some getting used to, it was effective enough. The four wheel disc brakes were more than that, stopping the ‘Vette from 80 repeatedly in 229 feet (.93G), although lockup was a problem.
Visibility over the the long drooping hood was a serious problem when it came to parking and such. But the biggest impacts from the new styling were on the inside, where the passenger compartment was narrower. The spaciousness of previous Corvettes had always been an asset compared to the small European sports cars; no more. But the seats now reclined and the relationship with the steering wheel was improved, so absolute driver comfort was improved in at regard.
The luggage space behind the seats was “terrible”. The glove box disappeared, replaced presumably by two small lockable compartments behind the rear seats, not an easy reach and utterly inaccessible if the trunk was stuffed full “with one fat suitcase and some dirty linens.
The new styling brought with it several gimmicks, including the wipers that were hidden behind a panel on the cowl that raised to exposes them. Several safety devices were dissed: the seat belt warning light that has to be manually shut off every time the engine is started, regardless of whether the belts are fastened or not. Really? C/D said “pass the hatchet”.
But the biggest bit of trickery was the new coupe roof with its removable two rooftop panels and rear window. C/D describes in detail all the machinations required to do that and most of all the issues with storing those objects in the bowls of the Corvette’s trunk. Their summary: “driving with the open-air coupe is pleasant enough…but in the back of your mind you’re thinking about putting everything back together when you get where you’re going”. That’s why there was a convertible, no?
The criticisms of the Corvette’s quality lapses were extensive: cheap knobs and such, exposed unbound carpet edges, a very poor paint job, poorly fitting upholstery, etc.. Given the Corvette’s price, image and competition, one might well expect something more appropriate in terms of materials and quality. Not so; it’s in the same league as a cheap Nova.
Yet this is precisely the American formula: gobs of sexy Barbarella looks, throaty performance (if not actually better than in 1957) and all for a relatively low price ($5787 as tested; $52k adjusted). The perpetual Corvette formula; the 2024 version starts at $68,300), although quality has obviously improved.
C/D gushes a bit at the end: “On balance, it’s an almost irresistible temptation to buy American”.
It would be very nice if you could include the specification page of the article.
I guess I wasn’t feeling nice last night, but I am this morning, so here they are now.
Thank you.
If there was one big improvement on the C3, I would say it was the radiusing of the rear wheel arches. The flat tops of the C2’s rear wheelwells, while stylish, seriously inhibited the use of wider rear tires, which was an issue with the power output of the big-block engines.
A grad school classmate, from 1981, had a 68 with the 427 in 1996 for a year or two. Sometimes drove from Redding down to the Bay Area to visit. Horrible gas mileage. I rode in the car once and it was like being on a bucking bronco standing still and just waiting to be let loose as it idled in the parking lot. He moved on from the car not long after. I guess one just has to get it out of their system.
Paul, funny you should mention Barbarella.
In yet another permutation of the CC Effect ®, just in the last week or so I came across this YouTube video highlighting 5 sci-fi films of 1968, including Barbarella:
Somehow, I don’t recall this movie at all from back then, but I did see 2001: A Space Odyssey in the theater for its original release.
According to the internet, a remake of Barbarella is in the works, starring Sydney Sweeney.
It’s been years since I’ve last seen Barbarella and your showing the trailer makes me think that I should revisit it. The cheesy effects remind me of Star Trek (TOS). The rest of the content reminds me of why my parents didn’t take me to see it in original release…unlike that year’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, which I recall vividly.
(The concept of “children’s movie” didn’t generally exist for my parents. They just took me to what they wanted to see. The concept of “baby sitter” also didn’t exist for my parents.)
The C3 Corvette made a bit of blip on my radar when it came out as I for some reason knew all about the Mako Shark from some car-obsessed elementary school classmate who was always going on about it. At the time though, I was solidly in the Matchbox camp versus Hot Wheels, so I missed out on acquiring a red line C3 (“Custom Corvette” – 1968) or 1969/70s “Mako Shark”. Oh well. Even back then I was much more about station wagons, trucks, and European cars (hence the attraction of Matchbox) than I was sports cars.
When my cousins came back from the service, they both bought used Corvettes. (C3) One a big block, the other a small block. Unfortunately they never gave me a ride in either! Corvettes had a strong hold on my adolescent car guy brain, though I’ve never made the move to own one, even with over forty years of Vette models to choose from. I like the description of using the T Top, a horrible creation that spread throughout the car world in the 1980’s. Just too much trouble to use, especially on a short trip. I had one on my ’92 300Zx and did not like it. Power moon roofs rule.
Great article…a little ‘blooper’ about luggage space behind the “rear” seats!
Oh right; that would be for the four door version:
Love the post. I have a ’70 Corvette LT-1 and very much enjoy the view from the cockpit out over that long, pointy hood framed by the outrageous peaked front fenders. One of the very best driver views in all of autodom, IMO.
Speaking of which, the design of the C3 may have had quite a bit of its inspiration from a “theme” other than the Mako Shark concept. In a 10/2/20 comment made on a Bring-a-Trailer 1971 Corvette LS6 auction, commenter “Raffi”, apparently a car designer who worked under (former GM designer) Harry Bradley as a car design student, related this about what was the REAL design inspiration for the C3:
“I’d like to comment on the design of this car and how it was such an important car at a critical time. The previous Corvette was a ground breaking shift from the earlier rounded 50s designs. Largely influenced by European sports cars, the Split Window 63 took Corvette in another direction. The conceptual work of Peter Brock combined with the refinements done by Larry Shinoda on the production car were really amazing.
But the shift that came with the 68 version, based loosely on Shinoda’s Mako II, was off the charts. It was like nothing else out there. No European car could come close to this novel and fresh an approach. The car undulated like a snake, with crisp lines, chiseled corners, and yet a sinewy attitude that was both alluring and angry. The 1971 especially conveys that look with just a few minor improvements.
As a car design student, I worked under Harry Bradley who worked at GM when this car was being designed. One day in class while working on a clay model, I recall telling him one day about how I found the 1968 body to be the best of the designs. Harry remarked back to me – “you know why?” I shrugged and said “cause it’s really good looking?” He said “It’s entire form is based on a woman lying on the beach, in a bikini. She’s resting on her elbows, her face looking out over the horizon. Her shoulders are the rear fenders, her knees are the front fenders, and the rest I should not have to tell you.”
Two of my classmates and I looked at each other with quizzical expressions. This being the non-politically correct 80s, Harry rolled his eyes, grabbed a sheet of paper and started drawing what we thought was the car. We dumbly looked as the shapes started to appear with each line, but it wasn’t a car at all. Then he drew the lines of the 427 hood. All eyes widened, smiles appeared…”ohhhh….we said,” Harry put down his pencil.
None of us ever looked at a C3 Corvette the same way again.”
A co-worker in the eighties had a lightly used 1967 427 in nice condition that I drove a few times. The 390 hp version. No power steering or brakes, 4 speed. Only options were Positraction and AM-FM radio. Plenty of brute power, but what a bear to drive in the city. Parallel parking was challenging with the heavy steering and poor visibility. Was a pretty good investment for him, as I recall he sold it after five years or so for a good deal more than he paid for it.
From auctions like Barrett-Jackson and Mecum, everyone thinks Corvettes have this spectacular resale appeal, but in reality if it’s not a 427, split window coupe or some rare, ZR type limited production model, resale prices are comparable with most other cars.
My theory on the warm stumble when the secondaries opened is a bit of vapor lock. High underhood temperatures boiled the fuel in secondary lines and bowls, while center carb constantly used cooler fuel from the tank. No return lines on these setups.