The lightest Modern Corvette? 53 and 56 are far from modern.
I had a 73 and you couldn't give it to me!

 

Does the '63 Grand Sport of which only 5 were built count? They weighed in around 1900 lbs:

'63 Grand Sport Corvette History

If not, how about this one? It comes in around 2400 lbs. It is licensed by GM and once it's in full production, it can be sold by any Chevrolet dealer, so I have read:

[VIDEO] 1963 E-ROD Corvette Grand Sport at SEMA


[VIDEO] Superformance Remakes the Legendary Corvette Grand Sport

 

Turns out there were a bunch. To split driving duties with my '82 Silverado on a regular basis, though, my C6 does fine and still regularly puts a grin on my face.

 

'94 Silverado sport side here and it complements our C6 well too.

 

Compared to a C4, they are modern.

 

Talk about selective vision. If there is a size difference between the C4 and C7 it is marginal. We all know the C4 could not be sold legally today. Neither Ramey nor I are clueless. I just want to see an analysis of the 300 or more lbs. Ramey "discovered" vs. being satisfied to list "impediments" without numbers attached to them.

Actually, 3100 lbs. or less was a very realistic expectation for the C5, but it seems decisions were made to not ruthlessly achieve that goal and instead shoot for other goals. It does not break my heart, and the C7 is no pig.

Here's the thing. Over the last 30 years, Porsches got heavier and bigger while Vettes held their weight (or achived modest reductions) and got a bit tidier (especially the C6). I loved it -- kicking the Germans right in their teutonic, efficient butts. I just think it is a shame that the latest 911-variant actually dropped some weight while performing better than its predecessor and meeting regs, but apparently the C7 Vette didn't. After all, "performance improvement" can come from "adding lightness" as Colin Chapman used to say. Seems Porsche may have gone that way this time around.

I never said "every pound added since C4 as junk / fat / filler / luxury" -- but I would bet plenty of it is. I would love to know how much -- and how much to blame the pinheads in DC vs. the brass in GM. You come across as someone who just wants to insult people and put words in their mouth to help you do it. At least when I insult the pinheads in DC and the brass in GM I let their own words and actions do that for me

 

Talk about losing credibility. The C4 turned around the image of a car that had become a total joke. Were you awake in '84?

 

Mind if interject a few facts in this discussion.

C7...
length 177"
width 73.9"
height 48.6"
weight 3,350#(est)

C4 ZR-1...

length 178.5"
width 73.1"
height 46.3"
weight 3,503#

C4 GS...
length 178.5"
width 70.7"
height 46.3"
weight 3,350#.

 

You cherry pick most effectively. Facts without context are noise.

ZR1 with the monster engine? '96 GS with monster tires and other add-ons? . Note also, not helping your point a bit, is that the length of the C7 is actually LESS; as to the width, look at the "figures" of the cars -- most of the extra width of the C7 is due to track and coke bottle design -- I bet the midsections, including all the safety bars, are very close.

Go back to the curb weight of the '84 (3196) or to the basic premise of the argument -- we have a car that shed over 150 lbs in the frame etc. vs. its direct predecessor but picked up at least 150 lbs elsewhere -- and don't tell me it's all safety until we see the #'s.

The C7 could have been designed to a target of 3100 lbs and was not. I would argue that is a relevant fact, and one I am a bit disappointed in (but only a bit, truth be told). I was very attuned to Jeuchter's politician-like intro which highlighted all the component weight reduction while I was left waiting to hear: "thus resulting in a 150 lbs. lighter C7" which never came.

A slight disappointment during an otherwise exciting night.