A sharp-looking 1964 Chevrolet Corvette is always a great find. Some prefer the coupe, but without the remarkable styling statement of the ’63 split-window, buyers in ’64 seemed to prefer the convertible, such as today’s subject. This ‘Vette is advertised as a legitimate RPO L76 L84, “fuelie” but as usual, there is always more to the story. This Corvette is located in Glen Allen Virginia and is available, here on eBay for a current bid of $45,045 with 95(!) bids tendered so far.
Corvsport claims 1964 Corvette production at 22,229 copies, 8,304 coupes and 13,925 convertibles. And, of that total, 1,325 (5.9%) buyers selected the top drawer 375 HP, 327 CI, fuel-injected engine, a $538 option! And this Corvette convertible is one of those major-domo versions.
However…the original fuel-injection engine, which is included in “block” form has been removed and replaced with what the seller refers to as “a period-correct 350cid replacement motor which also retains many of the original numbers matching components of the factory original engine such as the original 1964 heads“. How unfortunate!
While the current engine may look “period correct”, and to my eyes it does, there is no such thing as a 1964 period-correct 350, an engine that wasn’t introduced until the 1967 model year. The seller adds, “I had been planning to rebuild the original motor and purchase a correct dated 1964 fuel unit but did not find the time. This car is a fun driver with a great value…” I have read that some fuel-injected Corvettes from the ’62-’65 time frame were converted from F.I. to lesser carbureted versions due to driveability and serviceability issues surrounding the Rochester fuel injection unit. Any light our informed Corvette aficionados can shed on this matter will be appreciated.
The interior of this ‘Vette is described as sporting, “a rare white & blue interior” which looks more white and black in the accompanying images but I suppose the newly installed carpet is a dark blue nylon loop. It is all very pristine! It almost looks too nice to park one’s hindside upon those brilliant white hides. The dash and instrument panel present themselves perfectly and the original Delco “vertical” radio is always a nice inclusion. The seller mentions something about a new “dated” convertible top so I’m not certain if it is dated NOS, or a reproduction with the appropriate date included. I would think NOS wouldn’t be the best choice, especially if it and its plastic window have been folded.
The exterior’s Silver Blue finish, one of seven available for ’64, appears unmarred though there is a mention of some faded paint. The body panels and bonding strips, however, show no evidence of cracking or separation. The seller adds, “Frame is rock solid and only exhibits surface discoloration typical of age“. The knock-off wheels are listed as reproductions but they look fine enveloped by their white stripe tires, and I thought that I would never admire “whites” on a Corvette but they’re true to form for ’64. Finally, this Corvette does come with a removable hardtop, a welcomed addition for any convertible Corvette.
The lack of the original engine doesn’t seem to be holding this Corvette back greatly and maybe that’s because the original block and heads are included in the sale. That said, it’s interesting to speculate as to its value if the Rochester Fuel injection unit was present and still installed under the hood. And a replacement can be sourced but they are thousands of dollars ($7K and up). So, what’s your suggestion, leave this Chevy as is, or convert this fine-looking two-seater back into its original F.I. status?
What is the ratio of 60’s Vettes you see on the web vs ones you see in person on the streets? 1,000 to 1? In the last 5 years, I’ve only seen 1 drive through a neighborhood. They seem to be everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
They are a little uncomfortable to drive if you’re above 5’10”. kind of a cramped driving position.
I’ve owned a ’66 Coupe, a ’66 Convertible & a ’67 Coupe and never felt cramped in any of them. I was 6′ 4″ and 250 lbs, (back then). Maybe it was the thrill of finally owning my dream car. The only Corvette I ever felt cramped in was in a good friends ’62 with the top up or the hardtop on.
Two 60’s Corvettes passed by me on the freeway last week…they were speeding.
Of course they were speeding. What’s your point?
Forget the matching numbers. This is a beautiful car in its own right.
Mike is correct. For all the stupid money spent on 60s Corvettes, most if not all, are rarely driven. Most are put away by old men to give to some useless BMW driving 30 something who could care less about a real car you have to shift, roll down a window and not have Blue Tooth whatever. Old guys hang onto them, die and the kids give them away for peanuts because they have no idea what they are doing, nor do they care. Drive your car and enjoy it. I do.
Agree. The only way to keep an old car reliable is to drive it. When they stop being fun, it’s time to sell it.
Personally if it was mine, I’d drive it till the wheels fall off. Good looking car and a driver in the condition it’s in.
Coupe? Convertible? Who cares? All C2 Vettes are beautiful as long as they’re not “hugger orange”.
No problem then! You could not get a “Hugger Orange” one unless you were dumb enough to re-paint it.
I had a 64 same color with dark blue interior sold it for $7,500 back in 84 to put a down payment on a house I still miss that car
I’ll see a handful of less-than-perfect C2s driving around every summer. I’m happy to see that there are at least of few of them that are still being enjoyed.
Driving cars like this are not the problem. The problem is where do you park them when you get to where you are going.
First off, the ’64 Corvette is the “redheaded stepchild” in the C2 line up. So much so that a certain Corvette dealer used to advertise looking for 1963 and 1965-67 model Corvettes. I’ve often said if not for the Split Window, the ’63s would be in the same category as the ’64s. That’s just the way it is.
Also, I find part of the text to be contradictory. It says, “This ‘Vette is advertised as a legitimate RPO L76, “fuelie”.” The L76 was the 365 HP 327 while the 375 HP Fuelie was RPO L84.
I got the RPO code wrong, it’s fixed now.
JO
Good deal, Jim. Thanks!
That false opinion is the pleasure of any 64 owner. The 63 is hastily put together with a ton of unique and hard to find parts. The 64 has the best looking interior nicest lines up until 67. The issue is drum brakes. Being so easy to make that change there is really no reason for this.
The ’63 does have many unique parts for that year but you are the first person I’ve ever heard say they were “hastily put together” and I’ve been involved with Corvettes for over 50 years.
As far as the ’64’s interior being the best looking and the cars having the nicest lines except for ’67, that is your opinion. But the sales of the C2 cars says otherwise.
And yes the drum brakes are the problem. And yes they can be changed to discs. But first, that will cost you a lot of money so you may as well just buy a ’65 or ’66.
And if you change the brakes to discs, you have affected the originality of the car and most people would frown down on that.
Nice car, I would own it