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.
If it's powertrain cold weather testing, the rest of the car could be a rolling husk of garbage.
Brake winter testing is done at the brake suppliers facilities (in this case Bosch). So it depends on where the pictures were taken.
Also during a program, you usually only get two winters. They take whatever garbage they have the first winter, do as much as they can. The second winter they take a near production version and do a delta tuning.
Final tuning of cars doesn't take place until 3-4 months before serial production. If this car is a MY 2019 (and I think it is), then this 2018 winter testing is the **** show of whatever cars we have lets get er done.
If the ME car debuts at Detroit in 2019, and production starts a few months after that, being a MY 2020 is far more likely....unless you have other info that production will start sooner?
If the ME car debuts at Detroit in 2019, and production starts a few months after that, being a MY 2020 is far more likely....unless you have other info that production will start sooner?
I can’t remember the exact price, but I do remember Tadge saying it wasn’t that much more than the base pricing now.
Tadge has not confirmed the existence of a mid-engine car therefore he would not comment on it.
You're thinking of a canned response to a generic "next generation" question.
The thing is, what you call next generation (or what you think it is) and what Tadge is actually speaking about are not really the same thing.
Company spokes people know this, and that's why they answer how they do. Generic words have no meaning.
You might as well ask, "is it dark at night?"
Tadge is actually quoted as saying that a mid-engine Corvette could be built with an MSRP of $5000 more than the C7. From a Road & Track interview with Bob Lutz talking about a mid-engine Corvette:
I didn't want to move out of our price class, but Tadge explained that while the transmission would cost more, the list price would increase by no more than $5000. Imagine an American-built car with the proportions of a Lamborghini at that price point …that's pretty appealing.
Tadge is actually quoted as saying that a mid-engine Corvette could be built with an MSRP of $5000 more than the C7. From a Road & Track interview with Bob Lutz talking about a mid-engine Corvette:
We all know that's a "hypothetical" comment, and has no bearing on the current developed car seen in spy shots.
My information isn't a guess, it's an informed opinion. I've worked on numerous GM programs (and other OEMs), and I'm telling you that even things like tie rod ends (which are also very important), knuckles, and yes, even brakes where not final job one intent designs on all cars (examples all from the ATS).
Really it depends on why they car is being built. Parts, contrary to public belief are NOT tested at the vehicle level. They are tested at the unit or component level. The only reason test cars get built is to deal with "system integration" issues. There is some overall durability testing (and those cars do get updated), but really the purpose of vehicles is to tune things as a system (so the function of vehicle dynamics). The other reason would be to do feature work. It's hard to verify if your lane-keeping or auto parking tune works right unless you have a whole car. However the functional aspects are all tested on the bench.
Ok, your informed opinion is as good as mine
While I don't work in the industry, engineering is engineering, and I have a hard time believing GM would be testing a car with finished body panels and finished wheels without brakes that are very, very close to the final iteration. I know that individual parts are tested initially at a component level but at the end of the day the engineers need to put a lot of miles on testing how the suspension, brakes, and tires all interact and behave as a system. The final brakes would need to be tested on the track, on the road, and in all different environments to make sure that they not only function properly for braking but also for the stability management of the car, not to mention the durability testing (but that to an extent can be simulated in the lab). I think we're pretty much saying the same thing, and while I hope I'm wrong (it would be great to have a HiPo mid-engine introduced from the start) I believe in 11 months we'll be looking at a "base" model being released from the General. Until then though, we'll just have to wait to know for sure.
Last edited by NewYuriCity; 02-16-2018 at 08:11 AM.
While I don't work in the industry, engineering is engineering, and I have a hard time believing GM would be testing a car with finished body panels and finished wheels without brakes that are very, very close to the final iteration. I know that individual parts are tested initially at a component level but at the end of the day the engineers need to put a lot of miles on testing how the suspension, brakes, and tires all interact and behave as a system. The final brakes would need to be tested on the track, on the road, and in all different environments to make sure that they not only function properly for braking but also for the stability management of the car, not to mention the durability testing (but that to an extent can be simulated in the lab). I think we're pretty much saying the same thing, and while I hope I'm wrong (it would be great to have a HiPo mid-engine introduced from the start) I believe in 11 months we'll be looking at a "base" model being released from the General. Until then though, we'll just have to wait to know for sure.
Well that is the way it works.
We would have part level revision sheets for every test car. When you were doing your testing you made sure you parts were current rev and off you went.
We'd schedule cars for updates to match specific testing and that was usually the only reason they were updated unless it was a specific and serious safety issue to operate the car.
We could be getting into an argument of semantics. Is the ME the next Corvette, yes! However, might GM choose not to call it an eight generation Corvette (C8), instead calling it something else, absolutely.
We do not know two things necessary to settle this difference of opinion:
1) What is GM’s official name for the ME going to be called (not talking about ZERV, ZORA or anything like that) but what generation will they call it?
2) We do not have definitive proof that the front engined C7 is going away at any time, in fact conversely we do not even any definitive proof that the C7 is going on for both the 2020 and the 2021 model years — though many believe that it is going to continue for both.
Only time will tell, and in the interim, while opinions are strong, GM-verified facts have yet to surface.
Each Porsche has a sequential in house number. The first 911 was actually a 901. Peugoet objected to Porsche using 901 as a model designation. 911 stuck, just like the 396ci Chevy while it was actually 402 ci, even though subsequent 911s had other designations.
The 'C' for model Corvette designations, was coined by a scribe at Motor Trend and has stuck. Each new model Corvette will be C and generation, and the ME C8 will be no different. Watch for a very expensive space age Cadillac on this platform which won't have a Corvette designation.
Each Porsche has a sequential in house number. The first 911 was actually a 901. Peugoet objected to Porsche using 901 as a model designation. 911 stuck, just like the 396ci Chevy while it was actually 402 ci, even though subsequent 911s had other designations.
The 'C' for model Corvette designations, was coined by a scribe at Motor Trend and has stuck. Each new model Corvette will be C and generation, and the ME C8 will be no different. Watch for a very expensive space age Cadillac on this platform which won't have a Corvette designation.
The Chevrolet 396 and 402 cubic inch engines are not the same.
The 396 had a 4.094" bore and a 3.76" stroke.
The 402 had a 4.125" bore and a 3.76" stroke.
The new 1965 396 I purchased in 1965 had a 4.094" bore with a 3.76" stoke.
The 402 did not come along until 1970, with it's larger .031" bore.
I dare you to fit a 402 piston into a stock bore 396 block.
Yes, they did call the SS396 with a 402 a SS396, but you said they were the same engine, which they weren't. On the smaller cars, like the Nova, GM marketed the 402 as a 396, while on the full size cars, they marketed the 402 as a 402, but that was not from 1965 through 1970, when the 396 was in production.
The bottom row, second from the left photo shows us the best view of how the headlamp looks on the car. That same view also shows us the front trunk(in a light tan color), I believe, with it's weather stripping. The bottom row far right view shows us more details of the front trunk.
Based on the location of the front trunk(in the nose in front of the front axle) I doubt that the car will have a heat extractor opening in the hood.
Also shows a radiator/heat exchanger under the headlamp and appears to line up with the front fascia openings we saw in the paint booth photos.
02-15-2018, 09:34 PM
