Bargain basement used performance.

In reply to pointofdeparture:

Servicing is not bad. The C5 was much easier, but the C4 was no nightmare. The optispark was the only real weakness the LT-1 car had, and there are conversion kits to a coil pack out there to fix that.

I think the Z32 and the C4 have the most usable trunks out of the bunch, and their MPG ratings are pretty much the same.

Another option I considered is a 96+ Cobra with an IRS swap. I don't think the IRS stuff is very expensive. I suppose you could do it to a GT, but how hard (read: expensive) is it to get a 5.0 or the 4.6 to 300HP at the crank?

wearymicrobe wrote:

IndyJoe wrote:

wearymicrobe wrote: Trans Am with some money thrown to hotchkis would be my go to. Once you get them stiffened up they are great cars for the track.

I thought those had a solid Rear Axle, not IRS?

They do but its not a detriment if you are going to be modifying the car. You can make them dance, just costs $ that most Trans Am guys would rather spend on heads and cam. you can find these things cheap already modified.

I drove a stick axle Camaro for a while, I was not impressed with it's manners on rough pavement and daily driving. I do love the way the 93-97's look though.

My $1600 LT1 92 Autotragic isn't feeling so bad now...I would prefer a 6 speed but I figure I can wail on this one and then use it for parts for a 6k LT1 car

pointofdeparture wrote: Also, I know everyone here hates C&D but they actually compared the 300ZXTT and C4 when both were new. It's an interesting read if nothing else. http://m.caranddriver.com/comparisons/1991-chevrolet-corvette-z51-fx3-vs-nissan-300zx-archived-comparison-test

great article, thanks for the post. (seriously, even though my next statement will make this first one look sarcastic).

but the vette is more than a second per lap faster around a track, easier to drive, and LIGHTER, but CandD still gives the win to the z car because of silly things like "interior", "gauges", and "handbrake location". Geez, hard to see why we disagree....

Newsflash. The Corvette is a performance bargain.

1989 was the sweet spot. Old dash, L98 and the 6-speed. 1988 was a big chassis and brake upgrade year.

I didn't mind my 4+3 though.

In reply to Egghead Racer:

Optis arent that bad, i killed a few but IIRC they were all my fault. Never had one actually just got bad.

They arent near as bad as the interwebz make you believe. And if you not doing MAJOR engine mods id stick with the opti. I spun mine to 7K, and didnt have opti problems, except when i overtightened my rotor dueing ibstall and it exploded on the first trip to redline.

In and fbody they are a pain in the ass to work on, ignition wires will probably take you the better part of a fay. The pass side are ran behind the accessories.

I got real quick at diagnosing them and working on them after a few years, and it didnt bother me too much then i got an ls1 and realized how much easier it is to work on.

I wouldnt let qorking on one deter me from owning another one, just dont expect it to be super easy especially at first

If you're going all the way back to 1990 why not include the other Japanese sports cars of the day? RX-7 and Supra should be cautiously available for that kind of money. And RX-8 is certainly doable for 6 grand.

I had a '86 C4, and yes - the C4s are quite a performance bargain. I'm not sure why you don't see more of them made into track cars. The L98 wasn't particularly quick in a straight line, but the chassis was seriously impressive. It had the Z51 handling package, and was probably the only car I've ever owned where my reaction was, "I'll need to spend a LOT of time practicing on track with this before I can even start figuring out if there's any room for improvement in the suspension tuning."

In reply to Opti:

It's not that they are bad. it's more that the water pumps can leak, and they leak right into the opti, and boom! I never had an issue on my 92, but my dad had an LT-1 in his El Camino and had no end of issues with water pumps killing optis. i suspect that was mostly his fault, though...

Merkur XR4Ti with the boost turned up?

The answer is easy, blown up miata with an ls based motor.

But really, corvette is the best bang for buck if you need power out of the box. The best manual c4 you can afford.

I bought Pats 91 L98 car, it's auto but I'm not really concerned about that at this point. I can't think of another car with this performance out of the box that you can buy WELL for sub $8k. By that I mean $8k gets you one of the good examples rather than a needing sweat equity/parts thrown at it to be nice. On corvetteforums you can get the nicest possible car for $12k and entry zr1 are in that range also. It's a good performance buy.

KyAllroad wrote: If you're going all the way back to 1990 why not include the other Japanese sports cars of the day? RX-7 and Supra should be cautiously available for that kind of money. And RX-8 is certainly doable for 6 grand.

If the other 90's cars where up to par or close I would consider them. The Supra Turbo from the late 80's to 90's weighs close to 3800lbs from all I am seeing online. The RX7 Turbo II only has 212HP from the factory, a semi-trailing arm rear, and abysmal fuel milage, I'm not sold on it.

RossD said: Merkur XR4Ti with the boost turned up?

175HP to start with ain't much, add to that the glass T9 transmission and pretty slim parts supply these days, I wouldn't call it a bargain.

RossD wrote: Merkur XR4Ti with the boost turned up?

Mine can run 30psi and is nothing close to a LT1 stock

C4 vettes are growing on me too, with the right mods. Add a little cash to your budget and build a stroker motor for some real fun!

In fact I really thought about gutting the interior and putting a sheet metal dash in this one, instead of cutting it up for parts.

RossD wrote: Merkur XR4Ti with the boost turned up?

I'd love to see a recipe that gets an ls Miata on the road for 6k. Heck anything under 10k and I'd be impressed.

Meh. The difference was less than a second per lap, and there is more to a street car than lap times: as clearly written in the rest of the article. I hated my C4 as a daily driver, but there was no denying it's excellent handling and massive potential as a toy/track star.

Robbie wrote:

pointofdeparture wrote: Also, I know everyone here hates C&D but they actually compared the 300ZXTT and C4 when both were new. It's an interesting read if nothing else. http://m.caranddriver.com/comparisons/1991-chevrolet-corvette-z51-fx3-vs-nissan-300zx-archived-comparison-test

great article, thanks for the post. (seriously, even though my next statement will make this first one look sarcastic). but the vette is more than a second per lap faster around a track, easier to drive, and LIGHTER, but CandD still gives the win to the z car because of silly things like "interior", "gauges", and "handbrake location". Geez, hard to see why we disagree....

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Meh. The difference was less than a second per lap, and there is more to a street car than lap times: as clearly written in the rest of the article. I hated my C4 as a daily driver, but there was no denying it's excellent handling and massive potential as a toy/track star.

What made you not like it as a daily driver?

I will say that once super-cool C4 trait is the high gear. You shift and it's like "you're kidding, right?" loping along at 70 mph and something stupid like 1700 RPM. It's quiet, comfy, and eats miles.

The convertible is pretty nice, too, for DD use.

tuna55 wrote: I will say that once super-cool C4 trait is the high gear. You shift and it's like "you're kidding, right?" loping along at 70 mph and something stupid like 1700 RPM. It's quiet, comfy, and eats miles. The convertible is pretty nice, too, for DD use.

The biggest problem with a convertible C4 is the gold chains getting caught in my chest hair.

t25torx wrote:

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Meh. The difference was less than a second per lap, and there is more to a street car than lap times: as clearly written in the rest of the article. I hated my C4 as a daily driver, but there was no denying it's excellent handling and massive potential as a toy/track star.

What made you not like it as a daily driver?

I have not driven a C4 daily, but have driven one and owned a Z32. I can imagine physically throwing yourself into a C4 regularly (that is the best way to describe the motion over the wide sills, IMO) gets old very quickly. I was 25 when I drove one and thought it was a literal pain in the ass. Even the refreshed interior creaks and groans over bumps and is not nearly as nice as the Nissan's, and I'm told the C4 gets HOT near the tunnel after longer drives. The C4 seats are also very oddly contoured but that is likely more of a preference thing. The C4 is almost definitely the better track car but I'd take any of the imports if I had to be stuck in one every day. Loved my Z32, but it sucked to work on even as the NA version.

mazdeuce wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I will say that once super-cool C4 trait is the high gear. You shift and it's like "you're kidding, right?" loping along at 70 mph and something stupid like 1700 RPM. It's quiet, comfy, and eats miles. The convertible is pretty nice, too, for DD use.

The biggest problem with a convertible C4 is the gold chains getting caught in my chest hair.

Have you seen my DD? Or my silly-bald-head? Image really isn't my thing.

Robbie wrote:

Appleseed wrote: $12,000 C5ZO6?

https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/661861459/overview/ http://www.carfax.com/vehicles/1G1YY12S525126143-used-2002-chevrolet-corvette-z06--las-vegas I know these are sometimes scammy at the bottom price range, but here are two separate examples.

I thought you were implying the Chicago area, hence my skepticism.