Welcome to the new CCCUK website!
Our old website is still available but no longer open for new posts. Click here to visit it. Click here for more information.
If you're not already a member of the CCCUK, join now!

Looking to get into C3 Ownership - help needed please!

Vettemike09

CCCUK regional rep
Gus, I am somewhat confused by your comments about EMC latterly after your somewhat negative initial comment. I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their opinion and respect that. However, in this instance the consequences of you comments are that Gavin Roe, who owns EMC, and who is not actually a CCCUK club member, is threatening to sue all of the club committee members and has apparently sought legal advice on the subject of your comments. We are helping to run this club for no financial gain and by dedicating our own free time. If Gavin wishes to sue me then that is fine, he has my mobile number and email address but all the emails like those he sent as a result of him being “insulted” by your comments do is piss off those dedicating their time to the club and we end up in the situation where we have a depleted and despondent committee which then leads to a downward spiral. The question is, what do we do about this over the top reaction by Gavin Roe???
 

monty

CCCUK Member
Oh dear what a situation this has become, as chairman of probably the biggest off road organisation in Europe i see this all the time, people commenting on their experiences with others, as for suing HMMM, i don't know Gavin or had any dealings with him but if that had been me on the receiving end of Gus's comments i would have replied on here instead of threatening and pissing committee members off.Gus is entitled to his opinions the same as Gav is and as we don't know the full extent of the dealings between the two of them it should be those two that sort it out preferably in private not on social media.
 

Mr. Cricket

CCCUK Member
You’ve alluded to a small block with power. The stock C3 towards the end of the chrome bumper run gave 200 or 270 BHP. But in 1970 – 1972 the LT-1 was available with small block and uprated power. ’70 offered 370BHP, 71 it was down to 330 and in ’72 in order to include air conditioning it was down to 255BHP.
I have two 1971 LT-1’s although one has been stroked and is now around 425BHP the other with the factory 330 is still a blast to drive. Never available with auto trans so all are manual.

From Wiki

: Chevrolet LT-1 - Wikipedia
LT1[edit]
In 1992 General Motors introduced the LT1, 350 cu in (5.7 L) Small Block whose name was a tribute to the original LT-1. This engine was available through 1997. In a dynamometer test conducted by Super Chevy comparing a 1970 LT-1 and a 1996 LT1, the old motor produced 353 hp (263 kW) at 5,600 rpm and 392 lb⋅ft (531 N⋅m) of torque at 4,100 rpm, while the new motor produced 350 hp (261 kW) at 5,700 rpm and 379 lb⋅ft (514 N⋅m) of torque at 3,800 rpm.
Production numbers[edit]
Camaro
Corvette
Nova (COPO)
1970
8,733​
1,287*​
52****​
1971
4,862​
1,949**​
1972
2,575​
1,741***​
* 25 of these were ordered with RPO ZR1.
** 8 of these were ordered with RPO ZR1.
*** 20 of these were ordered with RPO ZR1.
**** 50 of these were converted into Yenko Deuces.
 

HJG

Regular user
Cheers guys...sorry to have opened a can of worms.
Anyway, again thanks for the help.
If the internet's good for one thing, it's broad advice on big decisions.
The LT-1 engine sure looks tempting...finding one doesn't look to be too simple. Prepared to take my time but if the right car comes up I'm definitely interested.
I'm an automotive engineer by career but these vehicles pre-date me by some years so OHV and carburation is a little alien.

I'm looking forward to Corvette ownership...
 

Oneball

CCCUK Member
You could have a ring around the usual Corvette suspects, Claremont, Corvette Kingdom, EMC. Although they might not have anything at the moment they might know of cars for sale or things that are coming up.

Have you driven one yet?
 

Oneball

CCCUK Member
I've had only a quick go in one...not enough to actually see what it's all about. I do need to get into one properly somehow!
So you know you fit then, I was surprised the first time I got in one how small they seemed on the inside.
 
Last edited:

antijam

CCCUK Member
Do you know you fit then, I was surprised the first time I got in one how small they seemed on the inside.
Despite its charismatic styling, the early C3 must be one of the most space inefficient designs of all time. A 4.62m long two-seater with no trunk and only a nominal shelf behind the occupants for storage. As you say Oneball, the cockpit is not overgenerous in accommodation and there's a definite technique involved in sliding behind the wheel

Admittedly designed to a different spec, the contemporary Mustang was the same length, had four seats and a generous trunk.
 

Johnd

CCCUK Member
Hi, I have a 75 manual convertible for sale (listed on here & facebook) if you are interested in slightly later model. Really enjoyed my ownership but want to go back to a full size 50s cruiser!
 

Roscobbc

CCCUK Chairman
Many members/users will be aware that I moderated/deleted some of the content of this thread last week. This was done on the basis that the original context had been hi-jacked and was developing in to a slanging match between various parties so much of this content was removed.
The CCCUK committee upon reflection have decided to re-instate the deleted content. The committee feels that it is fairer for CCCUK members to see ALL of the thread and make their own judgement as to the validity of the 'off-topic' content.
We need to remember that the 'hi-jacked' content relates to an individual who had previously declined previous suggestions to join the CCCUK and become an active, contributing participant. This was despite the club 'reaching out' to him following a similar debacle earlier last year.
This is a public forum and CCCUK members are perfectly entitled to make recommendations about experiences with CCCUK member traders (and non-member traders) on this forum, whether positive or otherwise as long as the comment is not defamatory.
 
Last edited:

Daytona Vette

CCCUK regional rep
At this point I am not referring to a particular Trader or comment, but the whole matter of reviews on Suppliers needs to be addressed by the Committee to a satisfactory resolve once and for all, for all those involved.
We do not wish to see negative reviews, but at the same time the Club is here for the Members and we do not want to witness a Member asking for help and then see someone directing that Member to a Trader whom we know have proved themselves not worthy on many an occasion.
It is a difficult situation that needs to be addressed
On the point of any pending Legal action, if someone has posted a defamatory remark about a Trader, not out of malice but based on their honest opinion and true fact - The Trader would be ill advised to pursue such an action against the person making the statement or indeed the publicist.

We are a friendly bunch of Vette Heads and we do not want derogatory remarks of any sort within our Forum or any unfriendly attitudes and indeed be involved with any bad traders.
I look to the Committee to find a way of keeping the Forum positive whilst at the same time preventing a Member being pointed in a bad direction - a difficult one - But the Club is here for the Members.

Now let us get back to the thread of "looking to get into ownership of a C3"
 

antijam

CCCUK Member
......Now let us get back to the thread of "looking to get into ownership of a C3"
Agreed, but just to elucidate the problem. Bad reviews are a very common internet characteristic - just read Trust Pilot, Trip Advisor, Amazon et al. Comments on a website are illegal if they are malicious or completely untrue. Comments are criminal if libellous, i.e. they constitute written defamation of a persons character.

Anyone contemplating legal action in response to web-page comments is unlikely to succeed unless either of these conditions are positively satisfied.

As Daytona Vette points out, to be of any value, reviews of suppliers of services or goods need to both positive and negative when justified.
 

Daytona Vette

CCCUK regional rep
Agreed, but just to elucidate the problem. Bad reviews are a very common internet characteristic - just read Trust Pilot, Trip Advisor, Amazon et al. Comments on a website are illegal if they are malicious or completely untrue. Comments are criminal if libellous, i.e. they constitute written defamation of a persons character.

Anyone contemplating legal action in response to web-page comments is unlikely to succeed unless either of these conditions are positively satisfied.

As Daytona Vette points out, to be of any value, reviews of suppliers of services or goods need to both positive and negative when justified.
No we do NOT want negative Reviews, but we need to somehow stop someone who is asking for help being directed to a bad Trader
 

HJG

Regular user
Thanks Antijam. Unfortunately both autos. Both adverts are thin on detail too for the price. Maybe I’ll be able to go have a look at least to see what my money gets me. Cheers.
 
Top