(first posted at TTAC in 2010, at CC on 4/1/2013) I walked well past this Corvette before I stopped and gave it a backwards glance. I wavered momentarily, gauging my feelings. Yes, it was fast and pulled impressive numbers on a skid pad. But numbers alone do not make the car. And my feelings meter just wasn’t moving one way or another, so I almost moved on. Call it the Madonna of sports cars? Then it hit me: this is the most soulless sports car ever, with a heart of plastic. The C4 Corvette sold its soul to the devil of numbers. And in my catechism, that’s a Deadly Sin.
The C4 was a technocart: seemingly designed to meet a few key stats, but all the other qualities that truly make a memorable car were forgotten. I remember vividly Chevy crowing about how their new ’84 C4 was the first production car to pull over one G on the skid pad. Who cared, when the ride to the mythical glass-smooth skid pad was so punishingly hard that every pebble in the road became a menace to one’s health?
The eighties were GM’s worst decade ever, because the whole company had sold its soul to the numbers devil, Roger Smith. Everything at GM became reduced to numbers, resulting in…ever worse numbers. Of course, like most new GM cars that arrived during this period, the initial shortcomings were eventually attended to over the next few years, thanks to the screaming feedback from the paying beta testers.
But their endless complaints about the C4′s profound lack of structural cohesiveness were beyond just jiggering with the springs and shocks. The C4 was fundamentally flawed in that regard, and it made painfully clear how the plastic Chevy differed from a Porsche, much the same as it had been thirty years earlier. Certain deeply ingrained personality traits are hard to shed.
The C4′s styling reflects its soulless character, or is it the other way around? Bill Mitchell, the soul father of the stunning 1963 C2 and the flamboyant 1968 C3 was highly dismissive of the C4, designed just after his retirement. I suspect the new Corvette wasn’t the only thing coming out of GM he felt that way about. Of course something a bit cooler than the emotive and exaggerated C3 was inevitable. It’s not so bad, from a distance. Get close, and it looks like a cheap kit car cobbled up by the kids down the street. Is it really a Fiero with a Corvette body kit?
That doesn’t even do justice to the interior: it looks like it came from some East Bloc country in the dying days of communism. It never fit together properly when new, and now it looks like it’s about to discombobulate. Maybe this one hasn’t exactly been pampered, but look at it! It’s coming apart at the seams, literally. This alone is one big nasty reason why old Corvettes of this vintage are not very appealing. Cheap; brittle, soul-less.
Well, at least the new generation reconnected with the Corvette’s inner V8. After the miserable decline in the small block’s output for almost a decade, the C4 marked the turning point. There really was a redeeming feature to Roger’s love of technology! Fuel injection to the rescue, as well as whatever it took to get the venerable sbc to start breathing again. The resuscitation efforts started very modestly, with the highly mediocre cross-fire (two Iron Duke TBI units?) 5.7 V8 extracting all of 205 hp. But when the General finally sprung for genuine port injection, like the 1957 once had, long slumbering horses slowly began to stir again.
The incremental improvements came in clusters of five or ten ponies at a time, and by 1990, it was up to all of 240, almost back to 1974′s 245 hp LT-1. But that vaunted name returned for 1992, with a new LT1 that finally packed some serious punch: 300 hp. The Corvette was back! And the LT1 made the vastly more expensive ZR-1 look irrelevant, given that it cost twice as much for an extra 75 hp. Call me a wet blanket, but the ZR-1 was another numbers bragging fest whose numbers didn’t add up.
Not surprisingly, the C4 Corvette was a weak seller. Once the pent-up interest of the first two years were gone, it bumbled along at around 20k units, less than half the rate of what its aged and fairly lethargic C3 predecessor was selling through most of the seventies. That alone confirms it: soul sells; numbers don’t.
Postscript: In case anyone thinks I’m a Corvette hater, the subsequent generation (C5) finally got the technical issues right, if not quite the styling. The C6 solved those remaining issues. They are true world-class cars, unlike the C4.
Hmmmmm. This seems too real to be an April Fools gag. Perhaps this is its dastardly genius, just when we expect an April Fools piece, PN gives us a straight up DS, for the best April Fool trick of all. Clever, very clever.
Your statement that the car lacks soul resonates with me. When these came out, I was a single guy in my 20s, and this car should have been grabbing me by the lapels. But it didn’t. Was it that my friends and I had joked too often that a Corvette was a $20k plastic phallus? Sort of the 1980s version of a toupee and Viagra. Or was it the fact that the car seemed to grace the cover of every car magazine every month for what seemed like years. I don’t know, but I just never really cared to get to know one of these.
In fairness, no Corvette has really pressed my buttons since early in the C3’s years, so maybe it was more me than the car.
Wow! That Corvette’s cockpit looks like it came from a 1970’s East Bloc country space ship movie. It even has the ashtray full of dozens of smuggled Marlboro cigarrette butts to add to the aroma of the sweet ride.
I wonder if they used that C4 cockpit for that spiffy new Iranian stealth fighter
:/
Thankfully the C5 was a different story altogether.
<<< Agree..
I don’t really see that. Every Corvette generation is just an improvement on the same problems. It’s still got panel gaps I can stick my thumb in, cheap interior, terrible seats, with a huge engine. All the C5 did was add 2 feet (or so…) to the width. The Corvette complaints are always the same for every generation, even with the updated C7 interior, it’s not Porsche-nice. Its a plastic car, with a huge engine, phallic styling and a cheap interior. Either you love it in spite of these flaws (Like I do), or you’re European…
nicely said.
The C5 has bad seats and huge panel gaps, sure, but it feels very solid. A friend of mine has a C5 ZO6 and I’m honestly shocked by the lack of road noise and composure over small bumps. My partner’s Cooper S feels crashy by comparison and it is designed to be an everyday car.
The C5 is leaps and bounds above the C4 regarding chassis stiffness and structure design. Lots of cool tech went into the C5 to fixe the short comings of the C4.
I believe the C5 has a chassis that was as rigid or more so than the comparable Boxter, Jaguar or BMW.
I like the C4’s myself for style, but the C5 is a honest to god touring car that can be used everyday or on long trips.
The platform was probably just as rigid. But between the wobbly fibreglass body panels (which visibly shook over bumps), lingering resin smell, and weak, widely-spaced seat bolsters that you crashed side-to-side in, the C5 and even the C6 felt surprisingly flimsy and fragile on real-world roads. Corvettes have long felt like $60,000 worth of engine and chassis in a $20,000 car (though I suspect Paul’s baiting us for April Fool’s with that DS label). I hope the C7 will change things, given that enthusiasts have been asking for the same improvements for the last three decades, but I like the looks of the C5 Z06, and any C6, a lot better.
The Corvette has always been about world-class performance for a lot less money. Something has to give with that formula. But that’s what it is, so I’m not sure why people complain so much about it. It’s still a Chevy at heart and I would argue it should be. If you wanted “nicer” you ponied up the extra cash for the Porsche.
That’s a convertible with the rare Auxiliary Hard Top.
No matter how good or bad the Corvette is or was or will be the Corvette “mystique” will ensure its popularity and survival. Every manufacturer has a few halo cars that transcend their reputations and will be loved no matter what. I guess it will take the dying off of the Baby Boomers to tell whether the Corvette “mystique” will survive into the Gen X & Y.
This is one DS that Paul and I will always disagree on. I see one of these cars and think “Cheap Thrills” that’s what I would title a post about the C4s, especially from the dawn of the LT1 till the end of production. I still want a 1996 6-speed targa top.
I agree with you. The Corvette was cheap thrills, and so the details suffered. Sure the C4 was rough around the edges, but it was an excellent performer for the day and did offer (as it does today) great bang for the buck. It wasn’t as refined as a Porsche, but it could keep up and cost a lot less. The 1985 Vette had softer suspension than the 1984 (due to complaints), the new TPI 350 with 230 hp and a 150 MPH top speed. 1988 saw hp jump to 240 and the TPI topped out at 250 hp in 1991. Not bad considering they sold the California Vettes in 1980 with a wimpy 305. Of course the 1992 LT1’s are the C4’s to own though.
I have driven and serviced several C4’s and they are rattle traps, have terrible space inside for tall people, and sometimes quirky electricals. But they were still fun to drive, and had great bottom end power (thanks to the TPI). And sure the interior on the feature car is bad, but it looks to be a poorly cared for example. Even the body work is terrible, anyone else notice the overspray? I remember these cars when new, and they may not have been up to some imports standards, but for the era, they were okay (espcially compared to other domestics). I mean, you didn’t pay Porsche money for a Vette.
Bottom line, the C4 was an essential step to getting to the C5 Vette. The C3 was a terribly outdated, poorly handling, poorly perfoming car by 1982. It had a 20 year old chassis, terrible aerodynamics, and overally quality wasn’t really anything to brag about either. At least Dave Mclellan finally put some real performance back into the Vette with the C4. Form the Roger Smith era of GM, this car was far from the worst to come out of the General. On top of that, sales did drop in the 1980’s and 1990’s for the Vette, but this was a trend for ALL sports cars. The Vette was alwats one of the top sellers, and actually survives to today unlike most of the Japanese sports cars.
@ BILL”Of course the 1992 LT1′s are the C4′s to own though”
IMO The 1996 LT4 is the C4 to own. Make mine a Collectors Edition or GranSport drop head.
From a technical stand point the later the LT1 the better. A 95-96 LT1 is far more dependable and cheaper to repair assuming you’re a soldier in the OptiSpark Jihad. I prefer any non-OBD2 version that is vented over the 92 anyday.
As a GN owner and Chevy dealership employee I often ask myself what was Chevys problem in the 80’s. Buick made a genuine “more than 1HP per cubic inch” performance motor and all Chevy could do was 250HP out of 350 Cubes? I’ve written on these pages a few times about the “Small Block Mentality” of BowTie fanboys but the real DS here is that it extended into the engineering department as well.
Yes, I’d agree the LT4 was the very best, but I guess I was just splitting the Vette’s into L98 and LT1 generations. I used to work at a GM dealer too so I am aware of the Opti-spark fun. I’d personally never own a C4. Fun to drive, but just no room for anyone over 6 feet. The C5 was so much better for room.
Same here. Especially the face-lifted, LT1 equipped C4’s. I know they’re not Paul’s favorite body style, but this is a hit piece. And picking a yellow anything with racing stripes is going to make it look nasty. I wouldn’t take a Veyron in these colors.
And every criticism of C4 applies to C5. Poor panel fit, rides hard, nasty interior, but fast as hell. The C4 is at least narrow enough to fit in parking spots…
I disagree on the C5 assessment. The C5 wasn’t perfect, but a big improvement in ride, quality and structural stiffness. The C6 is even more refined. I have put many miles on a 2012 Vette, and it’s suspension is so smooth I’d almost call it supple. They have made huge strides in suspension tech since the C4.
I’m hoping deep down that this is an April Fools joke. Somehow I’m not so sure though.
The custard yellow paint doesn’t do any car a favour.They sold a whole lot more than the British fibre glass sports car the TVR,at the end of the day its the race from the showroom to the street that really matters.
I remember getting a red convertible with 600 miles on it, a company credit card, and the Big Island of Hawaii to explore for a week. I originally thought I would enjoy it as much as I had the Nissan Z’s, Mazda RX’s and Miatas, but soon discovered otherwise.
It was fast, but it had the personality of a plastic disposable champagne glass. There was no seam left ungapped. The interior was miserable. Getting into the car often required I wiggle my size 13s around and over the driver’s seat since there wasn’t enough space for me to get in like any other car. The glove compartment door would flop open as I twisted around curves around the Volcanos. The h-u-g-e gaps around the center console looked worse than the ones found in the company’s other GM products.
The switches and controls were not intuitive. I tried to figure out how to raise the top, and after struggling for ten minutes, gave up and turned up the heat instead. The radio looked like someone went crazy with little plastic identical buttons, requiring I pull over and study it in order to find some kind of a radio station to match the fun I was supposed to be having.
The new Corvette rattled. It shook and twisted. Roller skates offered more road comfort. Being gifted this car by friends forced me to live with it for the entire week, instead of returning it right away for a nice worn out and practical driver back at the lot.
This car was fast. On the Kona side of the Island, I easily took it over triple digits and blasted through the volcanic landscape, alongside the crystal blue Pacific coast. I kept reminding myself that I was living a moment on my bucket list – new red Corvette convertible, back country speeding, school of whales porpoising along the perfect ocean backdrop, headed to a five star resort.
But I did this kind of thing enough to have enjoyed it more in other cars, and knowing that it’s competition could deliver more fun per mile, (especially the RX!), and knowing the cost of the Corvette, meant I was profoundly disappointed in this car.
It is a deadly sin. Just as the movie, “Showgirls”, stripped fun out of watching topless, jiggling supermodels and soft porn, the C4 Corvette stripped fun out of owning a sports car.
I did return a vehicle on Oahu……a home market Suzuki Samari. That thing was brutal and JUNK. I didn’t go 10 miles, my kidneys were killing me.
Where have you been Vanilladude?! Many TTAC readers want you back rather desperately!
I know.
I had a great run at TTAC and I had a nice time there, but I didn’t agree with Herr Editor, and he didn’t like me either. He finally banned me about a year ago when I ranted about how offended I was to be reading a German auto journalist’s comment about how he hated things that were French. That ticked me off and I wrote things that ticked him off in response. I knew that sooner or later he wouldn’t be able to handle some of my comments, and I wasn’t surprised when he finally pulled my plug.
Hey, I’d rather hang with Steve McQueen in solitary, bouncing a baseball against the walls in “Great Escape”, then be Alec Guinness and protect my giblets when the good guys get pounded in “Kwai”.
It’s his show now. He has brought some strengths to TTAC, but the site has lost a lot of it’s back-slapping hectoring and entertaining nonsense. Bertel tries, but he just doesn’t get that kind of stuff. It doesn’t translate for him. He reminds me of a lot of Teutonic college mates I keep in touch with. They need me to slapped them around a bit and tease them before they stop taking everything so damn seriously and lighten the hell up.
I’ve had my share of grievances against Herr Editor too, like that stupid Top Troll Poll among other things (especially when people who voted him for top troll got tagged as trolls).
That was bad. I bet he wasn’t very pleased that my name came up more than a few times as someone who should be welcomed back.
It wasn’t very intelligent of him to request that his bloggers incriminate or even self-incriminate one another as trolls. In what way was this entertaining to anyone except him?
He came off like some guy tossing table scraps to dogs just to enjoy the arguments and fights that ensued. If anyone questioned or mocked him, he pronounced judgement like some kind of Ceasar.
It was like some kind of scene out of Animal Farm.
Because I nominated Herr Editor, I was nominated a troll, even though I had no prior history for any troll-like actions (as Muttley Alfa Barker). I still hate Herr Editor greatly for that.
I will continuously be amazed that I was NOT banned for once opining in response to an article that featured Herr Schmitt’s face: “Otto Von Bismark called, he’d like his mustache and his facial expression back.”
That “Top Troll” thing was embarrassing. I only check in maybe once or twice a month for Steven Lang’s and Murilee’s posts. I used to check in 3-4 times a day back in 2005-2008.
But we have CC now 🙂
I missed this bloke comments dearly. It’s bloody good to read him again here.
I loved his usual line gringo amuses women more than europeans… of course, he has the proper salsa picante to go with that.
Ok I disagree with your position on the corvette, I greatly enjoyed the Showgirls comment.
1990 Corvette
BASE 350
ZR-1
Acceleration 250 hp, 6-sp man.
375 hp, 6-sp man
0-60 mph, sec
5.7
4.9
0-100 mph, sec
NA
11.5
1/4-mile, sec @ mph
14.3 @ 97.1
13.4 @ 108.5 http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1990-corvette1.htm
“…the C4 Corvette was a wea seller” I couldn’t figure that out.
Personally I’m not much of a Chebby fan, but I’ve always liked Corvettes. I can understand a dislike of the early C4s, but by 1990 it was a better car by far. The dash was new and much better. It looked more modern and got rid of the digital readouts. (admittedly the parts bin sharing of switches and knobs screamed CHEAP, but they were GM generic parts). Plus it’s MY recollection that they were structurally stiffer also.
If sales were all that mattered they would have continued with the better selling C3 from the 80s: slow, slightly broughamy two-toned leather clad posers. Quite the contrary I consider the ’90+as a turning point, they were improving the design incrementally and were faster, better built, more user friendly and could still beat a Porsche at 1/2 the price.
A friend bought a new Coupe in 1990. Later (92?) I too rented one with a buddy in Maui. A convertible, the Road to Hana was memorable! The Gs on the curves (and there were MANY!) were enough to make me puke as a passenger. I’d seen enough waterfalls….better when I drove.
I kinda like this car. I think it would make a cool second-hand sunny weather car. I think it’s kinda sexy actually. It’s an American muscle car not an Alpha.
April fools?
Probably. But so was the X-100 “review”……just a wea bit early.
Corvette is a pretty way of storing a Holden powertrain like a tupperware container though tupperware is better built. Fancy numbers on a skid pan are meaningless in a real world of bumpy bitumen roads and since these things dismantle the interior as you drive I’m glad I cant get one.
Is this the New Zealander way of firing up our American blood on April Fools?
While the Holden drivetrain was used on a number of cars here in America (GTO, G8), the SBC is definitely an American creation. All of those hot Holdens are running an American engine, Sure, HSV might do some tuning, but the Corvette owes nothing of its powertrain to Holden. And the interiors are not that bad on Corvettes. They’re not European sports car nice, but lets not forget that in the US at least a Corvette is 25-50% less money than the European or Asian competition.
Holden used the 6 speed ZF gearbox from the ZR1 on the 1990 Group A Commodore, that is about as close as they get I think. In C4 Corvette time the Holdens were still using the Holden 304ci V8, no Chev drivelines in sight.
Corvette transmissions and rear axles were sourced from Australia by Lotus for the Carlton Lotus Elite.
I would rather have a Fiero
Even in L98 (245 hp) form, the C4 didn’t lack serious muscle; the difference between the L98 and LT1 comes down to the old argument about power versus torque and on the street makes for a much closer race than the peak horsepower figures would suggest.
Which doesn’t change anything else, particularly the complaints about the interior. Aside from the odd ergonomics and cheapo materials, the C4’s sills were as wide as an E-type Jaguar’s and about as inconvenient. Even if you were young and fairly limber, getting into or out of the C4 with anything like dignity took some practice — not a great thing given the actual demographics of Corvette buyers.
But the actual demographics hardly matter. My perspective as a European is that Corvette is pretty much the definition of an “aspirational” car. It’s a fake you buy to look like you’re the kind of person who can afford the real thing.
The interior is painful to look at. This one being in the state it’s in doesn’t help, nor does it being black(not a good color in ANY 90s GM product), but I really find it an uninviting environment regardless, and I speak from experience. The earlier 84-89(?) interiors may be boxy and 80s “high tech” cheesy but at least it looked fairly well put together and fit the exterior design well. The 90-96 interior should have had a label stating “fun for ages 3-8”. Only I know I had toys with better quality materials at that age.
Aesthetically I must say I like the C4s. It’s the only Corvette that wore the “bubble” window well IMO and it looks pretty natural next to a Testarossa or a Porsche 928. I Also think the initial styling is better than the C5 with it’s concave rear end treatment and large hood with minimal cut lines.
Working in 3 different Chevy dealerships, I have lots of experience with C4s. They’re fast and handle great, but everything in and on them is cheap, cheap, cheap. Over the slightest little bump, everything jiggles like a fat woman doing a striptease.
On a relatively smooth, twisty road with little traffic, this car’s true purpose becomes clear. It’s a spectacular road warrior for the weekend racer in all of us. Elegant, it ain’t.
Everything seems to be eligible for Deadliest Sin status. This car gave GM a car with world-class performance a lot more affordably than most of its competition. It was never meant to be a cash cow. And as others mentioned it’s the car that started the path back to great performance. Those are steps forward, not backwards.
And it was great looking IMO. One of the best looking cars of its day bar none. So much cleaner and classier than many of today’s overwrought designs.
One person here is complaining they couldn’t figure out how to operate the top or the radio. That’s why our world is now filled with Corollas and other appliances I guess.
Amen, brother. Ten minutes and he can’t figure out how to get the top up? Maybe he should stick with his cute little import bubble-carz.
I think the point he is getting at is that at one time the Corvette was a classy, stylish, classic piece of Americana…but by 1990 it was just a big ugly hunk of plastic with a big motor in it. Few can debate that this later model C4 has more in common with a plastic mid-80’s Camaro sporting a 90-hp iron Duke, than the beautiful, original, iconic C2’s of the 60’s…save for the powerplant. A ’63 split rear window Stingray screams style…this shed pictured here screams a Joe Dirt-style mullet with a satin bomber jacket and an ashtray overflowing with spent butts of Doral and possibly some Merit cigarettes…well look at that, this example sure as heck has the plethora of spent butts emanating from it’s aftermarket ash cup!
It’s funny to me that you give the C2 the vaunted “Americana” label, but mullets, satin bomber jackets and nasty cheap cigarettes don’t.
I’d argue the latter is just as much Americana as the former. Much more than a great achievement like a then-world-class sportscar like the C2, America for me is defined by the fact that even people who would wear mullets and smoke gross cigarettes can have a sportscar, even if it’s old and nasty.
From one hundred feet away, most anybody can look like a rich man here, and that’s as close as any country has ever come to class equality…
Thanks to the small-block V8, America did more than any country (except maybe Australia) to bring cheap performance to the masses.
Ironically however, the Corvette is now mostly a rich old-man’s car because of costs & declining income among young people, but even so, it’s still a good value compared to Euro GTs if you don’t mind its less-polished cabin.
I have a black convertible 87 vette with a 4 speed, a rare combination. I have to interject by saying the C4 Corvette was a leap ahead of anything being made at that time. Look at the 1980 corvette, 180hp, based on a 20 year old design, no aero-dynamics to speak of, and a cramped cockpit. Corvette designed an entirely new car from the ground up, they got rid of the Marylin Monroe hips and made the cars interior room 4 inches wider and put the seats inbetween the integrated frame rails. This gives the driver a very low driving position allowing the car to feel like an oversized go-kart. The C4 corvette saved the brand, Corvette was given one shot to save the brand or it was going to be scraped and the C4 was built to handle all of the issues with the C3. Extensive wind tunnel tests, custom tires, a completely redesigned chasis that was years ahead of its time. These were done to cix the complaints and mockery of poor handling, no aerodynamics, it wasn’t strictly a car by numbers. Numbers were used to judge the success of handling the failings of its predecessors.
And if we want to pick nits about performance, look at as some would call the best car maker in the world, Mercedes. At the time the newly released 560 SEC had no more horsepower than the Corvette, and that was a top end engine in the top end sports model, for the top end manufacturer and they weren’t doing much better than the Corvette. I don’t like the comparison of a Corvette to a Porsche. Driving a Corvette is like driving nothing else, a porsche feels small, nimble, quick. A Corvette feels big, it feels powerful, full of low end torque, and having a stick shift allows you to rule the road and overtake whatever you want and take any corner you can throw at it at any double digit number. A Corvette doesn’t compare to a porsche, they feel totally different, ride totally different, I have a hard time imagining a person having difficulty choosing one over the other. You either like the feel of the Corvette or the feel of the Porsche, they are day and night different.
And you can say the ride is bad and jarring, but in the world of low profile tires and Si sport packages. I don’t think the ride in a Corvette is any worse than most modern cars. The ride in my daily driver a compact import. And honestly I would take the Vette over the import anyday in ride comfort. Also I would imagine the C4’s would have a hard ride when you drove a 70s boat during the week and spent the last 10+ years in brougham-land. The first modern Chevy to be made with a modern suspension would have felt harsh by 1970s~80s standards. The current corvette suspension is still a leaf spring based system in the rear like the C4 how much better can a C5~C6 leafspring really be compared to a C4 leaf spring?
Lastly my corvette is coming up on its 25th birthday with 107k on the odo. The car doesn’t leak, smoke, and runs strong, smooth and is just as fast as the day it came from the factory. How many porsches or ferraris or lambos of that time can say that, how many times would you have had to rebuild your porsche engine, and how much would it have cost you?
I’ll offer a counterpoint.
Cars today have become too darned good. I mean they have isolated the driver from the road to a degree that cars feel numb. Refinement is great to a point!
In 1983-1984, my brother and I would stalk C4 owners as they were returning to their cars to catch a glimpse of the dash. That dash is one of the boldest, most raw interiors ever put into a car. Dave McLellan and his team nailed it.
After driving and owning LS3 Camaro’s, new Mustangs, and new C5 and C6 Vettes, getting into a C4 is a shocking revelation. I won’t forget the drive I took in a friends ’84 in the Pocono’s a few years ago and re-connected with the C4. That car felt great behind the wheel, just connected to the road, raw in a good way. I remember thinking that even the lowly 205 horsepower cross fire 350 was a hoot to drive. It is punch and go like a razor blade on the mountain roads and it was FUN. Not too much power to get you killed but a good balance to drive the car to its limits. I can’t put my finger on it, but I instantly fell in love with the C4 all over again that day having not driven one in 20 years.
My brother recently bought a mint ’90 C4 Convertible and has the same impressions as I do about the C4’s. He’s having a blast with his especially after installing TPIS headers, full exhaust work, 1.6 roller rockers, and a tuning the car himself. An uncorked TPI engine is a fantastic street engine.
For me, my next toy car will be a ’89 Coupe with the Z51 package!
Where are the Chrysler or Furd deadly sins?
Was the cupholder ashtray full of spent butts standard for ’90…or was this an aftermarket add-on??? Reminds me of my friend’s dad’s ’93 vette…complete with overflowing ashtray of spent butts and a couple empty Lark boxes tossed about.
I remember first seeing this generation Corvette. At the time I found it hideous to look at compared to its predecessor. It has since grown on me and I loved its appearance.
That dashboard fit and finish is appalling. That car does speak to me, though; it says “Run away!”
I will stick with my ’65 turbo Corvair convertible a few more years, thanks very much. THAT car has soul and a personality. This ‘Vette looks like a zombie.
My folks owned a 90 Corvette from 95-03. They had restored a 62 ‘Vette back in 82 that they kept until 06. I didn’t think it was that bad. Maybe we got a good one, who knows. But what do I know, I was driving a 73 Maverick from 90-03. Just your typical Texas redneck.
I can’t agree on Deadly Sin on this one.
I’m not a Corvette guy, so I can’t address the nuances of these cars very well. But, it’s hard not to have made a few observations over the years.
GM has kept the faith with the Corvette for over a half century. Yes, it has been neglected at times, and its future occasionally questioned.
But, the C4 was a perfect example of the lifting of peak Malaise – and should be appreciated for the breath of fresh air it was.
Sales may not have been what the C3 did, but this was a time when GM had lost its credibility as a manufacturer of pricy prestige cars. The Corvette at least kept the performance light on at GM during a time when no buyer in this price range wanted to pair a Corvette with a 1986 Cadillac DeVille in their garage.
Prestige in the US in the ‘80s was about Porsches and Beemers. The C4 may not have been the best Corvette, but at least it kept the name alive, worthy of a future, and provided something to think about besides four cylinder Camaros.
I’m not sure I can get on board with the DS designation for this one. My uncertainty is not because I don’t think it’s a bad car, as I agree with nearly all of the criticisms leveled at it, but I can’t see how the C4 is really any worse than any Corvette from any of the other generations. The ride was a trade-off for the handling. The Interior, while shoddy as hell, is representative of what GM interiors were all about at the time, regardless of price point. The build quality is, well, what it is. It’s a Chevy when all is said and done, and it’s put together like one.
Obviously I’m not a Corvette fanboy, so I’ll invite anyone who is to take my opinion with the proverbial grain of salt, but I’ve always felt that the Corvette, regardless of generation, was just a showcase for the best of what Chevy had to offer. The featured car represents Chevrolet circa 1990 with perfect clarity, warts and all.
Having said all that, I’ve got to concede that the C4 was actually made up of more Corvette-exclusive components than any generation that preceded it, which is a distinction that I think maybe should be to its credit. I can recall as a kid sitting in the driver’s seat of numerous family friends’ C3 Vettes and taking note of how much of the switchgear and componentry was straight out of my parents’ Monte Carlo or Monza. At least the C4 got a boost in exclusivity with all of its gee whiz gadgetry (for as long as it was functional).
Donor car for my ’57 Handyman.
I’ll be lookin’ for one soon, ’90-’96, need not run, just a solid suspension, front and rear. Good 6-speed will be a plus.
http://www.progressiveautomotive.com/installations-kits-parts/front-suspension/sweet-ryde-c4-corvette-ifs-bracket-kit.html
I could see a custom interior being installed in this Corvette, along with the addition of suspension upgrades, an E-Rod swap, a Tremec TKO 600 5-speed and custom wheels from either Forgeline or Kinesis. Perhaps the chassis can be stiffened as well?
I always viewed these as a glimmer of hope in a dark age rather than a deadly sin. The C3 Corvette had turned into a caricature of itself. The car hadn’t changed since 1969, except to get fatter, slower, and uglier.
The C4, while imperfect, was better than the car it replaced and that (IMHO) was a rare thing for GM in those days. I was happy to know that some engineering effort went into designing it, and I even had the impression that those engineers had won a few battles with the accountants. Beautiful? No, but purposeful, and again, an indication to me that the engineers had won some battles with stylists who would have put form over function. Sure, they lost the battle on the interior, but engineers are happy just sitting on a bucket if the suspension geometry is good, and the engine is sweet. I forgave them for that.
I agree with your assessment. Lokki. I would go as far to say that the C4 was really the first “engineers Corvette.” All previous generations, the engineering always played second fiddle to the stylist. Read about Zora Arkus-Duntov and he often complained about the compromises he had to make for the styling of the car. Further, the C4 was really the first Corvette with a chassis and suspension engineered without having to compromise with pedestrian Chevrolet passenger car parts. It may not have been perfect, but the it did get it’s own suspension and platform specifically designed for a sports car.
I would go as far to say that considering the climate at GM during that era and the other platforms they produced, it was almost a miracle the C4 came out as good as it did. Dave McLellan and his team really put there heart and soul into this car, and they did there best considering the constraints that GM put on them. One major hurdle the team had to over come was Lloyd Reuss directing that the car be a targa top late in the design process. The structure was initially designed as a T-roof. This resulted in some extra reinforcements to the structure, one of which being higher sills, but the never got a proper solution for the car before it went into production. Later models received further reinforcements and improvements to the structure. And even though the structure was never the most ridged, the handling of the C4 was rarely criticised, just it’s numerous squeaks and rattles. Despite what Paul says that the car was a soulless drive, I’d argue that it was just a polarizing car. It was often judged very high on handling objectively and subjectively, but some people loved the way it drove and others hated it. The big plus of the C4 structure was that the C5 team, initially headed by McLellan, realized how important the structure was to the car resulting in one of the stiffest platforms of its time.
The Corvette team made continually efforts to improve the C4 throughout it’s production, with the 1996 Grand Sport arguably the best ever C4. The C4 was a critical car in making the Corvette transform from a fat overweight GT car to what it is today, a world class sports car. And how can that be a bad thing?
I’m starting to think that, with the exception of certain A- and G-body Specials, and the ’77-’90 B-body, the vast majority of seventies and eighties GM products were Deadly Sins.
On Curbsideclasscis true. But out in the real world not so much!
Question- wouldn’t the 1984 with it’s 205 HP cross fire engine, rattle trap interior and gimmicky interior and stiff punishing ride more qualify for the DS status than this improved 1990? And calling this car soulless is rather silly when 90% of the FWD throw away crap on the roads by this time could much more easily have this title.
Deadly Sin? No way! C4 was a revolution and a punch to GM’s gut when their engineering capability was at it’s lowest point. Check out Dave McLellan’s book “Corvette from the Inside”.
My 1970 Toyota Corona Mark II was screwed together better than any Corvette I have been around. And we won’t even talk about my Isuzu built Chevy LUV trucks
This was a deadly sin because it was a strong machine with gobs of power, but it had the build quality of a disposable plastic bin with GEO Metro materials. The dash warped, and separated, the leather cracked. You could stick your fingers in the wide panel gaps, and ergonomics was not even considered. How much did they want for this plastic kiddie car strapped to a rocket?
Deadly sin indeed. It lost customers.
VDude, you nailed it. In 1990 I was ready and able to buy a fun car and briefly looked at a new ‘vette. Beyond the strong engine and intoxicating exhaust burble, there was nothing. All the build quality of a kit car. Misaligned panels. An interior that reeked of cheap with molded plastic everywhere and tiny plastic buttons. An inner voice told me this was not a well built car and I would regret buying it. Fun for a few months maybe, before it’s many imperfections drone me crazy.
Instead, I bought the newly redesigned 1990 Nissan 300 ZX. A different kind a car to be sure, without the brutal power of a big V-8, but the DOHC six put out 222 smooth h.p. and fit and finish was impeccable. Enjoyed driving it every day for the eight trouble-free years I had it.
On the price vs. performance vs. quality question, I think it’s important to emphasize that it’s not an either-or thing. Over the years, there have been a fair number of the better B- and C-segment cars whose interior materials were obviously not upscale or fancy, but where most everything was where it ought to be and it was all put together reasonably well.
If the C4 Vette had been in that realm, I would find it more defensible, but it too often fell short of that level. It’s not that it’s bad to prioritize flashy looks (although I’ve always found it a bit too anodyne) and performance rather than high-lux finish, but it felt SO cheap and the ergonomics SO questionable (although both varied throughout the run) that it didn’t seem a worthwhile tradeoff. I could deal with a Corvette not being as fancy as a Mercedes-Benz SL-Class, but it seeming cheaper and flimsier than a Corolla costing less than half as much was another matter.
C4 was the last Corvette with sealed-beam headlights.
The early C4 interior looked quite elegant if you ripped out the huge protruding vinyl thing on the passenger side and installed full-width wood paneling on the dash – these were and are quite popular and some are better than the one I’m including in the photo. But these did nothing to fix the weird digital graphics on the gauges. The late C4 interior redesign fixed that, but also made the whole inside have that ’90s GM rental car look.