C4 performance differences,myth or reality?
Thread Starter
Burning Brakes
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
C4 performance differences,myth or reality?
have tons of mags roadtests/internet,track data which I have alist of 0-60 and 1/4 mile performance.You would think every year it would have gotten quicker but thats not neccessarily the case.heres what I have for the "standard" C4's(all automatics)
1.92
2.93
3.96
4.95
5.94
6.91
7.90
8.85
9.89
10.88
11.87
12.86
13.84
only tenths might separate cars with the same engine,but a tenth's a tenth.The 90-93 run better than their MAF counterparts,and 85's because of forged internals,looser converter,and not having precats,run better as well,(I know my bone stock 85 was faster than my 87.so,what do you think,myth,or reality?
1.92
2.93
3.96
4.95
5.94
6.91
7.90
8.85
9.89
10.88
11.87
12.86
13.84
only tenths might separate cars with the same engine,but a tenth's a tenth.The 90-93 run better than their MAF counterparts,and 85's because of forged internals,looser converter,and not having precats,run better as well,(I know my bone stock 85 was faster than my 87.so,what do you think,myth,or reality?
Elite Torch Red Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 57,805
Likes: 23
From: Exit 89 GSP,Lakewood,NJ The Land Of Mojo
Cental/South NJ Events Coordinator
CI 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12 Vet
CI-II Burnout & Drag Champ
St. Jude Donor '03-'04-'05-'06-'07
I don't quite get what you're getting at, but my '95 6 speed ran a best of 13.07 @ 108 completely factory stock on Michelin Pilot tires.
My '93 automatic on the exact same tire(actually the very tires that were on the '95) ran a best of 13.37@102, completely factory stock.
My '93 automatic on the exact same tire(actually the very tires that were on the '95) ran a best of 13.37@102, completely factory stock.
Team Owner
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 90,675
Likes: 304
From: SE NY
Cruise-In II Veteran
Well when you are talking about 1/4 mile ETs you must consider the entire drive train.
For any engine with a particular power curve there is one (with some latitude of course) optimum setup. Deviate not very far from that optimum and the ET number will rise.
Also it is possible that an engine with more power, with one drive train setup, will not perform as well in the 1/4 mile as a lower power eninge with the optimum drive train setup.
As always...it's the system.
For any engine with a particular power curve there is one (with some latitude of course) optimum setup. Deviate not very far from that optimum and the ET number will rise.
Also it is possible that an engine with more power, with one drive train setup, will not perform as well in the 1/4 mile as a lower power eninge with the optimum drive train setup.
As always...it's the system.
Racer
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
From: langhorne
Originally Posted by 65Z01
Well when you are talking about 1/4 mile ETs you must consider the entire drive train.
For any engine with a particular power curve there is one (with some latitude of course) optimum setup. Deviate not very far from that optimum and the ET number will rise.
Also it is possible that an engine with more power, with one drive train setup, will not perform as well in the 1/4 mile as a lower power eninge with the optimum drive train setup.
As always...it's the system.
For any engine with a particular power curve there is one (with some latitude of course) optimum setup. Deviate not very far from that optimum and the ET number will rise.
Also it is possible that an engine with more power, with one drive train setup, will not perform as well in the 1/4 mile as a lower power eninge with the optimum drive train setup.
As always...it's the system.
We always leave that out. Just MAYBE someone else is just better at it than you or I! 
Le Mans Master
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 12
These cars are all within a stones throw of each other. Tests vary with temp, weather conditions, track and like what was stated, driver. Of the 5 I have owned I have had an 88, 89 and my 90 were dogs out of the factory and my 89 with the 3.07 optioned auto and my 88 with the 4-3 were faster.
Look at Mojo, his MPH show a 50-60 hp difference. Track conditions were probably a difference and the cars themselves were a good part of it too.
My 90 was absolutely pathetic in it's stock form and a race between the 2 I have now, which was the 89 that was fast, it would have been a pretty poor race.
P.S. I gotta get to that track on the East coast, it must be 1,000,000' below sea level.
Look at Mojo, his MPH show a 50-60 hp difference. Track conditions were probably a difference and the cars themselves were a good part of it too.
My 90 was absolutely pathetic in it's stock form and a race between the 2 I have now, which was the 89 that was fast, it would have been a pretty poor race.
P.S. I gotta get to that track on the East coast, it must be 1,000,000' below sea level.
Safety Car
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,088
Likes: 0
From: Poop land
Originally Posted by hippy
it must be 1,000,000' below sea level.
Maybe if you really raced down there, You could have cut a 4.08 @ 335.38 mph!! J/K!
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Team Owner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 24,337
Likes: 25
From: San Diego , CA Double Yellow DirtBags 1985..Z51..6-speed
Originally Posted by vette&f-bod lover
have tons of mags roadtests/internet,track data which I have alist of 0-60 and 1/4 mile performance.so,what do you think,myth,or reality?
Elite Torch Red Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 57,805
Likes: 23
From: Exit 89 GSP,Lakewood,NJ The Land Of Mojo
Cental/South NJ Events Coordinator
CI 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12 Vet
CI-II Burnout & Drag Champ
St. Jude Donor '03-'04-'05-'06-'07
Originally Posted by C4DC
Some models may have had the performance rear gears too...
My '93 had the 2.59 rear.
hippy, we get some good air in NJ, most people don't think about it and most times I forget to mention it.
Bench Racer
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,201
Likes: 15
From: Palm Beach Gardens FL
St. Jude '03 thru 14,'25
Originally Posted by k0rv3tt389
Were you racing in the earth's mantle?? I'm guessing that 190 miles below sea level really gave you much more umph!
Maybe if you really raced down there, You could have cut a 4.08 @ 335.38 mph!! J/K!
Maybe if you really raced down there, You could have cut a 4.08 @ 335.38 mph!! J/K!
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,653
Likes: 428
From: Melbourne Florida
Cruise-In IV Veteran
No two cars are exactly the same...take two C4's that are identical and one may run much quicker than the other..luck of the draw from the factory...
Frank, I admit I get jealous of you guys up north every summer...from May to November our DA's are 3500+ every damn day...sigh...but when it's 20 degrees with the snow blowin and the tracks are closed up north, I'm racing down here and lounging around in shorts and a t-shirt...btw, I actually raced once down here with a +640 DA...it was 3 years ago but woohoo!...lol
Frank, I admit I get jealous of you guys up north every summer...from May to November our DA's are 3500+ every damn day...sigh...but when it's 20 degrees with the snow blowin and the tracks are closed up north, I'm racing down here and lounging around in shorts and a t-shirt...btw, I actually raced once down here with a +640 DA...it was 3 years ago but woohoo!...lol
Race Director
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 13
From: Slidell Louisiana
Originally Posted by tobijohn
If lower is better then I guess that's another good reason to go to hell...
Low is good! cool is good! However, hot is bad! So Hell is not conducive to great ETs!
Here we always have high, I can feel a power increase when I drive down to Denver ! Yesterday I had hot and high! I can't wait to get back near the water!
Mike
Thread Starter
Burning Brakes
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Mr Mojo
I don't quite get what you're getting at,
1.speed density cars seem to be about .1-.2 better than MAF cars.This is also true with F-bodys which later cars had slighly better #'s
2.85's considering their horspower rating(230)were slightly quicker than later MAF cars,(245)due to the reasons I surmised
will read you a quote from vette mag(june 94)on a roadtest of a 94 ZO7 6spd"Straight line tests netted fairly dissapointing results by its 13.8@105 time.it was down somewhat from other 6spd's we've tested,especially 92's.Wer'e convinced that while on paper power hasnt changed,but 93's dropped slightly with their revised valve timing,94's took a marginal hp hit with sequential injection." This coincides with most 92 roadtests I have which are in the 13.2-13.4 range.Of course conditons,drivers etc werent the same,and theirs gonna be ringers and theirs gonna be dogs for whatever production tolerance reasons.Also,besides fuel metering,chevy changed certain things which may affect a cars acceleration like torque converter stall,curbweight,tire size,etc,while the power ratings were the same.
Last edited by vette&f-bod lover; Jul 31, 2005 at 12:56 PM.