ME’s Will Have Three V-8’s (And C7’s Continue Through 2021)
11-29-2017, 03:23 PM
#41
Safety Car
It appears nobody is excited about a 850HP Corvette. And because HP is higher than torque likely a higher revving engine than today.
What does it take to get you guys excited? 850 HP is just nothing anymore? And that doesn't include the possibility of front wheel mount electric motors as well.
What does it take to get you guys excited? 850 HP is just nothing anymore? And that doesn't include the possibility of front wheel mount electric motors as well.
The 4.2 is likely geared for fuel economy and cost savings, low reving, low boost, more turbo lag, few forged internals.
With only a 5.5L capacity I bet both will be turbo as there is no way to keep up with the competition in naturally aspirated form. I'm sure it will make 850HP, but for how long, with what throttle response, and how well will it sound doing it?
To me the big news is that next gen is turbo. Gone are the days of high end all motor glory. I suppose the LS7 was the last of the bunch for Chevy. Porsche, Audi/Lambo, and Ferrari are the remaining suppliers.
11-29-2017, 04:07 PM
#42
Heel & Toe
Member Since: Jan 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C8
Has there actually been anything 'official' about a C8?
I haven't seen anything.
Hard to imagine them building a C7 and C8 at the same time.
Although they did do a Cadillac and Corvette at the same time.
But the Caddy was very similar.
After having 'Vettes for over forty years, I'll wait and see what happens.
I haven't seen anything.
Hard to imagine them building a C7 and C8 at the same time.
Although they did do a Cadillac and Corvette at the same time.
But the Caddy was very similar.
After having 'Vettes for over forty years, I'll wait and see what happens.
11-29-2017, 10:48 PM
#43
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
I'm in ..............
11-29-2017, 11:27 PM
#44
Race Director
Size weight low cost, inexpensive maintaince, horse power and torque Ohv rules Dohc .
I hope GM stays with ohv and ohv forced induction.
I hope GM stays with ohv and ohv forced induction.
11-30-2017, 12:03 AM
#45
Just because the Corvette brand has been limited to one basic design w/ different engine and other performance variants within each generation for 65 years doesn't mean that business model can't change in the future. It has always seemed to me that multiple designs (e.g, the Porsche model) can potentially thrive under the Corvette branding umbrella.
Last edited by Foosh; 11-30-2017 at 12:05 AM.
11-30-2017, 12:54 AM
#46
You are absolutely right to say the business model for Corvette could change.
For some reason, people forget change is something that can be counted on in this world.
For some reason, people forget change is something that can be counted on in this world.
11-30-2017, 01:27 AM
#47
Burning Brakes
It makes zero sense to engineer the ME for both DOHC and pushrod V8's, so it looks to me like GM is expecting to sell about 12,000 ME Corvettes per year from 2020-2024; and if that is so, the ME will be at a much higher price point than the current C7 just to recoup all the engineering costs.
Take a look at Ferrari or McLaren volumes at $200k-$300k per unit. They are on the order of 2000-3000 units per year. Entirely different business model.
Also model development amortization is meaningless in GM's system. Engineering development costs for all platforms are spread out over the entire enterprise - not one model. This is a big advantage for a diversified mfg. like GM vs. a specialty mfg. like Ferrari or McLaren.
11-30-2017, 01:43 AM
#48
Burning Brakes
Just to be clear, your prediction is that GM is going to have the Camaro, which is like a 23k dollar car. The avg sale price of a Camaro, across the annual production is probably in the mid 30's. Then, the next offering Chevrolet will have is a mid engine that starts somewhere in the 90's maybe even higher, so they'll have a void of 60k dollars with which every other manufacturer can have an enjoy at will.
Currently, GM sells 30k+ Corvettes, but they are going to dispose of the platform entirely, then bet the farm on this mid-engine that costs 6 figures.
Really think about this for a minute and you'll realize that GM would be shooting themselves doing that.
INSTEAD, what they've done is created a modular platform in the Corvette C7, that they can expand upon very affordably. They can take a Corvette which starts at 58k and goes up to 100k currently, with an avg sale price of probably 65k-70k, and add in a variant which prices up in the six figures, likely with a great margin. They expand the plant, build both, add some workers to the local Bowling Green economy, etc.
You don't dispose of the longest running production car in America that is selling QUITE WELL, and just say...we're just going to do something else now guys.
Currently, GM sells 30k+ Corvettes, but they are going to dispose of the platform entirely, then bet the farm on this mid-engine that costs 6 figures.
Really think about this for a minute and you'll realize that GM would be shooting themselves doing that.
INSTEAD, what they've done is created a modular platform in the Corvette C7, that they can expand upon very affordably. They can take a Corvette which starts at 58k and goes up to 100k currently, with an avg sale price of probably 65k-70k, and add in a variant which prices up in the six figures, likely with a great margin. They expand the plant, build both, add some workers to the local Bowling Green economy, etc.
You don't dispose of the longest running production car in America that is selling QUITE WELL, and just say...we're just going to do something else now guys.
If you look at the way they build the C7 chassis today - it is much closer to the way McLaren builds a 570 / 650 / P1 than how they built the C6, but they do it with a welded/bonded aluminum frame vs. a carbon composite monocoque. Rather than use full length hydroformed frame members, the C7 has a central aluminum passenger cell with bolt-on front and rear aluminum frames and suspension parts. The outer body panels are largely non-structural. (In the aircraft business we call this semi-monocoque). This allows BG to build two distinct cars with many common components - even structures - through modularity. If they can make it work it's brilliant.
BTW, Porsche has been doing something similar in steel for at least 15 years. The GM/Corvette team has been studying Porsche more closely than any other mfg.
11-30-2017, 02:45 AM
#49
Burning Brakes
Dudes - just scanned the Internets to get recent production no.s for all the mid-engine "Chariots of Fire" the C8 would compete with. Lamborghini and McLaren both had a record year in 2016 - they both sold about 3500 cars (all models). Ferrari sold about 7000, all models. The Ferrari 458 and California T (now called Portofino) both sold about 3000 units a year while in production. The rest were V-12's. This is about 10% of current C7 production. These are different markets.
BTW, just saw that the new ZR-1 will have an MSRP of just under $120K for the coupe and about $4k more for the convertible. This car has more power and comparable track performance to the McLaren 720S or the Ferrari 488. It is likely faster than the Porsche GT3.
My guess is the top end C8 5.5lL 850 HP model will be priced about the same as the ZR-1 since anticipated volume will be about the same. The base C8 LT1 powered model will likely retail at $70-80K in FY 2017 $$. Just my guess. Make mine Admiral Blue.
BTW, just saw that the new ZR-1 will have an MSRP of just under $120K for the coupe and about $4k more for the convertible. This car has more power and comparable track performance to the McLaren 720S or the Ferrari 488. It is likely faster than the Porsche GT3.
My guess is the top end C8 5.5lL 850 HP model will be priced about the same as the ZR-1 since anticipated volume will be about the same. The base C8 LT1 powered model will likely retail at $70-80K in FY 2017 $$. Just my guess. Make mine Admiral Blue.
11-30-2017, 11:39 AM
#50
Sir,
You are going to have to STOP making a logical and rational posts concerning the ME...this is the Internet and such things are frowned upon.
You are going to have to STOP making a logical and rational posts concerning the ME...this is the Internet and such things are frowned upon.
The following users liked this post:
Boiler_81 (11-30-2017)
11-30-2017, 01:42 PM
#51
KISS - Give me a 550+ horse NA 427, RWD, and a stick in a 3000 lb mid-rear package.
11-30-2017, 07:41 PM
#52
They only list one engine for Y1 corvette. Is that LT1,LT4or LT5
11-30-2017, 08:56 PM
#53
Burning Brakes
I respectfully disagree. The most expensive Corvette ever sold (new) was the C6 ZR1 "Blue Devil" which had a MSRP of $120-130K. They never sold more than 4000 of these a year, and less than 15000 for the entire run. A Corvette aimed at a market of 14,000 a year, has to start at less than $80k or they can't generate the sales volume. Simple economics.
If GM wants to sell 30,000 C8's a year, (and the engine plan says that's what they want to do), then the average MSRP will be well under $100K and maybe more like $65-70K.....just a little more than a C7.
11-30-2017, 09:00 PM
#54
11-30-2017, 09:22 PM
#55
Team Owner
C6 ZR1 - GM sold a TOTAL of ~4700 of these cars from 2009-2013. That is an average of less than 1000 a year. That just shows you how small the market is for sports cars above $100K. Ditto for almost every other high-performance sports car in the world. Ferrari's most "common" model, the 488 sells less than 3000 units per year, even though it is the sexiest E-ticket ride you can think of.
If GM wants to sell 30,000 C8's a year, (and the engine plan says that's what they want to do), then the average MSRP will be well under $100K and maybe more like $65-70K.....just a little more than a C7.
If GM wants to sell 30,000 C8's a year, (and the engine plan says that's what they want to do), then the average MSRP will be well under $100K and maybe more like $65-70K.....just a little more than a C7.
During the same 2009 through 2013 period, the C6 Z06 sold 5,834(1,167 average per year).
Is that 1,167 annual number indicative of the sales potential of the C6 Z06?
NO!!!! as the economy had tanked from 2009 through 2013 and ALL car sales were down(from 17 million to 10.5 million during the same period for all US vehicle sales)..
During 2006 through 2008 the Z06 sold 22,169(average of 7,390 per year). That was with an economy basically equal to what we have today.
That is indicative of what a car that was priced 50% more than the base C6 was capable of selling; 7,390 annually, in a good economy.
GM said in 2008 that they were planning to build 2,000 ZR1's annually for three years. The failing economy just as the 2009 ZR1 was being released in June, 2008, then the bankruptcy in June of 2009, and the resulting hold placed on development of the C7 for the 2012 MY, all contributed to the poor sales of the C6 ZR1, not the lack of people willing to buy a Corvette that costs over $100,000(in a good economy). If the economy had been the same from 2009 through 2013 as it was from 2006 through 2008, I'm sure the ZR1 would have sold the planned 2,000 annually for three years and the C7 would have been a 2012 model instead of a 2014 model.
But, the completion gets pretty stiff when you start talking about asking $150,000+ for a Corvette. That number does separate the men from the boys.
I agree with you about selling 30,000 Corvettes annually. Every model had better not be priced above $100,000. A lot of difference between selling 30,000 Corvettes at $100,000 each and selling 2,0000 at $100,000 each.
Last edited by JoesC5; 11-30-2017 at 09:32 PM.
11-30-2017, 09:59 PM
#56
Burning Brakes
No, that number does not show how small a market is for sports cars above $100,000(and I'm talking about Corvettes in particular).
During the same 2009 through 2013 period, the C6 Z06 sold 5,834(1,167 average per year).
Is that 1,167 annual number indicative of the sales potential of the C6 Z06?
NO!!!! as the economy had tanked from 2009 through 2013 and ALL car sales were down(from 17 million to 10.5 million during the same period for all US vehicle sales)..
During 2006 through 2008 the Z06 sold 22,169(average of 7,390 per year). That was with an economy basically equal to what we have today.
That is indicative of what a car that was priced 50% more than the base C6 was capable of selling; 7,390 annually, in a good economy.
GM said in 2008 that they were planning to build 2,000 ZR1's annually for three years. The failing economy just as the 2009 ZR1 was being released in June, 2008, then the bankruptcy in June of 2009, and the resulting hold placed on development of the C7 for the 2012 MY, all contributed to the poor sales of the C6 ZR1, not the lack of people willing to buy a Corvette that costs over $100,000(in a good economy). If the economy had been the same from 2009 through 2013 as it was from 2006 through 2008, I'm sure the ZR1 would have sold the planned 2,000 annually for three years and the C7 would have been a 2012 model instead of a 2014 model.
But, the completion gets pretty stiff when you start talking about asking $150,000+ for a Corvette. That number does separate the men from the boys.
I agree with you about selling 30,000 Corvettes annually. Every model had better not be priced above $100,000. A lot of difference between selling 30,000 Corvettes at $100,000 each and selling 2,0000 at $100,000 each.
During the same 2009 through 2013 period, the C6 Z06 sold 5,834(1,167 average per year).
Is that 1,167 annual number indicative of the sales potential of the C6 Z06?
NO!!!! as the economy had tanked from 2009 through 2013 and ALL car sales were down(from 17 million to 10.5 million during the same period for all US vehicle sales)..
During 2006 through 2008 the Z06 sold 22,169(average of 7,390 per year). That was with an economy basically equal to what we have today.
That is indicative of what a car that was priced 50% more than the base C6 was capable of selling; 7,390 annually, in a good economy.
GM said in 2008 that they were planning to build 2,000 ZR1's annually for three years. The failing economy just as the 2009 ZR1 was being released in June, 2008, then the bankruptcy in June of 2009, and the resulting hold placed on development of the C7 for the 2012 MY, all contributed to the poor sales of the C6 ZR1, not the lack of people willing to buy a Corvette that costs over $100,000(in a good economy). If the economy had been the same from 2009 through 2013 as it was from 2006 through 2008, I'm sure the ZR1 would have sold the planned 2,000 annually for three years and the C7 would have been a 2012 model instead of a 2014 model.
But, the completion gets pretty stiff when you start talking about asking $150,000+ for a Corvette. That number does separate the men from the boys.
I agree with you about selling 30,000 Corvettes annually. Every model had better not be priced above $100,000. A lot of difference between selling 30,000 Corvettes at $100,000 each and selling 2,0000 at $100,000 each.
Let's add in a super premium model at 1500 units a year at, say $120K, or a 100% premium ? That gives you a price elasticity curve that is demand related rather than internet-wishful-thinking-related. All I am saying is that you can't sell 30,000 C8 Corvettes into the current US marketplace at a super-premium price. Further, you can't sell a super-premium model at $120K WITHOUT SUPPORTING SALES of the base model to amortize a factory built to pump out 30,000 cars per year. If the new 2019 ZR1 were built by Ferrari, it would cost over $200K to build - even with a modified truck engine !!
The business case doesn't close for GM to build, in-house, a $200K supercar. It never will. It wouldn't for Ford, either. That is why the "Ford" GT is really a Canadian Multi-Matic and just happened to have a Ford Blue Oval stuck on it for marketing purposes. (BTW, if you want to see pain on the face of an accountant, talk to some of the folks at the Honda plant in Ohio about the NSX. Honda is about to lose their rear on everyone of those because they didn't really understand the business case of price vs. demand in the US sports car marketplace when they jumped in to sell a $150K supercar with no pedigree and questionable value.)
I am giving GM credit for understanding this problem, because the Corvette is the longest running sports car model in history, and has enjoyed the highest margins in GM's product line-up for over 30 years. They get it. The Corvette is successful because of its value proposition. It's value proposition is based on sales volume. It HAS TO out-sell everything else by 10:1 to survive.....and it has, for years. That will not change with the C8 which is why all this talk about a $150K C8 is ill-informed. Sure, there will be a super-premium model over $120K just like the ZR1, but the other 95% of the sales volume will be priced at half that to keep the business case intact.
The following 3 users liked this post by dcbingaman:
11-30-2017, 10:32 PM
#57
Team Owner
OK, I take your point - in a normal year the market can absorb 7000 out of 30000 units (about 20-25%) with a 50% premium over the base price of the basic Corvette. That 50% premium TODAY is about $25K - i.e. a base Corvette sells for about $60K and a premium model sells for $85K. Sound familiar ? That is the Stingray and The Z06.
Let's add in a super premium model at 1500 units a year at, say $120K, or a 100% premium ? That gives you a price elasticity curve that is demand related rather than internet-wishful-thinking-related. All I am saying is that you can't sell 30,000 C8 Corvettes into the current US marketplace at a super-premium price. Further, you can't sell a super-premium model at $120K WITHOUT SUPPORTING SALES of the base model to amortize a factory built to pump out 30,000 cars per year. If the new 2019 ZR1 were built by Ferrari, it would cost over $200K to build - even with a modified truck engine !!
The business case doesn't close for GM to build, in-house, a $200K supercar. It never will. It wouldn't for Ford, either. That is why the "Ford" GT is really a Canadian Multi-Matic and just happened to have a Ford Blue Oval stuck on it for marketing purposes. (BTW, if you want to see pain on the face of an accountant, talk to some of the folks at the Honda plant in Ohio about the NSX. Honda is about to lose their rear on everyone of those because they didn't really understand the business case of price vs. demand in the US sports car marketplace when they jumped in to sell a $150K supercar with no pedigree and questionable value.)
I am giving GM credit for understanding this problem, because the Corvette is the longest running sports car model in history, and has enjoyed the highest margins in GM's product line-up for over 30 years. They get it. The Corvette is successful because of its value proposition. It's value proposition is based on sales volume. It HAS TO out-sell everything else by 10:1 to survive.....and it has, for years. That will not change with the C8 which is why all this talk about a $150K C8 is ill-informed. Sure, there will be a super-premium model over $120K just like the ZR1, but the other 95% of the sales volume will be priced at half that to keep the business case intact.
Let's add in a super premium model at 1500 units a year at, say $120K, or a 100% premium ? That gives you a price elasticity curve that is demand related rather than internet-wishful-thinking-related. All I am saying is that you can't sell 30,000 C8 Corvettes into the current US marketplace at a super-premium price. Further, you can't sell a super-premium model at $120K WITHOUT SUPPORTING SALES of the base model to amortize a factory built to pump out 30,000 cars per year. If the new 2019 ZR1 were built by Ferrari, it would cost over $200K to build - even with a modified truck engine !!
The business case doesn't close for GM to build, in-house, a $200K supercar. It never will. It wouldn't for Ford, either. That is why the "Ford" GT is really a Canadian Multi-Matic and just happened to have a Ford Blue Oval stuck on it for marketing purposes. (BTW, if you want to see pain on the face of an accountant, talk to some of the folks at the Honda plant in Ohio about the NSX. Honda is about to lose their rear on everyone of those because they didn't really understand the business case of price vs. demand in the US sports car marketplace when they jumped in to sell a $150K supercar with no pedigree and questionable value.)
I am giving GM credit for understanding this problem, because the Corvette is the longest running sports car model in history, and has enjoyed the highest margins in GM's product line-up for over 30 years. They get it. The Corvette is successful because of its value proposition. It's value proposition is based on sales volume. It HAS TO out-sell everything else by 10:1 to survive.....and it has, for years. That will not change with the C8 which is why all this talk about a $150K C8 is ill-informed. Sure, there will be a super-premium model over $120K just like the ZR1, but the other 95% of the sales volume will be priced at half that to keep the business case intact.
We know that GM has been selling around 25% of the C7's as $100,000 Z06's but the Z06's sales during the past year have shown that that market has pretty well been saturated(as has the base C7 with only 1345 C7's sold last month, with all models included). I suspect there will be a bunch of current Z06 owners who will take a beating next spring when they try and trade their Z06 in on a ZR1.
Last edited by JoesC5; 11-30-2017 at 10:33 PM.
11-30-2017, 11:26 PM
#58
Race Director
Well as long as current c7 z06 drive their car....the only besting they ll give is the one they give to drivers of other brands of sports cars..
Every car depreciates so it's there is no rocket science to future pricing of any aging car
Every car depreciates so it's there is no rocket science to future pricing of any aging car
12-01-2017, 01:03 AM
#59
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2000
Location: North Dallas 40 TX
Posts: 6,451
Received 4,375 Likes
on
2,066 Posts
Not necessarily. Due to the better flowing 4 valve head, a DOHC will make more power than torque by design, even with the same redline.
The 4.2 is likely geared for fuel economy and cost savings, low reving, low boost, more turbo lag, few forged internals.
With only a 5.5L capacity I bet both will be turbo as there is no way to keep up with the competition in naturally aspirated form. I'm sure it will make 850HP, but for how long, with what throttle response, and how well will it sound doing it?
To me the big news is that next gen is turbo. Gone are the days of high end all motor glory. I suppose the LS7 was the last of the bunch for Chevy. Porsche, Audi/Lambo, and Ferrari are the remaining suppliers.
The 4.2 is likely geared for fuel economy and cost savings, low reving, low boost, more turbo lag, few forged internals.
With only a 5.5L capacity I bet both will be turbo as there is no way to keep up with the competition in naturally aspirated form. I'm sure it will make 850HP, but for how long, with what throttle response, and how well will it sound doing it?
To me the big news is that next gen is turbo. Gone are the days of high end all motor glory. I suppose the LS7 was the last of the bunch for Chevy. Porsche, Audi/Lambo, and Ferrari are the remaining suppliers.
The following users liked this post:
sunsalem (12-01-2017)
12-01-2017, 07:02 AM
#60
Le Mans Master
KITT I agree with your logic completely. What GM is working is a Boxster/Cayman + 911 strategy. Common passenger cell with common components and power trains, but two models - an FE and a ME.
If you look at the way they build the C7 chassis today - it is much closer to the way McLaren builds a 570 / 650 / P1 than how they built the C6, but they do it with a welded/bonded aluminum frame vs. a carbon composite monocoque. Rather than use full length hydroformed frame members, the C7 has a central aluminum passenger cell with bolt-on front and rear aluminum frames and suspension parts. The outer body panels are largely non-structural. (In the aircraft business we call this semi-monocoque). This allows BG to build two distinct cars with many common components - even structures - through modularity. If they can make it work it's brilliant.
BTW, Porsche has been doing something similar in steel for at least 15 years. The GM/Corvette team has been studying Porsche more closely than any other mfg.
If you look at the way they build the C7 chassis today - it is much closer to the way McLaren builds a 570 / 650 / P1 than how they built the C6, but they do it with a welded/bonded aluminum frame vs. a carbon composite monocoque. Rather than use full length hydroformed frame members, the C7 has a central aluminum passenger cell with bolt-on front and rear aluminum frames and suspension parts. The outer body panels are largely non-structural. (In the aircraft business we call this semi-monocoque). This allows BG to build two distinct cars with many common components - even structures - through modularity. If they can make it work it's brilliant.
BTW, Porsche has been doing something similar in steel for at least 15 years. The GM/Corvette team has been studying Porsche more closely than any other mfg.
The GM/Corvette team has been studying Porsche more closely than any other mfg. Amen and for good reason. the pooch guys get good performance from less HP and torq with solid suspension design
IMHO the problem with the "ZR-1" or whatever Zora or fancy name they hang on the ME C8 is that in the past the top line vette really didn't look or seem that much different from the base
sure more hp fins and gills ect.... but the car looks like the same basic car
when they doubled the price of the c4 with the ZR-1 option and gave the old gal some wider hips most people didn't notice anything else than the sticker shock. And the car looked like the base with the now "new" squared off tail lights.
soooo..... fast forward gm "learns" how to do a rear engine tranny and torq tube (thanks porsche 944 & 928)
corvette explores dohc v8 (thanks 928, Lotus, Merc Marine)
GM discovers expensive options (painted calipers, ect.... thanks porsche option lists)
GM goes down the path of DOHC and twin turbo (thanks Ferrari, Pooch, Audi, ect...)
GM goes down the patch of electric power (thanks McLearan, Ferrari, Acura, Pooch)
What GM DOES do, is figure out how to deliver world class performance with enhancements on much of the high end technology gleaned from the world market. nothing wrong with that, price goes down, and quality goes up. Get the best of the best at the best price and integrate those parts into your design.
so..... build on this successful formula, steal the DCT from the audi, put the durn Volt drive train up front (*gee, it already IS isn't it), run a VERY small battery array augmented by super capacitors for regenerative energy recovery (along with a HUGE spank coming off turns and out of the hole)
this build really shouldn't take too much rocket science. Keeping it light and compliant will though.
those that dismiss all of these "disruptive" technologies need to take a ride in one of these modern rockets
the 720 for example shows what a dinky little dohc 3.8 v8 can do
don't worry that we only have 5.5 give me around 5.0 displacement and a couple of hair dryers and like the books says, 850 is a boost away.
and don't worry about the longevity of the turbos, they last longer than those eaton blowers which are ULTRA reliable. Ask the truckers.
Once you see the advantages of cam phasing, boost control, traction control, and front end drive from an electric, those complaints will soon disappear when you mash the throttle and the thing takes off with zero drama. give me that 1.2 60 ft time and a 2.5 zero to 60
without full drag slicks, 4 wheel drive will be needed
the next evolution for me is producing power from things other than batteries. micro turbines and fuel cells and electrics will soon rule.
I'll hold onto my fossil swilling IC dinosaurs cause I'm old school, but one ride in a new Testla set on full crazy ludicrous mode will change your opinion of the hussle from a dig.
I won't own one, but anything under 3 to 60 gets my attention.
just don't pipe in the engine sounds, too much like a fake O