Weak, very weak...just like your esthetic sense.

 

Not as nearly as weak as your spelling sense. What's "esthetic?" Is this your phonetic interpretation of AESTHETIC?

 

I missed the A just like you missed your point.

 

There you go again...

"The word esthetic is also spelled aesthetic, so don't be confused if you see it written both ways. It's a word to describe someone's idea of what is beautiful. Do you have a modern esthetic or a classic esthetic? If you like the way something appears, you think it has an esthetic appearance. If you like to think about what makes art good, then you are interested in esthetic philosophy."

I did not make this up, Google it and you will get dozens of similar hits.

Post after post you seem to live to criticize, and post after post you are proven wrong (when objective data are available), or hypocritical (when you made a post more or less asking other posters to stop with the insults), or illogical (with the whole 40% stiffer bit not having to be "proved" because Porsche said so).

Seriously -- please introduce yourself to some other Forum members at some events in the Sacramento area, so they can report back that you are really a great guy who just has this weird thing about ruining threads with random gibberish.

 

http://acne.about.com/od/diagnosisof...sesthetics.htm

Yup yup... Right as usual You are such a tool it is not even funny. No wonder you have no clue about anything regarding structural design.

 

 

Do yourself a big favor and stop ripping yourself new ones with each reply

 

Assuming torch and ox are the typical buyers, this is great news for GM

 

OKAY, you didn't even refer to the correct word, and continue to insult clear-thinking Forum members while standing on clay feet. Again, just google "esthetic" without the "s" and get back to me. So typical of you to start an argument over, literally, nothing.

You are correct about me not knowing much about structural design (that's my dad and my kid's department) but I do know enough to seek out commentary from the knowledgable and constructive posters; you have consistently proved to be neither which makes your "participation" on these threads so bloody annoying.

 

Not to split hairs with you, but... if you know nothing, how can you judge others? As I said, GM should hope you two geniuses are the representative sample of the new vette buyers.

 

OK, you could not follow my simple request and yet I know nothing?

And, talk about leading with your chin -- you rudely and incorrectly bash a member, who has made some pretty good contributions to this section, over using esthetic vs. aesthetic, which mean exactly the same thing and are equally correct in English usage, yet you bring up "hair-splitting" and knowing "nothing?"

It is to laugh...

Back on topic. The C7 will have plenty of rivals. For the folks that, like you, had some bad experiences with their C6, the rivals certainly have a built-in head start. If the C7 is good enough, your complaints will be drowned out by the positive reports. Actually, I'm guessing GM is not looking for unsophisticated, undiscriminating rubes such as myself to buy the new C7, but rather self-confident and well-informed sports car buyers who can overlook shallow "status" and a fawning press to uncover the best sports car for their money. If the C7 is good enough, they will find such buyers in droves.

 

Like:
1) Anyone ever won a race because they had a 7 speed tranny (gimic)
2) Anyone needs direct injection to get the HP they desire (gimic)
3) Want a corvette because it looks like a european exotic (bad move)
4) Ever plan to drive it 100k in 5 years (free to GM)
5) Ever needed a warranty on a car I am taking beyond factoy
6) It would take heavy mods: An intake and tune gets a c6 to c7 stats


The C7 was a way to maximize profit and did nothing groundbreaking...

 

People like me are SKEPTICAL toward claims of greatness GM continues to dish out, as based on personal and recent experience. You seem to be a perfect GM target, even if you cannot buy one, you will keep the hype going I can assure you that if GM was serious about attracting the kind of buyer you described, the marketing hype would not appeal to you.

 

Classic try at paraphrasing bits and parts to "fit" the agenda.

So let's see if I can do a better job at paraphrasing myself THAN you paraphrasing others (see Ed Welburn):

I SAID that the numbers of M3s sold in the US during the period of sales of the C6 stand at 19K (and turns out I overestimated!!) TO DISCREDIT your statistical THEORY by which interiors/seats of the C6 receive more dings (IN ENGLISH in the internet) than (insert Guibo's German intangible 1000 words orgasm here)...

It is no surprise that your historical and well documented pursuit of car philosophy and intangibles ala "P-Cars actually whispers voices to the driver"..continues to obfuscate your grasp of FACTS, NUMBERS, and LOGIC.

I say give it up. At least for today.

 

Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Ignorant cynicism; not so much. What you call "hype" is simply marketing copy with which, on very limited evidence, you happen to disagree. Soon enough there will be objective analysis and we'll all know what is hype and what was accurate and useful info.

Very few will buy the C7 based on hype; probably far less than buy certain "prestige" brands in a vain attempt to gain status.

Enthusiasm is fun; bitterness very unhealthy.

 

Ed Wellburn pretty much admitted the interior has to be much better and that it (in the C6 generation) was not yet world class. If you think that is merely neutral or complimentary, rather than what it is (admission that the interior had problems) then I don't know what else to say. Other than to say your claim that execs wouldn't throw their products under the bus is pure BS (see Stracke doing exactly that to the Cobalt).
This was your initial post to me:
It seems obvious you were saying there were 19k M3s (and implying that most were in the US) during the period it took GM to amass 214k C6s. A figure that is not supported by any link or source you have posted in this thread. You did, however, link to a source that shows how rapidly BMW's optional M packages (almost purely cosmetic) are rapidly gaining popularity.

Tell me again why Team Corvette bought a Porsche 911 to benchmark, if there is nothing different between them worth talking about.

 

Based upon what GM has done since the restructure, I tend to have a little more optimism about they're claims about this car. What has happened over at Cadillac, and what is going on over at Buick, in terms of competing with cars that they really couldn't before, and succeeding, suggests to me that the Corvette will continue that trend. If anything, I think the folks over at GM are smart enough to know that making claims they cannot back up, at this crucial time in their existence, would ruin them. Yet, no one can really know for sure until they actaully start building them and people start driving them.

This car has got to better than good, it has to be great. We all know this, GM knows this. Of course a claim of 57% stiffer in an aluminum frame over a steel one is big news. Now, in all of the articles I've read, from the fluff and puff mags, C&D, MT, Automobile, to the more serious Automotive News and the SAE articles, no one, not one professional in the industry has questioned it's plausibility, not one. Well, except for this one guy on an internet forum that claims to be an expert. But for all we know he could just be a 16 year old kid, po'd because dad won't let him drive the Vette to school.

Yet, GM seems serious about addressing those issues folks had with previous Corvettes that were holding it back from being held with admiration in the "sports car world". But, put in terms of a Pascal's wager, they have a hell of alot more to lose with false claims, then they do by building the car as claimed.

...and even if it is only 4/5ths of a car twice it's price, it's still a good deal.

 

Riddle me this, what is the basis for people to put deposit on C7 now then?

 

Because they want one as soon as possible. No more, no less than that. It's their money, and they choose not to get all wrapped around the axle about "lack of independent testing". They just like Corvettes and want this one. Good for them.

 

I think the C6 easily delivers that, at least from limited exposure driving a GS for a weekend and extrapolating from my experiences with older versions of the competition; my opinion, which I think is close to yours, is the C7 probably needs to get to near-parity to overcome the prestige factor. That is in reach, but far from a lock. Otherwise, the "faithful" are thrilled by the improvements, but aficianados of other marques won't be swayed.

We'll all see soon enough...