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 suspect more frequent refreshes would involve pure carryover engineering. A new skin for 2009 or 2010 would have likely been just that. Might have precluded ZR-1 too, which most of us don't enjoy directly but it certainly boosted the Corvette reputation.
Of course, a simple reskin every other time might improve sales, but I bet we'd have a heavier car (with a poorer resale value).
I suspect more frequent refreshes would involve pure carryover engineering. A new skin for 2009 or 2010 would have likely been just that. Might have precluded ZR-1 too, which most of us don't enjoy directly but it certainly boosted the Corvette reputation.
Of course, a simple reskin every other time might improve sales, but I bet we'd have a heavier car (with a poorer resale value).
I suspect more frequent refreshes would involve pure carryover engineering. A new skin for 2009 or 2010 would have likely been just that. Might have precluded ZR-1 too, which most of us don't enjoy directly but it certainly boosted the Corvette reputation.
Of course, a simple reskin every other time might improve sales, but I bet we'd have a heavier car (with a poorer resale value).
.Jinx
The C5 to C6 was not that big of a change compared to the jump between a C4 and a C5. It did not warrant a 8 year run on the C5. Why do think they call the C6 a C5.5. So many parts bolts up between the C5 and C6 that it is almost silly. What can you take from a C4 and put in a C5?
Technology is changing too fast and the Corvette is a halo car for GM. It should never go as stale as it has been. There needs to be a massive overhaul of the vehicle for what has basically been about 17 years worth of the same. After that, they need to update the look and the tech bits a little more often unless they are going for another revolutionary change.
The C5 to C6 was not that big of a change compared to the jump between a C4 and a C5. It did not warrant a 8 year run on the C5. Why do think they call the C6 a C5.5. So many parts bolts up between the C5 and C6 that it is almost silly. What can you take from a C4 and put in a C5?
Technology is changing too fast and the Corvette is a halo car for GM. It should never go as stale as it has been. There needs to be a massive overhaul of the vehicle for what has basically been about 17 years worth of the same.
For most businesses, bankruptcy plays havoc with future development plans.
"The C5 to C6 was not that big of a change compared to the jump between a C4 and a C5." That's not really fair -- the C4 ran 14 years, and came from the malaise era. What would you want to take from a C4 and put in a C5?
Is there a list of parts that C5 and C6 have in common? Is there anything non-trivial and surprising on that list?
Sometimes you can improve without reinventing. Lots of cars evolve.
For most businesses, bankruptcy plays havoc with future development plans.
People don't care about that bankruptcy when deciding about spending that $60k. The C6 was done and dusted well before bankruptcy and it was an 8 year run of the C5 to end up with a C5.5.
If the C7 release was delayed a year or two because of that and we ended up with a longer C6 run than anticipated, that is fine. Even if it was two years longer, it is still a 15 year gap of basically the same car.
The C7 needs to be a massive jump forward and they need to shorten the development cycle and get the C8 out their faster.
"The C5 to C6 was not that big of a change compared to the jump between a C4 and a C5." That's not really fair -- the C4 ran 14 years, and came from the malaise era. What would you want to take from a C4 and put in a C5?
Is there a list of parts that C5 and C6 have in common? Is there anything non-trivial and surprising on that list?
Sometimes you can improve without reinventing. Lots of cars evolve.
.Jinx
A lot can be carried forward. Just about the entire drive train including the suspension and brakes can be carried forward. People take C6Z parts and put them in C5s because they are beefier. The entire C6 rear cradle bolts up to a C5. I have seen seat swaps and some interior bits.
Evolution is not a problem until you have 15+ years of just evolution in a halo car. It needs to be on the cutting edge and you can't do that with long periods of evolution.
Also, parts compatibility is not the same as carryover parts. C6Z parts are being put in C5s because they're better, not because they're the same. So clearly C6 was substantially improved, just not reinvented.
Last edited by Jinx; Jun 1, 2012 at 02:23 PM.
Reason: compatibility vs carryover
The C5 to C6 was not that big of a change compared to the jump between a C4 and a C5. It did not warrant a 8 year run on the C5. Why do think they call the C6 a C5.5. So many parts bolts up between the C5 and C6 that it is almost silly. What can you take from a C4 and put in a C5?
Technology is changing too fast and the Corvette is a halo car for GM. It should never go as stale as it has been. There needs to be a massive overhaul of the vehicle for what has basically been about 17 years worth of the same. After that, they need to update the look and the tech bits a little more often unless they are going for another revolutionary change.
Originally Posted by chaase
If the C7 release was delayed a year or two because of that and we ended up with a longer C6 run than anticipated, that is fine. Even if it was two years longer, it is still a 15 year gap of basically the same car.
The C7 needs to be a massive jump forward and they need to shorten the development cycle and get the C8 out their faster.
If what chaase is saying is true then the Porsche 911 series should be a total sales, popularity and press/media failure.
But it's not.
Granted, the 911 has received some vast improvement/upgrades (even being almost completely new during some changeovers) underneath that all too familiar exterior skin over the years but the (non technical/non gearhead) public doesn't necessarily know that.
Yet so many are still so quick to give that car line a 'free pass' for not making these supposedly "mandatory" huge changes while Corvette must be all new every few years?
If what chaase is saying is true then the Porsche 911 series should be a total sales, popularity and press/media failure.
But it's not.
Granted, the 911 has received some vast improvement/upgrades (even being almost completely new during some changeovers) underneath that all too familiar exterior skin over the years but the (non technical/non gearhead) public doesn't necessarily know that.
Yet so many are still so quick to give that car line a 'free pass' for not making these supposedly "mandatory" huge changes while Corvette must be all new every few years?
The body may be similar but the they have been moving through generations and updating them more often than the corvette.
Here is the Porsche generations for the past 25 years. They are on their 5th compared to Corvettes being on their 3rd. I am not advocating huge changes every 5-6 years. I am saying evolve them more often going forward. They need big change now because they have barely touched the car in over a decade. C5 to C6 would've been fine if that was after 5-6 years, but it is not fine after 8 years.
The body may be similar but the they have been moving through generations and updating them more often than the corvette.
But "generation" doesn't mean much, technically. How much parts carryover occured in each of those Porsche generations? How significant were the revisions?
Corvette makes improvements within generations. That counts for something.
And Corvette's longer "generational" cycle can be viewed as an alternate approach to marketing. Which is a more significant event to the layman, a revised 911 or a new Corvette? It's now part of the mystique that it doesn't happen very often. If the car's improved in the meantime, why isn't that okay?
And don't forget that C5 sales were strong right up to C6's introduction. So was eight years really too long? The market didn't think so.
But hey, everyone can appreciate the frustration of having to wait for a new Corvette, especially if yours is long in the tooth, or you don't like the present fashion.
I got to thinking. Of course that didn't last long, but here's my thought. The CTX-V styling seems to be a hit with most people and I'd guess the Vette may take on a little of the V's edgy design. That'll be my prediction for the C7. I guess we'll see.
Here is the Porsche generations for the past 25 years. They are on their 5th compared to Corvettes being on their 3rd. I am not advocating huge changes every 5-6 years. I am saying evolve them more often going forward. They need big change now because they have barely touched the car in over a decade. C5 to C6 would've been fine if that was after 5-6 years, but it is not fine after 8 years.
So keep the bodywork relatively the same while evolving powertrain ad interior. That would be optimal to hold resale and keep them from going stale.
I got to thinking. Of course that didn't last long, but here's my thought. The CTX-V styling seems to be a hit with most people and I'd guess the Vette may take on a little of the V's edgy design. That'll be my prediction for the C7. I guess we'll see.
I see some Cadillac/CTS-V influence in the Jalopnik drawings.
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.