39 Year Ago Today

[Stewart A.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

It's funny Joe how you were awe struck by the introduction of the shape of the 68 model. I got the same feeling when I first laid eyes on the C1 and the C2 and the C3 and the C4 and the C5 and the C6 I think I just like Corvettes ? I think there all keepers. Stewy

[Wayne M.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Pictures ! .... Pictures... (of the young Joe Lucia, and the younger '69 convertible) .

[Richard S.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today & 43 Years Ago on 10/13/1965

Tom,

Very interesting information you posted.....PM sent.....

Rick.

[D S.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Joe, that small block Corvette is something of a rarity given as many "factory" big blocks being...I mean, that were produced. I've told several Corvette owner friends of mine who own small block C-3s that they need to keep their cars as those small block Corvettes are becoming rarer and rarer to see.

Before buying two 1970 convertibles I almost bought a 1969 350/300 convertible because it was a vast improvement over the 1968 Corvette and the first year of the 350/300.

Thanks for all your contributions to the NCRS and the Technical Discussion Board.

[Dale S.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Joe, In 1967, I too opted for the removable hard top with no soft top for the same reason. I spent the savings on a BB, PS for the wife and a black vinyl cover on the hardtop (wife). I got the 390 HP 427. Dale

[Tracy C.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Joe,

Now that this thread is floating again It becomes apparent that another year has past (now the big 40) and I have to ask....

Did you finish up the two day's work and drive the car to San Jose?

tc

[Ralph P.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Sure great to read about all our "old vette " stories ! I've owned my 67 since '86 ; but, there's a '66 coupe somewhere out there with a current owner looking for me ( hopefully ) .
I ordered this '66 in late November '65 from Hill Chevrolet in Huntsville, Alabama ...( later became Royal Chevrolet ) . I was graduating from the University of Alabama & ROTC would guarantee Vietnam in my near future. I was determined to have my new Corvette regardless .
I remember being called to the dealership ( early February ) & watching my new Vette come off the truck ..... what a beautiful car ! .....427/390, Laguna Blue, blue leather, M21, posi 3:70 , Teak wheel, Tinted glass, and AM/FM , No PS, No PW , No A/C ( What was that in '66 ? ) .... Cost was $ 4100 & my GMAC payment $ 112.44 per month .
We accumulated some Virginia miles while I was a Junior Officer in training & my baby ended up parked in my dad's garage from Dec. '66 to Dec. '67 while I was otherwise occupied . Here comes the bad part ! .... After reentering the real world & getting married , I sold ( very reluctantly) the Vette in the summer of '68 . This occurred in Akin, S.C. .... sold with 17,000 miles for $3100 ! I gave the new owner every piece of documentation & have no record of the vin . Since I have no record of even the buyer's name , my thought was perhaps USAA Insurance would have their original records.... not so.... I'm told not available back that far. Long story short.... maby there's a '66 Coupe owner out there with a possible need to know a little about some early history .
....hmmm , now I'm wondering if GMAC might have any old records ??

[Joe L.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Joe,

Now that this thread is floating again It becomes apparent that another year has past (now the big 40) and I have to ask....

Did you finish up the two day's work and drive the car to San Jose?

tc

Tracy----

Well, I'm sorry to say I did not. But, I'm just a few inches now from the "finish line". In fact, I should be out there right now finishing it up. But, it's going to be too hot today.

[John M.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Boy, you have the self control of a Saint....

I'd be chomping at the bit and duct taping the last few pieces on if I had to.... Sitting on phone books if the seats weren't in yet...

I'm going to start calling you Iceman.

Then again.... What's the rush? You've had the car 40 years and know it's not going anywhere right?

[Tom B.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

What a great story. I bought my 1959 on Sept 2, 1969. It will be 51 0n Nov. 7th. I also seem to be able to walk past it daily without stopping to work on it. Yours is much closer to operational than mine is though.

Tom

[Peter M.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Joe - curious. Did you not opt for the high performance small block due to gas mileage? It seemed from your previous 2 396's(with 2nd far stronger than the 1st(L78)) that you had performance in your blood. Not knowing any better, would have guessed, if sick of big blocks, you would have switched to high performance small block at the time. Was it due to cost or gas mileage?
Just curious.

Thanks

Pete

[Joe L.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Joe - curious. Did you not opt for the high performance small block due to gas mileage? It seemed from your previous 2 396's(with 2nd far stronger than the 1st(L78)) that you had performance in your blood. Not knowing any better, would have guessed, if sick of big blocks, you would have switched to high performance small block at the time. Was it due to cost or gas mileage?
Just curious.

Thanks

Pete

Pete-----


I recall my deliberations well. In fact, the choice of the base engine or L-46 was one of the two most difficult choices I had to make as far as how to order the car. It boiled down to BOTH of the issues you mentioned PLUS another: driveability.

When I ordered this car I was a "fresh-out-of-college" guy still working (now full-time) at his college job. I was making VERY good money for the time (more than most guys working in their post-college career jobs). However, a $5,000 car was a VERY expensive car at that time. It was approximately twice as much as I had paid for any of my Chevelles. So, I was trying to save ever dollar I could. That entered my thinking as to which engine to order.

Second, my second Chevelle (the 1968 with L-78) had been a BEAST on gas. It only got about 7 MPG. Now, folks think why would one care when gas was selling for 35 cents a gallon. Well, 35 cents a gallon may sound cheap now, but adjusted for inflation, it was not much different than $2.50 gas is today. In fact, the 1968 Chevelle was the only car I ever drove that I ran out of gas with----TWICE in the only 18 months, or so, I owned it. If you didn't watch the gas gauge constantly, it could happen. I DO NOT LIKE RUNNING OUT OF GAS. It took me THREE TANKS OF GAS to get from my home in the SF Bay area to the Los Angeles area in the Chevelle (and, just as much to get back). So, that was on my mind. I figured there would probably not be very much difference between the 300 hp and L-46 regarding gas mileage but I was so sensitized to this GAS HOG thing, I wanted to do the VERY best I could with this new car.

Last, the L-78 had also been a beast from the standpoint of driveability. It was very "finicky". Went through spark plugs like popcorn. Pre-ignition ALL THE TIME, even on Chevron Custom Supreme, the highest octane gas available on the street at the time. No matter what adjustments I made to it, PRE-IGNITION ALL THE TIME. I HATE PRE-IGNITION. I thought to myself, the L-78 has 11:1 CR and the Corvette L-46 has 11:1 compression ratio. Do I want to take that chance? The answer: A BIG NO.

So, considering ALL of the above factors, I decided that the 300 hp was the way to go. As it turned out I was extremely happy with my choice. The 300 hp was a DREAM (although I did have some pre-ignition problems with it until I solved them in 1975). In fact, my satisfaction with the engine was probably the biggest reason I kept the car for so long.

Now, in case you're wondering about the OTHER difficult part of my decision process, that was whether to order a coupe or convertible. Actually, at the time, I ABSOLUTELY HATED "ragtops". I just LOVED the idea of the new "t-top". After all, it was JUST THE RAGE at the time and I loved the look of the coupe's "flying buttress" rear roof-line. On the other hand, a convertible (with one top) was about 350 bucks cheaper than a coupe. That was a LOT of money at the time. The cost of the car had me scared, anyway. Saving that much was a big deal to me. I knew that I didn't want a "ragtop", but I figured that a convertible with hard-top only would be pretty much like a coupe. So, that's what I ordered to save the 350 bucks.

By the way, for many years, and especially after I had the car paid off in 3 years ($126.61 a month), I regretted the decision to buy the convertible. I figured if I had just "bitten the bullet" I would have had it paid off by then and would have had what I really wanted. For the first 5 years I owned the car, I never even removed the hard-top once.

Time changes things. I stopped driving the car day-to-day in 1977. Then, I started liking convertibles more. Then, I started removing the top for day trips. Then, I started LOVING convertibles. Then, in 1986, I added a soft-top to the car (at a cost of over $1,200) so I could use the car as a convertible on multi-day road trips. Then, I THANKED MY LUCKY STARS that I had tried to save 350 bucks in 1969!!!!!

[Rick S.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Joe, I've really enjoyed your story. Have you ever seen any stats on how many Riverside Gold cars were produced (The Black Book does not quote stats for paint usage in 69)?

[Robert E.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Joe, I'm curious, how did you solve the pre-ignition problem in 1975?

Robert

[Joe L.]

Re: 39 Year Ago Today

Joe, I've really enjoyed your story. Have you ever seen any stats on how many Riverside Gold cars were produced (The Black Book does not quote stats for paint usage in 69)?

Rick-----


I don't know how many were produced. However, I have not seen very many of them on the road, even back in the day when 1969's were NEW and there were a lot of 1969's on the road. Curiously, I have a friend that is also the original owner of his 1969 and his is Riverside Gold, just like mine.