jb_va2001

The difference is in the details. The camo covered C7 we've seen is just a shape, a front engine American sports car profile. You could gaffer tape some blocks of styrofoam underneath that cover and change the profile dramatically and imperceptibly. It could contain a C5, C6, the Jalopnik rendering, even a Viper, or something else entirely. Do they look the same? (My wife would say yes... but she's so not into cars.) Does a Base Corvette look like a ZR1? They are the same and different too.

The subjective words; close, like, even "the same"... are why these arguments go on endlessly. And I predict when the C7 is finally unveiled some here will say, "see, I was right all along, Jalopnik nailed it!", others will point out the "big differences" Jalopnik missed and then everyone will claim victory and go home. That is, until we start arguing over how they will tweak the Base C7 look for the Z06 and ZR1 look. ...and then we will argue over, will there even be a C7 Z06... and then argue, what would the C7 performance really be with different tires... and Jalopnik, or someone else, will feed the CF flames with something to attract clicks on their websites... It's a vicious circle we'll repeat again for the C8.

Cheers,
JB

BlueOx

Well, since we never saw any rendering of the rear end from Autoweek at the time, we will never know if they were very close or not, will we? Sure the details will be different but, as we all know, the DEVIL is in the details. As for how true the images we have seen will be to the final, only time will tell.

BTW, IMHO, the Autoweek rendering looks more like a C5 with fixed headlights, which was a detail GM had probably let slip previously.

Nitrous Oxide

Jalopnik's publishing company has already revealed entirely different products to the public using questionable means. One of them has been confirmed lately to be the result of theft. One of these products was nothing less than a new iPhone. Knowing all this, how unbelievable is it that they did it again with the C7?

How do you explain that the rendered wheels were identical to the camo? The seams around the camo's doors have the exact same shape as the rendered doors. GM looked at the renders and said "let's fool the public with a camo that corresponds to Jalopnik's foolish drawing"?

BlueOx

Or it could have been the other way around. GM 'leaks' a design that Jalopnik magically shows up with. The camo version magically looks very similar to that design. Sounds like a great bait and switch tactic to me. Body panels under heavy cloth camo are easy to disguise. We'll just have to wait and see.

Jinx

Jalopnik saw that camouflaged car before anyone else. That is sufficient to explain the wheels, the doors, and the consistency between Jalopnik's illustration and the camouflaged car.

I think it's reasonable that Jalopnik could have seen an uncamouflaged car. But consistency of the illustrations with the with the photos of camouflaged cars released so far does not prove that their illustration is correct, or that they saw the actual car.

.Jinx

Rapid Fred

Really? -- look at the character lines, short rear overhang, sharper fender lines (esp. rear), door handles and single-mouth air intake. Nailed 'em all, I'd say...

I believe that's because some of those particular details were out in spy photos before the Auto Week "scoop"...

BlueOx

Door handles and fender shapes are easy peasy because the camo only covered the front end and back end. They missed the actual front fender shapes, the vent shapes, lights are off, etc. The flatness of the front fenders is far more pronounced than the final C6. It looks just like a C5 with fixed headlights.

These C7 shots with the coverings are far more convoluted and covers much more area of the car. This makes it much easier to mess with our perceptions.

What C6 spy shots can you provide that were before these Autoweek ones?

LS1LT1

Do keep in mind that some of this camouflaging used also might incorporate some extra padding or strategically placed foam as a means to throw spy photographers off as well.
We might not be viewing the exact curves/lines of the actual finished product underneath those black coverings.
Or we might be.

davidwp97

I posted this picture of a first generation C5 mule earlier in this thread:



Another point that I didn't make very specifically in that post is that the humps over the tailights disappeared in the second generation C5 mules and in the production cars. The speculation at the time was because of poor aerodynamics.

The point being there may be a chance that, if indeed the dreaded 'Camaro-style' taillights were planned for C7 production, all the weeping and wailing may have convinced the powers that be to deep-six them for 'Corvette-style' taillights. And there may have been time to do so if they started back when the 'Jalopniks' showed up.

Or.......

David

gs_M6

2003 mules

jb_va2001

Note the square cut outs for tail lights. Today some impatient soul would post, "I don't want Camaro taillights on my Corvette!"

Cheers,
JB

SanDiegoBert

I don't want Camaro taillights on my Corvette!

rayvaflav

I just finished a book that was a Christmas gift from my wife (yeah, I am a slow reader), "All Corvettes Are Red" by Jim Schefter and it is a nice in-depth read about the start/finish production story about the C5. It was the "spy photo" tag that sent me to this thread.

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=D7CwZpAjDNcC

I'm a C2 guy and I liked it, I betcha' youse C7 guys would enjoy it too.

Ray (still nursing the old Corvette along ...)

Senna1994

May Jim, R.I.P, he was a great guy, but the cigarettes got him in the end.

jd_black_00

Those humps weren't actually on the body panels underneath, they were disguising the actual form. All of the production data has likely been completed months ago, I would highly doubt that GM would go back and 'redesign' components now.

LS1LT1

Exactly.

And what/who is to say that something (or somethings) like that aren't also being utilized underneath the camouflage to throw the public off on these spotted C7 test mules as well?

SanDiegoBert

Exactly. Effective camouflage will be deceptive, more than masking.

But I still dread possible Camaro-esque styling . . .

Tyler_RN_EMT

Actually according to "All corvettes are Red" as mentioned earlier. Those humps WERE an initial design feature of the c5. It said something along the lines of the rear deck lid with those humps would have been to costly to form for final production. Thank goodness

zland

My hope is the Jalopnik sketches are one of many design exercises in an attempt to study a spectrum of options a bit earlier in the design process & they discarded many of the things we see in the sketch and/or simple came up with better options, an evolution of design. For sure, seldom does a design come out perfect in all aspects & my hope is what we are seeing is not the final product. Remember, the entire design cycle of a car can happen in a much shorter time thus a lot of sketches, models, etc can be produced, modified or outright changed quicker.

As I write this, I am trying to convince myself GM is coming up with something better than a Camaro rear end slapped onto a Corvette.

davidwp97

Yes, I photographed that black 'humpy' mule two different times at NCM, once inside (shown above) and once outside. I will guarantee that those humps were the shape of the actual skin of the car, not camo.

David