vl5150

Withdrawn

kdtomczak

Sometimes, i hate hearing how much HP these new "regular" cars have.

Paul Workman

One survey taken a while back indicated that about half of the ZR-1 owners had never hit the 7100 rev limiter, and many of them admitted not revving much over 6000, and some didn't even go that high.

To add to that, for example at the latest BG C4 gathering there was a substantial feedback from some that felt the pace of the track "Touring Laps" were too fast. (Well, they were quite spirited, but nothing outrageous or close to testing the limits of the cars!)

This came as quite a surprise to me. A ZR-1 is a no-holds barred performance monster with a price tag to go with it. So, I would have thought if people laid out the cash to buy one, a high percentage would also flog them when opportunity presented itself. Not so...

Well... I guess the only conclusion I could come to is some people buy Corvettes for the BRAGGING RIGHTS w/o ever experiencing (or intending to) what the cars are capable of; WAXERS vs. WARRIORS, I guess.

Note: Based on this, I wonder how many of the people that "diss" previous Corvette generations have actually driven their cars to the limits of the C4, let alone in a late model Vette?

ghoastrider1

anyone know what the L-98 and LTs run on the dyno (stock). My 86 runs really close to the times my brother ran in his 61 fuelie back in the day.(1/4)

HeavyLifter

- Well said. I don't drive my LT4 daily since my commute trip is less than 4mi round trip, but when I do drive it - it certainly see's the 6k+ RPM range. That said, since I've taken ownership of it, it's seen excellent maintenance and care and should last. It was made to be driven like a Corvette.

Speaking of flogging - we rented a C7 in San Diego and it def. wasn't flogged - see below & make sure the volume is up so you can hear the C7 sing

mike100

My old 69 Camaro was a lot safer with 250hp than it was with 425 when I swapped engines. I actually drove it more places and toured it on the back roads as it had springs and swaybars to keep the body flat. Once I went with a 7000 rpm small block, it pretty much became street-strip as it was a bit punchy to max out on corners.

That's what is so much better about the modern pony cars- you get 400 hp that isn't scary to use. You can leave the traction control on in perf mode and it lets the car tail out a little and feathers the torque on and off if you just keep the throttle mashed...also the understeer isn't as bad since the engineered these cars knowing the stability control would be there to blend out the oversteer power.
Another point would be that smaller engines just don't deliver a huge surge of torque that might be hard to deal with during cornering so sometimes 300 cubic inches is enough. You can never have enough power or cubic inches for drag or roll racing though.

vader86

An 86 should put down about 200rwhp, whether its early or late. Later years are incrementally better.

LT1s would put down more like 250-260rwhp on a dynojet.

LT4s would put down about 300rwhp.

vl5150

So people today slam the L98, but in reality that engine was within striking distance of a stock 60's 427 big block in HP and exceeded it in torque. The LT1 bettered it, and the LT4 shattered it. All while meeting emissions and getting decent fuel mileage. So while we say Chevy engineers could have done better with the intake and exhaust, and heads, and...etc..they did accomplish something pretty significant back in the 80's and as we know it just got better from there.

sahhas

L98 is supposed to be 240 hp (from '86 on, '85 is 230hp)
LT1 is 300 hp
LT4 is 330hp...according to specs

i was thinking of this topic from a week ago when there was a heated debate in one thread about the L98 vs. the LT1, etc etc.

when i had a moment i decided to go through all the cars i've driven (parents) or owned myself....and think of how the engine performed:
MOM's 64 IMPALA-HP range from 140-425....i of course don't know which engine my mom's car had in it, but the thing could go like HELL! and back in the late 70s some HS kid came to our door and wanted to buy mom's car. my dad got a chuckle out of that
DAD's 69 IMPALA-155-425 hp, again don't know specs, but that thing could go like hell too! dad got rid of it when oil prices in 70s went up up up!
75 VEGA WAGON-78 hp engine-it did NOT go like hell.
79 MAZDA RX7-150hp engine-car could fly, although i think i read it had a top speed of only 110mph. seemed to go fast.
88 MAZDA 323-65 hp, not a speed demon. great gas mileage!!! it was our first good car
95 HONDA CIVIC-123hp engine-not a speed demon, but great MPG!
95 VOLVO 940-162hp engine-it seemed fast for a station wagon!
99 MERCEDES E320-224 hp-for a station wagon this thing flew-going 85mph felt like nothing...
06 VOLVO XC90-311hp-this thing has serious get up and go for an SUV. my wife switched cars on me and she loves it...

i guess the pt i was trying to make or think of when debating the HP of the C4s, is most of the cars i've driven that have less than 240hp (of a L98) really seemed like powerful cars. the 99 Mercedes e320 especially for me. So when i think of the C4s and being a lighter car than most that i've driven w/ a 240hp engine...that's probably enough HP for my needs. granted i can't afford a super car....
oh, my dad also had a 72 Chrylser Imperial-hp was 225--that thing seemed powerful and could fly!!!!

vert vette virgin

After a year of ownership I still find it hard to believe that my Vert only has 240 hp. It feels like a rocket ship to me. I also move cars for a local Ford dealership and love the Ecoboost motors. An F150 quad cab with V6 Eco hauls ***!!

Tom400CFI

Killer article. I loved it! reminds me of this data...



"It's more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow". Greatest saying ever.

crowz

Ive owned so many cars I wont bother listing them all but lets just say I could give a car lot a run for its money. Of course buying a pawnshop with 100+ cars in inventory gave me a nice sampling too.

From what Ive owned I will say the older cars "seemed" faster. But I think a good bit of that had to do with the riding a rocket feeling of driving them wide open. Todays cars are so tame now even with the same hp or even more. Back then the cars were raw and could put you in a ditch or the hospital if you got stupid so fast you never even knew what happened.

Leaf spring hop at 300+ hp is an experience all its own. Trying to stop at the end of a run with drum brakes is the definition of terror. Its just not something todays drivers have likely experienced. Also don't forget the joys of putting out a holley backfire or 5 in a night at the local get together.

I can find enjoyment in the hp of today but its just not the same now even if the numbers are better now than then.

At the going rate though 400 hp 4 cylinders will probably replace everything we have eventually. Probably wont be very fun to drive but it seems its all getting blander as time passes.

Tom400CFI

100%. Good friend had a '69 Firebird back in High school. 350/4 speed/3.90. It felt ferocious, and would get rubber easily in all 4 gears. (295 BFG's). It felt so FBA, and was SO much fun to ride around in and drive.....It ran low 16's at Epping NH. Sure was fun though.

My '06 C6 was the boring'est 12 second car ever made, IMO. Fast...but boring.

volkswagens-for-life

And this post exactly summarizes how technology changes. Suspension technology and geometry, tire engineering, differentials, brakes, engine and transmission management... everything.

My corvette on original 25 year old rubber (255's) will hook up dead-on in any gear unless lots of clutch slipping or launching real hard. This is due to great suspension control, wheel/tire type, weight balance (front/rear ratio..) etc. I have no doubt that with some modern tires that are not 25 years old, I'd be able to launch it hard with little to no wheelspin.

mike100

It is easy to forget how slow late 70's and 80's cars were- driving around in 60hp air cooled veedubs and 70-80 hp civics and tercels, and 135 hp 305 camaros, that if you got a ride in a mid thirteen second old-school muscle car you were blown away. I caught the bug when I got a ride in a fixed up 351 Mercury Cougar an acquaintance had.

sahhas

a year ago i test drove an 80 vette (190hp) and an 82 vette (200 hp),
and while i didn't drive them fast, they certainly had a rumble to the engine, maybe it's just the V8 sound....b/c honestly most of the cars i've driven in my life have been either 4 cylinder or V6s...

but maybe it was also just the rough ride they had....which was MOST fun and why i love the look of the C3s...since that was the car i would see in my youth!

the super chevy article was a very interesting read, to see the classic muscle cars power vs. the C4s power....gives me an appreciation that the GM engineers where doing their best to put performance back in the car while being hampered by govt regulations....and honestly seeing the other specs above that the C4s LT1 engine is probably above the spec'd 300 hp is encouraging.....

and honestly i thought i read that the C4s w/ the L98 engine could go 140/150mph....i mean when am i ever going to go that fast? i went 90mph once in our old 79 mazda RX7, and honestly i was scared to DEATH!!!!! i was trying to keep up w/ this friend who was driving his new at the time in the late 80s minivan like crazy!!!!!

volkswagens-for-life

1.) Yes they can.

2.) My z51 corvette was much more comfortable and relaxing to drive @ 130mph than 90 in my previous Volkwagen. By 90mph, the ride gets very unnerving and unpredictable. To counter that, my corvette doesnt get comfortable and confidence inspiring until ~90+

thegame

That was a manual right?? The shift seemed slow. The A8 in track mode shifts so damn fast you cannot even blink.

HeavyLifter

This was a 2014 C7 A6. Car was in track mode. The shifts in the A6 didn't seem slow to me, but this was the only C7 I've driven to date. I was just surprised that Enterprise rented them

thegame

It's probably just the video then. Or maybe when I see it in person im so fixated on not crashing and focused that it seems faster in my car lol