C7 Generation Life Span?
02-12-2013, 01:57 AM
#21
I am wondering if they went to a V6 or mid-engine set up if it would not be better to have a Corvette brand leaving the traditional Corvette intact. Porsche released the boxster instead of changing the 911. Just a thought (thinking back to the failure of the "new coke").
02-12-2013, 03:31 AM
#23
Le Mans Master
GM isn't going to give Corvette a free pass on CAFE, but that doesn't mean they're going to ruin the car in pursuit of its CAFE independence.
C7 will run six years. Maybe seven if the competition is slow to downsize. Corvette won't be first to blink.
C7 will run six years. Maybe seven if the competition is slow to downsize. Corvette won't be first to blink.
02-12-2013, 06:51 AM
#25
Race Director
The C3 Gen lasted far longer than ever originally planned. Plus the C3 had the same chassis as the C2 underneath that Shark body. C4 lasted so long because GM was seriously considering killing off corvette and C5 was developed covertly to save corvette.
02-12-2013, 08:29 AM
#27
Race Director
Thread Starter
I would find it hard to believe that this $131 million plant improvement program was just to make the C7. It was probably in part to give it more flexiblity so it is easier to move from generation to generation.
I think the auto industry overall will be seeing shorter generations as technology rapidly advances. Heck, someday our progeny will walk to the car dealer and slip their credit card into a machine, select their options, and it will do a 3D printout that they can drive home in a few days.
I think the auto industry overall will be seeing shorter generations as technology rapidly advances. Heck, someday our progeny will walk to the car dealer and slip their credit card into a machine, select their options, and it will do a 3D printout that they can drive home in a few days.
Last edited by BlueOx; 02-12-2013 at 08:35 AM.
02-12-2013, 09:22 AM
#29
Team Owner
“There won’t be a Corvette if we don’t care about fuel economy,” said Tadge Juechter, the car’s chief engineer.
02-12-2013, 09:26 AM
#30
Team Owner
I would find it hard to believe that this $131 million plant improvement program was just to make the C7. It was probably in part to give it more flexiblity so it is easier to move from generation to generation.
I think the auto industry overall will be seeing shorter generations as technology rapidly advances. Heck, someday our progeny will walk to the car dealer and slip their credit card into a machine, select their options, and it will do a 3D printout that they can drive home in a few days.
I think the auto industry overall will be seeing shorter generations as technology rapidly advances. Heck, someday our progeny will walk to the car dealer and slip their credit card into a machine, select their options, and it will do a 3D printout that they can drive home in a few days.
02-12-2013, 09:58 AM
#31
Race Director
Thread Starter
Clearly, his 5-year comment was a continuation of Reuss' "promise" conversation but even if Reuss believed it when he said it, situations change. If it doesn't sell well the first two-four years, the C7 generation may be even shorter!
02-12-2013, 10:18 AM
#32
Team Owner
Yeah, I don't make it a habit to listen/read his thoughts but his comments this were surprising to me in this case because of his reference to Mark Reuss.
Clearly, his 5-year comment was a continuation of Reuss' "promise" conversation but even if Reuss believed it when he said it, situations change. If it doesn't sell well the first two-four years, the C7 generation may be even shorter!
Clearly, his 5-year comment was a continuation of Reuss' "promise" conversation but even if Reuss believed it when he said it, situations change. If it doesn't sell well the first two-four years, the C7 generation may be even shorter!
What Peter said was that Ruess said, was that the C7 would have a shorter run then the C6. PERIOD. Is that clear? Reuss never said that the C7 would have a 5 year life span. You are adding in your own opinion of what was said on the video and tying to make it appear as fact.
02-12-2013, 10:39 AM
#33
Race Director
Thread Starter
DeLorenzo clearly had a wide-ranging conversation with Reuss and that is clearly where he got his 5-year figure. It's obvious.
There are lots of reasons to buy into this idea as they have now crossed a threshold into the flexibility of in-house aluminum frame construction, etc. Sales will tell the tail of the long or short of generational length.
There are lots of reasons to buy into this idea as they have now crossed a threshold into the flexibility of in-house aluminum frame construction, etc. Sales will tell the tail of the long or short of generational length.
02-12-2013, 11:07 AM
#34
Team Owner
DeLorenzo clearly had a wide-ranging conversation with Reuss and that is clearly where he got his 5-year figure. It's obvious.
There are lots of reasons to buy into this idea as they have now crossed a threshold into the flexibility of in-house aluminum frame construction, etc. Sales will tell the tail of the long or short of generational length.
There are lots of reasons to buy into this idea as they have now crossed a threshold into the flexibility of in-house aluminum frame construction, etc. Sales will tell the tail of the long or short of generational length.
What is obvious is that you don't know what Reuss said other then what Peter said Ruess said. Anything else is conjecture on your part, which you can not substantiate.
02-12-2013, 11:43 AM
#36
Instructor
Member Since: Mar 2007
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-12-2013, 12:00 PM
#38
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,247
Received 5,444 Likes
on
2,270 Posts
Perhaps.
What the manufacturers are facing today is a challenge of a size they've never faced before. It is quite frankly unprecedented.
A car with the footprint of the C7, for example, in four years (2017) has a CAFE requirement of 40 mpg. 40 mpg.
In six years (2019), 43 mpg. In seven years (2020), 45 mpg. In nine years (2022), 50 mpg.
And that's not even factoring in the GHG/CO2 tailpipe limits.
SRT may be perfectly happy simply paying a gas guzzler fine for all the low volume Vipers made, as their total numbers built will be quite low. Don't know about GM being comfortable doing that on the Corvette. Mercedes, for example has paid such on many of its cars for years (obviously passed on to the consumer).
Corvette may be quite a different animal come C8.
Whether folks are all for what the EPA is doing with this program, or are against it, or simply indifferent, there is little doubt that the currently laid out path if left intact, is going to have a marked impact on all cars, not just the Corvette.
02-12-2013, 12:03 PM
#39
Team Owner
Perhaps.
What the manufacturers are facing today is a challenge of a size they've never faced before. It is quite frankly unprecedented.
A car with the footprint of the C7, for example, in four years (2017) has a CAFE requirement of 40 mpg. 40 mpg.
In six years (2019), 43 mpg. In seven years (2020), 45 mpg. In nine years (2022), 50 mpg.
And that's not even factoring in the GHG/CO2 tailpipe limits.
SRT may be perfectly happy simply paying a gas guzzler fine for all the low volume Vipers made, as their total numbers built will be quite low. Don't know about GM being comfortable doing that on the Corvette. Mercedes, for example has paid such on many of its cars for years (obviously passed on to the consumer).
Corvette may be quite a different animal come C8.
Whether folks are all for what the EPA is doing with this program, or are against it, or simply indifferent, there is little doubt that the currently laid out path if left intact, is going to have a marked impact on all cars, not just the Corvette.
What the manufacturers are facing today is a challenge of a size they've never faced before. It is quite frankly unprecedented.
A car with the footprint of the C7, for example, in four years (2017) has a CAFE requirement of 40 mpg. 40 mpg.
In six years (2019), 43 mpg. In seven years (2020), 45 mpg. In nine years (2022), 50 mpg.
And that's not even factoring in the GHG/CO2 tailpipe limits.
SRT may be perfectly happy simply paying a gas guzzler fine for all the low volume Vipers made, as their total numbers built will be quite low. Don't know about GM being comfortable doing that on the Corvette. Mercedes, for example has paid such on many of its cars for years (obviously passed on to the consumer).
Corvette may be quite a different animal come C8.
Whether folks are all for what the EPA is doing with this program, or are against it, or simply indifferent, there is little doubt that the currently laid out path if left intact, is going to have a marked impact on all cars, not just the Corvette.
02-12-2013, 12:51 PM
#40
The other potential variable, of course, is the CAFE standards. They are also subject to revision, for better or worse, as politics and circumstances dictate. Again, technology might take us places we could never have dreamed of and we could be looking back at these times and laughing. Never forget that the under 200 hp Corvette era in the '70s appeared to signal the end of high performance consumer vehicles due to the gas shortage.