CarSPIN Forums

Auto Talk => The Fast Lane => Topic started by: 280Z Turbo on September 17, 2005, 03:09:26 PM

Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: 280Z Turbo on September 17, 2005, 03:09:26 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/ad4dd0af.jpg)

My dad finally let me drive his 1963 Corvette convertible today, so I thought I'd compare the 2 cars just for fun. His car is by no means a show winner, but it's still fun.

The steering was incredibly light for non-power steering. I would say it had power steering if I didn't know better. The Z's steering wheel really needs to be cranked hard to get it to turn. The Vette felt great, IMO.

The 4 speed gearbox is wonderful. Very short, very precise shifts. Although, you have to get used to the fact that reverse is right next to first. (You can grind it if you're not aware of this) The Z also feels nice, but it's not nearly as precise as the Corvette. Although, the Z's 5th gear is a very nice thing that I tend to take for granted.

Any throttle input makes the Vette scream out the 2.5" chambered exhaust. The 3" exhaust w/ glasspack on my Z sounds like a wuss compared to this thing! Those who say that 3" exhaust on a Z sounds like a V8 need to hear my dad's car!

The throttle linkage was a bit mushy, I like the Z's linkage better.

The non-hydraulic clutch was a bit stiff and mushy, especially close to the floor, but at least it was smooth. I think it still feels better than the Z's clutch.

The non-power drum brakes worked much better than what I would have thought, you just have to push down a little farther and harder to get them to work. Still, I wouldn't be taking it auto-Xing any time soon. The power front disc brakes on the Z are much better, obviously.

Overall, the car's small interior makes you feel like you're in a fighter jet. The Z feels like this as well, but not as much. Although, with the top down, there are NO BLIND SPOTS which is nice, seeing as how the Z has 2 huge ones in the back. Needless to say, the Z's interior is no match for the Vette. The chrome, aluminum, and soft vinyl feels to be of high quality. The hard plastic and stiff vinyl...not so much. ;)

The ride is a bit stiff, but this is expected in a 40 year old sports car. When you go over railroad tracks, it sounds like it's about to fall apart. Pretty typical of all Corvettes before the C5. The Z obviously rides smoother but still clunks over hard bumps.

I didn't want to push it too hard, but I ain't gonna lie to ya'. I thought it would be faster. ;) The Z has boost, but the Corvette has torque. Both are fun, but I think I'd rather have the torque!
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Raza on September 17, 2005, 03:57:13 PM
So you'd take the Corvette over the Z?  

Sounds like fun!  I wish someone in my family would drive something other than default luxury and family cars.  
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Raza on September 17, 2005, 03:57:30 PM
Too right, though...more pictures!
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Tom on September 17, 2005, 06:33:22 PM
Cool!  I like the Vettes wheels.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Raza on September 22, 2005, 10:43:00 AM
Where are we on the more pictures?
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: footoflead on September 22, 2005, 11:57:03 AM
Quote(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/ad4dd0af.jpg)

My dad finally let me drive his 1963 Corvette convertible today, so I thought I'd compare the 2 cars just for fun. His car is by no means a show winner, but it's still fun.

The steering was incredibly light for non-power steering. I would say it had power steering if I didn't know better. The Z's steering wheel really needs to be cranked hard to get it to turn. The Vette felt great, IMO.

The 4 speed gearbox is wonderful. Very short, very precise shifts. Although, you have to get used to the fact that reverse is right next to first. (You can grind it if you're not aware of this) The Z also feels nice, but it's not nearly as precise as the Corvette. Although, the Z's 5th gear is a very nice thing that I tend to take for granted.

Any throttle input makes the Vette scream out the 2.5" chambered exhaust. The 3" exhaust w/ glasspack on my Z sounds like a wuss compared to this thing! Those who say that 3" exhaust on a Z sounds like a V8 need to hear my dad's car!

The throttle linkage was a bit mushy, I like the Z's linkage better.

The non-hydraulic clutch was a bit stiff and mushy, especially close to the floor, but at least it was smooth. I think it still feels better than the Z's clutch.

The non-power drum brakes worked much better than what I would have thought, you just have to push down a little farther and harder to get them to work. Still, I wouldn't be taking it auto-Xing any time soon. The power front disc brakes on the Z are much better, obviously.

Overall, the car's small interior makes you feel like you're in a fighter jet. The Z feels like this as well, but not as much. Although, with the top down, there are NO BLIND SPOTS which is nice, seeing as how the Z has 2 huge ones in the back. Needless to say, the Z's interior is no match for the Vette. The chrome, aluminum, and soft vinyl feels to be of high quality. The hard plastic and stiff vinyl...not so much. ;)

The ride is a bit stiff, but this is expected in a 40 year old sports car. When you go over railroad tracks, it sounds like it's about to fall apart. Pretty typical of all Corvettes before the C5. The Z obviously rides smoother but still clunks over hard bumps.

I didn't want to push it too hard, but I ain't gonna lie to ya'. I thought it would be faster. ;) The Z has boost, but the Corvette has torque. Both are fun, but I think I'd rather have the torque!
Sweet :rockon: ,  That is an awesome picture B)

MORE PICS PLEASE!!
[/size]
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: giant_mtb on September 22, 2005, 01:08:38 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/ad4dd0af.jpg)


That picture is fantastic...I like it a lot.  Makes both cars look spectacular!  :o  :rockon:  
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: 280Z Turbo on September 22, 2005, 01:32:18 PM
I wish the side-by-side pics were bigger. Photobucket downsized them b/c of the leaves on the ground made the pic too complex.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/DSCN0888.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/DSCN0640.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/495295f2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/DSCN0644.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/afecab5a.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/3eef747e.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/46386608.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/DSCN0643.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/4e7b2436.jpg)
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: giant_mtb on September 22, 2005, 01:56:12 PM
Turbo hybrid?
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: 280Z Turbo on September 22, 2005, 01:59:53 PM
QuoteTurbo hybrid?
Yes it's a hybrid. It's had an engine swap.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Tom on September 22, 2005, 02:12:19 PM
Is that new carpeting in the z?  Does an airbag fit in that steering wheel or did they not do airbags in '76?
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: giant_mtb on September 22, 2005, 02:13:01 PM
Quote
QuoteTurbo hybrid?
Yes it's a hybrid. It's had an engine swap.
How does that make it a hybrid?  :blink:  
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Run Away on September 22, 2005, 02:19:47 PM
QuoteIs that new carpeting in the z?  Does an airbag fit in that steering wheel or did they not do airbags in '76?
:blink:



hy?brid   Audio pronunciation of "hybrid" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hbrd)
n.

  1. Genetics. The offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock, especially the offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties, species, or races.
  2.
        1. Something of mixed origin or composition.
        2. Something, such as a computer or power plant, having two kinds of components that produce the same or similar results.
  3. A word whose elements are derived from different languages.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Raghavan on September 22, 2005, 04:13:52 PM
Quote
Quote
QuoteTurbo hybrid?
Yes it's a hybrid. It's had an engine swap.
How does that make it a hybrid?  :blink:
He means it's a hybrid because he got an '81 engine and put it in his '76 car, so it's a hybrid of two cars, if you know what i'm trying to say...
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: 280Z Turbo on September 22, 2005, 06:25:19 PM
QuoteIs that new carpeting in the z?  Does an airbag fit in that steering wheel or did they not do airbags in '76?
It is new carpeting and it's cheap crap, but it looks nice. It doesn't have any backing, so it flops around.

Still beats a $240 carpet kit! ;) I'll do it the right way some day.

I don't know why the horn was so fat in the 1974-76 cars. It looks like a go-cart wheel. :lol:  
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Raza on September 23, 2005, 07:44:11 AM
The Vette's steering wheel is HUGE.  I noticed that on the 78 I was looking at.  It's enormous!
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: 280Z Turbo on September 23, 2005, 02:38:59 PM
QuoteThe Vette's steering wheel is HUGE.  I noticed that on the 78 I was looking at.  It's enormous!
A 78 is a lot smaller than this one. This one is boney too!

It's nice to have that in the turns.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Raza on September 23, 2005, 03:46:59 PM
The grip is nice, but I'd have to say my biggest complaint about older cars is the size of the steering wheels.  Were people giants back then?  
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: 280Z Turbo on September 23, 2005, 03:52:17 PM
Quite the opposite. If you're too fat, your legs wouldn't fit under the giant wheel!

If you've ever driven a car w/o power steering you would understand why a big wheel is nice.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: mazda6er on September 23, 2005, 04:05:20 PM
QuoteIs that new carpeting in the z?  Does an airbag fit in that steering wheel or did they not do airbags in '76?
It was a lot more recent than you might think for the first airbags. My mom's '87 LeSabre doesn't have one, and neither does my grandma's '91 Camry. I believe the first airbags were used in cars some time in the 1980s. Front airbags (driver and passenger) were not required by law until 1998!  :o  
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: mazda6er on September 23, 2005, 04:06:05 PM
Nice car(s) 280. You're lucky you get a chance to drive 'em. Is the Z 100% yours?
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Raza on September 23, 2005, 04:06:20 PM
Quote
QuoteIs that new carpeting in the z?  Does an airbag fit in that steering wheel or did they not do airbags in '76?
It was a lot more recent than you might think for the first airbags. My mom's '87 LeSabre doesn't have one, and neither does my grandma's '91 Camry. I believe the first airbags were used in cars some time in the 1980s. Front airbags (driver and passenger) were not required by law until 1998!  :o
My friend's 91 Regal Custom didn't have airbags either.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: 280Z Turbo on September 23, 2005, 07:57:18 PM
QuoteNice car(s) 280. You're lucky you get a chance to drive 'em. Is the Z 100% yours?
Yes, but not legally. I don't think minors can hold the title to a car.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Raghavan on September 23, 2005, 08:48:05 PM
QuoteQuite the opposite. If you're too fat, your legs wouldn't fit under the giant wheel!

If you've ever driven a car w/o power steering you would understand why a big wheel is nice.
More leverage?
But the Elise doesn't have powersteering and has a small steering wheel.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Tom on September 23, 2005, 08:52:37 PM
Quote
QuoteQuite the opposite. If you're too fat, your legs wouldn't fit under the giant wheel!

If you've ever driven a car w/o power steering you would understand why a big wheel is nice.
More leverage?
But the Elise doesn't have powersteering and has a small steering wheel.
It's lighter.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: 280Z Turbo on September 23, 2005, 08:53:15 PM
Quote
QuoteQuite the opposite. If you're too fat, your legs wouldn't fit under the giant wheel!

If you've ever driven a car w/o power steering you would understand why a big wheel is nice.
More leverage?
But the Elise doesn't have powersteering and has a small steering wheel.
There are many factors that affect steering effort. Tire width, curb weight, design, etc. It's like comparing apples to oranges. The Vette is a totally different car.

Sometimes I wish the Z had a bigger wheel. It's quite heavy.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Raghavan on September 23, 2005, 08:53:25 PM
Quote
Quote
QuoteQuite the opposite. If you're too fat, your legs wouldn't fit under the giant wheel!

If you've ever driven a car w/o power steering you would understand why a big wheel is nice.
More leverage?
But the Elise doesn't have powersteering and has a small steering wheel.
It's lighter.
So?
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Tom on September 23, 2005, 08:54:45 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteQuite the opposite. If you're too fat, your legs wouldn't fit under the giant wheel!

If you've ever driven a car w/o power steering you would understand why a big wheel is nice.
More leverage?
But the Elise doesn't have powersteering and has a small steering wheel.
It's lighter.
So?
A car's weight rests on it's wheels.  If you have less weight on the wheels, they will be easier to turn ;)  Turning w/o PS in my car is REALLY hard.  Braking w/o power is really hard too.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: 280Z Turbo on September 23, 2005, 08:57:59 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteQuite the opposite. If you're too fat, your legs wouldn't fit under the giant wheel!

If you've ever driven a car w/o power steering you would understand why a big wheel is nice.
More leverage?
But the Elise doesn't have powersteering and has a small steering wheel.
It's lighter.
So?
A car's weight rests on it's wheels.  If you have less weight on the wheels, they will be easier to turn ;)  Turning w/o PS in my car is REALLY hard.  Braking w/o power is really hard too.
Your car wasn't made for non-power steering and brakes. The steering ratio was designed for p/s and the brakes were designed for vacuum assist.

The Vette stops fine without vacuum assist and the steering feels light to me.
Title: 1963 Corvette Convertible vs. 1976 280Z 2+2 Turbo
Post by: Tom on September 23, 2005, 08:59:24 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteQuite the opposite. If you're too fat, your legs wouldn't fit under the giant wheel!

If you've ever driven a car w/o power steering you would understand why a big wheel is nice.
More leverage?
But the Elise doesn't have powersteering and has a small steering wheel.
It's lighter.
So?
A car's weight rests on it's wheels.  If you have less weight on the wheels, they will be easier to turn ;)  Turning w/o PS in my car is REALLY hard.  Braking w/o power is really hard too.
Your car wasn't made for non-power steering and brakes. The steering ratio was designed for p/s and the brakes were designed for vacuum assist.

The Vette stops fine without vacuum assist and the steering feels light to me.
Oh.  I kinda figured something like that.