petermj

“If we didn't care about fuel economy, the car could be a lot lighter”

Does this make any sense to anyone? Doesn't extra weight decrease fuel economy?

Is Tadge referring to the extra weight added by AFM or are there any other "fuel economy" measures that weigh Corvette down even more? Seeing statements like this one coming from this guy make me even more convinced he should step down from his current job.

Aaron Keating

Well for starters it wouldn't have AFM nor probably VVT.
It also wouldn't have a 7th gear weighing the trans down.
The trans situation isn't just a 6 speed with a 7th gear duct taped inside. The whole transmission has to become beefier, and have better cooling. Both of which cost weight.

Even a savings of 30lbs on a 3200lb car is significant in terms of handling potential. (nearly 1 percent of the car's total weight after all)

petermj

Extra weight affects fuel economy just as it affects the performance. If GM was serious about a great compromise, they would improve the aerodynamics to improve fuel economy without affecting performance and weighing the car down.

Aaron Keating

The car has a lower drag coefficient than the C6.
Also, the last Overdrive, AFM and VVT's gains in weight are more than offset (at least if what GM says is true about 26 mpg -in the city-) by mpg gain.

What are they going to do, make the whole car out of carbon fiber?
Good luck keeping it around what vette prices typically are then.

Besides I thought everyone hated the least drag laden Vette ever's styling the C4. As much as I'd get a giggle out of a C4 2.0 the rest of you cretins with your budweisers in hand would be storming the gates of bowling green in a frothy rage

petermj

Lower Cd? According to info released, it is exactly the same unless you have a link to something saying otherwise. The car is wider than C6, thus, it has more drag (CdA), not a good thing when fuel economy is the objective APPARENTLY. VVT is not typically used for fuel economy, it is used to increase performance and surely you are not serious about 26 mpg IN THE CITY, LOL

Aaron Keating

I remember reading it's drag is lower than the C6s, but higher than the ZO6s. If I can find it I'll link it.

Air flow through and under the car is where the biggest aero gains have been made on the C7. Two areas where the vettes have struggled tremendously in the last 6 generations

petermj

I suggest you review your information before posting. Cd of Z06 is higher than of the base and by quite a bit, the actual drag is even worse because the car is significantly wider than the base. As I said, the Cd is the same for C7 and C6, the drag is higher for C7 though.

Aaron Keating

Pretty sure the CD for the ZO6 is .29
Base was like .31
And the C4 spanks em both at .275 :P

Try trolling less, and thinking more

petermj

For C6 Z06, Cd is 0.34 without ground effects and 0.35 for ZR1 ground effects. Base C6 Cd is 0.28. Cd for c5 is 0.289. Cd for C4 is 0.34. Your memory seems to fail you. Try getting your facts straight before lecturing others.

Aaron Keating

Says the guy that can't seem to figure out how a car could possibly ever get heavier and gain mpg.

Try harder.

It's 2 30 am, and I've had more than a few drinks. Let's see how good your memory is at that point.

petermj

Pretty obvious you cannot handle both at the same time.

JustinStrife

The z06 has a higher drag coefficient than the base c6. I don't agree with Peter on practically anything else in this sub-forum, but he's right about that one thing...

Trackaholic

Of course there are ways a car can be heavier but more fuel efficient. The big question is how much heavier, and how much more efficient.

I suspect that the C7 Z06 and ZR1 may eliminate the AFM and beefier torque tube in order to save some weight. Those cars will be sold in fewer numbers and are more geared toward the track and therefore FE will be less important and performance moreso. The base C7 needs to be more multi-disciplinary, and therefore the AFM tradeoff may be worth the weight and complexity penalty (I have my doubts, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out).

If the car ends up being 50 lbs heavier for a 3 MPG boost is it worth it? Current car seems to be 16/26 MPG. So if you could get that to 19/29 how much weight would you be OK adding? That's almost the same rating as my 200 HP GTI (21/31).

-T

SCM_Crash

Eh, but removing VVT, AFM and the 7th gear would probably only save 100 Lbs. That's approximately 10HP. So I doubt removing all that would save you even remotely the same in economy as the savings you get with it.

C7 BOB

He's referring to future fuel economy standards, and the necessity to add extra parts to get there. It's not his fault.

GOLD72

The Z06 Cd is significantly higher than the base C6.

BlueOx

Link the article or you are lying.

Lavender

Z06 actually has CD of 0.31.... ZR1 has 0.32....base has 0.289

Don't believe me? Well Sport Auto did a wind tunnel test of couple of Vettes Porsches Lambos and a GTR.GTR actually have (2012 or whatever US MY it was) 0.31 vs Nissan bullchit claim of 0.26...

Kappa

I'd like to see where you got this from.

janky

And that is of course why they added all of it.

One could claim that by adding this weight they actually hurt fuel economy and emissions, but that would be stupid and unsupported by reality. Technology doesn't come free but it does provide a specific benefit when engineered correctly, in this case all of it lowers fuel consumption and emissions.