Terry Humiston

I posted this in the Z06 section as a reply, but it really belongs here.

As with many things, the best predictor of the future is a close look at the past. The C1 through C5 designations seems a bit muddled and until recent years were used internally by GM and not by the Corvette owners. I never remember referring to the new 1968 Corvette as the new C3. It would seem that the general idea is that the C# changes when there are fundamental changes in the platform or chassis. This rule works out with past designations with the exception of the C2 to C3 change. There the change was in body only with the driveline and chassis were carried over. This only clouds what changing the number really means. The original C1 chassis of king pin front end and live axle rear lasted from 1953 to 1962 or ten model years. The C2 (63-67) featured a completely new front and rear suspension as well as a new body style. The C3 carried over the C2 front and rear suspension as well as engines and transmissions changing only the body. The C3 style lasted from 1968 to 1982 or 15 years. The chassis design actually lasted a total of 20 years. Talk about longevity. The C4 final replaced the old C2/C3 chassis in 1983. Due to early design production delays the first C4 sold to the public were sold as 1984s. The C4s featured a completely new chassis and driveline components. The C4 engine and 4 speed auto were previewed in the last of the C3 in 1982. The C4 chassis lasted from 1983 to 1996, 14 years depending on how you count it. At the end of the C4 run, Vettes sales performance was poor and the Vettes faced stiff competition from other sports cars that equal the Vettes performance for about the same dollars. The C5 debuted in 1997 at the last possible moment as the C4 could not meet the 1997 side impact safety standards. What this history tells us is that GM typically will run a Vette chassis design for 10 to 15 years, or longer. Major chassis changes worth of a C number change will happen only when forced upon GM by poor sales, stiff market competitions, or inability of the existing chassis to be upgraded to meet safety standards.
The current C5 faces absolutely none of the required pressures that would normally predict an up coming chassis change. The C5 platform is only beginning its seventh year of production. It’s is still new and relatively world class. The 2002 production figures are reported to be over 37,000 units sold. Best numbers since 1985. There are currently no production cars that will match a base Z51, 6 speed coupes numbers for anywhere near the money. The same can be said of the $50k Z06. There is no indications that the C5 chassis will not continue to meet or exceed and of the up coming safety requirements or standards. All the facts indicate that the current C5 design will be with us for at least 5 or 6 more years. If this is true, what about all the talk of a new C6? Look at what has changed… We, Corvette owners and the automotive press have caught on to the C# numbering scheme that was originally internal to GM. We call our cars C4s and C5s. The magazine head lines call out the Vettes C# designations. The GM brand management and marketing screwballs have caught on. Do a body refresh, make it sharp where it’s round and round where it’s sharp, fiddle with the interior a bit and most of all, slap a new number after that there C thingy and they will sell like hot cakes. These are the same marketing geniuses that gave us the bold and dynamic (never been done before) $5000 super 50th Anniversary marketing package. A real design change worthy of a C6 designation is many years away. In an ideal Vette world the design engineers would rule and the marketing fools would try to make entertaining TV commercials
:lol:





[Modified by Terry Humiston, 6:56 PM 7/29/2002]

BQuicksilver

Interesting comment, Terry. I did enjoy the point about when major pressures force bigger redesigns. Nonetheless, I don't think that you can say the upcoming redesign will be unworthy of a C6 designation considering the C3 received it's own designation for what was probably less than what change will come in the near future. Just my .02

Jinx

Marketing shmarketing.

New frame. New wheelbase. New engine. New body. New interior.

C6 is really a C6.

Simple as that.

I for one am happy that for once GM isn't waiting until the horse has a broken leg to plan its replacement.

.Jinx

SJ

Terry,

You've hit the nail on the head. It's about profit only. Period. With the good, but slower economy that we are in, it would be completely contrary to basic business sense to invest more money to retool for a what is certainly a new risk, as all new designs are.

The right idea is to further amortize current equipment, processes, labor skill, and market satisfaction which collectively comprise the C5 financial formula, to its fullest.

The magic is there. We love the C5. It can be tweaked with HP and handling and chasis touches until it reaches Lamborghini or Ferrari class numbers - and damn it looks great! The chasis is a rock as it is and the body breaks .29 Cd. If all previous lesser endowed Vettes' production runs can last so long, why can't the best of them all last longer? There is no real Japanese threat, even if you count the expensive Acura NSX. GM has magic in the palm of their hands and they won't let it go arbitrarily.

BTW, there is no possibility of the C6 being chunkier and retro - that is Chrysler's marketing gimmick, since they still can't build a reliable car. No, I think GM will continue to flirt with the "supercar" aesthetics that continue to make a Corvette a serious challenge to Europe's best in terms of technology, style, and performance. The C6 will be a 200 MPH car that will cut through the air like a race car - mark my words. No pumped up body parts, no "muscle-car" nonsense. That's what Mustangs and Camaros are for - and with all due respect, the goofy Viper too.

And sorry, Jinx, but car manufacturers don't have to keep their promises. They just have to build decent cars for the money and we will buy them.

:seeya

Jinx

There is no question that C5 *could* go longer, but it's not going to get the chance. Wheels are in motion -- how do you guys not get this?

Perhaps if Lutz had killed the XLR and C6 projects when he first checked them out, I might believe it. But not now. Nobody within the company is going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg -- Corvette is one of two GM car programs that isn't laughably bad -- and the "outsider" had his chance and didn't take it.

All the "business sense" and historical longevity arguments are ivory tower. I'm much less interested in what might be smart for GM to do than I am in What GM Is Doing. Short of a financial collapse a la 1988, C6 is in the pipe and it's coming out.

At this point, cancelling or delaying C6 for more than a year is an admission of error. GM would rather continue investing in an unnecessary risk than take the PR hit of "killing the new Corvette."

C5 just won't be world-class in three years. It could still be a player, but there's too much development both above and below its market to stand still or simply refresh. The magic has lost some of its lustre. Mercedes already makes a power-hardtop convertible that costs about the same as C5 convertible, and Whoops! the Mercedes is quicker. C5 lacks a power top or pop-up roll bars or side-curtain airbags, is at the edge of gas-guzzler territory, and is criticized for its lower-quality interior. Do I personally need any of those things? Heck no. But the market will demand them, and C5 can't deliver.

I say GM is smart to invest incrementally more in the chance to refine the whole package -- if you have to buy the tooling for a new interior, a new motor, and a new skin, why not redo the frame rails too instead of nailing yourself to eight-year-old hardpoints? I bet they can find ways to build it better and more cheaply.

C3 went too long. C4 went too long. C5 won't.

.Jinx

Aviator

Hate to say it but Ford :U has delivered the new Cobra at @ $35,000. It has 390 HP/390 Ft Lbs of torque; does 0 to 60 MPH in 4.5 seconds; does the quarter mile in under 13.0; and does .90 on the skid pad. It equals or even exceeds the performance of the base Z51 6speed coupe for less money.

This is exactly why Chevy needs to create, market and sell a new Vette - the C6. While the C5 is a GREAT car, and it could remain a remarkable car for many more years, today's technical capabilities - in both design and performance - require the car makers who want to be leading edge to redesign models much more frequently. The C6, as pointed out by others in this thread, is all new - chassis, suspension, motor, interior and exterior. It may not be a leap in new technology, but it is a big step - big enough to provide leading edge performance and technology at a reasonable price, and to keep Corvette at the head of the pack.

fight4yourrights

Personally, I don't believe the Mustang has ever been, or will ever be, a contender to the Corvette.

Apples -vs- Oranges

I've owned an '88 Mustang Gt, a '97 Camaro, '85 Vette, and '02 Corvette. The Corvette is a special car, very unlike the pony cars. Even if a pony car offers more performance for less money than the Vette, I don't believe it can pull any significant number of buyers away.

Look at it this way - forget what the factory sells, buy a tuner pony car for the same price as a Vette and it should out perform. Or match the Vette performance for less money. So why do we buy the Vette now? Total package.

Jinx

We can make the "total package" argument all we want. Indeed, we're not alone -- it was the "total package" argument that Car and Driver used to select the C5 convertible over the little Mercedes despite the Mercedes turning in slightly faster acceleration numbers (oh the shame).

However, there's no denying that a big part of Corvette's appeal is its supremacy. Sure, a base Corvette won't smoke a Porsche Turbo or a Viper, but how often do you see those cars on the road? The '03 Cobra by contrast will be built to the tune of 12,000 cars a year, and every one of them is going to be Corvette-hunting. BTW, they've got a dirt-cheap bolt-on mod for more power that we don't.

Dave Hill once said the appeal of Corvette was its ability to "pass anything on the road." The asterisk on that statement gets bigger every year. GM can band-aid the problem with a bigger motor, but instead they chose to demonstrate anew what differentiates Corvette by improving the total package.

.Jinx

BQuicksilver

The C6 may be just an evolution of the C6, but it will be enough of a refreshment to easily warrant the C6 designation. Just the new frame has been rumored the drop 300lbs (I'll believe it when I see it, but I'd love to see it). A sub 3000 lb car running 30+ more HP in a new engine would be a totally different animal. Add to that new styling, a totally new interior and you've got more than a better C5. I hope they do keep moving along the same path set by the C5, but just because they will doesn't mean that we should consider this to be anything less than the C6. We'll just be able to look forward to fewer quality issues. I'm with Jinx here.

As for the Mustang challenging the Vette, I really doubt that 3900lb pig will really live up to all the hype. Nonetheless, I don't want to see high school kids stopping me at every light thinking they could beat me with a :rolleyes: Mustang. I've never had a problem saying "nice car" and admitting guys with Vipers or 996TT's are faster, but not mustangs!

Jinx

Initial magazine tests put it neck and neck with a C5 in 0-60 and 1/4mi. A new Cobra is a pulley-swap away from smoking C5s.

.Jinx

SJ

Apparently, since 1993, Ford's marvelous little 4.6 L brick has not been intimidated by the competition. They built a better brick and people came! So why should the C5 be out of steam in 3 years? It was born 4 years after the "lowly Mustang" and has a much more modern and upgradeable platform than the modified 1979 Fox chasis!!! Get it through your head! GM's bean-counters limit automotive designs, not wishful thinking by Corvette groupies!

I repeat. The C5 will own the road for at least 5 or 6 years to come. Whatever GM thinks they will do is wishful thinking/marketing. I would totally be prepared to be disappointed by a late C6 intro if a 2008 C5 was hauling 200 MPH and pulling 1+ G's and cost about $70 k in 2008. At that time a Ferrari will do 230 MPH and cost $700 K - so what! Who cares if you save $ 630 k wearing a bow tie instead of a prancing pony on the hood. At that point only professional race car drivers will dare test the performance envelope of either car!

If you plan to afford an "affordable" 200 MPH Corvette with a 3 year GM warranty one day, then you are asking for GM to improve the extensible C5 platform. Otherwise, plan to spend an additional 15 to 20 k to pay for the C6 moniker.

To me, the 20-year-old Countache is as cool today as it was then - visual designs are just going in circles since aerodynamics are an old science. Similarily, the C5 is optimized aesthetically - you can change it, make it look like a Acura, whatever, but why bother. The C5 is stunning - sleek and aggressive for years to come. A C6 has a serious challenge on its hands - not Cobras or Ferrari's, but the C5!

Senna1994

First off the C6 won't cost $70k, the XLR will. If you want a power Hardtop buy the XLR. Semantics regarding the designation are worthless, hence C2 to C3 (different body same platform). Hill said it himself although the C5 was a gigantic step forward, in some categories it is beginning to fall back a bit. Why not constitently strive for improvement. Sure the C6 won't be as dramatic of a forward step as the C5, but than again 15 years was a longtime. Even in 1988 the C4 platform was being criticized for structural integrity. Why not have a lower weight higher horsepower car with Refinements added? I don't agree with the Mustang vs Corvette argument just because the cars are very different animals. If you look at the step Ferrari took from the 355 from the 348 and even bigger step to the 360, what is wrong with the next progression?

I believe that the C5 is a world class automobile, I also believe that as a car that sells 30,000+ units a year and is the best representation we have of an American Icon sports car that further enhancements will only get better, enhance bring on C6.

Jinx

Dang, SJ, you are all over the map. The '03 Cobra is great... for a Mustang. Corvette is held to a higher standard.

I am still quite frankly struggling to understand what this thread is about.

Do you assert that C6 is not truly a next generation of Corvette? Engine, chassis, body, and interior all change. Come on, that's a new car.

Do you refute that C6 is coming in MY2005? Pull your head out of the sand.

Are you angry that C6 is replacing C5 prematurely? WHY? C6 will be a better Corvette than C5 in every measure, including bang-for-the-buck. (Debate that if you dare, while you still can.)

Do you assert that C6 will cost $70K? Are you mad?

What exactly is your point? That C5 *could* theoretically be made to perform longer? I say that's not the wise move for buyers, brand image, or the bottom line. But guess what, NOBODY CARES, because C5 ain't gonna get the chance to prove you right. Enjoy your resale value.

C5s may still own (part of) the road for 5 or 6 years to come. But only as used cars with significant tuner modifications, because C6 will be the new Corvette in 2005 and it will mop the floor with C5.

.Jinx
I'll still wave.

BQuicksilver

People sometimes drive through corners as well... :rolleyes: I imagine that you'll get used to taking the high line with it.

vetdude

Wow Jinx, seems you know more than the rest of us about the C6. Where do you get the facts to back up your statements regarding the "C6", in the trade rags? Give me a break. Terry hit it dead on. :smash:

SJ

Jinx, don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the C6 will be the ultimate Vette. Debuting as planned would be great.

However, the economics of success is what sustained the old Beetle, the new Beetle, the Diablo, the Acura NSX, not to mention previous Vettes, and countless other cars, despite best laid plans.

My only point is, my guess is, that the economics of success could prolong C5 production, which would delay the C6 release. Nothing is etched in stone.

:confused:

Scissors

Jinx is right on with his statements. You'll see the light soon enough.

Aviator

Ain't nuthin' like a good debate early in the morning:)

I don't see where Terry's and Jinx's thoughts are totally incompatible. Sure they disagree on some stuff, but if you add their thoughts together, you come up with some decent stuff.

Personally, I believe the C6 will debut in 2004 as a 2005 model. Chevy has too much invested in the XLR, and since the C6 and XLR share a common frame, they'll want to save mucho bucks on production costs. Lutz and others have also hinted way too much about a 2004 debut - they don't drop those hints for nothing!

SJ

Nothing to do with this thread, but "Senna1994" brings back the saddest\greatest of memories. I can't forget the day he slid his Williams-Renault into the right wall at the San Marino Grand Prix.

In honor of his spirit - the love of the sport and the art of speed - is why cars like the C6 should come out on time.

Senna1994

Thank you SJ, unfortunately I don't think we will ever know what truly happened that day. But from what I understand it was the steering column.

Now to the C6, I think everybody has there own thoughts on this. However, Jinx did not get the info on the launch date from some trade mags as Chevy has publicly stated when they expect the car to debut. In addition, the C6 and XLR will share the same platform as noted many times by GM therefore the debut's cannot be far off from one another. Finally, I think the C5 in many ways will be like the C2 (63-67) a classic. Lets all enjoy the C5 while it is around and look forward to the next great corvette.