When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
"The majority is always wrong", JB Shaw. Obama? If it sells and makes lots of money, that's all that counts. That's what the after market is for and that is why there are so many different cars. I've had 9 new Vettes and a 10th real soon. I'll remove the back bumper because I like the look of the rads and foam bumper better.
At least I have put forth some proposals, which do you prefer?
If you prefer that look then go for it! You'll probably save some weight as well. Be careful with road debris however.
It still doesn't change the fact that the rest of us love the rear end and the car is a runaway success.
If you look in the Book "All Corvettes are Red" You will see a C5 with a VERY similar rear treatment and similar tail lamps to the C7s. The quote under the picture was something like this rear treatment was deemed to radical to be a Corvette!
For the C4 Chevrolet also looked at other designs than the classic four round tail lights. If I can find the picture I'll post it. One might have argued the other design was more 'modern' or whatever, but in the end Jerry Palmer and his design team decided to keep the four round tail lights. They (as I read their comments) wanted to make a new Corvette that was identifiably a Corvette and linked to the prior models.
Which I think the C7 does in every way except the tail lights and hatch.
BTW, I really liked the Ferrari pics someone posted above. If Ferrari can continue to use round tail lights, I would think there is nothing wrong and everything right with Chevy doing so on the Vette.
I'll look for the C4 with the linear shutter looking tail lights and try to post it. I'm sure most would agree Chevrolet made the right decision on the C4 in staying with the four round tail lights and not going with the alternate design.
If you look in the Book "All Corvettes are Red" You will see a C5 with a VERY similar rear treatment and similar tail lamps to the C7s. The quote under the picture was something like this rear treatment was deemed to radical to be a Corvette!
Maybe for the time it was "C5". Designs move on.
Of course I am still waiting for the flying car that Popular Science promised me when I was a kid that I would have by now.
Also, here are some designs that were considered for the C4, and thankfully also rejected.
I think these would have looked far too much like Pontiac designs. No knock on Pontiac, as the owner and lover of a 1973 and 1979 Firebird. But Corvettes should be Corvettes, and I'm glad these designs were not carried on to the production C4.
At least the lights are angled correctly to comply with the facia and roof.
Agreed. I think the rejected candidate from the C5 days is a great looking car, but doesn't look at all like a Corvette. To me it has a very European look. Like something Audi might market.
The C7 (again my opinion) also does not look like a Corvette, but looks from the back very much like a Japanese car. Like something Toyota or Nissan or even Honda would design and market. Not bad looking for a rice burner, but not at all Corvette. Perhaps that was what GM wanted. But for an iconic car like the Corvette, I think the designers of the C4 and C5 understood the car and traditions far better than the C6 (headlight issues) and C7 (back end issues) did.
The C4 and C5 modernized the Corvette and injected tremendous performance and technology, but kept the Corvette look from all angles. The C6 is a great car and I like it a lot, but still cringe a little every time I see the Camry style headlamps on the front.
The C7 is a car I love to look at from every angle but the back. One passed me on the highway earlier today, and once again, it took a few seconds to register what I was looking at. 2...3...4...Oh, yeah, that's a C7.
And that still irritates me. Any other Corvette immediately stands out as a Corvette from any angle, even the C6 with the exposed headlights has enough Shark in it to immediately register as a Vette. And of course from the back it is All Corvette All the Time.
The C7 is almost there; a simple change to four round tail lights and the elimination of the mascara would be enough. A glassback hatch would really ice the cake.
GM was right to reject a non Corvette back end for the C4 and 5, I wish they had shown as good sense with the C7...it is never to late to make the correction.
For the c7 you wont see round tail lights. Who knows on future generations. But to hope for a change with the c7 is a wasted wish.
You are probably right about that, and I'm not holding much hope for GM changing the back end of the C7 or offering alternate versions.
But it will be interesting to see what happens when GM does a C8.
Meanwhile I do wish the aftermarket, RPI or someone, would create a removable but stock looking panel that could preserve the vent functionality but eliminate the mascara, provide four round tail lights and body matching color in a removable assembly that looks totally factory when installed.
Meanwhile I do wish the aftermarket, RPI or someone, would create a removable but stock looking panel that could preserve the vent functionality but eliminate the mascara, provide four round tail lights and body matching color in a removable assembly that looks totally factory when installed.
Why? Do you even own a C7 you want to change? If not, why do you think a vendor should create something nobody else seems to want?
[QUOTE=Steve_R;1588789949]Why? Do you even own a C7 you want to change? If not, why do you think a vendor should create something nobody else seems to want?
I will not own a C7 because I do not like the back end, and the hatch back darkens the interior considerably and restricts rearward visibility unacceptably. If Chevy fixed those problems, I would probably buy one, as I had planned to do before seeing the back and sitting in one at a local dealership.
I love everything about the C7 except as noted above; those are show stoppers for me.
As for the panel, it is a wish, and I agree something unlikely to be marketed at this point.
If the C7 continues to sell well, GM will have no reason to change it, and that's that. I'll keep driving my C3s and 4s, maybe buy a 5 or 6 eventually. If sales drop and GM changes the car, or time passes and they create a C8 that fixes the back and the low visibility hatch, then I'll be back in the market for a new Corvette.
The C7 is a car I love to look at from every angle but the back.
And that still irritates me.
The C7 is almost there; a simple change to four round tail lights and the elimination of the mascara would be enough. A glassback hatch would really ice the cake.
GM was right to reject a non Corvette back end for the C4 and 5, I wish they had shown as good sense with the C7...it is never to late to make the correction.
Agreed. I think the rejected candidate from the C5 days is a great looking car, but doesn't look at all like a Corvette. To me it has a very European look. Like something Audi might market.
The C7 (again my opinion) also does not look like a Corvette, but looks from the back very much like a Japanese car. Like something Toyota or Nissan or even Honda would design and market. Not bad looking for a rice burner, but not at all Corvette. Perhaps that was what GM wanted. But for an iconic car like the Corvette, I think the designers of the C4 and C5 understood the car and traditions far better than the C6 (headlight issues) and C7 (back end issues) did.
The C4 and C5 modernized the Corvette and injected tremendous performance and technology, but kept the Corvette look from all angles. The C6 is a great car and I like it a lot, but still cringe a little every time I see the Camry style headlamps on the front.
The C7 is a car I love to look at from every angle but the back. One passed me on the highway earlier today, and once again, it took a few seconds to register what I was looking at. 2...3...4...Oh, yeah, that's a C7.
And that still irritates me. Any other Corvette immediately stands out as a Corvette from any angle, even the C6 with the exposed headlights has enough Shark in it to immediately register as a Vette. And of course from the back it is All Corvette All the Time.
The C7 is almost there; a simple change to four round tail lights and the elimination of the mascara would be enough. A glassback hatch would really ice the cake.
GM was right to reject a non Corvette back end for the C4 and 5, I wish they had shown as good sense with the C7...it is never to late to make the correction.
If anything, this Corvette is more distinctive from any angle than gens 4-6. Those cars are way too similar looking in my opinion. If you seriously have trouble distinguishing a C7 on the road then you need to get your eyes checked. While not round, the tail lamps are very distinctive and have a 3D look when lit up which just adds to it. The C7 does NOT blend in.
This video is interesting and makes the point about four round tail lights better than I have so far. It discusses more than Corvettes, and is part of a series by the host of the video. Good stuff...
I meant to post the link to the video and not the video itself. I hope I did not unintentionally violate any forum rules here...if a moderator would like to correct this to show just the Youtube link, that's fine with me.
I think the designers got a look that is Corvette, new, fresh and it works perfectly. I would not put C4/C6 lights on a C7 personally. I plan to buy a C6, too. Let's all get behind this superb, well designed and executed Corvette 7! Bunk
01-20-2015, 03:20 PM
