Which One?
Brian
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.
Jon
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
Thanks Jon! Sorry - I forgot to post the links! Here they are:
http://www.usedcorvettesforsale.com/1996-corvette-30105.html
http://www.usedcorvettesforsale.com/1998-corvette-30177.html
Clams Canino
between the C3 and the C5. But the C5 is light years ahead.
-W
"Brian" <brianl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:282e5fad-d11d-4b63...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Blue C5
> The C5 for all the reasons Jon said. The C4 (to me) was a "stepping stone"
> between the C3 and the C5. But the C5 is light years ahead.
>
> -W
>
>
> news:282e5fad-d11d-4b63...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 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.
Blue C5
> between the C3 and the C5. But the C5 is light years ahead.
>
> -W
>
>
> news:282e5fad-d11d-4b63...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 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.
ilbe...@gmail.com
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.
pj
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
Brian
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.
Clams Canino
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
Dad
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote in message
news:ld-dnbT5ddGMavnX...@earthlink.com...
your beer). ;-))) I do agree that the C5 is and will be the best of
the Corvette generations.
tww1491
"Dad" <knoc...@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:eo-dnXOYWtX2mfjX...@bright.net...
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.
>
Dad
"tww1491" <twa...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:q889m.20127$8l4....@newsfe10.iad...
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.
Blue C5
> "tww1491" <twau...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:q889m.20127$8l4....@newsfe10.iad...
>
>
>
> > "Dad" <knock...@fisher.net> wrote in message
> >news:eo-dnXOYWtX2mfjX...@bright.net...
>
> >> "Clams Canino" <cc-mar...@earthdink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:ld-dnbT5ddGMavnX...@earthlink.com...
>
> >>> "Brian" <brianlocke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
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.
Dad
"Blue C5" <bobd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dba9aeee-3c60-4903...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...Snip
> > 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.
tww1491
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.
>
Clams Canino
"tww1491" <twa...@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
Clams Canino
"tww1491" <twa...@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
Dad
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.
Dad
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.
Clams Canino
"Dad" <knoc...@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.
-W (tip your bartenders)
tww1491
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.
>
>
>
>
>
Dad
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
>
> "tww1491" <twa...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:LSIam.50640$zq1....@newsfe22.iad...
>>
>> "Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote in message
>> news:3qydnV5Vo55e_vXX...@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "tww1491" <twa...@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
>>
> 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???
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.
Clams Canino
"tww1491" <twa...@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).
-W ('68 - and loving it)
Dad
that goes along that line. With the advent of the new small block
aluminum 427 in the Z06 why is it not dominating the autocross circuit
like the C5 Z06 did/does. May be different caliber of driver/money
spender that is not a driver? As stated earlier autocross caters to a
lighter car but the C6 Z06 is running against like machines yet is
much slower to show it stuff over the old Z06. By the time the C5 was
2 years old it was everywhere in number, not so with the C6 version.
Then again I may just not be getting to the right tracks to see them,
so where are they?