Originally Posted by russ_777

While I've posted here before about the non-trivial aspects of introducing a new system in a car that must interact with other systems such as is the case with a well integrated BT implementation, I'm getting the impression from what you're saying that adding BT capability to a car's electronics infrastructure is a development job, which I think is a mis-characterization. I think it's an application programming development job that involves more integration than development.

The links below show that one of several automotive buses designed for vehicular infotainment systems was supported by SDK's, chipsets and gateways that enabled integration of in-car BT devices as early as 2001. This is a bus based on a popular international standard (firewire). There are others that may overtake it such as MOSTBus, which is already deployed in most new BMWs. The 3rd link provides a very readable (to the layperson) whitepaper on automotive buses written from a FPGA vendor's point of view.

http://www.idbforum.org/cgi-bin/r.cg...fVBa;NewsID=48

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mindre...orm-a078843295

http://www.xilinx.com/publications/x..._autobus48.htm

What I gather from all of this is that implementing BT capability is not a technically difficult thing to do, and should not be an expensive thing to do from Corvette's perspective as long as GM (in this case) is smart and deploys a common open architecture for infotainment and telematics functions across all brands and models. I suspect that much of the cost would come in the manufacturing engineering impacts, though that like some of the things you mentioned (FMECA) is an NRE cost that can be amortized.

Given the rate at which the supporting commercial communications technology markets move, it's astonishing to me that the Corvette still employs a bus architecture for infotainment that was initially implemented in 99. That kind of reminds me of those Soviet MiGs that had radios and radars using vacuum tubes in the 80's.

Originally Posted by talon90

Comments like this are almost funny. I want, I want, I want. No one is willing to pay for it. In the performance market $68,000 is a drop in the bucket. The Corvette Z06 is the supercar value of the century. On relative performance alone the car should cost nearly twice what it does. The reason it doesn't is because they have eliminated cost in some areas and simply avoided cost in others that they did not deem as important. I challenge you to find a brand new Ferrari Convertible for $68,000 or a brand new Porsche Convertible for $68,000. You can't. The reason you can't is they applied all the cost to the product. Now, is it of a higher build quality, probably. More appointments, probably. I would argue that no one would be willing to pay more for the Corvette. People do not clearly understand "value" when all they cite is "cost". We are an entitled bunch.

Originally Posted by Stangar

The ADD and Alzheimer's generations meet here for spirited discussions.

Please join us.

Originally Posted by russ_777

While I've posted here before about the non-trivial aspects of introducing a new system in a car that must interact with other systems such as is the case with a well integrated BT implementation, I'm getting the impression from what you're saying that adding BT capability to a car's electronics infrastructure is a development job, which I think is a mis-characterization. I think it's an application programming development job that involves more integration than development.

The links below show that one of several automotive buses designed for vehicular infotainment systems was supported by SDK's, chipsets and gateways that enabled integration of in-car BT devices as early as 2001. This is a bus based on a popular international standard (firewire). There are others that may overtake it such as MOSTBus, which is already deployed in most new BMWs. The 3rd link provides a very readable (to the layperson) whitepaper on automotive buses written from a FPGA vendor's point of view.

http://www.idbforum.org/cgi-bin/r.cg...fVBa;NewsID=48

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mindre...orm-a078843295

http://www.xilinx.com/publications/x..._autobus48.htm

What I gather from all of this is that implementing BT capability is not a technically difficult thing to do, and should not be an expensive thing to do from Corvette's perspective as long as GM (in this case) is smart and deploys a common open architecture for infotainment and telematics functions across all brands and models. I suspect that much of the cost would come in the manufacturing engineering impacts, though that like some of the things you mentioned (FMECA) is an NRE cost that can be amortized.

Given the rate at which the supporting commercial communications technology markets move, it's astonishing to me that the Corvette still employs a bus architecture for infotainment that was initially implemented in 99. That kind of reminds me of those Soviet MiGs that had radios and radars using vacuum tubes in the 80's.

Originally Posted by Stangar

The ADD and Alzheimer's generations meet here for spirited discussions.

Please join us.

Originally Posted by Jeff Pedersen

Now here we have a real jerk. Is this the kind of member we want discussing our love the Vette? People like this belong on myspace.

Originally Posted by Jeff Pedersen

Now here we have a real jerk. Is this the kind of member we want discussing our love the Vette? People like this belong on myspace.

Originally Posted by talon90

The articles provide interesting reading. I'm afraid that we are getting off the track a bit however. You cite that:



I whole heartedly agree with you. The problem however lies in the fact that we are talking about the 2009 C6. The 2009 C6 is not a ground up design. It will not even be a major revamp of the 2008 C6. The 2008 C6 is nothing more than a continuation of the 2005 C6 introduction. Electronically and bus and systems integration wise the car remains virtually unchanged. What I'm saying is that they won't have completed the groundwork for the Corvette to make it part of the common open architecture for infotainment and telematics functions across all brands and models. It will still be a stand alone compared to the rest of the GM fleet. This is the primary reason in my opinion that we will only see it in the 4LT. I belive that some level of data translation will need to take place in order for the Bluetooth to even communicate with the current car much like a Parrot or any other aftermarket solution does currently. It is nothing but a black box implementation.

I too believe that introducing it as part of a newly designed communications bus such as the IEEE 1394 "firewire" protocal that you referenced in your articles above. What I don't know however is how this actually integrates currently with the CAN Class 2 serial bus that is in the current car and will be in the 2009 car.

I think that we are saying the same thing. For me, it isn't a matter of if they can do it. I quite certain they can. It is a matter of how and when they can do it for the Corvette.

Originally Posted by Jeff Pedersen

My Dear little man. I will be placing an order for a 09 as soon as I can. As far as japs. Please do we need to be PC all the time? I dislike *** cars but appreciate what they have done and how the japs fill their customers needs.

You just seem to think you know what you are talking about. But actually appear as quite a fool.

Now lets see if we can get GM to bring the Vette up to current technology. It seems as if SEVERAL forum members of all nationalities would like the Vette to have modern day options. I just hope the people at GM listen to the masses not a few oddballs and people who want roll up windows.

Do you even know what the term "status qou" means?