btw, I totally understand Shaun's thinking on this one. IMHO, the chrome bumper cars look way nicer that the post 72 models.

The chassis under a 1963 to 1979 is nearly identical so lot' s should be possible. The lines on the back dated C5 above don,t look any worse than some of the tuner 911 slantnose cars over the years.

x2, always loved those

I've been tempted by a few early vettes over the years. ls1 w/ a 6 speed and disc brakes in a ~62. That would be fun. Too bad they bring so much $$ now.

The first vette I drove was a 70's w/ a big block and a clutch so stiff I must have stalled it 3-4 times. When it didnt stall I put down some rubber. That was fun.

In the photos, Looks decent to my eye. But two dimensions can never convey as much info as three dimensions, which is why full scale clays are built up, finished and critiqued in daylight before the industry puts a new design into production.

But, on the other hand, given the advances in 3D computer modeling and photorealistic virtual imaging, I wonder if building clays is still a universal practice.

Did you find what you saw to be an abomination in the general sense? Or just an abomination in terms of how successful you thought it was in capturing the image of the older Vette?

General. this pic says a lot. the very front of the car is at 85% scale to the rear complicated by stretching the entire front 120% over a long wheelbase mated to the oversized, short rear end. So if you took a 73 911, stretched it a foot from the B pillar to the front struts, and put Turbo flares on the back with an impact bumper, it would be the 911 equivalent, sort of. It looks like 3 cars glued together: a diminutive front, growing, long center section, and large rear.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1315358046.jpg

I,ve owned a 1964 Stingray. Solid lifter 327 is a wonderful motor But the car looked way better than it drove. I presently have a 1966 Shelby Mustang clone and it has a solid lifter 289. It sounds great and looks awesome but my 993 is surprising in how fast and civilized it is in comparison. The obvious oddity in the car pictured above is the slope of the windshield. If it were more vertical it would be much closer to the period car and would make the front look longer and the middle shorter

You can do pretty much..........
 

anything you want if you have the time and money There is a guy here in south Georgia that has a Ford F100 body on an early 70's Corvette chassis. Really nice job, too. I had seen the truck around town a couple of times and didn't notice anything odd until I got behind it in traffic and noticed the independent rear suspension. Different strokes for different folks!

I was about to write that. The body looks decent, its not a replica by any means, but its well styled. The windshield though, is much too steeply raked to fit in the retro theme of the rest of the car. One might also want to go with wheels that were less open in spoke design, hiding the more modern brakes better.

I can't argue with you Shaun. But only because how it strikes one's own eye is purely subjective. Wouldn't want one myself, but to my eye, looks kinda nice.

Lottsa people like late model Porsche's looks. To my eye they look fat 'n' ugly.

Know whumsayin'? :)

Even if you can get a front clip, the install of the whole front section of a corvette is not for the average joe body guy. I have watched my body guy buddy, clip a few vette's, and it is some serious time consuming ,tedious, and fragile work. Takes him quite some time to get everything to fit nice, and is well beyond my skill set, and patience level. I saw him do a 65, and two early 70's cars.
The golden rule will still hold true here, it will always be cheaper to buy someone else's nice car that is finished than to tear in to a project like this.
Early 70's vettes are sweet though, if only they did not drive like shat.

For years, there was a lot full of C3 Vettes in various states of disrepair next to Pelican's first location. I don't think you would want one of these cars if you saw how poorly they were constructed.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/puke.gif

What a freakin' abortion. The four-headlight Corvette was the worst looking Vette ever built and THAT is the one that they emulate? Everything about the styling of this car is just wrong.

What, I prefer the '57-'62 vettes (2 and 4 headlight early cars) to the '63 any day.

I think my favs (most to least), '57-'62, '64-'71, C5, '82.

The red ones are nice. The blue ones are just wrong! :D

I'm with you- mostly. In order I would prefer the 57 then 61/62 and 73 (I really like the combo soft front/chrome rear- esp. with the sidepipes that were available that year).

I also had a 79 and liked it. But I also had an 82 and thought it was ugly- just too overdone.

Those mutations are about as ugly as it gets.

From your standpoint. In their time they were awesome cars. They have stood the test of time with most.

A fairly popular conversion is a late front and rear frame clip onto a '56 thru '62 chassis and stock body. At least 2 companies are making kits to adapt the clips to the body mounts. Once done, other than the wheels, it's an old looking Vette with some juice and stopping power, not to mention a lot better handling.

ditto. the windshild looks like it belongs in your lap

I agree. Prior to the C5, when they finally got it right, Corvette's build quality was poor. I bought a '99, C5, 6 spd hard top, put 78k hard driven miles on it and it stood up extremely well.

Ted nailed it for me. The rake of the windshield just throws it all WAY off.

The 55 to 62 frames are very springy. I,m surprised that the backdate industry would use 56-62 chassis and isn,t doing it the other way around The 63 to 79 chassis is much preferred in my book
I have had 2 different 64's and my mother used to have a 75. We have also had a 55,79 and 88 in the family. I and many like the midyear 63 to 67 best.