They say time heals all wounds. I suppose it does in most cases, but it also makes plastic brittle. So I’m going to have to be very careful in my attempt at rehabilitating the Corvette C4, which a decade ago was comprehensively chopped into bite-sized, polyester-coated morsels in one of Paul’s seminal GM Deadly Sins posts. But it’s been a while, so let’s see if the fourth generation of America’s sports car can be given a more lenient look.
Actually, before you go any further, I recommend you read Paul’s piece, written back in 2010. Two things about it should be emphasized: first, I agree with every sentence. The case for the prosecution is bullet-proof and the C4’s soullessness cannot be wished away. Secondly, if you read it carefully, Paul points out that later model C4s were pretty damn good, performance-wise – the usual GM “we sort of got there eventually” type of deal.
And therein lies the nub: what C4 are we talking about? Not the weak-chested mid-‘80s resale red mullet-mobiles, no. After several years of incremental changes, the C4 turned into a substantially different car. The difference between a MY 1984 Corvette and our yellow ’96 here was pretty stark.
Oh, they took their sweet time, for sure. The first year C4s only mustered 205hp and featured a weird “4+3” overdrive manual transmission option that failed to impress. The six-speed ZF gearbox arrived in 1989 and though it had improved a bit since its 1984 “Cease-Fire” iteration, the wheezy V8 was only given the boot in 1992, when the 300hp LT1 took over, giving the Corvette most of its mojo back. Of course, from 1990, those who wanted more bang for even more bucks could get a Lotus-flavoured ZR-1, with its fancy 375hp DOHC engine (upped to 405hp from 1993). Keeping its end up, the standard issue C4 was made available with an optional 330hp engine as the Grand Sport for 1995-96. So things ended on a high, at least.
And then there were the exterior changes. Our CC displays the rectified snout common to all post-1991 facelift C4s, though it seems only the MY 1996 cars seem to have this exact look, with a small bit of body-colour plastic dividing the turn signals and the side markers. In prior MYs, that little corner piece was black. It’s a very small detail, but once you see a car without it, something looks off.
The rear end also had extensive modifications, almost completely changing its shape over the years (as rear ends are wont to do, amirite folks?) and losing all pretense of a rear spoiler in the process. Not being overly keen on spoilers myself, this post-1991 butt-lift C4 derriere is all right by me, but I can understand how some might prefer the original design’s edgier characteristics and circular taillamps.
Overall, the C4’s looks have aged pretty well. It does look bland compared to the C3, but it also seems more agile – at least, this final version does. Present-day sports cars almost always look like they should come with their own Bat-Cave, so it’s refreshing to see something this straightforward and unfussy, yet also clearly identifiable as a Corvette. The now uncommon pop-up headlights add to the C4’s classic feel.
OK, even with the best will in the world, the C4’s interior remains a complete and utter shambles. These looked dodgy when new, but the peculiar GM mix of questionable design, lousy planning, subpar component sourcing, dreadful durability, indifferent workmanship and poor quality control really found its full display in the C4’s cabin, just like it did in almost all North American GM products of the time. But there again, later cars like our CC have more analog instruments, which must be a good thing: the term “‘80s GM digital gauges” is liable to give any sensible person nightmares.
Now, there are a lot of stories about how the C4s were badly put together, even beyond the confines of the passenger area. I don’t know whether this particular car, which I believe was imported here new around 25 years ago, was a specially-made “Japan edition,” or was just born lucky, or whether Yanase, the importer, gave the car a thorough once-over prior to delivery, so that panel gaps would look more presentable. But the pictures do it justice – this Corvette looked pretty much perfect. Solid, even.
That is partially what compelled me to stop and photograph this C4 pretty extensively. I’m sure this particular example’s impeccable presentation counts for a lot, but also Corvettes are relatively uncommon in this neck of the woods. If I were living in a place where shoddy and unkempt C4s were a dime a dozen, the thought of rehabilitating these would probably not have occurred. But these are downright exotic here: you see more Maseratis, Benz SLs and Jags than Corvettes in Japan. So they do stand out, especially in this colour!
Maybe it takes an outsider to notice certain things. But yes, North American CC readers, these late-model C4s should warrant your attention. They will become rare one day. If current valuation and attrition trends continue, even the non-Grand Sport and non-ZR1 plain vanilla automatic coupes like this one will be worth a lot by the end of this decade. Soulless though it may be, the C4 may not be worthless for much longer.
Related posts:
Curbside Classic: 1990 Chevrolet Corvette – GM’s Deadly Sin #9 – Loss Of Soul, by PN
CC Capsule: 1988 Chevrolet Corvette – Let’s Get Physical. by Joseph Dennis
Cohort Classic: The Corvette C4 ZR-1 Convertible, by Geraldo Solis
CC Outtake: 1986 Chevrolet Corvette C4 Convertible – A Surprise Find Near Home, by Yohai71
CC Outtake: Bright Aqua Metallic Always Beats Resale Red, by Tom Klockau
Ten Days, Ten Corvettes: Day 4, C4, by David Devereaux
Ten Corvettes, Ten Days: Day 10 – C4 “Ruth” – The Author Makes a Momentous Decision, by David Devereaux
In-Motion Classic: Cat And Mouse With a Corvette C4, by Yohai71
In-Motion Classic: Red Corvette C4 Out on a Friday Drive, by Yohai71
CC TV: 1984 Chevrolet Corvette – You’ve Never Seen Anything Like This Before, by Tom Halter
Vintage R&T Road Test: 1985 Chevrolet Corvette – Smoother, Faster And Better Than Ever, by Yohai71
Improved though they may be, every alteration stylistically away from the original 1984 model was awful and by 1996 they were such a caricature that I could never take them seriously. One thing I hated was that GM put that perimeter trim strip around the car as an integral styling element then just decided screw it, we’ll paint it and pretend like it’s not even there as though it was given some cheap Maaco paint job. The thing is, they’d already replaced the front, rear, and side panels that contained that strip, they could’ve just done away with it at that time!
I’m sure they’re fine for what they are but in a market like the US where you can find a C5 for the same price as a C4 that hasn’t disintegrated, I feel like you’d be crazy to buy the latter.
Ive never heard anyone mention the perimeter trim strip-painting thing before.
I agree with you on that point. The fox-Mustangs had that as well, and on my ’92 I was going to paint it black but never got around to it.
Those body strips aren’t your typical glue on rubber strips. They actually cover up body seam that goes around the car, and is thus integral to the body design. So without re-engineering, they had to stay (the 1991-96 cars only had a minor face/rear lift). At the time in the monochromiatic 1990s, I though they looked fine. Today, maybe less so, but it doesn’t bother me.
The body coloured corne looks far worse in my eyes. They looked better when it looked like the lights wrapped around the corner like this 1994:
I think they should have left them black, it makes the body look cleaner. Even the Callaway tuner Corvettes kept the strips black until 96
I hadn’t every noticed the body color divider in the front bumper turn signals. After a bit of googling, i’m shocked at how awful (to me) those body color dividers look. I much prefer the black dividers, it deeps the front turn signals looking like a smooth wrap around piece.
One thing I like the C4, compared to all later generations, is “all that glass.”
The painted black borders on the C4 is much thinner.
Once upon a time (mid 2000s?) I was somewhat interested in perhaps a Corvette amongst other vehicle choices and a C4 would have been in the budget. So a lot of research was done, years compared etc. I figured the newer the better and liked the changes that had been done over the years to the body and everything else.
However, I then test drove one in Wisconsin while visiting a friend. It was, as I recall, an approximately 1991 model and while the performance was pretty good, I just could not wrap my mind around the interior after being in it for a few minutes. Various rattles, loose bits, and an overall feeling of cheapness more appropriate in a Cavalier with bad vinyl, shiny plastics, huge gaps, and….yeah, just no. Then again, the Cavalier interior was considered cheap compared to the competition as well, so even there it didn’t pass muster.
The interior is the worst part of this subject as well, it just doesn’t look good. Never mind the design of it, the materials are just not there or befitting the price of the car at all, and it’s what the part of the car that the owner sees even more than the exterior.
I don’t know, I think Corvettes are probably best enjoyed by those not owning them. Actually, that isn’t fair, they aren’t bad cars and excel at their primary mission. They look great going by on the road and perhaps that’s how I specifically most enjoy them.
Those fender extensions I don’t recall being on any I’ve seen, I believe they’ve been added in this case, not for the better either.
The fender extensions would have been added to meet Japanese tyre-coverage requirements.
As with some of the aforementioned styling elements, the wheels appear headed in two different directions.
I’m one of those. I remember thinking “That’s not an improvement” when these squircular tails appeared. First on the ZR-1, weren’t they, and then on the rest of them?
(also, the owner of this yellow car is all, “I blackened out my taillights so they work less!“; compare unblackened ones seen here)
Still, if one must downplay one’s presence and blend in anonymously with one’s surroundings, driving a car like this in a place like that is just one of those sacrifices that has to be made.
IIRC, when the ZR-1 or King of the Hill, came out, it had the squared tail lights to differentiate it from the plebian versions. After a year, ALL tail lights became square, thus causing some to say “why should I pay extra for a car that looks just like the one my secretary has?!” (That statement was lifted from a magazine article at the time)! 🙂
I would rather drive a Bricklin, and that is saying something.
I toured the Bowling Green factory with my parents when the 1996s were being made so I have a little nostalgia for the late C4s now. Truthfully though, I like the look of the earlier 80s models much better, the concave rear end especially. I never really noticed that the 96s used that body colored section, which looks plain bad to me. Like the rear end I prefer the earlier front but I at least understood the intent that the facelifted light assemblies were supposed to look like they wrapped all the way around the corners, of which they pulled off effectively. Body color completely ruins the flow and looks like they were saving on black paint “who cares, C5 is out next year anyway”. It would be like painting the door pillars body color on the first and second Gen mercury sables, ruining the floating roof look
I’ll also echo the sentiments of Anthony, all making the side strips body colored did was make the design look clumsy and amateurish. The C4 looks to me like the designers were channeling the Ferrari Daytona convertible in the basic body shape so those areas with the black strips could be seen as though the Ferrari’s side indents were filled in with those, but once the 80s were over and black trim was out of fashion they should have come up with something better than this.
The first year C4s only mustered 205hp and featured a weird “4+3” overdrive manual transmission option that failed to impress. The six-speed ZF gearbox arrived in 1989 and though it had improved a bit since its 1984 “Cease-Fire” iteration, the wheezy V8 was only given the boot in 1992, when the 300hp LT1 took over, giving the Corvette most of its mojo back.
The weird 4+3 overdrive was just a 4-speed transmission with an external overdrive. It’s not much different than a Gear Vendors overdrive unit or even the old style OD units like Paul’s Ford truck. The +3 meant that the OD could be applied to the top three transmission ratios (allowing for gear splitting). However, you could just used it as a 5-speed, using the first 4-speeds as normal, and then OD in 4th.
The Cross-Fire fuel injection system was only used in 1982 and 1984. In 1985, the more powerful TPI EFI was introduced with 230 hp, and was later increased to 250 hp. The TPI engines had strong low end power, in fact stronger than the LT1, but they ran out of steam at higher RPM. Regardless, the TPI Corvettes were excellent performers for their day and the C4 Corvettes equipped with such had no issue out running many of its contemporaries.
.
Performance wasn’t the issue with these Corvettes, they were typically among the top performers in its class throughout this generation. They had fast acceleration and top speed along with good handling, braking and fuel economy. The interiors quality was a low point as was the structural integrity of the body.
That said, the C4 was leaps and bounds ahead of the C3 when it came to engineering. By 1982 the C3 was highly outdated and more of a boulevard cruiser than a serious sports car. Dave McLellan brought the Vette back to being a true sports car with his C4. It’s just too bad the body had such low ridgity that it was plagued with squeaks and rattles, and required an overly stiff suspension to compensate which only exacerbated the problem. These problems were fixed with the C5, which had a very stiff body and chassis in comparison.
The interiors weren’t great either, but like the poor body integrity, this had to do with being engineered at GM in the 1980s. That said, those who only cared about the most performance for the buck, were willing to live with these faults. These were a cheap thrills sports car.
I had a ’96 for maybe a year. Won it on eBay, not realizing how little C4s cost. Pretty fun car with the six speed, etc. Many problems in unexpected areas: leaky weatherstripping, Bose stereo components, antenna operation. Challenging entry and exit, but don’t put weight on the steering wheel. An interesting experience.
Upkeep on a Corvette is generally labor/cost intensive, and the first year C4 actually comes in as being one of the worst, right down there with the first C3. If anyone thinks a cheap, early C4 is a bargain, they’ve got another thing coming. Worse is the fact that there’s not much return for all that effort. It’s every bit the PIA exotic a Ferrari or Porsche would be to keep in working order. As usual, it took GM a few years, but the later C4s were an improvement.
But as someone mentioned, the one thing the early C4 does have going for it is a return to the more sporty concave rear end.
I hated letting our ’90 6-speed convertible c4 go but the driveway was filling up and we’d just bought a Pao and there’s a ’49 Beetle on the way. Despite that, I’m sure I’ll regret it more and more as their value finally rockets upward and the haters finally acknowledge it’s a clean and cohesive design.
Convertibles look quite exotic and low with the top down and I grew to prefer the round tail lights on ours. I even came to prefer the more ubiquitous L98 under the hood as it was a willing dance partner with heaps of torque.
There would be a great market for LS swaps on these if only some genius would assemble a kit that enabled plug-n-play adapters for the stock dash instruments and all the bits to interface an LS engine into the C4 chassis. Yes, it’s been done but at great cost and with specialists at every step.
http://davesanborn.blogspot.com/2021/07/corvette-summer-2021-aka-letting-our.html
Which is why I absolutely couldn’t resist LS swapping my 84. It’s for road course racing (Lucky Dog and LeMons)… only thing that LS has to talk to is a few Auto Meter gauges! Just what every 84 Z51 needed- a 500 lb weight reduction and another 180hp!!
I like todays Corvette simply for it’s ridiculous screaming bright yellow paint. It totally wakes up the whole place. Like a wayward Toucan that decides to land on the middle of your picnic table.
I was looking for a Vette in 17, never considered a C4. I found a 1990 ZR-1 near me that had been parked many years ago, with 74k miles. I bought it for 5k bucks. Went bumper to bumper on her and learned and still learning the LT5. Got her on the road in May 2020, have driven her 7k miles so far. I am very pleased to own this record setting beast. She drives great and screams at 7200 rpm. I feel proud to own this piece of history, I remember when the came out, this one was 60k in 1990. Never thought I would own one, way out of my price range. I still have work to do, paint, interior, weather stripping. Over all for what I have invested, I’m very proud of her and drive her every chance I get, she sat neglected for many years, now she is back in her element and happy. C4s catch a lot of crap but no other generation has broken the records it set. That is a testament to the LT5 as well as the C4 platform.