Cheap, boring cars that are faster than a C4...

[Kerrmudgeon]

Hard to make an impression on a new date with a Buick Wagon!

[carlton_fritz]

Originally Posted by Waco

The 2016 model does.

If my 23 year old 1.6L can hit low 200s at the wheels with a reasonable turbo, I'm amazed modern cars don't make more.

I was at the Chevy dealer yesterday and checked. 138HP in the Cruze. I do not know why it says different than the website.

[Black94lt1]

Originally Posted by carlton_fritz

I was at the Chevy dealer yesterday and checked. 138HP in the Cruze. I do not know why it says different than the website.

153 is only if you opt for the fart can exhaust

[WalkerInTN]

Originally Posted by Kerrmudgeon

Hard to make an impression on a new date with a Buick Wagon!

True, but I'm thinking the '84 vette won't make a great impression either. It's the absolute low point in Corvette history.

Plenty of room for some action in the shaggin' wagon.

[Kerrmudgeon]

Today's little cars are a lot faster than the old muscle cars from way back. A new Honda Civic will run circles around my 62 vette. But would I trade it?.....

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by WalkerInTN

It's the absolute low point in Corvette history.

Based on what exactly?

No generation of Corvette has ever been a larger advancement in technology than the C4 was over the C3. The C4 could hold its own with the best sports cars on the planet.

Sure, the crossfire was underpowered by today's standards, but 30 years later the C4 is still is capable of holding its own with most of today's sports cars in terms of handling and all around performance.

Take any car from that article and put it on a road course with a C4. What do you think would happen?

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by WalkerInTN

It's the absolute low point in Corvette history.

Based on what exactly?

No generation of Corvette has ever been a larger advancement in technology than the C4 was over the C3. The C4 could hold its own with the best sports cars on the planet.

Sure, the crossfire was underpowered by today's standards, but 30+ years later the C4 is still is capable of holding its own with most of today's sports cars in terms of handling and all around performance.

Take any car from that article and put it on a road course with a C4. What do you think would happen?

You can just about count on one hand the number of cars under $100,000 that would actually outrun a C4, especially the LT1 cars, around a road course. Not bad for a design that is close to 4 decades old.

[WalkerInTN]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Based on what exactly?

No generation of Corvette has ever been a larger advancement in technology than the C4 was over the C3. The C4 could hold its own with the best sports cars on the planet.

Sure, the crossfire was underpowered by today's standards, but 30+ years later the C4 is still is capable of holding its own with most of today's sports cars in terms of handling and all around performance.

Take any car from that article and put it on a road course with a C4. What do you think would happen?

You can just about count on one hand the number of cars under $100,000 that would actually outrun a C4, especially the LT1 cars, around a road course. Not bad for a design that is close to 4 decades old.

Based on the fact that it was the first year C4. C1's,C2's & C3's generally are more desirable. Other year C4's are as well. The crossfire engine & arcade game dash didn't help.

The rest of your argument is for the C4 in general. My point was specifically against the 1984 model year.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by WalkerInTN

True, but I'm thinking the '84 vette won't make a great impression either. It's the absolute low point in Corvette history.

Plenty of room for some action in the shaggin' wagon.

The 1968 year model was so bad that Car and Driver returned theirs to the factory stating they wouldn't even test it. I'd say that was the low point. As I recall in 1984 the press was saying the new generation Corvette was America's version of a Ferrari that normal people could afford.

[WalkerInTN]

Originally Posted by Craig

The 1968 year model was so bad that Car and Driver returned theirs to the factory stating they wouldn't even test it. I'd say that was the low point. As I recall in 1984 the press was saying the new generation Corvette was America's version of a Ferrari that normal people could afford.

I'd bet money that a 1968 is more desirable these days than the 1984 is. Both cars had those first year glitches to be sure.

As far as the press goes, history has repeatedly shown they'll write high praise about the biggest POS the industry makes.

[SQUIRMIN VERMIN 84]

Originally Posted by WalkerInTN

I'd bet money that a 1968 is more desirable these days than the 1984 is. Both cars had those first year glitches to be sure.

As far as the press goes, history has repeatedly shown they'll write high praise about the biggest POS the industry makes.

Crossfire injection was first used in the 1982 CE C3. Just plain throttle body injection and tbi was used on Astros and trucks into the early 90's.

Back in 82 and 84, it was new and computer driven and not many outside of dealers knew how to trouble shoot it.

I've had mine for 11 years and air filters are the only things I've replaced on it.

L83s are much maligned, usually by folks who have no working knowledge of them.

They were all the rage back in '82, but technology quickly passed them by.

They're really just twin throttle bodies sitting diagonally across a special intake manifold.

They're no harder to work on or diagnose than a TPI, and in some cases easier since there are only 2 points of fuel introduction instead of 9 on the 1st gen L98.

If it's running right when you get it, and you use only quality gasolines, you should have no more problems than any other Corvette owner with whatever powerplant they're running.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by WalkerInTN

As far as the press goes, history has repeatedly shown they'll write high praise about the biggest POS the industry makes.

They didn't in '68.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by WalkerInTN

Based on the fact that it was the first year C4. C1's,C2's & C3's generally are more desirable. Other year C4's are as well. The crossfire engine & arcade game dash didn't help.

The rest of your argument is for the C4 in general. My point was specifically against the 1984 model year.

Well yea, no kidding the early cars are going to be more desirable. They have gone well into the point of being collector cars. Their value comes from age, rarity, and condition. Performance has almost nothing to do with it.

C4s aren't even close to being old enough to hit that desirability... especially since what is essentially the same car went all the way through '96.

I certainly don't see people knocking down doors to get to the late C3s these days...


I do still think it's funny that the article that started this entire discussion was written with numbers that by all appearances seem to be grossly inaccurate. I

If you use the correct numbers, the article name would be "Modern cars slower than a 30 year old Corvette"

Talk about a fail of an article.

[WalkerInTN]

Originally Posted by TxAg

.

Yep, totally. What would you consider the low point year wise?

[WalkerInTN]

Originally Posted by SQUIRMIN VERMIN 84

Crossfire injection was first used in the 1982 CE C3. Just plain throttle body injection and tbi was used on Astros and trucks into the early 90's.

Back in 82 and 84, it was new and computer driven and not many outside of dealers knew how to trouble shoot it.

I've had mine for 11 years and air filters are the only things I've replaced on it.

L83s are much maligned, usually by folks who have no working knowledge of them.

They were all the rage back in '82, but technology quickly passed them by.

They're really just twin throttle bodies sitting diagonally across a special intake manifold.

They're no harder to work on or diagnose than a TPI, and in some cases easier since there are only 2 points of fuel introduction instead of 9 on the 1st gen L98.

If it's running right when you get it, and you use only quality gasolines, you should have no more problems than any other Corvette owner with whatever powerplant they're running.

My thoughts on those motors is just from what I've heard & read. The press never seemed to have good things to say about them. And the fact that they only used them for a couple years made me think they weren't very good.

I knew they came in the 1982, that was why I included their times in my other post.