When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I agree, but when the engineers build this car they look at weight, even down to the carpeting material! So I think that is why some of those features are not included.
Last edited by joemessman; 12-08-2016 at 11:03 AM.
these are basic items a car should have at this price point,
I think maybe you're the one not getting the point.
At *any* given price point, whether its $20k or $120K, there is a decision made as to what % of the cost will be high performance/mechanical engineering, and what % goes to gadgets, comfort, 'soft' materials.
C7 costs the same as a midlevel Lexus sedan. GM chose to put a higher % of its cost into high performing engines, transmissions that can hold up to those high HP engines, and a high end chassis that can handle speeds up to 200 MPH. Lexus chose to rather put a higher % into high end leather, infotainment, gadgets, etc, and then save some $ by using very basic Toyota-style powerplants and cheap unibody chassis (durable, certainly, but nowhere near the C7's power levels and performance levels).
Example: Have you priced out a Lexus that has the C7's power, speed and handling levels? Have you asked yourself why that particular Lexus model costs double (or quadruple) what a C7 costs?
For me, I'm much happier with having more of my $ going to performance rather than gadgets. Your preference may differ, and you certainly have other choices too.
EDITED TO ADD: I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting those features, but there is a lot more to adding those items than just the raw cost of the part --- it also costs money to inventory the additional parts for the line, costs to maintain inventory for spares, money to integrate & test each of those features into car's design, money to add those items into the assembly line, money to cover them under warranty for the inevitable component failures, etc. All those costs are weighed against any *potential* gain in sales from those features, or loss of sales from NOT having those features before the car is green-lighted.
As you can see from some of the replies, there is a lot of antagonism about some of these issues. The idea is that this is a "sports" car so who needs all these new fangled wussy features, by God! (Like push button windows, power seats, air conditioning), this despite the fact that the competition, e.g. Jaguar (blind spot indicators) and Porsche (folding mirrors) has managed to implement some of them. Tadge has already said blind spot indicators is not going to happen, and you will continue to see excuses about why some of the others won't either, e.g., weight. Or my favorite: "Blind spot indicators set off my radar detector, therefore I don't want them!"
The reactionary attitude on the part of some folks is kind of puzzling. It's all about keeping up with the competition, and at some point, if this attitude prevails, Corvette is going to look a bit short of expected features. Can you imagine if it still had roll-down windows and no air conditioning? Indeed, this antagonism sounds like a cracker coming off the farm complaining about the new tractors having enclosed cabs. And suggesting we buy other cars if we don't like the lack of features on the Vette is rather missing the point. It ain't all about you, Bubba. If market pressures dictate it, Corvette better conform or pay the price. And if a $20K Toyota can have blind spot indicators, that rather nullifies this idea that they "cost too much."
I predict that these "advanced" features will soon be so common place that their absence will be noted. When every other car you drive, including a Toyota Corolla, has bind spot indicators, they will be missed. And if the government takes notice, they'll likely say, "Do it!" and we'll get them in spite of the naysayers.
There's always resistance to anything the least bit new, whether it is an automatic transmission or the deletion of the choke. You just have to laugh at these people who have a problem with it. Either they will conform, or they'll die and a new generation will take over that grew up with and expects it. After all, the internal combustion engine's days are numbered. Besides, any Tesla Model S can beat the crap out of a Vette anyway. It won't be that long before we'll be saying, "Back in my day we actually drove cars ourselves, and they had these things called cylinders..."
There's no antagonism here. I am curious, however. Where are all these competitors that have the Corvette's power, chassis, and handling levels, AND all the gadgets that the OP wanted, all for a comparable price? Surely they are out-selling the C7, and would be worthy of a look.
Originally Posted by mschuyler
As you can see from some of the replies, there is a lot of antagonism about some of these issues. The idea is that this is a "sports" car so who needs all these new fangled wussy features, by God! (Like push button windows, power seats, air conditioning), this despite the fact that the competition, e.g. Jaguar (blind spot indicators) and Porsche (folding mirrors) has managed to implement some of them. Tadge has already said blind spot indicators is not going to happen, and you will continue to see excuses about why some of the others won't either, e.g., weight. Or my favorite: "Blind spot indicators set off my radar detector, therefore I don't want them!"
The reactionary attitude on the part of some folks is kind of puzzling. It's all about keeping up with the competition, and at some point, if this attitude prevails, Corvette is going to look a bit short of expected features. Can you imagine if it still had roll-down windows and no air conditioning? Indeed, this antagonism sounds like a cracker coming off the farm complaining about the new tractors having enclosed cabs. And suggesting we buy other cars if we don't like the lack of features on the Vette is rather missing the point. It ain't all about you, Bubba. If market pressures dictate it, Corvette better conform or pay the price. And if a $20K Toyota can have blind spot indicators, that rather nullifies this idea that they "cost too much."
I predict that these "advanced" features will soon be so common place that their absence will be noted. When every other car you drive, including a Toyota Corolla, has bind spot indicators, they will be missed. And if the government takes notice, they'll likely say, "Do it!" and we'll get them in spite of the naysayers.
There's always resistance to anything the least bit new, whether it is an automatic transmission or the deletion of the choke. You just have to laugh at these people who have a problem with it. Either they will conform, or they'll die and a new generation will take over that grew up with and expects it. After all, the internal combustion engine's days are numbered. Besides, any Tesla Model S can beat the crap out of a Vette anyway. It won't be that long before we'll be saying, "Back in my day we actually drove cars ourselves, and they had these things called cylinders..."
keep in mind all these safety feature can be defeated if you so choose to.
im pretty sure the next generation c8 will have them for sure,
the c7 is still an incredible car,i cant think of any sports car with almost 500 hp and gets 30mpg, but why not make it that much better?
i would like to add active bending headlights also it would be nice to see around turns at night, =>
also you could choose what features you like maybe add them to the lt3 model or a optional safety package you can add,
I can only speak for myself, but it isn't that I don't *want* the features, rather that I don't feel cheated at the price point for not having them, given all the performance I get for my $.
The primary reason that there are no "blind spot indicators", "adaptive cruise control" and "automatic braking" is aesthetic. Many people don't want the radar emitters/sensors stuck all over the front and rear fascia. Contrary to your assertion, there are no sensors "already in place". Yes, their are curb cameras, but those do not provide the information needed for the things you are asking for.
The primary reason that there are no "blind spot indicators", "adaptive cruise control" and "automatic braking" is aesthetic. Many people don't want the radar emitters/sensors stuck all over the front and rear fascia. Contrary to your assertion, there are no sensors "already in place". Yes, their are curb cameras, but those do not provide the information needed for the things you are asking for.
Design/engineering is always a matter of trade-offs. For example, I remember one of the engineers being interviewed about blind spot monitoring, which they did consider. Sensors would have gone in the same place where the rear vents are, one reason they decided against it.
You can imagine all sorts of variations on equipment, but they have to be cost-effective and fit the market. To invent an extreme example, you could narrow the fenders, install low rolling resistance tires and the power train from a Volt or Bolt and you would have a very efficient commuter car, but who would buy it? (This is essentially what the Pontiac Fiero was originally sold to management as, a commuter car, and only in its last year of production did it get the features that made it into the sports car that it looked like. Too late.)
Cadillac makes high-performance cars with most of the features suggested by OP, but they fit a different niche in the market. Perhaps by the time of the next generation Corvette some of these features also will make sense. They likely will not be added to an already-engineered vehicle like C7.
12-08-2016, 10:56 AM
Some basic safety features would be nice
