Why Does the Corvette C4 Get So Much Hate?

"lorem ipsum" (nothing123456789)
08/02/2014 at 17:31 • Filed to: corvette, c4, callaway, hate

Why does this car get so much flack from the automotive community? It looks pretty good, in my opinion, at least— the proportions are spot-on, with a long nose and a short tail. There's plenty of glass area, the wheel size is good for the car, and there's a line that follows through from front to back. While looks are entirely subjective, this seems to be pretty inoffensive, and by the book.

It's even got technology, apparently! And that's a good thing (as I recently found out, these two things called traction control and all wheel drive are excellent), and you could buy a 400HP twin-turbo Callaway option under warranty . From a dealership .

It holds the world record for the highest average speed for 24 hours/5000 miles at 175 mph, which means it's durable as fudge, and they have pop up headlights— so it's basically a Miata. I'm probably missing something here, but they weren't as underpowered as the C3s, and seemed to bring Corvette into the...well, late 20th century. Care to explain?

DISCUSSION (34)

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 17:35

It's because in 1985 150MPH and .95g on the skidpad was so damned pitiful. Also look at the cushy lotus-designed suspension and horrible long nose/swooping back proportions that are not found on any nice looking car ever. Not to mention 25 MPG and unprecedented reliability to top that all off, with necksnapping torque to spare. Who wants all of that for $5k (or when new, less than the price of the contemporary bare-bones mercedes subcompact)?

/venting

Flavien Vidal > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 17:39

I have zero problems with people who find it ugly... It's their opinion and I respect that... But to even remotly think that it's "slow" is ridiculous. Not to mention the excellent grip the car has... And it's crazy low price.

dogisbadob > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 17:43

Bonus for the C4 ZR-1 with the only DOHC engine ever put in a Corvette.

JR1 > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 17:45

Maybe too many people take Clarkson's words to heart considering he molested one.

ly2v8-Brian > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 17:46

You said AWD was excellent, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. RWD only.

Jayhawk Jake > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 17:47

It's just a very polarizing design. If you don't like the way it looks you really don't like the way it looks.

I like it, but I'd rather have a C5

ly2v8-Brian > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 17:48

I want take an 84-88 and put modern chassis and modern power train.

Shifty > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 17:48

I don't understand it either, I'm now a C5 guy, but I liked my C4 too (89).

jariten1781 > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 17:48

Most useless passenger footwell ever. No SO will enjoy riding in it.

I have no problem with them.

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > JR1
08/02/2014 at 17:55

Jeremy Clarkson's words should not be taken to anything, but I'm going to go watch that video anyways hah

Ryanator122 > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 17:55

For me, the C4 and C5 shouted "1990's", which as I recall, wasn't a good time for American cars. When you look at its European rivals (If you could call them that) they were significantly less bland in terms of styling. It's the Toyota Camry of the sports car world.

JR1 > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7
08/02/2014 at 17:56

He is just entertainment his words are about as useful as baby's gibberish

pdthedeuce > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7
08/02/2014 at 18:00

EXACTLY !

SCR - The Soup Of The Day is Bread > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 18:01

Polarizing design, GM's typical indifference to interiors, shoddy build quality, most were bought with the auto are a few good reasons to dislike it.

PardonMyFlemish16 > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 18:02

I heard the suspension sucked. Way too stiff

I don't see what hate the C4 gets. People just don't talk about it. The C3 gets hate- and deserves it.

puddler > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 18:02

i wouldn't ever want to own a whole one, but i'd like to have the drivetrain/suspension.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 18:07

A couple theories.

First, it appears the LT-1 was not a well-loved engine, as many people on here kindly informed me.

Second, the above records were set by the ZR-1, which at the time cost nearly $60k when it came out in 1990, and had gone up to $66k in 1995, not counting dealer markups, which often put it over $100k. That's a $103,000 MSRP and a $156,000 final price in today's dollars. It was a world-class performer, but it cost as much as the Europeans it was up against.

The basic 'Vette didn't have quite so eye-watering performance. They started out with around 205hp in 1984, and finished at 250hp in 1991, before the 300hp LT-1 took over. This had more appropriate power, but was, as I said, apparently not a great engine.

The 0-60 times for the standard C4 don't look bad, until you realize that many Corvettes (and not just 427s) from the 60's were just as fast or faster.

The styling was polarizing. I don't mind it, but apparently there are some who really hate it.

I am no C4 expert, or any Corvette for that matter, and don't get exactly why it's so hated either. It got great reviews when it came out.

offroadkarter > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 18:18

The ZR1 and GS are the only two worth talking about, the rest are meh. The early 80's ones are super meh.

feather-throttle-not-hair > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 18:29

They built that body style forever and in big enough numbers that everyone got sick of it. Also some versions were pretty legitimately terrible. There's a lot of malaise era legacy going on in there. Personally I like how they look, but I've really only come around to thinking that way in the past 3 or 4 years.

Give it a few more years and they'll come back around, i'm sure. 80's hardware is just starting to get really popular. Aging hipsters are going to eat C4's up in a few years when they realize they can look "all midlife crisis, but like ironically " with them. It'll get there, just give it time.

StingrayJake > Ryanator122
08/02/2014 at 18:29

This is kind of my thoughts on it. I'm a big fan of the C2 Stingrays and while I like the early C3s more than the late C3s (engine regs be damned... they were still good looking rides), all Stingray designs were sooooo sexy compared to the massive change of the C4.

I guess I've come to terms with the C4 over the years (mostly accepting that the ZR1 was a solid car), but I hit the age of being-interested-in-cars about the time the C5 dropped. And then the C5 Z06 came out and I loved it. And then the C6 came out and it got a Z06 (and subsequent ZR1)... and I loved it. And then they brought back the Stingray for the C7 and IT got a Z06... and I loved it.

Point being, I'm not opposed to the C4, I just like other generations better.

Axial > sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/02/2014 at 18:55

Irony alert: the 230 HP 1985 car was faster than the 245 HP 1990 car. There was no basic Corvette faster than the 1985 until the LT1 showed up.

Also, only the fastest of the C2s and C3s were faster than the L98 C4. Your standard C2 and C3 were slower, on account of more primitive tires and suspension and engine rating rules.

Axial > PardonMyFlemish16
08/02/2014 at 18:58

Super stiff in 1984. It handled the track with aplomb, but not the street. They softened it up over the years, with 1996 being the softest.

Axial > puddler
08/02/2014 at 19:00

As long as you get it from a wreck and not a whole, perfectly functional car.

I saw a 1996 Collector Edition in great shape get ripped apart simply for the LT4 and the suspension just to go into another lame '32 Ford hotrod. It was sad.

wkiernan > lorem ipsum
08/02/2014 at 23:20

Because of this ad, that's why.

Tuned-Port-Injected-Rage > lorem ipsum
08/03/2014 at 00:17

I've never really been sure. I mean, they're not by any means perfect cars. Considering what they go for these days, though, they are one of the best bang-for-your-bucks out there. I enjoy the hell out of my '86. Low-end torque for days, sharp looks, great handling, and a digital dashboard that will amaze all of your friends. What's not to love??

Tuned-Port-Injected-Rage > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7
08/03/2014 at 00:18

I could not agree with you more, good sir.

Tuned-Port-Injected-Rage > wkiernan
08/03/2014 at 00:20

That can't be why. That ad is phenomenal.

JaVon McCabe > lorem ipsum
08/05/2014 at 04:30

You also forgot the chassis rigidity of a pool noodle.

crowmolly > sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/06/2014 at 17:50

I'd say 7/10 people bashing the LT1 have never owned one.

Dsscats > lorem ipsum
08/07/2014 at 18:07

Honestly, I'd be happier with a 96 than an early C5. 6 speed manual, 330HP of LT4 power and stunning good looks.

red014 > wkiernan
08/08/2014 at 16:52

That commercial is so Epcot.

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > lorem ipsum
10/14/2014 at 20:33

Because people don't know dick 'bout butt. Long live the C4!

Josh_Echt > Axial
05/09/2015 at 22:18

Why was the ‘85 faster than the ‘86-91 versions?

Axial > Josh_Echt
05/09/2015 at 22:40

I really don’t know, but all of the tests I’ve seen say as much. My best guess is weight; the later cars started getting various reinforcements, new subsystems like airbags, ABS, and traction control, bigger wheels, bigger brakes, etc. Even weirder, the ‘85 doesn’t even have the weight-saving aluminum heads on the engine that got introduced late ‘86 (I think it was late ‘86).