Probably A Dumb Question

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

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:16:37 -0500, "Charlie" >
wrote:

>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.
>
>"butch94" <u36506@uwe> wrote in message news:766ac0a653fe4@uwe...
>> 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?
>>
>

Well, I personally think the 68 - 73 should have it's own designation as
well, it was a noticeable change in 74.

"tbone" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:16:37 -0500, "Charlie" >
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>"butch94" <u36506@uwe> wrote in message news:766ac0a653fe4@uwe...
>>> 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?
>>>
>>

tbone wrote:
> 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
>
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:16:37 -0500, "Charlie" >
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> "butch94" <u36506@uwe> wrote in message news:766ac0a653fe4@uwe...
>>> 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?
>>>

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.

PJ wrote:
> tbone wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:16:37 -0500, "Charlie" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> "butch94" <u36506@uwe> wrote in message news:766ac0a653fe4@uwe...
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>
> 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.

FWIW, the roman numerals are used on the engine generations.

"butch94 via CarKB.com" <u36506@uwe> wrote in message
news:766fe85cb4f37@uwe...
> Say What? wrote:
>>> 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>
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Message posted via CarKB.com
> http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...vette/200708/1
>

actually you Have lusted just 54 years after a Corvette.

--
"Key"
=====

Bob I wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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...)

--
Eugene Blanchard
http://www.cadvision.com/blanchas
Home of the DIY Hot Rod Kustom website

"Eugene Blanchard" > wrote in message
news:m2Rui.83160$tB5.48728@edtnps90...
> Bob I wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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...)
>
It would still be binary for the young farts......

Eugene Blanchard wrote:
> Bob I wrote:
> <snip>
>>> 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.
>> 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...)
>

Old farts also do hex! Really old farts do
octal!
--
pj

"PJ" > wrote in message ...
> Eugene Blanchard wrote:
>> Bob I wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> 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.
>>> 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...)
>>
>
> 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)

"CardsFan" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PJ" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eugene Blanchard wrote:
>>> Bob I wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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...)
>>>
>>
>> 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.

Fortran is still huge in HPC environments, particularly major labs.

Empty3
1990 White Coupe
2000 White Coupe