Picture this: It’s the early 1980s, and you’ve survived the bleakest period for automotive performance since, well, ever. The first era of regression, the Malaise era. Opera windows replaced big blocks, miles per gallon replaced pounds per horsepower as the leading metric, almost everything grew massive bumpers, and you watched hero nameplates get sapped of their power. Then, in 1983, a car rolls off the transporter at your local Chevrolet dealership, an ultra-sleek wedge-shaped thing with a clamshell hood that doubled as the front fenders. You peer inside, and instead of a double-nickel gauge cluster, you see an arcade crammed into the dashboard, optimism for a digital future. The name on the back of the car? Corvette.
When Car And Driver tested the 1984 Chevrolet Corvette, it was the first production car to ever hit the 0.90 g mark on the skidpad, one of the six fastest then-current production cars in the world, and its 173-foot stopping distance from 70-to-zero beat the Porsche 928’s 180-foot figure and was only eight feet off the record at the time, 165 feet set by a Porsche 930 Turbo. And this was the lame-duck Crossfire Injection model with two throttle body injection units atop a 205-horsepower 5.7-liter V8. However, while a zero-to-60 mph time of 6.7 seconds was quick for the time, the real revelation of the inaugural C4 Corvette was the way it took bends. As the magazine wrote:
Until the arrival of final understeer, which comes at lateral accelerations unknown to the average driver, the Corvette is race-car responsive. The exotic suspension, upgraded with a sensational Z51 performance handling package (special Goodyear P255/50VR- 16 tires with an F1-style “Gatorback” rain-tire tread mounted on 8.5-inch front and 9.5-inch rear aluminum wheel , plus quicker steering, tighter hocks, and heavier-duty bushings, sway bars, and spring ), creates handling that can make a quiche-eater look like a serious user of beef jerky and draft beer. The car revels in long, controlled slides. It begs to be steered with the throttle. It forgives ham-fisted operation like no other car on the road, and when driven seriously it will hook up under hard cornering to a point where one begin to wonder if Gordon Murray and Colin Chapman attached sliding skirts and ground-effects tunnels.
Such high praise indicates that the fourth-generation Corvette was off to a serious start by early-1980s standards, but the Corvette team didn’t rest for a moment. The 1984 model year was just the warm-up, with 1985 bringing a retuned suspension setup for better road manners and faster lap times, a new brake master cylinder, and modern fuelling. The Tuned Port Injection L98 5.7-liter V8 cranked out 230 horsepower and 330 lb.-ft. of torque, 25 more ponies, and 40 extra pounds-foot of twist compared to the 1984 models, enough for revised gearing. The result was dramatic: Car And Driver clocked a 14.5-second quarter-mile time for examples with the Doug Nash 4+3 manual gearbox, the sort of go America’s sports car needed. For 1987, output increased again to 240 horsepower thanks to valvetrain revisions, and the overall package was so formidable by the standards of the day that it was banned from SCCA Showroom Stock GT racing.
See, from 1985 to 1987, the Corvette didn’t just beat its competition, it annihilated it. As SCCA Showroom Stock GT racer John Powell told Hagerty, “The Corvette beat Porsche 29–0 from 1985 to 1987.” That’s every single race of this class that it entered. Unsurprisingly, the Corvette was given the boot so that other marques could have a chance to actually compete, and that’s where things got really wild. Powell co-organized a one-make race series starting in 1988, the Corvette Challenge, and sponsors lined up to offer $1 million in prize money during the first season. The result was some of the best sports car racing of all time, involving some big-name drivers. Over the two seasons the series ran, entrants included Jimmy Vasser, Juan Manuel Fangio II, Caitlyn Jenner, Andy Pilgrim, and Scott Lagasse.
Coincidentally, the year of the SCCA ban coincided with the first time a turbocharged Corvette was sold through GM’s dealer network. Ticking option box B2K and ponying up an extra $26,995 would get you a Callaway twin-turbo setup and a built low-compression engine, boosting the Vette to 382 horsepower and 562 lb.-ft. of torque. If you wanted a more powerful U.S.-spec production car in 1987, your only choice was a Countach. Speaking of speed parts, the Corvette got a ZF six-speed manual transmission in 1989 making it among the first, if not the first mass produced car with a six-speed manual, and then things really got crazy during the 1990 model year with the ZR-1.
Sure, the C4 ZR-1 isn’t the first Corvette to run that alphanumeric, with ZR1 being an option code for an engine package on the C3 Corvette, but it was the first ZR1 as we know it. A Mercury Marine-built quad-cam V8 called the LT5 cranked out 375 horsepower and 370 lb.-ft. of torque without any forced induction, a wider body hid massive 315-section tires, and Lotus-tuned adaptive dampers kept things under control. The result, when Car And Driver got one to test, was zero-to-60 mph in 4.6 seconds, the quarter-mile in 12.9 seconds, and a top speed of 176 mph. In 1990, those were supercar numbers, just married to the relative practicality and comfort you’d expect from a Corvette. It set seven FIA speed records, but now you can pick one up for the price of a new compact car.
However, by the early 1990s, the regular Corvette had a problem, and that problem was Japan. Twin-turbocharged Toyota Supras, Mazda RX-7s, and Mitsubishi 3000GTs may have been more expensive than a regular Corvette, but they ran faster, revved higher, and paired big creature comforts with serious shove. The solution was called the LT1, a heavily reworked 5.7-liter small-block Chevrolet V8 that kicked out 300 horsepower and arrived on the scene in 1992. When Car and Driver tested it for its December 1991 issue, the re-powered Corvette hit zero-to-60 mph in five seconds flat, good enough to just about keep up with the Japanese competition for now. Still, it couldn’t catch the Japanese on refinement. The revised interior from 1990 onward was plastic fantastic, the cabin was noisy by 1990s standards, and the small-block still showed its roots.
By 1996, the writing was on the wall. The fourth-generation Corvette had been around for 12 years, sales were falling as buyers were captivated by new breeds of sports sedans and small roadsters, and GM was largely the one to blame for things going a bit stale. The automaker had even considered killing the Corvette as an entity, but eventually had a change of heart. A year before the C5 Corvette was set to arrive, the Corvette team gave the old car a victory lap with an engine called the LT4. Compared to the LT1, it had a more aggressive camshaft, a new crankshaft, 10.8:1 compression, port-matched cylinder heads, and a reworked valvetrain with sodium-filled exhaust valves and hollow intake valves, all to punch out 330 horsepower in stick-shift cars. The cherry on top? A Grand Sport trim that was mostly just an appearance package as you could get the F45 suspension as an option on non-Grand Sport models, and the LT4 came standard on all six-speed cars.
As a result of this parabolic curve of competitiveness, the C4 is arguably the most enigmatic Corvette. For every flaw, there was a triumph. Abominably tall sills versus big-league grip, cramped footwells versus serious moments of innovation, brittle ride quality versus a performance package once so formidable that it was banned from an entire class of racing. However, it was exactly the flagship GM needed for the ’80s, a shot in the arm after the sad decline of the C3. After the malaise era of the late ’70s, this sleek sled was “we’re so back” in four-wheeled form, and that absolutely makes it a hit. If you’ve always wanted one, they’re now cool again, so why not pick one up?
Top graphic image: Chevrolet
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
I think the C4s biggest problem is the C5. I dont think there’s much of a price spread between the two generations. The C5 is leaps and bounds, world’s better than the C4. If youre buying performance for the dollar, and that’s what a Corvette is about, the C5 is a much sweeter spot than the C4. That is, unless youre trying to relive your glory days, and youre glory days happened between 1984-1996, and then, you have to do what you have to do.
I’d say there is a corollary that the C4 is a more go kart-like experience than a C5 (with much better steering and shifting feel), it’s a significantly easier car to work on yourself (excepting bodywork), and I’ll go to my grave insisting that the C5’s interior was a huge step back in quality and design than the one the facelift C4 even if it’s not a rattletrap. The Silverado center stack and terrible seats was entirely why I chose a C4 over a C5 when I bought mine in 2016.
I wouldn’t pay C5 money for an equivalent C4, but I wouldn’t prefer a used up pre-2000 C5 over a nicer LT1 6-speed C4 if they were the same price.
This is the right take.
Interesting take, and I agree that the fischer price buttons in the C5 are gross. I also don’t like how the fenders look like they roll into the wheel wells. Not crisp. It’s a minor thing, but it can make the car look goofy with the wrong wheel/tire combo.
Unfortunately I think the C5 looks like absolute shit. Obviously that’s just my own opinion, but I would take a C4 over a C5 any day.
C5 is by far, my least favorite Corvette.
Okay, I was even born in the 70s, and I have no idea what this means….
There was a book published in 1982 called “Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche” by Bruce Feirstein. It was a satire of masculinity. And yes, eating quiche was considered feminine. And apparently beef jerky and draft beer were the opposite.
Ohh.. interesting.
So was draft beer, like, not a fancy thing then? Now I feel like it’s the standard, but I feel like only fancy people asked for the draft list when I was younger. Did it go from “manly” to “froofroo” and then end up at normal?
Back in those days draft beer was generally light American piss water often sold in pitchers and put down in large manly quantities. Bottled beer was the fancy yuppie stuff, like Heineken.
Puts hand up. Yes, we were young, we were poor. We just wanted to get smashed. The beer was exactly as you described. A pitcher for $4.25. I drink bottled beer now.
You can still find cheap pitchers, if you wanna tie one on for old times sake! Follow the karaoke bars in your area, there’s a connection there that I don’t understand but frequently take advantage of 😉
Yup, them were the days. I don’t drink at all now, but I put down enough for a lifetime ’round then.
The article doesn’t mention these issues:
1) The roof liner had a bad habit of cracking in some convertible versions (or so I have read). QC wasn’t super good here (nor in the entire car in general)). Maybe that’s why the Supra hold’s its expensive values.
2) The Optispark horror MUST be mentioned. The ZR1 in particular (maybe other versions too).
They are hit or miss, but can be very reliable if you get a good one (I don’t know what percentage of these Corvettes were problem free (and I am not going to rely on someone who “claims” to be a mechanic that saw 10s of thousands in his shop here on the Internet)….
My sample pool is small but my Dad had a ‘91 C4 from ‘96-‘09. As far as I remember it was generally problem free but there were a few minor issues. He sold it with 120k (I think) miles on it and it was still running strong. Issues included fading pixels on the LCD screen from time to time and cracked leather seats.
All the plastics in a C4 had a habit of cracking, and this is a car kept out of the sun and garaged. I’m amazed the top is still one piece. ‘Inherited’ 1987 convertible.
As a Brit, I think the Corvette is a quintessentially *American* car. And I mean that in a good way. I genuinely do.
It looks amazing even today (even if the interior has not aged well) and sounds even better. The performance you get for the price is fantastic.
Even though it wouldn’t work in Europe, with our small twisty roads and high fuel prices, it just works so well in the US.
See also : the 1st Gen Viper
Amazing cars.
Counterpoint: Jaguar, Aston-Martin, Bristol…
Comparing cars of the era of the C4 Corvette (1984-1990)
Jaguar XJS is much slower. Even the V12
Aston-Martin and Bristol are much more expensive.
Remember that the C4 pre-dates the Jag XK8, Aston DB7
Bristol were an incredibly small niche manufacturer, I’ve only ever seen a couple on the road (and I live in Bristol). A US equivalent would be someone like Vector.
Morgan are/were much more prolific in comparison.
FWIW my two year period of 911 ownership fell during the 7 years I owned a C4 and while they drove quite a bit different (you sit much more upright in the 996, the steering is much lighter in the 996 even though they both have a lot of feel, the C4 is much more “mechanically” tied to the road, etc), how you “place” them on the road was very similar because they were pretty close in size and visibility was very good in both. C4s feel much smaller than they actually are because the wheelbase relatively short, and in actual size they are much smaller than the Corvettes that came before and after them.
A base C5 is a much faster and more capable car than even an LT4 Corvette, but it feels quite ponderous and vague and huge in comparison.
They really look good. But nobody mentions how cramped the legroom is and how not straight at all. Weird.
The main flaw was that it was underbaked in general in the first couple years (the shitty Crossfire takes all the headlines as it should; but in general the 1984s have a bunch of poorly conceived ideas 1-2 year only ideas in them that were very quickly drummed out for better solutions); but this was about as great of a hit that GM in the 1980s could have possibly managed and a profound leap forward from the C3 which was dated even when it debuted. Even in the second half of its life when the base car got the ZR-1 styling and the much nicer interior it was still competitive with the renewed competition from the Japanese makes until the A80 came out (though that rapidly swelled well beyond it in price as well); which was when the C5 was originally supposed to come out anyway.
Probably because (like the C5 was but in a different way) the car’s development was kept as far away from GM proper as it could have been, the main meddling being whatever idiot executive told the development team they had to cut the T-Bar out of the roof when the car was a year and a half from debut.
Today I passed a C4 for sale on the side of the road and momentarily got excited until I saw the dreaded “Cross-Fire Injection” script on the fender and got a little sad. The LT1 C4 is a huge improvement in performance over the L98, but the L98 was a monumental improvement in, well, everything, over the L83 Cross-Fire pile of crap. The Doug Nash 4+3, while interesting, is hardly a winner either. I have more than once considered buying an L98 C4 with the ZF 6-speed and throwing in a stroker 383. I am an LT1 apologist, so a later C4 could work too, but my ideal would be a 1991 C4 with the ZR1 bodywork and an L98.
I had a 94 Caprice with a slightly detuned variant of the LT1. Let me tell you that engine was magical. Even at 120mph, if you stomped the gas, your head was snapped back instantly.
Ugh, stop talking about how cool Corvettes are, you’re making me want one!
The Grand Sport is legit one of the hottest-looking cars of all time. I like C4s aesthetically, but that one is the best.
This 1000%. The C4 Grand Sport is an all-time classic. Few vehicles grab my attention as hard as they do on the rare occasions I see one.
I have mulled over buying a “cheap” c4 for years but since they are still vettes, they still have owners that think they are worth way too much. The problem is a decent quality c4 is in the same price range as a decent/lower quality c5, and I would take a poor quality c5 over any c4 any day (other than maybe a dirt cheap c4 zr1, but those engines are not really Chevy engines so parts and repairs are not easy). The c4 for me was about 1990, got the ZF 6spd but still had the gen 1 small block and not the gen 2. While the gen 2s are decent, they are not as easy to fix or mod as the gen 1s and neither would stay stock for me. Again, I would just end up buying a c5 with its gen 3 goodness. Oh wait, I bought a wrecked c6 with a gen 4, so no time or money for any of these anyway!
What engine does the c4 zr1 have?
As Thomas mentioned in the article, it was called the LT5. a Dual overhead cam v8 built by Mercury Marine and largely designed by Lotus engineering with GM’s input. Very radical for the time that it was released, but not a standard GM v8 with some hot parts swapped on.
In my view, the original unreliable cross-fire injected C4 was a miss. It became a hit after around 6 years of fixes and improvements.
The biggest improvement the C4 had over the C3 was a trunk:
https://photos.classiccars.com/cc-temp/listing/163/3257/33849555-1984-chevrolet-corvette-thumb.jpg
Many don’t realize that the C3 didn’t have a proper trunk… just storage space behind the seats.
Bravo!! Excellent article!! I never got the Corvette craze because I only knew family and friends that bought them and let them wither in their garages thinking they were golden statues. These were meant to drive. Then again there was the model series that required a full engine rebuild at 50k. So maybe keeping them in the garage undriven gave them life… LOL
With that said, one of my dream cars is still a 70’s Stingray. I think I could make it work and make it comfortable to drive.
Great write up on the C4! Always thought it was the poster car for ‘continuous improvement’ – even without the wild ZR1 and TT Callaway models.
A cheap, reliable, and quick pop-up head light 80s/90s classic.
Also many don’t know Bruce Jenner was also a bad ass driver, not just Olympic hero. Racked up lots of wins including a 12 hr endurance win at Sebring I think.
Jenner’s kid runs Stadium Super Trucks these days. Race car driver lineage!
I also forgot about Caitlyn Jenner’s racing years. I guess she and Burt (the driver kid) have competed together a few times, including a Baja attempt. Huh!
This, along with the Countach and Testarossa, were huge parts of what made me fall in love with cars.
Long live the 80s.
The C4 may have been a revelation for magazine writers on racecourses – after all, it was specifically designed for them.
But for real people on real roads, those performance numbers came at a cost – Body rattles and bodily discomfort, chief among them.
I owned a 1992 Corvette for a few months. I’m glad I owned it, but I’m also glad I sold it.
Isn’t that what they say about boats? The happiest days are the day you buy it and the day you sell it.
My dad had a sweet red 96vert with a glassed ground effects kit and a few bolt ons. Even by today’s standards, it was quick!
I know someone who won the lottery and immediately bought one of those late model LT4s. While she waited for delivery, she would wax on about specs and other acronyms like a race car driver in waiting. I never even got to ride in it before she crashed and totalled it. No, not at the limit or anything, just a badly judged slow speed parking garage manoeuvre. For the record, I do know that she could drive a manual transmission with competence. Just not that night. I am told recreational drugs might have been involved.
I try not to be prejudiced, but that has always seemed so on brand for these cars.
If you want to look good, stand next to an ugly person. The C3 was a great Corvette when it was introduced, but a decade and a half later, and saddled with all the drippings of the Malaise Era, it was pretty awful. Chevy would have had to truly botch the C4 to make it look bad.
While I agree that the late c3 looked bad compared to the early c3, it has solid improvements in both aerodynamics and weight reduction (several hundred pounds actually). From that standpoint an 81 c3 is about the best starting point, but yes, ugly. The c4 was worlds better than even that best c3, and it made it obvious with its styling too. I am partial to the later c4s with the convex rear bumper.
The C4 was the car GM needed at the time, but in my mind, it was a step toward recovery of the Corvette marque. C5 went the rest of the way.
I’d consider owning a C4 ZR-1 for the right price, but that’s probably about it – C4 just isn’t my favorite generation of Corvette.
Fun read. I didn’t realize the handling numbers the early C4 put up. I have an 87 C4 that is currently on Toyo RA1s and it sticks to the road like it’s glued on. It doesn’t ride half bad either with all that sidewall. The car has also been incredibly reliable.
The impact the C4 had can not be overstated. It was the “future” in vehicle form.
It’s been 4 decades since it came out, and there are some out there that still can’t get it through their thick skulls that American cars can indeed handle.
It’s ironic that the most plainly-styled generation was also the most innovative. Transverse plastic leaf springs! Unidirectional tires! Hydroformed unibody panels!
But the sad truth is, it’s the ugliest Corvette generation, and it isn’t even close.
Calling any type of sports car ugly is sure to upset some fan of the vehicle.
I’m not really a fan of the early C1s (though the later quad headlight versions are awesome), and the 5 thru 7 always struck me as plastic Mattle Barbie caricature of the C4 – to be clear, not in a good way. If anything, to my eyes the C8 takes the “ugly Corvette” crown.
The C2 (especially ’63 split window) and later C4s with the squared off taillights are actually my favorites.
But that’s why it’s great there are so many generations available. There’s bound to be something for everybody.
How old are you?
Older than Watergate
Couldn’t disagree more.
Even after reading this article and agreeing with every word in it, I still don’t like the look. The reason? I was 11 years old in 1983 when this thing hit the streets, after having grown up with the C3 Corvette. Tell me any American automaker has ever produced a sexier body style than the C3 Corvette, and to quote Tom Anderson from “Beavis And Butthead,” you’n I are gonna tangle.
Mechanically, technologically, and performance-wise? Yes, the C4 Corvette was a revelation and a marvel, and it greatly elevated the Corvette’s already loaded resume. On pure appeal? Gimme a buttress-window C3 that’s gone shopping at QA Suspension and Summit.
In my decidedly not humble opinion, the Corvette didn’t look like a Corvette again until the C5. The “flying doorstop” just simply never did anything for me. That’s not to say that I would kick a ZR1 out of bed for eating crackers.
Good point you make and I agree . Those early C3s are simply gorgeous… late C3s like Dirk Diggler’s.. not so much
There is a vast chasm in between 68 and 82, style-wise.
The C4 was perfectly styled for it’s period. Just the right amount of wedge. Just the right amount of curves. With a little boxiness sprinkled in. Calling it “plainly-styled” is ignorant of the era it was released in. The voluptuous curves of the C3 were going out of style when the C4 was released. Seeing those pop-up headlights spin around the opposite way you’d expect for the first time was pure insanity. That massive rear glass hatch, and looooong flat hood was unlike anything else out there. The fact that the Corvette evolved that C4 styling up until the C7 speaks to its timeless design and proportions.
The curves of the C3 were going out of style in the mid 70’s, and were completely anachronistic by its 10 year anniversary in 1978.
But Chevy had nothing to replace it with for 6 more long years.
When the c4 dropped I agree it was a styling revelation for the time. Going to the convex rear bumper helped a bit with n the later years, but as Thomas mentioned in the articles by the early 90s the Japanese cars just flew ahead styling-wise. The Rx7 FD is astonishingly good looking and next to a c4 of the same year looks decades in the future. Gm has a history with the vette to wring out each gen way past its styling due date. When I saw c4s as a kid, I would also see these Japanese cars and it left a bad taste for the c4 styling. The c5 seems to have basically mixed the c4 shape with the smooth rounded lines of the Japanese cars and especially the c5 z06 (fixed roof coupe) is probably my favorite looking vette. I thoroughly respect the c4s performance and the styling of its time but it’s not my favorite. A 69 with the big block hood and side pipes is also a contender for my favorite styling of a vette.
Until the C6 (IIRC) the Corvette was not tasked with actually making a profit, which is one of the reasons GM had to squeeze out every generation for as long as it did.
Also, there is a little bit of rose colored glasses here because the FD RX7 (which I absolutely love) was on sale for 10 long years. The mark 3 Supra for 7 and the mark 4 for 8 long years. The 4th, 5th and 6th gen Nissan Zs were sold for 6, 7 and 11 years! So ALL these sports cars were long in the tooth by the time they were retired. The C4 was released before all of these so it started looking old a lot sooner.
Depending upon my mood, sometimes the early C3s are my favorite. Sometimes the C2s, but usually the more modern ones like the C7 and C8. I think the whole Corvette image has gotten a huge lift from the latest car that I can’t wait to see what the C9 might be like. I am absolutely loving the concept cars Chevy has shows us so far this year. I think one design has yet to be revealed.
good perspective, sports cars do tend to go a bit longer than other models. My guess is I just started recognizing these cars at a specific point in time (when the c4 was still in production but these other cars started coming out) that it makes it feel different. I can love just about any corvette gen, I agree that it depends on my mood sometimes.
I suspect the RX7 is a lot more expensive than an equivalent Corvette C3/C4 in the used market.
oh yes they are, other than a clean c4 zr1 which can command high prices. But for RX7s specifically, the FB’s are quite cheap, even when compared to the similar years late c3 or early 4. the FC’s also tend to have prices similar to good c4s, but the FD just skyrockets in price.
You’re not wrong, yes it was the era of the “shear look” which included beauties like the Celebrity. The problem was this understated style doesn’t work on a Corvette. Not enough curves, especially the fenders, which are the Corvette signature styling feature since ’63.
If it makes you feel any better, the 82 Camaro is the ugliest gen, also by a mile.
There will be people out there who would be happy to disagree with you concerning styling. Again, in that era, curves were absolutely not “in”. You might not like the lack of curves (and I agree to some degree), but it was intentionally styled that way – no one at that time was calling the c4 ugly when it first hit the scene.
No, of course not. This is a case of “the ugliest Miss America contestant” or “The slowest Lamborghini”. It’s all relative.
I’m of the opinion that the C5 is the ugliest generation (it’s a bit bloated, or suffers from being Temu RX-7, and the C6’s crisper take on the same basic themes make it look worse in comparison), but the C4 is also the Corvette for pretty much of all of my childhood, so it’s slightly imprinted on me as inherently right.
I like your take, except regarding the C6. I see the C6 design as fully bookending the ‘classic Corvette’ design in the series. The C7 became the transition generation with the hard edged, I’m a race car design. The C6 is sleek, not bloated and has the round tail lights and lack of major aero tack ones like aggressive defusers. It has design influence from every generation (except probably the first) included cohesively. It’s my fave after C2s and fit the era perfectly. Which is part of the problem as the C3/4/5 generations went on for too many years design wise.
Sorry, that shouldn’t have come across as anti-C6, the C6 is great, exactly as you’ve laid out.
Ah, and the C5 is my favorite. Taste is hard to figure.
GM currently sells a mid-engined car that has all of the styling elements from the front engine car it replaced badly transposed onto its completely different proportions, like the Edgar suit from the first Men in Black.
I’d rate the C8’s styling second worst after the C4. I hate the boomerang, and when I see one at a distance at first my brain says “Ferrari”.
have you seen a C7?
Yeah, it’s not one of my faves either. I guess a ranking is in order.
Your mileage may vary!
I drove a 1985 for nearly 20 years. My wife had bought it before we were married, but after driving it a few years, she decided she was done being bounced around and wanted something more upscale with a smoother ride. So I gave up my car and “reluctantly” took the Corvette<g>.
While it handled well and was fast in its day, it didn’t hold up well. By the end, it was really falling apart inside and out, and was on its second transmission when I finally sold it (with about 100k miles).
The 80s Corvettes were built poorly. 1985 being the first of this generation. You have to remember that 80s was a bad time for Chevrolet/Cadillac/GMC with the garbage engines they had in some of their products…
90s, and 00s they got better (slowly they did, even though issues do exist).
Hit AND Miss. A car that had extremely respectable performance for the era, but just had such a resounding stink of cheap and unrefined about it that I have no interest in them at all. Putting a big engine, sticky tires, and a rock crusher suspension made the C4 go fast and corner well, but it rode like a dumptruck and was built like a cheap dog toy, complete with all the squeaks and rattles. Effective, but so crude.
And they came with the world’s goofiest manual transmission initially. Well, maybe second goofiest after the skip-shift nonsense in the C5. Not sure which is worse, they both sucked.
At least a $20 solenoid fixed the ship-shift nuttiness.
I thought there was just a wire you could cut? Still epically stupid. Of course, so are CAFE and guzzler taxes.
For the skip shift yes, they even show in the manual “Don’t cut this very specific wire”. The Doug Nash 4+3 is a whole nother ball o wax though.
LOL – nice to know my memory works.
Would it have killed GM to spend the money to buy in a decent 5spd for the C4??
They did, it just took a few years.
Should have been in place day 1.
Agreed, but that isn’t the GM way! I’m a total GM-stan but I do admit that they have a pretty bad habit of getting the product perfect riiiiiiight at the end of its production.
No doubt about that. Release half-assed product that gets a bad reputation, THEN fix it, THEN kill it.
Ummmm those with the standard suspension rode fine for what they were. The Z 51 was for racers, and Chevy TOLD people that. How many have you owned?
I have driven every generation from C1 to C7, most in multiple thanks to an uncle who has been VERY into collecting and trading the things since about the time I was born. I got my license shortly after the debut of the C4. With a C8 showing up when they come down this winter supposedly. The standard C4 rides like ass – the Z51 is just that much worse. Porsches manage to handle properly while not beating you up and squeaking and rattling like cheap toys.
As far as owning one, not even for free. Not my idea of a good time in any way.
That’s why Porsches are so much more expensive.
If you let me know of a Porsche that was cheaper than a Corvette at the time while delivering better quality, I would be impressed.
You can have cheap, fast, good – pick two.
Agreed, the first year or two the z51 was insanely stiff and GM had to retune it quite a bit. I have not driving one but it seems like those first z51s suspension bits (springs and sways) are only good for smooth as glass roads, like autocrossing. Gm made a similar mistake with the c6 Z06, the first year had super aggressively valved shocks and even race drivers had trouble putting down consistent laps with it. Next year Gm re-valved and the car was greatly improved, though c6 shocks are still not known to be tuned very well.