You make my point for me. c5, c6, c7 all too similar for anyone to get excited about. If anything c7 took a step back because of the looks that are not well loved.

the c4 to c5 jump was a big deal. I was hoping for a big deal again. The c5 to c6 was such a little move that I felt by now they were able to make the next leap in engineering. They did not. So it has not changed the game. Why then spend the dough?

 

7spd manual, direct injection, whole new interior that the C5 and C6 don't have, exterior styling that is closer to exotics, and a 100k mile warranty. Something your heavily modded C5 or C6 won't have.

 

Because as we all know, a Ferrari dealer is the only place to get Ferrari paraphernalia. So everyone who has Ferrari stuff from a dealer (post up the receipts) is a Ferrari owner? That's gold. I don't care about your crap. I want to hear some of your answers to my questions in this thread:
If segment timing is so fake, why are there so many independent tests of Porsches within 0-7s of Porsche's claim?
Why did you refer me to a company that makes no claim about providing timing equipment to the Nordschleife (which is effectively a public toll road and has little need for official timing since the F1 track already takes care of timing of VLN races)?
Where is the independent NRing run for the CTS-V?
Where did I say that turbos help low elevation?

The reality of multiple independent tests confirming Porsche's lap times without segmented timing? You think you can end it, yet you keep coming back.

Oh, but I did read it. And nowhere did your information prove that that company provides timing to the Nordschleife. It's a waste of your time, yet you continue to read and reply to my posts. Rather hilarious how people accuse others of wasting their time...on the internet.

 

Where do you guys meet up for Sunday morning coffee? I want to make sure I don't go there.

 

I just read autoblogs cayman s review. Man it looks sweet. I know it doesn't have the power of the c7 but still, if I had the money I'd test drive both before making a decision.
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/02/19/2...-drive-review/

 

Hmph!

No fangs, no black plastic snap-in vents on every surface, no Camaro-esque tailights. What's to like?

 

"As with most Porsche products, it's what you don't see that separates Cayman generations, starting with the chassis itself. The body shell is now 44-percent aluminum for the first time. The move slashed body-in-white weight by some 103 pounds while increasing torsional rigidity by a baffling 40 percent. What does that mean, exactly? Porsche says the base Cayman is now twice as rigid as the Boxster and substantially stiffer than even the 911, making it one of the most rigid sports car chassis in the world."

If 40 percent is baffling, 57 in C7 must be mind blowing to anyone outside of C7 section.

And how dare of the ***** to not only trim the weight but also disclose the results. This is totally unacceptable.

 

All things aside, this is one of the best lines I seen in a car review. Almost as funny as Jeremy Clarkson saying the ZR1 is made of "teeth and jelly".

 

Who were the independent testers of that 40% torsional rigidity? Sounds like a lot of marketing BS to me.

 

Considerably less than 57 percent GM brags about. Cayman is a unichasis design, there were changes made to the entire structure of the car which incidentally does not come with a removable top.

The problem with what you just mentioned is that upcoming Cayman is more rigid than Porsche's own 911. Now, why would Porsche do this and BS on a cheaper car, not top of the line, uhm, flagship?

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Well duh, I am kidding

 

Not a very informed comment. Kidding about it is slightly better than being serious about it, and both IMO display a lack of judgement.

 

Just answer the question. Where are the independent testing results? It's obvious that the Porsche BS marketing machine is in full gear.

 

Have you actually seen what they did with the chasis of the new Cayman? Considerably more than GM did with the DESIGN of the new uber frame that strangely enough still looks like the old one...

 

Can't answer huh?
If you think the C7 frame really looks like the old one, you ain't much of an engineer of any kind. But then, that seems pretty obvious.

 

To increase rigidity, you have to triangulate and create a space frame. Corvette uses open frame due to that removable open top, the rails are reinforced using RECTANGULAR members under the halo and through the posts terminated in the windshield frame. The reason why Z06 had a fixed roof was to box the two rectangular members, using stressed connecting members to minimize both bending and torsional flexing. Am I missing something about C7 design that sets it apart from the previous versions?

Any changes in shape, thickness and length of beams, among the claims GM makes results in INCREMENTAL improvements, it is the overall open design that dictates the rigidity or lack of such.

Now with the Cayman, in the typical German way, the structure is overbuilt, being based on super rigid FLOORPAN of the boxter that is triangulated through the roof support and further through the stressed aluminum skin. There are considerably more variables here to manipulate to increase rigidity than the chasis of corvette, apparently you either cannot or refuse to understand this part. Is there a purpose to increasing this rigidity? I actually doubt that it will be felt in the real life considering how rigid the original design was. Porsche actually has been conducting rigidity studies over many years, due to its racing angle. Would I doubt Porsche numbers? I do not think so. Would I doubt the real life effects of this accomplishment? I think so, Porsche uses a lot marketing BS, however, their BS has a differernt angle than the one GM cranks out.

 

Only it's complete design and construction.

Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about. Stating that a 57% increase in stiffness isn't possible because it is an open frame design is just clear ignorance.

I misunderstand nothing. You have no independent testing (that you insist GM provide) to verify anything and yet don't expect that from Porsche and you keep evading that. You simply choose to promote Porsche and denigrate team Corvette and call them liars.

What's really funny about it is you are picking up Porsche's work now as an argument about what GM has done which make absolutely no sense. Porsche can improve the comparative stiffness of new vs old and GM can do the same. It has nothing to do with how stiff Porsche's frame is to C7's. They each have completely different requirements to deal with.

 

I understand your point, but Joe is just being honest and reflecting his own views... This is what forums are all about; posting the negative and the positive about various topics so that any given viewer can be better informed... So, Mucho Take-it-Easy...

 

Obviously you should never consider donating your brains to any kind of science