What's Wrong With This Picture: Truth In GM Advertising Edition

The introduction of the C7 Corvette is almost certainly the biggest splash expected at this year’s Detroit show. It will almost certainly be a good car; no surprise there, the Corvette has been a pretty good car for nearly its entire production run. By common agreement, there are two “dark period” in the model’s history. The original “Blue Flame Six” cars were priced above the Jaguars of the era and couldn’t come close to catching them on a track or open road. It took the why-didn’t-they-think-of-that addition of Chevy’s then-new small-block V-8 to make the ‘Vette a legend. Corvette fanciers are also eager to forget the later “C3” cars, which were awfully heavy, rather indifferently assembled, and frequently found sporting “PRNDL” markings. The nadir was probably the 1980 California Corvette, which offered buyers a mandatory encounter with the much-despised 305-cubic-inch V-8 and automatic transmission.

When they aren’t ruthlessly dissing their own stuff, GM marketing and advertising people almost universally react to the arrival of disastrous products by placing said products into ads with classic cars — anybody remember those Cadillac ads which juxtaposed the great old Caddys with a Zep tune and the rather sterile early-2000s lineup? The above effort isn’t a surprise, then… but how accurate is it?

The 1953 ‘Vette was far from rapid, so it’s odd that GM would choose a drag race to showcase it next to the new-for-’78 aeroback model. Why not a car show? A classic diner? A pair of hydraulic lifts inside a Chevrolet dealership’s service department? I mean, is this the message they want to send? The new ’78 Corvette Silver Anniversary — it’s just as f**king slow as the old ’53 was!

Make no mistake, that ’53 was slow. Performance times for that initial run of 300 cars are hard to find, but Road&Track tested the 1954 model, which had major performance improvements and a higher-pressure two-speed Powerglide, and only got a quarter-mile of 18.6 seconds at 74mph. If you’re in any of the six-cylinder Corvettes and a Prius pulls up next to you, the best course of action is to put on your turn signal before you accidentally lose your pink slip to a woman with bushy armpits and a registered emotional support dog.

By those standards, the ’78 was a rocket-powered NASA test sled. R&T managed 15.2 seconds at 95mph; that ET and trap speed are so incompatible I had to check the original article to make sure. Car and Driver got a 15.3@95mph. They also complained about the super-greasy tire on their test car, which makes me think that with modern rubber a ’78 Vette might turn a low fourteen. Either way, the Silver Anniversary Edition was a Prius-eater with power to spare and could probably hunt down a variety of non-hybrid Toyotas at stoplights as well.

Those of us who vividly remember the two-tone Pace Car and Silver Anniversary Corvettes sitting in dealerships won’t like the following fact: only twenty-five years separated those cars from the original Corvette, but they are now a full thirty-five years in the rearview mirror. If you walk back thirty-five years from the ’78 Vette, you get Vichy France and the Flying Tigers. Sic transit gloria mundi, homie.

The plain-Jane C6 Corvettes run quarter-miles in the high twelves now, so the C7 should do a fair sight better than that. GM’s unlikely to use any 1978 Corvettes in their advertising, but perhaps they should: Chevrolet sold four of those crappy old two-toners for every one of the outstanding 2012 C6 Corvette that left Bowling Green. The car gets better, but the sales get worse! Quick! Somebody get a ’53 on the drag strip and schedule a photo shoot!