Snorman

Uhh...yeah. With the exception of Daytona, the tracks where I've had my Z06 are relatively safe (albeit Sebring is a rough track, which is likely why a great many manufacturers use it for testing...if it survives there it'll likely survive anywhere). But at Daytona, I got to where I was consciously limiting speeds because I don't really need to hit 180 mph before braking for T1 even with tons of runoff space. Running 160+ downhill into T10 at Road Atlanta, or flatout through T12 takes some risk in a street car with no cage, no fire suppression, no containment seat, etc.. But that's how fast all of these cars are getting. There are very, very few who will tear up a $100k+ car to install proper safety equipment. At what point are they fast enough out of the box?
S.

truth.b

I fully agree. In cars like the Z06 big speeds can easily be achieved on most tracks with decent straights. But on the big power tracks like Daytona, Road America, Road Atlanta, VIR... 160 is a cake walk with higher speed being normal with good drivers. I don't know when arms race will end but right now it appears to be alive and well.

RC000E

All great points for sure, and ones I think people don't often consider.

One might argue that the only time in history where cars got decisively faster than the typical ownership could handle were era's of the ZL1 Camaro of the 60's, and certain other cars that were just powerhouses on a chassis that did do much else well at all. Then the EPA hit.

It seems govt has always had that obstacle that kept speeds/ability within a realm of reason, but today...engineers face it all...crash standards, pedestrian impact, emissions, fuel mileage and STILL pump out monsters. Were you to put a C7Z today in 24 Hrs of Lemans some years back, you'd have drivers then mind boggled.

I never say "regulation" is the way to go...ever. I hate regulation and govt intervention. I think the upcoming standards will potentially slow something down...that or tire technology. Either way...cars are full bore right now. Like that boat of a Hellcat...over 700 real deal SAE hp with a warranty on pump gas...who'd have ever thought...lol.

Then again, you look at street bikes though. Those are some SERIOUS death machines that are cheap to buy. Any 18 year old can have something that is purely deadly. In the end, it just comes down to personal responsibility and person risk.

165mph to turn 10 at Road Atlanta, 160+ approaching turn 5 at Road America (which is often a little slick and very little recovery)...in a street car with no cage...yeah, you're playing with your life and trusting the hell out of every component on that car...lol.

FlamingZ06

That is the 2000 Cobra R. One of Ford's several stupid, money wasting, time consuming, impossible to validate, losers that they have built over the years. And all those poor ignorant Mustang buyers have no idea they have been paying a tax for those track focused and specialty cars Ford keeps introducing. Even at $54K, with only 300 built there is no way that could have been profitable. Must have been another reason. What a bunch of losers...no wonder they needed a bail o...oh wait, never mind.

truth.b

Sigh... ^^ this is why its so hard to have a constructive conversation these days on the forum. Couldn't have just told me what car it was and whether you bought one or not huh....

a striper

Seems like after 60 years things haven't changed. Thunderbirds had comfort and resulting sales so Chevrolet went for performance. Now the Vette has the Thunderbird's position and Vipers fill the old role the Corvette had. I find it easy to love both the GM and Mopar answers to what a two seat performance car should be.

FlamingZ06

That exercise was for the benefit of those who claim that a focused version won't sell and costs too much. Ford has done it over and over again. If it was a loser seems they would have learned their lesson with the original Shelby's. Heck, back in the day they would build 500 of something just so they could race it on Sunday.

RC000E

One has to admit, Ford has always been willing to take chances in terms of performance car/racing. This new Ford GT will certainly take the cake.

End of day though, the financial health, outlook, executive mindset, etc is different from brand to brand...Corvette likely faces an entirely different set of challenges.

Snorman

And they always seems to go faster when a.) they hit the grass, and b.) are going backwards.
Not sure why.
S.

Snorman

Ford did it mainly with the Cobra R's in '93, '95 and '00 (107, 250 and 300 built respectively). The impetus for the '00 was the '99 Cobra horsepower fiasco that really gave Ford a black eye, legitimately or not. And all three (I'm not 100% on the '00) required a racing license to purchase new from a dealer.
But, those '00 R's did not sell well. Lots of dealers bought one and stuck it on the showroom floor to rot for a huge markup, and in reality, they did little to nothing for the Mustang brand. They were so limited that almost none ever made it to the street and probably fewer made it to the track. Worse yet, the damn things were slower than LS1 F-bodies at the time. In fact, an LS1 1LE was probably faster around a track. If anything, they were somewhat of a showcase for aftermarket suppliers, other than the 5.4, which had cast iron truck block with good internals. The block and DOHC heads added lots of weight and the '00 R weighed nearly 3600# even without AC, back seats, a radio, etc..
S.

Bwright

This, so very much.

FlamingZ06

Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Ford "did It" long before the Cobra R's. And the 2000 model was the equal of a C5 Z06, in fact it beat it (by 1.5 seconds) and the Viper in a Motor Trend test at Waterford. F body lol. As for sales, you may have hit on something. If focused cars are hard sells, it's because of the greedy *** dealers who can't help themselves. Maybe that's what Chevy recognizes, based off of the frenzied chum-in-the-water reaction to every new Corvette model that aren't even limited production.

FlamingZ06

And a couple more things. The "impetus" for the 2000 R was not the '99 horsepower issue. That is the reason that there was no '00 Cobra. Ford did the right thing and dropped the model until they had the issue worked out. '99 may have been the reason the '00R had far more than its advertised horsepower, but the '00 Cobra and the '00R were both in the Ford brochure for 2000.

Also, all of the 2000 R's were spoken for before the first one hit the lot. Lot's of folks were left out in the cold who would have gladly paid MSRP (see greedy dealer quote above).

It does have a curb weight of 3590#, so you got that much right.

Bwright

It is done and it is considerable. Moment.

Many apologies in advance for its length to RC to whose posts I responded as I find his posts always interesting for their combination of insight and genuine question. I wanted to be thorough.

FlamingZ06

Quote:

Originally Posted by truth.b View Post

As an engineer, I can say with a huge degree of certainty that you are over estimating the ease of doing such things. For the guy in his garage trying to achieve good enough for a single outcome it "can" be a straight forward process. But for a large company that has to spend hundreds of man hours between R/D, testing, validation, and certification to prepare the product for the entire customer base it is a completely different animal. Lastly that cost would be rolled into all the Corvettes not just the track focused model, and personally I don't think its a good business model to raise the overall price of the product for smallest percentage of your customer base.


This, not so much. I hate to potentially sound like a fanboy, but Ford has done it again. Shelby GT350 and GT350R. Who is paying for those carbon fiber wheels? How in the heck did those get validated? That must have cost a fortune!
And those idiots limited the first year production on the R...how do they ever expect to make any money??? Is Coletti still at Ford? I need to send him over to this thread so he can finally realize that what Ford keeps attempting is just not possible.

Bwright

I'm sorry but your previous posts contain so many basic inaccuracies that they simply weren't worth my time to respond.

By the way, FYI, replacement wheel costs for those carbon wheels are $3,433 each for the fronts and $4,053 each for the rears. Good luck with that. Certainly explains why they couldn't afford carbon ceramic brakes for the car though.

And yes, you do sound like a fanboy which begs the question as to why you are here at all. But I have a feeling that you won't be for very much longer. Just a guess but I think it's a good one.

Be a sport and let us know when you find your way back to the Ford Forum and how you get along with your new 350 R.

Bwright

Impressive. I didn’t think there were many people who were aware of just how hard IMSA tried to keep the Viper in the Tudor series, usually by penalizing their competitors.

The danger for any Vehicle Line Executive is being able to smartly separate signal from noise. That is, what enthusiasts say they will buy from what they actually do. A favorite example is something I once read on the Ferrarichat forum. A late model Ferrari owner was commenting on being taken to task by an enthusiast who accused the owner of not being a real enthusiast because the Ferrari in question did not have a manual. To which the owner quietly asked what time of transmission the questioner had in his last two Ferraris. Crickets, before he squirted away behind cover of a dark cloud of excuses. Yeah, that. The people who actually write those large checks voted with their wallets. Talk is cheap. You want change from Ferrari then buy the manuals. But if Ferrari were to lose their way and listen to those “enthusiasts” who talk a lot and don’t buy product they would lose more than their way wouldn’t they? Automakers make what sells. It’s not super complex.

By the same token I often wonder why those who agitate for a particular product don’t often first ask themselves why the vehicle they think does it right in fact doesn’t sell. GM listened to so-called enthusiasts who said they wanted a track car. A lot of time and development effort went into bringing forth the Camaro Z/28. How fast is the Z/28? Well, in Car and Driver’s hands at their annual Lighting Lap event the 2015 Z/28 put 7 seconds on a $196,795 2014 Audi R8 V10 Plus, 5 seconds on a $379,575 Lexus LFA. It was a full second faster than a $198,380 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S, a tenth faster than a $171,900 2016 Mercedes AMG GT S and a mere tenth of a second off the pace of Ferrari’s mighty $437,844 F12. For only $75,000 (the lowest priced vehicle with standard carbon ceramic brakes) the Z/28 is a never before seen bargain. They should have to hire extra staff to sell such a thing right?

Sells with an eye-dropper.

Signal. Noise.

As JVP accurately pointed out, a lot of buyers of expensive cars could easily have bought Vipers (ACRs and the standard car) if they wanted them. In their January 2016 issue Car and Driver ran a fascinating piece in which they indicated the average option package cost for buyers of particular marques. For Porsche’s 911, off an $85,295 base the average option spend was (sitting down?) $52,949. Yeah, they were pretty much buying a side order of Corvette Stingray with their 911s. Through December of 2015 Automotive News reported Porsche as selling 9,898 911s. In contrast, Dodge sold 676 Vipers. A substantial 11% drop from the 760 it sold in 2014. Put another way, if just 10% of U.S. Porsche 911 buyers in 2015 had bought Vipers instead it would have increased Viper sales by 146%. But those Porsche buyers chose not to.

For its part in the 2015 model year the Corvette sold a simply staggering 8,653 Z06s (coupes and convertibles) according to numbers published by Corvetteblogger. Every last one of those Z06 buyers could have bought a new Viper of some sort. Few did. But peel off another 10% of Corvette sales and you would be looking at close to a record for Viper sales. Didn’t happen and so plant closure is set for next year. But how can this be when the Viper is supposedly everything paying enthusiasts want in a sports car?

Signal. Noise.

How many ACRs do you think it will take for Dodge to recover their investment? I can tell you that past sales figures for the ACR do not bode well at all. According to The Viper Store, sales for the ACR in previous years has been:

1999 ACR 215 units
2000 ACR 218 units
2001 ACR 227 units
2002 ACR 159 units

That’s a total of 819 sales over four years. GM will need something like 4,000 to make it worth their while. Consider that for what the C6 ZR1 cost to build they made 4,684 over the course of five model years. That’s the kind of number they would need to hit to make an investment in a model worth it. To be perfectly clear. There is no chance whatsoever of approaching that with any vehicle modeled after the Viper ACR. None.

That pretty much craters the business case argument and nukes the remains for good measure. The Corvette business cannot be run at a loss and you cannot even consider asking another program to subsidize stupidity. If you were running the GMC Truck business and got a call from GM corporate to the effect of, “Hey, heard you were doing a great job running that side of the business and bringing in your vehicles under budget and turning a profit. Yeah, well, the Corvette guys are not that smart and ran a couple of money losing operations. Unable to distinguish signal from noise. Anyway, we’re going to need for you to cough up tens of millions to make them whole. Maybe they’ll get it right next year. You understand right?” What would be your reaction? What would you think if someone in your actual organization did that to you and/or your business?

I think where guys are losing the plot here is a simply vast underestimation of what it takes to bring something approximating the Viper ACR to market. Parts cost is both clueless and utterly useless. It would be like me saying, “Hey, I know what a more aerodynamic bumper cost. If I put that bumper on any given vehicle that should be the only additional cost the program would incur.” As if. Changing the bumper would require re crash testing the car which will be fabulously expensive.

Think changing the tires is simple? Guess. Again. A modern car is basically a computer with wheels and seats. Every single electronic subsystem (ABS, traction, stability, wheel speed sensors etc.) which interacts with the differing coefficient of grip of a given tire would have to be actually tested in the real world. I once took John Heinricy to task on just such a hypothetical many years ago at the New York Auto Show. I asked him why they couldn’t just make a simple change to the C5’s traction control to address an issue I had seen.

His response was that once a traction control setting had been tested and validated for the vehicle it couldn’t be readily changed because it was much more than changing lines of software codes. To verify the validation and be able to warranty and stand behind the change GM would have to take the revised vehicle to, for one example, their cold weather test site in Michigan to rerun the entire battery of adverse traction scenarios they use in testing. Same goes for water grip testing. All the time the vehicle would have to be attended by a brace of engineers to test and confirm to gain sign off. Failure to do so could potentially lead to interesting interactions with a particularly virulent and quite dangerous strain of Americana known as its legal system. See present day VW for a rough idea of how it works when you shirk or try to do end runs around proper testing and validation.

Nothing is simple or cheap on a modern vehicle. Nothing. If I told you what the Feds require for just of their routine FMVSS rules you would simply not believe it.

Anyway, let’s look at a few examples of what it cost to bring up the performance of five given vehicles.

1. Cadillac ATS ($33,215) to ATS-V ($60,465). Increase of $27,250 or 82%.
2. Cadillac CTS ($45,560) to CTS-V ($83,995). Increase of $38,435 or 84%.
3. Camaro ($23,705) to Z/28 ($72,305). Increase of $48,600 or 205%.
4. Corvette ($55,400) to Z06 ($79,400). Increase of $24,000 or 43%.
5. Dodge Viper ($87,895) to ACR ($118,795). Increase of $30,900 or 35%

If I were to take the lowest percentage increase from the above and just say that the Z06 would increase by 35% I would be looking to bring a hypothetical Z06X to market at $107,190 base. Options on an ACR in full battle gear as tested by Motor Trend pegged the meter at $132,890. Given that the base Viper and Z06 are only several thousand dollars apart if I reasonably assume a Z06X in similar attire but several thousand dollars less I am at $125,000 to emulate a vehicle, the Viper ACR, that has a readily observable record of incinerating cash and stymying sales. Why on earth would anyone do that?

If the previous versions of the ACR and the current and past Vipers had a record of selling well and not, for what appears to be good this time, being cancelled for lack of sales maybe but, reality check.

Signal. Noise.

So-called enthusiasts say the Viper is all that and a bag of chips but then stampede past it to buy other, slower cars. There isn’t a single normally aspirated 911 that the ACR cannot show the way around a road course. Same goes for any sub $1mm McLaren, Ferrari and Lamborghini. Fearless prediction, those other competing marques will be around long after the last shovel of dirt hits the Viper’s casket and the ink dries on its obit. Why? Because performance is not all it takes to sell. If it did this would be easy.

The real challenge is balancing a reasonable amount of performance with enough attendant luxury that the resulting vehicle becomes something you can persuade a fair number of well-heeled buyers to part with a six-figure sum for. Something that, even if they don’t track it they could live with it and not be embarrassed to be seen in it going to the grocery store or a night out.

Years ago (May 2002) I wrote the definition of a supercar for Automobile Magazine. It is on page 73 of the issue. It read in effect, “It is in the very name. It should be super and, when needed, just a car.” The Viper fails because while it is undoubtedly super it simply isn’t much of a car. Balancing act. If you can do it you walk the tightrope like other successful marques. Unbalance and you go down like Dodge. Any of those other marques can stick a huge wing and splitter on a car and then strip it down and give it a punishing ride. But ask yourself why they don’t. Because they have a business to run and that business does not consist of flinging money down a demonstrated rat hole to pursue a bunch of outliers who don’t buy enough product to justify the investment. A DCT is more expensive than a manual. Why have all Ferraris switched to that over manuals? “Hey man, you’re not driving a real Ferrari…” Yeah.

I think a lot of people are agitated by not just the Viper ACR’s track times but, more to the point, that Motor Trend picked the Viper over a competing Corvette. If they understood a bit more about what was happening they would be a lot less agitated.

Unlike the Corvette which has scored multiple wins over competitors from Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini, among others, do you know that (prior to this recent Motor Trend test) in its 24-year history of being tested by Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Road & Track and Automobile that the Viper has never won a ranked competition?

Not ever.

So I am not surprised by the ACR’s recent “win.” Having reported on it, Motor Trend is well aware that the Viper has failed to find sales traction and is being cancelled after 2017. When you know that a valiant competitor is on its deathbed and effectively has one foot in the grave it is generally considered good form to find something positive to say about them and overlook traditional negatives against them.

Viper finally “won” a battle but ultimately lost the war.

Sleep well great snake.

The rest of the world’s manufacturers would be well advised not to follow its path into that shallow grave.

Dead things tend not to bite. Turns out that you have to survive to thrive.

Do you know why the Miata is able to do what it does? Ask yourself what the Miata’s primary competition is. Not saying it’s not a good car but is a lot easier to look like a hero when you have no competition.

By the way, on a percentage basis the Miata’s 100 lb. weight gain is actually the same as the Vette over approximately the same time period. That is, using Car and Driver’s test data for a 1990 Miata (2,210 lbs.) and the 2015 2,309 lbs. shows a weight gain of 4.5%. The 1988 Corvette the magazine tested weighed 3,313 lbs. Add 4.5% to that and a Stingray should weigh 3,462. The 2014 model CD tested weighed 3,460. Perspective and relativity.

Do you know how much they lost per Veyron? No? Sitting down? http://jalopnik.com/volkswagen-loses...bug-1426504241

The Veyron’s production run consists of 450 units. Do that math. Do you recommend that GM, or anyone else for that matter, incur such a loss? By the way, do you know that the budget for the C7 program was about $250mm? Again, look at the magnitude of the loss for VW. Think they could use some of that money back right about now? But that’s why when former Porsche CEO Wendelin Wiediking was talking about taking over the Volkswagen Group he specifically described the Veyron project saying it was time for, "These costly sandbox exercises to end." Again, this is from a guy who was at the time running Porsche. Remember, there is leading edge and bleeding edge. One works, the other does not.

The 2005 – 2006 Ford GT did not lose money for Ford. Know why? Same reason as the C6 ZR1. Turns out Ford made some 4,038 units. Again, that’s about the number you need for profitability. Again, the ACR will not come close to that number. Based on their history they would be lucky to hit 10% of it.

Those young demographics of which you speak usually don’t buy the cars they supposedly tout. Looked at fanboy favorite the Mitsubishi Evolution lately? Look quickly because it has now been discontinued. Have you looked at sales of the GT-R lately? While it probably won’t join the Mitsubishi in history’s dustbin it is probably not long for the U.S market if this keeps up. Have you seen Corvette sales recently? Funny that. Are you also aware that the Corvette is the second longest continually produced vehicle (since 1953) in the U.S.? The first is the Suburban (1933 to present).

Signal. Noise.

In a 2014 interview, Ian Robertson, BMW’s head of sales said in a Bloomberg interview, “The sports-car market is roughly half of what it used to be. Post-2008, it just collapsed. I’m not so sure it’ll ever fully recover.” I understand his pain. Model year 2007 sales of the Z4 were 10,097. Model year 2014 was 2,151. That kind of sales collapse is difficult to miss. It also means that purveyors of such product need to be super careful with precious resources that often can’t be spread over the rest of the product line. Any idiot can propose a money losing project. Not challenging at all. The challenge is a product that performs well, turns a profit and has longevity. Whether that’s Corvette, Miata, Porsche’s evergreen 911 or the Suburban therein lies the challenge.

Always remember, the people who propose that others enter substantial money losing propositions would never EVER countenance doing anything remotely similar in their own lives or if their jobs were in any way dependent on such a thing.

Question, it sounds like Dodge now offers just the vehicle for you. Are you on the list to get one? If so, when do you anticipate taking delivery? If not, why not?

You have no idea how hard it was on the Corvette team to have effectively launched the ZR1 into a recessionary economy. I spoke to some members of the team who were contemplating the considerable investment relative to the payoff they were now looking at. Dark mood does not even begin to cover it. Look at the economic signals permeating the airwaves now. How do you think they feel?

Recheck your Ford GT and GT3 RS numbers. They appear to be off significantly. Ford GT production was over 4,000 cars for the 2005 – 2006 model years. Global production of the Porsche 911 GT3 RS appears to have been about 2,000 units. http://www.gt3rsregistry.com/docs/HowMany.htm

Again, you need numbers in the thousands and/or prices well into the six figure range (think of the upcoming version or the Ford GT) to recover your investment. I am not sure there is a sizable market for a $200,000 Corvette or Viper and it is unlikely that the ACR will sell in the thousands. Car companies, like men, have to know their limits.

You answered your own question. GM (much like Ferrari, Porsche and Audi) spends the money on something else intended to raise their profile with potential buyers. Their notably quite expensive endurance racing programs. Tune in this weekend to watch Corvette, Ford, BMW, Aston Martin, Audi, Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini battle it out at the 24 Hours of Daytona.

As you earlier observed with deadly accuracy, a certain snake bit sports car will not be joining the proceedings. Failed business case or something to that effect. Like I said, its competitors, those able to smartly distinguish between signal and noise, will be like Alpha and Omega to it. Here before and long after it.

Sleep well great snake.

RC000E

If only I could get JVP to talk that much...lol^

A few of your answers were kind of misinterpretations of the spirit of what I was saying. I suppose that's the nature of text and typing too fast. I'll respond in a little...that's a big one...lol.

If I recall, you're a former automotive analyst for an investment fund no?

RC000E

Preface: I operate on this forum with a basic set of rules. I type at approx 85wpm and I attempt to dedicate as little of my mind/time to this forum as possible, while also trying to engage and keep track of what's going on.

In no way, shape or forum, at any given time do I take this forum very seriously. I come here as an enthusiast...as a guy who likes cars...I don't come here to conduct business and debate policy. In other words, I only do enough to attempt to mirror, and subsequently debate those who oppose me here (though I realize this is the internet...there are no winners here). Beyond that, I get in and get out.

You specifically quote some of my statements...and when I read them, I realize it's easy for you to make me sound foolish. You break down my conversation like a bias news media looking for gaffs and fact checks to an opposing party candidate.

I don't move carefully enough here, so it's game on when someone tries.

With that said, this response borders on my mental time commitment/limit. I don't get paid to be here, this is my "enthusiast" waste time, but I've always liked your posts and insights, so...I'll turn my dial up a little I suppose.


No one really had to look too hard, just had to have your eyes opened really. Manufacturers pay to be involved in GTLM. If they can't justify the cost and get enough screen time, off they go. I think it's everyones fear that financial incentive leads to Balance of Performance manipulation.

Considering the Corvette actually conformed to the class rules and along comes the 8.0L Viper and the GT3 bodied BMW, both operating on waivers...the fact everyone flexes to keep the series lively is obvious. How you walk this knife edge as a team manager/manufacturer/series regulating agency is art. With the Viper, towards the end, the art looked more like grafitti.

For the mostpart...yeah...I agree. Demographics of Ferrari isn't exactly littered with enthusiasts of yesteryear though. Much like Corvette, you have chronic repeat buyers who will buy whatever comes out of there. You have the dreamers who just want to be part of the club and will buy whatever has the horse on the hood. Then you have the showboats who want to wear their bank account around town. Then at the end you have some enthusiasts who want excellence and a real driving experience.

I find your comment here very interesting. This entire response you've typed up has been to talk about how GM and staff have to make these obvious decisions of build what sells. Yet you point out, just across the hall some idiots sold the Z28 idea to the execs. Interesting contradiction.

Save for later...

Mehhh...I mean, I'm a little disappointed in this one. Corvette, as a model, targets Porsche because they want their buyers. Porsche owners, generally speaking, are driving exactly what they want to be driving. Corvette understands they have to work HARD to displace those buyers from that brand. It's got a lifelong legacy as a BRAND representing racing and performance, not just a MODEL. Porsche buyers don't buy Porsche because it's the fastest, they buy it because it's the best.

I could go on and on, how this determination of excellence is hugely the result of simply sticking to the recipe they started. After a company continuously improves and refines it's product without deviating hugely from the core (on the surface to random eyes), there develops a public trust that, this is the best. This is a discussion that could take hours...my point is hardly made here in one paragraph.

Point is, Corvette struggles to grab Porsche buyers but they're working at it. Viper's brute, bulky, bulbous existence doesn't have a chance. The only Porsche buyer that's buying a Viper is a highly liquid guy looking for a track beater.




My biggest issue here is how you value "return on investment". You're speaking more to generational return on investment...even specific RPO return on investment. What about Corvette return on investment in terms of future demographics, buyer pool, etc?

Also, many "specialty" vehicles of a model are often purchased by brand loyalists who want the top/best there is to offer. We know this because Ferrari, Porsche, Toyota (LFA), Lambo all have used methods (and continue to) to target their buyer pool for those models, often ahead of product release.

Point is, they just don't build it and stick on a for sale sign (like Viper did). They often target market the car to their choice buyers and brand loyalists:

A. To insure that price gouging and quick flip doesn't occur
B. To sell the cars to those who represent the brand from a loyalty perspective
C. To further project/refine demand for future model years (color, material, driving impressions, etc).

Much of what hurt the Viper was they built the car and handed the ability to dealers to "buy it" and hold it for these prestige clients they thought they could sell it to. Walk past the econoboxes, the front desk lady will give you a water and you'll write us a check for a huge markup. Fail after fail with Viper.

Corvette suffers the same effect in markets like LA and Miami when new models release, but the allocation across the country, along with online, calms the gouging.

So, you're basically saying the Corvette guys got the memo and the Camaro guys didn't with the Z28?

Of course not...why...because there IS justification, if the budget allows it, to do something that doesn't provide for IMMEDIATE ROI, but long term, projected, calculated ROI.

Camaro pricing falls inline with demographics that are online...that watch the internet and HINGE on simple WIN/LOSS type competitions.

I think the Z28 was a calculated marketing budgeted machine to create Camaro excitement prior to the lead out for the 2.0 turbo 2016 and the upcoming gen. Now, some might read what I just said and say WHOAAA WHAT!?? Then they'd be tempted to insert rolling laughies and other bs. Here's the reasoning though.

Guys my age, that are enthusiast grade/hobbyist grade are unique. You either have DINKS that need a daily or you have guys who are making some cash and want a toy, but can't afford a high dollar car, but want a back seat. They may be guys from a decade past that had huge excitement for 4cyl turbo (Honda, DSM, 240, etc). I feel real positive about the new Camaro and I think the Z28 invoked a lot of excitement and put it on a lot of media pages.

Point is, guys may not buy, nor afford the Z28 but many will BUILD a viscious Camaro in stages, as budget allows. This is how a potentially cost LOSS platform (of limited numbers) can lead to future sales.

You're a smart guy...you have to be able to see this.

I would, which is why my former company worked so hard to avoid it all.

There is truth that many enthusiasts don't understand the background cost of validation, legal documentation, development, etc. This is where going to bash's as the museum are great, because you can hear perspectives from Tadge and other engineers which will respond to questions like this and really give depth into why you can't just stick stick a DCT in there and call it a day.

Again, I often point out that people also look at manufacturers as apples to apples, and that's not the case. All the dealerships may look the same from the highway, but what puts all those cars on the road is the result of a corporate structure that varies greatly. Well beyond the understanding of anyone shy of people like Bob Lutz or Tadge or the like.

Alright, cmon now. Great figures, great facts but really doesn't add up. What you're proposing here is that manufacturers base cost solely upon what it takes to build the car. Then you're taking those exact percentages and crossing models and brands. MSRP is targeted likely FIRST, then production costs, equipment and the entirely "business plan" of that car is laid out to fit that price. This is to ensure it "undercuts" whatever car it's targeting in class, or capture dollars they project are there for the taking. Your figures are nowhere near objective.

We know for a fact Tadge is VERY good at this approach. He understands spreading costs through various brands, through various models, even into the tooling at the plant. He wants the same machine to mount Stingray fenders and Z06 fenders. This even goes down to the CAD programming by sharing the same mounting interface. The interface of both fender and both mounting surface is exactly the same, etc. He wants to create as different of a vehicle while minimizing variation in tooling, parts, inventory, etc.

We don't know the margins on the Stingray versus the Z07, but what you're implying is that for each RPO there is a directly related margin increase of profit. You know that's not the case...so your numbers are invalid.

In reality, you look at all options across the entire model lineup and you look for those pockets of higher margin, and then attempt to reach more towards the fringes to increase "bandwidth" (as he likes to state), while making the bottom line equal ROI.

End of day a more "track rat" Corvette is possible. It simply depends on sales figures, margins, and what Tadge can continue to sell to the suits. A track focused car MAY act as a slight loss or even a break even, but if you have an increase in bandwidth as a result, you increase market share/reach. Therefore, the effect of creating excitement for this TOP end car exists, but draws buyers to a Z51. Only a savvy marketing dept can calculate and learn where those captures exist due to buyer surveys and talking with the drivers.

Yeahhhp...

Real simple, why do some people spend 120 bucks on a bottle of Macallan 15, when you can buy a cheap bottle of colt 45 and get krinkled...

You BUILD up to something like the ACR. People need to acquire a taste for something, then they progressively dig deeper into their wallet. This is where the comparison of ACR vs Corvette goes REAL south. Corvette can do what Viper couldn't. Viper didn't have a base to build upon. They built antennae whereas Corvette builds a pyramid. Corvette can support that venture, Viper couldn't.

Not to mention, who knows what was happening in Dodge/Fiat/Diamler/Chrysler over the years that Viper sat in the wind. I believe Viper had a brand to build upon, but it likely wasn't funded, wasn't stimulated, wasn't focused upon and wasn't manned properly. The car itself had a place in America...it's failure is that of the people running the program, not of the American people or lack of interest.

More on that later...

Even Viper, given its limited existence, can put some good engineers on task and build a car. Winning today has nothing to do with yesterday.

Today, versus that of the past 25 years, manufacturers have found a balance with regulation. In the 80's cars were powerless. Winning then was about riding well, being reasonably exciting despite anemic power output, etc. The 90's we saw some power increases, but rapid increase in safety regulation which added weight. The 2000's rolled around and even while emission standards increased, engineers are getting pretty savvy to working around these problems. They use the fleet avg, they workaround the EPA tests, they use technology and "drive modes", etc. So, today, the canvas isn't what it used to be. Now you have technology, power output, tire compounds and engineering to think through and find a balance to these issues to create a great machine (by some measure). Current enthusiast climate/media demand is about FASTEST, not best daily/fastest.

In the end, don't you agree that the GT3RS is more about selling base Carrera's than it is about selling itself? Of course it is. It's a HALO. HALO's aren't designed to be profitable, they are designed to have marketing, engineering and brand value. Their ROI is more "mysterious" and requires market savvy to find it, not a guy looking at spreadsheets.

The biggest disconnect between and engineer/crew chief is selling what you HAVE to do, when the numbers on a piece of paper don't add up. You can't MAKE that person see value in a meeting. The value is often seen by those who have been in the market for decades and who have that "gut feeling" for what will create excitement. These are the risks you MUST take for excellence. If not, you'll be mediocre....and you'll serve a mediocre customer base.

You've never seen me complain about the Corvettes weight. That's an argument to take up with the rest of the forum. By my measure, the Corvette teams have done as good as any out there. This solely goes to the cars construction and design makeup. Those "leafsprings" people like to talk about, Jeremy Clarkson pushing on the rear bumper, people calling it a plastic car, etc all still equal power to weight in a car that's safe.

In this current market, the corvette is a featherweight. GM/Corvette are great about developing new technologies. I see these carbon reinforced plastic parts and it brings me joy, because I know as they develop this for small parts, it will slowly lighten the entire brand. I have no disputes with what they've done. I know Tadge ONLY put the weight on the car that had to be there.

This is really where you reveal yourself as a "suit" (no offense intended). In the automotive world, all enthusiasts (like yourself or myself) are made up of a list of attributes. Like how the Z06 is built, dedicating "x" amount to performance, and "y" amount to refinement/interior, as car people we assess the market with our own perspective of "what's good" based upon what parameters. Some of us need financial justification, some need legacy, some need public perception, etc. To summarize quickly, an automotive journalist, a custom car builder and a multi-millionaire car collector may all rank the Z06 (or other) differently.

Point is, you're calling the Veyron a bad decision. This is your investment, from behind a desk, assessment guy talking. From an enthusiast perspective, who smashes an abacus in the board meeting for dramatic effect, HOLY MOLY, that car was a game changer! You're lucky if once per decade a car of that magnitude comes along and changes the market for good. It's becomes a benchmark. Let's talk about the Veyron:

A. The veyron overcame a number of challenges to make that car hit the street. It had to have brakes good enough to stop the car from it's operating envelope. It had to have tires that safely operated that car within its envelope. It brought in aerospace, tons of technology not yet seen.

B. Let's look at the trickle effect the Veyron had on the overall market. Michelin likely changed the entire face of performance due to their development with that car. The Veyron changed every car that wore a Michelin. From there, a numbers war started with top speeds. Hennessey even jumped in with his Venom and disputed Veyrons records with Guinness. From there enthusiasts wondered about their own top speeds, thus you saw this explosion of "Texas Mile" racing. You think there is a coincidence that Hennessey is in Texas? The Veyron did ALL of it.

C. The impact and growth within the subsidiaries is likely almost incalculable. To a numbers guy the Veyron was a loss...anyone can read that fact. To a car guy, an internal engineer, the overall minds that run that monster of a company it's ALL win. They can spread that financial "loss" over the entire business structure. If it didn't make sense, they wouldn't be building another one. The ONLY reason they may not is due to the "dieselgate" stuff but...considering they kept their Lemans program going and only cut the Bentley One Make, I'd say their focus is sound.

Agreed, market perspective is of utmost importance. Internal and external brand awareness is critical to survival.

On to your point about BMW. I agree...your information and your name drop there has some value. I just believe the analysis is incorrect. This isn't an indication of a shrinking demand, it's an indication of a more competitive marketplace. The Z4 lost relevance...plain and simple. That cars recipe simply doesn't create a lot of excitement right now, especially compared to other market offerings.

I feel this is an uncharacterstic (of you) attempt to be belittling...I'll pass for the most part and I'll assume I'm misinterpreting you here. I'll simply say Viper doesn't have the legacy I require as an enthusiast, to justify ownership. I connect, very strongly, with the racing legacy of Corvette, as well as with the ALMS/Tudor/Weathertech team. I don't look at, do I buy a Viper or a Corvette, I think, "Do I buy a Viper or a kit car with an LSX swap and massive aero (Superlite SLC...my buddy frans ride)".

First, I don't run Google on a second screen when I post on forums. I type quickly, without reference, direct from my mind and move on. The "spirit" of my comment, which has been improperly dissected simply is, low production/target marketing/sell the car to get as close to recovered as you can in the spirit of reach.

Again, it's about spreading the cost over the entire model, OR taking the Lambo/Mclaren/Koenigsegg approach and selling a limited amount of units for a high pricetag. The FordGT was along the Pagani recipe, outsourcing to a number of companies for components to make that car happen. I think the FordGT served a lot of reasons from a networking, relationship, marketing perspective. That car wasn't sold to the board solely upon the basis dollars and cents...NO WAY. I'd need data and direct quotes from the people involved to believe otherwise.

Preface: I operate on this forum with a basic set of rules. I type at approx 85wpm and I attempt to dedicate as little of my mind/time to this forum as possible, while also trying to engage and keep track of what's going on.

In no way, shape or forum, at any given time do I take this forum very seriously. I come here as an enthusiast...as a guy who likes cars...I don't come here to conduct business and debate policy. In other words, I only do enough to attempt to mirror, and subsequently debate those who oppose me here (though I realize this is the internet...there are no winners here). Beyond that, I get in and get out.

You specifically quote some of my statements...and when I read them, I realize it's easy for you to make me sound foolish. You break down my conversation like a bias news media looking for gaffs and fact checks to an opposing party candidate.

I don't move carefully enough here, so it's game on when someone tries.

With that said, this response borders on my mental time commitment/limit. I don't get paid to be here, this is my "enthusiast" waste time, but I've always liked your posts and insights, so...I'll turn my dial up a little I suppose.


No one really had to look too hard, just had to have your eyes opened really. Manufacturers pay to be involved in GTLM. If they can't justify the cost and get enough screen time, off they go. I think it's everyones fear that financial incentive leads to Balance of Performance manipulation.

Considering the Corvette actually conformed to the class rules and along comes the 8.0L Viper and the GT3 bodied BMW, both operating on waivers...the fact everyone flexes to keep the series lively is obvious. How you walk this knife edge as a team manager/manufacturer/series regulating agency is art. With the Viper, towards the end, the art looked more like grafitti.

For the mostpart...yeah...I agree. Demographics of Ferrari isn't exactly littered with enthusiasts of yesteryear though. Much like Corvette, you have chronic repeat buyers who will buy whatever comes out of there. You have the dreamers who just want to be part of the club and will buy whatever has the horse on the hood. Then you have the showboats who want to wear their bank account around town. Then at the end you have some enthusiasts who want excellence and a real driving experience.

I find your comment here very interesting. This entire response you've typed up has been to talk about how GM and staff have to make these obvious decisions of build what sells. Yet you point out, just across the hall some idiots sold the Z28. Interesting contradiction.

Save for later...

Mehhh...I mean, I'm a little disappointed in this one. Corvette, as a model, targets Porsche because they want their buyers. Porsche owners, generally speaking, are driving exactly what they want to be driving. Corvette understands they have to work HARD to displace those buyers from that brand. It's got a lifelong legacy as a BRAND representing racing and performance, not just a MODEL. Porsche buyers don't buy Porsche because it's the fastest, they buy it because it's the best.

I could go on and on, how this determination of excellence is hugely the result of simply sticking to the recipe they started. After a company continuously improves and refines it's product without deviating hugely from the core (on the surface to random eyes), there develops a public trust that, this is the best. This is a discussion that could take hours...my point is hardly made here in one paragraph.

Point is, Corvette struggles to grab Porsche buyers but they're working at it. Viper's brute, bulky, bulbous existence doesn't have a chance. The only Porsche buyer that's buying a Viper is a highly liquid guy looking for a track beater.




My biggest issue here is how you value "return on investment". You're speaking more to generational return on investment...even specific RPO return on investment. What about Corvette return on investment in terms of future demographics, buyer pool, etc?

Also, many "specialty" vehicles of a model are often purchased by brand loyalists who want the top/best there is to offer. We know this because Ferrari, Porsche, Toyota (LFA), Lambo all have used methods (and continue to) to target their buyer pool for those models, often ahead of product release.

Point is, they just don't build it and stick on a for sale sign (like Viper did). They often target market the car to their choice buyers and brand loyalists:

A. To insure that price gouging and quick flip doesn't occur
B. To sell the cars to those who represent the brand from a loyalty perspective
C. To further project/refine demand for future model years (color, material, driving impressions, etc).

Much of what hurt the Viper was they built the car and handed the ability to dealers to "buy it" and hold it for these prestige clients they thought they could sell it to. Walk past the econoboxes, the front desk lady will give you a water and you'll write us a check for a huge markup. Fail after fail with Viper.

Corvette suffers the same effect in markets like LA and Miami when new models release, but the allocation across the country, along with online, calms the gouging.

So, you're basically saying the Corvette guys got the memo and the Camaro guys didn't with the Z28?

Of course not...why...because there IS justification, if the budget allows it, to do something that doesn't provide for IMMEDIATE ROI, but long term, projected, calculated ROI.

Camaro pricing falls inline with demographics that are online...that watch the internet and HINGE on simple WIN/LOSS type competitions.

I think the Z28 was a calculated marketing budgeted machine to create Camaro excitement prior to the lead out for the 2.0 turbo 2016 and the upcoming gen. Now, some might read what I just said and say WHOAAA WHAT!?? Then they'd be tempted to insert rolling laughies and other bs. Here's the reasoning though.

Guys my age, that are enthusiast grade/hobbyist grade are unique. You either have DINKS that need a daily or you have guys who are making some cash and want a toy, but can't afford a high dollar car, but want a back seat. They may be guys from a decade past that had huge excitement for 4cyl turbo (Honda, DSM, 240, etc). I feel real positive about the new Camaro and I think the Z28 invoked a lot of excitement and put it on a lot of media pages.

Point is, guys may not buy, nor afford the Z28 but many will BUILD a viscious Camaro in stages, as budget allows. This is how a potentially cost LOSS platform (of limited numbers) can lead to future sales.

You're a smart guy...you have to be able to see this.

I would, which is why my former company worked so hard to avoid it all.

There is truth that many enthusiasts don't understand the background cost of validation, legal documentation, development, etc. This is where going to bash's as the museum are great, because you can hear perspectives from Tadge and other engineers which will respond to questions like this and really give depth into why you can't just stick stick a DCT in there and call it a day.

Again, I often point out that people also look at manufacturers as apples to apples, and that's not the case. All the dealerships may look the same from the highway, but what puts all those cars on the road is the result of a corporate structure that varies greatly. Well beyond the understanding of anyone shy of people like Bob Lutz or Tadge or the like.

Alright, cmon now. Great figures, great facts but really doesn't add up. What you're proposing here is that manufacturers base cost solely upon what it takes to build the car. Then you're taking those exact percentages and crossing models and brands. Nowhere near objective.

We know for a fact Tadge is VERY good at this approach. He understands spreading costs through various brands, through various models, even into the tooling at the plant. He wants the same machine to mount Stingray fenders and Z06 fenders. This even goes down to the CAD programming by sharing the same mounting interface. The interface of both fender and both mounting surface is exactly the same, etc. He wants to create as different of a vehicle while minimizing variation in tooling, parts, inventory, etc.

We don't know the margins on the Stingray versus the Z07, but what you're implying is that for each RPO there is a directly related margin increase of profit. You know that's not the case...so your numbers are invalid.

In reality, you look at all options across the entire model lineup and you look for those pockets of higher margin, and then attempt to reach more towards the fringes to increase "bandwidth" (as he likes to state), while making the bottom line equal ROI.

End of day a more "track rat" Corvette is possible. It simply depends on sales figures, margins, and what Tadge can continue to sell to the suits. A track focused car MAY act as a slight loss or even a break even, but if you have an increase in bandwidth as a result, you increase market share/reach. Therefore, the effect of creating excitement for this TOP end car exists, but draws buyers to a Z51. Only a savvy marketing dept can calculate and learn where those captures exist due to buyer surveys and talking with the drivers.

Yeahhhp...

Real simple, why do some people spend 120 bucks on a bottle of Macallan 15, when you can buy a cheap bottle of colt 45 and get krinkled...

You BUILD up to something like the ACR. People need to acquire a taste for something, then they progressively dig deeper into their wallet. This is where the comparison of ACR vs Corvette goes REAL south. Corvette can do what Viper couldn't. Viper didn't have a base to build upon. They built antennae whereas Corvette builds a pyramid. Corvette can support that venture, Viper couldn't.

Not to mention, who knows what was happening in Dodge/Fiat/Diamler/Chrysler over the years that Viper sat in the wind. I believe Viper had a brand to build upon, but it likely wasn't funded, wasn't stimulated, wasn't focused upon and wasn't manned properly. The car itself had a place in America...it's failure is that of the people running the program, not of the American people or lack of interest.

More on that later...

Even Viper, given its limited existence, can put some good engineers on task and build a car. Winning today has nothing to do with yesterday.

Today, versus that of the past 25 years, manufacturers have found a balance with regulation. In the 80's cars were powerless. Winning then was about riding well, being reasonably exciting despite anemic power output, etc. The 90's we saw some power increases, but rapid increase in safety regulation which added weight. The 2000's rolled around and even while emission standards increased, engineers are getting pretty savvy to working around these problems. They use the fleet avg, they workaround the EPA tests, they use technology and "drive modes", etc. So, today, the canvas isn't what it used to be. Now you have technology, power output, tire compounds and engineering to think through and find a balance to these issues to create a great machine (by some measure). Current enthusiast climate/media demand is about FASTEST, not best daily/fastest.

In the end, don't you agree that the GT3RS is more about selling base Carrera's than it is about selling itself? Of course it is. It's a HALO. HALO's are designed to be profitable, they are designed to have marketing, engineering and brand value. Their ROI is more "mysterious" and requires market savvy to find it, not a guy looking at spreadsheets.

The biggest disconnect between and engineer/crew chief is selling what you HAVE to do, when the numbers on a piece of paper don't add up. You can't MAKE that person see value in a meeting. The value is often seen by those who have been in the market for decades and who have that "gut feeling" for what will create excitement. These are the risks you MUST take for excellence. If not, you'll be mediocre....and you'll serve a mediocre customer base.

You've never seen me complain about the Corvettes weight. That's an argument to take up with the rest of the forum. By my measure, the Corvette teams have done as good as any out there. This solely goes to the cars construction and design makeup. Those "leafsprings" people like to talk about, Jeremy Clarkson pushing on the rear bumper, people calling it a plastic car, etc all still equal power to weight in a car that's safe.

In this current market, the corvette is a featherweight. GM/Corvette are great about developing new technologies. I see these carbon reinforced plastic parts and it brings me joy, because I know as they develop this for small parts, it will slowly lighten the entire brand. I have no disputes with what they've done. I know Tadge ONLY put the weight on the car that had to be there.

This is really where you reveal yourself as a "suit" (no offense intended). In the automotive world, all enthusiasts (like yourself or myself) are made up of a list of attributes. Like how the Z06 is built, dedicating "x" amount to performance, and "y" amount to refinement/interior, as car people we assess the market with our own perspective of "what's good" based upon what parameters. Some of us need financial justification, some need legacy, some need public perception, etc. To summarize quickly, an automotive journalist, a custom car builder and a multi-millionaire car collector may all rank the Z06 (or other) differently.

Point is, you're calling the Veyron a bad decision. This is your investment, from behind a desk, assessment guy talking. From an enthusiast perspective, who smashes an abacus in the board meeting for dramatic effect, HOLY MOLY, that car was a game changer! You're lucky if once per decade a car of that magnitude comes along and changes the market for good. It's becomes a benchmark. Let's talk about the Veyron:

A. The veyron overcame a number of challenges to make that car hit the street. It had to have brakes good enough to stop the car from it's operating envelope. It had to have tires that safely operated that car within its envelope. It brought in aerospace, tons of technology not yet seen.

B. Let's look at the trickle effect the Veyron had on the overall market. Michelin likely changed the entire face of performance due to their development with that car. The Veyron changed every car that wore a Michelin. From there, a numbers war started with top speeds. Hennessey even jumped in with his Venom and disputed Veyrons records with Guinness. From there enthusiasts wondered about their own top speeds, thus you saw this explosion of "Texas Mile" racing. You think there is a coincidence that Hennessey is in Texas? The Veyron did ALL of it.

C. The impact and growth within the subsidiaries is likely almost incalculable. To a numbers guy the Veyron was a loss...anyone can read that fact. To a car guy, an internal engineer, the overall minds that run that monster of a company it's ALL win. They can spread that financial "loss" over the entire business structure. If it didn't make sense, they wouldn't be building another one. The ONLY reason they may not is due to the "dieselgate" stuff but...considering they kept their Lemans program going and only cut the Bentley One Make, I'd say their focus is sound.

Agreed, market perspective is of utmost importance. Internal and external brand awareness is critical to survival.

On to your point about BMW. I agree...your information and your name drop there has some value. I just believe the analysis is incorrect. This isn't an indication of a shrinking demand, it's an indication of a more competitive marketplace. The Z4 lost relevance...plain and simple. That cars recipe simply doesn't create a lot of excitement right now, especially compared to other market offerings.

I feel this is an uncharacterstic (of you) attempt to be belittling...I'll pass for the most part. I simply say Viper doesn't have the legacy I require as an enthusiast, to justify ownership. I don't look at do I buy a Viper or a Corvette, I think, "Do I buy a Viper or a kit car with an LSX swap and massive aero (Superlite SLC...my buddy frans ride)".

First, I don't run Google on a second screen when I post on forums. I type quickly, without reference, direct from my mind and move on. The "spirit" of my comment, which has been improperly dissected simply is, low production/target marketing/sell the car to get as close to recovered as you can in the spirit of reach.

Again, it's about spreading the cost over the entire model, OR taking the Lambo/Mclaren/Koenigsegg approach and selling a limited amount of units for a high pricetag. The FordGT was along the Pagani recipe, outsourcing to a number of companies for components to make that car happen. I think the FordGT served a lot of reasons from a networking, relationship, marketing perspective. That car wasn't sold to the board solely upon the basis dollars and cents...NO WAY. I'd need data and direct quotes from the people involved to believe otherwise.

You say I answered my own question, but you also countered your own position. Corvette is justifying doing something that has no immediate ROI, to a market you claim doesn't really exist. You know the market does exist. It simply comes down to options, tiered the right way and marketed the right way. It comes down to the decisions made internally, the operating budget and the projections moving forward.

If the Corvette sells well, I believe Tadge intends to see a more track focused car. This was the reason for my question JVP quickly disposed of. I believe Tadge wants those wins in the media, he just can't sell it yet. NO ONE wants to take 3rd, even if it's to a dying car that who's future is unknown.

Which brings me to this: You salute the car, bid it farewell. What's the difference though? I believe Fiat/Chrysler and now Ferrari WILL revive this car at some future date. Bugatti is a brand that is LONG gone. The name though has survived, and the value of that name has endured. Viper is very much the same. It's created it's own small legacy and it's own little cult following. It didn't do many things right but it did do ONE thing right; it was on kids wall posters when Corvettes weren't.

The guys I know that LOVE the Viper, but can't yet afford one are early 30's. That time is coming for them and they don't want a Corvette, they want a Viper. Then you get these Vipers roll racing, winning media tests...some see it as "farewell dead one"...I see it as a marketing investment in the Viper name for future sales.

Let Fiat/Chrysler regroup, tap resources of Ferrari for engine development, add in the suspension Ferrari uses (hey lookie...derived from Corvette), and pay down that debt with all the money they just raked from Ferrari going public, and you've got a recipe, that if managed properly WILL lead to the return of that car on a whole different level.



So Bwright, you've successfully gotten me to dedicate more of myself to this forum than I have in probably 3 months combined. If you want to talk more in depth and debate this properly, as well as remove google and go straight on brain power, I'll need to cover my plane ticket and buy me dinner.

Now to proofread all this crap.....

RC000E

Mehh...too much to proofread...I already can see supportive argument and points I can make but...just too much to dedicate to this space. Bwright, if you were local I'd love to have coffee and grab a bagel....lol.

Notice no edit timestamp though...I'm letting it roll...errors be damned. EDIT...lol...I couldn't help myself but proofread and found a major error. I stated "HALO's are meant to be profitable"...I meant "HALO's AREN'T meant to be profitable"...I was forced to fix it...lol.