1. To compare steering action, a hard right hand bend was made at 20-30 m.p.h.
2. To measure relative cornering ability under full-power race conditions, timed runs were made through a pylon slalom course.
3. To evaluate overall road capability, Fitch drove high-speed runs on the sports racing track. Tire s- -all inflated to five pounds over recommended pressures -- were rolled under to the point where scuff marks ran half way up the sidewalls.
4. To evaluate cornering, cars were taken around a sweeping right hand curve at maximum speeds at which effective control could be maintained. Speeds ranged from 50 to 55 for Avanti, Riviera, and T-Bird, about 65 for Corvette.
5. Road evaluation. Each of the four cars in turn were taken over a 25 mile route of two-lane blacktop highways selected to permit evaluation of the ride, roadability, handling, braking, and acceleration of the car at 35 to 65 m.p.h.
6. To measure fuel consumption, the four cars were driven in convoy across country for 58 miles at approximately 50 miles per hour without floorboarding. Fuel tanks were topped up before and after the run. Mileages per gallon were as follows: Corvette, 17.1; Avanti, 16.4; Riviera, 15.6; T-Bird, 16.2. This was approximately continuous running with only a single traffic stop and moderate hills. And here is Fitch's hard hitting appraisal of each car, made during and after Test #1, the initial understeer appraisal:

We noticed on Avanti the vaugeness (in response) associated with supercharged engines, however to a remarkably small degree. Steering is heavy and quite slow. On this first short run the torque reaction lifting the inside right rear wheel on a slight right turn is extreme, to be expected from a car with a heavy front end, lots of power and a live rear axle. Inside rear wheel lifts and spins easily on dry pavement. Avanti lifts a bit less on a left hand bend when that is the inside rear wheel. "On the same understeer curve on T-Bird, a hard right bend stalled out the engine, and the car understeers quite badly. There's less feeling of understeer coming to the Riviera from the T-Bird. We note better throttle respomse and no stall out.

Corvette feels like a car! Suspension, steering, balance, the comparison between over and understeering are all so tremendously better than the other three, it's actually a different category of vehicle … Corvette taken through the understeer turn at 28 m.p.h. Others at about 20 m.p.h. "Corvette's power steering is very satisfactory at low speeds … turning circle remarkably good and short, it's about 40 feet but feels shorter … I like the grip of the steering wheel, but would like the wheel just a bit further forward. This can be done through under-hood adjustment of the splined shaft." After eacg car was taken for a series of runs through the slalom handling course, Fitch made these comments: "Corvette's best time was 20.4 seconds, but our first trip through the pylon slalom course took 20.6 seconds. It seems that when we went to second gear on a right hand turn with Corvette that there was fuel starvation, as if carburetor jets were uncovered.

Avanti's best time was 21.5 seconds. The understeering of Avanti is very evident in the slalom test… the car is not responsive at all. Slow, heavy steering in combination with very heavy front end made steering accuracy very poor. Shift linkage resists quick and easy changes, is not up to par on this four-spped transmission which is the same being made by Warner Gear in Ford, GM, and Studebaker cars.

Thunderbird's best time was 22.5 seconds. Understeer on T-Bird was as bad as on Avanti, throttle response was very poor… when you open it on a tight turn the engine doesn't take hold for some time. This is precisely at the point where you want power to help the car around… generally unsatisfactory for this sort of maneuvering."

Buick Riviera's best time was 21.4 seconds. "On the slalom course there's even more feeling of understeer than with Avanti. That surprised me, as the Buick is actually better balanced with less of a front end weight bias; however, that's the sensation of driving it, and the tires are at respectable pressures … so all we can say is that it's a characteristic of the car. Undoubtedly, Riviera's power steering doesn't keep pace with the driver's wheel movements in tight situations … Don't know that this means much in highway driving, but there it is."

If you do turn the wheel very quickly, or possibly in a loss-of-control condition where the car is fishtailing, a fast responding driver might not be able to get out of it because of this sluggish response where the power steering cannot keep up to the wheel movement. I'm kind of disappointed in the feel of the car; however, the times through the slalom course weren't bad, so I guess it's respectable." (Riviera's automatic transmission was in low.)

After the third and fourth sets of tests, the high-speed and curve runs, Fitch summed up his track impressions in the following taped message. "T-Bird may not have been going as fast through the hard, fast right hander, as the other cars (55-60 m.p.h. indicated) because it refused to take the throttle. There was more bottoming of front suspension than in the Riviera on this turn, although it was the same sort of bottoming as on the Riviera. I'd say these cars are similar, although evidences of quality are much more apparent in the Riviera. This also applies to the suspension and handling--they are both the same kind of vehicle, but the Riviera is a highly refined automobile. "I think it's darned good … in considerable contrast to the Avanti which just doesn't make it in this luxury league… it acts, feels, and sounds like a car that was made in a hurry. It doesn't qualify in the sports car category… neither, we hasten to add, does the T-Bird or Riviera … " :We figure the approximate speed of Avanti, Riviera, and T-Bird at about 55 m.p.h. coming through the sharp right hand bend or "hook" at the end of the main straight. T-Bird was a bit slower because it lost positive fuel feed coming through the curve. This wasn't as bad as Avanti's surges of fuel starvation coming intermittantly like dots and dashes of Morse code." On the second day the four cars were taken out on the highway during a steady rain for over-the-road evaluation. During each identical run of approximately 225 miles, Fitch commented as follows:

Thunderbird on the Road – First of all in this T-Bird you notice comfort. Seats are deep and soft and there's plenty of room up front, at least. In all these close-coupled cars, the front seat occupants get real stretch-out space whereas the people in the rear seats don't seem to fare so well, The car's complex and powerful heating and demisting set-up gives you you a feeling of luxury. Control is effortless on the road. The understeer and slow response to steering control noted on the track isn't a problem on winding roads at all – you only notice it when you come to sudden sharp curves and turn the wheel too quickly. Power steering is accurate and quick enough to guide the car around these winding, narrow roads at good speeds (50-60 m.p.h.) T-Bird is quite well insulated against road and wind noise. Along with the soft, absorbant ride this quiet gives you the feeling of plushness, with very little engine noise or sensation that the mechanical components are working hard.

On this rippled blacktop, there's a certain amount of tramp and rear axle hop that we're conscious of you've got to expect it with a big, unsprung, live axle like this one – but until road surfaces get worse than these high-crowned, secondary blacktop roads – the T-Bird's suspension is easy to live with. Body shake doesn't seem to be a problem either, although on really rough stretches, you get the sensation of some vibration in the large masses of the doors. Brakes are smooth … certainly adequate for normal road use. Power assist is properly correlated with amount of pressure you put on the pedal … it doesn't panic stop you unless that's the sort of stop that you want. T-Bird is much more satisfactory as a road car than its sluggish, understeering performance on the track would have led me to expect … in that respect the car is a pleasant surprise and our final impression is definitely an upbeat one."

In the Riviera I notice first of all a simplicity and quality of the interior… what the British might define as a 'Gentleman's Carriage' fine motor car feel. Like the black, no-reflection areas of the whole instrument panel and center console… chrome is moderately used. Forward vision over this broad hood seems better… perhaps because of the absence of a dummy air-take bump. Nice, smooth power flow through the automatic transmission… under full-throttle take-off it does not break traction, yet response is more powerful through the Buick's torque converter transmission than the T-Bird's. It seems both more positive and more efficient."

Car has good control considering it's nature. With this weight you couldn't use it without power steering in traffic. On winding, corduroy-type black-top roads, the Riviera has rear axle tramp or hop due to the heavy, unsprung weight of the axle. Ride is excellent, and, on most surfaces all anyone could want, and every bit as good as T-Bird. However, there is more juddering, nore body shake over these rough secondary roads than T-Bird has. Possibly it's due to Buick's use of separate body and frame in contrast with the T-Bird's welded, one-piece hull structre which combines body and frame." (PM's Auto Editor adds the thought that T-Bird's Hotekiss rear suspension, where long leaf springs are the onlt connection between axle and chassis or body, may be a reason for the lesser amount of body shake in contrast to the Riviera which has a system of rigid links connecting the axle with the frame.)

There's better wiper coverage on the Riviera than on T-Bird, with more overlap of blades to minimize center blind spot. Instrument panel layout is good with the three-dial grouping directly in front and nicely cowled against night-time reflection up into the windshield. It's a pity that with such a nice start Buick didn't see fit to put instruments on their panel! All we've got to go by is a speedometer and a fuel guage … and, of course, the usual collection of Christmas tree lights to warn one of something or other. There seems to be a bit more room in Riviera than in the T-Bird … There's definitely more room than in the Avanti. Brakes are good, powerful, however the power assist is much too sensitive … it comes on with a bang before you really want it or expect it."

Corvette on the Road – Normally, this type of car is one of the most awkward to get in and out of or sit in but Corvette is as easy to get in and out as any front seat of its type. Getting into an E-Jag, for example, is quite a contortion. Corvette's got wide doors and good height thanks to that cutout in the roof … Without power brakes the brake action is very pleasant, easy to use and not a hard pedal. Relative location of brake and accelerator allows you to heel-and-toe it without any trouble. It's easy to drive … delightful … so responsive. It's comfortable … forward vision seems, surprisingly, fully as good as the other cars even though you're sittingabout four inches lower.

The windshiled corner post is obviously pretty substantial (fiberglass reinforced with steel), but it doesn't obstruct vision badly at all. Seats are quite good, but could give more back support. I'd like a cage effect to hold upper torso, the rib cage, in place. Also, as on Mercedes, I would like to see perforated leather. Now, we're on a very comfortable road, the same area where Riviera and T-Bird were constantly bottoming and wallowing. At 55 m.p.h. Corvette takes it well and smoothly. With a car of Corvette's power-to-weight ratio, you must take considerable care with the throttle — feather it on sharp turns, gravel, wet leaves, etc. or you'll breakloose … This is one reason Corvette race drivers, to be successful, must be very very good. This is especially true with the former model with its live axle. However, even with the new suspension there's still enough power to break traction.

In gearing there isn't enough difference between first and second ratios. First gear is too high for maximum acceleration (i.e. too low numerically in conjunction with low overall axle ratio). Other gears are quite reasonable. Driving Corvettes in 1960 at LeMans we could hold a number of Ferraris everywhere except down in first gear where they would walk away from us until we got into higher gears. On rough, corduroy-type blacktop the suspension is no harsher in feel than Avanti's and the car remains perfectly stable--does just what a good independent suspension ought to do. Only time that we get wheel tramp is on a washboard section of road with a lot of power on; otherwise you just sort of hear the suspension working and nothing comes through in the form of cowl shake, loss of directional control or any other bad effects. You actually have to induce tramp in rear wheels by using too much power.

Corvette's a highly satisfactory road car – comfortable, good road-holder and has good response … (PM's Auto Editor adds that, on bad roads, that it is actually truly as comfortable as some other cars where softer spring rates, body mounts, etc. insulate the passenger compartment more thoroughly even though you get more jar or feeling of firmness in the passenger area, Corvette's better control over rough surfaces makes the passenger's total ride feeling just about as relaxed as in the other cars. John Fitch agrees).

Avanti on the Road – There's noticeable rear end noise from ring and pinion; we pushed it hard on the track, possibly the rear end is overworked. We find that Avanti doesn't break loose under hard acceleration on wet asphalt pavement, however. It's quite obviously a sporting suspension compared to the Riviera and T-Bird, not uncomfortable and not unpleasant, with a good solid feeling. However, understeering characteristics are evident even in highway driving; there's a delay in the response when you want to turn … It just doesn't seem to want to come around. The seat is obviously harder and more containing , it locates your body more than on the Riviera or T-Bird but its basically comfortable and not objectionably hard. The floor falls away so you don't get much of a brace with your left foot … good amount of foot room. Already there's some discoloration around gearshift boot … gearshift linkage has some looseness that transmits vibration up into the cab and we hear it. This supports observation that this particular car, at least, is put together in a hurry and not up to the finish quality of the other three.

Vision forward compares favorably to T-Bird and Riviera … vision to left is better. Driving position is quite satisfactory; wheel location is good … difficult to find a flat resting place for your left foot that's comfortable. Engine response to full throttle, as on the track, seems to come in two or three stages; there's no consistent and immediate throttle resonse. On the Avanti we found a lack of the rear axle hop found on both Riviera and T-Birs … because ride is firmer and axle is controlled by firmer shock settings and torque reaction rods fastened to the frame.

Avanti definitely bottomed on railroad tracks … and there's more harshness, general cowl shake and rattle of window frames, etc … the road holding ability for a heavy, live-axle car like this, with not much sprung weight to compensate for the unsprung rear axle, has reached the limit. We are not considering its action on corners at this point, but rather how well it retains contact with the road surface. It's not unpleasant interms of ride and wheel hop, though. But the overloaded front end does produce harshness on washboard road surfaces, vibration and a higher noise level than the other two (Riviers, T-Bird).

Corvette as a Racer – After he had completed evaluation runs, we asked driver-designer Fitch to sum up his reactions to all four cars with some special emphasis on the racing competition potential of the new Corvette. "The type of car these four cars seemingly represnet points up Detroit's idea that "money is going out of style." This is not altogether a bad thing as it promotes innovation and variety. It's also a result of the impact of the imported cars witheir varied types … now U.S. cars show considerable variety too …

In its standard form, the new Corvette becomes a first rate sports car that looks and costs as if it will go 150 miles per hour, and it will. But nobody but a certified maniac would try to exploit its potential outside the limits of a race track. Corvettes's chances in international racing remain as before – the possibility of picking up an occasional high placing when the fast cars are not present, due largely to the chronic overweight problem which stalks U.S. cars. By dint of some inspired driving by Dick Thompson and a few competent supporters, past Corvettes have, and the new Corvette will, pull off a few good wins in racing. I say this on the basis of personal experience. Ten years ago I was racing a 3000 pound, 5 1/2 liter (340 cubic inch) sports car, the Cunningham, when such vehicles had their greatest opportunity of winning (the new Corvette is 3000 pounds and 327 cubic inches). In fact, the Cunningham was actuallt the fastest car at LeMans in 1952 and only failed to win because of a fluke engine fault … sticky valves. But by 1955 it was clear that the big engine approach was hopeless when Briggs Cunningham was forced to withdraw his big, Chrysler engined cars. Smaller engined, lighter cars with better brakes, lighter gas loads and less tire wear had this big engine concept beaten.

In the meantime, European competition has made even furhter improvements in lighter construction, better roadholding, higher engine output per litre, (now approaching 100 hp, per litre) and reduction of frontal areas. American efforts, such as they are, have trailed way behind … best U.S. results have been achieved by outright copying, the the adopting of complete units such as Dunlop or Girling disc brakes, Cooper and Colatti gear boxes, etc. These have been used on the modified Buick engined Cooper Monacos etc. and, have done quite well. The new Corvette, by virtue of its design, can't be anything great in international racing; however, it is a great value for the money and will race well in American club circuits.

European Innovations? Touching on some of the innovations that these cars represent … disc brakes on the Avanti … the quite improved cast-aluminum finned drums that the Riviera uses with cast iron liners … things of this kind are pretty much old hat. Allards and Jaguars were using the aluminum drum in England 15 years ago. The Avanti's disc brakes are new (to production cars) in this country, but they are British Dunlops made by Bendix copies of brakes used by Jaguar to win at LeMans in 1953, and they also appeared on the production Citroen DS 19 back in the mid '50s. The use of the long radius rod and the unsplined axle shaft as a control arm in rear suspension. as on '63 Corvette, also harks back to Dr. Porche's GP design for Cisitalia in 1948.