jvp

Original question is here.

Solid LT1

So with more money you could have kept the brake system development "in house" and not had to have farmed that out to the truck division for the Porky Pig cast iron parts the C7 has? Would have been nice if one of the goals would have been to make the new model weigh less than the model it replaces....maybe for the C8....MUST WEIGH LESS THAN THE C6! shoot for under 3200lbs....the performance will come easily of that is done...

Just wondering....how much can a set of aluminum hats and radial retainer hardware run...maybe even a steel stamping.....that cast iron integral hub rotor.....NICE TRUCK technology! DAMN! I mean you could have even riveted on a iron rotor to a nicely done hub.

RC000E

So what this says is that for Bob Lutz's claim to be accurate, the proposal to request 900 million must've encapsulated something truly bold and the risk was too great at this time. I assume it would've been something that would've transformed the entire program and the Corvette name itself.

Nitpicking about rotors and calipers...I'm sure they did what was necessary. The car, at the price point is a series of compromises. If it were as easy as you outline, it'd be on the car. Tadge was very clear that for every sector of the cars development, he forced engineers to justify every kilo. Inevitably you can shave weight everywhere if you want to make an unprofitable base model or raise the msrp 15k. The C7 base does what it does very well...and frankly I perceive it as a better package for the money. I'd rather mod a C7Z51 my way than buy the Z06, taking advantage of the Z06 parts bin and aftermarket (thus avoiding federal and epa bs).

schpenxel

How about some wideband O2 sensors...? Pretty please?

truth.b

^^ this ^^

Joe_G

If my memory serves during the plant tour last week, I believe they mentioned they spent $130M retro fitting the plant for the C7.

IMHO I think they spent the money wisely - the level of performance of the C7 and C7Z is nothing short of amazing and the build quality of the interior is so much higher than my C5 or C6. Truly world class.

IMHO if there is one thing they should invest in, I'd suggest they invest in something that will attract a younger demographic to Vette ownership.... at 49 I think I was one of the youngest Vette owners at the Bash! I'm worried about a c8 if they don't get the purchasing demographic 10 years younger or so.

BTW a plant tour should be on every Vette owner's To Do list, it's a great way to spend the afternoon.

For those that can't, here's a video:

schpenxel

Keep in mind that a lot of the big parts are built by GM suppliers, not by GM. GM just bolts in the assembly. They've been able to make that level of part for a long time.. but GM wasn't willing to pay for it

I agree though.. the interior improved quite a bit towards the end of the C6 (can't remember what year) then the C7 really improved it from there

Looking back at the C5 interiors you can really see how far they've come.

~Josh

I hope the guy that designed the tail end of the car has Nothing to do with the C8. I can't believe the brass okay'd that design.

That's coming from a guy that currently has a c5z and c6z.

I'm skipping the c7, as are a lot of diehard Corvette fans.

redzone

I totally get that some aren't enamored by the tail treatment. But if you are right, then GM has hit it's intended mark as sales for the 14/15 have been a complete success.

vette0408

I was considering the new vette but after seeing all the overheat issues and blowing engines with 6000 miles on it and breaking torque tubes i decided to pass and look for an older vette and have it modified..the callaway people fixed the z06 they had and explained why the z06 was overheating by putting a bigger supercharger on it and opened the hood up to allow air flow instead of trapping all that hot air in the engine bay ect...makes me wonder why gm engineers even built the z06 like that..plus im hearing about earlier vettes having balancers wobbling ob the 05-07 and fuel leaks on 08 upper fuel tanks and gm wont fix the poorly designed cheap fuel problem and havent had a recall..this is supposed to be americas best and gm wont even stand behind the vette...mabey ill just go modify a viper or gtr..hey gm go spend that 100m and hire the callaway people to make the vette then youde have a great strong reliable dependable car...

schpenxel

That's about like my Escalade with NO cabin air filter. A damn Prius has a cabin air filter.

MCharlie

Huh?

schpenxel

The previous post was talking about GM design decisions that were obviously purely to save money.

So, I posted an example. It wasn't Corvette related, I know, I know.

A $55K car that is supposed to be one of their highest end vehicles doesn't have one of the basic features that a Honda Accord or Toyota Prius has. It's true...

RC000E

I think this opinion is held by people who think the Corvette is defined by its appearance. To me, Corvette stood for more than "look at me", it stood for excellence and being a representation of America. Corvette as a brand, lost sight of that principle more than once, and I fear they may lose that sight again.

Heritage isn't about styling solely, it's about what the car represents and what it accomplishes in the marketplace. If you look at the C7 and all you see is the taillights, then you need to step back a couple feet and see the entire package. The body is still VERY much a Corvette.

Like it or not, the true heritage of the car rests with racing, Zora Duntov and represents achievement...both as a car, and as a personal investment (for lack of a better term...as we know cars are poor investments).

The one statement that stood out to me that Tadge made was along the lines of "performance/open air" as being the basis for the entire Z06/Corvette line. He also speaks very much about "bandwidth" thinking. The issue for me is, how much do you GIVE IN to the bandwidth mindset, in order to boost sales figures. In the end, I believe the Z06 got watered down because it was too much about bandwidth, and not enough about Z06.

RACE U

The 14/15 shouldn't be as worried about as 16/17. Corvette has not fully paid back GM for its investment. The product life cycle of a sports car is extremely short, with relatively low volume. There was very little in the 16 that is new and exciting. And there are now A WHOLE LOT FEWER potential customers with $75 to $100 k of disposable income that they are now going to turn loose of (if they haven't already done so in 2014/2015). I think we are going to see how well they delivered GM a return on its investment. And those that think the forecasted ZR1 will everything whole, you all are dreaming. At $150 k per copy, GM will be very lucky to not loose it's shirt.

And the 14/15 sales are not unpresendented. In the early C4 years, production exceeded 100,000 units annually. Now, granted, it's a great to be able to sell everything you can build. But, at what point, will that not be enough? And before being called a hater, I have owned 5 corvettes over the past 30 continuous years.....and don't plan on changing.

jvp

I'm not sure where you get your data from, but you're exceptionally wrong about that. The first C4 year: 1984 saw 50K units, due to the pent-up demand of them missing a year. The sales numbers dropped from there.

http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/...c4/c4prod.html

Corvette has never (and probably will never) sold 100K units/year.

Clairvoyantwolf

I personally think the team got caught a little flat footed. Before the C7 debuted, the marketing talk was about trying to open the car to new markets (namely, younger people), and what the car needs to do to stay relevant. The same thing happened during the C5 debut, when there was constant talk of a lower cost "Billy Bob" corvette to open the market. Well the C5 became a yearly sellout and the "Billy Bob" corvette eventually became the Z06, since there was no need to undercut the product on price. The C7 is also a yearly sellout, but the "Billy Bob" Z06 (said with respect) has already debuted before any adjustments could be made.

Tadge gets a lot of push back on the forum, I think because he's too visible and also he's not very direct in how he speaks (probably a personality thing. I don't know for sure, I never met the man). Nevertheless, if you look at the entire program as a whole it seems obvious to me that the confidence level was lower going into C7 vs C6. A lot of risk (read as: cost) was removed from the Z06 by sharing the C7 frame, engine (with CTS-V), automatic transmission (multiple), E-Diff (multiple), and other expensive to develop parts with other programs.

It is telling to me that they are coming out with Magride for the base C7 now instead of at launch. It is expensive to calibrate the suspension system, and it must be done separately for each car configuration (springs, tires, etc). I suspect it's initial development was prioritized for Z51 to stretch the dollars/and development time frame until calibration could be completed for the base car.

When Dave Hill became the chief engineer the rhetoric was that he was a "Cadillac man," who would water down the vette by making it too soft. Now it's politician Tadge, who is not a "real" engineer, even though he is clearly visible as part of the Corvette Team going back to C5. The major take away from his answer, and similar questions in other venues, is that a ultra high performance Corvette is in the realm of possibility only if there are enough buyers to justify its existence. I sincerely hope that the new ACR and Shelby GT350R do well enough in the market, and not just enthusiast mags and forums, to give the Corvette Team the ammunition to go to whoever is pulling the purse strings and say, "They can do it, so we can too."

RC000E

All valid thinking for sure...I can't say I disagree with any of it. I won't pretend to know Tadge or Dave Hill, despite having met them multiple times...I've met their "pr" personalities I should say. I don't doubt Tadge, or any other Corvette team members dedication to the brand, but one must also understand that with power comes responsibility. I've always had a feeling that Tadge really wanted to "leave his mark" on this car, but that can be said for any of the prior chiefs as well. The issue comes with, how do they leave that mark.

I bounce back and forth between my criticism of this car...and frankly still own my C5 because I'm so torn about the C7. I've met all the people involved year after year at events...I realize they are real people and they all speak passionately about the car. I also know though, that there are many factors in the background we aren't told. In addition, history has shown that people like Zora, who hit RPO's from the higher ups so people could go race, are the things that made Corvette what they are. That's the side of an engineer who never truly sells out to the bean counter mentality, because they feel it'll mean a promotion to the executive side or something along those lines.

I've met Harlen several times...spoke to him (attempted to I should say), and I will tell you...the guy doesn't have me sold. He's the head of marketing for this car, and I'm just gonna say flat out, the guy is a douche. He may be a nice guy, on some personal level...but in my dealings with him, he is arrogant, disconnected, and in many ways struck me as not really too invested in the "idea" of Corvette.


On a seperate note, I met and spoke with some who was VERY connected to the STi program within Subaru, and developed the 2000-2004 model year wrx sti's. He is actually related to Tanner Foust (if I recall correctly)...anyway, he spoke about the direction STi went over the years, and how people within the company were making decisions about the car that many on the development side didn't agree with. He said, at the time, Subaru was bringing in buyers of the STi platform and having them report what they thought about the car...the good and the bad...even had them drive cars with varying spring rates, etc. He said, the people who were the technical "buyers" of the car were often parents of the actual kid who drove the car though. They were reporting the car was too harsh, too stiff, etc, but some of the development team argued...these arent the actual demographics that WANT the car though.

Inevitably, he said a lot of that input is what led to the softer spring rates, more usable space, etc of the later cars. For me though, that was proof that internal mentality can vary, and people employed to make decisions often are foolish about how they do so.

For me...Z06 stood for something. Maybe it didn't sell like crazy...the reasons are debatable...but some things need preserved for a time when they become feasible again. ZR1 has always been the loaded, power house, for the upper end wallets...that's not Z06. The C5Z was a great representation of Z06 in many ways. The C6Z was a price push, but that LS7 really excited people. Z06 captured young buyers attention...the badge, the rawness, the manual only, etc. Z06 should be that first Corvette to get a DCT, but remain manual until then imo...it should've been preserved as the brands "driver machine"...the GT3 if you will.

All I know is...they lost me...I don't want the C7Z...and I hate that I dont.

Clairvoyantwolf

The Corvette program is interesting to study due to its very long history and its constant redefinition, which is different from the 911, for instance, since that car hasn't changed as much each generation. It's fun to see the responses the Corvette team make from one generation to the next and predict from that history where it will go.

The talk going into C5 was about how much softer and approachable it is than C4 due to lower door sills and less harsh Z51 package (the C4 Z51 must haunt the team to this day because they STILL talk about how livable whatever current iteration of Z51 is). The lesson going out, due to the success of Z06, was that the corvette buyer will pay good money for a higher performance car.

Going into C6, the Z06 is a shockingly high performance car with several bespoke pieces. I remember quite well on this forum the laments that the team lost the "spirit" of the Z06 because the new one commanded such a high price premium over the base car and was thus no longer "affordable." I really think the team was surprised at how well the Z06 turned out. If I remember correctly, the car was originally going to have 450hp out of an engine based on what the LS3 became until Dave Hill pushed the team to reach for 505 (a 7 liter engine was required to hit the target). The ZR1 was made on a lark to see how far they could push with a price target of 100K. Ironically for all that the lesson going out, due to the success of the Grandsport, was that the corvette buyer will pay good money for the "appearance" of a high performance car.

Going into the C7, Tadge stated multiple times that the benchmark for the C7 was the Grandsport. The base C7 is a widebody, like the Grandsport, and looks similar to its Z06 sister...like the Grandsport. The Z06 is still an extremely high performance car. I've asked before, if there was no overheating issue, would anyone have a problem with it as presented? Nevertheless, there are less..."focused" versions of the car now for people who want a Z06 but don't "want" a Z06. Remember, if you order a Z07 package it's only meant for the track. Driving over even a pebble in that car will pulverize your skeleton (still haunted by C4 Z51 ). Anyway, the lessons going out of C7 have yet to be written, but I suspect they will be "It's alright to walk softly and carry a big stick, but you have to prove that you have a big stick for it to be respected."

Bwright

LL. Very diplomatically put. Appreciate the response and this all makes a great deal of sense now. Especially the bit that states, “We are not "given the hundred million", we are loaned it and are obligated to pay it back with interest and profit. On a low volume program like Corvette, $100M is an enormous debt that is very tough to pay back without adding more price (not popular with customers and would reduce sales) or cutting cost on each unit (would lose performance and would reduce sales).”

Yes. To use but one example, if the team had decided to ask for more money to enable say carbon ceramic brakes as standard on the C7 Stingray that additional development money would take the form of a loan from GM which the Corvette program had better have a plan to pay back. In the case of such brakes the cost of the base Stingray would jump significantly. If the team had misjudged buyer desire for such a feature the results would be painful. I believe the last time I saw this was back in the C5’s generation when the expensive magnesium wheel option was offered. Long a feature on Ferrari’s road cars, the application on the Corvette program failed to gain traction and was dropped in relatively short order. I can only imagine now the likely non-trivial hit to the program’s development budget when that spend failed to generate the projected return. Supplier contract likely still had to be paid out.

Cutting cost out of the car to achieve the inclusion of the aforementioned brake system such that you could hold the line on the current base price would likely lead to the loss of some features. Such losses would likely not be countenanced by the broader buyer group.

So say doubling the Corvette budget may lead to an even more spectacular car, but one that precious few could afford if the car was priced honestly and fairly to reflect its content.

It would be as if GM decided at the outset of C6 development to make all cars the Z06 and not even bother producing the base car at all. The Z06’s price fairly reflected its content and was a tremendous vehicle. But it is unlikely that the Corvette program would have survived had that been their base offering.

So a balance has to be struck with an eye toward spending on something that the broader buyer base can afford. Done right, there should be enough profit to spend additional dollars on something that reaches further still, such as the current C7 Z06. All in all, and looking at the present gangbuster sales numbers for all models, nicely done.

As always, appreciate the education.