C8 and the future of the Corvette
01-19-2018, 08:47 AM
#181
Race Director
+1
I know that WE want to see the C8 revealed....but in the grand scheme of things, the introduction of a new Silverado is about 20 times MORE important to GM than the C8. We'll see the C8 a year from now at Detroit, everybody just CALM DOWN.
As far as Tesla....at some point they have to STOP overpromising and underdelivering. The Model 3 is WAY behind on customer deliveries, following the pattern that the S and X suffered. While Tesla is a darling of much of Wall Street, there are enough folks pointing to some very obvious problems with the company. Pointing to Wall Street as THE authority on Tesla's financial health is dangerous...don't forget this the SAME Wall Street that gave us November 2008.
I know that WE want to see the C8 revealed....but in the grand scheme of things, the introduction of a new Silverado is about 20 times MORE important to GM than the C8. We'll see the C8 a year from now at Detroit, everybody just CALM DOWN.
As far as Tesla....at some point they have to STOP overpromising and underdelivering. The Model 3 is WAY behind on customer deliveries, following the pattern that the S and X suffered. While Tesla is a darling of much of Wall Street, there are enough folks pointing to some very obvious problems with the company. Pointing to Wall Street as THE authority on Tesla's financial health is dangerous...don't forget this the SAME Wall Street that gave us November 2008.
Same goes for charging stations..
Traditional car brands do not own refueling stations.
The potiential for profit with those two different aspects of a "car" company would of course cause a longer period of time before profits can be realized.
The investment is huge ..the ROI of course would take longer ..
Just imagine for fun if GM didn't have franchised dealers who bare a tremendous cost to build, operate and inventory vehicles.
The benefit as many GM executives would tell you in private is that a company store would be able to exactly execute any marketing plan, give customers the exact customer experience the car manufacturer wanted in the purchasing and service aspect of owning the BRAND.
That has tremendous value even if the ROI takes longer because of the added cost.
Same for the refueling or charging network. The reality of this ROI is of course longer because of the added cost yet imagine this as if GM was in the oil business.
Eventually brands like Jaguar, etc could effectively negotiate a deal to allow their ev customers to utilize tesla supercharger network. The potiential for profit allowing other brands customers to use tesla s supercharger network and even possibly charging those owners to recharge in addition to the brands royalty payment..
The profits do look as if they could be astronomical for the so called losses inflicted at the start of this charging network...(that no other car brand presently has.
The first one in building a charging infrastructure network would create negative cash flow but the potiential as other car makers rush to market would offer future profits as opposed to losses.
Just some possible aspects of Teslas mentioned "Losses"
I'm not exactly a tesla fanboy but I do have a reservation as an addition to my corvette.
I think the model 3 will with awd be a nice vehicle for the family transport.
Relatively inexpensive, quick, roomy ,AWD and pretty good looking for a sedan.
Couple of hiccups rushing to fill 500,000 unexpected and unheard of preorders at the launch is nothing to worry about...
Jmo
01-19-2018, 09:34 AM
#182
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by Suns_PSD
Cars will be computer controlled econoboxes in 130 years and we'll just be passengers, all of them.
That's the real future of the Corvette.
That's the real future of the Corvette.
01-19-2018, 06:14 PM
#183
Instructor
Taking into consideration that tesla owns the customer dealer network whereas every other car brand sold in America sells their cars through a franchise I'm not quite sure why intelligent people don't understand that the investment cost would take longer to reap the rewards ..
Same goes for charging stations..
Traditional car brands do not own refueling stations.
The potiential for profit with those two different aspects of a "car" company would of course cause a longer period of time before profits can be realized.
The investment is huge ..the ROI of course would take longer ..
Just imagine for fun if GM didn't have franchised dealers who bare a tremendous cost to build, operate and inventory vehicles.
The benefit as many GM executives would tell you in private is that a company store would be able to exactly execute any marketing plan, give customers the exact customer experience the car manufacturer wanted in the purchasing and service aspect of owning the BRAND.
That has tremendous value even if the ROI takes longer because of the added cost.
Same for the refueling or charging network. The reality of this ROI is of course longer because of the added cost yet imagine this as if GM was in the oil business.
Eventually brands like Jaguar, etc could effectively negotiate a deal to allow their ev customers to utilize tesla supercharger network. The potiential for profit allowing other brands customers to use tesla s supercharger network and even possibly charging those owners to recharge in addition to the brands royalty payment..
The profits do look as if they could be astronomical for the so called losses inflicted at the start of this charging network...(that no other car brand presently has.
The first one in building a charging infrastructure network would create negative cash flow but the potiential as other car makers rush to market would offer future profits as opposed to losses.
Just some possible aspects of Teslas mentioned "Losses"
I'm not exactly a tesla fanboy but I do have a reservation as an addition to my corvette.
I think the model 3 will with awd be a nice vehicle for the family transport.
Relatively inexpensive, quick, roomy ,AWD and pretty good looking for a sedan.
Couple of hiccups rushing to fill 500,000 unexpected and unheard of preorders at the launch is nothing to worry about...
Jmo
Same goes for charging stations..
Traditional car brands do not own refueling stations.
The potiential for profit with those two different aspects of a "car" company would of course cause a longer period of time before profits can be realized.
The investment is huge ..the ROI of course would take longer ..
Just imagine for fun if GM didn't have franchised dealers who bare a tremendous cost to build, operate and inventory vehicles.
The benefit as many GM executives would tell you in private is that a company store would be able to exactly execute any marketing plan, give customers the exact customer experience the car manufacturer wanted in the purchasing and service aspect of owning the BRAND.
That has tremendous value even if the ROI takes longer because of the added cost.
Same for the refueling or charging network. The reality of this ROI is of course longer because of the added cost yet imagine this as if GM was in the oil business.
Eventually brands like Jaguar, etc could effectively negotiate a deal to allow their ev customers to utilize tesla supercharger network. The potiential for profit allowing other brands customers to use tesla s supercharger network and even possibly charging those owners to recharge in addition to the brands royalty payment..
The profits do look as if they could be astronomical for the so called losses inflicted at the start of this charging network...(that no other car brand presently has.
The first one in building a charging infrastructure network would create negative cash flow but the potiential as other car makers rush to market would offer future profits as opposed to losses.
Just some possible aspects of Teslas mentioned "Losses"
I'm not exactly a tesla fanboy but I do have a reservation as an addition to my corvette.
I think the model 3 will with awd be a nice vehicle for the family transport.
Relatively inexpensive, quick, roomy ,AWD and pretty good looking for a sedan.
Couple of hiccups rushing to fill 500,000 unexpected and unheard of preorders at the launch is nothing to worry about...
Jmo
I am wondering how the charging issue is going to work. I have a second-floor apartment in an area that is just outside the city. No bus routes here. I know they don't want all of the residents here running extension cords across the grass to their vehicles.
01-19-2018, 07:00 PM
#184
I'm 46 and have always loved combustion engines and frankly going fast.
If I somehow made my tricked out C6 my last sports car ever it would be for 2 reasons pretty much: Draconian traffic enforcement & Heavy traffic/ congestion.
If it were not for those 2 things I'd drive my Vette every day. As it is, it's an '08 with 22K miles total.
Maybe if I lived somewhere else, like Utah or something my perspective on these issues would be different.
If I somehow made my tricked out C6 my last sports car ever it would be for 2 reasons pretty much: Draconian traffic enforcement & Heavy traffic/ congestion.
If it were not for those 2 things I'd drive my Vette every day. As it is, it's an '08 with 22K miles total.
Maybe if I lived somewhere else, like Utah or something my perspective on these issues would be different.
02-01-2018, 11:52 PM
#185
02-02-2018, 12:42 AM
#186
Burning Brakes
Driverless Cars ? Get Real !!
Case in point and a true story, in the last month a dude in a Tesla rear-ended a stopped fire truck on the San Francisco Bay Bridge at a high rate of speed. The dude survived, but he was drunk as a skunk. He claimed that the car was driving ITSELF, so HE could NOT be blamed for the car's failure to stop and avoid the accident. The police officers told him that if the car was so smart, why couldn't it drive itself to the repair shop. They subsequently cuffed him and took him to the police station.
This whole "driverless" situation will be shaped by LIABILITY LAW and not technology. If drivers become passengers, then who is held responsible for an accident ? The default party is the manufacturer or the software author, but I can tell you that not even Apple has deep enough pockets to survive the liability of even one year of driverless accidents in the United States when enough of these babies get on the road. It will simply not work the way technologists imagine for that reason alone.
I better, safer approach is mass transportation, which will likely expand, but driverless cars are a pipe dream envisioned by people with paper ********.
The following users liked this post:
Judgment Day (02-05-2018)
02-02-2018, 01:41 AM
#187
Case in point and a true story, in the last month a dude in a Tesla rear-ended a stopped fire truck on the San Francisco Bay Bridge at a high rate of speed. The dude survived, but he was drunk as a skunk. He claimed that the car was driving ITSELF, so HE could NOT be blamed for the car's failure to stop and avoid the accident. The police officers told him that if the car was so smart, why couldn't it drive itself to the repair shop. They subsequently cuffed him and took him to the police station.
This whole "driverless" situation will be shaped by LIABILITY LAW and not technology. If drivers become passengers, then who is held responsible for an accident ? The default party is the manufacturer or the software author, but I can tell you that not even Apple has deep enough pockets to survive the liability of even one year of driverless accidents in the United States when enough of these babies get on the road. It will simply not work the way technologists imagine for that reason alone.
Unless we humans can invent technology that is PERFECT and completely error-proof, I can't argue with your conclusion.
To state the obvious: we humans are NOT perfect, therefore our technology, by definition, can't be.
02-02-2018, 06:56 PM
#188
Team Owner
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: Big Bend Country, TX
Posts: 29,114
Received 2,186 Likes
on
1,337 Posts
St. Jude Donor '06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15- '16-'17-‘18-‘19-'20-'21
NCM Lifetime Member
So true
02-02-2018, 07:20 PM
#189
I fear that the corvette may be nearing the end of the line. Before I begin let me state that I own a c7 that is my 5th corvette, and I am not a troll. Consider the following:
1. The demographics are against cars like the corvette. When you look at
the Bell curve 20 and 30 somethings are not interested in cars like the
corvette.
2. Sales of all sports cars are trending down. Corvette sales have been
flat in recent years, and it appears that most buyers like myself are
repeat buyers; it is not enticing new buyers and expanding the market.
The c7 is a phenomenal bargain for the price, but in this day and age
how many people can afford an 80,000+ toy that is expensive to
maintain and is two seater with zero practicality.
3.Now we come to the elephant in the room--the rapid and almost
exponential electrification of the auto industry. Let's face it, the
internal combustion engine is a dinosaur that was invented 200 years
ago. The concept of valves, pistons, crankshafts, etc is rapidly
becoming obsolete and is being legislated out of existence. 500-1000
mile rapid charge batteries whether they be lithium air or otherwise
now exist in the lab. Hell, even a Tesla will out accelerate a corvette.
I realize there are those among you will say that the current draw
after a few hundred yards burns the battery out, but one can certainly
see the handwriting on the wall.
I know that the concept of an electric, automatic (self drive anyone?)
seems absurd but this seems to be the way things are going. I think the c8 may be the end of the line. GM may be able to extend things a bit with the e-ray, manta ray, etc., but at the end of a 7-8 year run I sadly
doubt there will be a market for a car like the corvette except for old guys like me. If the car still does exist it may be legislated off of public roads. Replies anyone!
1. The demographics are against cars like the corvette. When you look at
the Bell curve 20 and 30 somethings are not interested in cars like the
corvette.
2. Sales of all sports cars are trending down. Corvette sales have been
flat in recent years, and it appears that most buyers like myself are
repeat buyers; it is not enticing new buyers and expanding the market.
The c7 is a phenomenal bargain for the price, but in this day and age
how many people can afford an 80,000+ toy that is expensive to
maintain and is two seater with zero practicality.
3.Now we come to the elephant in the room--the rapid and almost
exponential electrification of the auto industry. Let's face it, the
internal combustion engine is a dinosaur that was invented 200 years
ago. The concept of valves, pistons, crankshafts, etc is rapidly
becoming obsolete and is being legislated out of existence. 500-1000
mile rapid charge batteries whether they be lithium air or otherwise
now exist in the lab. Hell, even a Tesla will out accelerate a corvette.
I realize there are those among you will say that the current draw
after a few hundred yards burns the battery out, but one can certainly
see the handwriting on the wall.
I know that the concept of an electric, automatic (self drive anyone?)
seems absurd but this seems to be the way things are going. I think the c8 may be the end of the line. GM may be able to extend things a bit with the e-ray, manta ray, etc., but at the end of a 7-8 year run I sadly
doubt there will be a market for a car like the corvette except for old guys like me. If the car still does exist it may be legislated off of public roads. Replies anyone!
Last edited by Plexoer; 02-02-2018 at 07:22 PM.
The following users liked this post:
MikeyTX (02-03-2018)
02-02-2018, 10:54 PM
#190
Race Director
I don't believe we will have all electric vehicles for at least 30 years giving battery tech a long time to resolve even the 1/2 hour supercharge requirement.
There is an Israeli company that already has the ability to recharge in 5 minutes...I don't remember the name but it's not lithium ion but rather lithium graphite? Or something like that.,,,that allows faster recharger gentlemen.....so with a 5 minute recharge since you are an apartment dweller...the new Israeli battery is 2.5 years from public release...
Then apartment dwellers can easily own an ev.
The following users liked this post:
MikeyTX (02-03-2018)
02-04-2018, 09:26 AM
#191
Le Mans Master
Originally Posted by JerriVette
Apartment dwellers without parking garages would probably have a harder time recharging over night..daytime supercharging would take 30 minutes to get an 80 percent charge...so that's what would be needed unless you could charge at work..
I don't believe we will have all electric vehicles for at least 30 years giving battery tech a long time to resolve even the 1/2 hour supercharge requirement.
There is an Israeli company that already has the ability to recharge in 5 minutes...I don't remember the name but it's not lithium ion but rather lithium graphite? Or something like that.,,,that allows faster recharger gentlemen.....so with a 5 minute recharge since you are an apartment dweller...the new Israeli battery is 2.5 years from public release...
Then apartment dwellers can easily own an ev.
I don't believe we will have all electric vehicles for at least 30 years giving battery tech a long time to resolve even the 1/2 hour supercharge requirement.
There is an Israeli company that already has the ability to recharge in 5 minutes...I don't remember the name but it's not lithium ion but rather lithium graphite? Or something like that.,,,that allows faster recharger gentlemen.....so with a 5 minute recharge since you are an apartment dweller...the new Israeli battery is 2.5 years from public release...
Then apartment dwellers can easily own an ev.
Another problem with super charging daily is it reduces the life of the battery.
The following users liked this post:
JerriVette (02-14-2018)
02-13-2018, 06:05 PM
#192
Melting Slicks
I share OP's concerns, but I wonder if they apply to more than just the Corvette. The kids these days (I'm still in my 40s, but have teenagers at home), simply don't hold the level of interest in cars that previous generations seemed to have. It's not just Corvettes. It's cars in general.
Maybe that'll change as that demographic ages a bit and figures out what independence really feels like, but I'm not sure that's a slam dunk conclusion to make.
Maybe that'll change as that demographic ages a bit and figures out what independence really feels like, but I'm not sure that's a slam dunk conclusion to make.
Yes. We have allowed schools and social media to talk kids out of cars. From status symbol and source of joy to burden and problem....
02-13-2018, 06:07 PM
#193
Melting Slicks
Nonsense. First, just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. Second, technology does not dictate every decision society makes, there are many other factors to consider.
Case in point and a true story, in the last month a dude in a Tesla rear-ended a stopped fire truck on the San Francisco Bay Bridge at a high rate of speed. The dude survived, but he was drunk as a skunk. He claimed that the car was driving ITSELF, so HE could NOT be blamed for the car's failure to stop and avoid the accident. The police officers told him that if the car was so smart, why couldn't it drive itself to the repair shop. They subsequently cuffed him and took him to the police station.
This whole "driverless" situation will be shaped by LIABILITY LAW and not technology. If drivers become passengers, then who is held responsible for an accident ? The default party is the manufacturer or the software author, but I can tell you that not even Apple has deep enough pockets to survive the liability of even one year of driverless accidents in the United States when enough of these babies get on the road. It will simply not work the way technologists imagine for that reason alone.
I better, safer approach is mass transportation, which will likely expand, but driverless cars are a pipe dream envisioned by people with paper ********.
Case in point and a true story, in the last month a dude in a Tesla rear-ended a stopped fire truck on the San Francisco Bay Bridge at a high rate of speed. The dude survived, but he was drunk as a skunk. He claimed that the car was driving ITSELF, so HE could NOT be blamed for the car's failure to stop and avoid the accident. The police officers told him that if the car was so smart, why couldn't it drive itself to the repair shop. They subsequently cuffed him and took him to the police station.
This whole "driverless" situation will be shaped by LIABILITY LAW and not technology. If drivers become passengers, then who is held responsible for an accident ? The default party is the manufacturer or the software author, but I can tell you that not even Apple has deep enough pockets to survive the liability of even one year of driverless accidents in the United States when enough of these babies get on the road. It will simply not work the way technologists imagine for that reason alone.
I better, safer approach is mass transportation, which will likely expand, but driverless cars are a pipe dream envisioned by people with paper ********.
Last edited by quick04Z06; 02-13-2018 at 06:08 PM.
02-14-2018, 12:24 PM
#194
The OP has opened a very interesting topic... especially the topic of electric-powered automobiles. While this is highly unlikely going to occur in most of our lifetimes, the advent of and the ongoing improvements to electric-powered cars will eventually result in that platform being the primary platform.
And while I've loved (and continue to love) driving/owning the various Corvettes (and other "toys") I've had (or have), I believe that Formula E gives us a glimpse as to how/where motorsports will evolve over the next several decades. I can envision a time far into the future where the combustion engine (in cars) is but an automotive artifact reserved for historical study and admiration within museums and universities.
And while this is a somewhat sad vision to glimpse into, I can also embrace the reality of innovation and revolution... and the new excitements (and anxieties) that inherently go along with it.
But for now... and for my children's life time (and perhaps our children's children's lifetime), we'll love our combustion powered sports cars and just keep an eye on (or out for) the next "woooosh" of innovation/revolution in motorsports.
And while I've loved (and continue to love) driving/owning the various Corvettes (and other "toys") I've had (or have), I believe that Formula E gives us a glimpse as to how/where motorsports will evolve over the next several decades. I can envision a time far into the future where the combustion engine (in cars) is but an automotive artifact reserved for historical study and admiration within museums and universities.
And while this is a somewhat sad vision to glimpse into, I can also embrace the reality of innovation and revolution... and the new excitements (and anxieties) that inherently go along with it.
But for now... and for my children's life time (and perhaps our children's children's lifetime), we'll love our combustion powered sports cars and just keep an eye on (or out for) the next "woooosh" of innovation/revolution in motorsports.
The following users liked this post:
sunsalem (02-20-2018)
02-14-2018, 01:10 PM
#195
Nonsense. First, just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. Second, technology does not dictate every decision society makes, there are many other factors to consider.
Case in point and a true story, in the last month a dude in a Tesla rear-ended a stopped fire truck on the San Francisco Bay Bridge at a high rate of speed. The dude survived, but he was drunk as a skunk. He claimed that the car was driving ITSELF, so HE could NOT be blamed for the car's failure to stop and avoid the accident. The police officers told him that if the car was so smart, why couldn't it drive itself to the repair shop. They subsequently cuffed him and took him to the police station.
This whole "driverless" situation will be shaped by LIABILITY LAW and not technology. If drivers become passengers, then who is held responsible for an accident ? The default party is the manufacturer or the software author, but I can tell you that not even Apple has deep enough pockets to survive the liability of even one year of driverless accidents in the United States when enough of these babies get on the road. It will simply not work the way technologists imagine for that reason alone.
I better, safer approach is mass transportation, which will likely expand, but driverless cars are a pipe dream envisioned by people with paper ********.
Case in point and a true story, in the last month a dude in a Tesla rear-ended a stopped fire truck on the San Francisco Bay Bridge at a high rate of speed. The dude survived, but he was drunk as a skunk. He claimed that the car was driving ITSELF, so HE could NOT be blamed for the car's failure to stop and avoid the accident. The police officers told him that if the car was so smart, why couldn't it drive itself to the repair shop. They subsequently cuffed him and took him to the police station.
This whole "driverless" situation will be shaped by LIABILITY LAW and not technology. If drivers become passengers, then who is held responsible for an accident ? The default party is the manufacturer or the software author, but I can tell you that not even Apple has deep enough pockets to survive the liability of even one year of driverless accidents in the United States when enough of these babies get on the road. It will simply not work the way technologists imagine for that reason alone.
I better, safer approach is mass transportation, which will likely expand, but driverless cars are a pipe dream envisioned by people with paper ********.
Cheers
Last edited by Atari_Prime; 02-14-2018 at 01:11 PM.
02-14-2018, 01:34 PM
#196
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Dec 1999
Location: One Hour From Boston!
Posts: 6,408
Received 4,682 Likes
on
1,862 Posts
I wanted to write a nice PC response, but frankly, your entire post is one big pile of crap. 1) You say just because you can, doesn't mean you should, then you explain absolutely nothing about what you mean by that. The presumptive assumption would be that you are trying to say that just because we can make driverless cars that doesn't mean we should? Why? 2) You go on to complain about a Tesla crash but then you don't cite an article or any proof that it happened, nor do you show that the car was autonomous or even in assist mode of any kind. Hence, not connected to the former either. 3) So now that you haven't made a single point about driverless cars, you go on to say legislation will guide their future. Ok, you are shifting topics. Sure it is possible and maybe even likely that legislation will influence driverless cars, we already have plenty of autonomous machines in the world and the associated liability has been fairly settled for a long time now. This is just another piece to the puzzle. Also, change moves slowly despite what it may seem at times. This will work itself out just like every other piece of technology. What does not stop, is progress. The cars are coming. There is too much desire behind them, too many supporters in high places, and quite frankly too much money being spent in their development for them to simply fail and go away. All that legislation can do is slow them down, it can't stop them. 4) Mass transportation. No one wants it, no one likes it. The next time you are on a bus or subway just look around, no one wants to be there. If they could afford it, or it was more convenient, or it saved more time, every person on the mass transit system would use another means to get to their desired destination. We don't use mass transit because we want to, we use it because we have to. But autonomous cars will make it so that we don't have to. And in the process they will cure all of our traffic woes. Yes, they will be many and they will be everywhere, but they won't rubberneck to look at accidents or someone being pulled over, they won't decide to go 45 when everyone else is going 70, they won't slow down to merge because they will already be coordinating with all the other autonomous cars on the road. In short, they will make life much easier and will get us places much faster than any mass transit system could hope. And the research shows that they are much better drivers than we are. (Happy to produce evidence if desired).
Cheers
Cheers
02-14-2018, 02:08 PM
#197
Information regarding the Tesla crash that dcbingaman mentioned can be found here: https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-crash-dui/
With that information in hand, it is useful to point out that neither incident mentioned in the article is a self-driving car. Two drivers 'claimed' to be in autonomous mode, which is not even close to the same as self driving. There is no proof of either actually being in autonomous mode. And one driver was admittedly drunk.
The most relevant part of the entire article is this sentence:
“Autosteer is not designed to, and will not, steer Model S around objects partially or completely in the driving lane,”
Many cars have this technology and it is mostly useless due to the attention required by the driver. Autonomous cars do not require or want driver attention, many do not even have steering wheels. So, in short the article is completely irrelevant to the conversation of self-driving cars.
The following users liked this post:
sunsalem (02-20-2018)
02-19-2018, 03:30 PM
#198
Racer
All these speculations on GM's plans for the corvette is interesting to hear. I remember when GM stop making the corvette foe a while for the lack of sales. Gm has announced that on Jan. 22 2018 they stopped building the 2018 corvette after 4 months. Why is that? Maybe it is true that sales has dropped.
New York Post, published
New York Post, published
Last edited by Bee attack; 02-19-2018 at 03:32 PM.
02-20-2018, 12:58 AM
#199
Burning Brakes
Corvette is not dying, in fact few of my young frinds and i went from European sports cars to corvette,
i am 37 my frinds are under 35, we bought c7 because it's starting to look like modern sports car, if gm wants to kill the corvette it's very easy, bring back the round tail lights, cheap interior, keep the chrome options, this is what appeals older buyers and they are not getting younger.
I just spent 116k on my z06, if this car still had round tail lights only chrome badges, no suede interior, Porsche company would of taken that money,
so this tell you that young buyers are there and ready, but GM has to make it appealing,
another important part is buying experience, GM is 3 light years behind, in every way on that department, the lady who called to see if I am happy with my car, couldn't even say my name right, she didn't even know if I bought z06, or was it 2017 or 18, I have the tecorded voice mail she left me, I'll post that for GM to listen. That may fly with some older buyers, but not for younger crowd who knows this age is all about customer service.
older buyers will buy younger mans sports car but younger man will never buy older mans car.
GM needs to pick one side
i am 37 my frinds are under 35, we bought c7 because it's starting to look like modern sports car, if gm wants to kill the corvette it's very easy, bring back the round tail lights, cheap interior, keep the chrome options, this is what appeals older buyers and they are not getting younger.
I just spent 116k on my z06, if this car still had round tail lights only chrome badges, no suede interior, Porsche company would of taken that money,
so this tell you that young buyers are there and ready, but GM has to make it appealing,
another important part is buying experience, GM is 3 light years behind, in every way on that department, the lady who called to see if I am happy with my car, couldn't even say my name right, she didn't even know if I bought z06, or was it 2017 or 18, I have the tecorded voice mail she left me, I'll post that for GM to listen. That may fly with some older buyers, but not for younger crowd who knows this age is all about customer service.
older buyers will buy younger mans sports car but younger man will never buy older mans car.
GM needs to pick one side
Last edited by C7ZO6; 02-20-2018 at 01:07 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Rapid Fred (02-20-2018)
