If you're going to be posting about cars that have "jumped the shark" then basically anything that existed when the gas crisis hit in the early 70's will fall under that category. In fact, I think it will be shorter to list the things that don't fall into this.
 
Personally, I've always liked the styling of the Stingray corvettes. However the powertrains in those are disasterous at best.
 
Of course, didn't the 'Vette start out as more of a roadster and evolve into a sports car (in the same way that a Mustang started out as a muscle car and evolved into a low end sports car before going muscle again)? Any car that has changed it's category by that much can be considered to have "jumped the shark" because it's no longer the original.
 
How about a list of non-exotic and non-luxury vehicles with a decent amount of history that haven't jumped the shark?

Seeing that the Corvette has always (well, since 1955, anyway) stood for an amazing amount of handling and performance for the price, you're pulling one heck of a stretch to claim it's 'jumped the shark'. Yeah, the C3's were the poorest of the bunch. Care to compare them to a Ferrari or Maserati (Biturbo anyone?) of the era. Or, for that matter, anything of that era?
 
Nah, the Corvette has always stayed true to form. Which is why it's always been GM's bright spot, no matter how may Cimarron's, Vega's or Aztek's roll down the line.

my only question is...when will GM give us something ALL NEW to look at other than the dated corvette? Great powertrains but the exterior of the car just doesnt do it for me anymore...well then again Im not buying one so I guess my thoughs dont count...

“ . . . while genuine changes to the car have been minimal over the past 10 years it remains one of the best performance bargains on the planet. Has it made it back over the shark pool. Technically, yes.”
 
Past 10 years?
 
Well - Ten years ago, a Chevy Corvette w/4 speed automatic had 345 hp
MSRP when well ‘loaded’ was approx $42k
0 – 60 was 5.3
Quarter mile: 13.8
( Point of reference: These acceleration times roughly match what a 2008
Pontiac G8 GT achieves. This is a rather large, 4DR sedan – priced starting at $30K. )
Corvette was tested: 11/97 Car and Driver
 
Today, ten years later, a Corvette with an automatic
( 6-speed now ) 400 HP ( net ) and a reasonable selection of options
has an MSRP in the high $40s to just over $50K
( And can be purchased for roughly $45-46K
  http://www.kerbeck.com/kerbeck/kerbeck.nsf/corvette_special_offers )
  
0 – 60 for a 2006/07 automatic has been independently reported as 4.6
Quarter mile: 13 flat or better
[[ The 2008 has a 0.2L larger V8 and even more HP\TQ
   Those who regularly drag race stock Corvettes
   have been running in the mid-12s ]]
 
You are well aware that the quicker a car is, the harder each additional,
incremental improvement is to achieve.

I once raced a C3 when I had my 97 Accord. It was a sad day for Corvette owners everywhere. I talked to the guy after the race and he expressed how disappointed he was in 'vettes of that era. I asked him why he bought it and he told me, "Well, it was a fast car when it was new." If the Corvette was the fastest affordable car of the 70s, then I'm glad I was born in 81.
 
I always thought the C4 was the worst Corvette. But then I never drove a C3. After looking at the figures, though, I'd agree with you.

For all those interested, here is the blind date commercial Karl was referencing:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rRPyvS1TPKQ

its is pointless to single out one model as being crappy in the 70s and 80s when so many cars were in the same category. As far as I can tell the mid 70s through mid 80s was a dark age in terms of automotive performance so its hardly a case of the Vette falling behind while the rest of the industry flourished.
 
"But the old image of the threadbare gray velour seats, dingy (and misaligned) dash plastic and stumbling acceleration as I moved that first Corvette around the lot is hard to erase. "
 
This is a problem for people of a certain age group. For the under 30 or under 35 crowd this is not really much of a concern. I know little about the powertrains of C3 Vettes and I really don't want to know about them. The engines offered in cars 25 years ago were weak and pathetic by today's standards. I don't see any 25-30 year old cars that impress me. Design, power and build quality was lacking during that era. I wasn't even conscious of the vette prior to the late C4 models and ZR-1. The ZR-1 certainly was impressive to me as an 11 or 12 year old.

Karl, I agree that the C3 & C4 (with the exception of the ZR1) were not the best cars in GM Corvette history. I remember going thru GM training school many years ago and some GM engineers labeled the C4 as plastic p... o. s.....
 
The newer generations like the C5 & C6 have a better quality and ergonomics. If I'm going to buy a Corvette I will gun for the ZO6. I won't even waist my time on the regular coupe. Drove both and the regular runs out of steam at the top and the handling is not there. The ZO6 is far better.

Does anyone else think that the Corvette jumped the shark in 1997? Seems to me the C5 is the version that Honda-ized the Corvette line & left us with a pretty bland, if capable, sports car. The old ones had quirks and personality PLUS performance. They were raw and ragged, which was part of the apepal, I'd argue.

"Does anyone else think that the Corvette jumped the shark in 1997? Seems to me the C5 is the version that Honda-ized the Corvette line & left us with a pretty bland, if capable, sports car. The old ones had quirks and personality PLUS performance. They were raw and ragged, which was part of the apepal, I'd argue."
 
I dont think so, but if it is true then I know who to blame. I would say that nowadays when you're spending so much money on a car, raw and rugged just doesn't cut it.

Thanks for posting the video link. I was looking under "beer commercial corvette" because I forgot it was a vodka commercial.
 
Gotta love commercials where you remember everything but the product...
 
As for the entire industry suffering in that period -- the C3 hit in 1968, and it was actually a year late (it was supposed to hit in 1967), so the move to that car's belabored styling, along with the aging/outdated platform, hit years before the "Automotive Dark Ages" took hold.

Even in the so-called automotive dark ages, there were still appealing sports cars. I think that term applies more to every-day sort of cars, no?
 
First the M3, then the Mustang, now the Corvette....this is a popular car slaughter!

The only Vette I like is the C6- the others were ugly to me and I hated the pop up lights. But who cares? Look at that car now.
 
I'll take an automatic with magnetic ride control, leather wrapped interior and the sport exhaust system. I'd probably kill myself in a Z06 or ZR1 so I'll leave those off the wish list. During a lunchtime walk, some guy did a full throttle run down the street in a black LS7 powered Z06. That experience would easily erase whatever bad memories I had of previous Corvettes. No GT-R will raise the tiny hairs on the back of your neck from 2 blocks away.

"There aren't many 55-year-old models on sale in 2008"
 
If you add the age of the Econoline, Crown Vic, and the Ranger together, you get close to 55!
 
A 70s era Corvette is still better to look at than a 70's Toyota Corolla. In fact can a car start on the other side of the shark and jump over it as it ages?
 
I think I just gave Carl material for two or three more articles.

I have to agree with the bit that talks about first impressions. The fist time I saw a 'vette was in 91, and as a little kid, it looked cool, I was never going to drive it so it didn't have to do anything else.
 
Last year I finally got the chance to drive one, and I loved it, though it was not exactly stock, since it had racing seats and a roll bar, but still, I'll always remember, and love, that car. As Karl said, the first impression I got is that it's a fast, fun and livable car. I hope I can buy one of those (in the same color, yellow) one day.

The C3 (and C4) Corvettes are fair game because they were pretty much the best/only big 3 sports car (not something Toyota would claim for the Corolla). Yes, Porsche and Ferrari had their performance stumbles in the '70s, but not near the extent of the C3. At least looks and performance (if not reliability/build quality) turned around with the C4, so the C3's at the bottom.

"Which cars from the 70's didn't suck?" would make an interesting blog topic in and of itself. At the risk of thread-hijacking, I'd posit the Lancia Stratos and Honda Accord might be candidates.

I think the Z-cars weren't that bad during the 70's, relatively, of course.

Every car that I've seen that was sold in the 70s looks like crap to me. I am glad those days are long gone. Cars today are by far the best they have ever been.

There were nice looking cars in the 70's. Jag E-Types, Aston Martin V8 Vantage, BMW M1....
 
True enough that those are all sports cars / exotics, but still, I find it hard to believe even 1487 thinks they look like crap.

Karl,
 
I think you're going to have to revisit the definition of the phrase "jumped the shark". Like its namesake, the item (or show, or whatever) that has jumped the shark also means that it has never been the same--never able to recover to the point at which the "jumping" occurred.
 
On almost all cars with such a long run, there's going to be a version of it that is certainly less desirable than the others, but that doesn't mean it's "jumped the shark". I think the Corvette certainly falls into this category. Yes, the C3 was a disaster in many ways, but can we really say that the C3 has caused the Corvette to never recover to its glory days? I think not...

I'd say the 70s did more to force Americans into trucks than any other event. Trucks became the sole exemption to power and gas requirements, so that's what everyone started buying.

Oh well some people like Grits some don't,so for all that don't like American Sport Cars like the Corvette and other Muscle Cars that came into this world before They did, don't be intimidated,be happy. I once got beat by a Honda also-street racing,red light changed,my radar went off and he took off, what a race,he got nailed before next light only 125 yards away. Talked to him,was a verry sad day for him too. Was not so much the ticket he got,but the fact he only reached 50mph in that distance. Wow! As for Corvette's yes there were years when horsepower wasn't there,but the fun of Driving America's Sport Car was there as it will be now and always,with Class. So be kind and love all and don't be IMTIMIDATED.

I won't be IMTIMIDATED ever again.

I agree with tackepj - the "jumped the shark" analogy doesn't quite work here. More like David Caruso leaving NYPD Blue, languishing through an attempted film career, and then rediscovering glory on CSI: Miami.
  
I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding styling - the C3's pale in comparison to the mid-year Vettes. However, I believe 1979 was the best year ever for Corvette sales, so the C3 hardly jumped the shark from a sales standpoint. I think the real issue is that, like the Ferrari Testarossa of the 1980's, the pudgy late 70's Vettes (I tend to refer to them as disco Vettes) have become an icon of a specific era and as a direct result look dated today. Their sad performance (in)capabilities only compound the issue.
  
By the way, the first Vette I ever drove (circa 1990) was a 1965 convertible. The second (circa 1991) was a 1990 ZR-1. My first impressions were slightly bettrer than yours...

You bracketed the "bad years" quite effectively with those rides. Great cars!