Me too. In 93 one of my fathers co-workers bought a 40th anniversary ZR1. Was so excited when I got a ride in it. Hard to believe how long ago that was.
@@VaunShiz Umm..everything was so slow in 1991 it absolutely was impressive. You have to remember back then if you wanted ZR1 and Calloway performance you really were paying a premium. The only cars putting numbers up like that came with a price tag of 100k and up. These two cars would easily give most Ferrari's and Lamborghini's of the time a run for their money at $50k and $80k respectively. This was the first time in US automotive history that an American sports car could not only compete in the straight aways but also handled like a dream. Move over Porsche of 1991 the Corvette came to steal your lunch. I guarantee quite a few Yellow Bird 911 Carrera owners took notice of these two beasts.
@@Tom-nx6ev I still got my Vette magazine from 1989, with 254.76 MPH printed on the cover. Was the worlds fastest 'production' car for years, although I'm not sure how many were made.
But it's strange how the 0-60 n 1/4 mile times are the same as the zr1. It's like there's no point in getting the calaway unless ur trying to get to 200+ mph
I remember all the hubbub being made about the ZR1 when it came out - the all aluminum engine designed by Lotus and built by Mercury Marine, the wider rear tires and of course the square tail lights.
12 second cars were very fast in 1990, young people watching this will not appreciate these cars because of whats available today. My '89 Firebird Formula 350 was turning low 14's when new and that was fast back then.
Wow, the Callaway Corvette at 3:33 looked so much like a Ferrari F40 with all the slots and rim style. In that red colour both gave me a bone from early teen years the moment I saw them. Damn it cars were hot back then !
I miss tuners like callaway. Although it must have had disco potatoes or have been running on only a couple pounds of boost. Very cool thought with the turbos. V8 plus turbos is always awesome.
Damn! 390 hp and 570 lbs.ft of torque is the way the L98 should have been designed and left the factory! Nowadays, 390 hp is easily achieved on a Chevy 350 5.7 without forced induction, but this Callaway Corvette is hella motivation!
The thing is, those l98 350's were severely limited by that long runner intake setup. Additionally, the heads didnt flow anywhere even close to what the factory vortec heads, from just a few years later, could. They were notorious for having a very low rpm ceiling. They did, however, make excellent torque at low rpm. Throwing a pair of turbos on it simply swells the numbers the engine could generate.
@@ShyaMiss yeah, the intake runners were a severe limitation on that engine, and that's why when the 5.7L LT1 V8 came out in the 4th gen Camaro/Firebird, that intake plenum eliminated the "spider legs" runners, which added hp
@@WLAs_Finest3x yup, that short runner intake, along with the dramatically improved ports that the LT1 had, made an engine with a far more broad powerband. The LT1 was an excellent performance engine in its day. L98 was probably the best truck engine. Just sucks that it never ended up between the fenders of a chevy truck.
Add modern ceramic ball bearing, variable turbos, air to water intercooler, modern ECU, water-methanol injection, and you will gain +100hp without sacrificing drivability.
Both cars put up good performance numbers for the time & the figures are still decent almost 30 years later. Though I never cared for the Callaway even back in '90. I just didn't like the way it looked. But I definitely liked the ZR-1 (i.e. King of the Hill) at the time.
I was there for this test. I was the production manager at Callaway at the time. We set the 1/4 time, and the GM engineers tried for an hour to get their car to beat it. ( we just sat there and watched them scratch their heads. and figure out why). Was so cool......
LT4 was a beast back in 96. I still have my time slips. My best 100% stock was 12.94@109.6. that was flying back then. Wish I would have had some DR's. I surprised a lot of LT1 trans am and Camaro owners with it. It was shocking how many people did not realize what the lt4 was. I would always race people and they would ask me if it was a ZR1. it was definitely not that much slower from the times we see here.
@Ernest Keller 96 is when the LT4 came out..in the final year of the C4 Corvette..you could also get it in the 97 SLP Chevy Camaro SS and the 97 Pontiac Firebird Firehawk
What's funny besides the guy getting in the car and trying to make that look easy is that I built a fast C4 with just bolt on heads, intake, cam injectors exhaust and a tune in the base L98. GM didn't need to go through all the fuss of a fancy DOHC LT5 at all. And the twin turbo is hilarious!
this a re-upload. I remember watching this on the retro section of MW a long while ago already. still , every bit as impressed now as I was then. these two C4 models still hold their own and put up formidable performance against modern sports cars of today being almost thirty years old. (both offer considerably better times in 0-60 & the 1320 than the '93 Lamborghini Diablo , which is also featured in the retro test section here on MWs YT channel).
@Ernest Keller ah I see, was wondering about that as I clearly recall having already watched a vintage C4/Callaway C4 test here on MW. thanks for the information, appreciated !
Back in 88 my company sent me to Ft. Lauderdale to install a new PBX in a department store. At the time I was driving a 85 Mustang GT with completely new exhaust, ederblock intake, 650cc double pumper carb Ford motorsport springs and Koni shocks. Also a week later spring break was starting. Ran into a young guy with a new Callaway Corvette. He was surprised that I knew what it was (the Naca ducts were the tip off). We ended up racing our cars and of course he smoked me but I just wanted to see the car run. He also showed me all the hot parties in Ft. Lauderdale. Love partying with college girls. They're just looking to have a good time. Lol.
Lmao I ran into one of these zr1's back in 2003 on the highway with a brand new mach1....I thought I was just gonna make easy work out of an old lt1....it was then I learned about this car and why I got my ass handed to me...I was truly amazed
Bro...I thought the same thing in my 2002 Firehawk Trans-Am in 02. I was like an LT1 from 91 eat LS1 from the 2000's....and gone. That ZR1 smoked me so badly I had to hang my head in shame. Now, my 2012 SS Camaro and 2017 Dodge Challenger would beat him. The Challenger not by much even at 440hp@425 ft. lb. of torque I still couldn't gap him (my Challenger numbers).
The C4 ZR1 was a beast. She wasn’t built just for speed although when she first came out, she was faster than anything. She was built for the track as well and she busted the Ferrari Porsches, etc. asses.
Two of my favorite cars of all time. But for those who bought them and parked them hoping to bank one day they were sadly mistaken. Hell I got mine with around 20K miles for practically nothing when you consider the “bang for buck” factor. So drive em. Enjoy em. But please just don’t park them. Or do. And I’ll leave you my number
Well, it's the future, and ZR1s aren't super expensive yet, you can get one for $30k-50k, depending on the miles and condition. However the Callaway Twin Turbo, I've literally never seen one of them in person or for sale. If you could find one, I'm not sure if they'd be super expensive, or if people would avoid them since they might be nearly impossible to service if you can't find parts.
I sold Corvettes in 1993. I sold one 1993 ZR1 40th Anniversary, it was Merlot with Merlot leather... the commission was capped at $5,000 to the salesman.
So call car guys, the B2K option package is a modified L98 Corvette. That was the fastest Corvette you could get from the dealership back in the late 1980s up to 1990s. The Callaway tuned Twin Turbo L98 engine was tuned for maximum torque that why it put over 500 pound feet. But still made over 140 more hp over the stock L98. They made a version 2 of this engine making 403 hp. Keep in mind that was a lot of horsepower for any engine back then. The Germans, Italians and Japanese performance cars engines made between 280 to 450hp back in the late 1980s to the early 1990s. No factory standard production Sports Car or Super Car put out over 500 hp before 1994. So these ZR1 Corvettes and Callaway Corvettes were sports cars to be taken serious back then, they can still hold there own against some of today base model high performance cars.
@@AndrasMihalyi what you just listed cost way more then any standard production sport cars. F40 was the most expensive Ferrari at the time. It's my fault, I should been more clear. When I said standard production sport cars and supercars, I should added with prices under $120,000. I know there was sports car and super cars making more than 450hp from the factory. But those cars cost more than $120,000 at the time. Name me sports cars from back then that made over 450 hp but cost only $120,000 or less.
@@AndrasMihalyi yeah I also said sport cars and only added supercar because some folks categorize the Ferrari Testarossa and Lamborghini Countach as super cars as much as sports cars, Both did cost well under $200,000 new. I will correct the price point, Sports Car/ Super Car under $200,000 new. The Diablo was The first Lamborghini to break the $200,000 price range. It didn't make 500hp until 1995. I don't consider the Diablo as standard production sports car, because it use more exotic materials then the Countach it replaced. But it still cheaper than the Bugatti you listed. To be honest with you I forgot all about the Bugatti and McLaren, but both of them almost cost a million dollars new back then. Plus those those two were the prototypes of what would consider hyper cars today. They beyond regular supercars.
@@AndrasMihalyi see that the point I was trying to make, even the most powerful Corvettes still under cut other similar hp sports cars. Now for there day the C4 Corvette's were some of best handling sports cars on the road. You had a powerful car, that could handle good. But you right, if you want a better performing sports car then a Corvette. You had pay way more.
A little like what Lexus used to be for luxury cars. The only difference is that Lexus was actually better by a margin (compare a 90s Lexus with a 90s MB or BMW).
Remember Motorweek posts slower times on their track. If you’re going to compare your favorite car be sure to check out the test numbers from the same source.
For an additional $26k+ I'd demand a lot more performance from my Callaway 'vette v. its ZR-1 stablemate. The *same* 1/4-mile time alongside nearly identical HP no.'s!? No point to pay the premium to get matched, or even beaten, in a drag race v. a same-year RPO 'vette.
They actually come out to be closer in price than you would think. The Callaway is $26k on top of a BASE Corvette which was $32k in 90. The ZR-1 is $60k total.
Kudos to your earnest assholedom, Ernest. Sages like yourself keep the 'Net alive as a democratic platform fit for all to voice their thoughts . Many pardons, sire, for my daring to wade into the sacred waters of your intellectual domain, ya jabroni.
Not only are you an a-hole, you're what I brand a *capital* a-hole: the kind that lashes out w. indiscriminate hostility upon those at odds w. your thought library. First ply the powers of civil engagement, chico, b/f going on an offensive. One can't be astonished after hurling a rotten epithet at sb. that said person gets onerous. Swatting down free voice like an oppressive tool only earns you prick-o'-the-day status. On my side I did err in not clearly expressing my statement re. the premium cost of the turbo 'vette over the ZR *& base*. I omitted an inferential detail you felt was deserving of your ire. In return plz grant me a grain of atonement for my grievous infraction, el jerko.
It's not even a fair comparison. No way at all. You're talking about a 30 four-year-old car. Versus something modern of course you can do better with better technology, same thing with cell phones t. Vs, everything there is no comparison, but for 1990. That's ZR1 was extremely quick along with the G. MC trucks. Also, back then are the s. U? V's from thirty four years ago, nothing compares
Had 87 B2K twin turbo. Also had 90 zr1 both at same time. Zr1 faster smoother better ride. Nicer car. Callaway work of art quicker big torque when tubos hit your sideways losing traction. Corvette brakes sub par. Kept the Zr1 Sold the callaway
What did the Callaway Corvette do with those 2 turbos and full engine upgrades they boasted so highly about, it was no faster than the ZR-1, keep the 29k and go on holiday with it, or buy it, then trade it in for something better
Low boost to ensure the transmission doesn't come apart, that's how. Not sure if you are aware but these cars were warranted by Callay and serviced by Chevy. Allegedly the turbos are capable of supporting over 20lbs of boost combined and ~900 lbtq according to the Reeves Callaway interview I recently watched.
I didn’t realize that the Callaway Twin Turbo had only 15 horsepower more than the ZR1. For almost $27k more you’re better off with the ZR1. Callaway should have given the ZR1 the twin turbo treatment.
Why is the twin turbo Calloway only producing 5 more horses than the "standard ZR1?" It should be somewhere in the ballpark of 100hp over or more. I absolutely love C4-C6 Corvettes. I have never heard of the Calloway but I think it is the meanest Corvette I have ever seen. The C8 has nothing on it in the looks department.
What? The L98 turbo makes WAAY Torque than HP and it's low revving The LT5 has good torque but it really shines when you rev it high, that said the LT5 is a diamond
I don't get it when it comes to doing all that R&D Callaway did adding the twin turbo with 2 intercoolers. It looks badass under the hood, but it comes with the same Hp as the ZR1 barely getting a better quarter mile time shaving off like 2/10ths of a second. 390Hp and 570lbs Ft of torque enough to pull a house off its foundation. More than anything the Callaway completely missed the mark when it comes to looks the ZR1 blows it out the water outside and inside interior.
@@YungEagle3k Yeah, I was just being a smartass. Have you test driven an Explorer ST yet?? I'm thinking about ordering a stage 2, with a whopping 488 hp. The stock ST hauls gaw'damn ass. It is STUPID FAST!!! Go drive 1.
@@fobbitoperator3620 they're slow and the interior is ugly for a 60k car. Might as well get an SRT Durango for a couple grand more. The Durango will smoke it nonstop.
@@SteelTimeify Although I'd rather get a Grand Cherokee SRT, the ST Explorer is far from slow. It's lighter by a long shot, & that 3.0 twin turbo winds out hard af! But that 6.4 Hemi SRT though. It's a gaw'damn MONSTA!!!
@@fobbitoperator3620 around 400 pound difference, but you're right. I'm biased since I have an SRT Jeep and I love it! Dont get me wrong, the ST has a nice looking front end, but the lack of exhaust noise and its underwhelming interior makes me want to hope that FORD could had maybe push a better interior for an expensive SUV. The Jeep and Durango's interior aren't the best, but definitely have nicer leather seats and actual carbon fiber trim pieces all around. At the end, it comes down to personal preference.
ohc marine motor, just surprised GM didn’t continue the plant, i know it somewhat exotic but it would’ve only gotten better. Ford stuck to their guns w/ theirs
It was a money decision-the MM engine was very expensive, and overhead cam engines are more expensive and complex in general. GM has been getting equal to or better power/economy numbers compared to Ford SOHC/DOHC offerings for years. And the more compact design means the engines are easier to fit in a variety of platforms.
Want to help keep our weekly Retro Reviews alive? DONATE NOW: mptevents.regfox.com/motorweek
1990 is already 3 decades ago... I'm old.
I'm not over the hill all the way but I'm getting there. I remember 1990 very well
I agree. I remember recording this very episode with my VCR back then😂
Me too. In 93 one of my fathers co-workers bought a 40th anniversary ZR1. Was so excited when I got a ride in it. Hard to believe how long ago that was.
DSTY They put early 05 as retro makes me feel old
80s was the best decade!
Oh Man that ZR1 was a monster back in the day. Those numbers are what my 2011 Mustang puts down. 30 years old and still putting down impressive times.
@Thystaff Thywill and they cost over 70k no thanks I'll build my own. You can build a car for half that with twice the power. New cars are for morons.
Lol did you see how much that zr1 costs ? Not impressed
@@springwoodslasher79 yep and less insurance costs 👍😁
@@VaunShiz
Umm..everything was so slow in 1991 it absolutely was impressive. You have to remember back then if you wanted ZR1 and Calloway performance you really were paying a premium. The only cars putting numbers up like that came with a price tag of 100k and up. These two cars would easily give most Ferrari's and Lamborghini's of the time a run for their money at $50k and $80k respectively.
This was the first time in US automotive history that an American sports car could not only compete in the straight aways but also handled like a dream. Move over Porsche of 1991 the Corvette came to steal your lunch. I guarantee quite a few Yellow Bird 911 Carrera owners took notice of these two beasts.
times have changed alot, not a single 80's car can do better than a 08 chevy cobalt on the nurburgring or VIR
I really like how simple these videos are. Little to no music, flash, it's just the car and about it. Very nice and comforting
It's John Davis' voice, a constant through time.
That Callaway was a fuggin' HAMMER when it came out.
@Thystaff Thywill +200mph car in 1988 is fast tho
You might even call it a “sledge hammer”.
@@Tom-nx6ev naturally haha
@@Tom-nx6ev I still got my Vette magazine from 1989, with 254.76 MPH printed on the cover. Was the worlds fastest 'production' car for years, although I'm not sure how many were made.
But it's strange how the 0-60 n 1/4 mile times are the same as the zr1. It's like there's no point in getting the calaway unless ur trying to get to 200+ mph
And i just watched an 'up to speed' video on Callaway.... ⚡⚡⚡
I remember all the hubbub being made about the ZR1 when it came out - the all aluminum engine designed by Lotus and built by Mercury Marine, the wider rear tires and of course the square tail lights.
12 second cars were very fast in 1990, young people watching this will not appreciate these cars because of whats available today. My '89 Firebird Formula 350 was turning low 14's when new and that was fast back then.
Wow, the Callaway Corvette at 3:33 looked so much like a Ferrari F40 with all the slots and rim style.
In that red colour both gave me a bone from early teen years the moment I saw them.
Damn it cars were hot back then !
these performance numbers are still by today's standards very impressive and rank up high up with modern contemporary sportscars.
price over base model not much bang for the buck vs stock sports cars these days,not even much of a challenge for a base Camaro these days
12’s !? That’s fast!! Also I appreciate the higher Fran rate of this video
3:31 nice Mazda MPV
Thanks, guys. I was waiting for this to be uploaded, one of my favorite episodes :)
I miss tuners like callaway. Although it must have had disco potatoes or have been running on only a couple pounds of boost. Very cool thought with the turbos. V8 plus turbos is always awesome.
Damn! 390 hp and 570 lbs.ft of torque is the way the L98 should have been designed and left the factory! Nowadays, 390 hp is easily achieved on a Chevy 350 5.7 without forced induction, but this Callaway Corvette is hella motivation!
The thing is, those l98 350's were severely limited by that long runner intake setup. Additionally, the heads didnt flow anywhere even close to what the factory vortec heads, from just a few years later, could. They were notorious for having a very low rpm ceiling. They did, however, make excellent torque at low rpm. Throwing a pair of turbos on it simply swells the numbers the engine could generate.
@@ShyaMiss yeah, the intake runners were a severe limitation on that engine, and that's why when the 5.7L LT1 V8 came out in the 4th gen Camaro/Firebird, that intake plenum eliminated the "spider legs" runners, which added hp
@@WLAs_Finest3x yup, that short runner intake, along with the dramatically improved ports that the LT1 had, made an engine with a far more broad powerband. The LT1 was an excellent performance engine in its day. L98 was probably the best truck engine. Just sucks that it never ended up between the fenders of a chevy truck.
As a child , this car was my ferrari f40...it was massively important back then.
I like to imagine how much faster the twin turbo would be with the turbos of today.
Check out 88 Sledge Hammer Corvette. 😉
@@V8AmericanMuscleCar that's about how I would imagine it.
@@jGRite not bad at all for 88! 😁
Add modern ceramic ball bearing, variable turbos, air to water intercooler, modern ECU, water-methanol injection, and you will gain +100hp without sacrificing drivability.
I guess we’re about to find out with the upcoming ZR1, eight generations later
Both cars put up good performance numbers for the time & the figures are still decent almost 30 years later. Though I never cared for the Callaway even back in '90. I just didn't like the way it looked. But I definitely liked the ZR-1 (i.e. King of the Hill) at the time.
Thank you for bringing another GM video.
I was there for this test. I was the production manager at Callaway at the time. We set the 1/4 time, and the GM engineers tried for an hour to get their car to beat it. ( we just sat there and watched them scratch their heads. and figure out why). Was so cool......
Crazy you can still buy 2 corvettes for the price of one ferrari and still have alot left over today
3x C8 = 1x Ferrari
dam and I thought a 1996 LT4 was cool!
It still is. It was a fairly underrated engine. Many were as powerful as the newer LS1's, but GM didn't want to show up the new C5's base power plant.
@@kevindavis5966 That is true, the LT4 was ahead of its time!
LT4 was a beast back in 96. I still have my time slips. My best 100% stock was 12.94@109.6. that was flying back then. Wish I would have had some DR's. I surprised a lot of LT1 trans am and Camaro owners with it. It was shocking how many people did not realize what the lt4 was. I would always race people and they would ask me if it was a ZR1. it was definitely not that much slower from the times we see here.
@Ernest Keller 96 is when the LT4 came out..in the final year of the C4 Corvette..you could also get it in the 97 SLP Chevy Camaro SS and the 97 Pontiac Firebird Firehawk
The C4 ZR-1 is my favorite Corvette
I like the look of the Callaway.
What's funny besides the guy getting in the car and trying to make that look easy is that I built a fast C4 with just bolt on heads, intake, cam injectors exhaust and a tune in the base L98. GM didn't need to go through all the fuss of a fancy DOHC LT5 at all. And the twin turbo is hilarious!
Finally, he's saying "Testarossa" normally, and not pretending to have an Italian accent.
Umm this is 30 years old..
And... that changes what again?
@@alexyoungberg5232 I know. I'm just kidding around.
@@thejay8963 he said "finally" like this just came out
"testa dossa"
this a re-upload. I remember watching this on the retro section of MW a long while ago already. still , every bit as impressed now as I was then. these two C4 models still hold their own and put up formidable performance against modern sports cars of today being almost thirty years old. (both offer considerably better times in 0-60 & the 1320 than the '93 Lamborghini Diablo , which is also featured in the retro test section here on MWs YT channel).
@Ernest Keller ah I see, was wondering about that as I clearly recall having already watched a vintage C4/Callaway C4 test here on MW. thanks for the information, appreciated !
Back in 88 my company sent me to Ft. Lauderdale to install a new PBX in a department store. At the time I was driving a 85 Mustang GT with completely new exhaust, ederblock intake, 650cc double pumper carb Ford motorsport springs and Koni shocks. Also a week later spring break was starting. Ran into a young guy with a new Callaway Corvette. He was surprised that I knew what it was (the Naca ducts were the tip off). We ended up racing our cars and of course he smoked me but I just wanted to see the car run. He also showed me all the hot parties in Ft. Lauderdale. Love partying with college girls. They're just looking to have a good time. Lol.
Goddamn it, why is it so hard to understand i woulda love the 80's. Seriously my parents wont believe me
Lmao I ran into one of these zr1's back in 2003 on the highway with a brand new mach1....I thought I was just gonna make easy work out of an old lt1....it was then I learned about this car and why I got my ass handed to me...I was truly amazed
You were almost 100 horsepower down and worse aero 😆
Bro...I thought the same thing in my 2002 Firehawk Trans-Am in 02. I was like an LT1 from 91 eat LS1 from the 2000's....and gone. That ZR1 smoked me so badly I had to hang my head in shame. Now, my 2012 SS Camaro and 2017 Dodge Challenger would beat him. The Challenger not by much even at 440hp@425 ft. lb. of torque I still couldn't gap him (my Challenger numbers).
The 90's ZR1 just hasn't caught on as a big collector car yet. They can be found for $20,000; less than half of it's original price.
The C4 ZR1 was a beast. She wasn’t built just for speed although when she first came out, she was faster than anything. She was built for the track as well and she busted the Ferrari Porsches, etc. asses.
And now we have a rear engine corvette exotic. Love chevy.
Two of my favorite cars of all time. But for those who bought them and parked them hoping to bank one day they were sadly mistaken. Hell I got mine with around 20K miles for practically nothing when you consider the “bang for buck” factor. So drive em. Enjoy em. But please just don’t park them. Or do. And I’ll leave you my number
Lucky bastard...That engine is still a work of art 👍😁
The Executioner Lol. Thanks man.
The only Chevy I genuinely want.
Callaway Sledgehammer or nothing
I wish they had tested it along with these I still have my hot rod mag that featured that car
254+ mph in 1988!
I was in Corvette heaven watching that!
That torque on the callaway is absolutely ridiculous, it should have had 335 rear tires
Would be nice to test these monsters with modern tires.
Well, it's the future, and ZR1s aren't super expensive yet, you can get one for $30k-50k, depending on the miles and condition. However the Callaway Twin Turbo, I've literally never seen one of them in person or for sale. If you could find one, I'm not sure if they'd be super expensive, or if people would avoid them since they might be nearly impossible to service if you can't find parts.
Calloway body kit looks so good.
I sold Corvettes in 1993. I sold one 1993 ZR1 40th Anniversary, it was Merlot with Merlot leather... the commission was capped at $5,000 to the salesman.
They probably were told by GM not to increase power too much ?
@Ernest Keller I'm guessing they meant the Calloway, since it's a 3rd party company that Chevy approved.
I mean the LT5 is an amazing engine. I think that’s why they’re about equal. Also check out the Calloway Sledgehammer 900hp in 1988
So call car guys, the B2K option package is a modified L98 Corvette. That was the fastest Corvette you could get from the dealership back in the late 1980s up to 1990s. The Callaway tuned Twin Turbo L98 engine was tuned for maximum torque that why it put over 500 pound feet. But still made over 140 more hp over the stock L98. They made a version 2 of this engine making 403 hp. Keep in mind that was a lot of horsepower for any engine back then. The Germans, Italians and Japanese performance cars engines made between 280 to 450hp back in the late 1980s to the early 1990s. No factory standard production Sports Car or Super Car put out over 500 hp before 1994. So these ZR1 Corvettes and Callaway Corvettes were sports cars to be taken serious back then, they can still hold there own against some of today base model high performance cars.
@@AndrasMihalyi what you just listed cost way more then any standard production sport cars. F40 was the most expensive Ferrari at the time. It's my fault, I should been more clear. When I said standard production sport cars and supercars, I should added with prices under $120,000. I know there was sports car and super cars making more than 450hp from the factory. But those cars cost more than $120,000 at the time. Name me sports cars from back then that made over 450 hp but cost only $120,000 or less.
@@AndrasMihalyi yeah I also said sport cars and only added supercar because some folks categorize the Ferrari Testarossa and Lamborghini Countach as super cars as much as sports cars, Both did cost well under $200,000 new. I will correct the price point, Sports Car/ Super Car under $200,000 new. The Diablo was The first Lamborghini to break the $200,000 price range. It didn't make 500hp until 1995. I don't consider the Diablo as standard production sports car, because it use more exotic materials then the Countach it replaced. But it still cheaper than the Bugatti you listed. To be honest with you I forgot all about the Bugatti and McLaren, but both of them almost cost a million dollars new back then. Plus those those two were the prototypes of what would consider hyper cars today. They beyond regular supercars.
@@AndrasMihalyi see that the point I was trying to make, even the most powerful Corvettes still under cut other similar hp sports cars. Now for there day the C4 Corvette's were some of best handling sports cars on the road. You had a powerful car, that could handle good. But you right, if you want a better performing sports car then a Corvette. You had pay way more.
And that was always the beauty of the corvette, 1\2 the price of the competition.
A little like what Lexus used to be for luxury cars. The only difference is that Lexus was actually better by a margin (compare a 90s Lexus with a 90s MB or BMW).
The Callaway is the sexiest car ever!!!
Are the center caps always missing on the wheels because they've been checking to make sure the nuts are torqued correctly?
3:40 best thing and it doesn't include hub caps?
Beautiful.
Man that zr1 was a beast! I’d take it over the Callaway for that “factory” maintenance cost & somewhat simplicity for the time.
Remember Motorweek posts slower times on their track.
If you’re going to compare your favorite car be sure to check out the test numbers from the same source.
The ZR1 when new was a gorgeous exotic looking car in those days, and it still is assuming its cared for right
Love Motorweek
2:53 I totally hate these tailights! Love the car though!
2:28 John: WHILE SPEED READS DIGITALLY! LOL
She also broke many records
13 inch front rotor... what a monster
Lol I would love either one of those!
Wow man this cars were awesome ..
For an additional $26k+ I'd demand a lot more performance from my Callaway 'vette v. its ZR-1 stablemate. The *same* 1/4-mile time alongside nearly identical HP no.'s!? No point to pay the premium to get matched, or even beaten, in a drag race v. a same-year RPO 'vette.
They actually come out to be closer in price than you would think. The Callaway is $26k on top of a BASE Corvette which was $32k in 90. The ZR-1 is $60k total.
The twin turbo cars were notoriously "downtuned". Chevrolet didn't want to hurt the ZR1 sales / have a better performing option available.
Kudos to your earnest assholedom, Ernest. Sages like yourself keep the 'Net alive as a democratic platform fit for all to voice their thoughts . Many pardons, sire, for my daring to wade into the sacred waters of your intellectual domain, ya jabroni.
Not only are you an a-hole, you're what I brand a *capital* a-hole: the kind that lashes out w. indiscriminate hostility upon those at odds w. your thought library. First ply the powers of civil engagement, chico, b/f going on an offensive.
One can't be astonished after hurling a rotten epithet at sb. that said person gets onerous. Swatting down free voice like an oppressive tool only earns you prick-o'-the-day status.
On my side I did err in not clearly expressing my statement re. the premium cost of the turbo 'vette over the ZR *& base*. I omitted an inferential detail you felt was deserving of your ire. In return plz grant me a grain of atonement for my grievous infraction, el jerko.
Love my 90 ZR-1
Zr1 is cool factor for collectors. But with todays aftermarket parts you could make more power so easily even from a 350
It's not even a fair comparison. No way at all. You're talking about a 30 four-year-old car. Versus something modern of course you can do better with better technology, same thing with cell phones t. Vs, everything there is no comparison, but for 1990. That's ZR1 was extremely quick along with the G. MC trucks. Also, back then are the s. U? V's from thirty four years ago, nothing compares
Had 87 B2K twin turbo. Also had 90 zr1 both at same time. Zr1 faster smoother better ride. Nicer car.
Callaway work of art quicker big torque when tubos hit your sideways losing traction. Corvette brakes sub par. Kept the Zr1
Sold the callaway
Its amazing that the corvette price has barely changed in 30 years, if you are comparing todays base model to the zr1 in the video I guess
What did the Callaway Corvette do with those 2 turbos and full engine upgrades they boasted so highly about, it was no faster than the ZR-1, keep the 29k and go on holiday with it, or buy it, then trade it in for something better
cool
The Lingenfelter version of the ZR1 destroys Callaway. Its 850 hp twin turbo.
114 out of any tpi esp in 90 was cooking!
It took 20 years and a million dollar Bugatti to go faster than a tuned c4 with a couple turbos...Crazy
how the hell did they only get 390hp with two turbos
Low boost to ensure the transmission doesn't come apart, that's how. Not sure if you are aware but these cars were warranted by Callay and serviced by Chevy. Allegedly the turbos are capable of supporting over 20lbs of boost combined and ~900 lbtq according to the Reeves Callaway interview I recently watched.
Makes cars these days even more impressive
All that monstrous torque from the callaway and the performance is basically the same as the zr1? Wtf?!
I didn’t realize that the Callaway Twin Turbo had only 15 horsepower more than the ZR1. For almost $27k more you’re better off with the ZR1. Callaway should have given the ZR1 the twin turbo treatment.
@Ernest Keller Bingo! This guy listens!
Lambo Destroyer!
Every old test I watch, they’re always blowing the tires off.
Why is the twin turbo Calloway only producing 5 more horses than the "standard ZR1?" It should be somewhere in the ballpark of 100hp over or more. I absolutely love C4-C6 Corvettes. I have never heard of the Calloway but I think it is the meanest Corvette I have ever seen. The C8 has nothing on it in the looks department.
EXCELLENT.
So Callaway basically added useless turbo lag. Great... That ZR1 is a beautiful machine.
But set a record speed in 1988 that was higher than that of the Veyron of the early 2000s
What? The L98 turbo makes WAAY Torque than HP and it's low revving
The LT5 has good torque but it really shines when you rev it high, that said the LT5 is a diamond
I don't get it when it comes to doing all that R&D Callaway did adding the twin turbo with 2 intercoolers. It looks badass under the hood, but it comes with the same Hp as the ZR1 barely getting a better quarter mile time shaving off like 2/10ths of a second. 390Hp and 570lbs Ft of torque enough to pull a house off its foundation. More than anything the Callaway completely missed the mark when it comes to looks the ZR1 blows it out the water outside and inside interior.
C4 prices are not ones to watch, unless you're looking for something cheap.
best generation
Sub 13’s in the 1/4 and sub 4.5 seconds to 60……not bad for 1990.
So the callaway gets you 5 more hp than the zr1 for 26k??? Huh?
High 12s stock in 1990 is crazy
Odd how these retro reviews are 60fps.
You dislike?
@@Some_Person6 No, it's actually kinda cool -- just threw me when I first saw it!
Why is it odd? It was made for old televisions.
@@halohunter5217 NTSC broadcasts are not 60fps though.
pleated front denim pants.... damn.... lol
The stock Buick GNX beat that twin turbo Vette with no problem with a V6.
$29.000 more for the same speed?
Pay more attention to the vid lmao
Just bought a new 2019 Corvette C7 Grand Sport with a manual transmission, and it’s a phenomenal car! Forget Ferrari.
It's funny how the twin turbo Vette is still under 400 hp, when today, a twin turbo 3.0 V6 Ford Explorer ST makes 400 hp!
Technology...
Those 3.0l v6s Ford makes are trash, and you gotta take into consideration, power/weight and aerodynamics
@@YungEagle3k Yeah, I was just being a smartass.
Have you test driven an Explorer ST yet?? I'm thinking about ordering a stage 2, with a whopping 488 hp. The stock ST hauls gaw'damn ass. It is STUPID FAST!!! Go drive 1.
@@fobbitoperator3620 they're slow and the interior is ugly for a 60k car. Might as well get an SRT Durango for a couple grand more. The Durango will smoke it nonstop.
@@SteelTimeify Although I'd rather get a Grand Cherokee SRT, the ST Explorer is far from slow. It's lighter by a long shot, & that 3.0 twin turbo winds out hard af!
But that 6.4 Hemi SRT though. It's a gaw'damn MONSTA!!!
@@fobbitoperator3620 around 400 pound difference, but you're right. I'm biased since I have an SRT Jeep and I love it! Dont get me wrong, the ST has a nice looking front end, but the lack of exhaust noise and its underwhelming interior makes me want to hope that FORD could had maybe push a better interior for an expensive SUV. The Jeep and Durango's interior aren't the best, but definitely have nicer leather seats and actual carbon fiber trim pieces all around. At the end, it comes down to personal preference.
Awesome
ohc marine motor, just surprised GM didn’t continue the plant, i know it somewhat exotic but it would’ve only gotten better. Ford stuck to their guns w/ theirs
It was a money decision-the MM engine was very expensive, and overhead cam engines are more expensive and complex in general. GM has been getting equal to or better power/economy numbers compared to Ford SOHC/DOHC offerings for years. And the more compact design means the engines are easier to fit in a variety of platforms.
This guy would be so disappointed at the current sentiment around C4 vettes.
He was wrong on his prediction of the future prices, too. They're not cheap, but they are still obtainable by most.
59,000 wow
Wow add a twin turbo knock .2 of your quarter mile time 🤔 all that low end torque is just over powering those tires...
390HP back in 1990 .. 2019 Mustang EcoBoost 4 cylinder 310 HP and up to 32 MPG.
This car cost ~$120,000 in today's dollars. GM has so little in the way of great design and engineering to show for decades of fat revenue....
One of the greatest supercars of all time, the ZR1
Engine? Maybe, but GM couldn't even build it. The car? A pile of horseshit.
Callaway... added $26K to the cost of a ZR1 only to improve performance by a few tenths... Talk about getting screwed over.
Added to a base c4
Daytona = High banks
Pocono = Nearly flat
Where's the Doug score??.