Jalopnik reveals C7?
#202
Safety Car
I wish I could dig up the old C6 threads when a prototype body in white design was found.
Everyone's reactions were about 5x worse than this. Everyone was going to hold their breath until GM changed it or just hold on to their C5's or move over to the 911. And what ended up happening?
Everyone's reactions were about 5x worse than this. Everyone was going to hold their breath until GM changed it or just hold on to their C5's or move over to the 911. And what ended up happening?
I think this is legit and it will be beautiful
#203
Burning Brakes
Boys boys...
This is consistent with other info.
It was recently said that the C7 would be evolutionary not revolutionary, the tail lights would be Camaro like and the twin rear glass was not going to happen.
The Ferrari 458 also has some curved edges around the rear glass. It's a state of the art design.
Jalopink has a pretty good track record on these things.
I'm good with it. I would like to hear a teaser about HP and other features.
This is consistent with other info.
It was recently said that the C7 would be evolutionary not revolutionary, the tail lights would be Camaro like and the twin rear glass was not going to happen.
The Ferrari 458 also has some curved edges around the rear glass. It's a state of the art design.
Jalopink has a pretty good track record on these things.
I'm good with it. I would like to hear a teaser about HP and other features.
#204
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Mar 2000
Location: Pottsville, PA. USA Home Of America's Oldest Brewery Yuengling
Posts: 9,063
Received 2,239 Likes
on
1,033 Posts
Here my two cents. Bob Lutz spoke about the C7 and said the car will look nothing like the C6. He said GM was going to do a low cost make over of the C6 and call it the C7. That idea got rejected. He said they decided to do a totally new car and when you see it every C5/C6 buyer will have to have one. I don't see it in this car. I see a lot of C6 in it.
Also other facts to think about. GM says they needed a 135 million dollar make over to build the C7 in the Corvette plant. I don't see why in this car? It looks like it would be built the same way as the C6. When both the C4/C5 cars came out the plant had to be retooled to build them.
Rumors have been flying that the C7 would have a 5.5 V8 with VVT and direct injection. Now rumors are it is going to keep the 6.2? Wouldn't they have a design based upon the powertrain that was going into it? Also we have only heard of a base car and a ZO6 Nothing was ever said of a ZR-1?
Look at GM marketing they build a coupe first, then a convertible, then a ZO6, then a ZR-1. I wouldn't think they would be working on a ZR-1 model they would be more concern with getting the coupe/convertible into production.
Also other facts to think about. GM says they needed a 135 million dollar make over to build the C7 in the Corvette plant. I don't see why in this car? It looks like it would be built the same way as the C6. When both the C4/C5 cars came out the plant had to be retooled to build them.
Rumors have been flying that the C7 would have a 5.5 V8 with VVT and direct injection. Now rumors are it is going to keep the 6.2? Wouldn't they have a design based upon the powertrain that was going into it? Also we have only heard of a base car and a ZO6 Nothing was ever said of a ZR-1?
Look at GM marketing they build a coupe first, then a convertible, then a ZO6, then a ZR-1. I wouldn't think they would be working on a ZR-1 model they would be more concern with getting the coupe/convertible into production.
#205
Melting Slicks
Does this mean you are affiliated with Jalopnik? If it does, nothing personal. Just don't care for the design. Then again, if Jalopnik was merely drawing what they saw, why would someone affiliated with Jalopnik take it personally when the design was criticized? The response would be more like, "hey, I'm just the messenger." Interesting.
#206
Racer
Here my two cents. Bob Lutz spoke about the C7 and said the car will look nothing like the C6. He said GM was going to do a low cost make over of the C6 and call it the C7. That idea got rejected. He said they decided to do a totally new car and when you see it every C5/C6 buyer will have to have one. I don't see it in this car. I see a lot of C6 in it.
Also other facts to think about. GM says they needed a 135 million dollar make over to build the C7 in the Corvette plant. I don't see why in this car? It looks like it would be built the same way as the C6. When both the C4/C5 cars came out the plant had to be retooled to build them.
Rumors have been flying that the C7 would have a 5.5 V8 with VVT and direct injection. Now rumors are it is going to keep the 6.2? Wouldn't they have a design based upon the powertrain that was going into it? Also we have only heard of a base car and a ZO6 Nothing was ever said of a ZR-1?
Look at GM marketing they build a coupe first, then a convertible, then a ZO6, then a ZR-1. I wouldn't think they would be working on a ZR-1 model they would be more concern with getting the coupe/convertible into production.
Also other facts to think about. GM says they needed a 135 million dollar make over to build the C7 in the Corvette plant. I don't see why in this car? It looks like it would be built the same way as the C6. When both the C4/C5 cars came out the plant had to be retooled to build them.
Rumors have been flying that the C7 would have a 5.5 V8 with VVT and direct injection. Now rumors are it is going to keep the 6.2? Wouldn't they have a design based upon the powertrain that was going into it? Also we have only heard of a base car and a ZO6 Nothing was ever said of a ZR-1?
Look at GM marketing they build a coupe first, then a convertible, then a ZO6, then a ZR-1. I wouldn't think they would be working on a ZR-1 model they would be more concern with getting the coupe/convertible into production.
#207
Burning Brakes
This happens every time a new model of anything is released. Current owners hate it.
I'm pretty sure 99% of people didn't feel that initial feeling going from the looks of the C4 to C5. Talk about an enormous step up IMO.
low cost make over of the C6 and call it the C7.
Last edited by Endeka; 11-14-2011 at 08:00 PM.
#209
Racer
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Katy The Republic of Texas
Posts: 435
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tail lights
There's a t-shirt for aviation buffs that says "Real airplanes have round engines."
I would go out on a limb and say "Real Corvettes have round taillights."
As a C3 and C6 Vette-a-holic, I am undoubtedly biased. But still...
#211
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Mar 2010
Location: Manassas VA
Posts: 839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm running out of ways to describe my disappointment and disgust at these renderings.
GM, if you are listening, please don't build this ugly POS.
This reminds me of the Mustang II from the late 70's (i don't actually think it looks like the mustang II, nevertheless a disaster in the making)
Ive seen better looking designs go down the toilet, LITERALLY
GM, if you are listening, please don't build this ugly POS.
This reminds me of the Mustang II from the late 70's (i don't actually think it looks like the mustang II, nevertheless a disaster in the making)
Ive seen better looking designs go down the toilet, LITERALLY
If this rendering is anywhere close to reality, since GM reads these postings, please reconsider releasing this JC Whitneyized C6 to a mostly innocent and unknowing public. If you were trying to copy the Ferrari as opposed to being more original, please take some time to relook closely at the photos of these two cars and LEARN. Please develop some common design sense and an understanding of how you utilized a series of tacky design gimmicks to mess up the clean, flowing design of the Ferrari. For further references on what clean, flowing design is, please do a little research on the new prototype Alfa and Jag two seaters.
May someone have mercy on your corporate soul if you release this thing, for I will not and neither will many others.
And to keep the record straight, I liked the C5 and C6 versions right out of the box, and bought them. There is just to damn much competition coming at this price range and GM (and its Government stockholders) simply cannot afford this magnitude of design ineptitude.
And, Bob Lutz, IF this is the design you were referring to, you sir, have lost a great deal of my respect.
#214
Racer
Me Likey! Me buy-ey! If the old fogies reaction is a test to see if it will appeal to younger buyers....I guess GM got it right The 599xx is sexiest car in production right now.
Wonder if they could fit some extra baby seats behind the front seats now that it has an extended wheelbase. That would make the car a bit more justifiable to the younger crowd and the 911 owners they want to swoon. As long as it doesn't add more than 70 lbs, I wouldn't mind that much.
As for tailights, c4 zr1's were square and people went nuts....still nice looking even today. I like the chopped rear end for aero. If they would have gone longer overhangs in the back...I would think they're backing away from the hardcore performance/racers among us. Wonder if they'll cave in and get away from fiberglass leafs just to shut up the haters. Just hoping for Cam in Cam, same bore spacing, same deck height...the aftermarket will take care of the rest. Maybe some conventional injector bungs in the intake manifold so d.i. isn't a limiting factor like it is with other brands.
So I'll always keep my c5z (didn't like the c5 for years after it came out) and buy one of these as well. Maybe a few bits here and there will swap over to my old car.
Wonder if they could fit some extra baby seats behind the front seats now that it has an extended wheelbase. That would make the car a bit more justifiable to the younger crowd and the 911 owners they want to swoon. As long as it doesn't add more than 70 lbs, I wouldn't mind that much.
As for tailights, c4 zr1's were square and people went nuts....still nice looking even today. I like the chopped rear end for aero. If they would have gone longer overhangs in the back...I would think they're backing away from the hardcore performance/racers among us. Wonder if they'll cave in and get away from fiberglass leafs just to shut up the haters. Just hoping for Cam in Cam, same bore spacing, same deck height...the aftermarket will take care of the rest. Maybe some conventional injector bungs in the intake manifold so d.i. isn't a limiting factor like it is with other brands.
So I'll always keep my c5z (didn't like the c5 for years after it came out) and buy one of these as well. Maybe a few bits here and there will swap over to my old car.
Last edited by briannutter1; 11-14-2011 at 09:28 PM.
#215
Burning Brakes
If the old fogies reaction is a test to see if it will appeal to younger buyers....I guess GM got it right The 599xx is sexiest car in production right now.
#216
Safety Car
I'm 30 and I really like it, but I'd prefer something like the orange/gold car I posted above. IMO the car above screams Corvette without looking like anything else. The renderings are a very cool car, but look like a combination of a Corvette + GTR + Ferrari 599 + Camaro + CTS-V etc. etc. Cool looking but not mesmerizing. It doesn't hit me in the gut "I MUST HAVE THAT ONE DAY" like the C5 did when I first saw a picture of it in the Washington Post; I was 15.
#218
Le Mans Master
Think New Coke. This is not a clever ploy to boost sales. This is neither a trial balloon to get input -- they have focus groups for that.
It seems to me that, generally, hand sketches tend to exaggerate shapes, while computer renderings tend to subdue shapes and exaggerate detail. I suspect these images are not taken at exactly the same angles as any actual photos obtained; they may even be done by memory with a C6 as a spatial template.
I think actual photos of the car, even taken at the same angles, will look more attractive. And I think the actual car will look more attractive still. That's just my general opinion of renders/computer-illustrations vs photos vs reality, not limited to these images or particulars within them.
So I think when the time comes, hindsight will find these accurate in technical terms but perhaps not in aesthetics.
In other words, it's not as bad as it looks. The front end might look like an uninspired tweak of C6 now, but I think it'll be more distinctive in reality. The butt might look awfully slabby now, but I think it'll be more interesting in reality. Not sure about those taillamps, but it's not exactly a great angle. The biggest disappointment for me is that the basic design language hasn't changed. We're still speaking in sharp creases and "pulled" flat surfaces. But I think that too many be a limitation of the computer artist, thinking of the new car in C6 terms. At least I hope so.
And, like C5 and C6 before it, I think the base model will be the cleanest and most aesthetically coherent design, and the hi-po versions will continue to wear the automotive equivalent of tight polos with popped collars, the better to reveal all those hours spent at the gym.
I was hoping to be wowed by photographs; instead I'm mildly piqued by computer illustrations. That's okay; I didn't buy my C5 or C6 for their looks, either.
But tell me the new transmission is held back, or the engine won't be significantly improved, and then we have a big problem. (And please tell me now so I can order a CTS-V Wagon before they're gone...)
.Jinx
It seems to me that, generally, hand sketches tend to exaggerate shapes, while computer renderings tend to subdue shapes and exaggerate detail. I suspect these images are not taken at exactly the same angles as any actual photos obtained; they may even be done by memory with a C6 as a spatial template.
I think actual photos of the car, even taken at the same angles, will look more attractive. And I think the actual car will look more attractive still. That's just my general opinion of renders/computer-illustrations vs photos vs reality, not limited to these images or particulars within them.
So I think when the time comes, hindsight will find these accurate in technical terms but perhaps not in aesthetics.
In other words, it's not as bad as it looks. The front end might look like an uninspired tweak of C6 now, but I think it'll be more distinctive in reality. The butt might look awfully slabby now, but I think it'll be more interesting in reality. Not sure about those taillamps, but it's not exactly a great angle. The biggest disappointment for me is that the basic design language hasn't changed. We're still speaking in sharp creases and "pulled" flat surfaces. But I think that too many be a limitation of the computer artist, thinking of the new car in C6 terms. At least I hope so.
And, like C5 and C6 before it, I think the base model will be the cleanest and most aesthetically coherent design, and the hi-po versions will continue to wear the automotive equivalent of tight polos with popped collars, the better to reveal all those hours spent at the gym.
I was hoping to be wowed by photographs; instead I'm mildly piqued by computer illustrations. That's okay; I didn't buy my C5 or C6 for their looks, either.
But tell me the new transmission is held back, or the engine won't be significantly improved, and then we have a big problem. (And please tell me now so I can order a CTS-V Wagon before they're gone...)
.Jinx
#220
Le Mans Master
I think Jalopnik DID get a hold of something, but I wouldn't but much stock in it. Probably prototype panels or something from the scrap heap then rendered the rest from the recent comments via GM. The timing is too close from some recent GM press releases. I'm not putting much stock in these renderings...but I also wouldn't doubt they aren't "too" far off. Hope it loses some of the C6ness though. Like the rear deck, and side styling...the rest leaves me wanting, but what do I know, I still own a C4!