The design philosophy on the C6 was correct, but wrong on the C7
04-01-2015, 07:03 PM
#41
With this statement, you're basically either calling the Corvette team incompetent or a group of liars. Which is an interesting position to take. They've already said they couldn't make it fit. And you'll be happy to note that several of the team makers are big proponents of turbo-charging the engine, too. But try as they might, they couldn't get it to fit within the engine bay.
In fact, I own a C6 ZR1. I just know and appreciate all of the challenges the team has to face when birthing a new generation car. Unfortunately, the detractors generally suffer a case of severe myopia in that they can't see all of the competing challenges the team has to deal with.
There are a lot of challenges and tradeoffs in engineering and there are circumnutates that are out of their control. It has always been that way and will continue to be. But some how a few great cars rise to top and the rest are just ok or also-rans.
04-02-2015, 01:55 PM
#42
Melting Slicks
grcor, do you actually have a valid, logical question for Tadge on the C7?? After all this section is "Ask Tadge". This was not meant for commentary.
Last edited by skank; 04-02-2015 at 08:48 PM.
04-03-2015, 02:17 PM
#43
Drifting
Member Since: Nov 2006
Location: Sierra Mtns. The Great State Of Jefferson
Posts: 1,810
Received 169 Likes
on
128 Posts
However, I can imagine asking this:
The C6 Z06 was a faster, lighter, harder-edged version of the Coupe, like the C5 Z06 before it. In some ways the C7 Z06 feels less like the natural follow-up to those cars and more like a car in the tradition of the C6 ZR1. Has what it means to be a "Z06" changed, and can we expect a more spartan, track-focused, minimalist C7 in the future?
Although I believe Tadge's answer would be "I'm not allowed to talk about future projects".
04-19-2015, 12:40 PM
#45
Le Mans Master
I surely hope Tadge doesn't waste a moment on this entire thread....full of assumption, baseless and uneducated opinion and crap.
OP...stiffer frames lead to better performance...turn-in, steering feel, less dynamic change in alignment as the car experiences various loads, makes the car feel more rigid/solid. You do realize they race these cars right? So GM should, at the C6 level say, it's good enough boys...time to quit...let's just keep makin these.
Then you go on about this cylinder deactivation being wrong or inappropriate. Based upon what analysis that you have conducted? You do understand that there are factors like fleet mpg standards that must be met correct? The C6 is great...you're right...and it likely wouldn't meet the standards that are ahead, like the C7 is in position to do.
It's threads like these that make me feel sadness for Tadge and company at the bash when they field these ridiculous assumptions made by the guy who has owned 30 Corvettes and thinks he's an authority on the subject. I hear guys asking about what material the LSD clutches are MADE FROM...I want to spout from the audience WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??
At least Tadge and company answer like "how in the world should I know"...it makes me laugh...it's the roundabout way to say "If I, Tadge, don't need to know that, you, Ralph the random Corvette owner that drives 60mph at max DEFINITELY don't need to know".
Sorry GM...Sorry Corvette...
OP...stiffer frames lead to better performance...turn-in, steering feel, less dynamic change in alignment as the car experiences various loads, makes the car feel more rigid/solid. You do realize they race these cars right? So GM should, at the C6 level say, it's good enough boys...time to quit...let's just keep makin these.
Then you go on about this cylinder deactivation being wrong or inappropriate. Based upon what analysis that you have conducted? You do understand that there are factors like fleet mpg standards that must be met correct? The C6 is great...you're right...and it likely wouldn't meet the standards that are ahead, like the C7 is in position to do.
It's threads like these that make me feel sadness for Tadge and company at the bash when they field these ridiculous assumptions made by the guy who has owned 30 Corvettes and thinks he's an authority on the subject. I hear guys asking about what material the LSD clutches are MADE FROM...I want to spout from the audience WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??
At least Tadge and company answer like "how in the world should I know"...it makes me laugh...it's the roundabout way to say "If I, Tadge, don't need to know that, you, Ralph the random Corvette owner that drives 60mph at max DEFINITELY don't need to know".Sorry GM...Sorry Corvette...
04-19-2015, 07:58 PM
#46
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Mar 1999
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,060
Received 3,791 Likes
on
1,140 Posts
"Ask Tadge" Producer
I completely agree with your summarization of the thread. Tadge was caught a bit off-guard by the OP when he got through to Tadge on the "Autoline Afterhours" show last month and asked the question over the phone (video of it on YouTube somewhere). I'm kinda guessing Tadge might have a more thorough answer for the OP; whether that answer would satisfy the OP or not, I dunno. But it might be interesting to hear (read) what the man has to say.
04-19-2015, 08:35 PM
#48
Le Mans Master
Well, a quick search led me to the video of that episode. Frankly speaking, this is the same exact thing I see Tadge subjected to, along with a myriad of other engineers, both at the Bash's, at the Detroit private preview I went to with Harlen Charles, Ed Wilburn and others, and to be quite honest it really takes away from the brand.
Listening to the question on that show being asked was absolutely absurd to listen to. First, this person made the statement like he was making a proclamation of fact, when the depth of thought this person must be applying equals the depth Tadge uses to get up in the morning and get to work. Time and time again we just see these people who act like Tadge and company WANT CAGS, WANT AFM, WANT the car to increase by 300 lbs...it's pure foolishness.
Maybe the OP would have better success reading his little letter to Congress or sending it to Obama stuffed stealthily in a Black Panther gift basket because this is where these requirements come from. In the end though, we have arguably better cars...they're safer, they burn cleaner, etc. Engineers like to be challenged, that's the bottom line, and the Z06 is an incredible balance of budget, engineering, target market, competition, manufacturing ability, etc.
If the OP would head to the bash, and instead of moving his mouth, open his ears, he'd understand the complexities on a small scale. Sheesh...
Listening to the question on that show being asked was absolutely absurd to listen to. First, this person made the statement like he was making a proclamation of fact, when the depth of thought this person must be applying equals the depth Tadge uses to get up in the morning and get to work. Time and time again we just see these people who act like Tadge and company WANT CAGS, WANT AFM, WANT the car to increase by 300 lbs...it's pure foolishness.
Maybe the OP would have better success reading his little letter to Congress or sending it to Obama stuffed stealthily in a Black Panther gift basket because this is where these requirements come from. In the end though, we have arguably better cars...they're safer, they burn cleaner, etc. Engineers like to be challenged, that's the bottom line, and the Z06 is an incredible balance of budget, engineering, target market, competition, manufacturing ability, etc.
If the OP would head to the bash, and instead of moving his mouth, open his ears, he'd understand the complexities on a small scale. Sheesh...
04-27-2015, 10:29 AM
#49
OP...stiffer frames lead to better performance...turn-in, steering feel, less dynamic change in alignment as the car experiences various loads, makes the car feel more rigid/solid. You do realize they race these cars right? So GM should, at the C6 level say, it's good enough boys...time to quit...let's just keep makin these.
Then you go on about this cylinder deactivation being wrong or inappropriate. Based upon what analysis that you have conducted? You do understand that there are factors like fleet mpg standards that must be met correct?
Last edited by grcor; 04-27-2015 at 11:44 AM.
04-27-2015, 02:00 PM
#50
As for racing the C6R used the same aluminum frame as the C6 Z06 and won its class in the 24 Hours of Le Mans several times. The C7R is burden with a over weight frame from the C7 and is not competitive at Le Mans.
Based on information Chevrolet has released on the engines used in the C7. Cylinder deactivation adds lots of new parts to the engine and a number of parts in the drive train have to be reengineered, all of which adds weight. This is why the LT4 only revs to 6500 rpm and not 7000 or more.
Above in this post I list the gas mileage numbers for the C6 Z06 and C7 Z06 and even with cylinder deactivation the C7 Z06 gets worse mileage.
A lighter car with a turbocharged engine would have been a better approach in meeting the performance and gas mileage requirements for a Z06.
The thread is a joke.
04-27-2015, 02:17 PM
#51
I'm Batman..
Pro Mechanic
Member Since: Apr 2014
Location: Lehigh Acres FL
Posts: 6,130
Received 908 Likes
on
561 Posts
Tech Contributor
As I said before the C5 Z06 uses the C5 convertible frame. All modern corvettes are designed as convertibles first. Tadge himself described corvette's market niche as "open air."
The Corvette Racing team uses ballast to achieve minimum weights as required by the rules of the series. It is a direct result of the very high performance of the C7R (of which the frame is a major part) that dictates the C7R be the heaviest car in its class, so others can evenly compete.
Yet few if anyone complained about the similar rev limits of the LS9, which does not have cylinder deactivation.
The C7 has 150hp more and is heavier with greater drag.
And since a turbocharger can't fit and it's extraordinarily unlikely that the car isn't as light as the corvette team could make it given cost, production demand, durability, and market this point is moot.
The thread is a joke.
The Corvette Racing team uses ballast to achieve minimum weights as required by the rules of the series. It is a direct result of the very high performance of the C7R (of which the frame is a major part) that dictates the C7R be the heaviest car in its class, so others can evenly compete.
Yet few if anyone complained about the similar rev limits of the LS9, which does not have cylinder deactivation.
The C7 has 150hp more and is heavier with greater drag.
And since a turbocharger can't fit and it's extraordinarily unlikely that the car isn't as light as the corvette team could make it given cost, production demand, durability, and market this point is moot.
The thread is a joke.
It's very simple. They did the best they could with the budget they had and the car came out better then everyone's (except for OP's) expectations. If you want to make sure that every single T is crossed and I is dotted and that every... single... possible...... improvement was made on your car, GO HAVE A CUSTOM CAR BUILT TO YOUR OWN PERSONAL SPECS!
04-27-2015, 03:01 PM
#52
Le Mans Master
Grcor...I will admit, I scanned quickly through this thread initially, at the time of my earlier responses. I will say, that though this thread has aggravated or promoted some conflict, the overall content of the discussion is worthy. JVP, that...wolf guy, and the other engineer responding (all these phantom automotive engineers in here...lol) all added greatly to the conversation. Your question on that episode...horrible...you sounded like a fool...please take that as a lesson, not as an insult. You TOLD the chief engineer, who's been with GM working on 3 generations of Corvettes that AFM is WRONG...the frame is WRONG...foolish. So, where do I begin...how can I contribute...let me see.
For GrCor...
GrCor...I think the issue with your approach, is that while you bring up valid points, you tend to support them with a lot of assumptions that get you shot down quite quickly. While many here have these phantom backgrounds, mine is simple...I ran a company that developed a low production car that utilized Corvette components, circumvented every possible federal standard, used a spaceframe to give that light, affordable, raw driving experience...and we built it to suit the customers every desire...very niche. Quite possibly the ONLY business model that can answer enthusiasts who want a raw, capable, driver involved automobile with a license plate. The complexities of federal and foreign standards grow day by day and driving purity gets consumed along the way. Anyway...here's my advice first....
A. Never compare what the aftermarket can do, versus what a mass production team/manufacturer can do. They are both presented with vastly different budgets, production practices, requirements, etc. Aftermarket companies can put a turbo setup on anything. I've developed, fabricated and tuned one off forced induction systems for over 15yrs now. My customers understand what they are getting into when they pull into the parking lot/shop though. I don't have the budget or time to validate the system in all environments, nor do I have to seek manufacturer support to supply my demand, etc. Warranties come down to building a quality handmade system, using the best components on the market, doing quality work, etc. Totally not worthy of mass production, unless you want to pay a serious pricetag (see koenigsegg, Mclaren, etc) I can't theorize all that Tadge and company are faced with, but suffice to say, building 30 cars like Hennessey and building thousands upon thousands like Tadge and company...WAYYY different ball game. Hennessey vs Bugatti...way different ball game.
2. I think your initial way of thinking has validity (kinda), but I think you've chosen to target specific components as the culprit, which is where you begin to get into waters you don't understand. This is where informed ears/eyes such as Tadge will immediately begin to dismiss you as one of the fools and give you a "pc" out of the box response. When you talk to a venture capitalist, an chief of...anything, a real estate mogul...any single phrase that reaches beyond your pay grade/background starts shutting their ears down...lol. When it comes to why the frame weighs what it does, comparing this frame to that frame...that's beyond your understanding...clearly....don't go there.
So, it sounds like I'm hating the whole way here. Well...here's why I think you have a point...kinda. Throughout history we've seen major manufacturers take the wrong direction on a platform. The "market" told them (according to them) to build something, and it didn't sell for sh*t, missed the mark, failed miserably, etc (Prowler, SSR, Cadillac Cimarron, the list goes on and on)..these cars tanked quickly and efficiently. In business, if you want a failure you want it FAST, not slow! Then there were long term failures, that slowly led the company astray over time, to where all of a sudden 15 yrs later they looked back and said "we lost ourselves...we chased the wrong market, the wrong segment, etc". This happened with GM and Ford...we've seen it. They chased a short term future, while over the 10+ year span the market moved away from what they were invested in and the Japanese manufacturers grabbed market share. So, we know that a team like this can fail...it can put out a fantastic looking product that sells, but at the same time begins to lose its soul and get jammed up.
Now... I've presented myself in a manner that is scolding you, and now maybe I'll step in my own pile of sh*t here because I don't know nothing about nothing but...Corvette isn't my business. I love the car, I do my best to understand, and I want to see it survive and thrive. At the same time, I'm still like you...on the outside...a f*ckin brainless moron in the opinion of folks like Tadge and Fehan and company. They entertain us because they have to, not because they think we're worthy of it...much the same as guys who would tell me how to build a car that don't have a clue...I answer them nicely, take their money, then turn around and take a deep breath. The only responsibility they have is to the people who cut the check...satisfy them, and life is good.
For the thread
So, where I see validity in your concern, is that I question the balance of compromises. The compromises are intense...sales, versus cost, versus demographics, versus market competition, versus federal standards, long term ROI, etc. I know this is all calculated. My question is though, with the fact that Corvette buyer demographics are getting older year by year, and Tadge and co. have admitted the current path is unsustainable, has the C7 compromised it's long term future for short term sales? Will they lose traction with younger demographics by serving the current buyer pool TOO well?
With C6, while the ZR1 and Z06 were grabbing headlines as a monster, a Nurburgring killer, etc, sales were weak on those specialty models...a poor economy with 70 year old guys that want open air and automatics...thus a clear conflict. Do we build a track slayer or do we build a high dollar (by Chevrolet standards) sports car for retirees? I believe the compromise is obvious...Grand Sport (it worked)...C7Z06 (appears to be working) BUT, did the SPIRIT of Corvette get compromised in the process? Does GM CARE about the spirit of the car or do they truly CARE about sales. For Corvette to exist as America's sports car, it has to be the LEADER...the winner. Will the C7 now root itself as an evolved version of a C6 GrandSport...aggressive LOOKING, capable, but a MID pack car. I believe the Corvette has held and maintained that American title exclusively thus far BUT...the market is testing that. Ford is testing that very much so (America's Sports Car that is).
Am I saying abandon sales...NO...definitely not. Am I saying though that while C7 sales are strong, maybe that low production, limited run, track killer is worth taking a little hit on the 7 year bottom line to merely inspire the next round of buyers...maybe. I'm in NO position to make that call, but I hope SOMEONE inside is seeing that Jalopnik, Media groups, magazines are becoming secondary to viral Youtube videos, forum perception, etc. Media no longer informs people as the sole source of info...people would rather hear from their peers about what's good and not...at least in the younger age scale where I am very familiar. I can tell you that Z06 is getting NO LOVE...NO LOVE. I don't care what skewed marketing figures GM marketing can pull out....NO LOVE...period. You can pay off Motor Trend and wipe certain asses but...it isn't gonna work long term in my opinion. The Corvette is getting its *** handed to it in some respects.
I have said it once, I'll say it over and over...when the C5Z came out...MAD respect online...MAD desire to own it. That car was killing supra's, tearing up road courses...everyone wanted that car...it's why I own it today. GM grabbed MY young attention with that car, now I've owned 6 Corvettes 12 years or so later. I don't see the C7Z06 having the same impact...these guys are looking at Viper, Porsche GT3/GT4, GTR, Gallardo etc. You put a kid on an oil and gas field or in the military for 5 years, they HAVE GTR money...they HAVE C7 money all day...you gotta think about that. H. Charles scoffed at me when I approached him with a GranTurismo video...he didn't understand it, as if he couldn't fathom why it was so important. If people doing the marketing don't believe in it, understand it...then it tells me they don't understand that age group but do it solely because they were sold on it. Yet again...all I can say I know is what drives young guys to buy sh*t...friends I have say I'm an expert at reading young guys minds...they were my sole demographic in business for YEARS...they are a predictable bunch. I want them to love Corvette...and I'm tired of defending my ownership.
For GrCor...
GrCor...I think the issue with your approach, is that while you bring up valid points, you tend to support them with a lot of assumptions that get you shot down quite quickly. While many here have these phantom backgrounds, mine is simple...I ran a company that developed a low production car that utilized Corvette components, circumvented every possible federal standard, used a spaceframe to give that light, affordable, raw driving experience...and we built it to suit the customers every desire...very niche. Quite possibly the ONLY business model that can answer enthusiasts who want a raw, capable, driver involved automobile with a license plate. The complexities of federal and foreign standards grow day by day and driving purity gets consumed along the way. Anyway...here's my advice first....
A. Never compare what the aftermarket can do, versus what a mass production team/manufacturer can do. They are both presented with vastly different budgets, production practices, requirements, etc. Aftermarket companies can put a turbo setup on anything. I've developed, fabricated and tuned one off forced induction systems for over 15yrs now. My customers understand what they are getting into when they pull into the parking lot/shop though. I don't have the budget or time to validate the system in all environments, nor do I have to seek manufacturer support to supply my demand, etc. Warranties come down to building a quality handmade system, using the best components on the market, doing quality work, etc. Totally not worthy of mass production, unless you want to pay a serious pricetag (see koenigsegg, Mclaren, etc) I can't theorize all that Tadge and company are faced with, but suffice to say, building 30 cars like Hennessey and building thousands upon thousands like Tadge and company...WAYYY different ball game. Hennessey vs Bugatti...way different ball game.
2. I think your initial way of thinking has validity (kinda), but I think you've chosen to target specific components as the culprit, which is where you begin to get into waters you don't understand. This is where informed ears/eyes such as Tadge will immediately begin to dismiss you as one of the fools and give you a "pc" out of the box response. When you talk to a venture capitalist, an chief of...anything, a real estate mogul...any single phrase that reaches beyond your pay grade/background starts shutting their ears down...lol. When it comes to why the frame weighs what it does, comparing this frame to that frame...that's beyond your understanding...clearly....don't go there.
So, it sounds like I'm hating the whole way here. Well...here's why I think you have a point...kinda. Throughout history we've seen major manufacturers take the wrong direction on a platform. The "market" told them (according to them) to build something, and it didn't sell for sh*t, missed the mark, failed miserably, etc (Prowler, SSR, Cadillac Cimarron, the list goes on and on)..these cars tanked quickly and efficiently. In business, if you want a failure you want it FAST, not slow! Then there were long term failures, that slowly led the company astray over time, to where all of a sudden 15 yrs later they looked back and said "we lost ourselves...we chased the wrong market, the wrong segment, etc". This happened with GM and Ford...we've seen it. They chased a short term future, while over the 10+ year span the market moved away from what they were invested in and the Japanese manufacturers grabbed market share. So, we know that a team like this can fail...it can put out a fantastic looking product that sells, but at the same time begins to lose its soul and get jammed up.
Now... I've presented myself in a manner that is scolding you, and now maybe I'll step in my own pile of sh*t here because I don't know nothing about nothing but...Corvette isn't my business. I love the car, I do my best to understand, and I want to see it survive and thrive. At the same time, I'm still like you...on the outside...a f*ckin brainless moron in the opinion of folks like Tadge and Fehan and company. They entertain us because they have to, not because they think we're worthy of it...much the same as guys who would tell me how to build a car that don't have a clue...I answer them nicely, take their money, then turn around and take a deep breath. The only responsibility they have is to the people who cut the check...satisfy them, and life is good.
For the thread
So, where I see validity in your concern, is that I question the balance of compromises. The compromises are intense...sales, versus cost, versus demographics, versus market competition, versus federal standards, long term ROI, etc. I know this is all calculated. My question is though, with the fact that Corvette buyer demographics are getting older year by year, and Tadge and co. have admitted the current path is unsustainable, has the C7 compromised it's long term future for short term sales? Will they lose traction with younger demographics by serving the current buyer pool TOO well?
With C6, while the ZR1 and Z06 were grabbing headlines as a monster, a Nurburgring killer, etc, sales were weak on those specialty models...a poor economy with 70 year old guys that want open air and automatics...thus a clear conflict. Do we build a track slayer or do we build a high dollar (by Chevrolet standards) sports car for retirees? I believe the compromise is obvious...Grand Sport (it worked)...C7Z06 (appears to be working) BUT, did the SPIRIT of Corvette get compromised in the process? Does GM CARE about the spirit of the car or do they truly CARE about sales. For Corvette to exist as America's sports car, it has to be the LEADER...the winner. Will the C7 now root itself as an evolved version of a C6 GrandSport...aggressive LOOKING, capable, but a MID pack car. I believe the Corvette has held and maintained that American title exclusively thus far BUT...the market is testing that. Ford is testing that very much so (America's Sports Car that is).
Am I saying abandon sales...NO...definitely not. Am I saying though that while C7 sales are strong, maybe that low production, limited run, track killer is worth taking a little hit on the 7 year bottom line to merely inspire the next round of buyers...maybe. I'm in NO position to make that call, but I hope SOMEONE inside is seeing that Jalopnik, Media groups, magazines are becoming secondary to viral Youtube videos, forum perception, etc. Media no longer informs people as the sole source of info...people would rather hear from their peers about what's good and not...at least in the younger age scale where I am very familiar. I can tell you that Z06 is getting NO LOVE...NO LOVE. I don't care what skewed marketing figures GM marketing can pull out....NO LOVE...period. You can pay off Motor Trend and wipe certain asses but...it isn't gonna work long term in my opinion. The Corvette is getting its *** handed to it in some respects.
I have said it once, I'll say it over and over...when the C5Z came out...MAD respect online...MAD desire to own it. That car was killing supra's, tearing up road courses...everyone wanted that car...it's why I own it today. GM grabbed MY young attention with that car, now I've owned 6 Corvettes 12 years or so later. I don't see the C7Z06 having the same impact...these guys are looking at Viper, Porsche GT3/GT4, GTR, Gallardo etc. You put a kid on an oil and gas field or in the military for 5 years, they HAVE GTR money...they HAVE C7 money all day...you gotta think about that. H. Charles scoffed at me when I approached him with a GranTurismo video...he didn't understand it, as if he couldn't fathom why it was so important. If people doing the marketing don't believe in it, understand it...then it tells me they don't understand that age group but do it solely because they were sold on it. Yet again...all I can say I know is what drives young guys to buy sh*t...friends I have say I'm an expert at reading young guys minds...they were my sole demographic in business for YEARS...they are a predictable bunch. I want them to love Corvette...and I'm tired of defending my ownership.
Last edited by RC000E; 04-27-2015 at 03:22 PM.
04-27-2015, 03:26 PM
#53
It's very simple. They did the best they could with the budget they had and the car came out better then everyone's (except for OP's) expectations. If you want to make sure that every single T is crossed and I is dotted and that every... single... possible...... improvement was made on your car, GO HAVE A CUSTOM CAR BUILT TO YOUR OWN PERSONAL SPECS!
To make things simple, I put my lowly C5 on track for the first time yesterday. It was a blast, but I was annihilated by a completely gutted Civic running open headers (as were most people at the event). That's fine with me since, on the drive home, I could relax with air conditioning, music, and not having an ear splitting head ache from the noise (remember, open headers).
The vast majority of people would rather my experience than the all out track car if they had to live with it. EVERY corvette is built with that in mind. And on the last question for Tadge, he indirectly stated as much when he said that they would pursue both extremes of the market (performance and luxury) if they had a bigger development budget.
Tadge answered the question at hand on Autoline, "The technology isn't there/doesn't exist." So to the OP, if you know of someway to get 600hp out of V8 that can fit into a corvette, while meeting emissions, gas mileage, and meeting crash and pedestrian impact standards. Oh yeah, it also can't cost more than a C7 Z06, must be just as streetable/drivable, and it must weigh 3,100 lbs. Please let the Corvette team know, they'd love to hear it.
Too bad this dialogue didn't exist in 1984 when the corvette came out with an earth shattering 205hp. It took those idiots more than 20 years to come out with the C6 Z06 and its LS7. Why didn't they just make it then
04-27-2015, 03:50 PM
#55
Le Mans Master
What I question...and what I have to wonder is, when Gm approves the budget for the development of a next generation Corvette, is it structured with milestones of some nature that reveal options. Coming off of C6 sales, which were struggling, I suspect GM moved with C7 cautiously (considering it was approved years before the end of C6). Now, with some element of economic recovery, mixed with C7's (perceived) success thus far, is there a potential for Tadge and team to seek another round of funding...I'd suspect so.
If you prove the proposed business model is exhibiting growth and is potentially breaking projections, it'd only seem wise for the "higher ups" to hear an argument for an additional round of financing. We are still early in the generation...we need to see the targets get met, the numbers making sense, THEN I think it's feasible for Tadge to head in and say "look...we have demand for another level, we believe it will sell, we need "x" amount of dollars, here is what it will cost, this is our projection, blah blah blah". In some senses, I think we need to give the machine time. Let the C7 sell, feed money back in...let the Z06 sell...feed money back in, THEN maybe we'll see the golden calf again.
If you prove the proposed business model is exhibiting growth and is potentially breaking projections, it'd only seem wise for the "higher ups" to hear an argument for an additional round of financing. We are still early in the generation...we need to see the targets get met, the numbers making sense, THEN I think it's feasible for Tadge to head in and say "look...we have demand for another level, we believe it will sell, we need "x" amount of dollars, here is what it will cost, this is our projection, blah blah blah". In some senses, I think we need to give the machine time. Let the C7 sell, feed money back in...let the Z06 sell...feed money back in, THEN maybe we'll see the golden calf again.
04-27-2015, 03:58 PM
#56
What I question...and what I have to wonder is, when Gm approves the budget for the development of a next generation Corvette, is it structured with milestones of some nature that reveal options.
.
.
.
Let the C7 sell, feed money back in...let the Z06 sell...feed money back in, THEN maybe we'll see the golden calf again.
.
.
.
Let the C7 sell, feed money back in...let the Z06 sell...feed money back in, THEN maybe we'll see the golden calf again.
04-27-2015, 04:12 PM
#57
Le Mans Master
This is how I began to look at the existence of SRT and the Viper itself. With SRT becoming it's own brand, the brand which the Viper is sold, are we seeing SRT profits absorb Viper losses, solely to maintain it as a HALO? Granted I've not looked at ANY of that investment...where Viper is built versus Hellcat, etc...but off the cuff, a HALO has value, even if it loses money...it brings people into the dealership. The Z06/7 acts as the HALO, at which point the guy walks out with a 2LT Z51 or something....but the limited lineup puts pressure on the Z06/7 to earn its own also, versus something like the GT3RS which spreads its financials across the entire lineup. I suspect if you can make Z06 and Stingray strong, then you can put in a HALO that doesn't need to be as profitable. Tadge could read this and think I'm a complete assh*le moron but...hey...just maybe.
04-27-2015, 08:57 PM
#58
Where is your proof that the C5 Z06 uses the C5 convertible frame? Every source I find says C5 Z06 frame came from the Fixed Roof coupe. So until you prove your statement, I am going to say you are wrong. "http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/h...6-history.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette_C5_Z06
When the Corvette runs at Le Mans it runs under the Automobile Club de l'Ouest rules. Which states that all cars in LM GTE have a minimum weight of 1245kg. The Automobile Club de l'Ouest rules are not exactly the same as TUDOR United SportsCar Championship.
An engine that has a wider power band is easier to drive and can reduce the number of shifts you have to make on a road course. This is an advantage for the LS7 and contributes to why the C6 Z06 is a great track car. The 6500RPM limit on the LS9 and LT4 does not help the ZR1 and C7 Z06.
Your statement about why the C7 Z06 gets worse gas mileage than the C6 Z06 just proves my point: The design philosophy on the C6 was correct, but wrong on the C7.
If you do a search you will find lots of companies make turbocharger kits for the C7. Granted some of them are not production worthy and would not meet emission standards, but several could. The Lingenfelter design is very well done. So turbocharging does fit.
Since you cannot backup your statements, they are a joke!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette_C5_Z06
The Corvette Racing team uses ballast to achieve minimum weights as required by the rules of the series. It is a direct result of the very high performance of the C7R (of which the frame is a major part) that dictates the C7R be the heaviest car in its class, so others can evenly compete.
Yet few if anyone complained about the similar rev limits of the LS9, which does not have cylinder deactivation.
The C7 has 150hp more and is heavier with greater drag.
And since a turbocharger can't fit and it's extraordinarily unlikely that the car isn't as light as the corvette team could make it given cost, production demand, durability, and market this point is moot.
The thread is a joke.
Last edited by grcor; 04-27-2015 at 09:26 PM.
04-27-2015, 11:13 PM
#59
Since you cannot backup your statements, they are a joke!
"The hardtop is the first fixed-roof Corvette since the 1963-67 Sting Ray coupe. When the C5 was being developed three years ago, Chevy asked chief engineer Dave Hill to figure a way to make a cheaper Corvette. At the time, the factory in Bowling Green, Kentucky, wasn't selling all the Corvettes it could make. Hill says he looked at a C5 coupe's one-by-four-inch-thick tubular steel roll hoop and imagined it fastened to the body of a convertible, covered by a lighter but stronger fixed panel without the heavy glass of the hatchback."
- Car and Driver (emphasis added)
Last edited by Clairvoyantwolf; 04-27-2015 at 11:16 PM.
04-28-2015, 08:50 AM
#60
Le Mans Master
An engine that has a wider power band is easier to drive and can reduce the number of shifts you have to make on a road course. This is an advantage for the LS7 and contributes to why the C6 Z06 is a great track car. The 6500RPM limit on the LS9 and LT4 does not help the ZR1 and C7 Z06.
You seem to refuse to accept that in many ways the Corvette engineers hands are tied and they MUST accept the fact that they are building a performance car that HAS to have heavy *** doors, HAS to have CAGS, HAS to have AFM...these are necessary to avoid gas guzzler penalties, emissions standards.
Do you understand how the EPA tests work? I doubt it.
Every word in this statement is based upon assumption. You have no data, no facts to support any of it. How don't you see that?