[eduarprmd]

It was so hilarious to read this in Wikipedia... a friend also tells me a stock C4 would beat a stock Supra easily... we used to beat these C4's no problem but of course all cars were modified.... C4's were fast but IMO unimpressive... since I've NEVER really experienced a stock car (except now, I'm keeping the EVOIX stock :angel: , with difficulty) and did not have a C4 available back then to really compare to the Supra.

Mr Wikis OPINION...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette#C4
"The C4's handling characteristics dominated the 90's SCCA events. It was seen as the car to beat on the auto cross circuits.

The C4's success is also cited as being one of the main reasons Toyota, and Mazda killed their Supra and RX7 production.":nono:

Any comments very much welcome becasuse I really am confused and there are members here with much more knowledge and experiece than I have. Who could shed some light on this? And believe me please, I am not one to underestimate Corvettes. But what I've experienced with the Supra makes the C4 comparison seem almost offensive since my experience with that generation Corvette was very bad. I felt it was plasticky, ugly, and too cabin noisy at the time so there's my bias. Please comment. Especially on the "It was seen as the car to beat on the auto cross circuits" thing...

 

[Morefaster]

the c4 didn't help, but it had nothing to do with the quality or capability of the car....IMO it had everything to do with price and availability.
Keep in mind a base model 93 non turbo was around 35 grand....50k for a 96 tt auto.....where as here are the c4 trims you could get for much less money....by the time toyota realized they were pricing themselves out of the market and did a 10k price cut in 97' it was too late......
check out the wikkipedia pricing data for vettes back then

 

[Morefaster]

yes folks...thats right in 1994 a you could get a comfortably equipped vette for almost 20 grand cheaper than a supra turbo....economics killed the supra....it damn sure wasn't quality

 

[Dave Capone]

The zr-1 was the supras competition not the regular c4

 

[Morefaster]

The zr-1 was the supras competitionnot the regualr c4

:agreed: in performance theory anyway...but the zr1 was here before the supra and gone before the supra was....and it was still cheaper iirc than the MKIV 6sp tt....pricing wise the c4 was priced like an NA auto.....

 

[Northof49]

:agreed: in performance theory anyway...but the zr1 was here before the supra and gone before the supra was....and it was still cheaper iirc than the MKIV 6sp tt....pricing wise the c4 was priced like an NA auto.....

Oww are you sure on that ZR1 pricing? I thought the ZR1 was priced well above a TT, in some years at least? I could be totally wrong, but if memory serves me...

 

[quick]

Sounds like the C4 boys had a little too much crack.

I'm moving this to other cars.

 

[Morefaster]

Oww are you sure on that ZR1 pricing? I thought the ZR1 was priced well above a TT, in some years at least? I could be totally wrong, but if memory serves me...

On the picture I posted above, the prices are all for base models, the notes are just what was going on that year....
I had an aquantance that bought a ZR1 i'm wanting to say in 93 and I think it was in the 40's somewhere.....none the less, base to base there was a huge spread...especially since the douchebag toyota dealers were charging well above msrp.....

 

[eduarprmd]

Is anyone's opinion that this C4 version was actually a superior handling car than the Supra? Was it really sooo good so as to have it considered "the car to beat" for autocross? Has anyone reading this EVER actually heard this from anybody before? I have been on one of those before and disagree.
Could I be so wrong? Does anyone feel it's correct to say that it "dominated" the field at the time?

 

[Ocelot]

Oww are you sure on that ZR1 pricing? I thought the ZR1 was priced well above a TT, in some years at least? I could be totally wrong, but if memory serves me...

You're right. The later years of the ZR-1 were priced at $60k plus. The ZR-1 package was something like $27k on top of a base model C4. And to be honest, I think that price escalated over the years.

As far as it being dominant in autocrossing, I haven't heard that. I can see it doing well on a racetrack with some modifications, but that's about it.

 

[AdrenalineRush2]

The C4 and the Mk4 Supra are both in A-Stock class so they should be relatively similar in performance. However, I can't recall a single stock Supra ever winning a National Tour or Nationals event. C4's have won several titles, and are very good autocross cars - they're still competitive to this day in AS against the S2000's. It's advantage over the Mk4 is that it's lighter, can fit much more tire, has much better low end torque, and has a lower center of gravity. Even an automatic tranmission didn't really hinder the performance of the car since it had a lot of torque. Granted, their interiors are plasticy, seats flimsy, etc, but they are excellent autox cars.

2006 Nationals:

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/Combined Nationals.pdf

2005 Nationals:

http://www.scca.com/Event/Result.asp?Ref2=63

2004 Nationals:

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/2004SoloNationalResults.pdf

2003 Nationals:
http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/2003SoloNationals.pdf

I don't think it's exaggerating to say they're superior autox cars, at least in Stock class.

 

[quick]

IIRC Jeff Brauch won a national class in his Supra, as did a couple other folks. I don't know if their cars were in stock or not.

 

[RedBeauty84ZX]

LoL

Supra > C4 in every aspect...

 

[Antivenom]

C4s handled pretty good, they were pretty harsh and more "extreme" than today's Vette.

Yes the Vette really did have a big part in killing off the competition from Japan, that and the competition from each other. Keep in mind this was before the whole import performance trend took off.

 

[ScrappyJack]

LoL

Supra > C4 in every aspect...

Except those documented above. :1poke:

 

[Ocelot]

The C4 and the Mk4 Supra are both in A-Stock class so they should be relatively similar in performance. However, I can't recall a single stock Supra ever winning a National Tour or Nationals event. C4's have won several titles, and are very good autocross cars - they're still competitive to this day in AS against the S2000's. It's advantage over the Mk4 is that it's lighter, can fit much more tire, has much better low end torque, and has a lower center of gravity. Even an automatic tranmission didn't really hinder the performance of the car since it had a lot of torque. Granted, their interiors are plasticy, seats flimsy, etc, but they are excellent autox cars.

2006 Nationals:

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/Combined Nationals.pdf

2005 Nationals:

http://www.scca.com/Event/Result.asp?Ref2=63

2004 Nationals:

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/2004SoloNationalResults.pdf

2003 Nationals:
http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/2003SoloNationals.pdf

I don't think it's exaggerating to say they're superior autox cars, at least in Stock class.

I stand corrected.

 

[STAGED]

Scariest experience going fast in a car ever was in a 1992 LT1 C4 auto (in the mid 1990s) when going from a wavy transition from asphalt pavement to a concrete paved bridge overpass going dead straight.

The whole car jumped laterally sideways many inches and couple follow-up lateral/excessive bounding longitudally. Don't know how I missed out on a wreck. A 1993 Cadillac Seville Northstar was compartively rock solid on that same stretch and approximate speed and MKIVs of course perfect with an excellent seat to steering wheel to pedal position (which was a minus on the C4). Thing went fast of course and beat an FD RX-7 handily over and over on roll-ons. Refinement was worse than a 1993 Camaro...although 1995 C4s were better. MKIVs felt more refined than MB SL500s of the time.

Antivenom's comments on the C4s brutish ways of going about getting good cornering numbers is dead on too. The MKIV did things with more finesse. Not surprising given the 1983 calender year of the C4 platform.

Now the ZR1s had probably one of the most capable engines on paper from a power vs. refinement potential when NA. I think 415cid LT5s can make 700 flywheel hp with less idle commotion than most/all 427cid built up LSx motors.

I admit C4s don't look so bad compared to other sports cars of the time (esp. compared to mid 1980 sports cars). Also in the mid to late 1990s, I witnessed more true street C4s putting up 10s than any other true street EFI street car save the Mustang. I've seen dual stage NOS'd 383cid Vettes putting up 10.5s at 142+ mph, 408cid/NOS C4s putting 10.8s at 127 mph, and many more. And the C5/C6 timeslip scene is insane.

As for the C4 responsibility of thinning out rival sales...that may be a stretch. But the consistently high Vette sales more speaks of its iconic status which perhaps prestige buyers look for in a sports car. I think the MKIV, FD RX-7, 300ZX, and Stealth/3000 market quickly saturated to its import sports car enthusiast market. The Vette is sold to even non sports car enthusiasts which I'm sure is a huge (and sustainable) market compared to the niche enthusiast crowd.

 

[FYRARMS]

I have owned, modified, and raced more C4 Vettes (ZR-1 included) than most people here have even glanced at. What do you guys want to know?

 

[Big Block Stingray]

On the picture I posted above, the prices are all for base models, the notes are just what was going on that year....
I had an aquantance that bought a ZR1 i'm wanting to say in 93 and I think it was in the 40's somewhere.....none the less, base to base there was a huge spread...especially since the douchebag toyota dealers were charging well above msrp.....

Your "aquantance" is wrong, the ZR1 option alone was $30,000 ontop of the $35,000 Corvette. ZR1's were in the $60,000-$70,000 range when loaded.

 

[Big Block Stingray]

I have owned, modified, and raced more C4 Vettes (ZR-1 included) than most people here have even glanced at. What do you guys want to know?

<---- Owned a Lingenfelter Corvette