Why no Boot/trunk
- Thread starter Nassau65
- Start date
Chevrolet
CCCUK Member
So presumably, the trunk/boot space is still there/available? You just have to push the luggage etc in there via the cabin with the seat backs pushed forward? Do remember reading that the C8 is the first modern generation Vette, where the Convertible has as much trunk space as the Coupe. Including the "essential" space for the two sets of golf clubs allegedly?
https://www.motortrend.com/news/can...tte-convertible-hold-many-golf-clubs-coupe-1/
https://www.motortrend.com/news/can...tte-convertible-hold-many-golf-clubs-coupe-1/
antijam
CCCUK Member
The architectural mantra that 'Form follows function' has occasionally been successfully applied to vehicle design - the Fiat Multipla and the Ford transit spring to mind - but in many cases car design is a triumph of form over almost everything else; the '63 'Vette cabrio seems a good example.
There's no trunk on a '63 because that's where the fuel tank goes and the fuel tank goes there because the spare wheel has usurped its place. I've banged on before about the practicality of my 1963 V8 powered, ladder frame chassis, glassfibre bodied, convertible sports car compared to the 'Vette, but the utilisation of space is strikingly different.
The interior of the '63 'Vette convertible is a nicely styled cosy habitat for two - and with the top up there's room for a bag behind the seats...
The interior of the '63 Daimler SP250 is a more basically styled cosy habitat for two....plus two!.....hood up or down!
...... and it features an enormous boot (trunk)!
It carries a full sized spare under the boot floor and has a 14.4 US Gallon fuel tank. This is admittedly smaller than the 18.05 US Gallon tank of the 'Vette, but then it does 30 miles to the UKGallon....not likely to be achieved by the 'Vette!
I willingly hand the styling prize to the 'Vette, it's an iconic piece of design and the best that can be said about the SP250's design is that it 'divides opinion!'
For touring in style with the top down and a V8 burble behind you the 'Vette is a whiz - for touring with the top down and an (even better!) V8 burble behind you .....and with more than a toothbrush as luggage, the SP comes into its own.
There's no trunk on a '63 because that's where the fuel tank goes and the fuel tank goes there because the spare wheel has usurped its place. I've banged on before about the practicality of my 1963 V8 powered, ladder frame chassis, glassfibre bodied, convertible sports car compared to the 'Vette, but the utilisation of space is strikingly different.
The interior of the '63 'Vette convertible is a nicely styled cosy habitat for two - and with the top up there's room for a bag behind the seats...
The interior of the '63 Daimler SP250 is a more basically styled cosy habitat for two....plus two!.....hood up or down!
...... and it features an enormous boot (trunk)!
It carries a full sized spare under the boot floor and has a 14.4 US Gallon fuel tank. This is admittedly smaller than the 18.05 US Gallon tank of the 'Vette, but then it does 30 miles to the UKGallon....not likely to be achieved by the 'Vette!
I willingly hand the styling prize to the 'Vette, it's an iconic piece of design and the best that can be said about the SP250's design is that it 'divides opinion!'
For touring in style with the top down and a V8 burble behind you the 'Vette is a whiz - for touring with the top down and an (even better!) V8 burble behind you .....and with more than a toothbrush as luggage, the SP comes into its own.
Nassau65
CCCUK Member
More thought SHOULD have been given to the chassis design to allow a conventional trunk/boot. Just replacing the boot area with a fuel tank is bad design. Trunks/boots are a requirement of cars ( certainly to 99% of people)
Same could be said of the C3.
I suppose Chevrolet & GM thought corvettes were not bought by “families “ or they were the 2nd car not to be used on family outings.
They were obviously right on all counts as sales figures were very impressive
Same could be said of the C3.
I suppose Chevrolet & GM thought corvettes were not bought by “families “ or they were the 2nd car not to be used on family outings.
They were obviously right on all counts as sales figures were very impressive
antijam
CCCUK Member
Thats one beautiful Daimler SP250! Can't call it a Daimler Dart can we? ............
No, indeed we can't! Daimler designed the car very much with the american market in mind - fins, V8 motor...that's what the yanks like, right? When it was introduced at the 1959 New York Motor Show (where it was incidentally voted the ugliest car at the show - not an auspicious start?) as the Daimler Dart, Chrysler, whose Dodge division was already selling a car with the Dart name, took exception.
Under threat of legal action Daimler quickly changed the name, rather unimaginatively, to SP250. SP for Sports and 250 indicating the engine size 2.5 litre.
This was the original american sales brochure....
I think what particularly pissed Chrysler off was not just the name but the remarkable similarity of the script used to that of the contemporary Dodge Dart emblem....
Anyway, the name was changed as the later sales brochure - now anglicised - shows.....
Incidentally, I own the Dodge Dart badge in the piccie above and occasionally toy with the idea of fitting it to the SP. I'm still undecided, but I guess the risk of a multi-million dollar lawsuit by Chrysler now is slim...?
As an aside, the SP250 V8 engine features hemispherical combustion chambers. Chrysler I believe has copyrighted the 'Hemi' name so not only can we not call the SP250 a 'Dart', we can't call it a Hemi either!
Despite its enhanced practicality the SP250 was, not surprisingly, outsold many times over by the contemporary 'Vette.
Last edited: