Theres a guy in my vette club who has a 1996 vette, he tells me that the 94-96 vettes have a big performance boost over my 92.
His reasons are improved transmisssion and idle response.
Is there really that big of a difference?? At the strip would he step all over
my 92 even though we both have completely stock vettes with autos and 300 hp?

 

I'm pretty sure the changes were made in 94. Something to do with better fuel delivery and regulation.

But, the LT4 is still the best!! :cheers:

 

In 1993, there was a change that netted 10 lbs of torque over the 92. Horsepower was the same, 300, for all the LT1's. In 94, the automatic transmissions did improve as they went to the 4L60e (electronic version of the 4L60/700R4). As for differences, you would see them on a dyno, doubt if you could tell driving them though. As for on the strip, if you both have the same rear end ratio and take off the same time and have the same driving skills, you will be neck and neck. :cheers:

 

Here's some place that might help with differences:

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4310/vetfacts.htm

:rolleyes:

 

:thumbs: :cheers:

 

There are a few of these guys in every club. Personally, I would ignore him.
Have him define Big Performance Boost to you. All the years are all pretty much the same across the board except for some tweaks here and there.
Now if he had an LT4 in a 96 then that would be a performance boost.

Personally the earlier years are better values. I just picked up my 93 with 34,000 miles about 6 months ago for $11,900. It is in mint shape. Hell, if you like the later year style better you can even update the side gills for like $100. Some of the guys with the later C4s are wanting High teens for their cars -- I just don't see that happening with 97 C5s coming into dealers for high teens low 20s. The only regular non Zr-1 late C4s that seem to be holding value are CE & GS. The rest are dropping like rocks.
With the 92 and 93, they have pretty much taken a huge hit, their depreciation has slowed to a crawl especially if you can get into a low mileage one. Nice examples of L98s often go for $10,000 and most LT1s dont sell for under $10,000 unless they are abused or have very high mileage... so how much could you really lose on a 92 or 93? Not to much at all. :cheers:

Right now, I would say the 92 or 93 are the best bang for the buck in C4.
The 90 ZR-1 is a bargain for the perforance especially if you get one with maybe 50,000 miles you can get in for about $19,000. In the C5 market the 97 is a tremendous value right now :smash:


[Modified by xlr8nflorida, 12:16 AM 11/26/2003]

 

Well, considering the law, you've got a 10% variance on allowable horsepower.

For the LT1 the range is 270-330. For early ZR-1's that means 340-412hp.
That's why you will sometimes see "exeptionally strong" stock Vettes. And vice versa.

Car and Driver has tested early ZR-1's that would barely beat a "regular" Vette. We have to consider that the regular Vette was probably a strong example and the ZR-1 was a weak one. But nevertheless, the times are comparable.

GM builds cars (and engines) for the masses... they're not hand built and perfect each time. Some really suck. But that's the game.

 

This post is alittle vauge. What do you consider a regular vette? I am sorry but I don't buy the story about a ZR-1 that can barely beat a regular Vette.

I drove the 92 for 130,000 miles and now have a 93.
There is a huge difference between the LT1 & LT5.

I am sorry but I don't share you opinion that some LT1s suck because GM dosen't care. You don't think they dyno them all?
And I can confidently say LT5's no way suck, they were not created for the masses, they only made around 20 motors a day.

Unless of course you are comparing an LT4 to a weak LT5 but even then the LT5 is stronger on the top end. In the 1/4 a good race but after that it would go to the LT5