fsvoboda

What, I have to give back my C7?

JoesC5

Are you afraid to compare different cars to a Corvette? Seems so. I'm not sticking my head in the sand.

My daily driver is a 3 Star, so at last I have real life experiences with a 3 Star every day. Do you?

I also drive a Bow Tie Z06, do you. I have owned Corvettes since 1980(been driving them since 1960). How long have you been driving a Corvette.

I been buying NEW GM products since 1964, and 3 Star since 1998, so I'm very familiar with their(GM and 3 Star) quality over the years.

When did you buy your first new GM product? When did you buy your first new 3 Star?

JoesC5

The Corvette C7 is not the high point of a front engine layout design sports car. It can be improved on. Period.

LT1 Z51

I don't like Mercedes, did in the 90's (square designs were nice), don't like them now. Don't like Chevrolet either (too Korean looking), only the Corvette. Buy Fords now cause I work for them, and they mostly look OK.

Personally, I like Range Rovers and BMWs (my parents own BMWs now). But even BMW has been getting crappier and crappier. Right now, I think most cars are meh, you get what you pay for.

But, basically everything you posted is just as irrelevant versus what I just posted. You are a fan boy, a Mercedes fan boy, you like their cars even if they do stuff wrong. I've never been a fan boy, of anything (electronics, video games, cars, etc..), I'm too honest with myself, everything has issues nothing is perfect.

Anyone who can't come to that conclusion HAS their head in the sand. Simple as that.

Steve_R

Well, duh. The AMG GTR is not the high point of a front engine layout design sports car either, but it's what you keep wanting to hold up as the epitome of such. Comparing the AMG to the C7 is an apples to oranges comparison for several reasons, including target market, price, market share, dealer network, etc, etc, etc.

VETTE-NV

Bought my first Corvette in 1982 at age 17. It was a '66 vert. Had three Mercedes in the last six years. An '09 E350, a 2013 SL550, and a 2014 CLS63. The '09 was fine, the other two were absolutely pieces of $hit. Overpriced and unreliable.

Having said all that, I love the AMG-GT but I would never spend money on one based on past experience with the brand. They're fun to look at and admire from afar....sort of like a bat$hit crazy high-priced hooker.

\Boost Monkey/

Man, you're talking about a completely different car... Literally.


First, how did downforce and coefficient of drag get into this conversation? We are talking about engine layout here. That's all due to aero and the AMG has some extreme active aero under the car in addition to the static aero. Striking the desired balance between COD and downforce can be achieved with body design and aero components no matter the engine layout...


For the price point that the Corvette needs to stay at, there is no way they could implement anything like the AMG GTR has. Not to mention the four wheel steering system that imho is the only reason the car can even be considered as capable as it is, with as heavy as it is, along with the trans behind the rear axle like you stated that gives it a better bias... But is essentially a band aid on an inferior architecture.

GregNYC

I grew up around Volkswagens and Porsches the whole time growing up in the 50's, 60's and 70's. I'll be getting my first-ever Vette in 2 months. A lot of the Corvette's appeal for me is its history and heritage. So it's FE for me.

JoesC5

The AMG GT R has a curb weight of 3436 pounds(full load of gas, no driver, no luggage etc). The C7 Z06 has a curb weight of 3524 pounds(full tank of gas, which holds 1.3 gallons less than the Z06, or 8 pounds less, no driver or luggage, etc).

Now which car is heavier?

The AMG GT R at 3436 pounds.

The C7 Z06 at 3524 pounds.

Both the C7 Z07 and the AMG GT R have a front engine, aluminum space frame, a carbon fiber torque tube and a transaxle. If one has an inferior architecture, then both have it.

That "extreme" active aero under the AMG GT R. LOL. The AMG GT R has a simple panel under the front fascia that lowers at speed instead of the low mounted splitter on the Z06 that is easily damaged when driving around town. There is no other "active" aero on the AMG GT R. That said, the AMG GT R has a better designed body that is more aero than the C7 Z06's. In fact, the AMG GT R has 342 pounds of additional downforce yet has a lower coefficient of drag vs the base model AMG GT. Can't say that about the C7 Z06 Z07 which has a terrible coefficient of drag vs the base C7 Stingray, while trying to increase the downforce over the base StingRay.



AMG just does a better job at designing their "inferior architecture" car vs the Corvette. LOL. That " better" bias that the AMG has, is that the engine and cockpit are located closer to the rear axle, than the front axle. Put a 175 pound driver in the AMG, and it gets an even better rear weight bias, as the seat is closer to the rear axle than in the C7, even with that same 175 pound driver.

AMG


C7



But, to be fair, having the cockpit located closer to the rear axle, the AMG GT R only has 10.1 cu ft of cargo space vs the C7 Z06's coupe's 15 cu ft(but then my "inferior architecture" C6 Z06 has 22.4 cu ft of cargo space). I can't drive my C6 Z06 to it's maximum on the street, so I'll not be buying either a C7 Z06 or a AMG GT R, and I'll have more than enough cargo space to actually drive my Corvette like most Corvette owners do(drive on road trips and not on race tracks).

\Boost Monkey/

I literally just said they both have an inferior architecture, not just one of them...


Second, an aluminum frame, carbon torque tube etc. is common on these levels of cars, not something special. Naming a couple of very common shared components of similar build materials does not make these two cars one in the same.


Third, the GT R is supposed to be an extreme track focused version of the car, the Z06 is not (The ZR1 is supposed to be) so when you compare it to other specialized track focused cars, like the 911 GT3 RS (3155 lbs) or the GT2 RS (3085 lbs) or even some McLarens such as the 675LT (3016 lbs) or even the cheaper 570S (3186 lbs) it's a heavy car man...Sorry, but 3500 lbs for a purely track focused car is heavy...

village idiot

Yeah, the Z06 throws up and dies on the track

Also, you all need to exercise some basic level of caution driving your cars. My car is lowered and my front splitter is fine. It touches on occasion. "Easily damaged" is a big stretch.

\Boost Monkey/

Incorrect.


Not only is there the "simple" front splitter with an underbody panel (which by the way have you seen it function? LOL the Alfa Guilia is an example of a "simple" front active splitter, not this one) but there is also the active louvers in the grill that are part of what AMG calls "active air management system"... (Sure sounds a lot more complicated than a simple moving panel, doesn't it?) In addition, the static rear wing is manually adjustable to the profile that suits the track's needs... But sure, we could compare this to the wickerbill if so inclined, and likely the ZR1's rear wing will be adjustable as well.

Steve_R

So Joe, if the AMG is sooooo much better than the Corvette, why does one sell a couple thousand cars a year while the other sells tens of thousands?

Inquiring minds and all...

pdiddy972

You should tell that to GM while looking at this, where the Z06 set the 4th fastest time in ten years of testing. And the GS set the 9th fastest time.

sunsalem

Ya all need to stop picking on ol' Joe...it's past his naptime.

\Boost Monkey/

This is not difficult to understand...


All one has to do is look at the current Prototype classes in professional racing series (IE LMP1 and P) and note how many are RMR versus any other layout for what is considered the fastest and most advanced race cars in the world (F1 aside).


Nissan actually tried to bring three FMR cars (GT-R LM) to LeMans this past year in a radical departure from what is considered the RMR norm...


...Look how great that worked out for them.

Zymurgy

Joe, I've posted this before in a thread where you make this statement. They changed the way they measure cargo space on the C7. In reality, the cargo space on the C7 is almost the same as the C6. Unlike you, I've owned both.

VETTE-NV

Thanks for clarifying. I've owned both as well and they seem about the same to me.....but Joe never lets the facts get in his way.

daixloxbmw

Going from FMR (front mid engine/rear drive) layout to MR (mid engine/rear drive) isn't necessarily about improving weight distribution because as you said, the Corvette already has a near perfect 50/50 distribution. More importantly, MR improves the polar moment of inertia, which is often overshadowed by the weight distribution. Polar moment of inertia is the car's ability to rotate.

I've used this analogy before on this forum but it works so I'll repeat it. Imagine a double sided sledgehammer with two heads on each side of a shaft. Find the center of the shaft and it will have a 50/50 weight distribution but a very bad polar moment of inertia. This can be demonstrated if you grabbed the center of the shaft and tried to rotate it clockwise and counter clockwise very rapidly, very difficult to do. Now take the two heads and move them to the center of the shaft and the weight distribution will remain the same at 50/50 but now you've significantly improved the polar moment of inertia since the heaviest parts of the double sided sledgehammer is now centralized. Now grab the center of the shaft and try rotating it again, you'll find that it is much easier to rotate now that the weight has been removed from the ends. The MR Corvette accomplishes the same goal by moving the engine, which is the heaviest part of the car, closer to the center. This is why GM decided to go with MR because they likely plateaued performance-wise with the FMR layout.

I like the traditional FMR proportions of the Corvette with the long hood and short rear deck but I'm open minded to the MR layout and will reserve judgement until I can see it undisguised with specifications but I think ultimately will depend on whether or not I can afford it. I hope the MR Corvette isn't priced out of my league because I'd love to one day own a MR car.

LT1 Z51

For everyday driving, and novice track day driving I think polar moment of inertia is way oversold as something magical.

You're analogy doesn't take into account wheel base. An FMR car already has the weight inside the wheelbase, which solves most problems with wanting to rotate. By moving the engine to the rear, all you are doing is getting it marginally closer to the center.

Personally, I feel like MR is easier to control not because of the physics (I think a computer could control FMR and MR to within a margin of error), but rather its the drivers "feel." With the engine behind you, YOU feel the g-forces, BEFORE the engine, and can react to them. When the engine is in front of you, the converse is true. However I think this is ONLY an issue for an EXPERT driver.