Just wondering anyones input on how the 84 ( The new Corvette which owners waited 14 years for) did against the 82. Both were Crossfires and the drive trains were the same ( except for 5 hp).The 84 was said to be one the fastest top ten cars in the world. Didn't the testers realize it was last years motor? Surly 5 hp could not have made C&D that much excited. So when you put the super corvette of its day ( The 84) on a drag strip against last years model , was there really any difference?

 

I don't think the buzz was about the powerplant.
The 84 was a sports car. It could handle the twisties with a Porche. The 82 couldn't.

 

Straight line probably fairly close, any curves the 82 will be looking at distant tail lights.

 

The 84 weighed less by 150 pounds. 283 versus 290 foot pounds of torque. 0-60 in 7.0 for the 84 versus 7.9 for the 82. The aerodynamics of the 84 were also far superior. The tires were wider and lower profile. The 84 rear suspension was also better, more akin to a four link. It's not just the power...

The 82 was an upswing from the mid to late 70's cars, but it was no C4.

 

In my book its a draw. I like both. They each have unique differences. All vettes are good. If you want to compare to some forigen POS from the same era, I will be happy to take sides.

What does the winning car get?

Corvette Mike

 

I like both. The '82 is the car that's responsible for me being a Vette fanatic today. I was hooked from the first ride in 1982.

 

about out handling a porsch in the twisties, i've done it

 

I read about the super stiffed 84 suspension. Initially, it was engineered to have 10" wide all around

 

I owned a 65 327-365 when it was 3 yrs old. Then I owned an 82 for 5 yrs, (2000-2005),& now I a 94 6 speed. For the nostalgia effect at show & shines the 82 was superb, the Crossfire was a source of wonder & discussion amongst enthusiasts. (PS I never had a problem with it, ran A1 reliable but with only 200 HP & a 19 yr old suspension what can you expect.) The 94 is a much more fun car gets back a bit closer to the 65. I agree with the previous, I don't think a bad Vette has ever been made but depends on what you want out of the car. If I had the room, I'd own one of every generation.Maybe.
Cheers.

 

Though a C3 In my opinion Is a better looking car, and one of the prettiest cars to hit the road, it was no match for C4. A C4 is lighter, 90% of the time had more power (205-405 net) compared to (165 to 275 net) and (270 to 435 gross) Not counting the L88 which to be honest was so low in production that it only serves as armchair drag race fodder. an 84 to an 82 specifically was more aerodynamic, I think the 82 would do about 125 mph and the 84 could hit 140 mph, it was the best handling car in the world, did 0-60 in 6.7 compared to nearly 8.0, stopped quicker drove more solidly and more responsive. the C4 is roomier, more comfortable to drive, And to boot a c4 looks just like a C3 with less exageration.

I've had numerous of both years and the 84 could whoop up on it's predessesor.

After all said I'd take the 82.

 

 

It depends on your definition of "faster". While both cars had the same engine the suspension on the 84 was far superior to the 82 or any other car of its day. The 84 could pull close to 1G on the skid pad, no other production car came close. Faster on a drag strip, close, faster on a road course, the C4 no question. Also, when the 84 was proclaimed as one of the 10 fastest cars in the world it was being tested against other 84 models, not other Corvettes.

 

Isn't great to live in America where one have differences of opinion. For some of the very reasons you mention, that is why I'd prefer the 84 over the 82. The C3 is an exaggeration of the C4 (and also of the C2 to some extent) and that exaggeration with the ultra high fender peaks that makes it look like a cartoon car to me. The C2s were serious cars and after the 82 the C4s were serious cars again (though the early C3 have that styling right as they look muscular instead of grotesque – those are the C3s to covet IMHO).

One thought about your L88 comment, I think that even the performance reputation of the L88 doesn’t match the reality of the ZR-1 engine by comparison. The L-88 supposedly had as much as 560HP IN FULL RACE TRIM with headers and lack of accessories as tuned by Denny Davis back in the late 60s. This “gross” HP number was probably significantly more than the “net” hp number. As evidence, compare the 1971 LS6 (which was the ONLY solid lifter big block to have both net and gross numbers released) which was rated at 425 gross but only 325 net (which is lower than the LT4!). That’s a 100HP difference. And that difference is likely to be magnified the more performance oriented you get. So an L88 in stock trim is likely to have at best 425 HP net. The best times the magazines were able to produce in the 60s were about 14 sec for an L88 (which does seem quite low considering that L71/L72 Sting Rays were running about 13.0). The ZR-1 engine by contrast had as much as 405 net HP (although with the Dunn heads was reputed to be about 10 HP higher). And the ZR-1 was faster than any non-race set-up L88 (in both acceleration and certainly top end). So perhaps the LT5 powered cars truly were running stronger engines than the L88 cars all things being equal.

 

I just wanted to take Rocky Marciano out of the Mike Tyson discussion.

 

Hells bells! I out-handled a Porsche 944 in my old 1986 Acura Integra LS on the twisties and it was on stock tires, wheels, shocks, and suspension bushings!

 

We're not talking about Borillium Cruiser's here, we're talking about Star Destroyers!

 

I prefer the 84 over the 82, it has that stardestroyer digital active dash.