When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I have to say; I'm a bit skeptical of the report. How would the frame "twist...enough to fracture the glass hatch"?? It's a mid engine bolted directly to the transaxle; there isn't a meaningful amount of axial toque exerted on the frame of the car, by the power train. It's either total BS, (like the "overheating issue" during C4 ZR-1 development) or it's a total mis-wording of the actual problem (bending?).
On another note, Cadillac is "re imagining" their model line lingo. This should work out well.
I especially love this gem, from the article, from the president of the Cadillac brand:
"As turbocharged engines and electrification technologies become more prevalent, torque is a better representation of available power than the current system that uses displacement, Carlisle said."
"torque is a better representation of available power" Yikes. Carlisle need to go back to torque and hp skool.
Read something in the C8 sec that harnessing close to 1000hp created some problems. Not sure I believe most the stuff I read there anyways.
Sure are a lot of opinions and criticism about a car noones seen!
They should just stick that newSB4 mercruiser in it and call it a day..ZR1 could have boost
I'm not looking forward to a mid engined Corvette personally. I believe its an upward shift away from its original character and one that made the car so special throughout the years. The car is being taken to a whole new level that its something that will be hard for me to get used to. The C7 was a stretch for me to really grasp. The wing on the ZR1 looks awful to me. A tacked on part that you see on so many run down ricers. Maybe its just a sign that I'm getting older and appreciate the older stuff that I grew up with. I'm sure things like this were said about the 84 when it came out. So I'll sit here and wait for the finished product before I write it off in my mind.
A lot of similarities, I have mixed feelings about the mid-engine...maybe vette owners in 82 did about the C4's radical design change and electronics everywhere. While the yahoo's in CFOT like to slammed the C4...end of the day it was the defining car of today's modern sports car and saved the Corvette line in general; possible the C8 will play a new role in defining the next generation of sports cars.
The hard part right now is not going out an buying a C7, prices are crazy low because they aren't selling! Hopefully freaking spring gets here soon, usually first drive in my 96 LT4 stops my thinking of upgrading !
Maybe its just a sign that I'm getting older and appreciate the older stuff that I grew up with. I'm sure things like this were said about the 84 when it came out.
Well thats Ok. I dont like todays women who look like men, are fat and covered with tatoos
Maybe its time for a change....the C5-7 was never right. Think GM wants a different audience, too many agingin complainers who expect it to ride like their SUV
I am much like Mazda x in that I am old and like the stuff from my teenage years and into my 20s. I always look for the new model to come out. seems there is always an upgrade to make it a better car.for me , the only sad change was when they dropped the fuel injection for the 65 model, but went to big blocks instead. I just liked the FI back then and continue to do so today. Thought about buying a unit but just cant see paying 10 grand for one. I hope the new model is a step up for the vette, hell cats and such are all steping up to the power plate.
Last edited by ghoastrider1; 03-16-2019 at 11:21 AM.
Too much reliance on CAD and not enough on real world, seat of the pants experience.
This is what caused the overheating issues I have talked about that occurred in the 04.5 and 05 Duramax diesels. If you saw the intake tube into the turbo that was shipped with the trucks, you would shake your head.
I believe that it probably had something to do with the first iteration of the Duramax's fuel injector problem. They were failing at a miserable rate due to the a part fracturing. The guy that repaired our well years ago had multiple sets put in his truck, at a tune of over $5000.00 each go round. He couldn't afford to dump the truck and have a new one rebuilt with the drill apparatus on it. The designers didn't take into account real world contamination in diesel fuel, especially in the US. GM had to extend the warranty to 7 yrs 100,000 miles.
DON'T buy an early Duramax pickup with LB7 engine code.
When you have people that don't have the real world, getting their hands dirty and cracked type of experience to look at a design and see a shortcoming, you have issues. Granted computers are better than slide rules, but they still haven't achieved what the human brain is capable of and most likely never will, even with the advent of AI. After all, how can you program for "intuition". There are plenty of you here on the forum that have enough experience to be able to look at something and realize "something just isn't right" based upon prior experience.
Back to the turbo inlet. An engineer that had prior experience with the short side radius of a SBC head would have been able to look at the design and realize the issue right off the bat. Read in the attached link about the "sharp ridge". Read that a 90 deg turn, with a razor sharp corner. Part of the fix was to port the inlet tube until replacement with the Garrett redesigned inlet. Which is what I did.
As far as the issues regarding the CAN bus, an automobile environment is very difficult for such to live in. RF interference. Different degrees of hot and cold. Multiple connection points. Possibly software written by different teams. All this comes into play.
Add into this, the various computers in the car(s) have to share the bus. They all can't go cramming signals all in at once. Otherwise, it would end up being a jumbled mess. Black box A has to issue an interrupt asking for its turn, unless it is an absolutely critical issue (ABS function) (or other critical issue) in which case its interrupt DEMANDS immediate access and all others have to stop broadcasting and go back to functioning and listening. Once the critical task is dealt with, an interrupt has to be issued by box A essentially saying "I'm done" so the others can start asking for their piece again. It is easier to have stand alone systems, or smaller connected systems, so say the ABS or TRACTION CONTROL box recognizes that it needs to function and to also tell the ECM box to defuel to help it do its job.
Then everyone (read that all the different computers) have to start up their communication again, figure out where they left off, do they start from the beginning, etc etc.
There has to be checksums and such sent so the receivers can tell they received all the communication and that it balances out. Otherewise if RF or something caused a part to be missing it has to be sent again. Networked, real time intercommunication can be very difficult to debug what is going on when it fails, because you have to isolate where it failed at.
I had a POS 2007 Ford Ranger that I could put into a false neutral simply by accelerating, backing off, and getting right back into it. The computer didn't know it was between gears. Ford wasn't being helpful, I got rid of it. Will never own another, long story. It took them a long time to realize there was a problem and issue an update to correct it.
Getting an interconnected CAN bus working on a car is analogous to the "fly by wire" systems on jet fighters. Getting all those complicated electronics interconnected is one reason for the mega-million per plane price tag.
I especially love this gem, from the article, from the president of the Cadillac brand:
"As turbocharged engines and electrification technologies become more prevalent, torque is a better representation of available power than the current system that uses displacement, Carlisle said."
"torque is a better representation of available power" Yikes. Carlisle need to go back to torque and hp skool.
I doubt Cadillac survives another 10 years. The last good car they made was the 96 RWD Fleetwood.
Mary Barra continues to add to the decline of General Motors that started in the 1980s. Its sad to see the giant die.
On another note Chrysler and Dodge are in the process of going away, #3 of the Big 3 will be gone shortly.
Even the Audi R8 has frame issues with cracking at the firewall.
I think GM is over their head with this car. I don’t have a lot of hope. If GM is really wishing or wanting to go upscale, they really need to eliminate the crappy Chevy dealers. Go laugh at the knuckleheads with C7’s are scared to go to the dealer for service.
I doubt Cadillac survives another 10 years. The last good car they made was the 96 RWD Fleetwood.
Mary Barra continues to add to the decline of General Motors that started in the 1980s. Its sad to see the giant die.
On another note Chrysler and Dodge are in the process of going away, #3 of the Big 3 will be gone shortly.
Hope the new vette is nice.................
I figure FCA has a better chance of survival than GM. Dodge has at least been offering stuff people want at prices they can afford, not investing heavily in expensive tech buyers dont actually want.
IMO GM's ego is in the way. This 1k hp is just dumb. Complexity and reliability rarely go hand in hand.
Much like the Jaguar became. British engineering gone so far into complexity that it was about as reliable as a Kleenex boat rudder.
I remember when Ford wanted to "Modernize" the Mustang and go with a smaller engine'd front wheel drive platform (Probe) and fans rebelled with a resounding HELL NO!
Ford finally caved and went with a chopped down Fairmont platform and stayed with a V8 rear drive configuration and the FOX bodied platform (as floppy as it was) became one of the most popular Mustangs ever.
The difference here is, the Mustang fans cried foul on the proposed change and the Corvette fans seem to have been waiting for this change for a long time now. You'd think after all this time they'd have at least a few workable plans already in hand.
I was really hoping the C7 would look like a Jaguar E type when it was in the design stage. IMO, one of the best looking cars ever made. It's the reason I bought a C4, has the long nose and clamshell hood. The C8 will look like every other ME car on the market, and a bit more under-engineered than the others.
I was really hoping the C7 would look like a Jaguar E type when it was in the design stage. IMO, one of the best looking cars ever made. It's the reason I bought a C4, has the long nose and clamshell hood. The C8 will look like every other ME car on the market, and a bit more under-engineered than the others.
Agree the E Type is gorgeous, but every British car I've owned or come up against has been an electrical nightmare over time/ If someone came up with a totally new wiring system for them that actually worked, I'd consider them. Until then - nope and have had a couple of chances over the years.
I don't believe the whole frame flex story on the C8 either. In 2018, engineers have every available tool at their disposal and are heavily focused on high frame stiffness in any car they build. It's absolutely not even slightly hard to design a frame that resists flex. If they were really that incompetent, then we can go ahead and consider the C8 stillborn, because it will take at least 2-3 years to redesign it and by then the market will be dried up.
Also, it doesn't matter one bit how much power is being sent through it. The thing that twists a frame is torque, not power (yes, I said that). The amount of actual torque that a drivetrain can put through the frame is limited by traction, not power. A stock C4 can spin the tires in first gear, so that's the amount of twisting force that must be resisted by the frame. You can add more power and create that same traction-limited force at a higher speed, but you still can't exceed the twisting force that the tires can harness.
So to recap, the C8 will still be traction-limited in lower gears just like any other car, and there's no way that engineers created a frame that's less stiff than even a C4's frame. This is all just marketing BS leaked by GM to gin up interest in a 1000hp C8. And give them credit: it's working.
03-14-2019, 01:01 PM
It's 1983 again!
!
Much like the Jaguar became. British engineering gone so far into complexity that it was about as reliable as a Kleenex boat rudder.
