the best c5 production year to buy
02-03-2010, 11:56 PM
#41
Race Director
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: (S) Walton County NW FL
Posts: 10,711
Received 1,099 Likes
on
852 Posts
03 changeover
My notes from another member says VIN 14929 produced 11-25-02 and up are the newer PITA fuel pumps that requires lots of $$$ for a change-out. That appears to be the cut-off date on 03. This is the same design change carried over to the 04 and C6. Correct me if wrong.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=2489779
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=2489779
02-04-2010, 12:42 AM
#42
Race Director
My notes from another member says VIN 14929 produced 11-25-02 and up are the newer PITA fuel pumps that requires lots of $$$ for a change-out. That appears to be the cut-off date on 03. This is the same design change carried over to the 04 and C6. Correct me if wrong.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=2489779
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=2489779
02-04-2010, 12:47 AM
#43
Pro
Member Since: Apr 2007
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is 99 absolute best year to acquire. Many improvements over the earlier corvettes. No oil consumption issue. Unique year with many first developments hud etc.. no fuel pump or tank issues all the nice stuff without the issues and it was made in the last century.
99 is the year to have. The vert top stuff is valid but why buy a vert when you can get a coupe. Stay away from any of the adjustable suspension systems. Whatever one you get get it the C5 is kickass but the 99 is the best
99 is the year to have. The vert top stuff is valid but why buy a vert when you can get a coupe. Stay away from any of the adjustable suspension systems. Whatever one you get get it the C5 is kickass but the 99 is the best
02-04-2010, 01:24 AM
#44
Race Director
I've had 9 C5's
5 1997's
2 1999
1 2001
1 2004
My 1st 1999 was the most expensive and had the most problems. My 2nd was hard to count since it was supercharged with 642 rwhp. Although 82k on a stock block says a lot.
With the exception as mentioned the 2003-2004 are excellent cars since they had revised computers and the software upgrade on the active handling which started in 2001.
Most of my 97's were great especially for a 1st year car.
IMO 2001 was the worst. Mine had a tranny issue,many of my friends had oil burning issues and other misc problems.
5 1997's
2 1999
1 2001
1 2004
My 1st 1999 was the most expensive and had the most problems. My 2nd was hard to count since it was supercharged with 642 rwhp. Although 82k on a stock block says a lot.
With the exception as mentioned the 2003-2004 are excellent cars since they had revised computers and the software upgrade on the active handling which started in 2001.
Most of my 97's were great especially for a 1st year car.
IMO 2001 was the worst. Mine had a tranny issue,many of my friends had oil burning issues and other misc problems.
02-04-2010, 02:06 AM
#45
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: La La land cali
Posts: 7,683
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
St. Jude Donor '09
The "best year" for a C5 has more to do with you than it does the car.
Anyone who has owned a C5 for any period of time knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Those who own Z's ... well..
Let me try and shed some light on what I'm referring to (just in case)-- The C5 is an extension of yourself. If you have ever heard the saying "what the mind can believe, the body can achieve"
I feel that the same is true for the C5. 'What the mind can believe, the C5 can achieve'.
Next would be this: "Reap what you sow"
I realize I just changed this topic, but think about it, just for kicks. I think it veered off right around the fuel tank issues anyway....
"What is it about these cars that is so unsafe? The drivers! The cars themselves are not inherently unsafe. It’s the way people drive them. Kim Hazelbaker of the IIHS says that the vehicles encourage risk. Cars like these four attract young male drivers. It’s a combination of power, price, and style that draws young males who are already charged with testosterone."
Here are some old stats:
For 1984-1988 models, here are some statistics. (At that time, the death rate was measured in deaths per ten thousand.)
Corvettes: 4.7 deaths per ten thousand
Mustangs: 4.3 deaths per ten thousand
Camaros: 4.3 deaths per ten thousand
Firebirds: 3.2 deaths per ten thousand
Imagine what they are today. I love my Vette.
Famous last words? Probably.
Anyone who has owned a C5 for any period of time knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Those who own Z's ... well..
Let me try and shed some light on what I'm referring to (just in case)-- The C5 is an extension of yourself. If you have ever heard the saying "what the mind can believe, the body can achieve"
I feel that the same is true for the C5. 'What the mind can believe, the C5 can achieve'.
Next would be this: "Reap what you sow"
I realize I just changed this topic, but think about it, just for kicks. I think it veered off right around the fuel tank issues anyway....
"What is it about these cars that is so unsafe? The drivers! The cars themselves are not inherently unsafe. It’s the way people drive them. Kim Hazelbaker of the IIHS says that the vehicles encourage risk. Cars like these four attract young male drivers. It’s a combination of power, price, and style that draws young males who are already charged with testosterone."
Here are some old stats:
For 1984-1988 models, here are some statistics. (At that time, the death rate was measured in deaths per ten thousand.)
Corvettes: 4.7 deaths per ten thousand
Mustangs: 4.3 deaths per ten thousand
Camaros: 4.3 deaths per ten thousand
Firebirds: 3.2 deaths per ten thousand
Imagine what they are today. I love my Vette.
Famous last words? Probably.
02-04-2010, 02:33 AM
#46
Pro
from wat ive been seeing on this forum over the past month that ive owned my 99 and have been here, it would appear all C5's have the same stupid little things go wrong, however some of the bigger issues have been with the newer models. i have a decently loaded 99 (HUD sport seats ect..) and its got 75k on it
02-04-2010, 02:52 AM
#47
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Dec 2003
Location: Horncastle Lincolnshire, England
Posts: 19,384
Likes: 0
Received 79 Likes
on
61 Posts
2023 C5 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
I have to agree with the majority
I'd say 02 onwards and the newest you can afford. Quite a few nice additions as stock around 02. Some 01s burned oil.
I'd say 02 onwards and the newest you can afford. Quite a few nice additions as stock around 02. Some 01s burned oil.
02-04-2010, 03:03 AM
#48
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
The "best year" for a C5 has more to do with you than it does the car.
Anyone who has owned a C5 for any period of time knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Those who own Z's ... well..
Let me try and shed some light on what I'm referring to (just in case)-- The C5 is an extension of yourself. If you have ever heard the saying "what the mind can believe, the body can achieve"
I feel that the same is true for the C5. 'What the mind can believe, the C5 can achieve'.
Next would be this: "Reap what you sow"
I realize I just changed this topic, but think about it, just for kicks. I think it veered off right around the fuel tank issues anyway....
"What is it about these cars that is so unsafe? The drivers! The cars themselves are not inherently unsafe. It’s the way people drive them. Kim Hazelbaker of the IIHS says that the vehicles encourage risk. Cars like these four attract young male drivers. It’s a combination of power, price, and style that draws young males who are already charged with testosterone."
Here are some old stats:
For 1984-1988 models, here are some statistics. (At that time, the death rate was measured in deaths per ten thousand.)
Corvettes: 4.7 deaths per ten thousand
Mustangs: 4.3 deaths per ten thousand
Camaros: 4.3 deaths per ten thousand
Firebirds: 3.2 deaths per ten thousand
Imagine what they are today. I love my Vette.
Famous last words? Probably.
Anyone who has owned a C5 for any period of time knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Those who own Z's ... well..
Let me try and shed some light on what I'm referring to (just in case)-- The C5 is an extension of yourself. If you have ever heard the saying "what the mind can believe, the body can achieve"
I feel that the same is true for the C5. 'What the mind can believe, the C5 can achieve'.
Next would be this: "Reap what you sow"
I realize I just changed this topic, but think about it, just for kicks. I think it veered off right around the fuel tank issues anyway....
"What is it about these cars that is so unsafe? The drivers! The cars themselves are not inherently unsafe. It’s the way people drive them. Kim Hazelbaker of the IIHS says that the vehicles encourage risk. Cars like these four attract young male drivers. It’s a combination of power, price, and style that draws young males who are already charged with testosterone."
Here are some old stats:
For 1984-1988 models, here are some statistics. (At that time, the death rate was measured in deaths per ten thousand.)
Corvettes: 4.7 deaths per ten thousand
Mustangs: 4.3 deaths per ten thousand
Camaros: 4.3 deaths per ten thousand
Firebirds: 3.2 deaths per ten thousand
Imagine what they are today. I love my Vette.
Famous last words? Probably.
Firebirds and Camaros are the same cars with the same target market. Meaning F-Bodies were 7.5 deaths per 10 thousand!
When the F-bodies got the LT1, they carried the highest fatality rate of all teen-marketed cars which carried through to the LS1s. 9 years of death-rate domination and the majority of those deaths were at speeds over 130MPH. My old insurance company explained that all to me when I was asking why my rates for my Trans Am were so high.
02-04-2010, 03:17 AM
#49
Le Mans Master
If I had my choice I would say 2nd half of 2001 thru 1st half of 2003.
02-04-2010, 10:02 PM
#52
Race Director
Member Since: Aug 2003
Location: Lake Mary Florida
Posts: 13,421
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
2002 automatic is the safest and best year model. '01 and earlier have way too many problems. '03 and '04 have a major defect in the fuel system design that will cost an arm and a leg to get repaired. All manuals are affected by the electronic column lock failure.
02-04-2010, 11:35 PM
#53
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2004
Location: Oklahoma City OK
Posts: 58,255
Received 1,673 Likes
on
1,296 Posts
C6 of Year Finalist (appearance mods) 2019
Except the cracking cross over of the tanks. Or was it the filler neck?
02-05-2010, 08:44 AM
#55
Instructor
Member Since: Dec 2009
Location: London Ontario
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think about that for a sec...
Firebirds and Camaros are the same cars with the same target market. Meaning F-Bodies were 7.5 deaths per 10 thousand!
When the F-bodies got the LT1, they carried the highest fatality rate of all teen-marketed cars which carried through to the LS1s. 9 years of death-rate domination and the majority of those deaths were at speeds over 130MPH. My old insurance company explained that all to me when I was asking why my rates for my Trans Am were so high.
Firebirds and Camaros are the same cars with the same target market. Meaning F-Bodies were 7.5 deaths per 10 thousand!
When the F-bodies got the LT1, they carried the highest fatality rate of all teen-marketed cars which carried through to the LS1s. 9 years of death-rate domination and the majority of those deaths were at speeds over 130MPH. My old insurance company explained that all to me when I was asking why my rates for my Trans Am were so high.
Camaros: 4.3 deaths per ten thousand (this is a rate)
Firebirds: 3.2 deaths per ten thousand (this is a rate)
Its impossible to combine these without knowing the actual cars on the road One thing is certain...the combined average of those two cars will NOT be higher than 4.3. Its a mathematical impossibility.
02-05-2010, 05:58 PM
#60
Race Director
