That was quite an interesting advertisement. I expanded it and it quoted the technical specs for the engine, which I haven’t seen outside of a manufacturer’s spec sheet or gear-head publication, before. 4-bolt mains, etc? It was designed for power.
Also, triple-two barrel carburetor? It won’t pass a gas station but I guess the price of gas didn’t matter back then.
The older brother of a friend in high school had a Corvette with a 3 carb V8 engine and he had the removable hard top.
The internet says that puts it at ’67-’69.
I never drove it and my friend said that the triple carbs were a lot of trouble to get right and keep it running right.
I remember that the older brother replaced the original carbs with a giant four barrel Holley carb.
At the moment I cannot recall the color.
I’d still like to experience driving one, but I’m thinking that what was state of the art car engineering in the late sixties would seem antique by today’s standards.
(The same criteria for antique applies to me and all those of a certain age!)
Those were the days… the triple twos were a bit of a pain, but they worked… but then so did the big Holleys and Carters. I read somewhere that there was a rumour that GM might bring back a car based on the “vibe” of the Corvair, also. The later Corvairs, once the swing axle design had been replaced with a true independent, were fabulous and very affordable real performance cars (there was nothing really wrong with the swing axles — Porshes and VWs had used them for years –but they could be a handful if you got too frisky in turns and didn’t know how to drive one, like a certain young lawyer who wrecked and decided he could make a fortune suing people rather than admitting he was an incompetent driver).
oh and one more — someone said they wouldn’t pass gas stations. Yes and no. Like all the muscle cars, they would drink gas if you got into it, but they didn’t have to. Fuel mileage, then and now, is all a matter of weight and air resistance. Nobody ever said you HAVE to use all those horses! But… they are so tempting…
For Robert — there are several factors, all of which interact, in deciding on carbs and intake manifolds. At its most basic, you want a manifold which allows air to flow as freely as possible from the intake through the carburetor(s) (or throttle body) to the intake valves. Further, ideally each cylinder’s intake path has the same resistance and length as all the others. Yeah, right. Easier said than done. There are several ways to do this, and three two barrel carbs is one of them. Some engines (notably a lot of British fours) have two. Most of the muscle cars had just one, but it was usually if not always a four barrel — which is a little misleading. Since the other problem is to have enough throat area in the carb or carbs to allow it to keep breathing at maximum rpm (this is why carbs are rated in cfm), but then arrange it so that at idle it can be made to be at least vaguely stable.
While admiring Corvettes I never had an urge to own one. My plain jane Ford with a discrete 427 cu in and 4 speed tranny didn’t draw attention. A sharp police officer might notice the huge, for the time, tires. It would eat Corvettes. About the only car I wanted (and couldn’t afford) was a Chrysler 300.
6 miles/gal… sigh… And 3 deuces were a bitch to keep tuned. Thankfully, my grandfather was a professional mechanic, and showed me all the tricks (it was mostly in how the linkage was set up).
Yes, there were cars that would beat the vette… sigh
That was quite an interesting advertisement. I expanded it and it quoted the technical specs for the engine, which I haven’t seen outside of a manufacturer’s spec sheet or gear-head publication, before. 4-bolt mains, etc? It was designed for power.
Also, triple-two barrel carburetor? It won’t pass a gas station but I guess the price of gas didn’t matter back then.
The older brother of a friend in high school had a Corvette with a 3 carb V8 engine and he had the removable hard top.
The internet says that puts it at ’67-’69.
I never drove it and my friend said that the triple carbs were a lot of trouble to get right and keep it running right.
I remember that the older brother replaced the original carbs with a giant four barrel Holley carb.
At the moment I cannot recall the color.
I’d still like to experience driving one, but I’m thinking that what was state of the art car engineering in the late sixties would seem antique by today’s standards.
(The same criteria for antique applies to me and all those of a certain age!)
Those were the days… the triple twos were a bit of a pain, but they worked… but then so did the big Holleys and Carters. I read somewhere that there was a rumour that GM might bring back a car based on the “vibe” of the Corvair, also. The later Corvairs, once the swing axle design had been replaced with a true independent, were fabulous and very affordable real performance cars (there was nothing really wrong with the swing axles — Porshes and VWs had used them for years –but they could be a handful if you got too frisky in turns and didn’t know how to drive one, like a certain young lawyer who wrecked and decided he could make a fortune suing people rather than admitting he was an incompetent driver).
oh and one more — someone said they wouldn’t pass gas stations. Yes and no. Like all the muscle cars, they would drink gas if you got into it, but they didn’t have to. Fuel mileage, then and now, is all a matter of weight and air resistance. Nobody ever said you HAVE to use all those horses! But… they are so tempting…
Gosh , if I only had a time machine and a Star Trek transporter , I’d buy two . What a beautiful car !
One word. YES!
to my eyes the most beautiful version they ever did.
Allow me to reveal my automotive ignorance: WHY have 3 carbs for 8 cylinders? 4 wouldn’t fit?
Good question.
I had to look it up.
Holley explains it in this short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aofPh_UwHx8
I sort of remember that that system was also nicknamed a six pack.
For Robert — there are several factors, all of which interact, in deciding on carbs and intake manifolds. At its most basic, you want a manifold which allows air to flow as freely as possible from the intake through the carburetor(s) (or throttle body) to the intake valves. Further, ideally each cylinder’s intake path has the same resistance and length as all the others. Yeah, right. Easier said than done. There are several ways to do this, and three two barrel carbs is one of them. Some engines (notably a lot of British fours) have two. Most of the muscle cars had just one, but it was usually if not always a four barrel — which is a little misleading. Since the other problem is to have enough throat area in the carb or carbs to allow it to keep breathing at maximum rpm (this is why carbs are rated in cfm), but then arrange it so that at idle it can be made to be at least vaguely stable.
While admiring Corvettes I never had an urge to own one. My plain jane Ford with a discrete 427 cu in and 4 speed tranny didn’t draw attention. A sharp police officer might notice the huge, for the time, tires. It would eat Corvettes. About the only car I wanted (and couldn’t afford) was a Chrysler 300.
6 miles/gal… sigh… And 3 deuces were a bitch to keep tuned. Thankfully, my grandfather was a professional mechanic, and showed me all the tricks (it was mostly in how the linkage was set up).
Yes, there were cars that would beat the vette… sigh