Bergerboy

I was an Engineering student at GMI in Flint, Michigan (now Kettering U.) in '83, when some key members of the C4 development team gave a guest lecture on the key technological advancements of the C4 over the C3.
I remember being very impressed with certain engineering developments, such as the fiberglass rear leaf spring suspension, and some of the cast Al or Mg structural components.
They didn't show much styling-related at that pre-unveil period, but when the spy shots started to later emerge and the final reveal took place, I remember my friends and I being very underwhelmed!
2 of my friends went out and bought Firebirds before graduation, and then 2 of us bought Fiero's next year for our graduation. (yeah - that wasn't the wisest decision I've made!).

To me, the early '80s embodied everything that DIDN'T appeal to me in cars - lots of cheap plastic, peaked emphasis on fuel economy and emissions, poor performance, poor reliability, and too much un-proven electronics - All the reasons I sought out a '69 when I took my plunge!

Stev-o

My buddy just bought a C4, only 60K miles and has the LT1 engine with 300hp. The '82 C3 had only 205hp, that would be enough reason for some to trade.

BTW - my buddy paid $7K for his C4 last month, excellent all original cond, I was quite surprised how cheap.

Redvette2

I really liked my C4...although it was a bit more difficult to get in and out due to the high door sills, it was still a good car for me. Yes...the C3 now gets more attention but then it cost much more than the C4. Having owned a C3, C4, C5 and C6, to me they all felt like each model got better.

Redvette2

1994 C4 Corvette

L-46man

The Doug Nash 4+3's were 1:1 output.....there was no overdrive in that box.
The 82 (although) auto/lock-up had a .70 overdrive giving 36mph per 1000 rpm....made for a terrifically relaxed cruiser.

Don't get me going on CAGS skip shift! LOL

L-46man

Nobody I ever met....SOME people were confused on how to service these....carbs are simple for the bubba mouth breathers.

I disagree with all of the above I was THERE IN THAT TIME and FULLY INVOLVED....see the Red above.

gbvette62

L-46man, you beat me to it. I agree with everything you said, well except maybe your comments about the split window. 63 coupes have been a love hate thing since the day they came out, and I have to admit I'm in the hate group (maybe hate is a little to strong, but I don't care for them).

In the 60's it was not at all considered "demented" to remove the split. It was actually considered an improvement by a lot of people, making them much more modern and clean looking. I have a Car Craft Magazine from 63, with complete step by step instructions on how to customize a 63, by removing the split. Besides, no one was removing the splits from 63 coupes after 64 or 65, because by then there plenty of used 64-67 coupes on the market, so the need to "update" the 63's was reduced.

I'm 65, and like you I have been involved in the Corvette world since my late teens, and I don't remember anyone ever trying to convert a chrome bumper car, into a rubber bumper one.

chstitans42

Then tell my why you see so many chrome bumper cars with later model rubber bumper fronts??!?!?!

gbvette62

That's simple. There were and are far more used 73-79 noses around, then 68-69 or 70-72's. Used 73-79 noses were easier to find, and much cheaper buy ($800-$1000 verse $2500+ for 68-72's). So when people wrecked a chrome bumper car, they often ended up replacing it with a rubber bumper nose. Sure, some people used a rubber bumper nose after a wreck because they liked the look, or used one to build a custom, but usually it happened because the rubber bumper one was easier to find, and/or cheaper.

At least this is has been my experience from many years in the parts business.

stingr69

I remember the '84 reveal and was underwhelmed at the time. I really can't coment much about the C4 or any newer Vette for that matter. I have never even SAT in any Vette newer than 1980.

leadfoot4

You have to keep in mind that given the typical Detroit "3 year lead time", the C-3 chassis was a "carry-over" from a C-2, which was a design that was originated in the 1958-59 time frame.....when a 6.70-15 tire was "state of the art". The C-4 was a "clean sheet of paper" design, that originated in the late 70s, early 80s.

69427

Just curious. What's your explanation for that big chunk of aluminum at the back of the gearbox?

69427

The suspension guys did a great job. But the 4+3 transmission, Crossfire manifold, and the instrument cluster (I partially blame styling there) shoulda got McLellan kicked to the curb after that line of automotive crap.

kanvasman

As said above, you need to look at it from a 1983 point of view. I have owned a c2 a c3 and a brand new c4. I was one of the guys who paid the premium for that car when it first came out. From the new tilt front end, to the rack and pinion steering to the digital dash to the lack of a boiling over carb, it was the pinnacle of the automobile world. Well, not exactly. The inside door hardware popped off when I closed the door. The crossed flags blew off the front of the car and the clearcoat peeled. Really, the service manager told me that I was the only one he had ever seen do that. But they would repaint the car for free. It was the worst car I had ever owned. But you could do 100MPH and have a conversation with the person next to you. Try that in a C3. Perfect, not by any means, but light years ahead of what was out there. In 10 years people will laugh at what some of us are paying for a chrome bumper car, numbers matchng or not. The one lesson I learned from my C4 experience is to NEVER EVER but the first year of production of a new style/designed car. Which is why I will be waiting until 2022 or 23 to buy my new C8....ha ha

7T1vette

In the early to mid 80's, GM was all about "market share" and "profit"....as they were getting their proverbial *** kicked by the Asian car companies. (You can thank the U.S. Congress for a lot of that angst..) The Corvette designers did everything that GM would allow, given the limitations on budget, etc.

The result was a handling machine that was light-years ahead of C2/C3 technology, aerodynamic in the fuel efficient environment driving the industry, and "styling" that was reminiscent of a Corvette. I bought a new '84 (in July of '83) and enjoyed it for a little over a year. In that time, the "new" of the C4 wore off quickly (as did the resale price!), but I still thought it was as good of an effort to which the upper-echelon of GM could commit (these are the same folks that took the greatest corporation in the world and bankrupt it in less than 30 years!). Give them some amount of credit for "staying the course". At that time, the GM elite would just as soon have sent Corvette to the 'deep six'.

mrvette

Went to summer screwal englush klass with a fellow named William Dean Christiansen, look up the name, and so after kolledge and .mil was out of the way, I saved a few nickles and bought my first car a '60 vette, in '66, paid 1000 bux for it, had the power slide and power windoze, and just a 283 no a/c I don't remember if it was an option??? oh well, so he introduced me to my current oldest friend who was/IS a Mopar fanatic......

SO it was that Bill had a basement full of 60's fuel injection units off Corvettes, only worth 50-100 bux each at the time....must have been 1/2 dzn of them, his vette was a pieced together one from a '61-2 and a earlier one.....stick shift, I lost my car in a wreck after taking the sand outta the back trunk/tire area....tail assed light in a night of rain...figgers....phone pole/800 bux to fix it, jumped ship into Pontiac drag race machines.....Catalina/GP, Bonne, etc......
wasn't until '92 that I bought a '87 vette convertible, but the thing that got me was the narrow seating with the damn bolsters making my hips hurt after just a 2 hour trip.....sold it after 3 years and bought my '72 vert with hardtop and it was an old show car, rather modified, so PURRfect candidate for the engine upgrades and with the move south, a 200 4r for the o/d down here in Floridah......so nothing stock about my '72 except the chrome bumpers and door handles.....NOTHING!!!! oh, that's right, the brake rotors also.......

OH, see pix below.....

ZWILDZR1

I have driven many Corvettes over the years. I really loved driving my friends 65 327 coupe with 4.11 gears, 4 speed, and side exhaust. Great car. Lots of fun and you get the most looks of the Corvettes. Just wouldn't want to drive long distance. Have driven many C3 Corvettes from the 68 327 350, 4 speed convertible up to a 1980 with the L48 and auto trans. Then I got to drive the new 84 and 85 Corvettes working at a local shop. Those cars handled so well and even felt like much more power than they had. When I drove a friends new 95 I was really interested. Then in 2001 I bought an artic white 96 LT1 coupe . I was really loving it. Then the same friend who let me drive his new 95 let me drive his low mile 91 ZR1. Wow! Plus he had modified it with long tube headers, big 3" exhaust and 4.10 gears. It didn't take me long to pry it out from under him. I just had to have it. He was pretty busy with a very nice original 70 LS6 Chevelle SS, and a 70 Chevelle 396 350 convertible.

The ZR1 was so hands down quicker than the 96 LT1. But both cars I have driven to Bowling Green , KY, to the NCM. I still wanted more you always do. My current 91 ZR1 makes 528 @ the crank. I have to say I had no idea how good it could handle until this past spring in BG for the C4 Gathering and on the NCM , Motorsport park track. I installed new Michelin PS2's in the larger 335/35ZR17 rear and the stock 275/40ZR17 front. The car was stuck to the track and the rear didn't twitch but stayed planted. It was pushed pretty hard in the turns . I also rode in a fellow ZR1 owners 92 with the same tires and he pushed it hard in the corners. As a passenger I was holding on with a tight grip. My son drove our car and he pushed it to the point I thought it might let go but it just stayed planted. I must say I had no idea the car could handle as well as it did.

Don't get me wrong I love the C2 and C3 Corvettes. They are what I grew up coveting as a kid in elementary school and then high school. Love how they look. My next Corvette will be a 68-72 for sure. Or maybe a C5 Z06.

jpatrick62

While every new gen of Corvette is technically better than the preceding generation, I think up until the C4 the styling got more attractive as well. For me, the C3 is one of the most attractive cars from Detroit in the past 50-60 years and only the C2 and possibly the 64-66 Mustang fastbacks rival it. That is particularly true of the chrome bumper C3 years. I might be wrong, but I doubt that federal regulations for safety, fuel economy, and environmental impact will ever allow such classic styling and ease of maintenance (for the home mechanic) to ever appear again.

Stev-o

ZWild - thanks for such an informative post. I have a C3 and have not driven a later model, only earlier ones C1 & C2.

Although everyone has their own opinion on which model they think is the best looking, I think it is safe to say that the suspension and performance has gotten better with nearly every model change. That may take a twist with the C8, as IMO the design as well as the performance will be an improvement! Of course, some of the C7 owners may disagree, but the same type of thoughts may have happened with each model change.

bobbarry

I was in high-school when they were released, so in no position to buy *any* Corvette. But I vividly remember the excitement about the C4. You also have to keep in mind what low regard the performance magazines had for the '81-'82 Corvettes, as slow, luxury-oriented with automatic only, mediocre handling and as aerodynamic as a brick.

In contrast, I remember the blurbs about the new C4:

* 150mph Corvette!
* A manual transmission again!
* low 14-second/high13-second quarter mile (with the TPI)
* forged aluminum suspension components
* clamshell hood (like a Jaguar XKE)
* Wide sticky 50-series 16" performance tires
* True lifting glass window, and a true full targa top; and then a convertible!
* The styling, while dated today, was absolutely a modern flattened aerodynamic rendition of the classic Corvette shape.

In no way was it seen as worse at the time, and apart from perhaps the styling, it was viewed at the time as objectively better than the last few years of the C3, in virtually every respect.

bobbarry

The "+3" WAS the overdrive on the top three gears; that was the whole point. Look at the ratios in the chart in this post; engaging that overdrive in 3rd or 4th gear would give you an OD ratio over the direct-drive ratio of 4th gear.

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...post1589356009

Look at the videos in this link for further explanation

https://jalopnik.com/the-chevrolet-c...smi-1825119474