FAUEE

Why does he want to do this again? Or is this just a tjought experiment?

ghoastrider1

crate 383 enfine or larger

dizwiz24

to prove out the c4 is an equally capable platform.

tired of hearing stuff like, the 96 is good, but man, my 2013 is outta this world

Tom400CFI

There have been big changes but the performance change ain't THAT profound (except stock engine perf) and some changes have actually made the car worse.

One very clear example from right in this thread:

No. NO! man, no. That is totally wrong. The "new cars" (C6's) most certainly do NOT "put it down better". Not at all. We can talk specifics:
*Goofy, "over center" clutch (that makes clutch work difficult for no good reason)
*Larger wheel, lower sidewall (=typically harder to launch)
*run flat tire that don't hook
*WHEEL HOP. Wheel hop. The C6 wheel hops. If you let it keep hopping, it'll break the diff. That don't help. (more wheel hop...)
*Tq management

....OR we can simply have a look at 60' times and we'll see that no stock C6's are "putting it down better" than stock C4's b/c they both 60' about the same. I, personally can 60' a full 10th better in my stock C4 than I could in my stock C6....and not have no wheel hop in the C4, either.

People automatically think "newer=better" and don't look at the parts and pieces (or the actual performance) critically to see what reality is. People simply do not take the time to examine what reality is...and so we get erroneous comments, posts, and "facts" like....

Quote:

newer cars put it down better

But they don't.


.

383vett

When I had my C6Z, it did wheelhop at the drags.

ChumpVette

C4 lovers/apologists are nuts.

They are a good car, but the C6 is better on several measures.

60 foot time is not the sole judgement on what makes the C4 better than the C6. I can make a crappy Vega a quarter mile beast, but does that make it better than a C4?

Tom400CFI

Doh!

At least it was the shaft and not the diff! Those things are wheel-hoppin' sons 'o bees.

Tom400CFI

Come one man.....try to use a little context, could you?

Someone earlier said:
Then Diz said:
I agreed with that and pointed out ONE area where misinformation about "new/better" is spread and not actually true. "The new cars put it down better". No, they don't. That is wrong. Did any one say that the C4 was better all around? I don't think that anyone did and if they did, perhaps you could quote it for us? In fact, if you read my post, I said that there have been big changes. The C6 is most definitely better on several measures. Frame and engine are the two that stand out in my mind.

Now, having said that, I did buy a C6 brand new. I owned it for 3-1/2 years and auto-x'ed it, road coursed it, drag tracked it, daily'ed it a some and road trip'ed it -it got used and experienced. While I owned the C6, I bought a non-running C4 to fix, sell and make a buck on. I fixed the C4, drove it and I never drove the C6 again. It sat in my garage for 4 months while I tried to convince myself that it was better. But every day that I went to my garage to drive one of them....I'd look at them both...then pick the C4. After 4 mo's, I sold the C6 and have never missed it at all.

Unfortunately, the C6 is also worse in some measures, but in all performance measures (outside of acceleration) the diff between a well maintained C4 and C6 is small, and unexploitable by most owners. Put another way, I could kill most C6 owners at the auto x and even on the road course (w/a 100+ hp deficit) with my stockish C4. So is the C6 "outta this world" (or what ever claims you read on the 'net), better? Not in this guy's opinion and I had both. It's better in some areas...worse and more irritating in others. It's different, that is for sure.

So among the "C4 apologists/lovers that are nuts"...at least I'm walking the walk. I have mine b/c I like it better and I chose it over a C6....while owning a C6. So....



.

84 4+3

The C6 is a comparably better sports car sure... it has about 20 years of tech improvement. The rear end geometry of the C4 favors launching because it is a 4 link style irs. The C6 favors handling. The manual trans in the C6 was a marked down grade from the zf (fight me on this, but it ain't even close) and the thing drove around like a limp noodle. My buddy went back and forth from his C6 and my C4 and was impressed with the steering snap. I'd imagine a Z06 would be much better but his exact words were "it's like a sports sedan compared to a sports car, the C6 just feels soft." He then went out and bought a 718 and that thing is fun as hell though lol. The C7, I've been told has much more of the rawness that the C4 had.

Not putting down the C6, it does track better. That's what it was built to do. I can also say that any vette 84+ is going to handle beyond what the average driver is capable of. Having driven C5s and C6s I definitely prefer the experience that the C4 gives me... it's like the go cart I was never allowed to have growing up. But the 5 and 6 were more comfortable... well confident around the twists. And I think that's why I felt I was doing better... you didn't feel like you were hanging on by a thread.

dizwiz24

Guys with an un’modd l98 (or lt1) , come in here and acts like its such a tall order.

they act like the lsx series has a warp drive and dilithium crystals.

both are air breathing engines. I understand the heads on the lsx are better. That said, you can put better AFR heads onto the SBC. You can port the intake or even go to an expensive sheet metal intake. I understand you can put even better heads (than you can for sbc) onto an lsx. But what will that matter when throwing boost or nitrous at it.

if one can make 1200 rwhp on an sbc but 1400 if they had an lsx motor - who cares as it still going to come down to better driver/tires !

Lsx modding is benefitting from tech improvements in superchargers, turbos, tuning and fuel delivery that werent there when the SBC LT1 was top dog out there.

Same tech can be applied to SBC (though i concede possibly at higher cost)

cv67

I know about the wheelhop, but they latest lsx make bigger tq down low and do it longer than the LTx. Add nannies, assuming 2 avg drivers the C4 is going to need to outpower the c6 period in most situations. The LS2s are decent, LS3 better pack a lunch


Lets make it interesting, auto C4 and C6....add a converter and a 220@050 to each the C6 is going to whip its azz...badly. Throw another 10 deg to the LT and a litte headwork same thing.
I dont like the C5 and newer but its a fact overall they are better (smarter) cars.

Kevova

The discussion would be short if the answer was " "money" C4 ECMs doesn't lend itself to tuning like the LS. Building SBC is easier the GEN II LT because of parts availability. Go carburetors or stand alone will get you there easily but it's money. Should have bought 94-95 ZR1 and took some driving classes, probably been golden.

84 4+3

It's really just the heads. There is some other design aspects that came along too but it's really hard to argue with a 15 degree valve angle. The best aftermarket gen 1 heads flow as well as the best stock ls heads. Technology is a great thing.

dizwiz24

exactly. The same tech can be applied to 8 pots and a reciprocating crank.


And making power > 800 rwhp on an lsx ive heard you need to convert to iron block lsx due to bore distort. So now its ‘lighter weight’ goes out the window.

LS doesnt have ‘afterburners’ or ‘rocket thrusters’

84 4+3

The iron blocks are a little lighter still but not by much. The new lt1s are reinforced so that isn't a problem.

Tom400CFI

Man, that's not what I've seen at the track. I see "average drivers" at my track in C6's running mid 13's to mid 14's/ The added tq doesn't translate when you can't hook it, and the nannies only slow the car more (Spin BOOOOGGG.....then go. Eventually.)

I guess I'm only talking stick cars b/c that's what I have/have had. Auto for auto? I'd still take a C4 at the drag track any day of the week (assuming ~same power). It' just a much more driveable car.

Y-bodluvr

If someone is running mid 14’s in a C6 especially in an LS3 they’re not an “average driver” they are a "Granny shifting, not double-clutching like you should." TERRIBLE driver and should get their license and MAN-CARD(if applicable) revoked ...they are mid-low 12 second cars stock(I ran a 12.3@116 in a BONE stock automatic Grand Sport)

Tom400CFI

LOL about the Granny shiftin'.

I know what they should run...I had an LS2/M6 and it went 12.89/110 (our track is at 4500' elevation -I ran that number on a 6000'+DA).....wheel hoppin' all the way through 3rd gear! Be that as it may, it is the vast majority of stock C6's that we have at our track are running the numbers that I stated.

Nice trap on the GS.


I think the bigger point was about the nannies. I THINK....Cuisinartvette was saying that b/c of the electronic aids (TC/AH) an average driver can run a good number in a C6. Maybe I misinterpreted what he was saying but I would disagree with that based on what I've seen at the track, and my own C6 experience when launching with anything turned on. Outside and all out horror show, launching w/o the aids is as fast or faster than with them.

383vett

I've never heard of anyone double clutching during a quarter mile run.

Kevova

Double and triple clutching is called missed gears lol. There too many drivers who have sticks and can't shift under power. Not every old fat man driving a new hot rod is a duck.