Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Member Map
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
What's new
New posts
All posts
Trending
Latest activity
New media
New Events
New review items
New Users & BDays
New User Announcements
Birthday Announcements
New classified ads
New showcase items
New classified comments
New showcase comments
Classifieds
New ads
New comments
Latest content
Latest feedback
Latest questions
Advertiser list
Search classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Events
New events
Donate
My CCF
Toolbox
Mailing Lists
My Shop
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Showcase
New items
New comments
Latest content
Latest updates
Latest reviews
Author list
Series list
Search showcase
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Member Map
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Corvette
General Corvette Discussion
C&D 10 Best Cars Through the Decades: Corvette is Dominant!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tourmax" data-source="post: 185570" data-attributes="member: 5304"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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”.</p><p></p><p>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 <strong><em><u>thier</u></em></strong> day, not subsequent model years, or even decades later models.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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....</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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...<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tourmax, post: 185570, member: 5304"] 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 [B][I][U]thier[/U][/I][/B] 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...;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Corvette
General Corvette Discussion
C&D 10 Best Cars Through the Decades: Corvette is Dominant!
Top
Bottom
You're browsing as a
Guest
. Please register to receive all manner of go-faster benefits on CCF. Click
HERE
to login or register.