Big ASS end???
09-27-2005, 12:33 PM
#22
Racer
Member Since: Jul 2004
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't one of the C5 and C6 design objectives, particularly for the convertible, the ability to carry two sets of golf clubs? While that is not as elegant a consideration as a low coefficient of friction, it probably does help sales.
09-27-2005, 12:37 PM
#23
Burning Brakes
I agree with the above. How many cars can you think of where, regardless of the year, you know the model? Corvette is one of the few. The big rear is because of aerodynamic considerations.
About retro, Mustang did it because their sales were sagging on the previous model. All they had was retro. The Vette always looks like a Vette, but always is an evolutionary way.
About retro, Mustang did it because their sales were sagging on the previous model. All they had was retro. The Vette always looks like a Vette, but always is an evolutionary way.
09-27-2005, 07:58 PM
#24
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Member Since: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vette stopped looking like a vette in 1984 when it had no ***** and was criticized, plus it had that stupid molding which split the car in half.
when people talk about the vette they talk about the 50's-60's after that the vette went into a slump.People weren’t excited till the C5 came out in 1997.
It has a "big ***" end cause of aerodynamics??? So how come F1 and Indy cars which run 350 miles/HR and not too metion NASS cars don't have this huge *** end on it? There's no wing on the back of a vette, it's just a big hunk of plastic.It's aerodynamic because it is very low to the ground,it's a wide car and it has stablizer bars front and rear, the thickness of the rear end has nothing do with aerodynamics.
The mustang has always been an excellent seller for ford.
The stang always had excellent power to weight ratio, and for that money you can't go wrong.
when people talk about the vette they talk about the 50's-60's after that the vette went into a slump.People weren’t excited till the C5 came out in 1997.
It has a "big ***" end cause of aerodynamics??? So how come F1 and Indy cars which run 350 miles/HR and not too metion NASS cars don't have this huge *** end on it? There's no wing on the back of a vette, it's just a big hunk of plastic.It's aerodynamic because it is very low to the ground,it's a wide car and it has stablizer bars front and rear, the thickness of the rear end has nothing do with aerodynamics.
The mustang has always been an excellent seller for ford.
The stang always had excellent power to weight ratio, and for that money you can't go wrong.
09-27-2005, 08:06 PM
#25
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Member Since: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmm last time I checked F1,indy and NASS cars don't have this huge *** end, and the last time I looked into aerodynamics it's the wing, satbalizer bars and how low the car sit's on the ground that keeps it on ground
09-27-2005, 10:35 PM
#31
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by Hoonose
There's a reason women are shaped the way they are.
And there's a reason Vette's butts are shaped the way they are.
'Nuff said!
And there's a reason Vette's butts are shaped the way they are.
'Nuff said!
09-28-2005, 12:00 PM
#32
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by crewzzer
Can someone tell me why does the C5 and C6 have a big *** end?
And why doesn't chevy come out with a Retro Vette?
And why doesn't chevy come out with a Retro Vette?
But i DO love the style of it! Hands down! no 
09-28-2005, 05:21 PM
#33
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Member Since: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by purple heart
***-end? I call it "Elephant Butt". But i DO love the style of it! Hands down! no
But i DO love the style of it! Hands down! no 
09-28-2005, 07:15 PM
#34
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by crewzzer
mmm last time I checked F1,indy and NASS cars don't have this huge *** end, and the last time I looked into aerodynamics it's the wing, satbalizer bars and how low the car sit's on the ground that keeps it on ground
And for your last misunderstanding, it wasn't till the 84 Vette that they actually had something that could be raced competetively. And it happens that there was a LOT of excitement over it. It's a dog by today's standards but coming fresh out of the 70's oil embargo and fuel conciousness, it was extremely exciting for its time. It had been over 10 years since any car had over 200hp and the 84 had excellent handling for its time as well. It was the racing and sales successes of the C4 that inspired the development of the C5.
See how your avatar is a C2 I can see why you think anything other is not as good. I had a 64, great fun for its time but pathetic by today's standards as far as performance, handling and everyday driving comfort. I remember when the 63 came out. I was blown away by its futuristic styling but now it just looks passe'. Times change, move on.
09-29-2005, 12:44 AM
#35
Burning Brakes
Personally, if I had to choose between a 67 stingray or a C6, based purely on looks, the 67 would win hands down. The 67's were just down right sexy.
09-29-2005, 09:50 AM
#36
Drifting
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: Rehoboth Beach Delaware
Posts: 1,775
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by crewzzer
mmm last time I checked F1,indy and NASS cars don't have this huge *** end, and the last time I looked into aerodynamics it's the wing, satbalizer bars and how low the car sit's on the ground that keeps it on ground
Nascar is limited to racing a car that some what resembles a stock vehicle.
The "big ***" aerodynamic is better known as the "Kamm Effect".
In essence the optimum aerodynamic would be to taper the rear section to a point. This is impractical, so W. Kamm concluded in wind tunnel testing that by chopping the elongated tail to a blunt section the superior aerodynamics remained the same.
Not sure of your age or you familiarity with older sports racing cars, but one can just look at the Tipo 61 Birdcage Maserati or the 330TR/LM Ferrari. Both are of 1960'S vintage and were very fast endurance vehicles as in LeMans and Sebring !!!
I hope this helps you to understand the reason for the "big ***" on the C5 and C6 !!
09-29-2005, 02:50 PM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
I talked to the Corvette design group before I ordered my 98 vert (ordered before any were produced). I needed to know if two golf bags would fit in the back, and they confirmed that it was specifically designed to that requirement. One reasonable explanation for the big butt.
My new vert has a TPW of Oct 3
My new vert has a TPW of Oct 3
09-29-2005, 05:30 PM
#40
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Member Since: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Walford
The C5 was the first all-new Corvette from the ground up (even the 1953 had parts from the GM bin -- the blue flame 6, etc). The large *** end is part of the overall aerodynamic design, specifically, I believe it decreases lift in the rear without increasing drag or spoiling the lines of the car like a spoiler would do.
As for "retro," it's a marketing gimmick, and I suppose a tacit agreement with the opinion that cars are not as visually attractive as they were 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Corvette's appearance has gradually evolved since the only drastic change in 1963. There are cues, like the creased fenders and ducktail rear window, of Corvettes past, but in a very basic way Corvette doesn't need to go retro, because it's never really changed.
As for "retro," it's a marketing gimmick, and I suppose a tacit agreement with the opinion that cars are not as visually attractive as they were 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Corvette's appearance has gradually evolved since the only drastic change in 1963. There are cues, like the creased fenders and ducktail rear window, of Corvettes past, but in a very basic way Corvette doesn't need to go retro, because it's never really changed.