WOW! Check out this 1990 ZR-1

1 QUIK6

Well-Known Member
#3
I agree those cars are cool. They are undervalued much like our TTA's are. In 20 years we'll all be kicking ourselves. Around $20,000 seems to be the going rate for those. I almost took one on trade 3 years ago when I was selling my SSR. The deal was going together nice and some dealer in Pensylvania got the deal by going $1000 less on SSR and $1000 more on the trade. Soooo close :-(
 

michbc3

Well-Known Member
#5
Reserve hasn't been met yet. It may yet hit $35,000 or more. This engine is overly complex and there are lots more things to go wrong than with other engines. 375 ft-lbs of torque is moderate and for an exotic 4 valve engine, the HP is not so hot either. A friend of mine bought one of these cars brand new. He had a starter problem. Big problem. The starter is buried somewhere on top of the intake manifold I believe. Also the intake manifold gaskets are notorious for leaking. It would be lots of fun fixing those. And who knows how hard it might be to get gaskets? I imagine that they are special. Styling is subjective of course but the plain sides on the car just makes the overall look cheap - a turnoff for me.

Last Summer I helped a friend sell a 1986 Red Corvette convertible. Cosmetically not bad. It had some miles (80,000). The intake manifold gaskets needed to be replaced - but otherwise a solid powertrain. Steering tight and straight too. She got $6,500. A nice-day driver and much simpler. Though the sides of the car are much like this ZR-1, with the top down, it was better looking in my opinion.
 

ttanewyork

Well-Known Member
#6
I think the ZR1 is a very nice car. And this one looks very clean. But a very close friend who is a big vette guy tells me that these cars are very fusy and tough to work on. In the end just do what makes you happy. Good luck!
 

michbc3

Well-Known Member
#7
I think the ZR1 is a very nice car. And this one looks very clean. But a very close friend who is a big vette guy tells me that these cars are very fusy and tough to work on. In the end just do what makes you happy. Good luck!
Agree with most of that. If you like these 4th gen cars and want a historical car, then this one is an excellent example. 4th gen was popularly known as the "Barbie" Corvette. Primarily because of lower ground clearance, handling was really improved over the 3rd gen.

But if an exotic engine is what floats your boat, this one fell a bit flat. I believe in keeping things simple and the additional cams, valves, mechanical and electronic complexity really didn't pay off in power or torque for the ZR-1 over the much simpler 16 valve engines.

I still have my 3rd gen "batmobile" style vette that I bought new. No regrets. Simple engine that's easy to work on - and widely supported by the aftermarket from "stock" to "mild" to "wild". You can't say that about a '90 ZR-1 32 valve engine. And if it's "looks" and handling that you like, the 5th and 6th generation were a big improvement in both looks and chassis maturity over gen 4 in my opinion.

On the positive side, this car that we are discussing would be a good museum piece.
 

ttanewyork

Well-Known Member
#8
I agree. The C5's and C6's are a good jump in peformance and style. Plus I've seen low mile ZO6's sell at carlise for around 20K.
 

at t 2d

Well-Known Member
#9
I had a 4th generation 1994 Corvette for 10 years. They were great cars at the time, but they tend to have a lot of electrical gremlins that are very difficult to track down once they get older. I remember reviews of the ZR1 when they came out. They were less fun to drive since they lacked the low end torque of the LT1 base motor. They also weren't much faster to 60. It was only once you really got them rolling that they got quick.
 

michbc3

Well-Known Member
#10
I had a 4th generation 1994 Corvette for 10 years. They were great cars at the time, but they tend to have a lot of electrical gremlins that are very difficult to track down once they get older. I remember reviews of the ZR1 when they came out. They were less fun to drive since they lacked the low end torque of the LT1 base motor. They also weren't much faster to 60. It was only once you really got them rolling that they got quick.
That's the way that I remember it. The smart guys bought the base model and tricked it out. It actually didn't take too much "tricking" to equal or better what I would call the "king of over-complicated design...". In both drag racing and on the street, it's the low end stuff that really counts. A really good 60 foot jump is hard to make up for at the top end unless the other guy has an extra 100 horses on ya. And those ZR-1's didn't have it.
 

michbc3

Well-Known Member
#13
Back in the early 90's it was very popular for budget bracket racers to turn down the main journals on a small block Chevy 400 crankshaft to make it fit in a 350 block; yielding a 1/4" longer stroke and net 383 cubic inches. This relatively cheap modification made a HUGE improvement in torque and power.

So when the fancy pants ZR-1 guys showed up at the track and we blew them away without any trouble, we had to question why GM just didn't do what we were doing and forget all that foreign design, unnecessarily complicated, expensive 32 valve nonsense.

It took quite a few years, but eventually GM did the right thing and came out with the 6 and 7 liter 16 valve engines that made a lot more sense.
 
#14
And GM really did pretty much perfect it with the LS3/7. I hope damn Obama doesnt make them go backwards. Either way, I really do feel that the LS3 will be the motor to have for years to come.
 

Rodimus_Prime

Well-Known Member
#15
Hate to burst your bubble, but pushrod engines are backwards, DOHC is the better technology. Better yet im waiting for GM to put VVT and direct injection on a small block
 
#16
Hate to burst your bubble, but pushrod engines are backwards, DOHC is the better technology. Better yet im waiting for GM to put VVT and direct injection on a small block
I don't remember where, but I read where GM is/has been testing DI on the new 5.5 litre LS7. It is the same motor that is in the C6R but with DI.

DI will be SOOOO expensive to mod though.

Jason
 

72firebird

Super Moderator
#17
Hate to burst your bubble, but pushrod engines are backwards, DOHC is the better technology. Better yet im waiting for GM to put VVT and direct injection on a small block

Well you won't be seeing DOHC, VVT, and Direct Injection for a while. In fact it'll probably be a while until you see DOHC and VVT on a V-style engine that isn't in a Jaguar. There's a lot of problems with the chain length and chain tension when you add the VVT because of the disturbance it causes when changing timing.

Ford was originally testing VVT for the new Coyote engine and the bigger version (can't think of the name of it off the top of my head). Some other manufactures were working on setups as well but the decline in the auto industry pretty much put everything to a halt.
 

michbc3

Well-Known Member
#18
There's no bubble to burst. When it comes to technology, the best one to use is the appropriate one (in a holistical context) for the application. Unnecessary gold plating and complexity doesn't necessarily win - and can ruin reliability, affordability, availability and maintainability at the same time.

You really need to buy a ZR-1, then have an electronic valve controller box fail on that foreign engine. Try and buy one 20 years from now - at any price. Ain't happening. You got a dead engine. No aftermarket support...

One thing that is under-appreciated about American engineering: being able to maintain a car at reasonable cost. In that respect, that is what makes things like Ferrari's, Lambos and Porsches inferior; and at the same time American muscle often does a pretty good job of stacking up well to most of them in performance too - often at 1/3rd or less of the price.

Like I said, a simple, cheap, longer stroke on our 16 valve small blocks more than equalled those extra ZR-1 valves, cams lifters and fancy electronic valve controls at the dragstrip - beat 'em over and over again...

Smokey Yunick did a lot of testing with 4 valve prototype heads on Chevy engines and came to the conclusion that two large valves were every bit as good as 4 little ones at the RPMs that they were running (9000 and under) in NASCAR.

Beyond that, yes you probably do need 4 valves per cylinder. But few are turning a small block chevy at 9000 rpm on the street. The ZR-1 was redlined just slightly more than the 16 valve engines, so forget about 9000. It was a highly compromised design. I will say that they could have done it better/right, but didn't. It ended up insignificantly better than the stock engine. So my lack of admiration for the ZR-1 is for the product that they actually produced - not the product that they MIGHT have produced...
 
#19
Ok, you talked me out of it. I'm broke anyway, so I'm not buying anything. Just trolling e-bay. Gotta say that it really is super clean for that old of a car. Most of them have been weathered.
 

michbc3

Well-Known Member
#20
I didn't mean to be mean about it though it may have come across that way. And folks should buy what they like. I just am offering a little engineering "balance" to the marketing of this car.

I mean what the heck. Cars are admittedly emotional things. People rip themselves off on expensive cars like Porsches all the time - though facts often say it's not smart...

Talk about clean: I hope that you caught that GNX with 9 miles on it at Barrett-Jacksonin Florida. I did not watch to see what it sold for.
 
#21
I didn't mean to be mean about it though it may have come across that way. And folks should buy what they like. I just am offering a little engineering "balance" to the marketing of this car.

I mean what the heck. Cars are admittedly emotional things. People rip themselves off on expensive cars like Porsches all the time - though facts often say it's not smart...

Talk about clean: I hope that you caught that GNX with 9 miles on it at Barrett-Jacksonin Florida. I did not watch to see what it sold for.
No way dude, I appreciate the feedback. I can see what your saying and I think your right. The ZR-1 was exotic back when I was a kid and I still remember going to the Corvette plant and watching them being built. I guess what I really want is to have one for a weekend trip to dragstrip with no commitment to the monthly payment, haha, just a free thrashing if you know what I mean.:thumbup:
 
Last edited:

tta299

White Car Fever
#22
Hate to burst your bubble, but pushrod engines are backwards, DOHC is the better technology. Better yet im waiting for GM to put VVT and direct injection on a small block
the new camaro has VVT ... I like the lt5 because mercury marine built it ... but i would hate to have to replace 1. the engine is worth way more than the car. 90 was the first yr im not sure but 1 of the later yrs had more hp. the older c5 z06's are the best bang for the buck right now.
 

72firebird

Super Moderator
#23
the new camaro has VVT ... I like the lt5 because mercury marine built it ... but i would hate to have to replace 1. the engine is worth way more than the car. 90 was the first yr im not sure but 1 of the later yrs had more hp. the older c5 z06's are the best bang for the buck right now.
The V6 High Feature (LLT) in the Camaros has both VVT and Direct Injection, but the VVT is a cam in block design. If I were to be buying a new Camaro I think I'd actually buy the V6. I think that the motor really has a lot of potential especially with the direct injection for turbo applications.
 

72firebird

Super Moderator
#25
And then I'd run circles around you with a paxton charged V8. :chat:
If the bottom end of the LLT is anything like the Ecotecs a paxton isn't going to cut it, especially if we're considering the same amount paid for car and mods in both cases. The only downfall of the LLT is the compression is pretty high for a good turbo application.

If GM comes out with this engine Report: GM developing twin-turbo 3.0L V6 to fight EcoBoost Autoblog it's going to be like the LC2 on steroids.
 
Top Bottom