The valve covers are not correct for the 64 as noted in the article. the casting flaw that runs through the "o" in Corvette was only for late 66 and 67 C2s, not for the earlier C2.
Mark, thanks so much for pointing that out - I missed that one! I believe that these valve covers became standard for the ‘65 model anyway, and that the 64s still had the plain metal covers? Let me know if that’s correct. I know my ‘65 had the newer valve covers. Please feel free to fact-check my posts - I slip up sometimes :-) And thanks for subscribing to my Substack.
I agree that the ‘64 Corvettes have traditionally been the “red-headed stepchild” of the C2 generation, but because of the insane popularity of the “mid-years,” I don’t think I see that quite as much these days. I’ll have to check the Hagerty valuation site, compare the current ‘63 and ‘64 convertible values, and see if there’s much difference.
The valve covers are not correct for the 64 as noted in the article. the casting flaw that runs through the "o" in Corvette was only for late 66 and 67 C2s, not for the earlier C2.
Mark, thanks so much for pointing that out - I missed that one! I believe that these valve covers became standard for the ‘65 model anyway, and that the 64s still had the plain metal covers? Let me know if that’s correct. I know my ‘65 had the newer valve covers. Please feel free to fact-check my posts - I slip up sometimes :-) And thanks for subscribing to my Substack.
Of course, '64s are the unloved car of the C2 generation. That what makes them an ideal platform for resto-modding, IMO.
I agree that the ‘64 Corvettes have traditionally been the “red-headed stepchild” of the C2 generation, but because of the insane popularity of the “mid-years,” I don’t think I see that quite as much these days. I’ll have to check the Hagerty valuation site, compare the current ‘63 and ‘64 convertible values, and see if there’s much difference.
Just checked Hagerty:
1963 Corvette Convertible w/250 HP engine, #3 condition: $59,100
1964 Corvette Convertible w/250 HP engine, #3 condition: $45,600
I thought the difference would be larger, but the '63 is still higher valued than the '64.
Thanks for the info. Surprising, because these two cars are not very different. For almost $15k difference, I would take the ‘64 for sure. :-)