C4 vs C5 performance

Bonnell · Aug 20, 2009

KingCorvette said:
The C5 also has column lock, bad oil sending units, rocking seats,
window failures, bad gas gauges, no spare tire, and a leaky rear axle.

The C4 looks a lot better.

I never experience any of those issues with my '02 vert.

Also, my C4 did experience some of the common issues found with C4s: Erratic dash, squeaking, brittle plastic dash and console parts and failed ECU (or whatever they call the computer on a C4).

I loved my C4 but the C5 is simply a better car and my C6 is better still.:cool

vetteboy86 · Aug 20, 2009

bucket said:
you suck.....

Yeah I know ;LOL

warren s · Aug 20, 2009

I had 2 of each. 2 1999s and 2 1995s.
There is no comaprison, the C5s make it look easy. I love to drive with the roof off, with the C4 it was shake rattle and roll. Not to mention having to unbolt the roof panel.
I still like the looks of the C4 better, but the C5 is faster and more comfortable on long trips. Each has it merits.

bucket · Aug 20, 2009

Bonnell said:
No way you are going to get 50hp on an LT1 with just cold air intake and an exhaust.

I enjoyed my C4 very much. Once I purchased my 2002 vert I never drove my C4 anymore so I eventually sold it. To me that tells the story. The C5 was just a better car.

I do love the clamshell though.

bring on the dyno:cool

TooFast · Aug 21, 2009

warren s said:
I had 2 of each. 2 1999s and 2 1995s.
There is no comaprison, the C5s make it look easy. I love to drive with the roof off, with the C4 it was shake rattle and roll. Not to mention having to unbolt the roof panel.
I still like the looks of the C4 better, but the C5 is faster and more comfortable on long trips. Each has it merits.

Aaa...the C4 dirty little secret. I found out the hard way, after I bought my '92 Targa. Took the top off and thought I had broken something on the car. That baby shook all over the place, never drove it much after that with the top removed because of all the frame shake. My C5 vert is solid as a rock!

6 Shooter · Aug 21, 2009

TooFast - My 1996 LT4 had the same terrible shutter issue...

I guess we should congratulate the C4's for breaking Corvette's continuous years of annual production back in 1983!

L8TR - D

edram454 · Aug 21, 2009

Cruzen said:
The C4 was built like a race car. You can change the front shocks or brakes in a suit and not get very dirty. You can add fluids without worrying about dripping on the paint surfaces. The C5 and C6 seems built for those who take their car to someone else to work on and have deep pockets to do so. Compare the cost to change a clutch in a C4 with that on a C5. That's why there are so many C5's on the verge of needing a new clutch on the market.

A look at the LT1 and LS1 HP torque charts will show that though the C5 LS1 has more HP and torque than the LT1 it has it where most people don't use it above 4500rpm. That is a fact that seems to be lost on many people. With the same rear end, the C4 is faster off the line and more responsive for around town driving. The C4 also has wider rear tires to give a harder launch.

The original C4 targeted 1G on the skid pad and with the right tires it was able to accomplish this. I saw the reports of testing at the Mesa proving grounds. (They did soften the spring rates for 1985 and later to make the ride less harsh.) Not sure if the C5 can accomplish this as delivered. I am also not a big fan of the C5 steering. Less road feel than the C4 but easier for the ladies. I also am not excited about the cableless throttle. Seems to be a bit of lag in my C5.

IMHO, the C4 also looks better standing still from the side. The sloped back verticle pillers make the car look like it is moving fast. Take a good look at the C5 roof pillar and you can see that it lost that look. The designers made a big mistake in not carrying that design over to the C5.

I agree with whomever said the C5 has too much interior room. It was built for those who have made a habit of too much fast foods and not enough trips to the gym. The interior of the C4 reminds me of my old race cars. A bit difficult to get in but once there it wraps around you. The C5 is much less intimate and is like getting into a low Lexus.

I also like the C4 rear better. The C5 looks like it was rear ended by a Mack truck, or someone backed it hard into a concrete wall. Too much fat lady back there. Why did they have to make that back end so tall and BIG?? The C5 rear is substantially higher than the C4. It looks a bit smaller on the C6.

I have both a C4 and C5 so.......

The C5 is quieter and more refined but at what expense. Maybe the increasing age of the average Corvette owner has necessitated these consessions to comfort etc. With the C5 GM was targeting the first time Corvette buyer and the female market and according to local dealers they succeeded as there are a much higher number of women and first time Corvette owners buying the C5/C6 series than ever bought the C4.

For my money, if you really want to experience what I think a Corvette was meant to be then you need to drive a C1 or a C2. Now, those are Corvettes though I'm not so sure I would want to tour the country in one. (In 1969 I drove a 65 Coupe with side pipes from Chicago to California in 29 hours.) Maybe a trip on Route 66 in a C1 would be fun for a day or two until the rain started coming in.

Now, where's my rain suit.

why do you have to insult other corvette owners just to justify your piece of junk. I have had 6 corvettes c3, c4 and c5. I love them all but the c5 is a better car because of technology. my c5 will run with my old big block c3 no problem and with cold ac/ cruise/ heads up display/ etc... I loved my c4 but it lacked some power and interior comfort. I am 6 ft 3in 220 lbs and not fat. I would love a race prepped c4 for racing and obviously the cheap price but for the street and cruising the c5 and c6 is tops.

Fullback32 · Aug 21, 2009

TooFast said:
Aaa...the C4 dirty little secret. I found out the hard way, after I bought my '92 Targa. Took the top off and thought I had broken something on the car. That baby shook all over the place, never drove it much after that with the top removed because of all the frame shake. My C5 vert is solid as a rock!

I hear ya. I took the top off my '89 once...once. Even when it was on it rattled on any kind of bump. Now, that doesn't mean I did not love that car and sorta wish I still had it. :chuckle

KingCorvette · Aug 21, 2009

The C5 has column lock, bad oil sending units, no spare tire, leaky rear axle, rocking seats, bad window reg., bad gas gauges. Is that progress?????

The C4 is better. Plus the girls like the C4.

bucket · Aug 21, 2009

TooFast said:
Aaa...the C4 dirty little secret. I found out the hard way, after I bought my '92 Targa. Took the top off and thought I had broken something on the car. That baby shook all over the place, never drove it much after that with the top removed because of all the frame shake. My C5 vert is solid as a rock!

i drove mine with glass top off and was amazed at how quiet it was...
no shake rattle or roll..but i was just crusin ..but the glass top is noisy..the painted top is not..probably because of the thick insulation.....:cool

vetteboy86 · Aug 21, 2009

edram454 said:
why do you have to insult other corvette owners just to justify your piece of junk. I have had 6 corvettes c3, c4 and c5. I love them all but the c5 is a better car because of technology. my c5 will run with my old big block c3 no problem and with cold ac/ cruise/ heads up display/ etc... I loved my c4 but it lacked some power and interior comfort. I am 6 ft 3in 220 lbs and not fat. I would love a race prepped c4 for racing and obviously the cheap price but for the street and cruising the c5 and c6 is tops.

I don't think anyone is being insulting. Just spirited, and stating their own opinions. What is a better car, and to whom?

It was stated that you think the C5 is better because of technology. Is that technology developing the car, or the technology in the car? Several folks will disagree and say the C3 and earlier is a better car, because all you need is basic tools to work on.

I am going to say it again, they are all corvettes.

bucket · Aug 21, 2009

vetteboy86 said:
I don't think anyone is being insulting. Just spirited, and stating their own opinions. What is a better car, and to whom?

It was stated that you think the C5 is better because of technology. Is that technology developing the car, or the technology in the car? Several folks will disagree and say the C3 and earlier is a better car, because all you need is basic tools to work on.

I am going to say it again, they are all corvettes.

this looks like saturday nite at the sonic...lets see what this C5 has for an old worn out C4....im bettin on the C4 in this race....but not the fight afterward..lol..
6'3 and 220..no fat..hmmm..ill bring the "9"...lol :boogie

bucket · Aug 21, 2009

ps..i read the specs on vetteboys C4...looks like a sleeper

Cruzen · Aug 24, 2009

edram454 said:
why do you have to insult other corvette owners just to justify your piece of junk. I have had 6 corvettes c3, c4 and c5. I love them all but the c5 is a better car because of technology. my c5 will run with my old big block c3 no problem and with cold ac/ cruise/ heads up display/ etc... I loved my c4 but it lacked some power and interior comfort. I am 6 ft 3in 220 lbs and not fat. I would love a race prepped c4 for racing and obviously the cheap price but for the street and cruising the c5 and c6 is tops.

I did not intend to INSULT anyone. All I was doing is pointing out what anyone can see for themselves at our local car shows and I was being kind concerning some owners physical conditions.

The C5/C6 series does represent different technology and new technology is great until it starts breaking down and you can't get replacement parts etc. Will people be able to restore them or will they become glorified flower planters when all that technology starts going bad?

As someone posted here in another thread, a simple electrical fire is enough to total a new Vette making it nothing more than a parts car where as on the older models you could rebuild it with a new wiring harness. Technology is great until it starts going bad. New mechanics have to be as much an electrical technician as a mechanic to work on the newer models and I question their ability to deal with this new technology especially in some areas away from large cities.

My comments on the difference in HP and torque are pretty basic and were meant to point out some fundimental misconceptions between the two ratings being that for most drivers they are not going to experience the difference between the 300 hp LT1 and the first generation 345hp LS1 because that HP difference occures above the RPM range they use and in fact the LS1 puts out a bit less in the lower RPM ranges which can be felt.

Also note that my comments were comparing the last of the C4 series which featured many improvements over the first of that series, with the C5 series.

My comments about the styling were first pointed out to me at the GM proving grounds in Mesa. In the 1996 video about designing the C5 there are several comments from the designers that the rear end was the topic of heated discussion. Obviously someone was not happy about that design. In the same video the change in GM's marketing focus is discussed and that comfort and luxury are more of a consideration than in previous designs. Maybe more important than performance. This is in sharp contrast to the marketing of a Cobra or Viper.

As far as my car being a piece of junk, well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

bucket · Aug 24, 2009

Cruzen said:
I did not intend to INSULT anyone. All I was doing is pointing out what anyone can see for themselves at our local car shows and I was being kind concerning some owners physical conditions.

The C5/C6 series does represent different technology and new technology is great until it starts breaking down and you can't get replacement parts etc. Will people be able to restore them or will they become glorified flower planters when all that technology starts going bad?

As someone posted here in another thread, a simple electrical fire is enough to total a new Vette making it nothing more than a parts car where as on the older models you could rebuild it with a new wiring harness. Technology is great until it starts going bad. New mechanics have to be as much an electrical technician as a mechanic to work on the newer models and I question their ability to deal with this new technology especially in some areas away from large cities.

My comments on the difference in HP and torque are pretty basic and were meant to point out some fundimental misconceptions between the two ratings being that for most drivers they are not going to experience the difference between the 300 hp LT1 and the first generation 345hp LS1 because that HP difference occures above the RPM range they use and in fact the LS1 puts out a bit less in the lower RPM ranges which can be felt.

Also note that my comments were comparing the last of the C4 series which featured many improvements over the first of that series, with the C5 series.

My comments about the styling were first pointed out to me at the GM proving grounds in Mesa. In the 1996 video about designing the C5 there are several comments from the designers that the rear end was the topic of heated discussion. Obviously someone was not happy about that design. In the same video the change in GM's marketing focus is discussed and that comfort and luxury are more of a consideration than in previous designs. Maybe more important than performance. This is in sharp contrast to the marketing of a Cobra or Viper.

As far as my car being a piece of junk, well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

this is the same reason i am attracted to C3's....the lack of tech..is a cool thing to me..:cool

Curious George · Sep 8, 2009

KingCorvette said:
The C5 has column lock, bad oil sending units, no spare tire, leaky rear axle, rocking seats, bad window reg., bad gas gauges. Is that progress?????

The C4 is better. Plus the girls like the C4.

Well, let's see... the C4 has Opti-Spark, a transmission hump bigger than the C5's arse, shakes more than my Fiat 124 Spider that I had, no trunk space in the C4 convertible (compared to my C5 convertible), crummy power seat design (stripped gears - all the time) and more I cannot think of. BUT - I still love both of them!

CG

ernestD · Sep 8, 2009

Gotta love that 6 shooter!Always has good answers!c5-c4:bash :chuckle

c4=

edram454 · Sep 8, 2009

like I said before. Better technology, better overall engine technology (aluminum), better handling,lower wind drag,much more room and comfort, smoother ride etc... space age frame technology that makes the c6/c6 easier to live with. I sold me c4 convertible because when my lincoln was in for service I had to drive my vetter for a whole week and I could not wait to get my lincoln back. No room!!! tight cockpit, no shoulder room and it felt like a heavier car. I liked it until I drove my c5. a c4 would be great for a track car but I would not like one for every day living. I do like the way the hood lifts up and exposes the whole front end on the c4.. that is a plus. c3's are just plain old school. Never had one with good working ac/ they all get hot/ they all leak and most are rough riding. I had a 1969 small block/ 1971 big block/ 1976 small block and all automatics. No overdrive was a major problem with c3's. maybe a c3 resto-rod? edram.

WLS Ruby 93 · Sep 11, 2009

C4-c5??

Had a C4 Ruby, loved it but alas traded it for a C5 98 which is easier to get in and out of for these old bones. The big C5 butt with four exhaust holes tells the guy in back of you, who is losing, that something serious is up front under the hood.
You don't have to go fast all the time but it's good to know you can any time.

Keep 'em rollin' :W
Bill

gmjunkie · Sep 11, 2009

Cruzen said:
Technology is great until it starts going bad. New mechanics have to be as much an electrical technician as a mechanic to work on the newer models and I question their ability to deal with this new technology especially in some areas away from large cities.