l98tpi

Later C4's were quicker into the 13's and can't remember how low into the 13's the LT4's were. And, it didn't take much to increase performance in the C4's.

And, as far as G's, you cannot compare results from test 20 plus years ago on cornering ability. Main reason is that the tire compounds are so advanced today vs 20 years ago. And the tires are the most important part of the suspension.

Lastly, this is my opinion, this C4 forum is not the place to praise the New model Mustang. Take it to the Mustang Forum or better yet, take it over to the C6 or C7 Forum. I'm sure they will welcome the feedback.

XR_Strider_GuY

The Mustang desperately needs IRS. In 2011 I drove a new 5.0L Mustang with 412hp. Woooweee are these things quick.

It needed some revs on board though not a complaint as all mod motors do (my Australian Domestic Ford Falcon XR8 with the 5.4L quad cam 32 valve felt more torquey down low) but once you hit 3500 you were off. Much faster than the ol 4.6L 3v in the previous Mustangs.

But as soon as the road got uneven you really feel the live axle, the typical mid corner shift is there due to a bump. I agree they have done wonders to make that live axle fairly complaint, ride nice and corner reasonable but a great live axle is never better than an average to good IRS.

Agree what everyone says, hard and not fair to compare our C4's that is 20 years behind. For what our cars are, they are still fantastic and the Corvette is more special, more grin factor and well its a Corvette, that says it all.

Tom400CFI

X2 on the tires. A great modern tire on any C4 should be able to approach or exceed 1g.

As for Later C4's, LT1's would go LOW 13's. LT4's should go into the 12's. Neither will take a current 'Stang, I don't think.

Aaron Keating

Sure, but they aren't going to pull too much harder than a 90s Z28 or a Firehawk. (and they are high to mid 13s cars, and when Strippered they weigh the same as the Vette, and have stouter rear gears and a solid axle which is better in a drag than our relatively primitive IRS is) a 90s Z will take a V6 Mustang.. But they don't hold a candle to the modern GT.

Is a C4 modable? Sure. I would certainly hope so, otherwise I've been hallucinating all the parts sitting in the back of my 86 Z28s trunk waiting on me to install them But the Stang is too, and the aftermarket support for the current Stang is far and away better than anything GM has ever had, for any car ever. Including new El Fatso Camaros, and C5 and C6 Corvettes. And the stang, like an LS engine has a hell of alot more potential in it than what came from the factory.

Also do you really think there's going to be -that much- gain on suspension that was designed 20 years ago, to max out on 20 + year old tire tech? The tires that are out now, are worlds beyond what the stock set suspension is capable of utilizing fully. Sure there's going to be some pick up and gain, but it's not going to be -that- tremendous vs say putting old tire tech on the current stang, and then putting modern rubber on it. You have to change how the car's aligned, alter the ride height, change the dampening rate, and a few other goodies to get the C4 to fully utilize new rubber tech. You really don't just slap new rubber on when the tech level is that disparate. But there's another aspect to this that we haven't covered yet either. Suspension and chassis fatigue. All of our cars to some extent or another unless you've stripped her down to her frame rails and redid all the welds, and replaced weak sections that showed up on a ''stress test'' suffer from the fact that they're old. Really old, and that will show up at the track, even if it's only a hundredth here or there (until something breaks anyway)


This is a thread about Mustangs. And maybe some of us are capable of respecting a performance car for what it is. It's not a dig or hate thread against the C4 man, it's just the truth. Our cars stock vs stock aren't heroes anymore. That's why the LSX swap is becoming so prevalent, and why the aftermarket exists in the first place.
We're certainly way better off than people driving old 60s Muscle Cramps, as there's less of a tech gap between our cars base suspension geometry and a modern car. (and a Muscle Cramp will -never- handle quite as well as a modern sports and super car will because of the advancements in chassis design and suspension geometry. Not if you're using stock chassis, and geometry.. note I'm not talking -parts- but the angles etc that the stockers are mounted in at etc)

Would you expect a stock C4 to take on a WS6 2002 Firehawk? ( a low 13s to high 12s car, that pulled .90 gs by the way)I certainly would hope not. I've driven both enough to know which one wins that race

It's not ''fair'' to compare but that's where things are. The C4 is still a great and tremendous car that will put away -alot- of more modern rides fairly regularly in cornering and acceleration but it's more like a decent grand touring car now more than track slaying hero time generating weapon at least in stock trim. Hell the C4 and C5 are the two biggest performance values on the market period right now in terms of bang for the buck, I can't honestly think of another car other than a Gen 4 F body (and those car's value is quickly rising now) that represents so much performance for so little money spent. Which is why your C4 shouldn't stay stock forever if you're going to get serious about track days

cv67

These threads come up here and there..hate on a certain car then when said car is proven to outperform a C4 the "not fair" stuff starts. Come on give credit where its due. Tech in the newer cars is fantastic
Corvettes..of course the fan club is here but it wasnt the only sports car ever made.

Tom400CFI

^True^

There was a lot of bogus rhetoric in that post. Yikes.

Paul Workman

Well, to clarify... I'm a car guy, and appreciate the nuances and the history and the process of engineering, competition, and practical compromises that is always at play in the automotive industry - especially where the Corvette is concerned.

Make no mistake, I'm a Corvette guy who happens to favor the ZR-1, in fact. But, that's beside the point.

My point is competition is the prime mover of (Corvette) technology and performance, mitigated by that pesky need to be profitable to the corporation.

There is where the fun lies! Various tech stuff gets tried and dropped, and revived again, depending on the mix and match it takes to beat the "other guys". "Business is war", in many ways, and it is fascinating to see what advantages Corvette has over the competition, and what the competition does to then meet or exceed a challenge. Autocross/road course type course comparisons have often favored IRS suspensions, as does weigh reduction and neutral weigh distribution, etc, etc.

Corvettes have had their hands full in drag race competion where the straight axles have their advantages (not lost on Ford Mustang engineers). But, due to chassis and CG and numerous other design factors, the Corvette generally leads the way when comparing the Vette to Moostangs on twisty courses!

It remains to be seen if the reuse of the IRS technology by Ford is going to make the Corvette guys sweat a bit. I suspect it will, or at least has the potential, depending on who's driving what. I mean hey! Dave McLellan himself said in one of his books (and to me personally) it took the LT5 to get GM Powertrain off their duffs to develop first the LT1/4s and especially the LSx series motors...and that was only competition inside GM. If Moostangs start thrashing Corvettes both on the dragstrip and the twisties, you can bet things will get "interesting" for Corvette engineering.

Look at it this way... Again, referring to comments from Dave McLellan, for several years, dating back to the C3s, GM Powertrain was satisfied with a 10-20-30 hp increase every year or two, creaping up to around 250 hp in the mid/late 80s. It took the LT5 to break out with a 125 hp increase over the contemporary GM designs and break the Corvette into the clear as a world beater.

OK, so the base Corvette has enjoyed the benefit of that breakthrough. But, now it appears history repeats itself, albeit at another level. Take base motor designs as an example: LS1/348 hp, LS2/400 hp, LS3/430 hp, and now LT1redoux at 450hp...See a returning pattern we saw in the L98 appearing here?

The current LT1 represents the epitomy of engineering technology...for a pushrod platform. Without going to more cubes in the face of increasingly strigent fuel requirements e.g., LS7 or the LS9 approach, too expensive for the base model Corvette buyer, where is the breakthrough going to be that is going to launch the Corvette once again beyond the easy reach of world production cars, that eventally filters down to the base Corvettes?

I dunno either. But, seeing Ford putting the IRS back into the premier Mustang is what I see as Ford chipping away at area that has been one of Corvettes clear advantages in the past.

I applaud Ford for their success, if not for pushing the envelope further in its own right, then to once again see what Corvette may have to come up with to remain the best and better yet, to become the world's fastest production car. Who knows...maybe even revisit an all-out high reving, race motor again. It happened before, and as result, 23 years later there is still a C4 that elbows its way to the bar - even among contemporary Corvette drivers.

Corvettes. It's a fun hobby!



P.

RedLS1GTO

In corners? Why would it?

The old IRS Cobras didn't. The M3 doesn't. No matter what suspension you throw under it, in comparison to the Corvette, the Mustang will still be a nose heavy, top heavy, tank of a car when you put it on a road course.

They might be able to get some of the higher performance models to run comparable lap times to the newer Vettes, but it would be because of power... not because they out handle them.

Tom400CFI

Well said Paul.

RedLS1, your post agrees with my first post. The "feature" called IRS won't by itself, catapult the Mustang to the handling levels that the Corvette can produce. It's good speculative fodder for the unwitting, though!

What is next? Hopefully (IMO) hybrid drive with epower to the front wheels giving "AWD", more total hp, and infinitely manageable tq to the front wheels, with an "ediff" in the rear.

TommyFox

Seriously, It's a Ford

Paul Workman

You understand my post then. It isn't about Ford as much as it is about sitting in the designer's skins and seeing what the competion is doing, and what would keep Corvette on top - not only domestically, but world wide - maybe a decade or more ahead of its time?

I own and drive a C4 ZR-1 for many reasons; not all are performance related...Well, OK a lot of it is. But, the Z represents a time when engineers at Corvette were unleashed (somewhat) to build a world beater. They did, and the Z was one car that was a killer then and still holds world records. When is Corvette going to do that again?

The C7??? I don't get a warm "fuzzy" over a warmed over a "C" change that is only 20 more horsepower, front engine, RWD platform when there are so many examples of what might have been.

In the mean time, if Ford, or Aston Martin, or Porche...worries Corvette just a little bit...it could be a good thing, methinks. I think its time for something to really shake Corvette up - something to really get under GM's skin!!

P.

Tom400CFI

I totally get it and I think it's a cool topic of discussion.

YES!!! I feel the same about the Z (especially), and the C4 in general. I feel that the Corvette was a continuously maturing product, technologically, through/into the '90's. Pushed by Duntov early, then by McLellan later. I feel (and I think most agree) that the '84 was a massive technological leap -the basic packaging/architecture is still used in the C7. When prototypes of the CERV III came out, I thought, "This is it; this is the next logical step, technologically speaking, for the Corvette."

But then it didn't happen and the C5 did. NOW, it seems that the Corvette has "typecast" itself into a front engine/RWD platform that is similar parts nostalgia and similar parts tech. Could GM push a technologically radical platform with the Corvette name at this point? IDK. Corvette used to be the HANDS DOWN leader w/in GM, technologically, performance wise, and content wise. Is that true now? No, it is not. Good question. When WILL that happen again?

You can only put down so much hp/tq to two rear wheels on reasonable rubber. You can only burn petrol for so long. While a 638hp ZR1 is pretty awesome (and don't get me wrong...I'd take one!), I don't see much in it that paves the way for the future. If I had a say in the "next 'Vette", I'd be pushing for Handling/weight reduction/alternative power that is all state of the art. THESE GUYS are doing it. The Corvette does need something radical...and Camaro tail lights isn't it.

93Rubie

Yikes is right. After putting on the Z07 springs/bars from a 92 on my 93 this winter and a bit of alignment tweaking with ALL STOCK FACTORY suspension components. On my new Dunlap Dizzera ZII's I can 100% guarantee I can pull OVER 1G on a skid pad.

You could take ANY Z51/Z07 C4 and do the same with it.

Drivers being equal a Z51/Z07 C4 on good street tires like the ZII or BFG Rivals would kick the crap out of a 2013 Mustang GT even with the Track Package. The Boss 302 and Leguna Seca are another story. Not so much the Boss 302. Definitely the Leguna Seca, that car is bad ***. This all being auto-x based because its mostly handling NOT HP.

If it took Ford 30+ years to only MATCH the performance of a suspension designed in the late 70's early 80's....no shame in that. Took them long enough. They still cannot touch a C5Z06.

Mustang is NOT a sports car, its fundamentally flawed. C of G is too high, the car does not have great weight distribution, too big, too heavy, etc....

People love to say how the Scion FR-S and Subaru BRZ have about the same C of G as a Porsche Cayman or Nissan GTR at around 18 inches. Whatever...the C4 is at 15 inches.

I love the part about the 2002 Firehawk WS6, I mean really man, not only would a C4 take that at a auto-x. I am willing to put money on a Subaru BRZ taking that at a auto-x. REMEMBER auto-x is about HANDLING not HP.

I'm not saying a C4 will handle better than a Cayman or GTR I'm just making a point.

aboatguy

IDK if it took ford 30 years to match the handling. My neighbors Ford GT handles pretty damn good and does great on the top end too.

Bone stock it kicks ***. Comparing the mustangs to the Corvette is not a fair comparison. Mustang competes against the F body.

Mike

Aaron Keating

Don't believe me that chassis doesn't make a huge difference? Slap some Michelin Sport Cup Rs on a GS, roid it to 400 horse and tell me which is faster, a C5Z with the same rubber or your car.

Unless you've been drinkin C4 kool aid heavily, the C5Z will win.

Seriously, if chassis tech didn't matter at all why would the C5 and C6 even come out in the first place. They'd have just put the new rubber and new engines in and call it a day.

And honestly on a flat surface, a mustang GT is still going to out handle the poor old C4 unless that C4 has been heavily modded, and given how bad the C4 handles over uneven road surfaces the Stang might not be as bad off as you might think for that matter either on uneven ground.

Just ask RedLS1 what was better, his track roided monster C4, or his new C5.
If you aren't smart enough to understand why new chassis come along, then that's your problem and you'll be in for a pretty hard awakening when you get rofl stomped by a later model car. I'm not going to suffer that kind of delusion. As I said the C4 is still a great car and I love driving it, but I'm not about to suffer delusions of grandeur and claim that it's going to keep pace with a modern sports car.

Also yes that Firehawk would kick your ***, stock to stock on the same rubber. Let alone if the Firehawk owner mods his car's suspension, autocross you might have a chance, but on a road course or drag? Hell no, the Firehawk would take the C4 out back and beat it brainless.

1993C4LT1

Tom400CFI

Man...you REALLY want me to start picking apart your posts? It'll get ugly. I've owned a C6 with the Z51 package and tracked it quite a bit. I also own a C4 and track that too, so I'm pretty damn familiar with both cars and their potential on a track, and the difference in their chassis'.

To answer your question that provided the annecdotal evidence for your incorrect ASSumptions, GM came out w/the the C5 to meet criteria that the C4 couldn't...AND HANDLING WASN'T IT. Crash standards was one of the biggest motivating reasons for a new chassis (side impact, to be more specific), and emissions/fuel economy was the motivator for the engines. Source? All Corvettes are Red and Corvette from the Inside. Additionally, the stiffer structure allowed the Corvette to maintain about the same level of handling, while offering a much better quality ride. So yes, I think with cup tires, maintained suspension, and "roided" (ahem) up to 400 horses, the C4 would be fairly competitive with a C5 Z06 on a track. It would be a drivers race, until the wheel bearings failed and the brakes overheated.



"The poor....OLD.....C4". That's a nice, sensationalized touch there. Almost brought a tear to my eye. So...where have you experienced that happening? That hasn't been my experience during my track sessions.


Me neither. It's down on power and brakes. Mustang isn't a sports car though...it's a Pony car. It's heavier, it's taller and has a higher CG, the engine is mounted mid point to the centerline of the front axle, helping create a nose-heavy FR weight bias. It has strut front suspension. It must carry 4 people and was built to a price point. There are some REAL reasons why a Mustang (not a sports car), isn't going to out handle a C4 "because it's newer"...smooth track or otherwise. But maybe I just ain't smart enough.



Lol. Yeah man... that Firehawk....that thing is BAD! BAD, man! That thing is a bad assed, C4 eat'in kick-***!! Although that also has not been my experience on my track days (road OR drag-track)....where, exactly did I say that one wouldn't? Please quote where I said that, thank you.

And yet another post with a bunch of unsubstantiated garb.

RedLS1GTO

The C5 suspension design is lightyears ahead of the C4. Take them both apart and it is easy to see. The geometry is WAY better... especially in the rear. The C4 is a crazy mutt of a suspension with the trailing links and "batwing". The C5/C6 is basically a copy of the unequal length double wishbone front suspension turned around backwards. Even the knuckles and hubs are the same from front to rear. Obviously the rear trans and torque tube vs. the traditional driveshaft of the C4 is a huge difference as well.

Handling was not the major issue of the C4 that needed to be improved. They did it anyway. The C5, specifically the Z06 with the different sways, shocks, etc does with ease what was a white knuckle experience in the C4. You said very specifically that "Additionally, the stiffer structure allowed the Corvette to maintain about the same level of handling". That is the BASE car that had "about the same" level of handling. The Z06 is a completely different animal.


If you actually think that... you are wrong, unless your definition of "fairly competative" means getting your *** kicked. With my '96, I was on multiple tracks (as in every track east of the Mississippi) regularly with my best friend who has a C5Z. My car had the best springs, shocks, bushings, etc. He had about 75 LESS horsepower, smaller tires (I ran 315 on all 4, he ran 295 on all 4), stock brakes as opposed to the big Wilwoods on the C4. His only suspension modifications were the GMPP T1 sway bars and non-adjustable shocks. At almost every track, we would run very comparable lap times, usually within a second. The only exceptions to that were VIR and Road America with the long straights that gave my power a bigger advantage.

We swapped cars many times and the laps were the same. They were fairly comparable under braking at the beginning of a run. Towards the end, the Wilwoods showed their strength and I could drive in a lot deeper. The Z06 would absolutely destroy the '96 from the end of the braking zone through the center of the corner. Through a section like the keyhole or the carousel at Mid Ohio or the carousel at Road America, ... >180 degree corners, the C5Z walks away. The weaknesses of both the weight distribution as well as the rear suspension become very evident. I was faster on corner exit and at the big end and at most tracks it was enough to come out on top. If I came up against a C6Z (which has almost identical hp numbers as my 96) with similar compound tires, the only thing I saw was tail lights. From turn 5 to 13 at Mid Ohio, the C5s and C6s would walk away with ease... same for turn 1-6a at VIR and 14-17a. The BIGGEST advantage for the C5/C6 over the C4 is in fast transition corners (Esses at VIR, Madness at Mid Ohio, etc) The C4 becomes very unsettled and at times, downright terrifying in comparison, ESPECIALLY if it is off camber. Very simply put, if it is a section of the track that favors handling over power, the Z06 wins.

Why do you think I sold the '96 and turned my C5Z into the track car?

The C4 was a phenominal car for its time. The fact that it is even still in the discussion is a testament to that. With that said, if you push both cars to their limits, not just driving them around a track, but actually pushing them to (and past) their limits... it is very very clear that the C5 is a much superior platform. It is a better design, more balanced, more stable, and WAY more capable at high speed. Are you really arguing that it isn't???

It should be very entertaining in the near future. My C5Z will be making it's VIR debut next month. My favorite track and the 1 that I have the most experience on. I could get every little bit out of the '96 there. It will be down 100hp to what the '96 was with less rubber, again 315 vs. 295 square. It has some beefy AP brakes on it so that won't be an issue. Same driver, same track, ... looking forward to seeing what happens when you compare the data.


...as for the Mustang, I'm interested to see what it can accomplish. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it can run competatively with a C4 on a track, especially a track with a less than perfect surface. I don't think it has a chance in hell of making the C5/C6, and certainly not the C7 guys "sweat".

Aaron Keating

The only thing getting ugly here is the overspill from the kool aid you're chuggin. You must not have been pushing that C6 very hard if you feel a stock C4 keeps up with it in the corners. Or you weren't running good tires on the C6 because it'll walk all over a same horse powered C4, unless you just aren't used to the capabilities of the C6 being well beyond the C4s.

Actually, the C5 had handling as a stiff requirement, as well as a stronger chassis. Look at how much less a C5's chassis flexes than a C4s, and just look at the rear suspension and rear transaxle.... and you say handling wasn't a priority? Really? Whatever you're smoking please share with the rest of the class... or rather don't. It's gotta be killin brain cells.

You say the engine wasn't a priority either? Do you have any idea what an LS engine is capable of? It takes Roids to get a C4 where a C5 Z, starts. Do the same mods to the C5Z and it'll be kissing 500 all day and night long.

It wouldn't be even remotely competitive. The C5 Z's cornering grip is completely insane, especially compared to the C4's. The chassis doesn't flop around like a fish, the rear suspension absorbs bumps like a champ, and just glides through off camber corners that make you start pedaling the throttle in a C4, and no amount of sticky meat can fix that, due to the batwing in the rear and the flex in the middle of the car.

Actually the Stang is capable of embarrassing quite a few proper sports cars. It's certainly earned it's medals in racing since the 05+ chassis came out. Oh and it can keep up with and beat an M3 with the M3's sport package. Which in turn is comparable to a Porsche late Boxster. By the way even the 911s still have struts. I guess Porsche isn't a proper sports car either . The Stang for all of it's pitfalls has a very good chassis. It doesn't flex like a limp noodle, it puts the power down very effectively and keeps it planted, it also balances well through the corner as you roll onto the throttle.

You can think all you want that it can't beat the C4 but that won't make it the case. Especially stock with new rubber vs stock. The V6 with the performance handling package is more of a race than the GT is by a pretty comfortable margin. And that's hardly an insult to the C4. A V6 handling package Stang is capable of obliterating most everything on the road in the corners, that the C4 is still able to be said in that breath is a complement to the C4. Not an insult. So she's not as fast stock as a Stang GT track pack. She's still remarkably quick for a car her age. And if you don't think age has a large factor in what a chassis can take, why do you think 80s cars make 60s Muscle Cars into Muscle Cramps by comparison? It's because automotive design has come by leaps and bounds since those cars were made, and it has alot to do with more than what kind of rubber has come out since then.

You're the one claiming that all a C4 needs to be competitive against modern cars is new rubber. And now you're taking quotes out of context to defend your untenable position, including all corvettes are red. Tell me if handling weren't a top issue why did they ditch the rear suspension that the C4 had? Everything on the C5 was redesigned top to bottom to be superior than the C4. Just as the C4 was designed to beat the C3. The Firehawk, has much better brakes than the C4 did, has much better transitional characteristics under and off throttle, and the GT is better at it than the Firehawk still. Stock to stock. (mostly because the Firehawk has a fundamental flaw in it's trailing arms in the rear. The aftermarket can and did fix that but once we get out of Stock territory then so can the Mustang)

Tom400CFI

I guess that you missed the many, many posts where I've said that I owned both a C4 and a C6. I am abundantly familiar with all of the self evident points that you just made.




This is interesting. A common statement on "the forums" regarding C4's compared to newer....and a statement that is not accurate. The weight distribution for the C4 and the C5^ is meaningfully, the same. In fact this these sources show that it is actually better for the C4 than the C5Z...
CAR & DRIVER stats
CAC C5 Stats


I thought you did that b/c (you see how I'm actually responding to one of your questions?) it is easier to get parts, easier to drive fast, more durable (wheel bearings for example), I am sure that I'm missing a few, but that was the jist of what I can recall from your post a while back. I believe everything that you say about the C5 on a track vs. a C4. Remember, I have had a C6 and C4, and tracked them both. I agree that it's way easier to go fast in the C5^ than in the C4.



Nope. I don't believe I said that anywhere...and if I did, please quote where I said that (here we go again w/the manufactured dialogue)