My C4 runs 2:0X around VIR Full course (not Grand), possibly breaking into the high 1:50s if I throw down a perfect one with no traffic. I'm fairly confident in my abilities. That is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the question.

Again, not an answer to my very straight forward question.

Wrong. Unless you are going to the level of a tube chassis, purpose built car (which has exactly zero original C4 parst on it) With comparable mods done to both cars, the C5/C6 will ALWAYS win. Always.

Wrong again. If you spent the same money and time on the C6, the C6 will still be ahead.


You don't think that might be just a little important as related to your original comments about making a C4 just as good as a C6 for a few thousand dollars?


Seems like you are doing quite a bit of work to keep up with a showroom stock car. But yea, the C4 is just as good of a starting platform.

Because there are people like you who refuse to admit or are simply too ignorant to realize that their almost 30 year old design isn't as good from a performance standpoint as those that followed it and I think it is amusing. It is no different than the guy with the fart pipe Honda that thinks it is a "better" car than a new Corvette.

Again, you like the C4. Good for you. If you really think that it is as good as the C5/C6 platform you are completely clueless.

I love when someone has to resort to the 100% hand built, 1 of a kind Callaway with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of research and parts as a representative argument for how great C4s are. That's the equilivent of pointing to the C5R or C6R and asking how many C4 Corvettes won the 24 hours of LeMans or Daytona.

There was. The parts shared with a production C4 and the Sledgehammer can be counted on 1 hand.

...and the funny part is that if you actually wanted to compare ALL aspects of performance, I would be willing to bet that the 100% stock ZR1 off of the showroom floor would hand it it's *** on a road course.



There is no reply for this other than to laugh at how completely clueless and ignorant it is.

If you can't see the technological advances between this chassis design:



...and this one:



There isn't really much else to say.

 

... you never answered my very straight forward question.

List what it would take to turn a 1996 C4 coupe into a car with the same all around performance of a 100% stock C6 Z06 while maintaining the C6's reliability, economy, and keeping it to a level of comfort that you could easily hop in and drive across country.

 

First off, Summit point is a low speed, joke of a track designed for Miatas. Try a track like Road America, Mid Ohio, VIR, Road Atlanta, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, I have been to Summit Point...



If you are talking about a road course, I REALLY hope you didn't just actually say that it would only take heads and a valvetrain to make a 4,000+ pound, solid axle Camaro keep up with a C6.

 

Camaro vs Camaro. Mostly drag. Camaro are few and far between at a road course.

Summit is what is close to me, so that's what I have to compare it to.

What do I mean by out dated? 2 words, leaf springs

Is the C6 better than a C4 stock, yes it is. But not as much to justify spending $60k on one when a 1/4 of that can be spent on an C4/C5.

 

 

Still missing the point. Yes, spend less on a C4/C5 and then spend $5K more and maybe you can keep up with a C6 in a straight line. Go to a REAL road course and the C6 will be parked and the owner having lunch before you finsih the same 10 laps he just did.

To beat a C6 you would spend much more than $5K. Again, sounds like C6 envy.

 

Yes. They have leaf springs, but it is nowhere near the same setup as a C4 as you implied.

Whether you want a new car or used is up to you, but the basis of your argument is way off. The base cost of a 1987 coupe was $33,172 (howstuffworks.com). With inflation, that comes out to MORE than the C6.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Right now, is a used C4 a better value than a new C6? Maybe... depending on what you want it for, but saying that the C6 is over priced because someone threw a few thousand dollars into a 93 as was said earlier is completely off base.

 

There are almost $50k worth of receipts for my 96. Everything on it is built right and is top of the line from suspension to drivetrain. It is only faster than STOCK C6 Z06s with comparable tires by the smallest of margins.

With even slight modifications, they would (and do) kick my ***.


You can make C4s very respectable. I am not at all bashing them. I am obviously a fan myself... but anybody who thinks it is easy to build a C4 to keep up with the big boys at a full size road course and that it can be done with a set of heads and welding in a cage has no idea what it takes to really go fast.

 

Driving my (stock) '85 around the neighborhood, I can accelerate from a stop sign hard enough to get a little rubber and really hear the engine rev. I let off because it feels like I'm going about 35-40 with all the noise from the engine and interior rattles.

But most of the time when I look at the speedometer, it's ususally only at about 23-28 mph! (And I have checked-- the speedo is accurate.)

Just the opposite if I do the same thing in my wife's '09 Civic, I feel like I'm going about 20 but the speedo indicates 30-40.

It's amazing how fast you *feel* like you're going in an older, noisier, less refined car than you do in a newer, quieter, and more sophisticated one.

As a non racer I consider that to be a big benefit. I want to *feel* speed, but I don't want the tickets associated with actually *going* fast!

 

Most expensive base Corvette ever in constant dollars was the 1988 - $58.3k in today's dollars for a coupe and $68k for a convertible. Realistically optioned, it goes to $65.4k for the coupe and $74.3k for the 'vert.

 

this is going well

If I said I didn't want a base C6 would I have C6 envy. Because I really don't want one, never gave it a thought actually. I may have one someday I don't know, but it's certainly not my dream car or dream vette. If I was to replace my FRC it would be with an 04 Z06. I think I would be perfectly content then. I would like the ZR1 C6 but that ain't gonna happen on my champaign taste and beer budget.

But we'll all have those cool electric cars that drive themselves in a few years.

 

Maybe a little off topic, buuuut I would own both. I decided to buy the C-4 over the C-6 price was one and well price. I really drool over how the C-6 looks just plain bad ***. On the other hand I see my first Vet in my garage and I love my C-4's look too and very happy with it. Would I buy the C-6 over the C-4 yes. Would I get rid of my C-4 now no. I am just happy I got a Vette

 

Nothing like a good c##kpulling thread every few days here.

 

I'm not going to debate here, but for the record RedLS1GTO has it right.

What you guys don't understand about the engineering that goes into ALL CORVETTES will not hurt you. The C4 is better than the C3, and the C5 better than the C4, and the C6 is better than the C5. This is HOW it SHOULD be. Always getting better, never worse, from a performance perspective.

You ALL need to pick up Dave McLellan's book Corvette From the Inside, then you will understand WHY the C4 has the chassis it does, you WILL learn to appreciate how GOOD the car is considering the chassis limitations. Dave took the failures of the C4 and corrected them in the C5. The C5 was 90-95% done when he left in 93. Since the C6 and maybe C7, have not changed much fundamentally from the C5, we will essentially have the same chassis for 20 years, once C7 production ends. The C7, C6, and C5, can all trace their basic design directly from the C4. Dave wanted to do a lot of things with the C4, but money/management held them back. The C-beam is a brilliant solution to the problem they had. BOUNS: Name the problem!!!They wanted to use torque tube, but with the technology at the time/other limitations listed above it was not to be.

Maybe once you actually understand how good those "outdated" leaf springs are, you'll change your tune. They are light, compact, less sway bar needed to supplement, less intrusion into passenger space/engine space, etc...The C6 Z06/ZR1/GS handle as good as anyone's stuff, leaf springs and all. Guess where the C6 ZR1 can trace its leaf spring heritage back to....1963 with Duntov's 3 link leaf spring rear suspension. At the time a great design. The C4 at the time, a great design. The C5/C6 great design.

Whole lot of hot air around this thread and mis-infomation. Read and learn people, then maybe you can open your mouth and sound somewhat intelligent.

 

But I don't want a C6. I will be building my kit car later on this year and will get a better performance to dollar ratio than a C6. So once again, because the C6 is a sub-par deal in my opinion, I envy it

God I hope a C6 can out handle my 20 yo car. But, with minimum effort and expense, my 20 yo car can keep up if not out run a C6. That is not saying much for GM's attempt at new corvette superiority. The C6 underachieves.

So let me get this straight, because
1. I don't think the C6 is the end all and be all of corvettes, I am envious of it and ..
2. Because I have out run some C6s at Summit Point with my 20 year old car, Summit point is no longer a legitimate race course.

I feel as if I am back in grade school.

The C6, once again, is nothing special. It is the same push rod powered, rear wheel driven car with a clunky gear box connected to a plastic rattle trap that will give you temporary paralysis every time you drive over an imperfection on the road.

I can get that same experience with an older corvette at half the price.

 

I've heard some describe the C5 to C6 as the equivalent of going from the 84-91 C4 to the 92-96 C4.

And to be honest there's a little truth in that.

 

Even in 1987, the corvette was overpriced for it's performance and overall build.

The technical advances that the C6 offers are not justified for the price. I use my '93 as an example because there is 20 years worth of time for the C6 to become untouchable for my 93 and it hasn’t happened.

Example:

1992 5.0 mustang
vs
2012 5.0 mustang

The '12 is so much more advanced, that there is no way for a '92, n/a, to compete with it short of increasing the displacement. Even boosted or on the juice, the '92 will be hard pressed to compete. That is how well Ford has created the 2012 5.0. It is a whole different motor in a whole different car.

Now, my '93 should be in the same boat as the stang when comparing it to a 2012 vette. The new vette should obliterate my car. But it doesn't. And that is very disappointing. Only GM could charge 60k for a car utilizing leaf springs and an under performing motor. I hope the C7 makes my car look obsolete, because that would entice me to buy one. And in the end, that is the whole point.

 

^^^ your argument would work better if you would compare a 250-300 hp stock C4 to the current C6.

why not compare a supercharged old school 5.0 to the new one- it would be closer.

The C6 is not that uncivilized that you can't drive it over rough roads either. I would race your C4 from 130 to 180 mph in my bone stock C6- paper filter and all and I know it will prevail. cubic inches is cubic inches.

 

Performance to dollar ratio, is that a new economic indicator?

No one said the C6 is the be all and end all, read each word carefully. What people are saying is that you don't give it enough credit for what it is. Use your own term, "performance to dollar ratio" (I can hardly say that with a straight face), you just proved every one's point. A C6 will run with cars costing tens of thousands of dollars more so in your world, a C6 has a higher "performance to dollar" ratio than some of the most expensive and highest performing cars built.

The enjoyment to post ratio is starting to run out on this thread.

 

Yep you sound like a seasoned Vette guy lol.
Brutal description but accurate
Carry on