Help me here 63 corvette vs 63 E coupe

Look the ,63 corvette is built like a truck…full frame with a bolt on cab…well it is a truck. Did it have 4 wheel disc brakes, independent suspension, straight 6…what about weight…top end …cornering…
on the indy oval was it faster…in track time…how about longevity of the engine…I seem to remember the 409 of the time…what happened to that. Why was it not produced for 30 years…
What about front double wishbone front suspension…still in “vogue today”…is the E more relevant or the "truck covete…
Am I biased…you bet…My family owned a muscle car lot from '65 to ‘76…seems to me…today…at 61.years old…i was looking at a bunch of trucks…did the indy race full frame “trucks”/// As in olds w-30, Chevele 454, Nova ss 396, camero z-28, mustangs…all trucks even the shelby gt 500… gtx…a truck, Even into the "heavies like Buick Rives, cads olds toranodo…buy the way got 8 mpg…
So tell me how the "chevy’s’ ,well GM of the day (who brought us collision bumpers… are anything but a truck…the collision bumpers was just a way to stop competition…
Gm…if we had a CAPITALISTIC…FAIR… market would be GONE

Is Gm still using a push rod engine or double overhead cam and why??? Miata anyone??

We are comparing a '63 corvette to a '63 E …
Diga me…tell me
Mitch
ps…triumph spitfire…full frame vs E vs corvette…I think the spit represents the corvette???,lets see swing axle…front suspension…check…ah the spit is a corvette???
What says you all

Both.

But…

If you are a big guy, Corvette.
If you are of smaller frame, E.

“American Muscle Car”. LOL.

:grinning:

Andrew…I know you can do better then that…share some real knowledge??
Mitch
I, also, like the split window…to look at…how about performance…it is just a truck…is it NOT…A SPITFIRE

1 Like

I actually really like the split window 63 car, although a 58 or 59 would be my choice. They are just so beautiful.

In Monterey a few years ago they had a black split window as a display car for a car polish company. It was beautiful.

I’m not sure I would actually enjoy driving one though…

I’ve never really had a great deal of attraction to American cars. That may be because I really had no exposure to them as a child in Australia as they were rarely imported as they were all LHD. We did have a lot of British cars though, including their sports cars.

We had “Aussie muscle cars” manufactured in Australia by GM, Ford and Chrysler, but they were similarly mechanically primitive to their American cousins, and largely they were pretty ugly. These cars now bring big money in Australia but no one else is interested in them overseas.

I had a vanilla “dice” with a 70’s corvette a while ago while driving my E Type through the Adelaide Hills. He nailed me on the straights, but I was all over him in the corners without much effort.

The vette is just ugly compared to the E and was waaaay behind the E in terms of auto technology. Unless you have national pride driving the decision the E wins at every point…just my opinion of course.

ya well, there is a '63 corvette selling for more then the '67 E that just sold…both BLACK on bring a trailer…so WHY…fools “gold” or better
mitch

The split window model is the top of the tree in terms of price and popularity isn’t it?

And Philip might recognise an Aussie muscle car as we did export them to South Africa.

Apples to oranges my friend. Two totally different automobile concepts.
Do you prefer coffee or tea at breakfast? etc.
Phillip

As driving machines, totally different.
The Vette almost drives like a truck - a lowered one. Fast in a straight line. No rust in the body. Frame is steel and may rust. Poor panel fit. Very simply built. Easy to work on.
The Jag is a sports car. Smooth ride, quick/fast and corners fairly well. Rust ? Oh yes ! Decent panel fit. Complex build with monocoque tub and engine frame, fancy suspension front and rear. Disc brakes and so on …
They will both give you a Sunday drive with a grin on your face.
Probably equally good investments where there are outliers like the 63 split window and early flat floor OBL cars.
Personal preference is as Philip says: coffee or tea for breakfast.
I take coffee - and tea in the evening !

1 Like

I know a guy who was a boy in occupied Germany. He tells of the American GI’s stationed there and seeing his first Corvette - “like something from outer space”. Hi migrated to Australia and bought a '62 Corvette which he still has today. It was a split window but a previous owner made it a single. Our muscle cars were “largely…ugly” but not this one to my eyes. Always my personal favourite as a boy.

holden-hq-monaro-2

1 Like

I had just emigrated to NZ about the time these Monaros’ came out and did a tour of the east coast of Aus in late ‘69 with a brass band and can recall looking out for them.

I’ve actually owned both…
A 1963 red Vette convertible and our current '64 FHC. Our '58 and '59 Corvettes were different animals - king pin front ends, live axle and cramped seating with an odd steering wheel angle.
A so-called C2 Corvette ('63-'67) has far and away the best driving position of any contemporary. The steering wheel and seats are one time adjustable with serrated plates and sliding the steering shaft and re bolting it (a feature removed in later C2’s for legal reasons). The pedal box is huge. The flexible nature of the frame isn’t that apparent because the suspension is well controlled with respect to spring rates and front / rear balance. GM didn’t dominate in this era by luck - their stuff was refined. Worked in a Chevy service department for 10 years circa this era - refined cars had few ridiculous failures (I could cite all the ones folks will bring up, but in the big scheme, no big deal). The “E” rides better. The fit and finish of the Corvette is much better in factory trim. The Corvettes you see now have the headlamp doors redone from wrecks and many have had the schnoz replaced with Testor’s model glue.
We love our current Jaguar, but no contest if you’re talking about reliability and ease of repair. Owned both, worked on both and the Corvette may have a ladder frame, but the refinement of things like the wipers, seat tracks, door locks and all the little things that make a car usable is so far ahead of the Jaguar they aren’t even in the same universe. Just as the '53 through '62 Corvettes can’t compare to the '63-'67. The 1968, by contrast, was ruined by a tight toe box and some initial issues with the daily quality items mentioned earlier. The steering column was a Nova item as a correct unit wasn’t designed for the new body - result was a poor steering wheel position, so the whole interior, which was one of the best, was now one of the worst.
None of this is that relevant, as we own these old cars for reasons of style, cultural memory and other intangibles. Obviously we have a Jag and not a 'Vette. But if this thread is about a direct comparison, well then we get into the “bench racing” aspect that car enthusiasts fall into. A truck carries plywood better than a car - not in dispute. A '63 Corvette is more refined in any practical daily use measure than an E-Type - not really a big deal, since we are not hauling plywood with either car.

4 Likes

…speak for yourself!

:wink:

All good and we’ll-made points. Comparing a Vette to an E, is comparing apples to apple fritters.

Personally, I cannot stand pre-C4 Vette’s, except for the '63-'66 Sting Rays. Had I the money, I would have bought that '67 I recently helped sell, and make it into a better car, just so I could look at it!

Personally I’ve always thought the roof on coupe c2’s were out of proportion with the body, too big! Much like the jag e 2+2, well, maybe not that bad.

1 Like

Now that you mention it… yeah. The Vette hardtop has never been as graceful and integrated as the E.

That said, I suspect the Vette’s work better!

You actually like the C4?

They can be fantastic low mileage bargains $$ if you wanted one in your garage.

I liked the C4 that I owned. It was an '84 and was a gift from my father in law after he could no longer drive it. It had the much maligned “Crossfire” injection and an auto, but was still a much better performer than almost anything else put out domestically in the mid-80s. There was just a certain visceral pleasure from sliding in, sitting a few inches off the ground, firing it up and listening to the exhaust rumble behind you. And with the truly massive rubber in the rear (and front) combined with low CoG, it cornered like it was on rails.

Drove it as my daily for a few years then traded it for a 2006 Camry. But I digress . . .

Ours was a convert. On these cars I do like the convertible better. The top “works a treat” as our English friends might say.
On the early E’s I like the FHC, later cars the converts - all subjective and not a 'dislike, rather a ‘prefer’.
Off, but on, topic - man are the roads bad! Any car not an SUV is just hammered on these cart tracks. Our Infiniti G37xS has the hard suspension, and even as a modern car it rides so hard it isn’t pleasant. I think the E does better on some of the not-so-bad bad roads than the Corvette would.

1 Like

Probably essential with fiberglass which is not the best choice for a stressed monocoque body. Different horses for different courses?

Maybe because GM had the resources to develop better engines? Meanwhile the more common 283-327 and it’s variants have been in production for near 65 years.

They seem to have managed to keep it competitive.
.
.
I’d welcome a 63 split window into the garage with open arms.

3 Likes