Irunelevens

I think he's saying that the Corvette wouldn't be as good as it is ON THE WHOLE, not just straightline speed. Competition forces things to get better, and the C4 definitely had some good competition.

Street Lethal

Never said they did. If you carefully inspect my initial post, I stated, GM and it's affiliates. WHY would Calloway "construct" a vehicle with it's rights exclusively being owned by General Motors?

Not to mention how unprofittable it would have been for them. They produced/designed the car from C4-L98 status, they did not design it from scratch....

FEARSM

Thats not even my argument. I never said anything about the technology not being there for GM. I dont dispute that. I just dont see how you are proving your point with cars that werent even produced or Tuner cars. You are comparing apples to oranges. No car companie sinks the same amount of cash into a few concept cars as to mass production cars. You can afford to lavishly spend on cars you wont be making in huge quantities.
You seem to think that I am not an enthusiast. I happen to think the C6 Z06 corvette is the best all around car out today bar none.

FEARSM

EXACTLY. Why are you comparing a tuner car to stock production car..apples to oranges. Thats like comparing my highly modded car to a stock corvette.

Street Lethal

Fear, calm down. I don't consider you someone who is not in the know, quite on the contrary. I know your argument, everyone here does for crying out loud lol. I responded to someone's statement regarding the Corvette, claiming that it's technology has always been there (something you just confirmed below), and that it didn't take the advent of the Imports to provoke it. So what's the problem?

Street Lethal

Again, I'm not comparing them. I'd be a hypocrite if I compared a stock TT-Supra to a Sledgehammer, not only that, but that would be a very foolish comparison to make on my part. Again, I used that car to embellish on Corvette technology throughout the years....

Street Lethal

I hear what your saying, but have you ever driven in a ZR1-LT5 before, in reference to on the whole?

No doubt the production C4 had some serious competition. I remember when I had mine back in the mid 90's, and a Mitsu 3000-GT gave me a very good run on the street. Definitely was an eye opener, lemme tell ya....

Irunelevens

The ZR1 was quite a bit faster than an LT1 or LT4 Corvette, but the car as a WHOLE was not very different at all. Still the same wet-noodle chassis, basically the same handling (except the 3" wider rear track), same numb-ish steering... GM KNEW that the C4 was dated. It was in bad need of a MAJOR revamp to stay competitive with the world's sports car. The C5 was the first Corvette that was a truly great all-around performer.

FEARSM

I understand your point, but it's this statement that I was referring to. Stating that the concepts cars would have "cleaned their clocks" is a direct performance comparison. Those cars did show incredible technology at the time, but comparing them to a car that was actually mass produced is a bit unfair. Thats all I am saying...

Street Lethal

As I'm sure your aware, GM had to be very careful as to what was being released, and more importantly, at what price. When I said cleaned their clocks, I should have elaborated more. Some of the projects were trying to be targeted within a certain price range, in which would have solidified what I was trying to say (but despite that, they still would have never seen the light of day though). Too much at stake for them. Snake Skinner ran low elevens w/slicks from the factory, and that was over a decade ago. It was simply not worth their time and effort in the end though, and even the high priced ZR1 was eventually scrapped....

There must always be a happy medium.

Street Lethal

I honestly never felt that much of a difference. I remember test driving the new C5 when it came out, and although I remember being impressed with it's power-band, it's handling didn't really stand out though. I also wouldn't consider the ZR1's handling wet noodle like....

AlpineTT

For the record, it was 1017whp done by Tim Iacoli.

Anyway, people need to respect the Supra for what it was in its time period and what they have accomplished today. Corvettes will always be a American icon car so theres nothing else that needs to be said about them. They have been always known as a performance car with a heritage behind the name.

Irunelevens

Every C4 had a wet-noodle for a chassis. You cannot seriously argue that...

Street Lethal

I'm not saying that a stock '84 Crossfire Corvette would out handle a stock C5. What I am saying, is that GM would never offer a C4-ZR1, with speeds well above 150+mph, from the factory, in which handled like a "wet noodle". If that's the case, they would have slapped on a speed limiter so fast on that thing (in lower 100's), while ducking for cover....

Irunelevens

The ZR1 didn't have any chassis-stiffening mods over the normal C4, so therefore... wet-noodle. And I never said it handled bad... just that the CHASSIS was a wet noodle. And God help you if you wanted to do any spirited driving with the top off. The C5 is stiffer with the top off than the C4 was with it on.

Street Lethal

I disagree again. RPO ZO7 combined the previously available Z51 performance handling package with FX3 selective ride/ handling. The RPO ZO7 option used all heavy duty suspension parts, adjusting from firm to extremely firm. Regardless if this upgrade could have been had on any C4 model throughout 90-95, it was still far from a "wet noodle", and I noticed NO 'real' handling improvement when test driving the all new (then) C5....

Juiced

iTrader: (2)

Seriously you all have to get over this Domestic vs Rice Bullshit.

I leave for a day to get some work done and it's the same argument over and over again.

No one is going to flame for having pride in a certain make car, or for you having the ability to choose the car you want.

I am not a Fanboy or ricer, just an opinionated engineer (who usually sides with the underdog for conversations sake).

Some companies are beeter at producing certain "niche" vehicles. American make Big Displacement Tq Monsters, the Japanese for the most part produce smaller higher reving motors, the English can't do ****, germans by far make the smoothest motors, while the Italisn exotic are that extotic (most other italian cars are POS).

GM outsorced the Ecotec to Toyota because they couldn't design a motor that could meet the federal regulations and GM's power Goals..... Toyota Copied the sb2.2 motor to make the v8 that they use in the craftsman/nascar racing series.

Any american/japanese car company can build a production car to destroy the Veyron/Mclaren f1/Enzo (look at the turbo ultima gtr's) just for bragging rights but there is no point becuase they don't have a foothold in that market (we'll see if the cadillac Cien ever makes it into production).

How many would buy a $500k chevy/ford/Nissan opposed to a Ferrari/lambo/Aston

you take your 500k chevy in for service they give you a Cobalt or impala loner and send you on your way, you take in your benz, ferrari, or aston and they have a chef making breakfast, masseuse for a massage, and an equal value loner for you to drive.

Not to mention not having to worry about an 18yr old porter driving your corvette over curb and and ripping off a rocker panel (personal experience )

Irunelevens

1) Do you not understand what I mean when I say "chassis stiffness?"
2) If you couldn't feel a difference between a C4 and C5, you must have been out for a Sunday drive. They both handle well... the C5 is just ALOT better. Noticeably better.

bboyferal

iTrader: (9)

Guys, the C4 didn't handle BAD, but it was not as trackable as the C5, not even the ZR-1 with its upgraded suspension components.

Irunelevens

Thank you. With the intro of the RX-7, 300ZX, and Supra, the C4 was just outdone in the chassis department. GM knew this, which is why they designed the C5 as a convertible first. To make it WAY stiffer.