Cause 90's early 2k....we laugh now, but back then these cars were luxury and considered 'high' end vehicles/sports cars. The same things you mentioned about these cars, we will be saying about Tesla's in the next 20 years...something to really think about to put it all in perspective.

 

You know the carbon blocker ring from 5-6 drops right in, right?

 

^ Didn’t know that.

I used all new syncro assemblies, bearings, 2nd gear, but didn’t use the bronze/brass fork pads. There’s a pro/con argument to that. I put in new stock pads. I’m about 1k miles on the work and it shifts like butter.

 

Personally, I expect mechanical stuff to wear/break in all cars but not the electrical anomalies that plaque the C5 throughout its production years. Way over electrical engineered IMHO. And who designed the grounding areas open to the weather?

 

The C5 was widely applauded when introduced as ground breaking by just about everyone. My understanding is the C5 was designed to be a performance car, first and foremost, within budget limitations, to make them affordable. Sure, better higher quality interiors could have been installed, higher quality this and that, but at what cost? I think Chevrolet did a fine job producing the C5 at the price it was marketed for. I have owned a myriad of performance cars over my life and have found the C5 to be one of my very best performance buys. A lot of car for the money and still, in my opinion, very relevant. Great performance, fabulous looks, very reliable and still the performance car bargain of the century.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself Friou.

 

The answer to any thread like this is very easy:

cost/benefit analysis.

 

Reminds me of the lady who called Dr. Laura whining and complaining about her husband. She rambles on and on and on and then Dr. Laura points out, "But you chose him. You married him and then had a dozen kids with him. Who's the fool here?"

Just sayin'

 

I will gladly take your "worst car GM ever built" and give it a happy, caring, and loving home. It took me 30 years to have the car of my dreams now sitting in my garage. So OP instead of complaining about how horrible your C5 is lets cherish the fact we own one and be thankful for what we have.
Lots of good comments in this thread though on how great they are. I always like to look at the positive side of things considering all the negativity that's surrounds us these days.

 

This truly has to be one of the most stupid threads I have ever seen on any car forum... and I read a lot of them. We are seriously going to argue the build quality of a car that started 23 years ago and has not been built in the last sixteen years? A car that is one of the largest sellers of any two seat sports cars in history! A car that is highly sought after and renowned today as a bargain for the buck when it comes to driving satisfaction and performance! Really????

 

GM made the c5 cheaper than the c4 to build. They spent money on an expensive frame, and learned that the high build cost of the c4 was an issue near the end of its run. They decided to go all in on cost savings, and it worked.

What's impressive is for how cheap to build they were, how many of them are still on the road. Look at how many more competitors have been scrapped due to condition VS C5s, it's insane.

 

I thought it was pretty funny, but then again I don't take a lot of this stuff too seriously.

 

Exactly.

 

I think there are a few factors at play that contribute to your statement:

• Most who bought a Corvette new, bought it not as their only vehicle. I'd bet most of us have our Corvette's as a 2nd vehicle. So that means the Corvette is an additional expense we can afford. And since we can afford the 2nd car, we can likely also afford to spend extra on keeping them in excellent shape (and we may be more **** about keeping them that way than others are for different cars).
• Many Corvette owners didn't put that many miles on their cars. The "competitors" you're referring to may have been driven more.

I don't think this is a dumb thread at all. i.e. for the reverse issue, in my Z06's 70k mile lifespan it's now getting a 2nd transmission rebuild because of poor design. Obviously reverse isn't used for racing, so this wear isn't from beating on the car.

 

The "competitors" he's talking about are other sports cars. Other sports cars have the same buyer's demographic as the Corvette (not their only vehicle, low mileage, etc.).

 

Well if we're talking about Euro German stuff? then it should be no surprise.

 

I'm with you, but then again people like the OP ARE in fact serious...he buys a 20 year old Corvette (or buys car new and complains 20 years later) and expects it to be a tight and robust as the day it rolled off the assembly line. I shake my head at the ignorance and foolish complaints of some of these threads. OP's car seems like it has some issues and just wanted to vent?

The stigma of owning a Corvette is that people think it's of highest quality...like you sit in it and it should be equal to German stuff (Audi/Merceded/BMW). Like many have said, it was 90's-early 2000's build quality from CHEVROLET. The car was made to PERFORM, not act like a boat Cadillac. It is a Sports Car first with a spritz of "Luxury" second (leather, HU display, cruise control" and decent ride quality). The C5 is nothing special sitting in it listening to the radio. It starts to be special when you can cruise down the highway getting 26+ MPG in a manual RWD V8 of the 2000's making 400hp. It gets real special and fun when you USE the car to it's potential around curves and aggressive driving.

If you compare it to "competitors" sports cars then you are paying twice as much for it, so at that point, why are you in a C5 and not a "competitors" sports car? Oh right...the PRICE. IMO Corvette has always tailored to be the "working mans" sports car. Sure the new ones are going up in price, but initial costs of a new C8 (keep in mind it's PERFORMANCE specs) being roughly more than HALF of a Porche/Lambo/Ferrari (sticking to a mid engine designs) if those are the "competitors".

So OP, if you want something that has better tangibles and you never use the GO pedal more than 1/2 way then the C5 is NOT for you. Once you USE the car, you accept the C5's shortcomings in amenities and "build quality".

Technology and manufacturing processes has advanced so fast that a 20 year old Corvette has tangibles equal to a current base model Kia econobox, at which point people complain that the Corvette is "cheap".

Why don't you compare the issues you have with your current C5 to a 80's C4 and let us know if you feel the same way. Spoiler alert, I be the 80's C4 would be atrocious in your eyes. Everything has it's quirks. Just a matter of what bugs you.

End rant...

 

While I agree many were bought as second cars and saw little use, that is but a percentage of them. It is very easy to find many with 100,000 plus miles on them and even several with more than 200,000 miles... on this forum.

I have owned most all the world's competition for the car and have had the dealership for most all of them. I have watched all of them repaired and tried to explain the bills for those repairs on most of them. Factually, nothing is easier than the C5, nor as inexpensive for parts, nor has as many people capable of actually doing the work. If you haven't actually owned the Jags, BMWs, Mercedes, Porsches, etc and paid for the work on them as they age...you simply don't understand.

 

The ironic thing is that for whatever the design or engineering tradeoffs or faults the car may possess, the aftermarket is so vast that there is probably someway to correct the matter. Whether that is with an OEM part from C6/C7, a cheap Chinese knockoff, or a superior aftermarket solution. It is really hard to think of another car that can be turned into a luxury cruiser or a literal racecar with some relatively simple mods. Absolutely amazing platform.

 

How about LS1? is one of the worlds greatest engines ever made.
euroean car makers
WISH they had LS1in there cars even today.