Hi Just wanted to get some opinions on which of these would be better in the long run. I'm planning on keeping and driving it for a while - probably years.Would the C4 be better because of the lower mileage, or would the newer C5 hold up well, since it won't be long before it turns over 100. Are these engines good for a lot more miles? (depending of course on how they've been treated) They're both in the price range I'm looking for, and I like them both. Thanks for any opinions.
Brian wrote: > Hi > Just wanted to get some opinions on which of these would be better in > the long run. I'm planning on keeping and driving it for a while - > probably years.Would the C4 be better because of the lower mileage, or > would the newer C5 hold up well, since it won't be long before it > turns over 100. Are these engines good for a lot more miles? > (depending of course on how they've been treated) They're both in the > price range I'm looking for, and I like them both. > Thanks for any opinions.
I would definitely go with the C5 especially if it has the 6-speed standard tranny. The C5 was not just a new body style but a completely re-engineered machine with technology way above and beyond that of the earlier versions. 100,000 miles is not a problem if as you said it has been treated right. Mine has over 86,000 now and still runs just as good as it did when I bought it at 28,000.
> Brian wrote: > > Hi > > Just wanted to get some opinions on which of these would be better in > > the long run. I'm planning on keeping and driving it for a while - > > probably years.Would the C4 be better because of the lower mileage, or > > would the newer C5 hold up well, since it won't be long before it > > turns over 100. Are these engines good for a lot more miles? > > (depending of course on how they've been treated) They're both in the > > price range I'm looking for, and I like them both. > > Thanks for any opinions.
> I would definitely go with the C5 especially if it has the 6-speed > standard tranny. The C5 was not just a new body style but a completely > re-engineered machine with technology way above and beyond that of the > earlier versions. 100,000 miles is not a problem if as you said it has > been treated right. Mine has over 86,000 now and still runs just as > good as it did when I bought it at 28,000.
> Hi > Just wanted to get some opinions on which of these would be better in > the long run. I'm planning on keeping and driving it for a while - > probably years.Would the C4 be better because of the lower mileage, or > would the newer C5 hold up well, since it won't be long before it > turns over 100. Are these engines good for a lot more miles? > (depending of course on how they've been treated) They're both in the > price range I'm looking for, and I like them both. > Thanks for any opinions.
> > Hi > > Just wanted to get some opinions on which of these would be better in > > the long run. I'm planning on keeping and driving it for a while - > > probably years.Would the C4 be better because of the lower mileage, or > > would the newer C5 hold up well, since it won't be long before it > > turns over 100. Are these engines good for a lot more miles? > > (depending of course on how they've been treated) They're both in the > > price range I'm looking for, and I like them both. > > Thanks for any opinions.
I've owned all of the C's and always wanted my C2 (mid-year) 1967 back - until I bought the C5. The interior is somewhat retro to 67 - it is bigger, handles better, and is as much fun to drive. I hated the C3 but some really like them - mostly those who bought it as their first Corvette. The C4 I loved - it is more of a raw sports car than a C5 which is more refined. My first drive in one likened it more to the STS Caddie that my wife has than the C4. The C4 is not as stiff as the C5 and flexes in hard turns even with the roof bolted in tight (roof is a pain to install and remove). Can't speak for the stiffness in the C4 convertible - I would expect it to be better.
I would buy a 95-96 C4 and be very happy with it. They are durable and problems in the earlier ones (such as opti-spark leaks) have been fixed. Most of the C4s were 300 hp and when you stood on it, there was lots of noise and raw power coming from engine compartment and pipes. I swore it was faster than the 345 hp C5 - it's not. It just seems like it - the word "refined" comes into play. Nice ones are $10-15,000.
C5s will run $20-25,000. If an extra $10K is ok, I would go for a C5.
> > Hi > > Just wanted to get some opinions on which of these would be better in > > the long run. I'm planning on keeping and driving it for a while - > > probably years.Would the C4 be better because of the lower mileage, or > > would the newer C5 hold up well, since it won't be long before it > > turns over 100. Are these engines good for a lot more miles? > > (depending of course on how they've been treated) They're both in the > > price range I'm looking for, and I like them both. > > Thanks for any opinions.
Recommend you get the Corvette Black Book by Antonick - it discusses all the years, plusses - minuses, features, improvements etc. all you'd ever want to know.
Ofon Jul 16, 1:09 pm, Brian <brianlocke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi > Just wanted to get some opinions on which of these would be better in > the long run. I'm planning on keeping and driving it for a while - > probably years.Would the C4 be better because of the lower mileage, or > would the newer C5 hold up well, since it won't be long before it > turns over 100. Are these engines good for a lot more miles? > (depending of course on how they've been treated) They're both in the > price range I'm looking for, and I like them both. > Thanks for any opinions.
C5 is way above a C4 --- Id opt for an early C5 than a late C4 . Many technological improvements and better performance with the LS1 motor. Fuel economy is phenominal too.
Brian wrote: > Hi > Just wanted to get some opinions on which of these would be better in > the long run. I'm planning on keeping and driving it for a while - > probably years.Would the C4 be better because of the lower mileage, or > would the newer C5 hold up well, since it won't be long before it > turns over 100. Are these engines good for a lot more miles? > (depending of course on how they've been treated) They're both in the > price range I'm looking for, and I like them both. > Thanks for any opinions.
Missed ur post regarding which year of C4 and which body style. My cut:
The '89 is driven on freeways and in town about 15 trips a month -- nice in traffic. C5 goes mostly on weekend/distance drives...usually 3 a month. Great highway car!
The C4 (L98-auto-perf axle) is fun off the line & on freeway on-ramps -- gud for 'inspecting' Stang-GT grill-work in the rear view mirror. (avoid Cobras) First 50-60 feet is a nice kick in the butt. Beyond 35mph, the C5 is the performer.
C5 braking is light-years ahead of C4.
At the same mileage and age, the C5 had fewer seals spattering the garage deck.
Exterior grooming: C5 cleans up quicker.
Cockpit: I'm 6' x 180lb and prefer the seating in the C4.
I beefed up the C4 coupe with a frame brace from a convertible (a bolt-on). That made a big difference in stiffness but the C5 is superior in all aspects of ride and handling.
Mileage is good on either car. The C5 takes less of a performance hit on regular gas than the C4. C4 mileage (auto) is 24-25 hwy, C5 (6-spd) is 26-28. City mileage is what you make it. When either car climbs above 19 city, I know I'm not having fun ! :)
Longevity: I'd figure 130K miles out of a C4 without major work, probably 160K on a C5. C4 cooling system needs extra TLC to avoid headaches.
Summertime: If a C4 spends a lot of time between 15 and 30 mph, the underhood temps get quite high and the car eats alternators.
C4 with manual a/c controls is OK. With 'climate-control' it has some reliability issues.
> Brian wrote: > > Hi > > Just wanted to get some opinions on which of these would be better in > > the long run. I'm planning on keeping and driving it for a while - > > probably years.Would the C4 be better because of the lower mileage, or > > would the newer C5 hold up well, since it won't be long before it > > turns over 100. Are these engines good for a lot more miles? > > (depending of course on how they've been treated) They're both in the > > price range I'm looking for, and I like them both. > > Thanks for any opinions.
> Missed ur post regarding which year of C4 and > which body style. My cut:
> The '89 is driven on freeways and in town about > 15 trips a month -- nice in traffic. C5 goes > mostly on weekend/distance drives...usually 3 a > month. Great highway car!
> The C4 (L98-auto-perf axle) is fun off the line > & on freeway on-ramps -- gud for 'inspecting' > Stang-GT grill-work in the rear view mirror. > (avoid Cobras) First 50-60 feet is a nice kick > in the butt. Beyond 35mph, the C5 is the > performer.
> C5 braking is light-years ahead of C4.
> At the same mileage and age, the C5 had fewer > seals spattering the garage deck.
> Exterior grooming: C5 cleans up quicker.
> Cockpit: I'm 6' x 180lb and prefer the seating > in the C4.
> I beefed up the C4 coupe with a frame brace from > a convertible (a bolt-on). That made a big > difference in stiffness but the C5 is superior > in all aspects of ride and handling.
> Mileage is good on either car. The C5 takes > less of a performance hit on regular gas than > the C4. C4 mileage (auto) is 24-25 hwy, C5 > (6-spd) is 26-28. City mileage is what you make > it. When either car climbs above 19 city, I > know I'm not having fun ! :)
> Longevity: I'd figure 130K miles out of a C4 > without major work, probably 160K on a C5. C4 > cooling system needs extra TLC to avoid headaches.
> Summertime: If a C4 spends a lot of time > between 15 and 30 mph, the underhood temps get > quite high and the car eats alternators.
> C4 with manual a/c controls is OK. With > 'climate-control' it has some reliability issues.
> -- > pj
Thanks everyone for your help and opinions. After checking out some beautifully restored C3's and a few low mileage C4's, we went with a higher mileage C5. It just seems like a better fit - just roomier, more comfortable. I've got a C5 headed this way by week's end. Thanks again.
"Brian" <brianlocke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8ea48c5-3fe8-4ce2-9e9f-
Thanks everyone for your help and opinions. After checking out some beautifully restored C3's and a few low mileage C4's, we went with a higher mileage C5. It just seems like a better fit - just roomier, more comfortable. I've got a C5 headed this way by week's end. Thanks again.
_________________________________________________
Though I personally prefer chrome bumpered C3's over all of them, you indeed made a wise decision grasshopper. May it serve you well. Learn about it and take care of it and it'll take care of you.
> "Brian" <brianlocke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:a8ea48c5-3fe8-4ce2-9e9f-
> Thanks everyone for your help and opinions. After checking out some > beautifully restored C3's and a few low mileage C4's, we went with a > higher mileage C5. It just seems like a better fit - just roomier, > more comfortable. I've got a C5 headed this way by week's end. > Thanks > again.
> Though I personally prefer chrome bumpered C3's over all of them, > you > indeed made a wise decision grasshopper. May it serve you well. > Learn about > it and take care of it and it'll take care of you.
> -W
To bad those C3's will never hold a candle to the C2. (Just peeing in your beer). ;-))) I do agree that the C5 is and will be the best of the Corvette generations.
>> "Brian" <brianlocke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:a8ea48c5-3fe8-4ce2-9e9f-
>> Thanks everyone for your help and opinions. After checking out some >> beautifully restored C3's and a few low mileage C4's, we went with a >> higher mileage C5. It just seems like a better fit - just roomier, >> more comfortable. I've got a C5 headed this way by week's end. Thanks >> again.
>> Though I personally prefer chrome bumpered C3's over all of them, you >> indeed made a wise decision grasshopper. May it serve you well. Learn >> about >> it and take care of it and it'll take care of you.
>> -W
> To bad those C3's will never hold a candle to the C2. (Just peeing in your > beer). ;-))) I do agree that the C5 is and will be the best of the > Corvette generations.
I always though the 69-70 year C3 were the best of the bunch. My impression of the C2 after only a couple of experiences -- is that the car's front end was awfully light at speeds over 100 mph. You could run the C3 ( my 71 454) to over 130 and it was quite stable.
>>> "Brian" <brianlocke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:a8ea48c5-3fe8-4ce2-9e9f-
>>> Thanks everyone for your help and opinions. After checking out >>> some >>> beautifully restored C3's and a few low mileage C4's, we went with >>> a >>> higher mileage C5. It just seems like a better fit - just >>> roomier, >>> more comfortable. I've got a C5 headed this way by week's end. >>> Thanks >>> again.
>>> Though I personally prefer chrome bumpered C3's over all of them, >>> you >>> indeed made a wise decision grasshopper. May it serve you well. >>> Learn about >>> it and take care of it and it'll take care of you.
>>> -W
>> To bad those C3's will never hold a candle to the C2. (Just peeing >> in your beer). ;-))) I do agree that the C5 is and will be the best >> of the Corvette generations.
> I always though the 69-70 year C3 were the best of the bunch. My > impression of the C2 after only a couple of experiences -- is that > the car's front end was awfully light at speeds over 100 mph. You > could run the C3 ( my 71 454) to over 130 and it was quite stable.
Do you realize how hard it is to pee in your beer at that speed? Was your experience with the 427 C2? Both my '72 and the '64 start to get light at the century mark, both are small block. The poor ol C4 just rattles right along but stays put as the C5 and the C6 pass them.
> >>> "Brian" <brianlocke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>> news:a8ea48c5-3fe8-4ce2-9e9f-
> >>> Thanks everyone for your help and opinions. After checking out > >>> some > >>> beautifully restored C3's and a few low mileage C4's, we went with > >>> a > >>> higher mileage C5. It just seems like a better fit - just > >>> roomier, > >>> more comfortable. I've got a C5 headed this way by week's end. > >>> Thanks > >>> again.
> >>> Though I personally prefer chrome bumpered C3's over all of them, > >>> you > >>> indeed made a wise decision grasshopper. May it serve you well. > >>> Learn about > >>> it and take care of it and it'll take care of you.
> >>> -W
> >> To bad those C3's will never hold a candle to the C2. (Just peeing > >> in your beer). ;-))) I do agree that the C5 is and will be the best > >> of the Corvette generations.
> > I always though the 69-70 year C3 were the best of the bunch. My > > impression of the C2 after only a couple of experiences -- is that > > the car's front end was awfully light at speeds over 100 mph. You > > could run the C3 ( my 71 454) to over 130 and it was quite stable.
> Do you realize how hard it is to pee in your beer at that speed? Was > your experience with the 427 C2? Both my '72 and the '64 start to get > light at the century mark, both are small block. The poor ol C4 just > rattles right along but stays put as the C5 and the C6 pass them.
My C2 (mid-year is correct designation) had a clutch that I would find hard to deal with - lot of leg muscle needed - and I was 24 at the time.
> > I always though the 69-70 year C3 were the best of the bunch. My > > impression of the C2 after only a couple of experiences -- is that > > the car's front end was awfully light at speeds over 100 mph. You > > could run the C3 ( my 71 454) to over 130 and it was quite stable.
> Do you realize how hard it is to pee in your beer at that speed? Was > your experience with the 427 C2? Both my '72 and the '64 start to > get > light at the century mark, both are small block. The poor ol C4 just > rattles right along but stays put as the C5 and the C6 pass them.
+My C2 (mid-year is correct designation) had a clutch that I would +find hard to deal with - lot of leg muscle needed - and I was 24 +at the time.
Actually "(mid-year is correct designation)" is not correct either. If you want to call it an accepted Corvette slang then yes, then it is more correct than C2, but not a "designation." The monikers solid axle, mid-year, and shark were terms used by the Corvette community and had no validity other than their acceptance by those in the community. When Chevrolet tagged the C5 onto the '97 to designate the 5th generation Corvette it eventually worked back through the preceding generations. Not even sure the now tagged C4 ever had a slang term other than "flexible flyer and shaker" that I personally use.
But this is like digging up a dead horse just to beat it one more time.
>>>> "Brian" <brianlocke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:a8ea48c5-3fe8-4ce2-9e9f-
>>>> Thanks everyone for your help and opinions. After checking out some >>>> beautifully restored C3's and a few low mileage C4's, we went with a >>>> higher mileage C5. It just seems like a better fit - just roomier, >>>> more comfortable. I've got a C5 headed this way by week's end. Thanks >>>> again.
>>>> Though I personally prefer chrome bumpered C3's over all of them, you >>>> indeed made a wise decision grasshopper. May it serve you well. Learn >>>> about >>>> it and take care of it and it'll take care of you.
>>>> -W
>>> To bad those C3's will never hold a candle to the C2. (Just peeing in >>> your beer). ;-))) I do agree that the C5 is and will be the best of the >>> Corvette generations.
>> I always though the 69-70 year C3 were the best of the bunch. My >> impression of the C2 after only a couple of experiences -- is that the >> car's front end was awfully light at speeds over 100 mph. You could run >> the C3 ( my 71 454) to over 130 and it was quite stable.
> Do you realize how hard it is to pee in your beer at that speed? Was your > experience with the 427 C2? Both my '72 and the '64 start to get light > at the century mark, both are small block. The poor ol C4 just rattles > right along but stays put as the C5 and the C6 pass them.
In fact, the C2 in question was a highly modified 427. Scary! I ran the 71 454 quite a few times at around 130 on back roads in Maryland and the way to Deale.
"tww1491" <twau...@cox.net> wrote in message news:v0t9m.15757 > In fact, the C2 in question was a highly modified 427. Scary! I ran the 71 > 454 quite a few times at around 130 on back roads in Maryland and the way to > Deale.
Aside from any "lift" in the front caused by the body air flow, the C2 and C3 are pretty much identical up front under the skin.
Mostly I hear the same 2 complaints: 1. The C2/C3 with a small block feels light up front at higher speeds. 2. The C2/C3 with a big block feels heavy up front when cornering.
> "tww1491" <twau...@cox.net> wrote in message news:q889m.20127
>> I always though the 69-70 year C3 were the best of the bunch.
> Ummmm, 68 - 70 please. :)
> -W
Nope, he said 69-70, the '68 don't count, love those door handles. Except for some minor changes the '68 through '72 are the same. Strange how we just include the one we like/own and not others. Makes for that great pissing match about how my pee pee is better than your pee pee.
> "tww1491" <twau...@cox.net> wrote in message news:v0t9m.15757
>> In fact, the C2 in question was a highly modified 427. Scary! I >> ran the > 71 >> 454 quite a few times at around 130 on back roads in Maryland and >> the way > to >> Deale.
> Aside from any "lift" in the front caused by the body air flow, the > C2 and > C3 are pretty much identical up front under the skin.
> Mostly I hear the same 2 complaints: > 1. The C2/C3 with a small block feels light up front at higher > speeds. > 2. The C2/C3 with a big block feels heavy up front when cornering.
> -W
Never thought of it as a complaint, more like recognizing the capability and idiosyncrasies of and automobile so you can use then to your advantage. At the very least know how to deal with it's negative effect on how you want to drive. Ever notice how the '69 through '82 kept getting bigger spoilers/air dams as the years worn on?
Now for the real nasty stuff, my '72 wouldn't start last night, dead spark. Drove it without a hitch and shut it off and a few hours later cranks with fuel but no ignition. It has acted like that twice, the first time it was the primary wire had broken off, easy fix. Hope this fix is as easy to find, got a cruise in to go to tonight if this rain hold off.
"Dad" <knock...@fisher.net> wrote in message > Strange how we just include the one we like/own and not others. Makes > for that great pissing match about how my pee pee is better than your > pee pee.
The guys that collect WWII jeeps are the worst of all.
They sit around all day and compare thier Willy's.
> "tww1491" <twau...@cox.net> wrote in message news:v0t9m.15757
>> In fact, the C2 in question was a highly modified 427. Scary! I ran the > 71 >> 454 quite a few times at around 130 on back roads in Maryland and the way > to >> Deale.
> Aside from any "lift" in the front caused by the body air flow, the C2 and > C3 are pretty much identical up front under the skin.
> Mostly I hear the same 2 complaints: > 1. The C2/C3 with a small block feels light up front at higher speeds. > 2. The C2/C3 with a big block feels heavy up front when cornering.
> -W
C3 feels heavy up front cornering ... absolutely. After autocrossing a Sunbean Tiger (mine had several Shelby mods on the Ford V8), I tried the same thing with my 71 454 ... Ugh. Plowed badly. Right then and there I decided it was a road car -- not something you flung around in an autocross.
>> "tww1491" <twau...@cox.net> wrote in message news:v0t9m.15757
>>> In fact, the C2 in question was a highly modified 427. Scary! I >>> ran the >> 71 >>> 454 quite a few times at around 130 on back roads in Maryland and >>> the way >> to >>> Deale.
>> Aside from any "lift" in the front caused by the body air flow, the >> C2 and >> C3 are pretty much identical up front under the skin.
>> Mostly I hear the same 2 complaints: >> 1. The C2/C3 with a small block feels light up front at higher >> speeds. >> 2. The C2/C3 with a big block feels heavy up front when cornering.
>> -W
> C3 feels heavy up front cornering ... absolutely. After > autocrossing a Sunbean Tiger (mine had several Shelby mods on the > Ford V8), I tried the same thing with my 71 454 ... Ugh. Plowed > badly. Right then and there I decided it was a road car -- not > something you flung around in an autocross.
Odd, people that know how to drive the C3 big block won NCCC nationals and believe me it is not a high tech setup. Strange that you would mod the Tiger but not put that much work in a C3???
>>> "tww1491" <twau...@cox.net> wrote in message news:v0t9m.15757
>>>> In fact, the C2 in question was a highly modified 427. Scary! I ran >>>> the >>> 71 >>>> 454 quite a few times at around 130 on back roads in Maryland and the >>>> way >>> to >>>> Deale.
>>> Aside from any "lift" in the front caused by the body air flow, the C2 >>> and >>> C3 are pretty much identical up front under the skin.
>>> Mostly I hear the same 2 complaints: >>> 1. The C2/C3 with a small block feels light up front at higher speeds. >>> 2. The C2/C3 with a big block feels heavy up front when cornering.
>>> -W
>> C3 feels heavy up front cornering ... absolutely. After autocrossing a >> Sunbean Tiger (mine had several Shelby mods on the Ford V8), I tried the >> same thing with my 71 454 ... Ugh. Plowed badly. Right then and there I >> decided it was a road car -- not
The >> something you flung around in an autocross.
> Odd, people that know how to drive the C3 big block won NCCC nationals and > believe me it is not a high tech setup. Strange that you would mod the > Tiger but not put that much work in a C3???
Tight course autocrosses and slaloms really favor a smaller lighter car. The power steering (at least in mine) worked against you. As I recall, making sudden changes from left to right would cause the power steering to become very stiff -- bind I think. The 69 base I had before on the other hand was a great autocross car -- no power steering, ac etc. and a lot lighter. As far as my comment about the 68 goes -- the 68, as I remember, had some problems as a new model that were worked out by the time the 69s came out. In any event, I was overseas until Jul 69, so the 68 was no a player when I bought my first Corvette. I wish I still had the Tiger -- and either Vette today.
"tww1491" <twau...@cox.net> wrote in message news:yDXam.39143 > Tight course autocrosses and slaloms really favor a smaller lighter car. The > power steering (at least in mine) worked against you. As I recall, making > sudden changes from left to right would cause the power steering to become > very stiff -- bind I think. The 69 base I had before on the other hand was > a great autocross car -- no power steering, ac etc. and a lot lighter.
And today you can get a 427 small block with aluminum heads and rule the best of both worlds. :)
> As > far as my comment about the 68 goes -- the 68, as I remember, had some > problems as a new model that were worked out by the time the 69s came out.
Yes, but none of those problems involved power, suspension, or steering. The rest of the car was "buggy" and re-tweaked for 1969 - but performance wise the 68 and 69 are pretty much identical critters. (given 8" rims on both).
> In any event, I was overseas until Jul 69, so the 68 was no a player when I > bought my first Corvette. I wish I still had the Tiger -- and either Vette > today.
