I think we forget how awesome the C4 Corvette was.

"Frank Grimes" (FrankGrimes)
01/10/2014 at 16:32 • Filed to: None

I was only two when the 1984 came out but that is no excuse for not remembering how technologically advanced. these cars were. Read this old school Car and Driver review

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1984-c…

Admittedly the acceleration pales in comparison to todays cars but it must have been really quick for 1984 0-60mph in under 7 Seconds 1/4 in 15.2 but the grip was .90g on the skidbad besting the porsch 928 and other ferraris and this skid pad test Car and Driver says is the highest grip of an regular production car they had tested. A top speed of 140mph is nothing to sneeze at. Need I remind you this is 1984!?!

This digital dash needs to happen more today.

If I remember right these cars mostly the motors electronics and stuff are unrelable pieces of crap.

DISCUSSION (19)

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > Frank Grimes
01/10/2014 at 16:37

Tell tale sign of 80/90s GM technology. Engines were great, what they attached to them on the other hand were not lol.

Frank Grimes > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner
01/10/2014 at 16:39

That is pretty much what I have heard especially the crossfire motors. Also they are supposedly expensive to repair.

Fed(oo=[][]=oo)uken > Frank Grimes
01/10/2014 at 16:40

I have a deeply hidden love for C4 Corvettes. On the surface I maintain that they are tasteless, brash, testosterone soaked crappy plastic redneckmobiles, but really I'm just jealous.

There's a DD'd metallic black C4 that parks around the corner from my office in a garage, in Manhattan!

I stare and secretly wish it was mine/those wheels were on my e28.

That dash just seals the deal.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > Frank Grimes
01/10/2014 at 16:47

Yeah, I've owned an 88 s10 blazer 4.3L V6 and a 2004 Blazer 4.3L V6. Both times the only problems I had with those truck were not actual engine troubles. It was always something else.

Casper > Frank Grimes
01/10/2014 at 17:00

No. They were awful. I have driven several and they were all awful. The engines were ok, but the output was junk on the low end models, the cars were actually using tech that most other makers had dropped back in the 70s, and nothing they had developed "new" for the car worked more than a few weeks after they were bought. They slowly got better after the 80s, but still weren't good.

The only digital dash I have spent much time with and liked so far is the one in the S2000, but the new tech that they are starting to use in the new cars is getting to be interesting (like the use of LCD screens for gauges).

BeaterGT > Frank Grimes
01/10/2014 at 17:03

There is so much C4 hate on this site. Be wary, noble opponaut

Frank Grimes > Fed(oo=[][]=oo)uken
01/10/2014 at 17:22

I have similar conflicted feelings towards Corvettes of this era. To me its the lack of power and I keep going back and forth between liking the exterior design and hating it. It just comes of as like you said so testosterone soaked and might I add bro tastic 80's splendor, but I really do like the interior the fat wide wheels and tires and the suspension design.

mr2gud2u > BeaterGT
01/10/2014 at 17:22

There is hate on this for all the big 3 here. V6 mustangs and focus st excluded

Frank Grimes > Casper
01/10/2014 at 17:24

What tech was dropped in the 70's?

Casper > Frank Grimes
01/10/2014 at 17:35

They had that strange hybrid 4 speed with automatic over drives that other car makers experimented with and abandoned. Then they had really crude engine management systems on the L98 that was basically what most other makers had evolved past in the mid to late 70s (well other than the 84 which had that other completely gutless 200 HP engine that I can't remember).

They were just a strange transition phase vehicle until the mid 90's and they just kept piling broken and strange features on top of broken and strange features to try to make them appealing. It was mostly the said engine management systems and carry overs from the 70s that gave me the worst taste for them... but the styling certainly didn't help.

BeaterGT > mr2gud2u
01/10/2014 at 17:35

It's cool, I'll hate on those Fords all day. :)

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > Frank Grimes
01/10/2014 at 18:04

I did not forget. There wasn't much to remember...that dash looks cool now, wait till it stops working (which is all of them by now). Also, we are moving towards digital dashes now anyway.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > Casper
01/10/2014 at 18:05

The best part was how GM had the balls to call them the most advanced cars in the world in TV ads...I nearly choke to death laughing when I see that.

Nate > Frank Grimes
01/10/2014 at 18:06

Once the lt1 and the t56 hit. C4s were a whole new animal. Great bang for the buck.

Casper > Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment
01/10/2014 at 18:21

Yeah... GM's advertising department was in deep denial in the 80s.

PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power > Frank Grimes
01/10/2014 at 20:24

I grew up in eastern Europe (Serbia) now in Serbia, seeing a new 5 series wagon is hard. like properly hard. or even a new 3 series with an engine bigger than the one in the 320i
Now, my dad had a friend who ran an automatic transmission repair shop. This guy lived in the states for a while in the mid 90's, and when he moved back it '02 he brought with him a V12 S-class, and a modified C-4. for the 5 year old me, that C-4 was the best car in the world. It drove like a dream, and sounded badass. I got to see it again this summer, and it was still as good as before to ride in (haven't driven it, dad didn't let me :P)
so yeah, I have a thing for the C-4 as well. I agree the interior was a bit tacky now that I saw it in 2013, but I do really like the style of it.

Evan, Pope Of Jalopnik by Self-Appointment > Casper
01/10/2014 at 22:12

I bet they had some damn good drugs in those meetings...required for the gigantic levels of denial

Vince > Frank Grimes
01/22/2014 at 21:15

I see so much inaccurate information in the comments. The 1984 lacked power, but in reality started to approach the performance of a 1966 327/300hp small block. The L98's after approached 327/350HP performance. So the C4 re-established small block performance across the board and in the same company as the classics, not to mention the handling, braking, and steering. And if the complaints keep coming, it's a SBC under there for Christ's sake which is clay ready to be molded. I'm not sure where the comment on the L98 engine management system comes from. I've programmed several and it's similar to what's being run today in new cars. Easy to program and runs all the sensors needed to manage the engine. Most of the C4's now are old and in need of restoration so they are literally junked. Don't confuse that with having a good one. My brother has a 1989 with 14K mikes and it's to die for.

silicon212 > Casper
02/15/2017 at 01:32

No cars in the 70s, excepting perhaps really high end, exotic stuff - had engine management systems. These did not come into play until 1980/81 for mainstream vehicles - and yes they were crude then, but they were also brand new at the time and computer technology was nowhere near what it is today.

The L98 engine (which debuted in 1985), was advanced for its time and people were swapping these into other cars. The average car in 1985 had a carburetor, not EFI.

The LCD based digital dash on the C4 was an amazing piece for its time, and still looks awesome to this day.