Your chance to buy a split window in every color offered.

[herr_oberst]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/split-window-1963-chevy-corvette-mecum-auctions-kissimmee-2024/?eml=organic:eml:brz:20231211:split-wind:article:cncldomwcst:mt&utm_source=braze&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cncldom

The dark blue one is RHD, exported to Australia!

[Baz]

Dang....thought this was about.........

[Zeke]

I used to know a LOT about the C1 and C2 working at a Corvette only salvage yard for a few months. I took them apart. I never saw a '63 with the knock off AL wheels. IDK what an off-road exhaust is — it's not side pipes. I owned a '65 theft recovery with a small block put in instead of the 396. So it sat a little high in front. Very comfortable car to drive as opposed to the C1.

I also had a '57 and a '61. If I was to buy a "fun car" of the lot, it would be the '57.

[LWJ]

A 58 dual four barrel small block has to be the single most disappointing car I have driven. May the tires were shot? It looked and sounded like pure sex. Drove worse than my 63 impala.

[Steve Carlton]

I'll take the blue one and check off a top 10 item on my bucket list.

[JackDidley]

The black/black one ticks all the boxes for me. Add some red line tires for the total package.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by LWJ

A 58 dual four barrel small block has to be the single most disappointing car I have driven. May the tires were shot? It looked and sounded like pure sex. Drove worse than my 63 impala.

Well are you talking about engine performance or the drivability and handling? The C1 use the same front end a'ssy as a 1950 PU and passenger car with rear leaf springs and a solid live axle from same.

A Dual quad SB well tuned and cammed should actually be right there with the FI of the period which was a Rochester CIS system.

I swapped out an early "doghouse" FI for a single Holley and it was a tad faster for the 283. No telling how well or not the FI was set up. No one knew how to work on them including me.

[Evans, Marv]

Originally Posted by Zeke

If I was to buy a "fun car" of the lot, it would be the '57.

Mee too. A guy I worked for during high school had a '57 he autocrossed. He was a former F86 pilot during the Korean war. The fastest I ever went in a car was his at 140 mph (on his speedo).

[masraum]

I've never been that enamored of the split windows. I prefer the years before or after over the '63.
I think '56-72 are all great looking cars. '53-55 were kind of snoozy and a little awkward aesthetically, IMO. After '72 when they got rid of the metal bumpers and went to the soft rubber, blech!

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Evans, Marv

Mee too. A guy I worked for during high school had a '57 he autocrossed. He was a former F86 pilot during the Korean war. The fastest I ever went in a car was his at 140 mph (on his speedo).

I don't think 140 was possible unless....

It was only a 283 from the factory.

The damn things tended to float a little in the front at high speed. My friend's hot rodded '60 hit 130 (on the speedo) with 4:56 gears which is also doubtful. An honest 120 I could buy given how much he had done. His 1/4 mile speeds were low 100's, 12 second or so. It was plenty street fast. He moved up to a 409 sedan.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I don't think 140 was possible unless....

It was only a 283 from the factory.

The damn things tended to float a little in the front at high speed. My friend's hot rodded '60 hit 130 (on the speedo) with 4:56 gears which is also doubtful. An honest 120 I could buy given how much he had done. His 1/4 mile speeds were low 100's, 12 second or so. It was plenty street fast. He moved up to a 409 sedan.

A Mazda miata with 133hp will hit ~115 with enough runway. I think 911 SC with 180hp are supposed to hit 140. A 3.2L 911 with 217hp will hit 150. I could see a hot 283 SBC with dual quads hitting 140. I would hope that's probably got at least 200hp. It would be gearing dependent. 456 are pretty low gears so would probably put the revs pretty high to get to 140, but may help keep the motor up around it's peak hp.

Per this site, they had anywhere from 220 - 283hp (that was a first, one hp per ci). Most of them had reported peak power at either 5000 or 6200.
https://www.corvet****seum.org/1957-corvette-specs/

[Evans, Marv]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I don't think 140 was possible unless....

It was only a 283 from the factory.

The damn things tended to float a little in the front at high speed. My friend's hot rodded '60 hit 130 (on the speedo) with 4:56 gears which is also doubtful. An honest 120 I could buy given how much he had done. His 1/4 mile speeds were low 100's, 12 second or so. It was plenty street fast. He moved up to a 409 sedan.

Of course it was a loooong time ago, but I remember it said 140 "on the speedo." Also, if I remember correctly, it was just when the electronic ignition had come out, and he had just installed one. I think it was a fuel injection. I really don't know what else he had done to the engine. I remember we rolled the windows upand after a certain speed, the wind made a sucking sound from the windows. It was on a flat strip of road outside of Colinga/Kettleman City area in the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.

[pwd72s]

Anybody here going to bid and try to keep the collection together?

[Black968]

I'll take lot# F193.1

[A930Rocket]

The C2 was always my favorite. Sky blue exterior, blue interior and white convertible top.

[GH85Carrera]

There is no factory stock 1963 car that would be a good driver for road trips or practical regular use.

My brother's daily driver is a 1954 VW bug. It looks stock, it has a 75 HP engine, disc brakes, and much improved suspension.

Even a true stock 1964 911 is not a great car for road trips or autocross. The best of the late 60s and early 70s muscle cars are slower in performance than a stock economy car of today.

Yea, those Vetts are pretty, and all car guys know of them, but no one really wants them as a driver, just a garage candy car.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

There is no factory stock 1963 car that would be a good driver for road trips or practical regular use.

My brother's daily driver is a 1954 VW bug. It looks stock, it has a 75 HP engine, disc brakes, and much improved suspension.

Even a true stock 1964 911 is not a great car for road trips or autocross. The best of the late 60s and early 70s muscle cars are slower in performance than a stock economy car of today.

Yea, those Vetts are pretty, and all car guys know of them, but no one really wants them as a driver, just a garage candy car.

I had a '65 Impala as my first car as a kid. I think a '63 impala might be OK for a lot of stuff. It's probably got the required power. If it had power steering and brakes and AC, it would probably be reasonably comfy and easy to drive.

I'm not sure that any corvette has ever been accused of being practical. Clearly more modern vettes with all of the modern amenities would get better mileage and have better performance.

I don't think anyone would buy a 60s anything thinking "this is going to be the perfect daily driver!" I've daily driven an '88 911 targa, and a couple of miatas, and now a boxster. For over 7 years, the boxster was our only car. We even put the kit in it to be able to use a child seat and used it to take my grandson to day care for about a year until covid hit.

Hell, lots of folks drive motorcycles which don't seem practical to me.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

There is no factory stock 1963 car that would be a good driver for road trips or practical regular use.

My brother's daily driver is a 1954 VW bug. It looks stock, it has a 75 HP engine, disc brakes, and much improved suspension.

Even a true stock 1964 911 is not a great car for road trips or autocross. The best of the late 60s and early 70s muscle cars are slower in performance than a stock economy car of today.

Yea, those Vetts are pretty, and all car guys know of them, but no one really wants them as a driver, just a garage candy car.

Perhaps I would need to drive one again. It was a long time ago. But the seating position, steering wheel location, and indeed the seats themselves were a huge upgrade from the C1. The suspension was changed to 4-wheel independent with a single transverse fiberglass leaf spring in the rear and they got a new front double wishbone design.

I'm sure all of it including the seat springs would need to be refreshed to get to how the car rode when new. What they didn't know then about shock absorber technology is something that could be vastly improved on for that car today. And the tires. I think it could be a pretty good driver.

All things being relative, maybe my '06 1/2T PU rides better than any car in '63 but IDT so. I will say my '96 XJ6 rides better than any other car I have been in for the last 20 years. So a Jag, the Corvette was not.

[Bill Douglas]

Originally Posted by herr_oberst

The dark blue one is RHD, exported to Australia!

Ohh, I'd like a dark blue one. And New Zealand is just like a suburb of Australia, so the car would feel right at home here.

[bob deluke]

I had 3 corvette in my younger days. A 66 coupe, 65 convertible and a 69 t-top. Awful cars. My b.I.l. had a 57 convertible, terrible riding car. Suspension sucked, hard riding and engine heat roasted your feet in the summer. You couldn’t give me an early Vette. My 77 Targa drove great and was pretty comfortable after a long drive, (2-3 hours). Most comfortable vehicle we’ve owned are the Volvo’s. Seats in our XC70 are like easy chairs, great lumbar support, heated and 8 way power.