boost2na

Before I get into details, would just like to mention that I cleared this with Jim from Trinity before posting. They did an outstanding job on the renderings. All I did was slightly modify their image to see what some subtle changes would look like; I've always been fascinated by the fact that little changes to a car can add up to something significant.

Here is the original:


Photoshopped: turned on lights, made the heat extractors body colored, lowered the car, removed the red wheel accents, and slightly changed the brightness/contrast to highlight the curves. If GM built this car with a C6ish rear bumper I would buy it in a heartbeat.

John T

Thanks boost, it just keeps getting better.

Larry/car

Removing the chrome definately changed the look of the car. I think the front bumper isn't right, if you check the actual one leaked earlier by the tool manufacturer.

Jawnathin

Front is still fugly. Looking forward to real pictures.

Bill Dearborn

Lowering it detracted from the look. Looks better at the original height.

Bill

JoesC5

Slamming the car is not practical for 90% of the folks who would be buying a C7. I scrape the splitter on my Z06, with it's stock ride height, on my driveway everytime I drive the car.

Many places I won't drive due to the possiblility of scraping, and that's with the stock ride height.

Jinx

I bet the base C7 doesn't even get a splitter -- at least not one that sticks out that prominently. Does that even meet US bumper regs?

I bet the front fender vent is polished aluminum, not chrome, and it'll look less blingy in person. The aftermarket will clean up on alternative treatments for that part....

.Jinx

Jim_Lammers

Everyone keeps saying the Trinity car needs to be lower but we weren't going to be fudging it for the racier look. Nor did we lower the roof or raise the beltline like a lot of concept illustrations. I wanted it our simulation to be like a stock driveable coupe. I think the comparison shots prove the car we did is at a proper factory height.



Jim

ZeeOSix

On the original, the front looks to have slightly more fender gap then the rear.

Lower the rear just a little, and bring the front down to have matching fender to wheel gaps.

Looks good otherwise.

LS1LT1

That's a fine lookin' Corvette...let's hope that the real deal is as (or even more) dramatic as that.

CRABBYJ

that this Trinity rendition looks amazing and agree with you that subtle changes can make all the difference such as the ones you introduced that are improvements.

But I have a more fundamental problem with the overall proportions that this renditions depicts. Bare with my assumptions which may be off somewhat or total BS. I suspect the only changes made to the underlying frame of the C6 to C7 was for the slighty longer wheel base. With that the front/door windows may have not changed. Along with that the door dimensions may not have changed as well leaving the B pillar in the same position just not using a halo but covered with the rear quarter window.

Making measurement comparisons as best I could against this rendition and a scale model C6 some obvious differences can be guesstimated. 1) The C7 rendition appears to be 1.5 - 2.0 inches lower than the C6. 2) The overall C7 length has increased approx 6-8 inches over the C6 (possible?). 3) The relative relation between door window height to door height is approx 20% less on the C7 as to the C6.

Those proportion changes from the C6 to the C7 makes the C7 rendition above look more like an exotic which IMO makes it more appealing to the eye.

John T

I was told C7 was slightly smaller than C6. Can't mention source because everyone is so darn paranoid.

BlueOx

I have a hard time understanding how the C6 got 5" shorter than the C5 and that they would go back and add 8" UNLESS they are making room for the AWD/2+2 seating options!

CRABBYJ

That and other dimension proportional differences between this C7 rendition and the C6 have me wondering, but I doubt disappointed when an actuall C7 is
finally revealed.

JoesC5

I have no idea what the wheelbase or the overall length of the C7 will be. But, a longer car is easier to get a lower Cd and a longer wheelbase increases the car's footprint which has an effect on the car's EPA MPG rating. The larger the footprint, the lower the gas mileage standard. Move the wheels as far outboard as possible and increase the wheelbase = larger footprint.

BlueOx

I don't question your points but please tell me who at GM would make the car that much longer to affect the EPA's rating or to improve the Cd? I was kidding about the AWD but I would believe that before I'd believe they'd add 6-8" for the reasons you mentioned.

JoesC5

The engineers and designers that are very concerned about that last .1 MPG that they have to achieve.

man00dude

Very good photo rendering. I'm guessing that the side view is very close to the actual model... and I think they haven't finalized the front or rear.

John T

On secondary roads my C6 felt like one of Audi's LeMans cars. I feel like I am eating up a lane and a half with my foot wide Goodyears. I am praying they trimmed the girth just a little.

I don't understand how the EPA foot print program works. Apparently the larger the print the lower the mpg requirement? They will bite their own nose off to spite their face if they play that game with this car.

John T

Porsche has stated that the wheelbase increase in their 991 was for future hybrid systems.