Anyone remove front pieces?
08-07-2015, 10:36 AM
#21
E-Ray, 3LZ, ZER, LIFT
Member Since: Sep 2007
Location: NE South Carolina
Posts: 29,497
Received 9,624 Likes
on
6,628 Posts
I'm sure GM put that part on there for the following reasons:
1. They wanted to spend more money than necessary, so adding a useless part was a good way to do it.
2. They thought owners would love the scraping sound it makes.
3. They know Corvette owners like to mod their cars, and removing this would be an easy one.
Sure, there's no functional value to it at all, GM just put it on there, well, because....
I'm always amused at the folks who think they know more than GM's engineers, and make aero judgements based on intuition. Sanantguy says Larry's test is invalid because (I guess) it's anecdotal, and then uses nothing but anecdotal evidence to support his decision to remove it.
And he doesn't just know more than GM's engineers. If you read the rest of his posts, in his few short weeks of ownership he knows more than the collected wisdom of the forum. Sure, everyone just imagines the reduction in sound when they apply something like FatMat.
Amusing.
1. They wanted to spend more money than necessary, so adding a useless part was a good way to do it.
2. They thought owners would love the scraping sound it makes.
3. They know Corvette owners like to mod their cars, and removing this would be an easy one.
Sure, there's no functional value to it at all, GM just put it on there, well, because....
I'm always amused at the folks who think they know more than GM's engineers, and make aero judgements based on intuition. Sanantguy says Larry's test is invalid because (I guess) it's anecdotal, and then uses nothing but anecdotal evidence to support his decision to remove it.
And he doesn't just know more than GM's engineers. If you read the rest of his posts, in his few short weeks of ownership he knows more than the collected wisdom of the forum. Sure, everyone just imagines the reduction in sound when they apply something like FatMat.
Amusing.
For those who prefer the non scientific info this is what was reported on the MythBusters: Adam and Jamie, drove two identical Ford F150 pickup trucks filled with identical amounts of gas. One with the tailgate up the other down. They drove the same road and after 500 miles the one with the tailgate up went 30 miles further before it ran out of gas! That's 6% better (30/500!) Note YMMV but it's all in that direction!
If aerodynamics was simple and intuitive F1 folks would not be spending millions making continual small changes with each team having their own wind tunnel!
Last edited by JerryU; 08-07-2015 at 10:49 AM.
08-07-2015, 12:23 PM
#22
Le Mans Master
08-07-2015, 04:07 PM
#23
Burning Brakes
AMEN. I don't care if the car gets 0.005 mpg better or is more stable at 150 mph (a speed I'll never reach).I do care when my car sounds like HELL scraping, which is embarrassing and scary to passengers.
Wish we could find the exact engineer(s) at GM who green-lighted these pieces to find out the truth behind them. GM bean-counters require the part to serve a sufficient purpose.
08-07-2015, 10:47 PM
#24
Drifting
I'm sure GM put that part on there for the following reasons:
1. They wanted to spend more money than necessary, so adding a useless part was a good way to do it.
2. They thought owners would love the scraping sound it makes.
3. They know Corvette owners like to mod their cars, and removing this would be an easy one.
Sure, there's no functional value to it at all, GM just put it on there, well, because....
I'm always amused at the folks who think they know more than GM's engineers, and make aero judgements based on intuition. Sanantguy says Larry's test is invalid because (I guess) it's anecdotal, and then uses nothing but anecdotal evidence to support his decision to remove it.
And he doesn't just know more than GM's engineers. If you read the rest of his posts, in his few short weeks of ownership he knows more than the collected wisdom of the forum. Sure, everyone just imagines the reduction in sound when they apply something like FatMat.
Amusing.
1. They wanted to spend more money than necessary, so adding a useless part was a good way to do it.
2. They thought owners would love the scraping sound it makes.
3. They know Corvette owners like to mod their cars, and removing this would be an easy one.
Sure, there's no functional value to it at all, GM just put it on there, well, because....
I'm always amused at the folks who think they know more than GM's engineers, and make aero judgements based on intuition. Sanantguy says Larry's test is invalid because (I guess) it's anecdotal, and then uses nothing but anecdotal evidence to support his decision to remove it.
And he doesn't just know more than GM's engineers. If you read the rest of his posts, in his few short weeks of ownership he knows more than the collected wisdom of the forum. Sure, everyone just imagines the reduction in sound when they apply something like FatMat.
Amusing.
08-07-2015, 10:58 PM
#25
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
I'm sure GM put that part on there for the following reasons:
1. They wanted to spend more money than necessary, so adding a useless part was a good way to do it.
2. They thought owners would love the scraping sound it makes.
3. They know Corvette owners like to mod their cars, and removing this would be an easy one.
Sure, there's no functional value to it at all, GM just put it on there, well, because....
I'm always amused at the folks who think they know more than GM's engineers, and make aero judgements based on intuition. Sanantguy says Larry's test is invalid because (I guess) it's anecdotal, and then uses nothing but anecdotal evidence to support his decision to remove it.
And he doesn't just know more than GM's engineers. If you read the rest of his posts, in his few short weeks of ownership he knows more than the collected wisdom of the forum. Sure, everyone just imagines the reduction in sound when they apply something like FatMat.
Amusing.
1. They wanted to spend more money than necessary, so adding a useless part was a good way to do it.
2. They thought owners would love the scraping sound it makes.
3. They know Corvette owners like to mod their cars, and removing this would be an easy one.
Sure, there's no functional value to it at all, GM just put it on there, well, because....
I'm always amused at the folks who think they know more than GM's engineers, and make aero judgements based on intuition. Sanantguy says Larry's test is invalid because (I guess) it's anecdotal, and then uses nothing but anecdotal evidence to support his decision to remove it.
And he doesn't just know more than GM's engineers. If you read the rest of his posts, in his few short weeks of ownership he knows more than the collected wisdom of the forum. Sure, everyone just imagines the reduction in sound when they apply something like FatMat.
Amusing.
As for the rest. Stated plainly I don't give a rats *** about fuel economy, or any perceived handling benefits over 150mph.
With plastic piece=scraped going in the garage
Without=no scraping
Pretty easy from my perspective. Take what you want from it.
oh yes, if you have ever conducted a "true experiment" (google it) then you know that conclusions are not drawn unless there is sufficient evidence.
Didn't start the thread for a pissing contest or to justify my actions. I do what I want with my car. You do what you want with yours. End of story.
08-07-2015, 11:24 PM
#26
Safety Car
Member Since: Oct 2012
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 4,794
Received 676 Likes
on
480 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15
No disrespect meant here,but if you start a thread then you will get a lot of answers. If you do what you want with your car why start a thread to ask if others have done it, which will bring up a boat load of " Whys" and also of "Why not's".
This, of course brings in the armchair designers and their design concepts. Proven, of course, by their own wind tunnel powered by a floor fan from Walmart and smoke from a $2.00 cigar.
I, like you, do what I want with my car, Which is why I have red pin stripes on every crease.
Just saying.
This, of course brings in the armchair designers and their design concepts. Proven, of course, by their own wind tunnel powered by a floor fan from Walmart and smoke from a $2.00 cigar.
I, like you, do what I want with my car, Which is why I have red pin stripes on every crease.
Just saying.
08-07-2015, 11:54 PM
#27
Administrator
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: In a parallel universe. Currently own 2014 Stingray Coupe.
Posts: 342,981
Received 19,299 Likes
on
13,972 Posts
C7 of the Year - Modified Finalist 2021
MO Events Coordinator
St. Jude Co-Organizer
St. Jude Donor '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19-
'20-'21-'22-'23-'24
NCM Sinkhole Donor
CI 5, 8 & 11 Veteran
It's your car and you can do what the heck you want with it. If you're happy with taking things off that were designed to be on there, then . I can understand not wanting to hear the scraping noise though.
. I can understand not wanting to hear the scraping noise though.
08-08-2015, 12:15 AM
#28
I'm sure GM put that part on there for the following reasons:
1. They wanted to spend more money than necessary, so adding a useless part was a good way to do it.
2. They thought owners would love the scraping sound it makes.
3. They know Corvette owners like to mod their cars, and removing this would be an easy one.
Sure, there's no functional value to it at all, GM just put it on there, well, because....
I'm always amused at the folks who think they know more than GM's engineers, and make aero judgements based on intuition. Sanantguy says Larry's test is invalid because (I guess) it's anecdotal, and then uses nothing but anecdotal evidence to support his decision to remove it.
And he doesn't just know more than GM's engineers. If you read the rest of his posts, in his few short weeks of ownership he knows more than the collected wisdom of the forum. Sure, everyone just imagines the reduction in sound when they apply something like FatMat.
Amusing.
1. They wanted to spend more money than necessary, so adding a useless part was a good way to do it.
2. They thought owners would love the scraping sound it makes.
3. They know Corvette owners like to mod their cars, and removing this would be an easy one.
Sure, there's no functional value to it at all, GM just put it on there, well, because....
I'm always amused at the folks who think they know more than GM's engineers, and make aero judgements based on intuition. Sanantguy says Larry's test is invalid because (I guess) it's anecdotal, and then uses nothing but anecdotal evidence to support his decision to remove it.
And he doesn't just know more than GM's engineers. If you read the rest of his posts, in his few short weeks of ownership he knows more than the collected wisdom of the forum. Sure, everyone just imagines the reduction in sound when they apply something like FatMat.
Amusing.
08-08-2015, 12:53 AM
#29
Drifting
If you have issues. speak up son, my line is always open.
As for the rest. Stated plainly I don't give a rats *** about fuel economy, or any perceived handling benefits over 150mph.
With plastic piece=scraped going in the garage
Without=no scraping
Pretty easy from my perspective. Take what you want from it.
oh yes, if you have ever conducted a "true experiment" (google it) then you know that conclusions are not drawn unless there is sufficient evidence.
Didn't start the thread for a pissing contest or to justify my actions. I do what I want with my car. You do what you want with yours. End of story.
As for the rest. Stated plainly I don't give a rats *** about fuel economy, or any perceived handling benefits over 150mph.
With plastic piece=scraped going in the garage
Without=no scraping
Pretty easy from my perspective. Take what you want from it.
oh yes, if you have ever conducted a "true experiment" (google it) then you know that conclusions are not drawn unless there is sufficient evidence.
Didn't start the thread for a pissing contest or to justify my actions. I do what I want with my car. You do what you want with yours. End of story.
I've had enough that it doesn't bother me. I'd be concerned if mine didn't make noise when coming in or out of my driveway.
08-10-2015, 09:48 AM
#31
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2012
Location: Hagerstown MD
Posts: 6,876
Received 1,738 Likes
on
1,174 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15-'16,'18
Do the bolts/screws securing the front air dam(s) serve any other purpose other than securing the air dam? Should they be reinstalled if the air dams are removed?
08-10-2015, 10:04 AM
#32
There are several washer screws that hold up the front bumper.
When installing a front air dam, you can use these screws but you will have to drill 5 or 6 more to secure the air dam.
If you ever remove the front air dam, the washer screws will need to be reinstalled to hold up the front bumper.
08-10-2015, 10:08 AM
#33
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2012
Location: Hagerstown MD
Posts: 6,876
Received 1,738 Likes
on
1,174 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15-'16,'18
Yes, they do Randall.
There are several washer screws that hold up the front bumper.
When installing a front air dam, you can use these screws but you will have to drill 5 or 6 more to secure the air dam.
If you ever remove the front air dam, the washer screws will need to be reinstalled to hold up the front bumper.
There are several washer screws that hold up the front bumper.
When installing a front air dam, you can use these screws but you will have to drill 5 or 6 more to secure the air dam.
If you ever remove the front air dam, the washer screws will need to be reinstalled to hold up the front bumper.
08-10-2015, 10:25 AM
#34
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Yes, they do Randall.
There are several washer screws that hold up the front bumper.
When installing a front air dam, you can use these screws but you will have to drill 5 or 6 more to secure the air dam.
If you ever remove the front air dam, the washer screws will need to be reinstalled to hold up the front bumper.
There are several washer screws that hold up the front bumper.
When installing a front air dam, you can use these screws but you will have to drill 5 or 6 more to secure the air dam.
If you ever remove the front air dam, the washer screws will need to be reinstalled to hold up the front bumper.
It did not appear that the screws for the front air dam do anything aside from hold the air dam on.
could be wrong.
08-10-2015, 10:31 AM
#35
Yes, you are wrong.
I have personally installed the so-called "poverty" splitter and I used the existing OEM GM Washer Screws.
I then drilled an additional 5-6 holes with a 5/16th drill bit and secured the front air dam using push in plastic scrivets.
When I say "existing OEM GM Washer Screws" these washer screws are there for a reason.
