i just want one
i just want one
I'm right there with you. I'd love to find a late C4 with the 6-Speed.
you'd be a fool not to want one. make mine an 88 or so with a 4+3 trans behind a blowed up motor.. build a mild 5.3 or 6.0 for it, rip out all the goofy electronic gauges and all useless things like AC and put some basic analog gauges in it and beat it to within an inch of it's life...
I loved my C4/LT1 combo. But the LT1 is a bit of an orphan. A 6spd, L98 is probably a better option all around. Classic small block versus orphaned small block superseded by the LS series.
They're hitting an attractive price point, too. Lots of good cars out there to choose from.
I never liked C5s.
I thought i would like them until i actually spent time around them.
I still think they would make a great track-only car for the money.
Or, as a lot of my auto-tech friends like to point out constantly, great parts donors.
The problem with the C4 is that the C5 is a better car in every way, for not much more coin in some cases. If you want to daily drive the car, go for the C5 unless the C4 can be had at a VERY attractive price.
rotard wrote: The problem with the C4 is that the C5 is a better car in every way, for not much more coin in some cases. If you want to daily drive the car, go for the C5 unless the C4 can be had at a VERY attractive price.
This. Unless you really want to buy that 84 or 85 for $2500....
Ive seen a couple 84s and 85s for 3 to 4 k, I know, I know, cross fire injection, cheap plastics, blah, blah, blah, still, u can have a lot of fun with one of those things
I loved mine but felt it had more potential than I had driver skill. And the damn thing always leaked water. And the electronics would act up occasionally (related...?). The wipers lift off the windshield over 80mph, and this is accepted as norm (but they do look cool!)
I don't know if I would want a stripped one; the A/C worked great, the ABS was awesome once I got it working, headlights bright, seats comfy once you got in and when the digital dash worked, and there was sunlight shining directly on it, nothing looked cooler. I did replace the bose system with some crap, but at least it had sound.
I sold my 89 for 4k, everything fixed 6 speed with AL flywheel. Advertised prices are not what these things are selling for. Make cash offer.
Ranger50 wrote: This. Unless you really want to buy that 84 or 85 for $2500....
I know someone who bought an immaculate LT1/6-speed for... well, I won't say, but a lot closer to $2500 than a C5 will command.
It's a BEAUTIFUL car.
I have a C4 that I am thinking of making a new body for. Shape is inspired by the 62 Ferrari GTO.
I like the C4 size. The suspension geometry was improved in 1987 (If I recall correctly). I hate the gauges and cheap interior. If I do this I will drop in a ZZ4 with a tremec 6speed (have this laying around) and redo the dash with analog gauges. 
The C5-6 rear suspension is a big improvement over the C4. The C4 is a modified swing arm design. The C5-6 is a true double wishbone design. I have built a number of cars using both C4 and C5 suspensions and in race applications the C5-6 is much better. But, the prices of C4s is pretty appealing.
Having fun. John
rotard wrote: The problem with the C4 is that the C5 is a better car in every way, for not much more coin in some cases. If you want to daily drive the car, go for the C5 unless the C4 can be had at a VERY attractive price.
Yep the only thing better about the C4 is the looks, slightly.
There isn't a red-blooded american male who hasn't owned one or wanted to.
jmc14 wrote: The C5-6 rear suspension is a big improvement over the C4. The C4 is a modified swing arm design. The C5-6 is a true double wishbone design. I have built a number of cars using both C4 and C5 suspensions and in race applications the C5-6 is much better. But, the prices of C4s is pretty appealing.
I'm not sure that I'd call it a swingarm design. It has a bearing housing, an upper and lower trailing link, and an upper and lower lateral link.
I mean, I suppose one could look at it and see a swingarm, but the bearing housing isn't married to any of the links, like for instance the C3's suspension.
Of course, I'm leaving out that the "upper lateral link" is the axle shaft, kind of a design sin in my book for various reasons, but it worked well enough for the time, I guess.
Knurled wrote: I'm not sure that I'd call it a swingarm design. It has a bearing housing, an upper and lower trailing link, and an upper and lower lateral link. I mean, I suppose one could look at it and see a swingarm, but the bearing housing isn't married to any of the links, like for instance the C3's suspension. Of course, I'm leaving out that the "upper lateral link" is the axle shaft, kind of a design sin in my book for various reasons, but it worked well enough for the time, I guess.
Sounds closer to double-wishbone or McPherson to me. It's not a swingarm unless the hub angle is locked to one of the lateral link angles.
It is a modified swing arm design. The fixed length axle is the upper control arm. It is a modified design as there is some articulation allowed in the hub. This is controlled by the parallel links that attach the hub to the chassis. The links have rubber bushings. The limit of the articulation is the amount of twist the bushings allow. The lower lateral link connects the hub at a low point to a mount on the lower part of the diff. This mount height in the early cars was too high which resulted in a high roll center. This resulted in a snap oversteer condition. A new bracket was introduced ( I think in 87) that lowered the mounting point. This improved the condition but did not eliminate it entirely. You can improve the C4 by going to Heim joints for all control arms. This will allow greater articulation.
The C5-6 uses a double AFrame design. The axles are splined so the length can change as the suspension goes through its travel. The axle is not a control arm. This allows the tire to travel parallel to the road surface. This maintains a more constant contact which results in more consistent handling and a higher limit.
Not saying the C4 rear is bad. But, there is no question that the C5-6 design is FAR better.
plance1 wrote: Ive seen a couple 84s and 85s for 3 to 4 k, I don't jnow, I know, cross fire injection, cheap plastics, blah, blah, blah, still, u can have a lot of fun with one of those things
about 10 years ago, i almost bought an 86 for $600.. it ran, but had a rod knock.. and it had the 4+3 trans.. the paint was faded, the interior was a little ratty, and the dash didn't work- but $600.
i didn't buy it because i was sinking my money into rebuilding the suspension on my Nova at the time..
Woody wrote: They're hitting an attractive price point, too. Lots of good cars out there to choose from. I never liked C5s.
I am just the opposite. The C4's were ok but the early C5 coup's that actually have a trunk I think are really sharp. I think it was the Z06 option only cars in 02 and 03? Something like that.
I was never a fan of the hatch back style on any corvette. I much prefer the proper coup with a trunk.
C5's look better to me, but that rear mounted trans makes modification difficult.
This I like
This not so much
I had an '88 and loved it. The C4 is a performance bargain. The early cars aren't bad, the later ones are just better. (sort of like Miata's) If you're up for a motor swap project, buy a ratty early car, strip it out and build to your hearts content. The later LT1 cars are great cruisers, spend the dough on a nice one if shopping here. The interiors aren't worth restoring. If you want a nice one, buy one that is nice already.
Leaf blowers for Power Adder:
Y'all are in luck! I'm selling my 88. Z51,4+3, rebuilt engine and all new suspension, brakes, steering, u-joints, bearings, with a nice cam and mini ram. I'll make y'all one helluva deal!
You'll need to log in to post.
