C&D 10 Best Cars Through the Decades: Corvette is Dominant!

[EJChevy]

I just took a quick skim through this interesting article. Since 1983, Car and Driver have listed their Top 10 new cars for each and every year. I couldn't help but notice the Chevrolet Corvette shows up quite often! It made the top ten in:

• 1985
• 1986
• 1987
• 1988
• 1989
• 1998
• 1999
• 2002
• 2003
• 2004
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2014
• 2015
• 2017 (Grand Sport)
• 2018 (Grand Sport)
• 2019
• 2020

That's 21 out of 37 years!

Interesting how through most of the 90's the Corvette didn't make the list, even when the C5 was released in 1997.


To read more:

Car and Driver's 10Best Cars through the Decades

 

[12cents]

The latter years of the C6 didn't make it either by the looks of it

 

[Tourmax]

Not surprising that the C4 has such a strong showing for the years t was produced in the 80’s.

I predict there will be a similar effect with the C8.

Mostly because like the C4, the C8 is a “clean sheet” design and takes “Corvette” to a new level.

C5/6/7 were evolutionary, where the C4/8 were/are revolutionary...

 

[Rruuff Day]

The C5 and the massive changes to almost every mechanics of the car were what saved the Corvette from extinction after the poor sales and performance showing of the C4. The over the top emission controls and the horsepower dogs of the 80's were not that popular. Handling was acceptable but just that alone wasn't attracting buyers... In 92 they started bumping the HP marginally and the ZR1 was at least respectable, but the production of the totally new design LS engine for the inaugural C5, combined with the hydro-formed frame, the trans-axle assembly and true 50/50 weight distribution revived the Corvette... (also had room for two sets of golf clubs..lol). The C6 was a natural evolution with more improvements and tweaks, and arguably the best engine GM has built in the LS3, giving us the first Corvette that makes a 4.0 second 0 to 60.
The C7 was a pretty radical change (in a great way as well) with massive improvements and attention to quality and detail but this will be an interesting decade to watch the progress of the C8. My opinion is it may be the last of the internal combustion fueled mass market Corvettes as well as the last new production hydrocarbon mass market fueled vehicles period.
Tis interesting times we are entering... JMHO

 

[Tourmax]

The C5 and the massive changes to almost every mechanics of the car were what saved the Corvette from extinction after the poor sales and performance showing of the C4. The over the top emission controls and the horsepower dogs of the 80's were not that popular. Handling was acceptable but just that alone wasn't attracting buyers... In 92 they started bumping the HP marginally and the ZR1 was at least respectable, but the production of the totally new design LS engine for the inaugural C5, combined with the hydro-formed frame, the trans-axle assembly and true 50/50 weight distribution revived the Corvette... (also had room for two sets of golf clubs..lol). The C6 was a natural evolution with more improvements and tweaks, and arguably the best engine GM has built in the LS3, giving us the first Corvette that makes a 4.0 second 0 to 60.
The C7 was a pretty radical change (in a great way as well) with massive improvements and attention to quality and detail but this will be an interesting decade to watch the progress of the C8. My opinion is it may be the last of the internal combustion fueled mass market Corvettes as well as the last new production hydrocarbon mass market fueled vehicles period.
Tis interesting times we are entering... JMHO

Repectfully, I’m not arguing that the 5/6/7 were great cars or not. There’s no argument there: they’re great cars. Better than a C4 in almost every measureable way.

But, the C4 is the second longest run and second highest sales (just behind the C3) so “poor sales” is not exactly an accurate statement. Sure, sales were dropping off at the end, but the C4 ran for 12 model years. Sales were dropping off at the end for the same reason sales of the C3 dropped off at the end. One: it was an old design at the end of the model run and two: people weren’t buying with the C4 on the horizon.

With 20/20 hindsight, the C4 generation was low horsepower and had a few funky drivetrain options. But taken with it’s contemporaries (both from GM and other OEM’s), it’s at the front of the pack. 250-300 hp was no joke in the 80’s, but todays high HP numbers have jaded us and looking back at the C4 now makes it seem...”anemic”.

Hell, I still remeber when they released the Mustang II. People loved it in 74 (first year) and it sold like gang-busters. When they got around to dropping the 302 back in it, people again couldn’t get enough of it and that was only around 110-ish hp. Looking back, the II was the least repected and most hated Mustang ever built. But in it’s time, it was a runaway hit. You have to look at engine ratings/chassis performance in the light of thier day, not subsequent model years, or even decades later models.

Drop the hammer on my L98 and you better be holding on because that 345 ftlbs it delivers is gonna throw you around. Only 250 hp, but tickling 350 ftlbs is no joke, especially when its “all in” by 3400 rpm. The big “meat” of the torque curve on an L98 is pretty much right off idle, so it’s stupidly fun on the street. Runs out of breath fast though, part of the characteristics or the TPI system. That running out of breath is also what holds the hp number down. You want to post bug HO numbers, ya gotta spin it high and thats just not the L98. Theres no spinning it to 6-7-8 grand, where modern engines hold thier big HP numbers. A lot of that is how HP is calculated: you need either big trq or big Rpm to make the formulae spit out big HP. Modern engines do it with big rpm. Me? I’ll take low rpm punch over big hp any day of the week. I might be singing a different tune if I was building a track weapon though...that SBC woukd be coming out and an LSx would be going in, along with a better transmission and (as a minimum) a D44 rear.

Lets also not forget that when the C4 hit the track, they actually had to ban it from certain classes and had to make a “corvette series” because nothing else at the time was competitive with the C4. Even today, those old C4’s are regularly crushing the comptetion at autocross events (that includes C5/6/7 models). When the C4 was released you either raced a vette or you didn’t podium....

I stick by my “evolutionary” rather than revolutionary. The c4 was a radical departure from the C3. Frame, body, powertrains....all of it. About all it shared with the C3 was front wngine/rear drive and the shape f the taillights. That made it revolutionary.

The c5 grew out of the C4 achitecture, making the 5/6/7 evolutionary. Great cars and superior (performance wise) to the C4, but evolutionary. It took the C4 layout (space frame, etc) and refined it, but it still grew out of the C4.

The C8 makes the revolutionary jump again, like the C4 did. It basically throws out everything from the previous models and starts clean sheet. Like the C4 did...

 

[Rruuff Day]

Fair enough.

 

[Hiroki Soki]

As a teenager the C4 started my love for Corvettes.

The Callaway C4 Sledgehammer, still one of the most badass Corvettes ever made.

 

[Cobravenomous]

Repectfully, I’m not arguing that the 5/6/7 were great cars or not. There’s no argument there: they’re great cars. Better than a C4 in almost every measureable way.

But, the C4 is the second longest run and second highest sales (just behind the C3) so “poor sales” is not exactly an accurate statement. Sure, sales were dropping off at the end, but the C4 ran for 12 model years. Sales were dropping off at the end for the same reason sales of the C3 dropped off at the end. One: it was an old design at the end of the model run and two: people weren’t buying with the C4 on the horizon.

With 20/20 hindsight, the C4 generation was low horsepower and had a few funky drivetrain options. But taken with it’s contemporaries (both from GM and other OEM’s), it’s at the front of the pack. 250-300 hp was no joke in the 80’s, but todays high HP numbers have jaded us and looking back at the C4 now makes it seem...”anemic”.

Hell, I still remeber when they released the Mustang II. People loved it in 74 (first year) and it sold like gang-busters. When they got around to dropping the 302 back in it, people again couldn’t get enough of it and that was only around 110-ish hp. Looking back, the II was the least repected and most hated Mustang ever built. But in it’s time, it was a runaway hit. You have to look at engine ratings/chassis performance in the light of thier day, not subsequent model years, or even decades later models.

Drop the hammer on my L98 and you better be holding on because that 345 ftlbs it delivers is gonna throw you around. Only 250 hp, but tickling 350 ftlbs is no joke, especially when its “all in” by 3400 rpm. The big “meat” of the torque curve on an L98 is pretty much right off idle, so it’s stupidly fun on the street. Runs out of breath fast though, part of the characteristics or the TPI system. That running out of breath is also what holds the hp number down. You want to post bug HO numbers, ya gotta spin it high and thats just not the L98. Theres no spinning it to 6-7-8 grand, where modern engines hold thier big HP numbers. A lot of that is how HP is calculated: you need either big trq or big Rpm to make the formulae spit out big HP. Modern engines do it with big rpm. Me? I’ll take low rpm punch over big hp any day of the week. I might be singing a different tune if I was building a track weapon though...that SBC woukd be coming out and an LSx would be going in, along with a better transmission and (as a minimum) a D44 rear.

Lets also not forget that when the C4 hit the track, they actually had to ban it from certain classes and had to make a “corvette series” because nothing else at the time was competitive with the C4. Even today, those old C4’s are regularly crushing the comptetion at autocross events (that includes C5/6/7 models). When the C4 was released you either raced a vette or you didn’t podium....

I stick by my “evolutionary” rather than revolutionary. The c4 was a radical departure from the C3. Frame, body, powertrains....all of it. About all it shared with the C3 was front wngine/rear drive and the shape f the taillights. That made it revolutionary.

The c5 grew out of the C4 achitecture, making the 5/6/7 evolutionary. Great cars and superior (performance wise) to the C4, but evolutionary. It took the C4 layout (space frame, etc) and refined it, but it still grew out of the C4.

The C8 makes the revolutionary jump again, like the C4 did. It basically throws out everything from the previous models and starts clean sheet. Like the C4 did...

You obviously love your Corvette...........we all do! That's what Corvette ownership is all about from 1953 to present!

When I was shopping for my C-7, they were advertised as the best Corvettes to date regarding engineering technology. I purchased (ordered) my 2019 in October 2018, and I was fully aware that this would be the last year of the front engine Corvette with the introduction of the mid engine C-8. I did not want to purchase the first year of such a radical new design with my thought process being the first or second year of any new design being the beta testers which allow the manufacturer to resolve any engineering flaws or shortcomings.

Now with the confirmation that the base C-8 hammers my Z06 to 60 (mph) along with the new C-8 being touted as the best engineered Vette to date, far superior to that of my almost brand new C-7, it initially hurt. But this improvement, consistent with historical engineering improvements noted in each new generation of Corvette, I now realize and accept this improvement progression will only help in preserving the Corvette brand which in turn is then beneficial for all Corvette owners alike!

Cheers!