J
jeffitz
Guest
anyone have an opinion on the desirability or lack of for this model?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Very desirable!jeffitz said:anyone have an opinion on the desirability or lack of for this model?
While I'm not totally positive, it's in my mind that you couldn't get this in a stick. Very possible I'm incorrect on this but......JJS said:As previous reply stated, it's a VERY desireable model/option. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would order one of these with an auto tranny, though.
I also think I read somewhere that the 400hp model was the least odered for those (427) years, and that somewhere down the line that may help these cars may be a little more desireable than the others, although I think the 427/435 will always be the ultimate option.
Wouldn't doubt it for a second! I used to have an automatic, my right hand got boredtitan81 said:no problems with an auto trans.
with the kits and a converter they'd peel like a manual.
The AC is true, cant go with an auto and AC69_Dream said:Wouldn't doubt it for a second! I used to have an automatic, my right hand got bored
Maybe with an automatic, I wouldn't have the grinding and the funny noises coming from the muncie... oh well. Still love her.
That triple deuce is still nice, I would even think of trading my 4 speed for that auto
Sly
i have been told that 1968 is a stay away year?Tom65L76/96LT1 said:Of the 6 vettes i have owned the rarest one was a 68 coupe 427-400 with auto trans with 37K original miles,it was restored to show car condition,i really did not enjoy driving it as i was always afraid something would happen to it,i did drive it from Grand Rapids Mich. to Minneapolis Minn. when i picked the car up,666 miles and i thought the auto trans was great,just lay back,let her go,and hang on. Bought it at the Chevy/Vettefest in Chicago in 1995,owner gave it away and 1 year later i did the same thing,why?,because it was Red with a Red interior and Red is my least favorite color after White,who can figure it? If you would like some pictures of the car,engine and interior send me your email and i will shot them to you and you can see what a really great car it was. Tom at Pologreen96vette@aol.com. P.S. yes it was the original engine and i had the original tank sticker along with the original owners name and the Chevrolet dealer that sold the car new in South Bend Indiana.
I heard the same thing, probably as far back as 1968. It's due to the fact that there was a total redesign, and from what I've read over the years, they were late in getting the line in place. I believe some of the earlier cars (I could be wrong) were put on the same suspension as the '67's.jeffitz said:i have been told that 1968 is a stay away year?
The first C3 year, it did have it's share of 1st year problems. Fit & finish, waterproofing, ventilation (the '69 Astro-ventilation was no better, still hotter than a fk even with the SB). The '68 still had the 327 - '69 brought you the 350. imho, the push door knobs weren't too attractive. The '68 is looked down on, still, maybe unfairly.jeffitz said:i have been told that 1968 is a stay away year?
Was never sorry (since '73) that my '69 was an automatic. With the 3.08 rear it cruises at 80mph at 3K and gives respective gas mileage. Most sticks at that time has 3.70's. Sticks with low rears (my '67 has a 4:11) are great for around town tooling around, but IMO, have little usage as an "all around vehicle." My '67 starts howling at 55mph. It's more a "Specific usage" vehicle. Which is more fun? the '67.ChuckG said:The THM 400 is a great trans. I'm getting too old for "gear banging". I'm more into "comfort and convenience". I just bought a "new", for me 2000 Millenium Yellow roadster. My "new" 2000 roadster is an automatic too. Wouldn't even consider buying a manual trans. Chuck