The C4 , The Car that Defined A Generation

"-Amateur" (amateur) 08/13/2013 at 01:35 • Filed to: None

26

100

"We could obviously build a $100,000 Corvette and blow away the Ferrari Testarossa, but I'm not sure what the point of that exercise is. That just shows that you can do it. Our goal is to do it at 25% the price." -Don Runkle 1986

The C4 was the pinnacle of GM technology when conceived, and gave rise to the modern Corvette as we know it today.

C4 poses with its successors

The c4 had some big shoes to fill considering the runaway success the C3 was for GM. The C3 raked in more than $100 million annually for the General. The GM board finally authorized a completely new model for 1983 to replace the aging C3. The C4 didn't actually go into production until 1984 model year, but 70 "engineering" cars were produced for 1983 model year.

Ideas for the C4 went rampant amount design and the engineers. Wankel rotaries were out of the question as GM had disappointing results with them during testing. The AeroVette brought promise to a mid-engined layout. Then there was looming government proposals of a "gas-guzzler" and a corporate fleet average of 19 mpg. Performance and fuel efficiency now had to be considered.

John Delorean, Chevrolet's general manager at the time, proposed downsizing the Corvette onto the Camaro/Firebird F-body platform to cut costs. Thankfully, Chief Studio 3 designer Jerry Palmer and the head of Corvette engineering Dave McLellan, shut that idea down quick. Delorean seemed to more profit hungry than actually improving on the Corvette.

Zora Duntov always advocated that the Corvette be mid-engined and a car that he could "proudly drive in Europe." Duntov retired in 1975, and McLellan didn't care much for that malarky. The Corvette is an American car, for American roads and drivers. He stuck to the front engine, rear wheel drive setup.

Porsche created their own Corvette anyways. Corvette stylist Tony Lapine left GM to work for Porsche in 1969. Lapine was the design chief to the front-engined, rear wheel drive 928. Porsche is European and not mid-engined, How about them apples Zora, jk.

Now came the time for McLellan to set real targets for the '83 Corvette to hit: It had to be the best handling sports car in the world, the suspension must remain compliant at full speed over uneven roads, must have a minimum of 16" wheel ( Palmer's request for styling purposes ), a minimum ground clearance of 5.25 inches, and tires capable of 140-145 mph speeds while keeping crisp handling, a quiet ride, efficient water shedding, an interesting appearance, and at least a 10,000 mile tread-life with enthusiastic use.

Goodyear's VR50 Gatorbacks met all those objectives utilizing a few tricks they learned from their F1 rain tire development program. These fat tires required engineering to widen the Corvette another 2" just to fit them. Then came help from good ole' Colin Chapman.

Yeah, Corvette engineers stole the backbone engineering chassis structure design that Chapman first pioneered in his Elan model. This gave the C4 better structural rigidness and they widened enough to cram in the drive shaft, exhaust, catalytic converter, plumbing, and wiring. This also allowed them to lower the seating floor 2" to the bottom of the chassis while simultaneously increasing headroom and lowering the roof line an extra inch. The lowered roof line, decreased frontal area which decreased drag, and improved fuel economy. Thanks Colin Chapman!

The C4 styling hails from John Cafaro...the youngest designer in Studio 3. Cafero took elements from a Jaguar XK-E (the clam shell hood) and the wrap-around split seam from Ferrari's 308GTB.

Presto!

Palmer saw potential in this clamshell hood design. He wanted to make the engine and mechanical parts all seem integrated. McLellan was on board with this and so both staffs coordinated engine castings, suspension pieces, spark plug wires, and so far as color coordinate pieces to ad visual impact.

Z R-1 engine bay, but nonetheless...gorgeous.

Charles Toner fine tuned the C4's shape at wind tunnel speeds up to 140 mph. His prognosis...needs more cowbell.

But Seriously, he made the call to add fender gills to the C4 in order to vent the air pressure build-up under the hood that could potential pop the thing open if left unchecked.

Then came the affectionately called "breadbox" design. It was created to pre-empt a government mandate for passenger safety...which never happened. What does the Corvette team do at this point? Meh, just leave it. It's too late in the game to change it now.

Now to the nitty-gritty. Engineers replaced all four brakes with lighter aluminum iron ones, yielding a 70 pound savings between all four corners. The suspension was fine-tuned to touch 1.0G of lateral acceleration. The entire C4 frame weighed just 351 pounds and was rigid enough to allow a removable roof center section, ain't nobody got time for T-tops.

Traversely mounted leaf springs saddled the car...which is awesome. These springs were made of fiberglass to avoid eventual sag and the setup allowed them to work as ant-sway bars. This allowed engineers to drastically reduce the width of the C4's traditional sway bars.

C4 under wraps:

Time was running out and engineering wasn't fully done with the C4 for it's 1983 introduction. Do they release the car as is or delay it to make it perfect? The GM board made the call to wait it out. Finally, production fired up on January 3, 1983 with VIN numbers identifying it as a 1984 car. There are reports that 11 of those cars actually had legitimate 1983 VINS from the assembly line...but who really knows? maybe Big Foot? Find him and let me know.

The C4's were monsters on the track.

They were banned from SCCA competition at the end of its 1987 season because they C4's smoked the competion in the Showroom Stock series. Covette had ABS brakes which allowed the C4 to go racing speeds in the rain, whereas the competition ( ahem...Porsche 944s ) were spinning all over the track. The real fun happened when it was C4 vs. C4.

In 1984, the C4's stunned the racing world. They won 19 races in 19 starts. For 4 years straight, they took every race in the SCCA series, be it the Playboy Challenge, Showroom Stock Gran Touring, or the Escort GT Endurance Series.

1986 Z51 equipped cars can sprint to 60 in 5.8 seconds, topping out at 154 mph.

1987 bumped horsepower up to 240.

1988 added a less restrictive exhaust, hp stands at 245.

1988 brought on the 35th anniversary coupes

1990 Enter The ZR-1

"Some people at Chevrolet don't think the ZR-1 would generate the additional volume that would be worth the investment. My position is that this project has nothing to do with volume. This is a different thing. This is to get the Corvette to be the unquestionable leader." - Don Runkle

This was the end result of Lotus and Chevrolet collaborating together. It had the LT5 V8 with dual overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder and pushed 375 HP. It took 18 months of development and at 2:30 a.m. on May 1, 1986, in Norwich, New England...engineers at Lotus fired up the very first LT5. After running it for 30 minutes, they turned off and uncorked the champagne to celebrate. The LT5 was Chevrolet's first new V8 in 21 years, since the Mark IV in 1965. In 1993, that power jumped to 400 HP, capable of running 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. It never really sold in high numbers...but that wasn't the point, now was it.

You eventually had the emergence of the twin turbo Callaway Corvettes which gave the ZR-1's a run for its money.

1992 had some styling revisions inside and out:

and some Pace car replicas in 1995:

1994 saw a revision to the LT4's output to 330 HP.

As a final farewell, 1996 brought the Grand Sport Package Z16. Only 1,000 of them were made.

The C4 lived for 13 years, selling a total of 368.180 units, earning GM nearly $100 million in profit throughout its life time. Cars come and go, but the Corvette is hear to stay...the C7 stands testament to that.

Credits to vetteweb.com, corvettefever.com, MotorTrend, corvettes.nl, and Corvette fifty years by Randy Leffingwell

Decay buys too many beaters > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 01:47

1

Great write up! My dad has a 1986 C4 and from a technical and design standpoint it really is amazing for the time.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 01:49

2

Great article. I nominate it for best of. Whenever that comes back.

Also wow the 928 sunroof is tiny, why even bother?

The Stampi > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 02:57

3

I personally hate the C4, but this is a damn fine article. Can't star it enough.

Nerd-Vol > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 07:56

0

Oh hell yeah! The C4 is my favorite car of all time! Great article!

iamxpl > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:31

0

Thank you for a great read.

Jeb_Hoge > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:32

0

Love it. There's a lot of story there that I hadn't heard. I knew a guy who raced C4s, though, and he sold me on how good they could run. I'd take a '96.

sfltrack000 > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:36

0

Fine article! The Ferrari and the Jag look soooo sexy, too bad something was lost in the mix.

CobraJoe > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:37

16

Great article.

Too many people dis on the C4, think it's an 80s piece of junk. Those guys are wrong. It's a great piece of engineering. I'd love to have one someday to tinker with.

Wacko > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:41

0

This is a story, not like that crap that austin coop was saying about the C4 about a week ago. Thank you

Mpusch > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:42

0

One of the best articles I've ever read on this site.

Very interesting!

PogosRevenge > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:43

0

The clamshell hood design sure made it easy to work on the motor. Installing headers and the like were 10x easier than on the C3. In its time it was a noticeable improvement in handling compared to the C3. I won't say I'll miss the styling but, it was a sign of the times.

ZeroOrDie - Powered By MZR > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:44

0

Great write up. The C4 has always been my favorite for some reason.

ThatbastardKurtis > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:49

0

I hate the cheesy 80s digital readout. Other than that, it was a rare shining moment of Domestic can do...I hope one day to own a C4 ZR-1.

spicybanana > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:51

1

It's a great article indeed but I think it understated the importance of the ZR1 just a bit.

PilotMan > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:51

0

Great article! I would love a C4 ZR1, they were the best when I was a kid.

NuclearTourist > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:51

1

If you don't want to drive a C4 after watching this I will contest that you're not human, sir.

SP23 > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:52

4

Fender stripes: excellent!

BeaterGT > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:56

1

For anyone that talks trash on C4, go watch C4 ZR1 videos and imagine having such a car in the early to mid 90s. Lt5 ftw

angusparvo > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 09:57

2

Turn the Corvette into a fancy Camaro? So John DeLorean was snorting the bad shit long before he left to build time machines because he must've been high.

lumberpile > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:00

0

The Corvette was the current model vette when I was a kid. Instantly became a dream car. Especially helped by a particular computer game...

Driving around San Francisco in Spectrum Holobyte's VETTE! game was one of my fondest childhood memories.

génie-jukka > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:00

1

Three things: the Corvette is here to stay, anti- sway bars, better structural rigidity
Otherwise, great article! I learned a lot!

Meatcoma > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:03

0

Good read.

jason > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:09

0

I have an 84 Z51 with 7000 miles on it .... Its a showroom new car, but pure garbage by today's standards. I love it ...

472CID > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:10

2

The C4 was a great leap forward in the early 1980s. I still don't understand why GM didn't update the styling for the 1990s. Sure it got a refresh, but it was so slight most people don't notice. Meanwhile the Japanese were introducing fresh new organic shapes to their sports cars which made the C4 look really dated. I think most of the negative stigma to C4s comes from the fact that 1997 model looks so similar to an 1984 model.

Rock517 > SP23 08/13/2013 at 10:13

1

I've always liked that Grand Sport edition.

Brian, The Life of > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:14

1

I suddenly feel a lot more C4 love.

Well done!

pologreenvette > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:14

2

Great article, glad to see that the C4 is appreciated by some!

All the C4 hate that people say exists actually does exist, I get it all the time (mostly from people around my age, 20-30). Obviously the C4 is not as good as a C5 or C6, but people don't realize how much of a step up it was from the C3. When I tell people that the C4 set the basis for what the Corvette is today, they look at me like I have 3 heads.

C4's aren't as dominant at racing as they used to be, but they still hold their own. They're also a reliable car; my LT1 has not given me one problem.

The "haters" are usually people who have never been in a C4. There aren't many people who have gone for a ride in my old 'vette and still hated it afterwards :)

Thanks for writing this article!

RX > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:16

0

I didnt know that the C4 used champans Elan backbone chassis idea. I did know that the LS-5 in the ZR1 was designed by Lotus. And how did GM repay Lotus for making the Corvette once again a world class sports car? By making them build a FWD roadster with an Izuzu engine. A-holes.

hollanddjw 1 > CobraJoe 08/13/2013 at 10:17

5

"bumped horsepower up to 240"

I rest my case.

fritzo > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:21

2

We're all gushing on the C4 right now, but now for a reality check of why this was one of the worst Vette designs and why you don't want one:

- Like to fiddle with electronics? That futuristic digital dash that made you feel like you were Knight Rider had a shelf life of about 2 years before parts of it started burning out. To be fair, newer aftermarket versions are more reliable, but original owners had to suffer through 20 years of that.

- The body panels on these cars were notoriously thin- like "push with one finger and cause a dent" thin.

- The clutch assembly in a C4 consisted of a rubber band, some twigs, cardboard, and perhaps some string.

- The body panels in these cars didn't line up very well, causing water sealing issues (new cars off the lot would get roof/window leaks during rain or washes)

- GM's multitronic fuel injectors in these cars were a disaster. Some enthusiasts replaced them with Ford injectors for better reliability (ouch)

- Did I mention electrical problems? Keep a box of fuses handy, and be prepared to live without dash lights, AC, or anything else that uses electricity.

- Blocky, dated design makes it the ugliest of the Corvettes. If you're seen in one, instead of "Oh look, a classic Vette! Cool!", the first thing people think is "Wow, a middle aged guy picked up a $4000 weekend car."

There are other C4 horror stories, like the all white edition they introduced in the late 80's that had an interior that turned cracked yellow, or the Callaway turbo edition that had turbos too fragile to be of any use.

A lot of these issues were worked out in the last years of production, especially when they changed the dash back from digital to analog. If you MUST get a C4 Vette, you'll want the 89-95 years. Otherwise, stay away. Better yet, get a C5—-it's better in every way.

CobraJoe > hollanddjw 1 08/13/2013 at 10:25

3

Have you played with legos?

Then you could probably build a SBC with 350hp easily. (Besides, 240hp with a lot of low end torque in something that light is quicker than you think).

Argument denied.

DCCARGEEK > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:28

0

C4 was an interesting car indeed, but it never appealed to me. I've owned 2 C5s and 3 C6s. I'm a Corvette guy, but I just never had an interest in the C4. I owned a C3 briefly, but that car is all visual for me. Great summary of info.

newtexian > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:29

0

"The C4 lived for 13 years, selling a total of 368.180 units, earning GM nearly $100 million in profit throughout its life time. Cars come and go, but the Corvette is hear to stay...the C7 stands testament to that."

*here...

aarmel732 > hollanddjw 1 08/13/2013 at 10:33

0

And 345 lb/ft of torque. So what is your case resting on? I am curious if you are comparing apples to oranges. is 240 / 345 a big deal today? Nope. Not in the least. But there has been 20 years of development in fuel injection technology. The TPI system was tuned for low end grunt and not horsepower. These cars move off the line pretty well, and driving in traffic is easy with all the torque. Remember a mustang back then was only at 215 / 300. I think what the original poster is saying is that I think you would be hard pressed to find a sports car with this kind of power and torque for the low entrance costs they are now getting. They are fun, hoonable, easy to maintain, and a head / cam / intake change away from 400hp.

inefficient > RX 08/13/2013 at 10:36

0

The M100 is a fantastic car, it just would have done better with a Geo, Chevy, or Olds badge (Buick had the Reatta, Cadillac had the Allante).

Jeff Siddall > hollanddjw 1 08/13/2013 at 10:41

4

So you want it to have more power? Like what, a Porsche? You mean the 944 at 150 HP? Or the turbo version with a whopping 217 HP? Or the 911 at 207 HP? Or maybe you meant exotics like the Ferarri 308 with 235 HP.

In the early '80s 240 HP was quite a lot. But that isn't the whole story. Those TPI engines all turned out at least 330 ft. lb torque which made them feel a lot faster than the peak power number would indicate.

Skid-Vicious > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:44

0

One of the things that made Beverly Hills 90210 so awesome. (Apart from Jennie Garth in 1990)

tylinol > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:46

3

I never liked the C4 until a couple of months ago, when all of a sudden they just clicked with me. Now it's the only Corvette that I would consider owning, and IMO the best looking since the C2.

marshknute > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:48

2

I'm just going to leave this here:

pauljones > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:48

1

That was a fantastic article on a much under-appreciated car. People like to laugh at the C4, but when it comes right down to it, they are performance bargains these days. Never, in all of history, has there been the opportunity to have so much raw performance potential for so little money. Now is a great time to pick one up.

Keiran > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:48

0

Good article.
Was it Norwich New England? Or was it Norwich, Norfolk UK?
I've seen the engine at Lotus HQ on a tour afew years ago... :D

PoopThrower > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:49

0

I still love the profile of the C4. It's such a nice looking car.

DMC1230 > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:50

0

Those that hate on the C4 for low horsepower, flexible chassis, etc., etc., simply weren't around in the 80's. I was 14 when the C4 Corvette hit the streets. My best friend's dad bought one, red on red with the 4+ 3 transmission. To a couple of car crazy teenage boys that spent their idle time playing on their Commodore 64's and Intellivisions, the digital dash made it seem like a spaceship. Compared to what else was available at the time, the car was a rocket. My Dad's daily driver was a '79 Chevette, his Dad's DD was an '82 Accord, which gave way to a Bonneville SE of the day. Their '84 gave way to an '88 convertible and my parents eventually bought a used '85, which they still own. No, it wouldn't rev to 7000 RPM like the 308 of the day would (truth be told, it neither the Crossfire or the L98 "Tuned Port" engines like it much over 4500 rpm), but the kick in the pants from the Chevy 350 torque got you off line line quickly, and at the time, there were very few cars that handled better.

simpleisbest > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 10:56

0

This is my favorite Corvette next to the '60's split window. In the garage of my dreams I would have a '96 in dark green with tan leather for the interior. It would be parked next to my first generation Porsche Boxster in silver with a red leather interior.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 11:01

1

"John Delorean, Chevrolet's general manager at the time, proposed downsizing the Corvette onto the Camaro/Firebird F-body platform to cut costs."

The C4 Corvette physically smaller than the 3rd gen F-body. So that would mean it would be an UP-sizing. Of course it would be a downsizing of uniqueness.

CondemnedtoaSlowrolla > Jeff Siddall 08/13/2013 at 11:06

1

Good point. Most kids have been raised with econoboxes rated at 150 hp. You had a hell of a pocket rocket in 1985 if your little econobox had that power. Heck, my dad's 1991 Escort had a whopping 91 hp.

mr. idk > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 11:09

10

I dont mean to start a "comment war", but I think its kinda funny that a 30 year old base corvette is still faster than the BRZ/FRS that everyone around here worships.

Thisnewformatisrubbish > hollanddjw 1 08/13/2013 at 11:14

0

How old were you in the 80s? A 1984 Ferrari 308 cost $60grand and was slower in the quarter.

JoshTheYoungLad > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 11:16

0

Who is Zora?

EAGLE 5 > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 11:16

0

Always loved the C4 with the GS being my absolute favorite Vette.

Just look at it and that gorgeous 96 pictured in this article.

I'm seriously considering buying one as an HPDE and track car.

Simple mechanicals, reliability, cheap V8 smallblock, tons of aftermarket (remember Summit racing used to make their own sub $4,000 twin turbo kits for the thing) and great handling what's not to love?

Thisnewformatisrubbish > 472CID 08/13/2013 at 11:19

0

GM execs were fat and lazy. They concentrated on SUVs. No excuses for piss poor management.

kenhitch > hollanddjw 1 08/13/2013 at 11:20

0

"Power increased to 375"

"Power jumped to 400"

I rest mine.

kenhitch > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 11:21

0

Cool article. Didn't know Lotus was involved with the C4!

bd02allroad > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 11:27

0

1996 was the first and only year for the 330 HP LT4 and it was only available with a 6 speed manual, if you wanted an auto Corvette in '96 you were stuck with a 300 HP LT1

XJguy > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 11:28

0

Saw a Callaway just like this a few weeks ago. Still looks awesome.

XJguy > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 11:29

1

BTW the silver Callaway in the article is none other than the Sledgehammer, made to be a thorn to the AMG Hammer.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Engine: Twin-Turbo 5.7L V8
HP: 898 hp
Torque: 772 lb-ft
Quarter-Mile Time: 10.6 Seconds

Will > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 11:37

1

My girlfriend and now wife on my 84 vette

billcamino > fritzo 08/13/2013 at 11:40

0

Dent a corvette? That would be interesting.

xanthophyll > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 11:47

1

Wait a minute.... didn't Jalopnik just run an article over the past couple of weeks stating that the C4 was the model that almost killed Corvette.

I'm confused Jalopnik, which is it?

xanthophyll > Jeff Siddall 08/13/2013 at 11:49

0

Thanks Jeff for putting these young'uns straight on what HP the competition produced during the same time frame.

fritzo > billcamino 08/13/2013 at 11:50

0

Find one, push on the rear trunk lid with your finger, and let me know what happens.

xanthophyll > Wacko 08/13/2013 at 11:52

0

Yeah, I had never seen so much back pedaling by an author. There was so much wrong in that article I'm amazed that Jalopnik even published it.

Rsyr > fritzo 08/13/2013 at 11:56

1

Fritzo,

Get off your pedestal and join reality. The harshest critics are wannabe Designers that own the crappiest cars. Please tell us about your modified Eagle Talon.

The C4 killed its competition and improved the breed of Corvette. Imagine if the C4 Corvette got minor changes from a C3 like the C5/C6. We wouldn't be having this conversation since the Corvette would be a joke.

I've owned many Corvettes and you are bloating the facts. This is a SBC that you can fix with common parts. No witchcraft like a European car.

And the C5 is better if you like the C5. Looks are subjective and every arse has a seat. If you like the C4... the C4 is better. Not everyone is into bench racing.

dale hunter hall > fritzo 08/13/2013 at 11:57

0

Fritzo SHUT UP!!!

Drew > fritzo 08/13/2013 at 12:00

0

After 1972 just lost complete interest in Vetts. One would think with all GM engineering and manufacturing might they could produce something better. Unfortunately the Vetts became a slave to design by committee and the bottom dollar.

There will always be a demand for Vetts, but I think so many did not live up to their potential.

I will not even talk about the hard plastic design by Fisher-Price interiors

fritzo > dale hunter hall 08/13/2013 at 12:01

0

Good counterpoint.

lt5zr180 > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 12:02

0

The callaway Twin turbo came out in 1986, 4 years before the zr-1 came out... other then that great article.

lt5zr180 > hollanddjw 1 08/13/2013 at 12:03

0

what else had 240hp in the mid 1980s?

fritzo > Drew 08/13/2013 at 12:04

0

Vettes have been fixed. Go find yourself a 2002 C5 and you'll see they got back to what they were supposed to do. It's just the C4 was the "drunk uncle that nobody wants to invite" of the family.

FlyingV > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 12:10

0

Awesome article and fantastic photos. I just came to say that everyone needs to pay their respects to Lotus for everything those glorious bastards have done for us.

NewGodFlow > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 12:14

0

haters gona hate

GMfishbowls > Will 08/13/2013 at 12:30

0

The important thing is, you still have the girl. The next most important thing: do you still have the Corvette?

Slizzo82 > Keiran 08/13/2013 at 12:31

0

Norwich, New England where? All the New England states have a Norwich somewhere.

Keiran > Slizzo82 08/13/2013 at 12:42

0

not a clue, all I know is that im from Norwich In the United Kingdom, and the Lotus HQ is 10 mins away...

klurejr > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 12:46

0

Great Article! I love having a brief article collecting all the important facts about a series of car in one place. Thank you for taking the time to put this together. Any Chance you are working on doing something like this for any other make/model of car out there? Would be a great little series.

20binaFD > marshknute 08/13/2013 at 13:05

0

If the driver had big hair this commercial would be the most 80s thing ever

Boris_Nofziger_1000 > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 13:33

0

Fantastic article!

I love all vettes, but the C4 is my favorite. I think it's by far the most timeless vette made. The C5-6-7 are great looking cars, but they're going to be a bit dated in 30 years. The C4 will still look amazing in 2050, partially due to the 'borrowed' styling such as the clamshell hood, beltline, and daytona-esque clean body.

mcox8051@sbcglobal.net > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 14:13

1

I own a '96 GS, it is the most absolute funnest and fastest Corvettes I have owned, even faster than the '91 ZR1 I had, which by the way is the best looking engine ever put in a car! I too like the shark styles from '68-'72, but remember, people were not really crazy about them at first either. My GS turns heads, the bright blue paint and white stripe, the wide tires and wide rear end (it is a coupe), even with the flares GM added to accommodate the tires...it is not a car you see every day and that is why I think it appeals to me and it will to others as time goes by. Personally, I think the C5 is the ugliest Vette of all, with the huge sweeping rear and the awful wide front end. I know the technology is better than the C4 but lookswise I'll take my '96 GS any day.

Axial > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 14:42

1

An article just for me? You shouldn't have. =ţ

Great read, I like it when the C4 gets thrown a bone. C3 to C4 was a revolutionary jump, and the C5 and C6 are clear evolutions from it. Hell, even the C7 is more of an evolution than a revolution, its biggest strengths lie in the computer systems more than the structure.

I would like to point out a few errors:

The B2K Callaway Twin Turbo option was actually around before the ZR-1.

The internal styling revision was done for MY1990, and the exterior facelift was MY1991. In MY1992, the LT1 engine replaced the L98 and brought 300 HP to the table with it. The later LT4 engine was MY1996 only, and was matched with the ZF6 manual transmission on all manual-equipped Corvettes that year. That means all 1000 Grand Sport cars are manual. Automatic cars still came with an LT1.

The only thing special about MY1994 was the bump in power on the ZR-1 to 405 HP (to show up the Viper) and a slight change for all interiors, where the labels went from orange to white and all of the formerly grey plastic was made black. The sweep next to the stick was also removed, and the vents were simplified. Steering wheel went from a 4-spoke to a 2-spoke.

The car also is not stiff enough for a lift-off roof. That was a last-minute design mandate and it shows because when you take the roof off of a C4 coupe, it flexes quite a bit. It gets to the point where I would not recommend enthusiastic cornering without said roof or a stiffening bar in its place.

SGTalon > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 14:56

0

Isn't this the new Dodge Logo??

Axial > fritzo 08/13/2013 at 15:04

0

Do you own one? Have you owned one? Every car has horror stories.

- The bumpers are made out of urethane, as they are on a very large number of automobiles. Even on the C3, and even on the C5 and C6. They are supposed to flex and rebound when hit, and they do. Better to have that happen than to have a bumper that dents and cracks. It's not that weird and it's not a mark of being cheap.

- The sealing issues are not because of body panels, but worn weather strips. They didn't use very good ones to begin with here. And this wasn't unique to Corvette, either. That said, I'll take a 1986 Corvette Convertible in 1986 over a 1961 Corvette convertible in 1961 any day.

- Your description of the clutch assembly makes the likelihood of you having experience with the cars somewhat dubious. It takes a hundred thousand miles for these things to break and if they do, you better be buying NOS or rebuilt original because those are way better than the crap the aftermarket will sell you. The problem here is that if you have a ZF6-equipped car, you can't find a new flywheel so you are forced to go aftermarket or pay through the nose for a used one.

- The electrical woes stem mostly from the Bose Gold audio, which was crap because it used its own unique amp and therefore its own speakers and head unit. It was not a reliable system. Blame Bose. Bose even sucks on the C6, let alone the C4.

- Most of the 1988 35th Anniversary C4s I see on the market have interiors that are still white, even when they are in the $7000 range. Some are a little (and only a little) dirty, granted, but I have only ever seen one that was legitimately cracked and yellow.

- There is nothing wrong with the fuel injectors. I'm still running my original '96 units. What caused injectors to implode is the alcohol content added to gasoline; they were never designed to run with ethanol blends and so they wore out faster. I believe it was '94 where they finally revised them for ethanol blends, which is why mine haven't died yet.

- Were there any turbo cars in the 80s that could actually perform and weren't fragile?

- I get tons of complements for my "blocky, dated" car. A lot of people bypass the newer Corvettes at shows to come talk to me about mine. Why? They say because mine is older and not so common to see any more.

The biggest issues were the digital dash shaking itself to pieces and people not knowing how to properly drive the 4+3. Otherwise, it was a fine car. Me? I want to trade my '96 LT4 for an '87-'89 white+red manual. I like them better.

Axial > BeaterGT 08/13/2013 at 15:07

0

ZR-1 vs. Porsche Club Salzburg, 2009:

Axial > mr. idk 08/13/2013 at 15:13

1

It's simultaneously the most hoonable and the most affordable hoon car on the market right now. It's already faster and more planted than a Toyobaru, and yet with all of the money you save you could take it in to a shop, have it painted and moddified, and still come out ahead.

The Toyobaru's only real significance is that it has shown that Toyota is willing to consider a sports car.

Axial > 472CID 08/13/2013 at 15:18

0

There were no MY1997 C4s. That would be the entry of the C5.

C4 stuck around for so long because they weren't even sure they were going to make a C5. Then, when they decided they were, they had to wait an extra year because it wasn't ready. Rather than having a repeat of 1983, they instead kept making the C4 but threw us a bone with the LT4 and Grand Sport options. Every Corvette has gone on for longer than planned. Even the C6. This C7 is supposed to only last five to seven years, but I bet it goes for at least ten.

Axial > aarmel732 08/13/2013 at 15:25

0

Considering that most people around here consider a Focus ST, which has similar power, to be "torquey," I would say that 240/345 is actually still a pretty big deal at the price point you can have it for. People driving a Focus ST (or similar) who call it "torquey" have no idea what "torquey" is.

Axial > ThatbastardKurtis 08/13/2013 at 15:31

0

Well, they are dirt cheap now. $16,000 can get you into one. I don't think they are going to depreciate much further, and the later ZR-1s are actually appreciating due to the low production numbers, Dunn heads (on '95), and higher horsepower rating.

Axial > xanthophyll 08/13/2013 at 15:33

1

This is Opposite Lock.

And that other article was mistaken. What almost killed Corvette was lack of change, not any one car. The C3 running for as long as it did almost killed Corvette. Same goes for the C4. And the C6 (have you seen recent sales numbers?).

Axial > SGTalon 08/13/2013 at 15:35

0

Yes, and that bothers me because as far as I know it was used on the '63 Grand Sport first, which the '96 GS is commemorating.

Axial > JoshTheYoungLad 08/13/2013 at 15:37

0

Chief engineer for the Corvette. He got involved after the C1 was under way, and it was he who pushed it into having more capable engines and suspension. He is the reason Corvette had tons and tons and tons of engine choices with optional factory tuning packages available. He devised the chassis and suspension for the C2 and C3. He pushed performance and function over everything else. He retired some time during the C3's run and wasn't involved with the C4.

fritzo > Axial 08/13/2013 at 15:40

0

I don't have to own a car to know its owner's experiences. I did write for our local paper's auto section for a while though, so I've driven my fair share of cars and know quite a bit about the pluses and minuses of most brands. A quick search of C4 forums will tell you what owners are complaining about. Also, search for "Worst Corvettes" and you'll see most lists are flooded with C4 models.

I'm glad you like the car, there's no reason you can't like something (I like early 70's VW Super Beetles with semi-automatic transmissions. They're completely terrible, but I like them because it's cool to shift without a clutch!). I'm just saying that compared to the article, C4's didn't really hold up very well as compared to some other cars of that era, making it the 2nd least desirable Vette (the gimped 81-82 Vettes would be #1 on the "icky" list).

Slizzo82 > Keiran 08/13/2013 at 16:14

0

Then that's the only one that matters.

Most of the Norwich-es over here are just posers. :)

Axial > fritzo 08/13/2013 at 16:35

0

And what are C4 owners mostly complaining about? Overheating, actually. Thermostats are going bad after all of these years and the radiators aren't cleaned as often as they should be. Another one would be Optispark replacement units being general crap; NOS units are prized for their longevity because nobody is using the good quality Mitsubishi sensors anymore. Almost all of the problems on the C4 forum are the result of age (the oldest cars are about to turn 30) and not bad engineering. You don't have to own it, but a week spent with the car is also not enough to even cover half of the issues you brought up. A quick search of the C4 forums (of which I am a part) will tell you that everything I just said is true while most of what you said is either false or misinformed. Just like those other articles featuring "worst Corvettes," many of which I have also read and always seem to take things out of context.

Like you and the Super Beetle, I find the C4's flaws to be endearing, but it is not anywhere near as bad as you or most other journalists have made it out to be. It is a better car than the C3 in every measurable way: it is stiffer, more supportive, faster, more fuel efficient, more aerodynamic, more reliable, and more plush. And this is how it should be; cars ought to get better every generation. Basically, a few influential people said negative things about it and so now the car sucks. Kind of like what happened to the Fiero. Or the 924/944. Or RAM pickups in general.

Jakes134 > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 16:37

0

Thanks for giving the C4 some props...it deserves it.

Fell in love with vettes as a youth like most of us....recently realized I wanted an early C3 badly with a big block and a 4spd. Didnt have 50+ grand layin around. Didn't want a late C3 b/c of their weak motors. Liked C5's but didn't think I could afford one to my finicky taste.....

Picked up a 92 C4 for 15 grand last yyear...a bit of a "high end" C4, yes, but with all the trimmings...6spd, LT1 motor, power this power that, adjustable ride. 24K on odometer. Nicest C4 whip you could buy that wasn't a ZR1. I challenge you to spend 15 grand and get the same performance...(hell 8 or 10 gets you an early C4 and they don't suck either). It might be do-able but it ain't easy. Plus a C4 sits sooo low to the ground. Yeah it's a pain to enter/exit but once you are in, the "race car" experience begins. Most of the bugs were worked out in the last-gen C4's so the probs are few and far between unless its been mercilessly flogged/neglected. (Many of them were doted on by their owners, BTW)

So what I got in my garage now is a ticket into the Corvette family, and I truly feel blessed to drive a car with so much performance and so much racing heritage. If you want a totally-bitchin-fast ride—on the cheap—give it some thought.

tobythesandwich > CobraJoe 08/13/2013 at 16:49

0

The first couple years are garbage. Once they ditched the crossfire engine it started improving. They weren't really worth buying until they got the LT1 IMO.

tobythesandwich > mr. idk 08/13/2013 at 16:51

0

You're not a very good troll. There is a general consensus on Jalopnik that the BRZ/FRS is slow and thus not as good. There are only a certain selection who see the actual appeal of the FRS/BRZ as a driving experience.

tbush311 > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 16:57

0

my mom has an '86 pace car edition. The car is attractive, and very fast (As a corvette should be), but as stated above, it was not perfect. The transmission in this car is junk. Shame, this could of been the perfect car, if interior quality and the transmission were improved.

Somethingwittyer likes noisy > -Amateur 08/13/2013 at 16:58

1

You know it kind of a shame. While the 911 has this great and christened history, it's only the C1 and C2 Vettes (along with the current gen) that are really ever talked about. That's a shame, as beside the post oil crisis C3s and straight six C1s Vettes have always punched above their price and been formidable on the track. It seems like just now people have realized that. I guess the Pratt & Miller C5.Rs and C6.Rs had a hand it that.

fritzo > Axial 08/13/2013 at 17:09

1

The C4 body panel alignment, headlight operation, and electrical ills are the main problems you're seeing today...which is funny because it's exactly why people stay away from British cars of that era :)

Heh, on those side notes: the Fiero was the right car at the wrong time. It would sell nicely today. The initial versions were absolute crap, but they finally got them right in the 87-88 models (and in typical Pontiac fashion, they were killed as soon as they were fixed). The US needs a good mid-engined sports car.

The 924 was a bit of an embarrassment for Porsche. The 944 is a fantastic car to this day (though a bit dated looking). A lot of them have found second lives as track beasts.

RAM pickups are Dodge products- spend all the money on a fantastic engine and skimp on everything else. It's the Dodge way.

dale hunter hall > fritzo 08/13/2013 at 17:14

0

Frito,

Several of my friends have owned C4's. I have gone for long car rides in a C4. No one has ever made my back hurt before my 20th birthday like riding around in someone's angry C4. The passenger side of things is cramped like a fighter jet.

The is acceleration unlike anything I have ever experienced. Nothing comes close to this. The C4 today represents the pinnacle of cheap but reliable performance. Something that can compete with the very best of Europe.

The passenger compartment is incredibly cramped. The dashboard has electrical gremlins. Some do not like the looks of the C4. I on the other hand would love to get a C4 with the digital instrumentation. It just looks cool. And to have a GS corvette, whew! I think I just came. Don't ruin the magic for those of us who love this car.

fritzo > dale hunter hall 08/13/2013 at 17:25

0

Yes, they are very fast. Sub 6 second 0-60 times in any car from the 1980s was approaching supercar territory. They were vastly improved by the late 80's too, and the 89-95 models are the most desirable of the series (I think after 93 or so they finally stopped using the world's cheapest plastics in the interior).