Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Corvette / October 2007
Probably A Dumb Question
|
|
Thread rating:  |
butch94 - 09 Aug 2007 04:03 GMT After 62 years of lusting after a Corvette I finally purchased a one owner 1994 coupe with 35500 miles on it and all the orginial paper work. All I can say is I love it!!!! I do have a dumb question in that I have surfed the web a lot and see the reference to C3, C4, C5, C6, etc. I am not sure I understand what these designations mean. As best as I can tell a C4 was made between 1984 and 1996? Is this correct or there another reason for the designation?
Charlie - 09 Aug 2007 04:16 GMT You are correct, they denote the generation of the car. Your 1994 is a 4th generation Corvette. 1953 -1962 was the 1st generation, 1963 - 1967 was the 2nd generation, 1968 - 1982 was the 3rd generation (there was no 1983 Corvette), 1984 - 1996 was the 4th generation, 1997 -2005 was the 5th generation and 2006 to present is the 6th generation. Hope this helps.
> After 62 years of lusting after a Corvette I finally purchased a one owner > 1994 coupe with 35500 miles on it and all the orginial paper work. All I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > between 1984 and 1996? Is this correct or there another reason for the > designation? Dad - 09 Aug 2007 04:44 GMT So if it denotes generation wouldn't it be a G1, G2, and so on? Welcome to the sickness Butch......
> You are correct, they denote the generation of the car. Your 1994 > is a 4th generation Corvette. 1953 -1962 was the 1st generation, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> the >> designation? Charlie - 09 Aug 2007 06:15 GMT Nah, more like Corvette gen 1, etc...
> So if it denotes generation wouldn't it be a G1, G2, and so on? Welcome to > the sickness Butch...... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>> between 1984 and 1996? Is this correct or there another reason for the >>> designation? 'Key - 09 Aug 2007 05:51 GMT > You are correct, they denote the generation of the car. > Your 1994 is a 4th generation Corvette. 1953 -1962 was [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> reason for the >> designation? yep, what "Charlie" said...
enjoy
 Signature "Key" =====
bmckeenospam@9.netxcom.com - 09 Aug 2007 06:34 GMT >You are correct, they denote the generation of the car. Your 1994 is a 4th >generation Corvette. 1953 -1962 was the 1st generation, 1963 - 1967 was the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> between 1984 and 1996? Is this correct or there another reason for the >> designation? There was a 1983 model but do to manufacturing problems, they were all destroyed except for one. It is in the factory museum.
Dale - 09 Aug 2007 14:25 GMT >You are correct, they denote the generation of the car. Your 1994 is a 4th >generation Corvette. 1953 -1962 was the 1st generation, 1963 - 1967 was the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> between 1984 and 1996? Is this correct or there another reason for the >> designation? Uhh... a 2005 is a C6. :)
Prior to the C4, owners called the first 3 Solid-axle, Midyear, and Shark. With the C5, GM picked up the Cx nomenclature.
Bob G. - 10 Aug 2007 18:13 GMT >Uhh... a 2005 is a C6. :) > >Prior to the C4, owners called the first 3 Solid-axle, Midyear, and >Shark. With the C5, GM picked up the Cx nomenclature. First I would like to Welcome Butch to the Corvette drivers "club" and to tell him that having a Happy Childhood is never to late to have...I am slightly older then he is...
Starting with the C4 which was refered to as an "Aero",and sometimes as the "Clam Shel" l when they first came out some people who are a lot more "savy" then me just said the hell with it all and srated using C 1 C2 etc...
The C5's were sometimes called BIG BUTT cars ...LOL my wife still uses that designition
Bob G. 64 72 & 96 Convertibles 76 & 79 Coupes
Sarah Czepiel - 09 Aug 2007 14:31 GMT C6 is 2005 to present.
:>You are correct, they denote the generation of the car. Your 1994 is a 4th :>generation Corvette. 1953 -1962 was the 1st generation, 1963 - 1967 was the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :>> between 1984 and 1996? Is this correct or there another reason for the :>> designation? tbone - 09 Aug 2007 16:26 GMT Being a techie type and not uncomfortable counting from zero, I'd call the 53-55 models "C0".
I think 56 was a radical enough departure from the prior year that it should qualify as a generation gap. Since GM locked the numbering down with C5, that leads me to prefer calling the first 3 model years "C0".
Of course then I can't really deny being a geek. I'm ok with that...
tbone C2 - '67 big block silver convertibler C3 - '81 white coupe C4 - '90 teal convertible C6 - '07 Atomic Orange convertible The collection is almost complete :-D
>You are correct, they denote the generation of the car. Your 1994 is a 4th >generation Corvette. 1953 -1962 was the 1st generation, 1963 - 1967 was the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> between 1984 and 1996? Is this correct or there another reason for the >> designation? Charlie - 09 Aug 2007 19:13 GMT Well, I personally think the 68 - 73 should have it's own designation as well, it was a noticeable change in 74.
> Being a techie type and not uncomfortable counting from zero, I'd call > the 53-55 models "C0". [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >>> between 1984 and 1996? Is this correct or there another reason for the >>> designation? PJ - 10 Aug 2007 01:52 GMT > Being a techie type and not uncomfortable counting from zero, I'd call > the 53-55 models "C0". [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>> between 1984 and 1996? Is this correct or there another reason for the >>> designation? I hear you on C0; however, many of us still believe the Romans had it right, abhorring the whole concept of zero. Not of the Gods (i.e. 'satanic.')
So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ?
Dave should be happy! -- pj
Seriously though, many of the styling changes were influenced by the thinking of Harley Earle -- you can keep the underlying frame and powertrain yet change the body without a 'model change.' I think the current numbers are pretty good.
Bob I - 10 Aug 2007 02:10 GMT >> Being a techie type and not uncomfortable counting from zero, I'd call >> the 53-55 models "C0". [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Dave should be happy! FWIW, the roman numerals are used on the engine generations.
Eugene Blanchard - 10 Aug 2007 04:35 GMT <snip>
>> So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > FWIW, the roman numerals are used on the engine generations. Since it's the 2000s, how about C001, C010, C011, C100, C101, C110? (binary for those old farts...)
 Signature Eugene Blanchard http://www.cadvision.com/blanchas Home of the DIY Hot Rod Kustom website
Dad - 10 Aug 2007 04:39 GMT > <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Since it's the 2000s, how about C001, C010, C011, C100, C101, C110? > (binary for those old farts...) It would still be binary for the young farts......
PJ - 10 Aug 2007 05:08 GMT > <snip> >>> So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Since it's the 2000s, how about C001, C010, C011, C100, C101, C110? > (binary for those old farts...) Old farts also do hex! Really old farts do octal! -- pj
CardsFan - 10 Aug 2007 13:06 GMT >> <snip> >>>> So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Old farts also do hex! Really old farts do octal! Yeah. I wrote Fortran and assembly on a CDC 6500. With 60-bit words, a screamer for its day.
AJM '93 Ruby coupe, 6 sp (both tops)
Empty3 - 10 Aug 2007 15:43 GMT >>> <snip> >>>>> So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Yeah. I wrote Fortran and assembly on a CDC 6500. With 60-bit words, a > screamer for its day. Fortran is still huge in HPC environments, particularly major labs.
Empty3 1990 White Coupe 2000 White Coupe
Eugene Blanchard - 10 Aug 2007 16:42 GMT >>>> <snip> >>>>>> So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 1990 White Coupe > 2000 White Coupe I wrote Fortran with keypunch cards on a mainframe with 4 kbytes of memory in 1973.
 Signature Eugene Blanchard http://www.cadvision.com/blanchas Home of the DIY Hot Rod Kustom website
CardsFan - 11 Aug 2007 02:41 GMT >>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I wrote Fortran with keypunch cards on a mainframe with 4 kbytes of memory > in 1973. Learned Fortran spring of '72. In '73 I was a junior, writing COBOL. What fun, lugging around 500+ card decks in my backpack. I remember what a great deal it was when we got buffered card punches. If you made a typo you didn't have to start all over with a new card.
On topic - I'm getting ready to buy new rims for the '93. I can get C6 replicas at Tire Rack for a pretty decent price. Is that like sacrilegious or anything?
AJM '93 Ruby coupe, 6 sp (both tops)
Dad - 11 Aug 2007 07:17 GMT Snip
> On topic - I'm getting ready to buy new rims for the '93. I can get > C6 replicas at Tire Rack for a pretty decent price. Is that like > sacrilegious or anything? > > AJM > '93 Ruby coupe, 6 sp (both tops) Not really but I think the '08 look allot better then their predecessors.
The Wolf With the Red Roses - 11 Aug 2007 18:26 GMT >>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I wrote Fortran with keypunch cards on a mainframe with 4 kbytes of memory >in 1973. Wasn't it surprising how much we could get done with the resources we had available? Nowadays none of the programs have any elegance in the code since memory & disk space is dirt cheap. Just use up gigs of memory and not worry about it.
 Signature
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend, Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues
PJ - 11 Aug 2007 23:07 GMT >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > code since memory & disk space is dirt cheap. Just use up gigs of > memory and not worry about it. Yeah, current crop of folk have no clue about good 'tight code.' Cut my teeth on a Burroughs B300. Lots of 12AU7 flip-flops. Scratchpad" memory was a drum with beaucoups heads. I/O was punch tape. Ran the tape thru a Flexowriter to get a printout. Then we a got a "wow" upgrade to mag tape and transistorized flip-flops.
Chief mathematician was driving a white '53 'vette. She offered it to me for $ 3K. Cluelessly looked down my nose at a 6cyl engine and Powerslide. Bought an used '61 instead -- ah, the "wisdom" of youth!
Did a human fertility experiment and had to swap the '61 for something that would accommodate offspring. Graduated to a UYK-5 with an assembler. Hog heaven! (save for the 'joys' of the CRPI.) Finally learned how to spell 'diskpack' in '74. -- pj
Empty3 - 13 Aug 2007 13:36 GMT >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > code since memory & disk space is dirt cheap. Just use up gigs of > memory and not worry about it. As early as 1989, I was working with CAD and the system required a second chip (math co-processor). I recall having a computer with a "turbo" button (to get something like 20 MHz)! The harddrive was less than 40 megs and I was the envy of all others in the company. Now my kid complaints that her MP3 player only holds about 200 songs with 1 gig!
Empty3
Tom in Missouri - 13 Aug 2007 14:51 GMT I'm laughing about how similar backgrounds so many of us had. The first computer experience I had was a time share teletype-like terminal with a paper tape drive. We would dial in to a server, run the tape, and then get the results of our program. It was in this new modern language called BASIC.
Later, for engineering classes, we used a small computer to run engineering programs. I can't remember what it was, but I want to say it was a 1600 or something. I know IBM had a 1600 series, but it seems like this was an RCA or something. The highlight I do remember is that we could play Star Trek on it. However, you have to be beyond geek to do so because it was so slow to play that game, making chess look like a speed sport. Also, by small, I mean it fit in one room, only had three boxes each about the size of a medium kitchen table the card reader, the printer, and the processor.
Then with work, there were the PDP 11 computers, DITMCO (built by Drive In Theater Manufacturing Co. or something like that and ran electronic test gear), VM-100 (?) and so on. The VM-100 (?) could be programmed by 8 inch floppies or you could do it manually in Assembly by hand from the switches on the front panel. The highlight was it had 64 kb of memory. I looked at a TRS-40 (?) at the time, and the guy was proud to announced that while it started with 4kb or 8 kb (I forget), you could expand to 16 kb and there was going to be a 32 kb expansion soon. He told me I was nuts when I told him the one I had (VM-100) had 64 kb. He said there was no computers around with that much.
Through this time, there was Fortran 4, Fortran 77, and PASCAL but I missed COBOL somehow. Remember $ job cards? I managed to mispunch one once that would shut the school computer down. It became the most valuable card ever, when you were getting close to a project deadline and needed an extra day to figure out why yours wasn't working. You could shut the computer down, it would take them a day to get it back up and running, no one in class could get their jobs done, and the prof would have to extend the deadline a couple of days. I used it several times until they finally returned it to me ripped instead of simply marked.
My first computer was a Sinclair Z80. These were later built as a Timex 1000 I think. Mine had something ridiculously small (now) like 4 kb but I think it could be doubled with an add-on to 8 kb. I might have that wrong, it might have been 2 kb and 4 kb.
The first real PC I had was an AT&T. It came as the 2 floppy drive model. The options were an expensive 10 MB hard drive and an incredibly new 20 MB hard drive, huge compared to the first IBM PC with a 5 MB and soon 10 MB drives. It was also extremely fast, with its 8 MHz 8086 processor compared to the PC with a 4.88 MHz 8088.
I scanned all the computer magazines to get a hard drive, and found the hard drive cards so I didn't lose my two floppies, which were very important to "obtaining" new software. :-) I found this 30 MB hard drive card that most around told me I would never ever need that much space and I was wasting my money buying something so big that I could never use.
Now most of us carry around 40GB to 100 GB in a 5 to 7 lb black slap about the size of two or three spiral notebooks that operate at 500 GHz and up. And some have ones that are simply limited in smallness due to the need of a keyboard. What an incredible history we have gone through.
>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> So, can we compromise on: CI, CII, CIII, CIV, CV and CVI ? [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Empty3 sir krustin - 16 Oct 2007 16:01 GMT >>>> Yeah. I wrote Fortran and assembly on a CDC 6500. With 60-bit >>>> words, a screamer for its day. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > code since memory & disk space is dirt cheap. Just use up gigs of > memory and not worry about it. Welcome to the winblows generation.
So-called "visual" development systems have spoiled developers (I don't call that type true programmers).
I remember writing a lot of stuff in assembler and getting some truly efficient code, even for it's day. (640k DOS systems w/10mb hard disk) AFAIK, some of it is still in use with the public school system in toronto.
pj - 18 Oct 2007 19:53 GMT >>>>> Yeah. I wrote Fortran and assembly on a CDC 6500. With 60-bit >>>>> words, a screamer for its day. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > efficient code, even for it's day. (640k DOS systems w/10mb hard disk) AFAIK, > some of it is still in use with the public school system in toronto. Assembler was a crutch. 8-)
 Signature pj
Bob I - 19 Oct 2007 20:40 GMT >>>>>> Yeah. I wrote Fortran and assembly on a CDC 6500. With 60-bit >>>>>> words, a screamer for its day. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Assembler was a crutch. 8-) Real programmers use
copy con program.com
;-)
pj - 20 Oct 2007 04:34 GMT >>>>>>> Yeah. I wrote Fortran and assembly on a CDC 6500. With 60-bit >>>>>>> words, a screamer for its day. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > ;-) Gawd Bob, I thought you had me there but, that one only worked with a console (kbd etc).
Punching tape chad with one's teeth was slower.
Cheers........ PJ
Bob I - 20 Oct 2007 14:35 GMT >>>>>>>> Yeah. I wrote Fortran and assembly on a CDC 6500. With 60-bit >>>>>>>> words, a screamer for its day. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Cheers........ PJ Yep, bet them hanging chads were a bitch to debug! <VBG>
Say What? - 09 Aug 2007 05:00 GMT > After 62 years of lusting after a Corvette I finally purchased a one owner > 1994 coupe with 35500 miles on it and all the orginial paper work. All I can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > between 1984 and 1996? Is this correct or there another reason for the > designation? I'll see your dumb question and throw in an even better one - For you to answer.
Can you explain how it is you've lusted after a Corvette for 62 years when they've only been produced for 54 years?
I mean, if you REALLY have lusted after them that long, contact me off list and we'll go partners on a PowerBall ticket. You can pick the number<g>
butch94 - 09 Aug 2007 13:53 GMT >> After 62 years of lusting after a Corvette I finally purchased a one owner >> 1994 coupe with 35500 miles on it and all the orginial paper work. All I can [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >list and we'll go partners on a PowerBall ticket. You can pick the >number<g> You are right they have only been around for 54 years but I have only been around for 62 years. It took me 8 years to fall for Corvettes. Thanks for the humor and I appreciate all the information everyobe gave me.
'Key - 10 Aug 2007 02:59 GMT >>> After 62 years of lusting after a Corvette I finally >>> purchased a one owner [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > humor and I > appreciate all the information everyobe gave me. actually you Have lusted just 54 years after a Corvette.
 Signature "Key" =====
|
|
|