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.
My 56 does not have PCV. My 64 does and I guess it increased the weight of the car by 1 or 2 oz.
At least it has a carburetor so you can wash away all the crackcase "stuff" and avoid "coking!"
My point was the Feds have required a number of things that have added complexity and weight! Thank goodness GM engineers have been able to mitigate a number of issues with technology in the C7 like body panels with a specific gravity of 1.2 so they almost float, hollow cast aluminum cradles and "A" arms, etc.!
Check your facts. c5 z51 3150lb, c6 z51 3200lb, c7 z51 3400lb. That's fatter and fatter. 200lb fatter on the c7!
If comparing your car to 40yr old cars makes you feel better, that's your prerogative. Doesn't warm my heart.
I'm comparing z51 weights, because I track my car, and non-Z51 don't cut it. C7 went a bit overboard with the e-diff and 20 inch wheels. Non-Z51 weights are a bit closer.
Here's a good fact:
Car and Driver Lightning Lap:
2008 C6 Z51 lap time: 3:01.2
2014 C7 Z51 lap time: 2:53.8
I know, I know...the C7 has better tires, VIR was repaved (but not very well it appears). But facts are facts: the C7, on the same track, was more than 6 seconds a lap faster. That is an eternity (which you well know since you track your car). So, the C7 is heavier (because customers want more "stuff") and it clearly doesn't matter in this comparison.
Check your facts. c5 z51 3150lb, c6 z51 3200lb, c7 z51 3400lb. That's fatter and fatter. 200lb fatter on the c7!
If comparing your car to 40yr old cars makes you feel better, that's your prerogative. Doesn't warm my heart.
I'm comparing z51 weights, because I track my car, and non-Z51 don't cut it. C7 went a bit overboard with the e-diff and 20 inch wheels. Non-Z51 weights are a bit closer.
I get that you have no use for some of the enhancements in the C7 z51, but just because you don't like a performance enhancement doesn't make it "fat". You might as well say that someone who engages in a body building program gains "fat" because the extra muscle mass they developed is not important to *you*.
Let's look at what you called "fat" on the C7 z51:
-Bigger brakes
-Bigger wheels/tires
-Dry sump engine
-Stiffer, more supportive seats
-Rear mounted battery
-7 speed trans
All improvements but each adds weight when compared to the c5/6 z51 cars.
Are there other weight gains not performance related? Absolutely, but you called the entire 200 lbs gain "fat" so clearly you consider all weight adds 'fat' regardless of performance.
And since the C7 Z51 has markedly and measurably beat it predecessors, seems to me those investments in extra weight really paid off.
Here's a good fact:
Car and Driver Lightning Lap:
2008 C6 Z51 lap time: 3:01.2
2014 C7 Z51 lap time: 2:53.8
I know, I know...the C7 has better tires, VIR was repaved (but not very well it appears). But facts are facts: the C7, on the same track, was more than 6 seconds a lap faster. That is an eternity (which you well know since you track your car). So, the C7 is heavier (because customers want more "stuff") and it clearly doesn't matter in this comparison.
It does matter in terms of consumables at the track and feel of the car while driving.........
Yes as a matter of fact I have. I have owned a c5z track car, c6z track car and driven the c7z at the track. ( along with about 6 different porsche models, spec miata, BMW e36). Newer is faster and but consumables go up with speed and weight. Doesn't happen any other way! The C7 is by far the best corvette ever made for the track but a lighter track option car would have been ideal for those of us who are track junkies.
Yes as a matter of fact I have. I have owned a c5z track car, c6z track car and driven the c7z at the track. ( along with about 6 different porsche models, spec miata, BMW e36). Newer is faster and but consumables go up with speed and weight. Doesn't happen any other way! The C7 is by far the best corvette ever made for the track but a lighter track option car would have been ideal for those of us who are track junkies.
my question was more sparked by the feel part of your post. My c7 has way more feel than my c6 on the track. I'm not sure 180lbs or whatever it is amounts to much.
my question was more sparked by the feel part of your post. My c7 has way more feel than my c6 on the track. I'm not sure 180lbs or whatever it is amounts to much.
I get that you have no use for some of the enhancements in the C7 z51, but just because you don't like a performance enhancement doesn't make it "fat". You might as well say that someone who engages in a body building program gains "fat" because the extra muscle mass they developed is not important to *you*.
Let's look at what you called "fat" on the C7 z51:
-Bigger brakes
-Bigger wheels/tires
-Dry sump engine
-Stiffer, more supportive seats
-Rear mounted battery
-7 speed trans
All improvements but each adds weight when compared to the c5/6 z51 cars.
Are there other weight gains not performance related? Absolutely, but you called the entire 200 lbs gain "fat" so clearly you consider all weight adds 'fat' regardless of performance.
And since the C7 Z51 has markedly and measurably beat it predecessors, seems to me those investments in extra weight really paid off.
Of course I agree that the c7 is the better car, and faster. Just like the c6 was coming from the c5. The ND is also a faster and I assume better car than the NC, yet it's much lighter. Making a better car doesn't have to mean adding 200lb.
I feel that most of the performance gain on the c7 could have been achieved with less weight gain. Also remember that it has more power and better tires, so it would automatically be faster regardless of the other changes. The weight on the other hand slows it down some. It's tough to guess, but let's say gm took the weight savings over the c6, ending up at 3100lb (supposedly), and only added the things that weigh very little for the added speed (DI, tires - NOT wheels, maybe MRC) - would it be slower or faster than c7? Hard to know. Obviously Chevy had bigger plans, and it's not just about track times. I'm just saying there are two ways to make speed.
Do you prefer driving the 3900lb GTR, or the 3400lb C7? Hint: the GTR has more tech and gets lower lap times. Starting to see my point of view a little bit? Two different ways of making speed, but some of us prefer the lighter option.
I'm also arguing that GM is getting "lazy" or "lost its way", and not optimizing weight as much as they could. But as I noted above, I understand how time constraints play into this. Ex: you can design a rigid seat in 6 months by just adding bracing, or you could design a proper lightweight seat of the same rigidity in 2 years. Time is money, etc. The question of philosophy comes in when you're prioritizing that lightweight seat vs bigger wheels, let's say. Do you cram in the development and validation cost for the bigger wheels, or do you spend it on lightening that seat. Heavy seat plus bigger wheels would give you the same performance and cost of lighter seat and old wheels. Which one do you choose? Or do you even consider it a choice? That's a question of philosophy.
The other point of philosophy is: "this is good enough". You see this on regular cars. Ex: steel brackets here and there that are way beefier than necessary, but someone called them "good enough". Now you're lugging around that extra hunk of steel and burning extra gas and using up extra brakes speeding it up and slowing it down. It's a small effect, but it adds up. It's more rare to see wasteful design like that on the Vette, but I'm sure it's there. It's not "replace this steel bracket with aluminum" because there are few steel brackets, but "take this aluminum bracket and lighten it, use one less bolt, to the limit of reliability. If you also lighten the power steering pump this bracket is supposed to hold, now you can really lighten the bracket. Etc.". It just takes the right philosophy and time (money) to optimize all those tiny pieces one by one. If the person who designed it the first time had the right philosophy, you wouldn't have to go in now and retroactively try to re-optimize, which means re-design, the part. Wasted energy, plus the product in the middle was worse than it should've been.
My guess is that Mazda re-discovered its soul and cut a bunch of weight in the ND using this philosophy of optimization. There were several generations of "good enough", and then they said "we can do better". It shows that in an already lightweight car there is fat that can be trimmed. The Vette is "already lightweight compared to its peers" (dubious, because the 911 seems to be lighter, but I can't find end user weights with full tank of gas), just as the NC Miata was, but I'm quite sure there's room for optimization. I hope Corvette finds its way again.
Like I said, I didn't wanna nitpick and second guess individual choices GM made, I wanna concentrate on philosophy, but a couple of items on your list are out of place:
- bigger wheels - barely perceptible difference in track times or feel based on previous studies, sometimes loses time. Worse road manners. More expensive and less tire choices. But looks better :P
- 7 speed - this helps nothing on track. On the road, I'm pretty sure I'd be ok with replacing 6th with the new 7th ratio. Same fuel economy, similarly shitty acceleration. If I wanna accelerate, I'd downshift from top gear to 4th anyway both on c6 or c7. 6th on the c7 is useless IMO. Even 5th is of marginal use.
^^^ The Corvette was on it's way to the chopping block! Not because it was getting too heavy or lost it's way. It was poor sales and a financial looser. As Tadge said, if the C7 didn't increase sales significantly it would be gone!
I doubt for the few "racers/trackers" who would like a lighter "more performance oriented Vette" could have keep it alive! To get the current sales it has to be more than a striped down race car, IMO.
Sales in 2010 were ~12,000; 2011-~13,000 and 2012 ~14,000. They were loosing money at those volumes!
Have to put up with some creature features, meeting EPA corporate mpg etc etc and what more folks want than gear heads!
Ah yes if Nissan would/could only build my 2400 pound 260Z again!
"Sales in 2010 were ~12,000; 2011-~13,000 and 2012 ~14,000. They were loosing money at those volumes!"
You're right, I didn't consider the chopping block idea. But there are a few other factors. You're comparing end of generation sales numbers, which might well be low by that point in the c7 generation. That also combined with a significant recession.
Also, I would think the design parameters of the C7 were likely established right around 08, after they finished with the 08 refresh. That was still before the recession, and they would've been looking at early C6 sales numbers, and refreshed 08 sales numbers. Of course I have no idea of the real timeline, and I didn't look up sales numbers of early C6 and C7.
Your point has some validity, I'm sure. Does that mean that the C8 can be the light generation?
I'd say GM did a damn good job keeping weight in check for a car in the C7's price range.
This.
Anyone who really thinks the concerns of the track crowd should move GM's needle on decisions impacting a mainstream production car that they sell in significant volumes (30,000+ units a year is small for GM, but it does contribute $2 billion+ annually to the top line and throws a big halo over the entire Chevy brand) doesn't understand the car business. It DOES matter to GM, they give heavy consideration to the needs of enthusiasts who track their cars. You should be GRATEFUL for that and appreciate how in touch with the Corvette clubs, enthusiasts, etc. that GM is. They really do make an effort. They are trying hard to keep that contingent happy. The fact that it is not GM's PRIMARY concern driving C7 engineering and design choices goes with the territory. They are in the CAR BUSINESS, they want to SELL THE CARs. Their primary concern is the fasto 59 year olds like ME who is going to BUY MOST OF THE CARS. And guys like me want a cool sports car, we share some concerns about C7 weight, sure lighter is better. But come on,GIVE UP POWER SEATS OR INFOTAINMENT TO SAVE 100LBS????
Some of the comments here strike me as car weenie whining @ its worst, and divorced from reality. Newsflash: the post above nailed it: if GM sells 25,000+ units of this car annually the Corvette survives, if sales fall to <15,000 units for too long (like it did at the tail end of C6 production) the Corvette could become extinct like so many other sports cars.
They are trying to strike a balance, and considering the press and customer acceptance of the C7, they seem to have hit this one out of the park. I can't really imagine a better re-design of a car, it is the most impressive one I can ever remember.
^^^ In fact if you want something different than what GM or any manufacturer offers there is the aftermarket! The US has many suppliers. In fact see steel 3d lives in LA. He can do as I did and visit TCI in Ontario CA just outside of LA. They build custom frames and have many suspension options. I picked a ProStreet chassis with coilovers and disk brakes on all 4 corners, with front and rear sway bars. No canyon carver but goes great in a straight line and corners fine!
They even provided a set back option of engine and trans mounts for better weight transfer! Combine that with the 502 cid BB Chevy I assembled from some 30 boxes including aluminum CNC ported heads, manifold, front cover supplied by GM, a racing modified trans and a custom, chopped roof body and I got a 3000 pound car with 53% weight on the HD 9" Currie built rear with gear ratio I selected and Summers bros. axles.
Just had to fabricate an exhaust system, fuel delivery, wire the car, build an interior, add a roll bar to hold the 5 point harnesses, install a sound system, etc., etc. and it met my goal of 0 to 60 under 3.5 seconds with a naturally aspirated 525 hp engine! Add 150 to 200 hp of Nitrous and gain several more tens!
That is the American way!
PS: Frankly if I were racing or a serous tracker trying to get lowest times I'd buy LG Motorsports coilover system an optimism settings for the track, put in an after market rad and stop complaining that the car overheats. I'd only use an M7 but if an automatic get an aftermarket extra or larger heat exchange for it. Might as well upgrade to a better engine oil cooler now that you have a higher capacity rad! Should also loose some weight where it really counts, unsprung, using carbon ceramic rotors, carbon fiber wheels and real race car tires if you're trying to best your buddy. Could replace the OEM seats with light weight, firmer fitting racing seats, strip out some added weight stuff as well. A "real racer" doesn't need air conditioning or 10 speakers, etc.!
California built rigid 4 bar link chassis, coilovers and disk brakes on all 4 corners, with a custom built body. 525 natural aspirated hp in a 3000 pound car with 53% of the weight on the rear wheels gets it going fast. Want it faster, turn on the Nitrous!
The latest Camaro has all the latest creature comforts and technology plus it is faster and handles better than the previous generation. Plus it's 200 pounds lighter. Corvette design team needs to get back to work. When you start accepting anything less than the best, that is exactly what you will get.
maybe a 6-cyl engine like most Camaros are sold with---
Not according to the Lightning Lap - the Grand Sport beat it.
Lightning lap is only worth so much, especially comparing different installments. It can go both ways. In this test the GTR beat the Z06 http://www.motortrend.com/cars/nissa...mo-comparison/ . The 3400lb C7 I was referring to was the Z51, which is slower in the Lightning Lap list. The GS and Z06 are both well over 3400lb. Ok, let's call it even. My point still stands. Two ways to make speed.
To those of you who are cheerleaders and can offer no constructive criticism to the car maker you love... have fun. I doubt even Tadge would agree with you that he couldn't have done better. I've put out plenty of products that were good and that I was proud of, but I would never say they were perfect and I could not/should not have done better.
01-29-2017, 08:58 AM
In fact if you want something different than what GM or any manufacturer offers there is the aftermarket! The US has many suppliers. In fact see steel 3d lives in LA. He can do as I did and visit TCI in Ontario CA just outside of LA. They build custom frames and have many suspension options. I picked a ProStreet chassis with coilovers and disk brakes on all 4 corners, with front and rear sway bars. No canyon carver but goes great in a straight line and corners fine! 
