Ok. So I bought a C4 - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Skippy · #16 03-23-2015, 05:25 AM

I too like the green, and the six speed. About a decade ago, I worked at a tire shop owned by a Corvette guy. All his Corvette buddies brought their cars to him. I got to drive everything from a C1 (modded) to a C5. I liked the C5 the least. It felt too much like a luxury car and not like a sports car. My favorite was a modded C3 set up for top end. Oddly enough it was an automatic, but it made all the right sounds, handling was tight, brakes were good, and it looked good.

Years later I worked in a shop owned by a 911 guy. I got to drive everything from the original 911 to the 997. I wasn't a Porsche fan before I worked there. Now I still appreciate a 'Vette, but I like a 911 even better. My favorite is the 78-83 911SC. It's not particularly fast in a straight line, but it's a great driving experience even if you're doing the speed limit. Downside is one of those is around three times the price of a good C4.

Kuan · #17 03-23-2015, 08:10 AM

Good one Rick. Have fun that thing and don't kill yourself.

michakaveli · #18 03-24-2015, 12:33 AM

Nice find!

Txjake · #19 03-25-2015, 05:09 PM

from a forum: Pretty much sums it up....

"Originally Posted by Paul Workman View Post
Yep. The C4 was a watershed moment in aero and suspension/handling and general shape of things to come, in particular. The C4 saw the extensive use of wind tunnel and CADD in designing the Corvette - a trend setter for sure. However, the power train took longer to transform; the C4 power train debut was a carry-over from the 82 C3s.

The greater the number and scope of change - and the C4 was one of the biggest since the IRS introduced by the C2s - the greater the "opportunity" to see what works and what needs fixin'.

Take the suspension, for example. The change was truly a big improvement over the last generation, and served as a halmark - judging by success of cottage industry aftermarket chassis builders adapting the C4 chassis to not only previous "Cs", but customs for other non-Corvette projects as well. The C4 was the first production Corvette to pull 1G on a skid pad, and the SCCA success leading to the "Challenge" series is a historical signpost and makes for fascinating reading!

However, the suspension was not perfect; at least not for the butts of most early model C4 Corvette buyers. The chief engineer for Corvette at the time, Dave Mclellan, talks about this and the C4's evolution in some detail, including the chassis.

He allows in his book, "Corvette From the Inside" how a good deal of the development was done in the southwest where weather was more cooperative. Along with moderate weather, the roads there were significantly smoother than those often found in the snow and ice regions where roads are very likely festooned with pothole patches, cracks, buckles, etc. As result, in adition to owner's complaining about the harsh ride, the impulses from the chassis found their way to the joints and bonding of the interior (e.g., dash, etc), giving way to the squeaks and rattles that gave a black eye to the early C4s especially.

Spring rates and shocks, as well as assembly techniques, required some "re-think". The changes in ride (at the expense of handling) was incremental and in some people's opinion, slow in coming. Significant improvements were made by the end of the decade, but not before the Covette attained a bad reputation for being a rough rider, and too often it squeaked and rattled. This lead to much of the bashing some lay upon the C4 to this day. (I guess they never rode in an early C3 or a later L88 C3!).

Then there was the drive train...

The (Bosch(?)) TPI design was initially developed to give the anemic 305 SBC a shot the arm for Camaro IROC program. However, (according to articles I read - take the following for what it is worth) to adapt the TPI to the 350 cid motor would require some redesign, and along with that a new commitment/agreement between GM and the TPI manufacture. Delays in coming to this agreement was one of the factors that delayed the C4 debut so long that the window to introduce an 83 MY C4 Corvette had reached a practical close. The Crossfire's appearance on the C4 in the 84 MY was the result of as yet still unresolved issues surrounding the TPI. So,the decision to use the available Crossfire for C4's introduction was made in lieu of the TPI.

For the 85 Corvette, negotiations over the development and production of the 350 cid adaptation of the TPI were concluded, and the L98 was born. As anyone that has driven the L98 Corvette can tell ya, the torque below 4200 rpm or so is impressive and especially lends itself to twisty road cruises and autocross, good ol' Saturday night stoplight to stoplight shenannigans (read: FUN to drive! - And, - with some mods - an SCCA course killer!)

Going out on a limb here, but as I understand it, the Corvette was elimiated from the SCCA races, along with a Porsche entry so as to allow other cars a chance at being in the winner's circle. Hence the Corvette Challenge races came about in lieu of the SCCA event. Maybe someone with first-hand knowledge can refine a bit?)

Perhaps one of the areas that confuses most folks is the relationship between torque and horsepower. I'll avoid wading into that discussion, except to say torque (read: PUSH) at the rear wheels is what causes the car to accellerate. And, as much as the L98 makes gobs of torque - right where it counts in performance cornering events (FUN!), when high speed is needed, wheel torque at higher speeds is needed to continue to push the car. Either the motor has to provide the torque for the wheels at high rpm, or if the torque falls off at higher rpm, then shifting up to the next gear will allow the motor to again produce usable torque. But although at lower rpm the motor is now producing perhaps it's peak torque output, it is at the crank, and not at the wheels. Torque at the wheels is reduced by the lesser multipication as a function of gear ratio(s) of the higher gear.

My purpose for veering into torque/horsepower was to set the stage for what was to become a significant change in engineering, manufacturing, and mindset that was born out of the C4 - develoopment which resonates with all "Cs" thereafter, including the C7: the GM/Lotus/Mercury Marine venture which became the ZR-1, but in particular, the DOHC LT5.

Let's face it: The performance capacity of the Corvette exceeds the driving ability of most Corvette owners - maybe 70% of 'em (at least!). And, would you say the type of driving maybe 80%+ of Corvette drivers falls under 4500-5000 rpm range? And would Corvettes out perform 90+% of the domestic cars on the road of the same model year??

I think so, and so did the powers that be (read: bean counters) at GM, apparently.

Not to make light of the business decisions in running a car manufacturing business - economy at the time and EPA requirements and the like, but all through the middle 80s GM Powertrain seemed rather complacent (words to me from Dave McLellan) to be happy with 15 to 20 or so hp gains from one model year to the next. GM was making lots of money as is. And, at the relatively low-mid speed twisty road course events, the Corvette was a killer - at least at home. So, why the need for a quantum leap?

How 'bout European competition and GM's desire to expand their market share there (for one)? Especially in the prestigeous (sp?) wide-open road courses that excites those with a need for WOT, 3-digit "best of the best" competition!

One of the strongest attractions to the ZR-1 today is the role it played in the virtual re-birth of the Corvette as a viable contender in the world - truly a milestone in the legacy of Corvette. It was the C4, the RPO ZR-1 and development of what is affectionaltely referred to as "The Heart of the Beast" - the LT5 in particular - that is responible for Corvette's rebirth in the eyes of those at home and abroad.

Not to moon over the LT5, per se, but what it did, in the words (again) of Chief Engineer for Corvette, Dave McLellan, (in effect) "It got the (Powertrain) engineers off their hands and to start thinking about real performance again." The C4's LT5 project lead to the girdle used in the bottom end of the LSx and new LT1, GM Powertrain learned a lot from Merc with regard to building aluminum engines to extremely tight tollerances - techniques used to this day. And, in spite of the choice to revert to pushrods over DOHC, there was significant inspiration for performance improvements in the pushrod platform beginning with the Gen III LT1/4s carried over to the LSx and now LT1s.

By 1996, the C4 had developed into a class act and a legitimate performer on an international level. And, like every generation that follows, much is owed to the developments that occured during the C4 production.

So for those that want to kick sand in older "C" gens eyes - or C4s in particular - I say their lack of appreciation for the Corvette legacy is only eclipsed by their raw ignorance of what transpired. And, I'd venture to say, the performance capability of the base model C4s probably eclipeses the driving ablility of 95% of those that bad-mouth older "C's".

Just sayin!

P."