C7 Corvette reveal

bravenrace wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

Flight Service wrote:

forzav12 wrote:

Flight Service wrote: No one questions the cars performance by numbers. The C5+ has been delivering those numbers and backing them up, but the styling of the new Vette, as a whole IMHO, screams "I have a small penis and lots of money!!!" I loved the C5 subtle, with muscular overtones, the C6 got a little to far but was livable, this is just like "BERKLEY YOU Aventador!!! GM builds the most ostentatious car!!!" It isn't pretty, sexy or svelte. It is perversion. The new Vette is like taking a porn star to a wet T-Shirt contest, It wins not because it is the best in the competition, which it could be, but because you know what it does with the judges. And you aren't going to fool anyone about your intentions either.

Most that study design, thought the C5 to be a marginal design. The C6 has been very well regarded. This new car is a contemporary update that very nicely brings the Corvette design parity with similar performing vehicles. The Corvette has always been about distinctive and muscular styling. The 63, 68,84,99 and 06 have all provided bold statements. This car is no different. Your statement referencing sex organs and income is ludicrous.

If it makes you feel better, I think the Ferrari says the same thing about masculinity as well. But then again I am an Engineer. Traditionally the 911 wins with us on the performance car of choice.

I am an engineer but I would pick Lambo just cause they are so over the top.

"Bad Engineer!"

I always agreed with those that said the 911 is a triumph of development over design.

Engineers want the GT3 engine in the Cayman.

I am an engineer and I approved this.

Well I was kidding him for picking a lambo over a porsche, but in reality I have to wonder about the comment that engineer's prefer the porsche. Why would an engineer prefer a car with crazy weight distribution, with an engine with the wrong number of cylinders, cooled the wrong way and placed in the wrong location? I'm an engineer, and I love the 911. But I agree that it is a triumph of development over design, and I would also like the GT3 engine in the Cayman...for the price of a Miata.

bravenrace wrote: Well I was kidding him for picking a lambo over a porsche, but in reality I have to wonder about the comment that engineer's prefer the porsche.

Honestly I like the Lambo because of immature side that likes brightly color shoutey things.

If I put my engineer hat on, I want Caparo T1.

carguy123 wrote: How many of you have driven the double overdrive 6 speed that came in the old car? This one has a triple overdrive 7 speed. They said 4th gear is 1:1.

raises hand

I've driven the C4 and C5 6-speeds. IMO the gear drops once past 4th were crazy. Making those gears closer would be nice.

What is and isn't "overdrive" is fairly academic when you're talking about a transaxle, anyway. (I assume that they still have a transaxle - WONDERFUL way to get the engine down on the ground! Ever see how short/flat a C5/6 oil pan is?) It's sort-of important on a traditional layout because the final drive ratio affects driveshaft speed (harmonics) as well as how well the tires stay planted on a solid axle car, but on a transaxle, it's mainly a piece of trivia regarding the speed of one of the shafts in the unit.

I note here that the new Viper has been re-geared so that 6th is more than an economy gear, it's short enough that top speed is in 6th and not 5th.

bravenrace wrote: Why would an engineer prefer a car with crazy weight distribution, with an engine with the wrong number of cylinders, cooled the wrong way and placed in the wrong location? I'm an engineer, and I love the 911.

Porsche was always an engineering company. They took what they had and made it great.

As for some of your opinions.. I see nothing wrong with a 6 cylinder.. it does not have the wrong number of cylinders.. it has just enough. Air cooling is efficent as it removes weight and one more mode of failure from the device, and the engine in the back works great as long as you do not lift off of the throttle in a turn.. which you shouldn't do anyway.

So why wouldn't an engineer pick a 911?

In reply to mad_machine:

If you don't know, then me explaining it again won't help.

mad_machine wrote: As for some of your opinions.. I see nothing wrong with a 6 cylinder.. it does not have the wrong number of cylinders.. it has just enough. Air cooling is efficent as it removes weight and one more mode of failure from the device, and the engine in the back works great as long as you do not lift off of the throttle in a turn.. which you shouldn't do anyway. So why wouldn't an engineer pick a 911?

Air cooling kinda sucks. On the one hand, it theoretically reduces weight, but how much of the weight lost is regained in cooling fins?

I was shocked to learn that swapping an iron-block small block Chevy into a 911 did not increase rear axle weight. I was less than surprised to find that all sorts of feathers were ruffled

But air cooling is difficult with respect to removing heat equally from everywhere. Porsche had 2-valve heads on everything because they couldn't figure out how to get air through a 4-valve head. As power increased in their racing engines, they went to water cooled heads, and eventually they finally abandoned air cooling altogether and saw an increase in power and efficiency as a result.

Don't get me wrong, I think 911s are technically interesting cars, and a 911SC is on my Must Own Someday list, but I carry no illusions about the various engineering and design shortcomings. That gives the car its character, after all.

Actually I was referring to a poll I read in one of my Engineering publications that surveyed Engineers and listed the 911 as the most popular car among us.

forzav12 wrote: Most that study design, thought the C5 to be a marginal design. The C6 has been very well regarded. This new car is a contemporary update that very nicely brings the Corvette design parity with similar performing vehicles. The Corvette has always been about distinctive and muscular styling. The 63, 68,84,99 and 06 have all provided bold statements. This car is no different. Your statement referencing sex organs and income is ludicrous.

Actually I would call your statement of the C5 being marginal the most ludacris as every review I have ever read said how much of a leap forward the car was in atheistic, design, fit and function. I have read from multiple sources, your statement about the C5 in referring to the C6. That it was a marginal upgrade, not worthy of the new premium and that the lineup had grown inflated in price compared to what was purchased.

Specifically interior and exterior styling was named the biggest issues. I am curious if you may be suffering from Vetteyslexia. Which is a common issue when people get their Vettes confused.

Flight Service wrote: Actually I was referring to a poll I read in one of my Engineering publications that surveyed Engineers and listed the 911 as the most popular car among us.

I can believe that, engineers seem to go either towards the utterly, mundanely practical (Corolla, Focus, minivan) or the technically interesting. Given how bland peoplemovers greatly outnumber technically interesting cars, a 911 would show up a lot higher than a Camry.

The various RX-7 forums are also chock full of engineer-nerd types. Seriously OCD types who have to test and quantify every new turbo, or set up multi-thousand-dollar lab equipment so they can tune their engines by directly measuring combustion chamber pressure vs. crank degrees. Go to, say, a Nissan forum (technically uninteresting cars) and the technical information is breathtakingly absent.

Can't say i dislike any part of this car other than the shift knob which looks rather cheap. Then again that is the only part the interior that looks cheap and PRAISE THE LORD GM put some seats worthy of a Corvette in a Corvette. The tail lights are ok but the rear profile is stunning. I really like the look of the new car.

Taking in what i have read and the chatter on this form i think much of the decision about the direction of this car was not just made by the engineers but the much hatted bean counters at GM and here is why. The bean counters probably sat down and calculated the average age of a new corvette buyer since the company really only cares about new buyers, and i am willing to bet the age is just too high. Part of what makes a car uncool is who drives them and we have all heard (and told) jokes about old men and Corvettes. I feel strongly that the old mans car image has hurt Corvette sales and this move, the new styling, and everything else is designed to get younger men into the dealership buying new Corvettes.

So, new car that has more appeal to younger people, brings said younger people in to ogle the new hotness, and fulfills the role the Corvette always has, while E36 M3 slapping much more expensive hardware around the track. I predict success.

Well if this Corvette can truly be a success internationally it also means that much better things in general. I bet the AMLS cars based on this are going to look sweet. Can't wait to see what they do for a GS/Z06/ZR1 version

I'd like to see some modified renderings of the car.

It looks ok, but it's trying to be a Ferrari, it isn't, its a Corvette.

We usually get stuff pretty quickly, or get invited to a track to come drive most new cars. I am willing to take one for the team and go to this launch.

Tim Suddard wrote: We usually get stuff pretty quickly, or get invited to a track to come drive most new cars. I am willing to take one for the team and go to this launch.

If you need any help, and I realize being among the first ever to drive a C7 in anger is difficult, I'm there for ya.

Flight Service wrote:

forzav12 wrote: Most that study design, thought the C5 to be a marginal design. The C6 has been very well regarded. This new car is a contemporary update that very nicely brings the Corvette design parity with similar performing vehicles. The Corvette has always been about distinctive and muscular styling. The 63, 68,84,99 and 06 have all provided bold statements. This car is no different. Your statement referencing sex organs and income is ludicrous.

Actually I would call your statement of the C5 being marginal the most ludacris as every review I have ever read said how much of a leap forward the car was in atheistic, design, fit and function. I have read from multiple sources, your statement about the C5 in referring to the C6. That it was a marginal upgrade, not worthy of the new premium and that the lineup had grown inflated in price compared to what was purchased. Specifically interior and exterior styling was named the biggest issues. I am curious if you may be suffering from Vetteyslexia. Which is a common issue when people get their Vettes confused.

Never said the 5 wasn't a huge leap forward, however, we were discussing aesthetics. It doesn't take much in the way of a google search to associate C5 with big butt.

OK, just saw the C7 on the TV coverage of Barrett-Jackson, in real-world lighting conditions, and I must saay it looks a lot better than in the "reveal" photos. I still think the rear end is too busy, but I think it will be OK when we get to see it for real. GM usually cleans up Vette designs as the years go by, so a few of the doo-dads may disappear, but after today, I'm encouraged.

Ridk Hendrick bought the right to get the first production car - SN 0001 - for $1 million (for charity). Also bought two other charity cars, totalling around $2.3 million for the three. Nice gesture.

Nice tax relief....

MichaelYount wrote: Nice tax relief....

Yeah! What a jerk. When I get to be a billionaire I'm never gonna give millions away to charity.

Seriously, the guy gets blasted for making a lot of money, buying cars because he's into cars. In the process of buying these cars he also gives huge amounts of money away to charity.

Like he's the bad guy.

Ridiculous.

I saw the C7 at the NAIAS Saturday. The one I saw was a darker gray color. I could see the outlines much better than the pics of the red one.

In person, I liked the back end. Honestly, the back end reminded me of the Viper competition coupe. I liked most of the front end, except the grill. I liked the hood vents and the intakes to the side of the hatch. I wish I got a better look at the thing, but it was mobbed with people. I have yet to examine my pictures from the show.

The only technical details of note that I can add are as follows:
- The manual transmission has an auto-blip feature, like the 370Z. You can turn it off.
- All the vents and intakes are functional.

I was hoping for a dual-clutch transmission option, but the auto-blip manual is a decent substitute.

Not bad if ya can do it

Interesting read: http://goaheadtakethewheel.com/rwrt/2014-chevy-corvette-stingray-paying-homage-to-the-past-while-leaping-forward/

Also, saw this in the article:

A serious diet seems to be GMs tactic in maintaining the C7s high Gs while reducing tire footprint. The aforementioned frame loses 100 pounds, and there are promises that the revised suite of materials such as carbon nano composite underbody panels (replacing the old balsa sandwiches for the floor area), hollow control arms (subtract 10 pounds, thank you very much), hollow front and rear cradles (20% lighter than previous solid versions), and optimization of chassis and body panels (resulting in another 37 pounds left on the shop floor) will result in the C7 having better power to weight ratio than the Porsche Carrera or the Audi R8.

and this:

(Indeed, the chassis has lost 100 pounds though optimization of frame gauge thicknesses, and increased use of aluminum while actually increasing its torsional and bending stiffness.)

All this info gleaned from the chief engineer. So it looks like it's likely to be lighter than the C6 it replaces.

Nothin'? After all the "duscussion" about how it was going to be a heavy pig..... lol

Bobzilla wrote: Nothin'? After all the "duscussion" about how it was going to be a heavy pig..... lol

I saw it right after you posted it and am awaiting the same thing... sounds like a neat set of points, I hope they all come to fruition.