C4 Corvette Trumps Porsche?!
#33
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Here is some info I found. The 5.7sec. time qouted earlier is for a much newer car than an 86.
The C4 Corvette was supposed to be released in 1983, and it was but as the 1984 model ... 0-60 Time ; 0-60 in 7 Seconds ; 1/4 Mile Time; ¼ mile in 15.5 Seconds at ...
The C4 Corvette was supposed to be released in 1983, and it was but as the 1984 model ... 0-60 Time ; 0-60 in 7 Seconds ; 1/4 Mile Time; ¼ mile in 15.5 Seconds at ...
Last edited by rgs944; 12-17-2010 at 06:02 AM.
#34
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Like the 944 & 928, it's a shame that most of the examples you see "out in the wild" should probably be put down. A well cared for and up to maintaince C4 is a hell of a bargain sports car. Especially the LT1 & LT4 versions.
In reality two of the worst Corvette's ever made are the 63 and 68.....yes I said 63. In fact, not until 65 are "midyear's" considered a decent driver, mostly due to the drum brakes but shoddy build quality and first year "issues" plagued the 63 & 68. The 68 was so bad they cut production short and released the 69 early making it the longest running single year model.
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
1984 had 205hp / 295 lb-ft torque - it's a very optimistic 205hp......
85 / 86 bumped up to 240 / 330 lb-ft
So yes, an 85+ Vette will do a sub 6-second 0-60.
#36
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The Corvette was a better performance car for less money then what was available from Porsche at the time.
You want to compare it to a 911 Turbo, yet the 911 Turbo cost 3.5X as much so it wouldnt be cross shoped. The 944 8V was more commonly cross shopped as the price was nearly idenctical to a basic Corvette.
#37
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Yes the auto's do outnumber manuals in overall production by an average ratio of 3:1.
Over time the manual's are always more sought after which usually means more of the "nicer" units out there are 4 or 6-speeds.
The ZR-1 was not offered in a manual, neither was the LT4 "GrandSport" edition.
The best decision Porsche ever made with the 951 was not offering an automatic or I fear we would have a shortage of 5-speed units, like with the 928 & 968.
#38
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#40
Instructor
#41
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
#42
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
They may have been capable performers at a good price but the interior on them is an abomination... Here in CT one would have to be very lucky to come across one of these with a standard trans.
#43
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Painting all C4s with the same brush is like saying an '83 early 944 and an S2 are the same. The '92-up C4s had the LT1 and excellent Tremec 6-sp compared to the early ones with ho-hum Crossfire V8 and 4+3 Doug Nash tranny.
Mike, I'm like you and love to shift, but the market for Vettes is different. The A/T in C4s is excellent, if not necessarily our cup of tea. The 4+3 in early cars was not a gem. If I were going to use it as a DD near any kind of big city, the A/T would be my choice.
Mike, I'm like you and love to shift, but the market for Vettes is different. The A/T in C4s is excellent, if not necessarily our cup of tea. The 4+3 in early cars was not a gem. If I were going to use it as a DD near any kind of big city, the A/T would be my choice.
#44
Drive-by provocation guy
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NAS PAX River, by way of Orlando
Posts: 10,439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
C4 Vette is not worth the time of a 951. C5 really rasied the bar, but a slightly modded 951 will leave little room for debate with a C5.
I won't even mention their joke of "handling" and how they float above 120mph. Much to the dismay of two good friends that owned well maintained C4's and how I embarrased them constantly even when my car was very close to stock. One owned the "misfire" 84 and the other friend had the newer LT1, Richmond 6 speed, etc.
I rode in them alot as well and still never impressed.
I won't even mention their joke of "handling" and how they float above 120mph. Much to the dismay of two good friends that owned well maintained C4's and how I embarrased them constantly even when my car was very close to stock. One owned the "misfire" 84 and the other friend had the newer LT1, Richmond 6 speed, etc.
I rode in them alot as well and still never impressed.
#45
Drive-by provocation guy
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NAS PAX River, by way of Orlando
Posts: 10,439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Comparing to a C4 makes me giggle only because these days a few of my friends (LS3 Corvette owner, Bolt on C5 Z06 owner and Bolt on LS1 Vette owner) are cringing their teeth comparing to a bolt on 4 banger. Sure I have run into C4's but I have not encountered one quick enough to keep up. I'm just not a fan of the C4.
![Big Grin](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VulN2ywAfFM