When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
CF was a big dealwhen it came out it would leave a light quick. public got all excited about the intake resembling the old Z/28 crossram...performance was back. There was nothing in that era that went fast at all except the Dodge lil red express truck with the diesel stacks (ran 14s stock!)
If a car was an automatic and its engine made a lot of torque, it was usually faster than the stick shift version.
I definitely haven't found that to be the case...with optimized driving. Cases where you see stick cars going slower than auto cars are almost always because the stick wasn't launched well, and/or shifted FAST. I put a stick (T5) in my '83 LU5 TA and with shorty headers, exhaust and "free mods", went 14.5/95. No way it would run that w/the 700R4. But with the stick, it's ALL about the driving.
Originally Posted by LU8
And one more comparison. Road & Track got 15.3 seconds in the 1/4 mile for both the Porsche 911SC 3.0 and the 1984 Corvette. 1983 model year was the last year for the 911SC, so the new C4 would have been sold at the same time, if things had gone to the original plan. In 1978-1983 the 911SC was the benchmark for high performance, so you couldn't call the 1984 Corvette slow.
"...the new Corvette is a truly stout automobile. It is...a true-born, world-class sports car loaded with technical sophistication.
consider the following:
Item: The roadholding on this new machine is so advanced that we recorded the highest skidpad lateral acceleration — 0.90 g — ever observed with a conventional automobile by this staff. That figure practically trivializes the previous high-water marks, in the 0.82-g range, generated by such exotics as the Porsche 928 and assorted Ferraris.
Item: It is hands-down the fastest American automobile, capable of 140-mph top speeds, 0-to-60 times under seven seconds, and 15.2-second quarter-mile forays at 90 mph. In fact, these figures qualify the Corvette as one of the half-dozen fastest production automobiles in the entire world!
Item: Its braking, thanks to an advanced Girlock four-wheel-disc system, makes the car stop as if it had been dropped into a sand bank. Our 70-to-0-mph brake test produced a stop in a mere 173 feet — seven feet shorter than the best 1982 distance of 180 feet, recorded by a Porsche 928, and not far off the all-time record of 165 feet, set by a Porsche 930 Turbo!"
That is what I would call, a ringing endorsement.
.
Last edited by Tom400CFI; Apr 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM.
If you're going to the NCM C4 Gathering make sure you ask Jim Minneker (retired GM Powertrain Engineer) about the Cross Fire. He has any number of interesting stories about it.
If you're going to the NCM C4 Gathering make sure you ask Jim Minneker (retired GM Powertrain Engineer) about the Cross Fire. He has any number of interesting stories about it.
Richard Newton
Someone should interview him and publish why the runners were so small!! There are theories:
*"conspiracy theory", that GM handicapped the engine so it wouldn't outshine TPI
*"throttle response/fuel puddling/velocity" theory; that with full sized runners the velocity was too low inside the intake, fuel would fall out of suspension, engine would stumble.
*Emissions; runner velocity improved mix and emissions.
I believe emissions; I doubt they'd literally handicap and engine to make a future one look better (other than ratings -look at LT4-LS1). I don't buy the throttle response/fuel puddling one either, since no one who ports their intake looses any response at all. On mine, I ported the bejeezus out of it and even ditched my "swirl plates"...and it still ran perfect with wicked throttle response and low end tq.
Would be a great article that would lay some rumors to rest.
.
Last edited by Tom400CFI; Apr 28, 2017 at 01:32 PM.
I think the feeling comes more so from the performance gap between 84 and the 95 ZR-1/96GS. The performance chasm was gigantic and you can't help but look at the XFirez and even the Early-L98s as wasted time to make really fast cars. I totally understand the sentiment though, because you're right about the cars of the time. Problem is and will always be centered on that, to me at least. Which is why I own a 96.
All things aside, that XFire manifold is the coolest looking intake on any modern Corvette.
I agree, after the performance stagnation of 1975-81, things started getting better annually. So, good as they were the L83 and early L98s were quickly bettered by LT1, LT4 and so on.
For the longest time high 13s, and low 14s were seriously fast, but tech progress since the mid '90s means everyone is looking to the next big thing even more than they used to. I recall John Davis on MotorWeek saying his 1978 Corvette still held 80% of its original price at 4 years old. With things happening so fast you are never going to get that again.
I will add, I saw a dealer giving a walkaround a clean looking silver '84 Vette on You Tube. One commenter was more interested in the 1981 Porsche 928 nearby, thinking it was faster. That Porsche mystique is very powerful. The early 928s, and basically anything around the 1978-82 era was a 16 second car. The 928 was a comfy, heavyweight cruiser. Much later on Porsche dumped lots of power into it.
Someone should interview him and publish why the runners were so small!! There are theories:
*"conspiracy theory", that GM handicapped the engine so it wouldn't outshine TPI
*"throttle response/fuel puddling/velocity" theory; that with full sized runners the velocity was too low inside the intake, fuel would fall out of suspension, engine would stumble.
*Emissions; runner velocity improved mix and emissions.
I believe emissions; I doubt they'd literally handicap and engine to make a future one look better (other than ratings -look at LT4-LS1). I don't buy the throttle response/fuel puddling one either, since no one who ports their intake looses any response at all. On mine, I ported the bejeezus out of it and even ditched my "swirl plates"...and it still ran perfect with wicked throttle response and low end tq.
Would be a great article that would lay some rumors to rest.
I agree, after the performance stagnation of 1975-81, things started getting better annually. So, good as they were the L83 and early L98s were quickly bettered by LT1, LT4 and so on.
For the longest time high 13s, and low 14s were seriously fast, but tech progress since the mid '90s means everyone is looking to the next big thing even more than they used to. I recall John Davis on MotorWeek saying his 1978 Corvette still held 80% of its original price at 4 years old. With things happening so fast you are never going to get that again.
I will add, I saw a dealer giving a walkaround a clean looking silver '84 Vette on You Tube. One commenter was more interested in the 1981 Porsche 928 nearby, thinking it was faster. That Porsche mystique is very powerful. The early 928s, and basically anything around the 1978-82 era was a 16 second car. The 928 was a comfy, heavyweight cruiser. Much later on Porsche dumped lots of power into it.
St. Jude Donor '06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16
Then there is this guy who added a supercharger. I found this at a Bloomington Gold "Gold Tour" staging area a few years back. The owner was not around to talk to though.
Just picked up mine from the shop after getting headers installed. A noticeable difference with regards to power. A deeper sound, but the most noticeable thing is the feeling of smoothness(if that makes sense) when I get on it.
Up next, I'm going to adjust the fuel pressure. Hopefully down the road when the Canadian dollar improves I'll buy the renegade intake. Before that I might look at a better cat.
Last edited by James84vette; Apr 28, 2017 at 04:52 PM.
I've owned my 82 CFI for 5 years now, it was my "dd" for 4 of those years. Put close to 80,000 miles on that car during that time. It left me stranded twice, once for a combo battery/alt problem, and another because of a broken coil wire that killed everything. Other than that the CFI ran and continues to run great. True dual exhaust with the MagnaFlows give it a great sound with nice power. Have no problem on the highway and it runs better than most vehicles out there. It just has been a very reliable vehicle. Nothing wrong with owning and driving a CFI, nothing at all!!!
Tom
Last edited by 74 LS4-454; Apr 28, 2017 at 05:03 PM.
I bought an 84 back in 87 and I use to get worked up by all the BS,most of it coming from other C4 owners but now the same BS thrown at 84s is now basically thrown at C4s in general. I think it's a bit comical actually,a little payback I guess.
I used to work on cars alot and i can say that overall, even the earliest FI systems were light years better than a carb for overall fuel metering. Not saying carbs are bad but a good fuel injection system is better. And as the injector technology improved engine performance and longevity went right with it
I wonder if really this is people feeling bad they can only afford the cheaper cars which are these years???
Maybe all these years it has been "boo hoo I wish I could afford the newer better version and don't laugh at me I'm doing the best I can"
Someone explain this to me....
I'll explain what *I* can. I bought a C6 brand new, owned it for 3-1/2 years -evidence that I could afford it.
I bought a C4 to repair and sell to make money. I repaired it, drove it....sold the C6.
What I can explain to you is that you're WAY off the mark in your assumptions. Way off the mark. My post in this thread was to support the assertion that the '84 was a fantastic car -world beating even- in it's time. People tend to forget that, and a period correct article is an eye opener. Today? It doesn't produce the numbers a newer car does, but it absolutely does produce all the fun and more. That is why I have a C4 now, and not a C6. No "boo-hoo'ing" here.
.
Last edited by Tom400CFI; Apr 28, 2017 at 11:18 PM.
As an older guy (tough to admit now) I am agreeing with the poster.
Cars should always be regarded in the context of when and where they were made.
I have an 82 CE Fuelie....runs great, starts instantly, instant throttle response, runs on regular. 35 years old!
Can't say that about my 69 4MV Rochester!
In late 1982 I bought a brand new Trans-am WS6 (83)...had TBI....ran perfectly until I sold it.
One must separate the EXTREME high gearing of these GM cars of the era...Both the T/A and the CE turn over something like 1800 rpm at 80 mph. Lovely cross country tourer/cruiser.
You can't fault the TBI set up, when you have to accelerate a 3400 lbs car from 1800 rpm!
Multiport is better...but the TBI was a great piece of engineering for it's time.
I'll explain what *I* can. I bought a C6 brand new, owned it for 3-1/2 years -evidence that I could afford it.
I bought a C4 to repair and sell to make money. I repaired it, drove it....sold the C6.
What I can explain to you is that you're WAY off the mark in your assumptions. Way off the mark. My post in this thread was to support the assertion that the '84 was a fantastic car -world beating even- in it's time. People tend to forget that, and a period correct article is an eye opener. Today? It doesn't produce the numbers a newer car does, but it absolutely does produce all the fun and more. That is why I have a C4 now, and not a C6. No "boo-hoo'ing" here..
in my best Arty Johnson voice: "Veddy intorestink!"
I'll explain what *I* can. I bought a C6 brand new, owned it for 3-1/2 years -evidence that I could afford it.
I bought a C4 to repair and sell to make money. I repaired it, drove it....sold the C6.
What I can explain to you is that you're WAY off the mark in your assumptions. Way off the mark. My post in this thread was to support the assertion that the '84 was a fantastic car -world beating even- in it's time. People tend to forget that, and a period correct article is an eye opener. Today? It doesn't produce the numbers a newer car does, but it absolutely does produce all the fun and more. That is why I have a C4 now, and not a C6. No "boo-hoo'ing" here.
.
I'm on my 3rd C4 now (My 35th Anniversary '88). I actually was looking for a C3, but I wanted the 35th. I'm not bored with the C4 and my next one will probably be a vert (I've never owned one). The C4 brought performance AND handling to the Vette. I've never forgot that and that's why I'm still impressed with the car.
