As an owner of a '82 for years, the best improvement one can do for drivabilty is swap in a lower rear end gear. The car has frustratingly slow acceleration at slow speeds around town in second gear with the stock rear end gear. It will also erase the 8.1 second 0-60. A 3.55 gear will wake it up, make it much more fun to drive overall, and only give up a couple hundred rpms on the freeway. The 700-R4 OD transmission allows for this flexibility. Some people even go to a 3.73. But, you trade more highway rpm for acceleration. To each their own. This is a change that requires no other modifications from stock to make it a lot more fun to drive. The stock gear was designed to run 1400 rpm at 55mph (the speed limit at the time) for 26 mpg on the highway. But, you can't manually shift that trans into first once the car shifts into second....unless you slow down to a stop. The lower rear end makes up for it.
Good morning CCG, a wonderful and honest video on the 1982 Corvette. Thank you ! I owned a 1982 Corvette with the two-tone paint job and I loved it very much. I too did not mind the cross-fire injection. In the years I owned it I never had a problem. A very good ride and cruising car. I own a newer Corvette now and honestly will be looking for another 1982 in the near future. Thank you again for this wonderful video my friend. This is the best one I have seen on the cool '82.
Thank you for making and sharing this video. I've been in love with the '82CE Corvette since I visited the Corvette-museum in Bowling Green. It is still my favorite C3 Vette. As a child of the 80s, there is something cosy and familiar with the brow, beige, silver, grey color scheme. Not too many driving videos of this car on the Internet, and hardly any reviews. This video fuled my passion enough for me to finally buy my own '82CE - and for that I am grateful.
Thank you so much! We do these videos to put people virtually into the driver's seats of vehicles few have the opportunity to drive in real life. When the videos inspire people to pursue their passion and commit to buying a collector car (even if it is not the same as the one in a video), it makes us all happy. Best of luck and we hope you find the perfect '82 CE for your needs.
I also have an excellent example 1982 Corvette and I love that car. The CrossFire is trouble free and starts every time. I laugh when others that really don't know CrossFire negatively comment on it. It's a good system that got a bad rap from gear-heads from back in the day that didn't understand it. In the 70's and 80's every car manufacturer that made cars in the U.S. and those that imported to the U.S., including Ferrari suffered a hit on HP because of emissions. So it's pointless singling out Corvette because the entire industry was victim to it. The 82 was the first corvette to cost over 20k, had leather interior standard, and other refinements that made it competitive with it's contemporaries of Europe. All in all, the 1982 Corvette was a gorgeous car and should be appreciated for what it is.
You're right, Richard. The Ferrari 308 went from 237 horsepower with four Weber dual-choke carbs in '79 to 205 hp with the Bosch K fuel injection on the 308 GTSi starting in 1980....plus the 2V injected cars weighed 139 pounds more!
Nice video. Good review. Like the road shots and your calm demeanor. In the day there were teething issues with the crossfire software which may have helped sour owners' initial impressions. It took GM a couple revisions to get it right. If you go back and look, their service dept released a number of technical service bulletins on tuning the crossfire. It didn't help that few mechanics of the day didn't understand computer controls (81 was the 1st year for GM on all cars) ...and many mechanics used to mechanical fuel systems were just outright against computer controls and resistant to learn. There could still be a lot of crossfire cars out there which never received updated software. Plus it was among the first throttle body implementations. The fuel management was ahead of its time. Couple other important points to add about 82 Corvettes: 1) One idea of the cross rams was to improve power and torque by tuning intake pulses with longer runners, something much more common on later vehicles. A couple top brass during development thought it was cool and simply couldn't let go of the cross ram idea even though many engineers recommended against it. 2) 82 Corvettes were the first (and only sharks) have overdrive automatic trans, for a nice comfortable drive, 3) The rear windows, while a cool idea, tended to vibrate, rattle and leak, and the hinges would sometime seize up from the elements. They revised the design for the 84's, 4) Like was pointed out before, 81's with automatics had the fiberglass leaf spring. 5) A lot of drivers are underwhelmed by 82's and earlier sharks because they claim they don't handle or steer well. Usually it's because the previous owners put on some regular Monroe or whatever shocks instead of a double-acting shocks like Koni's, which would mimic what came with the cars. And the steering may be quite a bit sloppier than when the cars were stock new. The lower bushing on the manual steering boxes tended to wear faster than typical saganaw-style power steering boxes, the upper bearings on the steering box tend to get rusty/dry due to heat from the exhaust or people washing their engine bays, the steering box pre-load (the bottom adj, not the top screw), gets looser than it should, the rag joint holes get egged-out and sloppy from people muscling the car when it's not running (no p/s). Bushings in general wear over time. The *slightest* amount of wear in these areas, along with other suspension wear, etc adds up to much looser than stock steering. In stock form it should drive nice and tight. A lot of these cars get really beat up by the time they get to the 4th owner and the $6k price range. Yours seemed nice though. In future videos, they might benefit from lower volume music, or just exclude it. Your presentation is good enough, you don't need the music, especially 80's garage band music. Overall, loved it!! Thanks
Completely agreed on the crossfire injection. It is ridiculously easy to get 400 streetable horsepower out of that engine. The crossfire intake concept has more power potential than a dual plane intake. At a bit of a cost of low end torque which is why the engineers reduced plenum size - they didn't want to lose their precious low end torque, which you do need, but they went too small on the runners. Get the Renegade crossfire intake for this, decent heads and mild cam and you will be very much surprised what that engine can do.
I had mine brand new in l8 '82. I got alot of equipment standard that was optional on my L-82 4spd silver anniversary (78). By then, I DID considered it a G.T. the waves from other vette drivers was gr8. The tranny hunted a bit, & the X fire was a pain, spent an uncomfortable amount of time @ dealership. But, it was a CORVETTE ♥️🇺🇸
Mark G is correct. Ensure the correct replacement suspension is installed. Ensure that all bushings are in good working condition. Crossfire is fine if it is unaltered, and is clean. I also had a 69 Corvette and it's best attribute was acceleration. That was it. The later C3s were actually much better overall. Great review.
Chevy didn't want to pay the price that their manual transmission supplier wanted and that's why in 82 only automatic was available. The execs didn't want anything cutting into their profits, profits for a car they hadn't really done anything to improve it since they all were pre-sold up until 82. Still LOVE the C3.
What a well done blast from the past! The presentation was completely accurate (except just one, the fiberglass monoleaf spring was "standard" in 1982 - but "new" on auto-trans apps in `81), he knew what he was talking about and was sincere, the test drive road scenery was awesome, and it was just fun to watch and enjoy looking back on a sweetheart of an iconic car. Thank you for making this. You are right, "it just works" and it is just "really fun to drive"!To: "Sprock1970: Dude, easy! Assume you have a `70 C3. GREAT car! For the time! The astronauts even drove them - how cool is that?!?!? But, we all voted for breathable air laws and your's spews a shi# load of foul air today and it was fully designed to put out air with lead in it - so, enjoy those G's! (as long as I'm not driving behind you for too long, especially when you tromp on the accellerator). GM had to either get rid of the C3 or figure it out - by law as the country voted on, then - thank God. To get the lead out, which messes people's brains up, but also lubricated the valves under heavy compression/heat, they had to reduce the compression = lower HP. So, they had to `reset' from scratch. Every year since `70 they made significant strides in quality, comfort and handling. For starters, your dentist must love you for the fillings that fall out with the aluminum pucks that Zora (C3 Corvette Chief Engineer) chose for body mounts. They went to rubber body mounts a little after the `70 beauty rolled off the line. Again, every year got better. The 1982 was the pinnacle of the C3 from a quality, handling, and yes, comfort standpoint and it still fits in as a modern car, today. The 70's chrome bumpers look really cool, "the" authentic C3 look and all C3's owe their bad-boy reputation to them. Love them. But, those of us growing up in the later 70's, more fondly remember and totally prefer the poly, mono-color aero bumpers and the technology/comfort upgrades that happened every year. (you don't feel claustraphobic in the `78-`82's with the bubble back vs. your `70 `sugar scoop' behind. The 1982 represents the undisputed (the `70 is not even in the same league) best quality, cruising enjoyment factor of any C3 since the stunningl first C3 in 1968. True, the `82 wasn't supposed to have been built as a C3 - it was supposed to be the new C4 that year. But, the Corvette's chief program engineer, Lloyd Reuss wouldn't allow the new, American and GM flagship C4 Corvette suck hind-wind to Ferarri's new "targa" (no t-top) and delayed the C4 launch to figure out the body-flex issues, which they clearly did. Meanwhile, to their credit, they used the "wasn't supposed to be made" 1982 as a test bed for their wonderful new technology (the first electronic fuel injection system in a Corvette, the first automatic overdrive transmission in a Corvette, paint process excellence, unprecidented fit & finish excellence, state of the art electronics - and, just a blast to drive. Enjoy your `70, if you actually have one (or are just a poser?), but first do your research before belching out an unfair statement - ESPECIALLY if you are a C3 owner bretheren. Come on!Respectfully, but disappointed -Dave
Some Corvettes are far lower than others! While solid axle Corvettes (C1s) are low compared to contemporary sedans from the 1950s, they are like crossover SUVs contrasted with C3s. The lower doors of Mid Year C2s also provide a feeling of not being as low as in C3s. The same goes for the wide sills making C4s seem lower than they are.
Really nice vid and realistic. rather than most that just compare to modern cars. 9 second Ferrari that probably cost the earth that no one talks about, and looked crap. This Corvette was sex on wheels.
I have one. It has only 24,700 miles on it too. It was in a show room for 21 years and is now in my possession. I would trade it for the right C3 Convertible. Why? Mine is so MINT, I'm actually afraid to drive it around....too many IDIOTS out there driving around. A "restored" Corvette Convert is fine with me. I'm in western Oregon, near Salem.
Curt, we'll stick with our information, which comes from a library of Corvette literature and nearly 70 years of auto publications: a 1975 convertible with automatic was over 3700 pounds (coupes were 3660 -- and when equipped with factory A/C the auto Vette Convertible easily eclipsed 3800 pounds, well on their way to 3900 with full tanks -- and over with the factory hardtop) with a mere 165hp and the standard 3.36:1 rear... it was indeed slower accelerating than the '53 which was 2886 pounds with 150hp and 3.55:1 rear. You'll notice that most 0-60 times for the 1953 quote 11.5 seconds. As many do not realize, it was practice at Motor Trend (which performed the 11.5 quoted test ) and R&T (which published 11.0 for a '54), as well as other American publications to perform acceleration tests with driver AND PASSENGER AND on-board timing equipment. (Plus no brake-holding on automatic cars.) Acceleration testing practices changed during the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1975, a 4-Speed L82 (205hp) Coupe with optional performance rear end tested at 7.7 seconds -- so you can see how adding several hundred pounds, taking away 40hp, saddling it with taller gears and accelerating from idle gets way above 11.5 seconds. (And though you edited out your "have you ever owned one yet, kid?", the answer is "yes, 69 427/435hp convertible, '70 sb convertible, '73 BB 4spd coupe, '74 BB 4spd coupe, '81 4spd, '82 CE, '89 convertible, '99 Z51 MN6 Convertible and '02 Z51 MN6 Convertible." Plus we've driven examples from every generation of Corvette extensively.)
@@CollectorCarGuru You didn't mention the ET for that '75 convertible.....what was it? (And I've owned 7 Vettes over the past 30 years of which I had a '68 Roadster with 427 and 4spd is why I asked that at first, but deleted it as you mentioned you had others toward the end).
@@USCG.Brennan There are no published tests of a '75 Corvette Convertible. Indeed, there are no published road tests of even an automatic coupe...no in any of the major mags a non-L82 for '75. Consequently, no baseline non-owner tests exist.There are sites online that quote a 16.1/87.4 mph for an L48/auto coupe, but considering the same site quotes a 15.6/92.3 for a lighter, far higher performance '74 L82, the numbers are suspect, at best. 17.9 @ 76 is a common quoted number for the '53 and '54, but again, these were "add weight, minimize launch" times. To provide a little more perspective on early testing procedures from the 1950s and 1960s, contemporary published 0-60 times for the Triumph TR-3 in 1957-1960 were almost always 12.2 or 12.5 seconds -- and those are standard for references. With modern testing equipment (G-Timers) in totally stock and certainly not new cars, with one driver, we've been able to consistently replicate 10.5 second times, with the sometimes repeatable low being 10-flat.
@@CollectorCarGuru My concern was if you were comparing "apples to apples" and not comparing the slowest built Vette of '75 with the quickest built Vette of '53. I'm thinking there were different variations of those cars those years.
@@USCG.Brennan No doubt and totally understood. The video specifically mentions "the 1975 automatic convertible" -- which is the apples-to-apples comparison to the '53, which was a convertible with an automatic, the 2-speed Powerglide. The 1975 4-spd L-82 was certainly faster than a '53 or '54.
Wow. This is a way over-the-top, subjective love letter to a car that should have never been made. The C3 probably should have ended production back in 74. It was all downhill after that. Hatchback corvette FTW? I don't think so...
We are always curious -- have you ever driven an '82 Corvette? (Or '84 with the same engine, totally different chassis?) How about a '72 LT1 or '73 or '74 LS 454?
What other American car in 1982 was faster? I'll wait. Love when uneducated people make stupid comments about performance 4 decades ago comparing it to todays cars.
as a proud owner of an 82 Corvette, I agree.
As an owner of a '82 for years, the best improvement one can do for drivabilty is swap in a lower rear end gear. The car has frustratingly slow acceleration at slow speeds around town in second gear with the stock rear end gear. It will also erase the 8.1 second 0-60. A 3.55 gear will wake it up, make it much more fun to drive overall, and only give up a couple hundred rpms on the freeway. The 700-R4 OD transmission allows for this flexibility. Some people even go to a 3.73. But, you trade more highway rpm for acceleration. To each their own. This is a change that requires no other modifications from stock to make it a lot more fun to drive. The stock gear was designed to run 1400 rpm at 55mph (the speed limit at the time) for 26 mpg on the highway. But, you can't manually shift that trans into first once the car shifts into second....unless you slow down to a stop. The lower rear end makes up for it.
Good morning CCG, a wonderful and honest video on the 1982 Corvette. Thank you ! I owned a 1982 Corvette with the two-tone paint job and I loved it very much. I too did not mind the cross-fire injection. In the years I owned it I never had a problem. A very good ride and cruising car. I own a newer Corvette now and honestly will be looking for another 1982 in the near future. Thank you again for this wonderful video my friend. This is the best one I have seen on the cool '82.
Thank you for making and sharing this video. I've been in love with the '82CE Corvette since I visited the Corvette-museum in Bowling Green. It is still my favorite C3 Vette. As a child of the 80s, there is something cosy and familiar with the brow, beige, silver, grey color scheme. Not too many driving videos of this car on the Internet, and hardly any reviews. This video fuled my passion enough for me to finally buy my own '82CE - and for that I am grateful.
Thank you so much! We do these videos to put people virtually into the driver's seats of vehicles few have the opportunity to drive in real life. When the videos inspire people to pursue their passion and commit to buying a collector car (even if it is not the same as the one in a video), it makes us all happy. Best of luck and we hope you find the perfect '82 CE for your needs.
I also have an excellent example 1982 Corvette and I love that car. The CrossFire is trouble free and starts every time. I laugh when others that really don't know CrossFire negatively comment on it. It's a good system that got a bad rap from gear-heads from back in the day that didn't understand it. In the 70's and 80's every car manufacturer that made cars in the U.S. and those that imported to the U.S., including Ferrari suffered a hit on HP because of emissions. So it's pointless singling out Corvette because the entire industry was victim to it. The 82 was the first corvette to cost over 20k, had leather interior standard, and other refinements that made it competitive with it's contemporaries of Europe. All in all, the 1982 Corvette was a gorgeous car and should be appreciated for what it is.
You're right, Richard. The Ferrari 308 went from 237 horsepower with four Weber dual-choke carbs in '79 to 205 hp with the Bosch K fuel injection on the 308 GTSi starting in 1980....plus the 2V injected cars weighed 139 pounds more!
Beautiful car
Nice video. Good review. Like the road shots and your calm demeanor. In the day there were teething issues with the crossfire software which may have helped sour owners' initial impressions. It took GM a couple revisions to get it right. If you go back and look, their service dept released a number of technical service bulletins on tuning the crossfire. It didn't help that few mechanics of the day didn't understand computer controls (81 was the 1st year for GM on all cars) ...and many mechanics used to mechanical fuel systems were just outright against computer controls and resistant to learn. There could still be a lot of crossfire cars out there which never received updated software. Plus it was among the first throttle body implementations. The fuel management was ahead of its time.
Couple other important points to add about 82 Corvettes: 1) One idea of the cross rams was to improve power and torque by tuning intake pulses with longer runners, something much more common on later vehicles. A couple top brass during development thought it was cool and simply couldn't let go of the cross ram idea even though many engineers recommended against it. 2) 82 Corvettes were the first (and only sharks) have overdrive automatic trans, for a nice comfortable drive, 3) The rear windows, while a cool idea, tended to vibrate, rattle and leak, and the hinges would sometime seize up from the elements. They revised the design for the 84's, 4) Like was pointed out before, 81's with automatics had the fiberglass leaf spring.
5) A lot of drivers are underwhelmed by 82's and earlier sharks because they claim they don't handle or steer well. Usually it's because the previous owners put on some regular Monroe or whatever shocks instead of a double-acting shocks like Koni's, which would mimic what came with the cars. And the steering may be quite a bit sloppier than when the cars were stock new. The lower bushing on the manual steering boxes tended to wear faster than typical saganaw-style power steering boxes, the upper bearings on the steering box tend to get rusty/dry due to heat from the exhaust or people washing their engine bays, the steering box pre-load (the bottom adj, not the top screw), gets looser than it should, the rag joint holes get egged-out and sloppy from people muscling the car when it's not running (no p/s). Bushings in general wear over time. The *slightest* amount of wear in these areas, along with other suspension wear, etc adds up to much looser than stock steering. In stock form it should drive nice and tight. A lot of these cars get really beat up by the time they get to the 4th owner and the $6k price range. Yours seemed nice though.
In future videos, they might benefit from lower volume music, or just exclude it. Your presentation is good enough, you don't need the music, especially 80's garage band music. Overall, loved it!! Thanks
Completely agreed on the crossfire injection. It is ridiculously easy to get 400 streetable horsepower out of that engine. The crossfire intake concept has more power potential than a dual plane intake. At a bit of a cost of low end torque which is why the engineers reduced plenum size - they didn't want to lose their precious low end torque, which you do need, but they went too small on the runners. Get the Renegade crossfire intake for this, decent heads and mild cam and you will be very much surprised what that engine can do.
My favorite year of Corvette
Still want that car! You're right: Filet Mignon 🏆💪🤟🏄♂️😎
I had mine brand new in l8 '82. I got alot of equipment standard that was optional on my L-82 4spd silver anniversary (78). By then, I DID considered it a G.T. the waves from other vette drivers was gr8. The tranny hunted a bit, & the X fire was a pain, spent an uncomfortable amount of time @ dealership. But, it was a CORVETTE ♥️🇺🇸
Always thought they should have put the opening hatch on all 78 up, cool review
Excellent review...86 the music...I still have a big ad for the ‘82 Col Ed in my garage. Maybe someday I’ll find a nice one.
Mark G is correct. Ensure the correct replacement suspension is installed. Ensure that all bushings are in good working condition. Crossfire is fine if it is unaltered, and is clean.
I also had a 69 Corvette and it's best attribute was acceleration. That was it. The later C3s were actually much better overall.
Great review.
Chevy didn't want to pay the price that their manual transmission supplier wanted and that's why in 82 only automatic was available. The execs didn't want anything cutting into their profits, profits for a car they hadn't really done anything to improve it since they all were pre-sold up until 82. Still LOVE the C3.
What a well done blast from the past! The presentation was completely accurate (except just one, the fiberglass monoleaf spring was "standard" in 1982 - but "new" on auto-trans apps in `81), he knew what he was talking about and was sincere, the test drive road scenery was awesome, and it was just fun to watch and enjoy looking back on a sweetheart of an iconic car. Thank you for making this. You are right, "it just works" and it is just "really fun to drive"!To: "Sprock1970: Dude, easy! Assume you have a `70 C3. GREAT car! For the time! The astronauts even drove them - how cool is that?!?!? But, we all voted for breathable air laws and your's spews a shi# load of foul air today and it was fully designed to put out air with lead in it - so, enjoy those G's! (as long as I'm not driving behind you for too long, especially when you tromp on the accellerator). GM had to either get rid of the C3 or figure it out - by law as the country voted on, then - thank God. To get the lead out, which messes people's brains up, but also lubricated the valves under heavy compression/heat, they had to reduce the compression = lower HP. So, they had to `reset' from scratch. Every year since `70 they made significant strides in quality, comfort and handling. For starters, your dentist must love you for the fillings that fall out with the aluminum pucks that Zora (C3 Corvette Chief Engineer) chose for body mounts. They went to rubber body mounts a little after the `70 beauty rolled off the line. Again, every year got better. The 1982 was the pinnacle of the C3 from a quality, handling, and yes, comfort standpoint and it still fits in as a modern car, today. The 70's chrome bumpers look really cool, "the" authentic C3 look and all C3's owe their bad-boy reputation to them. Love them. But, those of us growing up in the later 70's, more fondly remember and totally prefer the poly, mono-color aero bumpers and the technology/comfort upgrades that happened every year. (you don't feel claustraphobic in the `78-`82's with the bubble back vs. your `70 `sugar scoop' behind. The 1982 represents the undisputed (the `70 is not even in the same league) best quality, cruising enjoyment factor of any C3 since the stunningl first C3 in 1968. True, the `82 wasn't supposed to have been built as a C3 - it was supposed to be the new C4 that year. But, the Corvette's chief program engineer, Lloyd Reuss wouldn't allow the new, American and GM flagship C4 Corvette suck hind-wind to Ferarri's new "targa" (no t-top) and delayed the C4 launch to figure out the body-flex issues, which they clearly did. Meanwhile, to their credit, they used the "wasn't supposed to be made" 1982 as a test bed for their wonderful new technology (the first electronic fuel injection system in a Corvette, the first automatic overdrive transmission in a Corvette, paint process excellence, unprecidented fit & finish excellence, state of the art electronics - and, just a blast to drive. Enjoy your `70, if you actually have one (or are just a poser?), but first do your research before belching out an unfair statement - ESPECIALLY if you are a C3 owner bretheren. Come on!Respectfully, but disappointed -Dave
Newsflash: ALL Corvettes are "low" to the ground...Lol
Some Corvettes are far lower than others! While solid axle Corvettes (C1s) are low compared to contemporary sedans from the 1950s, they are like crossover SUVs contrasted with C3s. The lower doors of Mid Year C2s also provide a feeling of not being as low as in C3s. The same goes for the wide sills making C4s seem lower than they are.
Really nice vid and realistic. rather than most that just compare to modern cars. 9 second Ferrari that probably cost the earth that no one talks about, and looked crap. This Corvette was sex on wheels.
You look like Stephen King
I have one. It has only 24,700 miles on it too. It was in a show room for 21 years and is now in my possession. I would trade it for the right C3 Convertible.
Why? Mine is so MINT, I'm actually afraid to drive it around....too many IDIOTS out there driving around. A "restored" Corvette Convert is fine with me. I'm in
western Oregon, near Salem.
how tall are you? I am in love with this car, and I want to buy it, but with my hieght it will be hard to get in this car.
Sam is 6'4" and 235lbs. He sits very tall in cars.
@@CollectorCarGuru I am 6'6" :D
@@CIEN95 let's trade legs
The '75 Vette was SLOWER than the '53 Vette (1:30)??? Uh.....WHERE did you get your misinformation?
Curt, we'll stick with our information, which comes from a library of Corvette literature and nearly 70 years of auto publications: a 1975 convertible with automatic was over 3700 pounds (coupes were 3660 -- and when equipped with factory A/C the auto Vette Convertible easily eclipsed 3800 pounds, well on their way to 3900 with full tanks -- and over with the factory hardtop) with a mere 165hp and the standard 3.36:1 rear... it was indeed slower accelerating than the '53 which was 2886 pounds with 150hp and 3.55:1 rear. You'll notice that most 0-60 times for the 1953 quote 11.5 seconds. As many do not realize, it was practice at Motor Trend (which performed the 11.5 quoted test ) and R&T (which published 11.0 for a '54), as well as other American publications to perform acceleration tests with driver AND PASSENGER AND on-board timing equipment. (Plus no brake-holding on automatic cars.) Acceleration testing practices changed during the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1975, a 4-Speed L82 (205hp) Coupe with optional performance rear end tested at 7.7 seconds -- so you can see how adding several hundred pounds, taking away 40hp, saddling it with taller gears and accelerating from idle gets way above 11.5 seconds. (And though you edited out your "have you ever owned one yet, kid?", the answer is "yes, 69 427/435hp convertible, '70 sb convertible, '73 BB 4spd coupe, '74 BB 4spd coupe, '81 4spd, '82 CE, '89 convertible, '99 Z51 MN6 Convertible and '02 Z51 MN6 Convertible." Plus we've driven examples from every generation of Corvette extensively.)
@@CollectorCarGuru You didn't mention the ET for that '75 convertible.....what was it? (And I've owned 7 Vettes over the past 30 years of which I had a '68 Roadster with 427 and 4spd is why I asked that at first, but deleted it as you mentioned you had others toward the end).
@@USCG.Brennan There are no published tests of a '75 Corvette Convertible. Indeed, there are no published road tests of even an automatic coupe...no in any of the major mags a non-L82 for '75. Consequently, no baseline non-owner tests exist.There are sites online that quote a 16.1/87.4 mph for an L48/auto coupe, but considering the same site quotes a 15.6/92.3 for a lighter, far higher performance '74 L82, the numbers are suspect, at best. 17.9 @ 76 is a common quoted number for the '53 and '54, but again, these were "add weight, minimize launch" times. To provide a little more perspective on early testing procedures from the 1950s and 1960s, contemporary published 0-60 times for the Triumph TR-3 in 1957-1960 were almost always 12.2 or 12.5 seconds -- and those are standard for references. With modern testing equipment (G-Timers) in totally stock and certainly not new cars, with one driver, we've been able to consistently replicate 10.5 second times, with the sometimes repeatable low being 10-flat.
@@CollectorCarGuru My concern was if you were comparing "apples to apples" and not comparing the slowest built Vette of '75 with the quickest built Vette of '53. I'm thinking there were different variations of those cars those years.
@@USCG.Brennan No doubt and totally understood. The video specifically mentions "the 1975 automatic convertible" -- which is the apples-to-apples comparison to the '53, which was a convertible with an automatic, the 2-speed Powerglide. The 1975 4-spd L-82 was certainly faster than a '53 or '54.
U RICHARD
Wow. This is a way over-the-top, subjective love letter to a car that should have never been made. The C3 probably should have ended production back in 74. It was all downhill after that. Hatchback corvette FTW? I don't think so...
sprock1970 whats wrong with glass opening in the back? Every Corvette after it has had some form of it.
These cars were junk anything cross fire too is trash big disappointment for the corvette 1972 to 1982
We are always curious -- have you ever driven an '82 Corvette? (Or '84 with the same engine, totally different chassis?) How about a '72 LT1 or '73 or '74 LS 454?
Crossfire was 1982- 1984 (there were no corvettes in 1983)
Another dumb shit.
Values are rising
@ any car from that era is rising there becoming harder to find and it’s in a classic car era
8.1 secs?
Corvette?
I've officially lost interest.
What other American car in 1982 was faster? I'll wait. Love when uneducated people make stupid comments about performance 4 decades ago comparing it to todays cars.
@chickenjo23, it’s still crap
@@highwayxj9397 good thing that's just your opinion and not fact.
Horrible narrated vid. Turned off at :43. Thumbs down.