drcook

We all know that some folks with newer cars feel smug in the amount of power that the new cars are producing. Tonite I quantified to myself and decided to share, what actually so many on this board actually know, the C4 is really a good platform to start with, to build a pretty decent hot rod on.

Consider the figures in this article:

https://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/02/...atios-feature/

Look at the dollar ranges to achieve the power to weight ratios, as that is what it is all about.

I started by using the stated nbr of 300 HP for a 1996 LT1 Corvette and got:

car weight 3,298 lbs

3298 / 300 =

10.99 lbs per hp

so 345 HP = 9.56 lbs per hp

425 HP = 7.76 lbs per hp

450 HP = 7.32 lbs per hp

When you consider the price differentials and what you can build with those price differentials, the real value of our cars jumps out.

I look at what I have into mine (and I payed a little higher because of the 11,800 miles on the odometer last July), with the new tires, full Banski suspension, Dewitt 2 core radiator, rebuilt Opti, all new brake components (rotors, pads, 1 new caliper) EM harness bar, RD camber brace, stainless flex lines, new Bilsteins, the rest of the body and front end bushings, the fronts being Del-Alum bushings instead of polys I have , a convertible X-brace, maybe 20,000 into the car. And because I drive it, it now has a little over 17K on it. (yes I know 20 will buy a C5, but it is worn also and by the time I get it to the level of niceness mine is at, I would have a bunch more invested).

Looking at a Challenger SRT ($62,495) , there is $42,000 difference there that can be used to liven up the power train. My belief is that for half that the power to weight ratio can be achieved with our older engines along with better brakes, etc. $21,000 worth of improvements to what I already have would make a really really fun ride.

With a 1996 A4 having a weight of 3298, you need 524 HP to equal the power to weight ratio of a Hellcat, 3298 / 524 =6.29, well doable with lots of other upgrades for that $42,000 difference

(I would bet that there are a few on this board already there )

a SRT Hellcat Challenger weighs 4,448 lbs and has (from the articles I read, 707 HP) 4448 / 707 = 6.29

I know with what I have now (and the platform only has half the parts in, the rest are in boxes still), the car has really stiffened up and is getting really a blast to drive.

I am curious as to what some of you have achieved HP wise (if you care to share, if you don't want to divulge due to competition, either fudge it a bit on the low side, or don't take part) without an engine transplant or even with if you specify

I am not interested in what you spent, that is your business, unless you care to share. Just your power to weight ratios (not RWHP because those figures in the articles are not RWHP from what I can tell)

I know a few of you have said you enjoy surprising folks with newer cars when you easily walk away from them.

I know also for the price differential, a LSx engine can be transplanted in, and still be well shy of what it costs to get into one of these new cars.

I also know that with modifications, the new engines can make more HP than our old gen 1 and 2 SBCs will ever make, but then the price differential to HP gets even wider.

That is the real value of our cars, besides the fact they are fun.

1993C4LT1

Good way of looking at it. I remember playing Gran turismo 2 on the PlayStation 1, as a kid at like 4 or 5 years old. Always picked the C4 GS whenever I could. I guess I naturally liked C4s. But even with your valid points, people here will still disagree. Which is fine as well.

Kmcoldcars

According to my calculator, my supercharged 1991 has 8.79 pounds per HP, with 375 HP. It goes very well when I step on the gas pedal.

pologreen1

To the guys with regular cars Imagine 1000 -1700hp in these cars?

Cool Runnings

No!

drcook

No, but I can imagine 450/475 'ish which is my target. It will be quite lively. As I said, I know the newer engine designs simply have more innate HP potential. But the stack of cash is way more than I will have in it.

There is a guy local to me with a Grand Sport replica. That is an original Grand Sport Replica that was built to be a Cobra killer. He has a 500+ horse big block in it. BUT he spent lots more on it, just like the guys with new cars. Additionally, 450/475 is more than enough to kill yourself with on the street.

BUT if your passion is at the drag strip, the more the better until it exceeds the capability of the chassis.

BUT even a telephone pole can exceed the capability of the chassis. I have seen lots of new muscle cars in the area that met their demise due to too much power and too little self control and way too little experience.

DGXR

I might feel smug too if I owned a newer car with horsepower comparable to the LT1, could carry twice as many people, was much quieter and comfortable and practical, with better fuel economy and lower maintenance.

Torque is a huge part of automotive performance. So many of the newer performance engines that have to spin high RPMs to produce any useful power... they are lacking torque. You know, that snappy response to the accelerator at any RPM. That is what I'm talking about

But the driving experience is perhaps the most important part of this conversation. In my opinion this is where the value of the C4 really shines through, especially at the prices they can be had. Maybe the Camry SE makes good power and can keep up with me on the highway. But does it have that deep rumble like the SBC? Does it carve corners this well? The badge may say "special edition" but does it really *feel* sporty? Pretty sure it cannot hit 150 MPH!

Tom400CFI

I totally agree. Right now, what you get for your $$ with a C4 is unbelievable. You've rightly focused on lbs/hp, which the C4 provides a fantastic value....but that's not all!....
Finally, there is the Content. Although the C4 is falling behind (finally) the fact that later cars had TPMS, Pass key, SCV stereos, climate, the lighting features, (what I call) "Passive, active handling"...For $5-$10k, you're getting a LOT of content, too.

cv67

Unreal what a bargain these are

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...post1595883167

1993C4LT1

That's definitely not the norm though^ With that considered, they still are a bargain.

sprink94

First of all...I love this thread !!

Power to weight ratio is the real story...especially remembering Newton's' 1st and 3rd laws of motion. Back in the day when I had my '70 Hemi Challenger and then my LS-6 SS Chevelle...the factories started figuring out the numbers that insurance companies were using to "rape" young guys under 25 with insurance rates. The magic number was 10 LB/ HP (Gross at the Flywheel) and lower. If your car fell in that category...you paid BIG BUCKS for car insurance. If it fell below 8 LB per HP you couldn't buy insurance if you were single and under 25 !! The Big 3 figured this out and underrated some of their hottest models. Remember the 302 Z/28 ? 290 HP at 6500 RPM...My *** !! The Street 426 Hemi and the LS-6 454 Factory Rated at 425 and 450 HP have in recent years been Dyno Tested at well over 500 HP !!

So throw this in the mix... for $10K you find a super clean LT-1 '92~'96 'vette with 300 HP net and you spend another $5K~$7K doing a Pro Charger and what you may need for the drive train. Now do the Power to weight Ratio....now you are in the mid to low 7 LB per HP range ...for under $20K !!! Bring a C4 to the party with 450~500 HP and you will see a lot of sad faces looking at 4 tail lights moving away quickly !!

Now let's talk about "Bang for the Buck" !!

FresnoVette

OK....now what?

I've always chuckled at the amount of HP the modern engines produce vs tire technology. Without traction control theres little hope of using more than 400hp. Oh sure you can roast the tires in grand fashion.

Cool Runnings

You forgot the 429 SCJ.

drcook

actually back in the late 60's if you checked the correct boxes, you could get a Corvette with way more HP than that. And no traction control.

additionally the Hemi engines of that timeframe were vastly underrated also.

Tom400CFI

Yeah...IDK about that. Not if you use today's net ratings.

That 302 mentioned above (for example) probably DID make about 290 net hp.

drcook

Today's inspirational messages

for your viewing pleasure


for your reading pleasure

http://www.superchevy.com/features/v...t-corvette-c4/

https://thegarage.jalopnik.com/ten-u...-th-1752856621

sprink94

The "Net" ratings were not used until '71.

How about 423.7 at 7200 RPM...just a "little" understated by the Factory.

Another ... 415 HP and 345 Ft Lb TQ

The same is true regarding the Boss 302 Mustang with Cleveland Heads...290 HP...I think maybe at 4000 RPM.

Tom400CFI

First vid....now put it in a car and see what it does. 320 hp?

Second vid, what are we looking at here? An engine running on a dyno?

There are quite a few data points in THIS THREAD (people who've had them) that show the real (net) hp to be around 300 hp. It appears that they mostly trap around 100 mph -not the 115ish they should if they're 423.7 hp.

sprink94

Interesting read...http://www.superchevy.com/features/c...69-camaro-z28/

"• THE REAL NUMBERS?
According to Chevrolet, the 302 produced 290 hp @ 5,800 rpm and 290 lb-ft of torque @ 4,200 rpm. There’s no question the 302 was underrated, but by how much? Insiders talk about 375 hp at 6,800 rpm. Road testers could take the 302 to beyond 7,000 rpm and the engine was still pulling. Keeping the horsepower rating low kept the insurance premiums down for youthful drivers and was a transparent foil for SCCA specifications."

It's all in good fun...

Tom400CFI

Yep....I hear (and read) all that. People like to talk up the old cars. It's fun. But just look at the trap speeds and that tells the story.