Originally Posted by MonaroSS

Thanks FenwickHockey65, Envoy4Life, mbukukanyau, JBsZ06, 454SSChevy, and of course john & Cadman.

I missed, and still do, coming here and only really intended my protest to last a few months. But the break was good, as it reminded me I had been neglecting some real life responsibilities. It’s good to be back but it will only be in fits and spurts for some time yet; as I really can’t afford to sit staring at GMI threads reading day in and out as previously. Perhaps when I finally do get around to retiring in a few years….

Below some may recognise an old rendering from scratch of mine that I did with the help and advice of Lutz. Here I’ve changed it to get rid of the scissor doors and added the wheels and conventional side panels from the jalopnik.com render. My creation of course was designed to be a 2+2 V6 from the outset; as many believe the ‘vette needs to broaden it’s appeal.

I can’t say as to how genuine the jalopnik.com sneak peak is but I do know the reason we had the rising side window on my render was for the rear seat passengers to have a view out. Perhaps GM decided to go that way to expand the appeal of the C7 and get it’s sales back up. Or perhaps when Lutz and Welburn discussed my design they decided to have a styling mock-up made, to test some ideas, but which is not actually the next C7. It would explain how jalopnik.com got around the tight security on the next ‘vette if all they actually got to see was a mock-up of ideas that may or may not have made the final cut.

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

90% of ‘vette owners are men, 82% 40 – 70 years old, 65% over 50 years. Sales are down and there is no sign of interest from younger buyers who can afford to buy a ‘vette. These are just the cold hard facts.

I agree with others that lowering the price is the wrong way to go. But one answer does come from your question of; “why one earth would anyone want a Corvette with a backseat?” The fact is there are plenty of reasons, and the people with the cash and those reasons will buy a 911. You say you want a Corvette but you don’t own one and it’s statistically likely your friends bought their C6’s used. GM needs new sales. The reason a ‘vette seems unaffordable to your demographic is because you have to justify it as a toy due to it’s lack of practicality as a 2 seater. If you are a couple with a ‘vette and you get pregnant the ‘vette has to go immediately, even if you have a practical second vehicle. Why? Because your wife wants to know that either of you can take the kid somewhere with their stuff. A back seat in a Corvette or 911 may not be easy for a child seat but it can be a backup vehicle, even if a little awkward. And when you have two small kids you can still pick them up from school when the wife calls and tells you she can’t get there. You can’t pick 2 kids up from school in a ‘vette, but you can pick even 3 kids up in a 911.

And women buy cars too (but not ‘vettes), and they think more practically - even if they like Corvettes. The idea that they can push the seats forward and take their girlfriends across town, even if a little cramped, to coffee or to drop them off is what the benefit is they would see in a back seat. Even for guys being able to pile a few of your drunken mates in to drop them home a few blocks away is a real practical advantage.

Below the 1 car is the standard C6 with the 2 car just having the new window design. The 3 car is what a 2+2 would look like and the 4 car has the smaller body overlaid. Most people if they saw the 2+2 drive by and then a 2 seater could not tell them apart.

I’m not saying ditch the 2 seater; just add a 2+2 option for a two car Corvette range.

Your experience with those with 911's is correct and a reason why the 911 has a broader audience. There is no reason why Corvette couldn't still sell it's current 12k of 2 seaters and add a further 8K of 2+2's. One benefit those who want the 2 seater may not realize is that with a 2+2 playing the sensible role it would allow GM's designers to make the 2 seater a little more radical.....

Originally Posted by MonaroSS
I had the same conversation with Lutz about the Pontiac Solstice, which uses the same hydro forming technology. They looked hard at the idea of a 2+2 for the Solstice but they couldn't make the business case to the accountants. As you can see below the bulkhead needs to be moved back, which in engineering terms is simple enough. It's just that on a low volume vehicle that loses money on each one sold like Solstice, and probably Corvette comes close to that, there is no interest in spending the money. And that really is the story here. GM makes a lot of noise about the Corvette but in reality GM won't spend money on it. And it is dieing because of that. They will only spend 'flashy' money where they get a hot rod or racecar to use in advertising, but not enough on the core product. However when they move to the C8, as I said, they could fix the engineering limitations to make 2+2 an option. But car designers think 7 years ahead and style next models with the next after that in mind so as to maintain as much continuity as possible in a look and branding image.



As to the blood on the walls comment it always amuses me that people say this because while Corvette enthusiasts may be a cranky lot, as people do as they become geriatric, there are not greater or more emotive fans than Ferrari’s ‘tifosi’. But Ferrari enthusiasts have no problem with Ferrari having 2 seaters, 2+2, Front Engine RWD or Mid-Engine RWD. They also have no problem with engines being V12, V10, V8, V6, and if you have a few million I can sell you an I4 Ferrari Monza. All they demand is ‘performance’. I don’t see why Corvette fans should be any different if GM were prepared to spend the money on more models like Ferrari does. GM really does need a young person’s Corvette, and soon.