Tom400CFI

When I was a teen and the C4 debuted and ran it's life, I viewed the Corvette as GM's tech leader and a test bed for emerging technology -the Corvette got just about everything first. I'm not sure that I viewed the C3 that way, but that could have just been perception b/c toward the end of it's life, it did get an influx of technology and the platform (C2 and C3) did debut IRS, disk brakes, alloy wheels and more.

Anyway, the tech that was introduced in the C4 -AND found it's way to mainstream products- was radical, compared to any other Gen;
Aluminum suspension
Aluminum calipers
Composite monoleaf
Rack and pinion
Aluminum diff housing
LCD instrumentation
"audiophile" sound
TPMS
PKE
EFI
MPEFI
Sequential EFI
OBDII implementation
LT5 tech
ABS/TC with elements in place for AH
...and on and on. There is so much. The C4 was a rolling showcase of tech that GM could muster....and eventually most if not all of that tech has trickled down into mainstream sh!tboxes.

To me, the 'Vette should be that; GM's tech platform. I feel that it stopped being that with the C5 which is a pretty "stripped" car (for it's time) -content and tech wise it didn't move the rock far from the later C4's; it introduced hydroformed rails, Keyless start tech (though it still used the key and it was unreliable), run flat tires, midship fuel tank(s), the Gen III engine.

The C6 didn't add much tech at all; Nav, more power, a weaker diff, bigger wheels (?)

Anyway, I read THIS ARTICLE today and was disspointed with the likley true statement:


"But the Chevrolet Bolt is ... now a testbed for everything General Motors wants to do with the future of cars, including autonomy."


The 'Vette should be leading this tech...not be the recipient of it from freakin' economy cars and Escalades. Just my opinion of course, but I don't agree with the direction the 'Vette has gone, w/in the ranks of GM product.


.

73n95

I feel a similar twinge when the C4 is mentioned. I recently read "All Corvettes Are Red", while it is a great read I get the impression from the author that the C4 was laden with flaws and that the C5 was designed to rectify them. Yet as you state, the C4 was indeed a test bed for many features that eventually found their way into all cars. So many see the C5 as the most advanced platform of its time, yet the C4 broke many of the time tested traditions of the Corvette line. I own, and have worked on my C3 for years and for the most part think of it as being engineered after a pickup truck rather than a sports car. It even rides like a pickup truck. The only thing I feel is really modern is the rear suspension. The rest of the car is basically straight from the auto/truck parts bins. Even the engines are nothing special, just tuned up sedan engines (with the exception of several very special ones, like the L88).The C4 is a total break in almost every area, including the LT engines. The C5 is merely technological advances based on basic tenets put forth in the C4. The C6 and C7 merely carry this thought process forward. The next generation will probably be mid engine, all wheel drive, V6 with forced induction plus electric. The future is filled with autonomous cars with electric engines or grid power, the personal transportation device may be at the brink of its final chapter. Perhaps future generations will read about Corvettes and wonder what it was like to actually control your own mode of transportation. Wow, did I get off track or what!!! Enjoy your ride.

mike100

vettes may eventually get performance hybridization because it solves so many internal combustion engineering challenges:

-combined power/torque over a wider range of rpm over just ICE propulsion alone.
-cleaner NOx emissions by not loading the ICE at low rpms (letting the electric motor blend torque).
- mpg gains/smaller ICE

Right now, I think GM has a cap on how many batteries LG Chem can produce for them and have all of that tech going into the Volt/Bolt so they can get EV credits to be able to do business in CA.


* ICE=internal combustion engine

Tom400CFI

I thought the post was awesome. I've thought the same thing;
"Perhaps future generations will read about Corvettes and wonder what it was like to actually control your own mode of transportation."

I also read "All 'Vettes are Red", and I read that first. Later, I read Dave McLellans book "Corvette from the Inside" and it was a way better book. I especially liked the large side bar where he corrected errors from "All 'Vettes are Red". Good reading.

Renfield

Interesting thread, Tom.

Many of the "firsts" you mention have failed on my C4. I don't really see GM as being very successful with firsts. I wouldn't touch an '84 with someone else's wallet.

I prefer letting Bolt owners suffer with a test mule for the Corvette.

Cars are becoming appliances. Pop the bonnet on a modern car and see a dressed up shroud covering everything. I fully expect to see a sticker where the hood release used to be, reading "no user serviceable parts" in my lifetime.

3JsVette

IMCO that's a politically correct very green statement from GM in an attempt to embrace the environmentalists and looking favorably to the EPA.

v8vette84

Why not? There is nothing inherently wrong with the 84' that can't go wrong on a later C4... Besides the Crossfire which is still a very solid platform and has proven itself to be very reliable. (Plenty of 84's out in the world still running around) Most other components are the same as any other C4.

Renfield

It's a thing I have about first generation offerings. There is far more pressure on GM to make quarterly projections than there is to get it right before releasing it. And the C4 was one whopping big radical change.

That doesn't mean they ever get it totally right. Just a better chance, IMO.

Crossfire might be fine. But I can't tell you how many '84s I've seen on CL converted to carb.

Right now, I'm wishing GM had watched the Opti-spark fail on some Malibus before sticking it in the Corvette.

v8vette84

Most crossfires are converted because idiots don't know how to utilize fuel injection to make power so they go back to a carb because the older generations tell people to "pull that FI crap off and put a carb on it"... Hell I had an older family friend tell me "I should convert my LT1 to a carb because fuel injection was unreliable and it gets worse gas mileage than a carb..." Seriously he told me that while looking at my Corvette one day...

You're another opti-spark downer eh? The opti-spark is a great dizzy. 150k+ without even a cap/rotor change is amazing to me. (Plenty of proof out there of high mileage opti's that work great) The opti is ALWAYS the culprit for all of the LT1's woes. Most times it's NOT the opti but yet everyone rags on the opti. I get sick of hearing how the opti is a pile when it's clearly not. Dumb people buy cheap parts then complain about the part failing... Also the opti is not hard to get to at all. Another complaint from LT guys that I don't understand... I can get my opti out in around 30 min.

I do agree about the potential issues with a first year vehicle but I don't think the 84' had tons of "first year issues". I certainly haven't heard about them.

I see you used to own a 84', did you have tons of issues with it that made you feel this way?

Renfield

Yes. I have first hand experience with a brand new 1984 Corvette and I'm here to tell you it was a POS - NEW. For a new vehicle costing $25K in 1984 dollars it had far too many issues. Not ready for prime time. Took it back to the dealer more than I drove it.

After skipping 1983 there must have been incredible pressure to deliver.

Now that I have a '95 and a '96 I feel justified complaining about the Optispark as well. Neither made it to 150K. I'm no mechanic, but I have worked on all of my cars over the years. And I have never struggled so hard with any of them.

Congratulations on your ability to remove an opti (and replace it?) in a half hour. You are amazing. Perfect person for an '84 Corvette really. They should've come with a mechanic.

QCVette

I have mixed feelings because I see tech going to autonomous cars. I think it would be such a waste to see a good sports car become an appliance.

I now see tech as leading the way to ending the enthusiast component of the automotive industry.

I am not opposed to all tech. There have been remarkable improvements in performance and economy due to technical innovations. The cars today perform better with better economy and emissions too. However, today's tech seems to be adding costs while taking away driver controls sometimes for perceived safety. Some things like TPMS, rear cameras, push button start, even ABS and traction control etc. add costs and I feel they should be optional rather than mandated.

mike100

Must be good at the R&R on those things due to the high failure rate. nobody gets fast on the items that never fail.

Tom400CFI

Awesome post.

I totally agree with you on where tech now days seems to be taking things. In the 80's and 90's, tech improved the experience; more power, better fuel mileage, better handling/braking...all those things were improving steadily and the driver reaped the benefits. Now, the experience is muted by additional tech, IMO.

I guess what I was referring to was that the 'Vette could still be GM's tech leader for "experience enhancing" tech (hybrid drive systems could help for sure -if implemented correctly) and behind the scenes tech: manufacturing, compliance, materials, paint, etc.

One way GM could be way out front w/the 'Vette is a totally configurable car, electronically; all manufacturers are on the way to that, but still, tech annoys as much as it benefits at this point. An example from my C6 was the electric doors. They provided no meaningful benefit (that I could see) the tech hasn't proliferated, and they'd lock on your when you drove away no matter what -unconfigurable. Dumb.

They have Mag shocks, but they aren't user configurable. I mean, there is "sport" "tour" or whatever, but why not make them 100% user tuneable? Some people could totally geek out over that stuff. Some would leave it alone. A high tech sports car of today could be unbelievably cool/fun/exciting...with the right application of tech.

Tom400CFI

The part was designed to last 100k miles. you're did 50% better than it was designed to. Mine did 55% better. That's not terrible -not the way people would have you believe, that's for sure.



Comments like that are foolish. If you dislike the car/platform that much, you should find happiness elsewhere.


It ain't that hard man. I did my first one in 1 hour, and that included a complete coolant flush.
*Drain coolant. While it's draining...
*Remove air bridge
*6 WP bolts
*Three HD bolts, wiggle/beat/pry damper off.
*Coolant should be done, pull pump.
*Uplug plug wires, connector and coil wire, three bolts and the Opti is off.

*clean, scrape gaskets, start reassembly.

Not a hard job.

Barrier

My first Corvette was a 1968 427 Coupe bought new I just wished GM had finished the car. There were a multitude of problems with it aside from the initial build mistakes ( I took delivery in October 1967). The car spent 2 months at the Dealer within the first 5 months until they repaired the various mechanical problems.
My next one was a1969 which was a much improved version this was a 350 350 Convertible.
My first C4 was a 1986 was a great neglected and serviced poorly vehicle. I bought it with 95k miles and it required a lot of work by me but it never let me down as a DD.
My C5 a1999 FRC was OK except for ALL the Electronic problems that were never repaired, warning lights always going on and then disappearing. Not a confidence inspiring circumstance. The Dealer was useless as were the Expert independents. I did not love the Car.
I now have a 1993 C4, although I have not owned it long it seems to be a great car equaling and my 1969. Time will tell. I do love the Design and the various technological innovations. Might be the Best of the Corvettes IMHO.
Barrier
Barrier

DGXR

Here's how I think about GM rolling out its technology:
Corvettes get most of the performance-oriented new tech and some of the fancy / blingy / convenience stuff.
Cadillacs get most of the fancy / blingy / convenience new tech and some of the performance stuff.
This line between Corvette performance and Cadillac luxury has been blurry for a while and getting blurrier all the time. E.g. The Cadillac XLR was built on the Corvette Y-platform. Also the LSA engine in the CTS-v and the LS9 in the C6 ZR1 are *extremely* similar engines.

Tom400CFI

True...but the 'Caddy had the "LS3 heads" 2 years before the LS3/'Vette did, and VVT 8 years earlier. Way back in '06 or so, the Escalade...even a Chevy 1500 pickup, could be had with an all aluminum, 6.2L, "LS3 headed", 403hp/417 tq, engine with VVT.

Renfield

I didn't buy an '84.

Believe it or not Tom, I can enjoy the car for what it is and I can complain about it's shortcomings. As with any piece of property, I may choose to sell at any time when those shortcomings overwhelm my enjoyment.

Props to YOU. My experience has been quite the opposite. Twice now. I spent the last two months beating on the damper in my '95. Not one hour. Twenty minutes at a time for two months.

That's about a month more than the '96 took. So frankly I don't find your "foolish" comment helpful, and I outright resent your condescending dismissal of the misery I have been through. Some are easier than others and you got lucky. No more, no less.

Tom400CFI

Copy that, but I assure you "luck" had nothing to do with my opti swap experience.

Renfield

So never mind the opti. Love it or hate it, it was only part of the story. Maybe you got your 100K. I didn't. Mine got douched by the WP at 95K. Thanks to anti-seize my next opti will take an hour.

How long was the PKE designed to last? Mine was dead before I bought at 86K miles.

How about the HVAC controls? Mine freak out randomly. Usually when it's really cold outside. Or really hot.

Only have TPMS on the '95. Well, had. It's long dead.

How many folks had to bypass the VATS?

Audiophile sound? You're praising the Bose?!?

Horns? Anyone still have factory horns in their C4? 100% fail on both of mine.

What about those pop up headlights? I've already rebuilt one of the
replacements. As far as I can tell, they didn't fix the headlight issues until the C6. My informal poll shows a 60% fail rate across all years of the C4.

Both my backup sockets - NOT bulbs - adjacent to the license failed. I know marker lamp sockets aren't high tech or even new, but when GM/ACDelco make them, they don't outlast the bulb.

I would prefer that they work out the bugs with these systems on another car and bring them to the flagship when (if?) they're proven to be reliable enough for a $50-90K new vehicle. Especially the low tech stuff that's already been done to death. Honestly, if GM cannot produce a lamp socket that will outlast a stinking 73 cent bulb, I have to question why they even want to make cars.