Thoughts on the C4 (84-96) Corvette

[Cujet]

From a practical point of view, a well prepped C4 is still a "near world class" track day competitor. Able to return great lap times. Yes the later models are faster, better handling and so on, but the differences are not as great as ya might think or be led to believe. Furthermore, while a Well prepped C4 may not complete with a well prepped C7, it's light years faster than many/most other brands.

Sure, many of us don't spend our days on the track. But many of us do enjoy the associated performance of such a car on the street.

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by Cujet
From a practical point of view, a well prepped C4 is still a "near world class" track day competitor. Able to return great lap times. Yes the later models are faster, better handling and so on, but the differences are not as great as ya might think or be led to believe. Furthermore, while a Well prepped C4 may not complete with a well prepped C7, it's light years faster than many/most other brands.

Sure, many of us don't spend our days on the track. But many of us do enjoy the associated performance of such a car on the street.



Good point......The C5 & C6 are not far removed from the C4 suspension geometry wise besides taller spindles, The transmission being moved to the rear was probably the biggest leap over the C4.

I like a good handling car, But I like power/torque MORE!! Probably why I don't appreciate cars like the MX-5 & S2000 as much as I should......

 

[Andrew1972]

I'd make sure it's OBD-II (late years) otherwise very difficult to diagnose.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted by clinebarger
I like a good handling car, But I like power/torque MORE!! Probably why I don't appreciate cars like the MX-5 & S2000 as much as I should......

I am right there with you.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted by ls1mike
Originally Posted by clinebarger
I like a good handling car, But I like power/torque MORE!! Probably why I don't appreciate cars like the MX-5 & S2000 as much as I should......

I am right there with you.


Power + torque = fun

 

[NYEngineer]

Guy I work with showed me a picture of a C4 Corvette he said he wanted to buy. He isn't really a car guy so I suggested he look at 98 and up cars so he would get an LS engine. He found some pretty good deals on 2000-2003 cars. I figure it would be easier to take care of and require less attention.

 

[2strokeNorthstar]

I was going to get a 96 c4. I would definitely get a 96 (obd2) or nothing except ZR-1 of course. LT1 or LT4 both good motors. I ended up with an S2000. Different animal but a blast and hold their value. I see the S2000 increasing but the C4 should at least hold its value. Not sure if a C4 will ever be collected outside of ZR-1. S2000 is simple and cheap to fix. One of the easiest newer cars I have worked on.

 

[ls1mike]

Rest of the C4 aside, the L98 is pretty easy to troubleshoot even without the OBD II stuff. Mine was simple and easy to run. It worked just as good a my LS cars have. It just didn't make the power.
I daily drove it for 4 years. I put 70,000 miles on it. I sold it with 170,000 ish. Standard SBC stuff with the TPI. I time I owned it I did and intake gasket and water pump when I first got it.

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by 2strokeNorthstar
I would definitely get a 96 (obd2) or nothing except ZR-1 of course.


I can't agree with this....OBD-2 was just added to the existing 94/95 LT1 PCM. While the 96 cars had a crankshaft sensor.....It had no influence on the ignition or fueling. It's sole purpose was for misfire monitoring!

This "Patch Over" misfire monitor system never worked very well, In fact some would set misfire codes with no misfires present.......The last updates GM had for OBD-2 LT1/LT4 cars had the monitor turned off in the calibration.

To be honest.......The 94/95 OBD-1.5 communication protocol was faster & had all the PID's the OBD-2 cars had besides the misfire & EVAP.


Manufactures were headed in the direction of better on-board diagnostics before a generic protocol was mandated. It's not unreasonable to believe that at the time........OBD-2 mandate slowed the natural progression of systems already in place?

 

[HM12460]

Too hard for us old farts to get in/out of. That era, I would prefer a Mustang GT. Not much of a performance car by todays standards, but still a cool ride.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted by HM12460
Too hard for us old farts to get in/out of.


That is true, the C4 is a real bear to get in and out of. In fact, when I was looking for a C4 back in 1991, one of the ones I looked at was owned by a man who was probably 75-80 years old and he had the car a long time and loved it but told me that he sadly couldn't get in and out of it comfortably anymore.

 

[A_Harman]

I have had my '85 Corvette since 1991, so it's been a long-term relationship.
I bought an '85 on purpose. It had the suspension tuning greatly improved over the '84 debut model, which was commonly panned for too harsh a ride.
The '85 had spring rates reduced by 50%. I bought a Z51 car with the 4+3 manual because I was planning to do serious track days with it.
It was also the first year for Tuned Port Injection, and the 30 HP boost it represented over the Cross Fire Injection.
I also wanted a non-ABS car because I wanted to be sure that I was probing the limits of braking, and not being saved by the computer.

The first time I took it to the track was at Mid-Ohio, and it promptly melted the power steering fluid reservoir after about the 5th run through the Keyhole.
OK. First lesson. It needed a power steering cooler, which I bought from the local Chevy dealer for ~$100. No problems with the power steering after that.
Then the next lesson was the brake pedal going to the floor as I was trying to enter The Loop at Watkins Glen. The single-piston Z51 front brakes with 12" rotors were not up to hard use on the track.
I bought a big brake kit from Morrison-Cook Motorsports that had custom brackets to mount C4 ZR1 twin-piston calipers and 13" rotors directly to the '85 knuckles. I also put on front air dams with 3" ducts and hose to direct cooling air to the calipers to keep the fluid from boiling.
I ran the car in this slightly improved configuration through 1992, when I got tired of being passed by guys in C4 ZR1's.
Then I worked on the L98 to get it up to 400-ish HP so I could keep up. I put in a hotter hydraulic flat tappet cam, small tube headers, Accel Superram intake manifold, Airflow Research aluminum street heads, 6" Fluidamper, and a custom-burnt PROM from Arizona Speed & Marine. Somehow it ran well, and I had no further problems being passed by ZR1's through the '93 and '94 seasons.

Rebuilt the engine in '95 because the stock pistons were looking overheated after the '94 season. I had the block bored .030" over and put in stock pistons and reconditioned stock rods. And bumped up the compression, too. Also converted to a Pete Jackson gear drive for the cam. This rebuilt engine is still in the car, and runs fine, somewhat to my frustration. I would like to put an LS-something in it.
In 2010, I wanted to step up performance a bit more. I installed an AEM engine management system, larger injectors, and replaced the flat tappet cam with a hydraulic roller. I was trying to step it up so I could keep up with C6 ZR1's, but didn't succeed. Those things just walked right past me on the straights. I can keep up with C5 Z06's and stock C6's.

 

[quint]

I had a low mileage garage queen '96 for a while back that I used as a daily driver for a few years. Not a scratch on it to be found. Even having low mileage, during the course I had to replace all the wheel bearings, axle u-joints, tie rods, fuel pump, driver seat track and motor, a few hoses,and a few other things that didnt seem like they should have been worn out yet. Nothing major or horribly expensive though. Maybe she had been beat on in her earlier life, didnt look like it at all though. After a while the 4L60e developed an inconsistent and very clunky 2-3 shift that seemed common enough that almost everybody had heard of it, but uncommon enough that nobody seemed to have a consistent answer as to what was causing it or how to fix it, other than wanting to tear it down piece by piece to go exploring for a cause. I just learned to try to ignore it. I've been in and out of a few JATCO transmissions over the years and know how to tweak some of them, but GM boxes are out of my league.

The whole car drove nice enough I guess, and it was a lot more solid (at least with the glass roof on) than I expected it to be, but having driven C3's a few times my expectations for a C4 were horrifically low to begin with so that might not be saying much. With the removable glass top removed, the whole body became a loosey goose squeaky heap of fiberglass and leather with the structural integrity of a overcooked lasagna noodle with tires on it, so unless the weather was super nice, the glass top stayed on. Got really good MPG. It had lots of torque, it was shiny, and it made some beautiful sounds. Getting in and out was a chore that didnt bother me at first, but it got old quick, but once you were in, it was pretty comfortable. Tires were expensive. Didnt corner or stop nearly as well as my worn out 240sx did or even currently does (or at least seems to) which really, really surprised me. Maybe that was just a perception, but I can say I have thrown my 240 into some corners at speeds I would never ever again thrown the C4 into out of fear of swapping the front and back ends in a hurry, which I shamefully admit I did more than once. The whole car just felt bigger, wider, heavier and bulkier than it really is.... or maybe it really was. I dont know. Anyway, my friend pulled up in her C5 a few months after I got my '96 and after she let me drive it around for a bit I instantly regretted my purchase. The C5 felt better in every way possible, and if I had listened to just about everyone and bought one of those instead, I'd probably still have it.

If I inherited a C4 that had some life in it, or I had time to tinker with it, I'd gladly take it. But I would never shell out money to buy one again.