Unfortunate for you, Kent, but completely understandable.
Someone will get what promises to be a terrific C4 with a lot of upside potential.
Colin.
C4- The Rodney Dangerfield of the Corvette Community.
- Thread starter CaledoniaBrian
- Start date
Unfortunate for you, Kent, but completely understandable.
Someone will get what promises to be a terrific C4 with a lot of upside potential.
Colin.
Love that article
when I was growing up and saw these c4 corvettes, I knew I wanted to buy one, finally did and one of the best purchases ever.
If this gets ppl to start buying C4s you can call me
had so many offers just driving No Way I'm. Selling
when I was growing up and saw these c4 corvettes, I knew I wanted to buy one, finally did and one of the best purchases ever.
If this gets ppl to start buying C4s you can call me
had so many offers just driving No Way I'm. Selling
Love that article
when I was growing up and saw these c4 corvettes, I knew I wanted to buy one, finally did and one of the best purchases ever.
If this gets ppl to start buying C4s you can call me
Similar experience, tho I was over 30 y/o when the C4 was born. I loved it right from day one and hoped to have one some day.
I'm glad to have my C6 -- it's special in its own right, but equally glad to have a C4 to admire.
It's bound to become more popular as time goes on.(even tho there were many produced).
if you want one that's a ton o' fun to drive kent's 88 has the doug nash 4+3 manual trans.
The best year would be of course the 1988 C4 base coupe fully loaded with the doug nash 4+3 manual transmission.Please see the for sale section for pictures of what a real good 88 C4 looks like.You will not be disappointed it is one fine car.
Kent
Nice thought but I have to wait a couple years and I have something very specific in mind .Wish I had never sold my wife's 87 and she has never forgiven me .
Amen to that -- I don't understand why 'Rodney' would be involved at all...
When it first arrived in '84, it struck a cord in me that I remember to this day.....
I guess everyone has their favourites new and old.
In any case I'll second the kudos to Brian for posting and taking the time to care and promote the C4's ...
We can only hope that in time they will get their just recognition from everyone.
C.
Last edited:
Some of the better running 1996 LT4 cars are known to have put a long face on the odd LS1 car. Build a stroker LT4 car with a good set of aftermarket heads and it could very well smoke our LS2 car. Over the years I have seen certain engine combinations that work a lot better than they should. The LT4 is one of those over achievers. What does old Rod know anything about cars anyway.
Some of the better running 1996 LT4 cars are known to have put a long face on the odd LS1 car. Build a stroker LT4 car with a good set of aftermarket heads and it could very well smoke our LS2 car. Over the years I have seen certain engine combinations that work a lot better than they should. The LT4 is one of those over achievers. What does old Rod know anything about cars anyway.
Interesting Keith -- and how does the LT1 stack up against the LT4 for performance and reliability?
Pardon the off topic, Brian -- I'm just interested in my forthcoming '94.
Maybe you too can shed some light on those 2 engines.
C.
The ports in the heads are revised significantly. I'm pretty sure the LT1 intake won't work at all. The raised LT4 port is "B". https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&...ter.net%2Fsteveher37%2FLT4%2Flt4.html;656;802
Note how much higher the top of the port is. The whole casting had to be revised to accommodate the taller port. I've always found GM's numbers to be pretty good in general. About the only real stretch was rating the '65 L78 at 425 hp. Even GM changed the rating for '66 after a few weeks of production and dropped the L72 rating from 450 hp down to 425. 375 hp or even less would have been more accurate in stock form for the L78. I've put a lot of miles on each and there is a light year of difference. The L72 engine, like the LT4 is just a happy combination that works very well. The L79 327 350 hp was another happy one. In the '60s the hp numbers from the factories were more for advertising purposes than reality. It would appear that today's numbers are pretty accurate. In about 2008 the method of rating hp was changed slightly. Apparently by the new methods the LS2 would have been rated at around 410 hp. The quarter mile numbers are about as close you will get to real world.
You could debate stuff like this to death and never come to a good conclusion. Performance is more than just peak hp numbers. A friend has raced for years. Every time he has achieved peak numbers on the dyno, he has run quicker after fine tuning at the track. It's about power over the whole rpm range, not just at the peak.
Note how much higher the top of the port is. The whole casting had to be revised to accommodate the taller port. I've always found GM's numbers to be pretty good in general. About the only real stretch was rating the '65 L78 at 425 hp. Even GM changed the rating for '66 after a few weeks of production and dropped the L72 rating from 450 hp down to 425. 375 hp or even less would have been more accurate in stock form for the L78. I've put a lot of miles on each and there is a light year of difference. The L72 engine, like the LT4 is just a happy combination that works very well. The L79 327 350 hp was another happy one. In the '60s the hp numbers from the factories were more for advertising purposes than reality. It would appear that today's numbers are pretty accurate. In about 2008 the method of rating hp was changed slightly. Apparently by the new methods the LS2 would have been rated at around 410 hp. The quarter mile numbers are about as close you will get to real world.
You could debate stuff like this to death and never come to a good conclusion. Performance is more than just peak hp numbers. A friend has raced for years. Every time he has achieved peak numbers on the dyno, he has run quicker after fine tuning at the track. It's about power over the whole rpm range, not just at the peak.
Last edited:
Went for breakfast this morning at a popular place and I had to go around back to park .There it was a 86 or 87 sitting outside of a run down apartment building .The car was covered with tree limbs ,leaves and brush .It wasn't anything special but it shouldn't be treated like that .I'm going back some evening this week .
You would need the LT4 intake. Adding a set of AFR heads will really wake up your LT1 Colin. Air Flow Research
I'm looking at using their SBC heads when I get my engine build together. Air Flow Research
