Wasn't the original C4 Vette Slow?

"JR1" (type35bugatti) 08/02/2014 at 17:59 • Filed to: Discussions

0

55

Not to be taken by an insult by any means. I really want one but wasn't that the key problem as to why the C4 got a bad rep. I don't remember exact numbers but I though the original had about 215hp and was like 0-60 in 7sec. I think that was the problem with the early C4s. But I still want one anyways. Maybe someone who owns one can educate me on how they drive. Perhaps an Oppo review???

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:03

0

I think it depends on the year and trim; but put it into perspective, I had a little "fun" with a C4 a while back and killed it in a "race". :P

But compared to modern cars, they're slow as hell. A FoST can keep up and get ahead of them without much effort, tuned or not.

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/charlottes-has…

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:07

3

Yeah, the '84s were. Then ze Germans at bosch intervened and in '85 the corvette took just 5.7 seconds to 60 and went on to 150 (blistering compared to the last 10 years). They had to rush it out and left in the cross fire injection as a result (basically automated carb) and that was a painfully bad design. In '85 you got the TPI motor (L98) which makes back-breaking low end torque but with mods will do well in racing. They were slower again for '86 and '87 due to triple cat exhausts but got faster due to aluminum heads and a 6 speed in '89. '91 was the last year of the original SBC. With a few thousand in mods the L98s can make 300 horsepower and still crazy torque.

I'll do a review soon.

JR1 > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 08/02/2014 at 18:10

0

So let me ask you this. I assume when you bought yours it was stock. And I can't remember I think you owned a mid eighties Vette. When you bought it did you enjoy driving it and did it give you a good kick in the back? Or was it more of a corner carver?

JR1 > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 08/02/2014 at 18:12

0

Yeah that is what I though more show and less go. I have been spoiled at only been a passenger in higher performance cars so I don't know how a 6/7 second car feels to 60mph or 100mph

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:17

0

Show? a C4 for show?? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! They look soo dull; so uninspired, how could it be for show?? The later C3s had no go, but they were for show no matter what engine it had, 20x more than any C4

feather-throttle-not-hair > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 08/02/2014 at 18:22

2

Heh. Last time i went to a big car show (like massive, thousands of cars) there was this lone kid polishing his stock C4 vette with an ugly bra.

But whatever, that kid is still a champion as far as i'm concerned. He was really like 16. and his vette was clean and he probably had to wake up at 3 in the morning to get down there on time. His C4 vette mightve been in the top 1 percent of most boring cars at the show, but he's still a lot cooler than i was at 16.

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:24

3

Mine's an '85 that I just bought as a slight project that would be a neat classic but also something that has enough power to get out of its way and would be fun on a nice road or on the track if I decided to go down that route. The PO claims it has a mild cam, which sounds about right based on how the car runs at low engine speeds, and all I've done is a cut filter lid and K&N filter which will yield about 15 horsepower. And exhaust and some headers will actually give you about 35. When I bought it, it had been after a couple years of mostly sitting. It had belonged to a family in Southern California for 25 years until the seller's brother had bought it, but it still ran well enough to disintegrate the tires, as the seller showed me. It sat for a while after I bought it, and all I've done is a tuneup and fluids changing along with the improved breathing. It needs bushings, but it handles better than an E89 Z4 30i and is just as fast so I'm happy with it so far! It does get awful gas mileage, about 10 city/20 highway but it's an 133k mile V8 with a cam that's driven generally spiritedly so that's all you can really expect! A V70 R tried to cut me off in a merge today but the old plastic fantastic came through and didn't grant any sleeper satisfaction, so it's no real dog under the hood.

JR1 > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 08/02/2014 at 18:26

2

I think they are great looking cars. But that just goes to show how subjective looks are

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:27

0

First one had 205hp. Then it slowly climbed...220..235...240...250...LT-1 was 300. That was the max for the base model.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > feather-throttle-not-hair 08/02/2014 at 18:27

0

I'll give credit where it's due; if you like your C4, fair enough, but it's still a boring car. I'll be happy to see a pristine C4, but it's still and always will be boring. But I'd give that kid props for taking good care of it.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:32

1

Indeed. I'm a firm believer in function over form, but when it comes to my personal oppinion on driving a car, especially with Corvettes:

This will always be better than any C4.

Flavien Vidal > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 08/02/2014 at 18:35

1

It depends on the engine in it... And a FoST is not exactly slow in anyway... I mean it's a 250hp car!! It will not keep up with a Lt1 though, eventhough it won't be too far behind.

0 to 60 stats are 5.1s for a manual Lt1 Corvette (slushboxes are at 5.4 I think or maybe slower) and 5.7s for a Focus St... So yup, not really a "normal" Focus :)

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 08/02/2014 at 18:36

1

opinion=/=fact

For Sweden > feather-throttle-not-hair 08/02/2014 at 18:36

2

Doesn't matter: Had Vette

Izzy > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:37

2

I own a 96 convertible (white/red interior w/ 56k miles) . picked it up for cheap from the dealer i work at. my daily driver. i have a ton of fun driving it. took it up to wrightwood, ca and bombed on the mountain roads. have just a few mods to it. If you are ever in Southern Cali, I'll let you drive it around for day if you want to write a review of your own. Big Fan of oppo/

Izzy > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:37

0

I own a 96 convertible (white/red interior w/ 56k miles) . picked it up for cheap from the dealer i work at. my daily driver. i have a ton of fun driving it. took it up to wrightwood, ca and bombed on the mountain roads. have just a few mods to it. If you are ever in Southern Cali, I'll let you drive it around for day if you want to write a review of your own. Big Fan of oppo/

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Flavien Vidal 08/02/2014 at 18:37

0

Yay for not being normal! :)

But yeah, no chance to keep up with an LT1; unless the FoST is at least Stage 2 or 3...

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 08/02/2014 at 18:38

0

Yes. I knew you'd drop a line in eventually :P

JR1 > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 08/02/2014 at 18:38

0

I just wondered if it gave you a good satisfying kick in the back but from it is seems from you answer it does that and more with is awesome! It sounds like a very fun ride

Axial > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:47

3

The 1984 had the L83 Crossfire Injection 350 cid V8, carried over from 1982. At 205 HP and 290 lb. ft., it was still more capable of getting you into trouble than a 2014 turbocharged Golf GTI. The 0-60 time was 6.1 seconds, pretty good for 1984.

The L83 will gently shove you back in your seat, but it's really not much to write home about. If you've been in a GTI, you know about how hard it kicks. It does sound distinct from the L98 and that's kinda cool, and the Crossfire system is stupid simple. A 1984 in excellent shape is going to be a collector item, seeing as they already go for more than most LT1 cars. Even more collectible if it has the 4+3, since not a lot of them were made in 1984 due to the trans getting a late start. The 1984 car has the stiffest suspension of any C4, which is great for performance but not so good for daily driving. Your mileage may vary, depending on your tolerances.

In 1985, the L98 replaced the L83. It was an electronic port injection engine featuring 230 HP and 340 lb. ft. of torque. It could push the car to 60 in 5.6 seconds and, outside of the RPO "B2K" Callaway Twin Turbo, would be the fastest C4 until the ZR-1 showed up in 1990 and the LT1 showed up in 1992. All L98 cars after 1985 were slower despite increases in power.

The thing about the L98 is that it has a peaky torque curve with a massive spike down low. It will punch you back in your seat with force and is a blast to drive, especially from stoplight to stoplight, but it lacks puff after 4400 RPM and won't win a drag race with most modern cars making similar power. It's tons of fun in the corners, and I actually really enjoy the clicky 4+3 transmission that came on them until 1989. Try to own a 1987 or 1988 car if you want the 4+3, those are the least buggy. 1989 C4s with the six-speed are sought after for auto-crossing purposes as they combine the stiffer earlier suspension and the best six-speed gearbox ever produced with the low weight of the not having airbags. One year only combo.

If you want a fast C4, the '92-'96 cars are cheap. $8000 will get you into a clean car that can already do 0-60 in 5.0 seconds and has more mod potential than any 4-pot go-fast econo-box. You'll also get a respectable 30 MPG on the highway and a combined average of around 19.2 (that's what I get with my LT4...and I know how to have fun with the throttle). Also, the ZF6 six-speed manual is second to none in shift feel. However, if the '80s vibe is too stronk to resist, you really can't go wrong with an '85-'89 car. '84, make sure you do your homework. Most have been neglected.

Izzy > Izzy 08/02/2014 at 18:49

0

BTW on how it drives, the automatic does have a sweet spot from where you can launch it and where itll look like a deer in the headlights. handling is tight, wind noise is a bit noticeable with these convertibles (but might be also due to the aged weatherstripping). the torque is very nice on these LT1's. My stock exhaust does have some highway drone to the point where it is necessary to blast the radio so i dont fall asleep. Overall im very happy with it, it was cheap, a ton of fun and better than driving around in a Camaro of the same year. I do get a lot of looks when the top is down (probably because of the interior unless I really am that handsome). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (the kid with the car bra understands).

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 08/02/2014 at 18:49

1

You should assume such things by now ;)

JR1 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 08/02/2014 at 18:54

0

I thought they were pretty low. I like my Vettes to have a good kick in the back! I would love an LT-1 I would be hesitant of the others until I test drove them

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 08/02/2014 at 18:54

0

When C4 comes into play, JayZ is always there. ;)

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:57

1

Yeah, it's much more than I expected it to be! I was never much of a corvette guy but for some reason I was tempted to look at the C4 and it was the most capable and coolest car I'd ever driven so I made a deal and went on my way. While you can't expect much 5k-RPM performance and ridiculous highway acceleration, it'll really surprise most people at low speeds.

JR1 > Izzy 08/02/2014 at 18:57

0

That kid with the car bra has an awesome car as do you! I always figured the ones with 300hp were a hoot but I wasn't so sure about the l89 (or is it l98?) with 225hp. I am sure it is a fun corner carver but a nice kick in the back adds to the experience greatly

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > JR1 08/02/2014 at 18:57

0

Apparently, though, the LT-1 no es bueno.

JR1 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 08/02/2014 at 19:05

1

Well I mean they put it in a Stingray... I have heard reliability issues but I mean small block chevy I am sure it is easy to find/repair

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 08/02/2014 at 19:11

0

"You cannot dislike the C4, or else."

-jayzayeighty

I admit it's not nearly the most stylish car ever. I'm just joking around.

Flavien Vidal > JR1 08/02/2014 at 19:14

1

Reliability is good... Only thing is the fact that they stupidly put the optispark under the freaking water pump. While later model have vented optis, it can still sometimes leak on it and kill it. Change it once and you can do it in less than 4 hours after though... Really not too bad.

Pabuuu, JDM car enthusiast & Italian parts hoarder > JR1 08/02/2014 at 19:14

1

I still don't know how everyone is calling the 84 C4 slow?

I was a passenger once and it was the hardest acceleration that I have ever felt. THE NOISE. THE ACCELERATION. It was great!

JR1 > Axial 08/02/2014 at 19:21

0

Very informative thanks for the info. I did not know the original C4s were fish second cars to 60 I always thought it was higher!

Jayhawk Jake > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 08/02/2014 at 19:21

0

Dull? I know it's love it or hate it looks, but it's not really 'dull'

It looks like a sports car from the 80s/Early 90s. Like this:

Or this:

JR1 > Pabuuu, JDM car enthusiast & Italian parts hoarder 08/02/2014 at 19:24

0

What year was it?

Pabuuu, JDM car enthusiast & Italian parts hoarder > JR1 08/02/2014 at 19:30

0

'84 or '85 I think.

JR1 > Pabuuu, JDM car enthusiast & Italian parts hoarder 08/02/2014 at 19:44

0

Those supposedly are the slowest so the fact you think it is fast is rather encouraging

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Jayhawk Jake 08/02/2014 at 19:49

0

Those look even better than a C4.

Axial > JR1 08/02/2014 at 20:34

1

Glad to help. If you have any more specific questions, I may be able to answer them.

shop-teacher > Jayhawk Jake 08/02/2014 at 21:28

0

Mmmmmmm, dat Grand Sport!

 V8 Rustler > JR1 08/02/2014 at 21:35

1

This is worse.

JR1 >  V8 Rustler 08/02/2014 at 22:16

0

That is pathetic

DoYouEvenShift > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 08/02/2014 at 22:35

1

I think the best combo of performance and affordability will be had in an LT1+6 speed. Dont worry too much about the opti. Yeah its an odd design, but it gets a bad rep. I have 190k on my LT1 and it has never given me a single issue. I replaced the opti at 100k as precaution, and it runs amazing. The 95+ LT1 has a vented opti that, by design, keeps moisture out of it. 99% of the time the fail from water damage so the vents helps with that.

hike > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 08/02/2014 at 23:27

1

It's important to remember, that while a little short on HP, those motors made some torque! the 87 put out like 245hp, but comfortably over 300 ft lb of torque from very low RPM.

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > DoYouEvenShift 08/03/2014 at 00:00

0

The LT1s are awesome performance bargains for sure! I like my '85 because it's more of a classic feel but the later cars are definitely all-round better cars. The L98 has plenty of power for now, and by the time I'll want more it'll be time for an engine rebuild anyways. The LT1 deserves a better reputation for sure, but I definitely enjoy the quirkiness of a pre-facelift with the gen 1 SBC, 4+3, and digital dash for my uses.

Josh > JR1 08/03/2014 at 00:23

0

Just about everything that was born during the emissiocaust had stunted growth. Corvettes, Zs, Mustangs even. Some have fared better with enthusiasts over time... but that could be due to them being unwanted, relatively low valued vehicles that just happened to have one of the most popularly modified engines of all time (looking at you foxbody). Call it the curse of the 80s. My '84 Corvette with an intake manifold, heads, cam, exhaust, and 383 stroker was lots of fun. Enough fun to offset how cheap it was to build by constantly breaking rebuilt 700R4s. I still had the CFI and stock headers, the stock wheels are wide enough for massive rubber (for the time), and a few crazies even think they drift alright. Stock interior is comfortable, but the digital dash, cool as it may be, is problematic. 4+3 transmission was just a terrible thing. Ride is okay, spring upgrades will net you less gain than chassis stiffening.

The real question is why Jalops aren't jumping on these things when you can find them running and driving for $3000?

DoYouEvenShift > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 08/03/2014 at 09:25

0

My unlce bought an 85 when I was very young. So I have some fond memories if it. Ill never forget the first time I saw that LCD dash light up. It was the most amazing thing Id ever seen. That digital cluster is still one of my favorites. And I do love that instant L98 torque!

JR1 > Josh 08/03/2014 at 11:50

0

I honestly wish I owned one. It sounds like a great starter sports car with a helluva a lot of potential

Philbert/Phartnagle > JR1 08/03/2014 at 16:22

1

They were pretty slow IMO. Back in the day a friend of mine had an 84, I had a 69 F100 with a 429/C6. Yes, the Vette was much faster around the corners, but that didn't matter because the F100 would just run off and leave it in the dust in the straights. He cried, I smiled.

JR1 > Philbert/Phartnagle 08/03/2014 at 19:09

1

429? Hell what did those make over 400hp?

Philbert/Phartnagle > JR1 08/04/2014 at 02:02

1

That one probably did. ;)

They normally put out around 360 HP I believe, but mine was slightly modified with cam, 11:1 forged pistons, heads, intake, 800 CFM carb, headers and 2.5" dual exhaust. I had to run 2, 30" long glasspack mufflers on each side of the exhaust to make the local PD happy.

Josh_Echt > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 05/09/2015 at 21:58

0

Is that why the ‘87 was insanely slow? I’ve seen 0-60 in 6.6 for an ‘87, which is very slow, considering the ‘85 went 5.7-5.9 and the ‘86 was around 6.1-6.3.

Josh_Echt > Axial 11/30/2015 at 23:19

0

Why were the ‘86-87 cars slower?

Josh_Echt >  V8 Rustler 11/30/2015 at 23:20

0

Actually that’s not correct. In ‘94, MT did a road test and the V6 Essex Stang was 0-60 in 8.9.

Josh_Echt > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 11/30/2015 at 23:21

0

How do the triple cats slow the car down? And why did they use them those two years?

Axial > Josh_Echt 12/01/2015 at 01:40

0

My guess? Combination of weight, as new toys and other small improvements in other places were added into the cars, and emissions tuning. Could also be testing methodology, but this seems to be a trend across publications.

That said, while ‘85 might be the fastest recorded, I would still rather take the newest possible L98.