Despite these
NOT R EADY FOR MARKE T Originally shown as a New York City Motorama concept car in 1953, the Corvette was put into production hurriedly. With a handmade fiberglass body, just 300 examples were built for the first model year, compared to an estimated 1,274 Healey 100-4s. By design or simply because at $3,498 it was rather expensive for the day (a Chevy business coupe cost $1,524), only well-off or well-connected indi- viduals owned the first-year Corvettes, including John Wayne and various VIPs as recognized by General Motors or its influential dealer body. Interestingly, the list price dropped to $2,774 for the St. Louis-built 1954 Corvettes.
The ’53 Corvette and 100-4 proved there was more than one way to skin a cat. And while the Healey holds a performance edge from its torquey inline-four, the rarer six-cylinder ’Vette will always trump it in the market.
fundamental differences, both of the fledgling sports cars were designed for America. After several previous automobile manufacturing projects, Donald Healey got the idea for what would become the 100-4 during a drive across the U.S. in 1948, where he saw great enthusiasm for the affordable new MGTC. With America its intended market, this largely explains why an estimated 90 percent of “big Healey” production was left- hand drive. It’s also why every Corvette ever built by the factory is left-hand drive.
Just as BMC tapped the corporate parts bins for the production Austin-Healey, GM used many existing parts to create the Corvette. The engine block and most of the front suspension were of Chevy passenger-car origin, although there were proprietary powertrain components such as the cylinder head, carburetors, intake manifold and ex- hausts. “It was a design exercise, thrown together as quickly as possible,” recalls Corvette historian Jim Gessner. “I don’t think GM answered the question of what a sports car should be with that first model. The six-cylinder with three carbs was a neat idea, but with the Pow- erglide it missed — they should have used a three-speed manual.”
Gessner still defends the early Corvette’s performance credentials, however. “Despite the powertrain, some guys in that era liked what they were and raced them,” he says. And you could never call any Corvette fragile. Based on robust Chevrolet passenger-car engineering, the Corvette’s bones were solid as a black- smith’s anvil.
Ed Wittwer, a Corvette collector and restorer, adds: “The 1953 model’s high point was as a specific two-place sports car, and that was something pretty unique at that time — the start of GM en- tering the sporty-car market. Low points probably included the rush to market; the debut was very hurried and as a result there were a lot of preparation issues, particularly with the body fit and finish. The major drawback, of course, was the automatic transmission. A sports car with an automatic was never really accepted.”
Despite low initial production and an eventual reputation as a performance dud (at least in some circles), the new Corvette had its supporters. “Having
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76