marcus769

I was at the track this weekend watching drag racing and saw a C4 like 1994 run 15.5 or something.... WTF?? Is that really what they run!? not impressed at all

Ling_650vette

iTrader: (1)

15s? I hope that driver either missed a shift, had bald tires or just picked up the car b/c thats rather pathetic for an LT1 C4. No they dont all run 15s, unless they're 83s

XTrooper

Most of the stock or mildly-modded C4 'Vettes I've seen at the drag strip ran in the 14's and occasional I'd run across a high 13-second car. Never saw one run any slower than that.

JD_AMG

TPI C4s ('84-90 if I remember right) were pretty much dogs in a strait line(250ish hp, no top end at all). LT1 Corvettes can do high 13s stock(330hp).

ram-it

The L98 C4's that were 85-91's are on par with the LT1 fbodies. My 91 ran consistent 13.9-14.1. The LT1 C4's were 92-96 and were consistent mid to high 13sec cars or on par with the LS1 fbodies. This is all stock configurations. Even the 84 C4's were good for a high 14 sec so you could have been looking at one of those with high mileage and a terrible driver. If it did not have a third brake light then it was an 84.

ram-it

The only 330hp C4 was the LT4 that was a 96 only deal and with a 6sp. It was a mid to low 13-sec car out of the box. It was the fastest C4 aside from the ZR1 and Callaway's. FYI, the baddest GM fbody had this motor installed by SLP in 97 only SS's and Firehawks.

Jayzvette

My Bone Stock 95 LT-1 Auto ran consistant mid-13's. 13.6@103 As a matter of Fact

Ling_650vette

iTrader: (1)

I'd hope tho no-one would confuse an 84 vette w/ an 95. One's gawd awful lookin, the other looks sleek and sexy. 91 (minus the ZR-1) was the year they got rid of that fugly *** V-notch rear, and that retarded looking front end.

I think another thing tho too, is that w/ the advent of the LT5/LT1 and fox bodies (altho you could argue w/ the Buick GN, Sy/Ty platforms aswell as the Viper) that the age of emissions choking off factory performance was all but dead. So you saw a swing in performance and engineering to make the parts withstand and last. Which is why cars like the Corvette, Camaro, Mustang have taken turns the way they have.

pdd

iTrader: (3)

[QUOTE=Ling_650vette]I'd hope tho no-one would confuse an 84 vette w/ an 95. One's gawd awful lookin, the other looks sleek and sexy. 91 (minus the ZR-1) was the year they got rid of that fugly *** V-notch rear, and that retarded looking front end.

QUOTE]
all your opinion. i luved my 85

pdd

iTrader: (3)

85 didnt have the 3rd brake light either

marcus769

i think it may have been a 91 or older.. I dont think it was a 92+. It had the ugly almost solid wheels. At anyrate, i was disapointed to say the least!

Ling_650vette

iTrader: (1)

[QUOTE=pdd]Wasnt meaning to offend, I should've said its JMO. Ive never liked pre-91 C4s for anything more than their suspension.

98Blubrd

iTrader: (13)

My friend has an 87 vette convertable and that thing is a dog. When I got my car stock and wasnt all that great at shifting I pulled on him like he was driving a civic and he got like a 2 car jump from the start (auto vs stick). All he would say back is, "Only certain people can have a vette at everyother person driving a vette is like in a club and waves to me." I was like your paint is faded, clearcoat nearly gone, your vert top is falling apart and your car is a dog. Its funny cause he still claims to this day he would take his junk vette over my f-body cause its a vette. I have not seen an L98 corvette that was anywhere near impressive even with spray.

Patman

LT1 Vettes should have no problem running well into the 13s in stock trim. My old LT1 Formula ran 13.74 at 100mph in 100% bone stock condition, with 25 less horsepower and 200lbs more weight. So an LT1 C4 should have no problem beating that time.

raymond mckinney

iTrader: (4)

lt1 m6 low 13's easy!

Jayzvette

Your compairing an 87' vette to a 98' T/A ??? In 1987 the vette was fast.. not by todays standards but in 87' it was??

98Blubrd

iTrader: (13)

Everyone was talking about C4's in general. C4's run from like 1984-1996. I was refering to my friends C4 which was a turd. Read all the posts before you jump on me. I havent seen to many stock C4's that impressed me in stock trim anyways. Most stock LT1 C4's I have seen run High 13's to low 14's. It was stock vs. Stock my car should run mid 13's stock and I he pretty much got a 2 car length headstart, I pulled on him like it was a civic. I have also been in his car when he floors it and its feels like a slug.

Third Gear

iTrader: (3)

I don't think an 84 vette could get into the 14s to save its life. The cross fire injection engine (aka TBI) is a complete turd. 0-60 in 7.9 seconds. Rated at 200hp those things were lucky to put 150 to the wheels... . It feels fast up to about 35mph then it dies...

an 85+ TPI was probably the candidate that did the 15.5...

Ling_650vette

iTrader: (1)

Gotta remember back in 87 the vette still wasnt all that impressive. The Turbo Regal guys were walking all over vettes and laughin it up. And you wont see too many impressive 350 CID L98s. Most of the "impressive" one's are sprayed, FI'd and/or big cubed. Its just not cost effective anymore to built an L98, or even an LT1 when an Gen III or Gen IV can do the same thing if not more, for less.

Mid 13s might not be that impressive now-a-days but about a decade ago that was pretty damn good for an average driver in a bone stock car. The only real production american vehicle beating that was the Viper.

Pewter_LS1

my 1996 lt4 vette stock ran 12.90 at 110