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

[snide]

https://www.thrillist.com/cars/natio...ette-to-60-mph

[SQUIRMIN VERMIN 84]

So true! Time changes most everything, but I love my 84 just as it is cuz it rides hard with a good road feel like all my hot rods of years ago and IMHO, still looks great! I've always loved that big clamshell hood too.

Funny how today's sub 2-liter engines crank out so much horsepower, but
it's all possible with turbo chargers- i wonder at the longevity of those little engines, though...

[Black94lt1]

Originally Posted by SQUIRMIN VERMIN 84

I've always loved that big clamshell hood too.

One of the best things ever if you like working on your car, nothing like being able to sit on the tire and work on the engine, no worries of scratching the fender, etc. I sure miss that hood.

[NCC-1701]

I had an 85 and for it's time it looked great and ran very good. I also liked the two ton clam hood..

[WalkerInTN]

0-60 in 7.9 for the vette? For serious cheap boredom, how about the 1996 Buick Roadmaster station wagon. Right at a 7.0 on the 0-60. Nothing says humiliation like getting beat by a 20 year old wagon.

[RedLS1GTO]

Ok, hold on just a minute. Rather than taking everything that we see on the internet as truth, let's look at this one and try to apply a little common sense.

Common sense. Many of us here have owned or do own C4s. Nobody is claiming that the Crossfire cars are rockets, but does it pass the common sense test that a Buick Roadmaster wagon (as stated above) is almost a full second faster 0-60? Not so much.

Yes, that video says 7.9 seconds (at about 20:25), but... based on what exactly?

7.9? Everything I see from multiple sources says that the '84 Vette was < 7.0 0-60. The most common number is 6.7. I can't find anything other than that video that puts it even remotely freaking close to 7.9.


But hey, who am I to stand in the way of a good C4 bashing...

[Iron Chef]

Originally Posted by TxAg

So they're comparing modern cars against an 80's Vette.

Seems fair.

Although a bit faster with a better facelift, my 94 was still my favorite Vette.

[04 commemorative]

When people say something to me about how their Lexus or Nissan etc is faster than my vette my response usually is......yeah, but.....it's still not a Vette.

Or .....get a life ! ....

[WalkerInTN]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Ok, hold on just a minute. Rather than taking everything that we see on the internet as truth, let's look at this one and try to apply a little common sense.

Common sense. Many of us here have owned or do own C4s. Nobody is claiming that the Crossfire cars are rockets, but does it pass the common sense test that a Buick Roadmaster wagon (as stated above) is almost a full second faster 0-60? Not so much.

Yes, that video says 7.9 seconds (at about 20:25), but... based on what exactly?

7.9? Everything I see from multiple sources says that the '84 Vette was < 7.0 0-60. The most common number is 6.7. I can't find anything other than that video that puts it even remotely freaking close to 7.9.


But hey, who am I to stand in the way of a good C4 bashing...

Ok, in fairness I just checked the 0-60 & 1/4 mile times from the same website, top0-60times.com

Vehicle------------------------- 0-60 ----- 1/4 mile
1982 Corvette ----------------- 9.10 ----- 16.40
1984 Corvette ----------------- 6.60 ----- 14.90
1995 Roadmaster Limited ---- 6.60 ----- 14.80



Edit: I'd note the Roadmaster wagon I referenced came from the factory with a 260HP LT1 motor & can be bought for a couple grand all day long.

[Black94lt1]

Originally Posted by Iron Chef

Although a bit faster with a better facelift, my 94 was still my favorite Vette.

Mine too, kind of wish I would have kept it not bought the C6! The C6 is certainly a better car, faster and more comfortable, but I'm one who thinks a real sports car isn't comfortable.

[SQUIRMIN VERMIN 84]

Years ago at CF, a fender cover vendor thought he'd strike it rich by offering C4 fender covers emblazoned with the C4 logo....."Save that fender paint on your C4! Try our premium fender covers"



You'd have to keep them on the fender with pop rivets so they didn't fall off!!!!!

Great marketing research!!!!

[ZipZap]

Originally Posted by SQUIRMIN VERMIN 84

Years ago at CF, a fender cover vendor thought he'd strike it rich by offering C4 fender covers emblazoned with the C4 logo....."Save that fender paint on your C4! Try our premium fender covers"



You'd have to keep them on the fender with pop rivets so they didn't fall off!!!!!

Great marketing research!!!!

KaleCo?

[JRD77VET]

Originally Posted by WalkerInTN

Ok, in fairness I just checked the 0-60 & 1/4 mile times from the same website, top0-60times.com

Vehicle------------------------- 0-60 ----- 1/4 mile
1982 Corvette ----------------- 9.10 ----- 16.40
1984 Corvette ----------------- 6.60 ----- 14.90
1995 Roadmaster Limited ---- 6.60 ----- 14.80



Edit: I'd not the Roadmaster wagon I referenced came from the factory with a 260HP LT1 motor.

Fairness comparing a 1984 Corvette to a 1995 Buick Roadmaster ltd? There is 11 years of technological advancements in between those cars. Comparing a cross fire to fuel injection?

[markids77]

I had a 1970 Buick Skylark with a 2 barrel 350 auto which would turn 15.2 quarters. Never timed zero to 60 but if shifted to "drive" and the loud pedal matted that thing would wind to an indicated 55mph before shifting to second gear. I think it would be in the hunt versus any stock C4. It was startlingly quick; and I bought it from my grandmother!

[Craig]

My mildly modded '92 would do 0-60 in less than five. That said, my G37 sedan feels very close to that 0-60 wise...but it won't do 170mph or 0.99G on the skid pad.

[WalkerInTN]

Originally Posted by JRD77VET

Fairness comparing a 1984 Corvette to a 1995 Buick Roadmaster ltd? There is 11 years of technological advancements in between those cars. Comparing a cross fire to fuel injection?

Yeah, the original link showed all new vehicles. I just added a 21 year old 4500+ pound station wagon to the mix. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.

I guess I could have posted the 1960 Corvette's times also listed on that site. 0-60 in 6.50, 1/4 mile in 14.80. Which means the 1984 Corvette, with 24 years of technological advancements, was slower.

[carlton_fritz]

Half the cars on the list are not really cheap. Close to or over 30K isn't cheap. Maybe for you ballers, but for the shrinking middle class, they are not. They are all uglier than a Corvette too.

[WalkerInTN]

Originally Posted by carlton_fritz

Half the cars on the list are not really cheap. Close to or over 30K isn't cheap. Maybe for you ballers, but for the shrinking middle class, they are not. They are all uglier than a Corvette too.

That was why I added the wagon. You can find them for sale for a grand or two if you look. Definitely uglier than the vette, but it will seat 8 with the 3rd row rear facing seat.

[RedLS1GTO]

My comment wasn't specific to the wagon... it is just what triggered the question.

The entire article is crap. It is "cheap-boring-cars-faster-than-c4" based on the 0-60 of an '84. If you use what seems to be the ACTUAL 0-60 of an '84 Vette, exactly 1 of the cars on their list is actually faster.

Every other one is slower.

[carlton_fritz]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

My comment wasn't specific to the wagon... it is just what triggered the question.

The entire article is crap. It is "cheap-boring-cars-faster-than-c4" based on the 0-60 of an '84. If you use what seems to be the ACTUAL 0-60 of an '84 Vette, exactly 1 of the cars on their list is actually faster.

Every other one is slower.

The Cruze does not have 153HP either. Makes their entire story suspect.