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 believe you should acknowledge moderator Zymurgy who has informed you that that GM now measures the usable storage space differently. I've owned five C6's, including two coupes. I now own a C7 coupe. They are virtually the same. If there is even a minor difference, it's certainly not 7.4 cu ft.
I guess in your world, things are actually smaller than you say they are.
Never in this forum's existence has a moderator been required to be a GM engineer or even a GM employee. Is Zymurgy a GM employee?
Let him post up the GM article explaining how they measure a C7 vs the way they measured a C6 and a C5 and a C4, etc.
I think these two photos show a lot . The roof panels are nearly the same size between the C6 and the C7, yet look at the difference in cargo space remaining after the roof panel is in place.
Never in this forum's existence has a moderator been required to be a GM engineer or even a GM employee.
Let him post up the GM article explaining how they measure a C7 vs the way they measured a C6 and a C5 and a C4, etc.
I think these two photos show a lot . The roof panels are nearly the same size between the C6 and the C7, yet look at the difference in cargo space remaining after the roof panel is in place.
Since the Corvette is GM's most iconic brand, at least IMHO, I have said on this board before that GM should expand the Corvette line. Having a base, front engine grand tourer, having a serious track focused car (and maybe even customer racing cars, like Cup cars for Porsche), having a ME hybrid, and having a ME supercar (hybrid or not) makes sense--heck why not a Corvette performance crossover, too.
The key, it seems to me, is to offer something good and traditional to the existing faithful and to broaden into other markets. Corvette brand in my estimation can do this in way Chevy (which will always be basic meat and potatoes) and perhaps even Cadillac cannot.
Two of the common comments when a Corvette starts to get pricey is GM has abandoned the faithful and why should I get a Corvette when it costs Porsche money. Answers: Keep giving the faithful a car, and then move up, too. This will require dramatically improving the dealer experience (esp maintenance) to compete with Porsche (IMHO, having owned both, that is the biggest difference now that the C7 interiors have been upgraded) and making sure the high end Corvette is just as good as the P-car slotted in that price range--not just as fast or faster, but as good. GM can do this.
I am not a fan of losing control of the car to self-driving robotics and some of the other modern claptrap we see on the horizon, but I am all in favor of GM leveraging this brand to become all it can be, including to become a real competitor for Porsche in both sports cars and sporting vehicles.
Last edited by quick04Z06; 10-18-2017 at 02:29 PM.
Since the Corvette is GM's most iconic brand, at least IMHO, I have said on this board before that GM should expand the Corvette line. Having a base, front engine grand tourer, having a serious track focused car (and maybe even customer racing cars, like Cup cars for Porsche), having a ME hybrid, and having a ME supercar (hybrid or not) makes sense--heck why not a Corvette performance crossover, too.
The key, it seems to me, is to offer something good and traditional to the existing faithful and to broaden into other markets. Corvette brand in my estimation can do this in way Chevy (which will always be basic meat and potatoes) and perhaps even Cadillac cannot.
Two of the common comments when a Corvette starts to get pricey is GM has abandoned the faithful and why should I get a Corvette when it costs Porsche money. Answers: Keep giving the faithful a car, and then move up, too. This will require dramatically improving the dealer experience (esp maintenance) to compete with Porsche (IMHO, having owned both, that is the biggest difference now that the C7 interiors have been upgraded) and making sure the high end Corvette is just as good as the P-car slotted in that price range--not just as fast or faster, but as good. GM can do this.
I am not a fan of losing control of the car to self-driving robotics and some of the other modern claptrap we see on the horizon, but I am all in favor of GM leveraging this brand to become all it can be, including to become a real competitor for Porsche in both sports cars and sporting vehicles.
For Corvette to survive, GM has to survive.
If leveraging their "Corvette" model to expand growth of the company is necessary, then so be it.
I don't think anyone on this forum wants to see America's Sportscar die.
I believe it was Dave McLellan who said in his book "The main goal in developing the C5 was to ensure there would be a C6".
What he was referring to was the fact that the C5 needed to be profitable for Corvette to continue to survive and prosper. The same issue exists today.
Adding multiple platforms to the Corvette line makes sense and profit. One of the big questions is whether the ME is going to be an expansion of the Corvette line or be a Cadillac. IMHO, the discernible body lines of latest spy shots of the camo'ed ME have too much Corvette DNA to be a Cadillac (way more Shark than Art&Science) - time will tell.
If it is going to be a Corvette model, than how do they make it better (more supercar) than the upcoming fire-breathing ZR1 which looks like it is poised to destroy global track records?
To significantly beat a ZR1, you would need to be able to put more power to the ground and add some sophisticated active aero. The logical ZR1 stable mate would have a charged ME V8 with around 750 HP and a pair of 150 HP electric motors driving the fronts. This gives over 1000HP with all wheels driven. If the ME is "just as fast around the track as a ZR1" how exciting/successful would that be?
Tadge has mentioned that one of the limiting factors of the current platform is the amount of power they can put to the ground. This layout puts weight over the rear wheels and gets power to the front wheels without excessive driveshafts.
JoesC5 mentioned that Honda tried this with the NSX. But a turbo V6 combined with two electric motors and they only got 573 HP with all that weight and complexity? No wonder they're not getting anyone's money. Certainly the Corvette team can do better.
This would give us a halo supercar (the gas/electric ME), a normal front-engine supercar (C7 followed by C8), and leave room for a high-performance Corvette X-over when you just gotta have more than two seats.
While no one outside GM knows what is going to happen, the CF mods appear to have knowledge that there will be both a ME and a C8 in our future. If so, what other way would these cars live together under the Corvette banner?
I believe it was Dave McLellan who said in his book "The main goal in developing the C5 was to ensure there would be a C6".
What he was referring to was the fact that the C5 needed to be profitable for Corvette to continue to survive and prosper. The same issue exists today.
Adding multiple platforms to the Corvette line makes sense and profit. One of the big questions is whether the ME is going to be an expansion of the Corvette line or be a Cadillac. IMHO, the discernible body lines of latest spy shots of the camo'ed ME have too much Corvette DNA to be a Cadillac (way more Shark than Art&Science) - time will tell.
If it is going to be a Corvette model, than how do they make it better (more supercar) than the upcoming fire-breathing ZR1 which looks like it is poised to destroy global track records?
To significantly beat a ZR1, you would need to be able to put more power to the ground and add some sophisticated active aero. The logical ZR1 stable mate would have a charged ME V8 with around 750 HP and a pair of 150 HP electric motors driving the fronts. This gives over 1000HP with all wheels driven. If the ME is "just as fast around the track as a ZR1" how exciting/successful would that be?
Tadge has mentioned that one of the limiting factors of the current platform is the amount of power they can put to the ground. This layout puts weight over the rear wheels and gets power to the front wheels without excessive driveshafts.
JoesC5 mentioned that Honda tried this with the NSX. But a turbo V6 combined with two electric motors and they only got 573 HP with all that weight and complexity? No wonder they're not getting anyone's money. Certainly the Corvette team can do better.
This would give us a halo supercar (the gas/electric ME), a normal front-engine supercar (C7 followed by C8), and leave room for a high-performance Corvette X-over when you just gotta have more than two seats.
While no one outside GM knows what is going to happen, the CF mods appear to have knowledge that there will be both a ME and a C8 in our future. If so, what other way would these cars live together under the Corvette banner?
I don't think anyone on this forum, unless they work for GM, has any knowledge of what's about to unfold....it's all speculation at this point.
The biggest question for me is why are they beginning 2019 production in January, with no changes to the car? The addition of the ZR1 should be considered a major event, but we still have no indication of whether or not it will be a 2019 model or a 2020. I can't imagine them holding off on releasing the car until then but when will 2020 production actually begin? And will the ME, which seems very far along, be a 2020 model? Will we see it in January of '18 or '19? And where does Cadillac fit in to the grand scheme?
I'm sure we'll have some answers after the LA and Detroit auto shows, but until then, it's anyone's guess.
JoesC5 mentioned that Honda tried this with the NSX. But a turbo V6 combined with two electric motors and they only got 573 HP with all that weight and complexity? No wonder they're not getting anyone's money. Certainly the Corvette team can do better.
Honda has ALWAYS been adverse to engine power.
Throughout their history of making cars and trucks their products have been power-challenged.
It's just part of the Japanese mindset, and all the other manufacturers suffer from it (except with some small exceptions).
That aside, the REAL reason the NSX isn't selling by the truckload is buyers don't think of Japan when they think of exotic Sportscars...they think of Europe.
Honda has ALWAYS been adverse to engine power.
Throughout their history of making cars and trucks their products have been power-challenged.
It's just part of the Japanese mindset, and all the other manufacturers suffer from it (except with some small exceptions).
That aside, the REAL reason the NSX isn't selling by the truckload is buyers don't think of Japan when they think of exotic Sportscars...they think of Europe.
It's not only priced too high, but there's nothing....what's the word...."soulful" about it.
I saw a new LC500 sitting out in front of the Lexus dealer today so I quickly turned in to take a look. Showing up in a new GS carries some weight, so within ten minutes I was driving it. It was.....nice. Stunning interior, muscular exterior, but just too Japanese for my taste. A bit too refined.....almost boring. Not a car I could get passionate about. Pretty, but not sexy.
I think the NSX may have a similar problem: Not comfortable enough for some, not extreme enough for others. When you're going to spend over $150K for a sports car, it damn well better fire all of your cylinders.
Honda has ALWAYS been adverse to engine power.
Throughout their history of making cars and trucks their products have been power-challenged.
It's just part of the Japanese mindset, and all the other manufacturers suffer from it (except with some small exceptions).
That aside, the REAL reason the NSX isn't selling by the truckload is buyers don't think of Japan when they think of exotic Sportscars...they think of Europe.
Yet they are within 4 horsepower of the AMG GT R (with a larger 4L TT V8) that IS an European performance car. Seems Honda did a pretty good job of getting horsepower out of their twin turbo V6 and their electric motors.
I don't think they have a shortage of power. The NSX can do 0-60 in 3.1 seconds and the 1/4 in 11.2 @ 126(C&D). My objection is how they obtained part of that power. I don't think adding 300-400 pounds of battery and electric motors is offset by the 73 horsepower that they gained, is worth the trade off. They should have dropped the hybrid crap and upped the ICE V6 from 500 HP to 573. Dropping the hybrid crap would have also resulted in a lower price tag, which would also help sales of the NSX. Might also have picked up some additional cargo space in the front, it the NSX didn't have the hybrid crap talking up space, which would also appeal to some perspective buyers..
573 HP is not shabby for a non track focused sports car, it's that a truckload of buyers don't think of electric motors when they think of exotic sportscars. At least this buyer doesn't give a hoot about electric motors. I would consider purchasing a $140,000 3116 pound 500 HP Porsche 911 GT3 R long before I would consider a $160,000 3803 pound 573 HP hybrid NSX. Plus the GT3 R doesn't have a back seat like the regular 911, so it does have decent cargo space for a road trip, even if it is a little difficult to access.
That's exactly the point I was making. NSX added a whole lot of complexity, weight & cost and came up with a car that is no faster than a GTR - its 10-year old Japanese competition. NSX could have done a 5.0L turbo V8 and made a better/faster/more exciting car.
As I mentioned previously, the reason it makes sense for a Corvette ME hybrid is the fact that the C7 Z06/ZR1 are approaching the limits of power that can be put to the ground. To move significantly beyond the C7 you will have to add some combination of 1. Add power, 2. Reduce weight, 3. Active Aero.
More power to the ground means you have to drive all four wheels. Either driveshafts or electric motors are necessary to drive the fronts.
While pushing the limits of technology is cool, I'm old school and I think my C7 is nearly perfect (it's everything I thought my C5 should have been). If GM takes the Corvette Zora ME in the direction of the La Ferrari and 918, it will leave room to evolve the C7 into a even better front engine-rear drive C8.
That's exactly the point I was making. NSX added a whole lot of complexity, weight & cost and came up with a car that is no faster than a GTR - its 10-year old Japanese competition. NSX could have done a 5.0L turbo V8 and made a better/faster/more exciting car.
As I mentioned previously, the reason it makes sense for a Corvette ME hybrid is the fact that the C7 Z06/ZR1 are approaching the limits of power that can be put to the ground. To move significantly beyond the C7 you will have to add some combination of 1. Add power, 2. Reduce weight, 3. Active Aero.
More power to the ground means you have to drive all four wheels. Either driveshafts or electric motors are necessary to drive the fronts.
While pushing the limits of technology is cool, I'm old school and I think my C7 is nearly perfect (it's everything I thought my C5 should have been). If GM takes the Corvette Zora ME in the direction of the La Ferrari and 918, it will leave room to evolve the C7 into a even better front engine-rear drive C8.
That would suit me just fine.
The Ferrari 812 Superfast has 788 horsepower. All of this power can be put to the ground. This is a front engine, 12 cylinder car, with rear transaxle. It can motor.
I do not think the front engine, rear drive car is obsolete yet, at least for grand touring cars.
In fact, for touring cars, front engine-rear drive makes a lot of sense from a space, comfort and packaging standpoint. I would still vote for Chevy/GM to make Corvette its own brand, and then make a number of Corvettes, including both front engine grand touring cars and mid-engine sports cars.
Last edited by quick04Z06; 10-20-2017 at 05:31 PM.
I believe it was Dave McLellan who said in his book "The main goal in developing the C5 was to ensure there would be a C6".
What he was referring to was the fact that the C5 needed to be profitable for Corvette to continue to survive and prosper. The same issue exists today.
Adding multiple platforms to the Corvette line makes sense and profit. One of the big questions is whether the ME is going to be an expansion of the Corvette line or be a Cadillac. IMHO, the discernible body lines of latest spy shots of the camo'ed ME have too much Corvette DNA to be a Cadillac (way more Shark than Art&Science) - time will tell.
If it is going to be a Corvette model, than how do they make it better (more supercar) than the upcoming fire-breathing ZR1 which looks like it is poised to destroy global track records?
To significantly beat a ZR1, you would need to be able to put more power to the ground and add some sophisticated active aero. The logical ZR1 stable mate would have a charged ME V8 with around 750 HP and a pair of 150 HP electric motors driving the fronts. This gives over 1000HP with all wheels driven. If the ME is "just as fast around the track as a ZR1" how exciting/successful would that be?
Tadge has mentioned that one of the limiting factors of the current platform is the amount of power they can put to the ground. This layout puts weight over the rear wheels and gets power to the front wheels without excessive driveshafts.
JoesC5 mentioned that Honda tried this with the NSX. But a turbo V6 combined with two electric motors and they only got 573 HP with all that weight and complexity? No wonder they're not getting anyone's money. Certainly the Corvette team can do better.
This would give us a halo supercar (the gas/electric ME), a normal front-engine supercar (C7 followed by C8), and leave room for a high-performance Corvette X-over when you just gotta have more than two seats.
While no one outside GM knows what is going to happen, the CF mods appear to have knowledge that there will be both a ME and a C8 in our future. If so, what other way would these cars live together under the Corvette banner?
I am sure your post is accurate, but I suspect there is an even bigger issue than the text I put in bold face above.
In our quantitative business world today, it is not just whether a line is profitable, but whether a line is as profitable as another use of the same funding, and there are sophisticated quantitative measures of what profitability really means.
I can see GM's board and number-crunchers saying something like this: for the same development and marketing dollars, we'll make more per unit selling mid-size 4wd trucks, so we should kill that Corvette line. Of course, this would elevate numbers above wisdom, as killing the Corvette would damage GM's brand in a way that could probably not be repaired for at least a generation.
Indeed, Porsche would never kill the 911 if it were more "proftable" to build more SUVs. They know that mere numbers cannot identify what the iconic 911 means to their company. I suspect Porsche would sell 911s for a while even if it lost money on every one.
I just hope GM finally understands what they have with the Corvette and that the goodwill it carries goes far beyond nominal notions of profitability. Forcing the Corvette to "stand alone" as a profitable unit is probably shortsighted.
I apologize for not having my references in order but I seem to recall reading about Tadge mentioning that while making more power was not an issue, one of the limiting factors of the current chassis configuration (front-engine/rear two-wheel drive) was the ability to get additional power to the ground. (I'll have to keep searching for that statement).
Comparing the Ferrari is apples and oranges. The Ferrari 812 is a beast in its own right. The 6.3 liter V-12 is well suited to the front-engine/rear-drive configuration as the engine only maxes out at 530 ft/lbs. of torque and doesn't achieve that until 7500 rpm.
On the other hand, according to the Engine Labs website, The LT4 puts out 457 ft/lbs. just off-idle, hits 625 ft/lbs. by 2800 rpm and maintains 90% or the torque peak from 2500-5400 rpm.
Without adding more drive wheels, there is not a whole lot more torque you can ask a pair of street tires to handle. While you could go to a dedicated drag radial, you are now compromising the road handling of the vehicle.
I am sure your post is accurate, but I suspect there is an even bigger issue than the text I put in bold face above.
In our quantitative business world today, it is not just whether a line is profitable, but whether a line is as profitable as another use of the same funding, and there are sophisticated quantitative measures of what profitability really means.
I can see GM's board and number-crunchers saying something like this: for the same development and marketing dollars, we'll make more per unit selling mid-size 4wd trucks, so we should kill that Corvette line. Of course, this would elevate numbers above wisdom, as killing the Corvette would damage GM's brand in a way that could probably not be repaired for at least a generation.
Indeed, Porsche would never kill the 911 if it were more "proftable" to build more SUVs. They know that mere numbers cannot identify what the iconic 911 means to their company. I suspect Porsche would sell 911s for a while even if it lost money on every one.
I just hope GM finally understands what they have with the Corvette and that the goodwill it carries goes far beyond nominal notions of profitability. Forcing the Corvette to "stand alone" as a profitable unit is probably shortsighted.
You are spot on. While profitability is critical, you can't quantify the true value of a "halo" vehicle on a spreadsheet. I remember reading about one of the ongoing battles to get management to understand the value of the Corvette program. One of the PR guys asked in management meeting if they could guess how many times Corvette had been on a magazine cover in the past (I think it was 3 years). The answer was, 6 or 7? Turns out it was 50+ and he had them all pasted up for all to see. Visuals rule.
It takes management with some vision to understand the value a halo vehicle gives an entire brand - which probably explains why there are so few halo vehicles still in production today.
10-18-2017, 02:08 PM
It's not only priced too high, but there's nothing....what's the word...."soulful" about it. 
