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.
Whatever deficiency in storage space the ME may bring, will be more than compensated for in both appearance and performance. I love road trips in the Vette, but will be more than happy to pack lighter.
Well noted FLS2K. We have friends who completed a 5 week, 7,000 mile trip in their C6 convertible. He is a photographer and about 1/3 of their equipment was his camera gear, another 1/3 was his tools and detail kit, and the last 1/3 clothes. They pre-shipped some clothes, washed a few nights in motel washers/dryers, threw away some clothes on the way, and bought some new stuff from the NCM store to make up for getting rid of their old ones.
We traveled with them the following year on a 4,544 miler. All worked well on that trip too.
We will similarly figure out a way to make the ME work for our road trips (25,000 miles in the last five years).
Reminds me of how much I can't stand the snarky way those magazines write.
Also, the fact that the author did not write one word about where their information comes from is truly pathetic. How about writing that CorvetteForum, and the CAD screenshots from ZERV and descriptions by C7Pimp were their sources of information? I could have written the article myself, just based on the stuff written in the forums. And FVS's renderings look much better than the plain vanilla stuff published in the magazine.
Yep. And a couple of years ago Don Sherman wrote his take on the upcoming ZR1 and it was fabulously off the mark. The entire article is conjecture.
They're full of **** on a 5.5 liter flat plane. At least I hope they are. It'll shake itself to bits. That would be a reliability/durability nightmare.
Yes, I really hope it is not a flat crank engine. Too much vibration. No rumble. And as Ford found out, it didn't end up reducing rotating inertial, because they had to add some much mass to counteract the imbalance.
I read that some say the proportions are way off, and it is not a good looking car anymore, it is too long, too not-corvette, mid engine not good, too this and too that, etc. Please try to be more positive about this, this is a Corvette after all. Have more faith.
Some people here (GM included) are already laughing with tears, because they know that the car is brilliant. Far better than the renderings.
I can't say I am a fan of the C&D render, but I see what they try to show, but it is not that easy to draw something beautiful as it is. Let me show what I mean.
The CAD pics are completely showing the lights.
Every design is talking in a way. This shape is already confirming the (almost exact!) design vocabulary of the entire car. Without ever seeing the spy shots, one may/can tell that this car is long, wide and has very fine detailed shape. This reminds me to these designs. I don't know about you, but this lamp reminds me of the Banshee.
If I am correct, than Mr. Peters had also something to do with this also.
But when seeing the taillight shape, we may assume that the C-pillar has to follow the same shapes (as angles).
Only upside down. If you check the side-profile of the lamp, you may actually guess the C-pillar. Most of the cars have a harmonious way of matching the rear lamp and the C-pillar design. If you draw the C-pillar right, than you may guess the side air intake's shape too. See, one tiny element may actually talk a lot. However if we have all these matching shapes we may even see the proportions. Where does this lead us?
Back to the initial idea, I knew that I have seen that look somewhere...just didn't remember where.
When I first saw the spy pics (the winter testing with the yet to be shown ZR1, remember? I immediately recognized some Italdesign (Giugiaro) Nardo and W12 in the overall shape. In this case this is LaFerrari territory then. Forget about hat 500-ish horsepower numbers. This is more like north to 800 or even 1000. This long tail says it all.
After seeing all the renderings, then I thought, maybe the stance, the entire feel of the car (C8), the proportions might be something closer to this.
The C&D render doesn't show, but many of you already know (especially those who have seen it) that there is a very powerful curvy line that is crossing the lamps (it cuts) and harmoniously blends into the overall shape. This will give the C8 a more aggressive stance. Rest assured the C8 will look absolutely stunning maintaining its own Corvette way.
If - of course - my assumptions based on the CAD pics are real.
Just received independent confirmation from someone who seen the actual car (lucky person) that FVS’ is the “best one I have seen so far,” and thus in comparison since C&D’s is so bloated and different, we know that C&D’s is far off the mark.
That's too bad... On FVS's yellow version below, I personally find the nose not to be attractive and find the car too stretched. From a side profile perspective, I actually prefer the first red car render (C&D version) below... looks aggressive and meaty without looking like s stretch limo like the yellow and last red version. If the C8 looks like the yellow render, I might not buy it... too big and long.
What if the overall profile of the C & D render is fairly accurate and the difference in the length between that and the camo car is due entirely to the camo? I did a very quick overlay of FVS's side profile of the C & D render on top of FVS's side profile of the camo car (see below). I realize it's not a perfect match, but it's extremely close in everything but the front and rear (considering ride height differences, different size front wheel, camera lens distortion, etc.)
Look at the rear. See how the sun is highlighting the "rounded" portion of the camo car's rear, but the part that's not highlighted by the sun is almost a perfect outline of the C & D render? In the overlay image, what if that entire area of the camo car (outside of the C & D render) is all fake? If you look at some of the other spy photos, you see that white "diffuser" extends the length of the bottom of the car to match the "padded" (?) area above it. What if that diffuser is fake -- its only purpose to make the bottom of the car visually match the top camo portion to give the impression the car extends beyond the rear wheels further than it actually does? On other spy pics, I noticed that the exhaust tips don't actually extend as far as the center of the diffuser. What if the exhaust tips mark the actual "end" of the car -- meaning the rear fascia is more flat than rounded as the camo cars would have us believe? Similar logic might apply to the front. Several have posted that there's something odd about the shape of the front on the camo car around the headlight area and towards the center of the car as you move to the front. What if that's all just a fascade and the real car actually resembles the profile of the C & D render? C & D were pretty close overall with their C7 render published closer to the official unveiling of the C7 (seen elsewhere in this thread).
That's too bad... On FVS's yellow version below, I personally find the nose not to be attractive and find the car too stretched. From a side profile perspective, I actually prefer the first red car render (C&D version) below... looks aggressive and meaty without looking like s stretch limo like the yellow and last red version. If the C8 looks like the yellow render, I might not buy it... too big and long.
gthal: Agreed. The first red car is beautiful. The yellow version is hideous.
Last edited by Jackie Chiles; 04-14-2018 at 12:56 PM.
What if the overall profile of the C & D render is fairly accurate and the difference in the length between that and the camo car is due entirely to the camo? I did a very quick overlay of FVS's side profile of the C & D render on top of FVS's side profile of the camo car (see below). I realize it's not a perfect match, but it's extremely close in everything but the front and rear (considering ride height differences, different size front wheel, camera lens distortion, etc.)
Look at the rear. See how the sun is highlighting the "rounded" portion of the camo car's rear, but the part that's not highlighted by the sun is almost a perfect outline of the C & D render? In the overlay image, what if that entire area of the camo car (outside of the C & D render) is all fake? If you look at some of the other spy photos, you see that white "diffuser" extends the length of the bottom of the car to match the "padded" (?) area above it. What if that diffuser is fake -- its only purpose to make the bottom of the car visually match the top camo portion to give the impression the car extends beyond the rear wheels further than it actually does? On other spy pics, I noticed that the exhaust tips don't actually extend as far as the center of the diffuser. What if the exhaust tips mark the actual "end" of the car -- meaning the rear fascia is more flat than rounded as the camo cars would have us believe? Similar logic might apply to the front. Several have posted that there's something odd about the shape of the front on the camo car around the headlight area and towards the center of the car as you move to the front. What if that's all just a fascade and the real car actually resembles the profile of the C & D render? C & D were pretty close overall with their C7 render published closer to the official unveiling of the C7 (seen elsewhere in this thread).
Completely agree. To assume we’re seeing correct body panels on the mules is, IMO, incorrect. I suspect there’s a lot of padding hiding the real dimensions and shapes. We won’t know much until they start running cars with only a zebra/swirly body wrap.
It's starting to grow on me. Still all the renderings look to be shorter (and better looking) than the Camo Mule dimensions. Of course who knows how much foam they stuck on the car to stretch the cover.
Well said and why we need to focus on what it is not what we like
Originally Posted by black_valentine
What if the overall profile of the C & D render is fairly accurate and the difference in the length between that and the camo car is due entirely to the camo? I did a very quick overlay of FVS's side profile of the C & D render on top of FVS's side profile of the camo car (see below). I realize it's not a perfect match, but it's extremely close in everything but the front and rear (considering ride height differences, different size front wheel, camera lens distortion, etc.)
Look at the rear. See how the sun is highlighting the "rounded" portion of the camo car's rear, but the part that's not highlighted by the sun is almost a perfect outline of the C & D render? In the overlay image, what if that entire area of the camo car (outside of the C & D render) is all fake? If you look at some of the other spy photos, you see that white "diffuser" extends the length of the bottom of the car to match the "padded" (?) area above it. What if that diffuser is fake -- its only purpose to make the bottom of the car visually match the top camo portion to give the impression the car extends beyond the rear wheels further than it actually does? On other spy pics, I noticed that the exhaust tips don't actually extend as far as the center of the diffuser. What if the exhaust tips mark the actual "end" of the car -- meaning the rear fascia is more flat than rounded as the camo cars would have us believe? Similar logic might apply to the front. Several have posted that there's something odd about the shape of the front on the camo car around the headlight area and towards the center of the car as you move to the front. What if that's all just a fascade and the real car actually resembles the profile of the C & D render? C & D were pretty close overall with their C7 render published closer to the official unveiling of the C7 (seen elsewhere in this thread).
Having said that, that would be A LOT of foam stuck on the nose. Would think that would be a problem at speed.
Until there's a substantial image leak, illustrations of the next Corvette typically look too much like the last Corvette. C&D's car has too much C7 in it.
As for tech specs, C&D knows less than the Forum. They're making a lot of educated guesses, and their GPA isn't stellar.
Perhaps the first-year car won't have a clutch pedal -- there has to be something held back the first year -- but if both Mustang and Porsche still have a third pedal, Corvette will have to have a third pedal -- and if they're smart they'll charge more for it.
notice how the camouflaged car has a flat lower window-to-door edge while the renderings are upswept at the front half of the window.
If you lowered and flattened the front side of the window and moved the point at which the upwards tilt begnis rearward, you better match the camouflaged car.
Great thoughts, however I believe the como'd cars rearend is probably the actual length of rear of the car. The top como'd portion probably has extra padding underneath , but the bottom rear difusser and exhaust tips are exposed, showing the approximate end of the rear cap of the car. I know nothing is in stone but I think FVS has most of the car fairly close and the C&D rendering just makes the look chunky and bloated.
notice how the camouflaged car has a flat lower window-to-door edge while the renderings are upswept at the front half of the window.
If you lowered and flattened the front side of the window and moved the point at which the upwards tilt begnis rearward, you better match the camouflaged car.
I see what you’re saying, but that’s assuming the line we see on the mule is accurate. One job of these mules is to trick us and the rest of the industry. Time will tell what’s really under there.
04-13-2018, 07:46 PM
I immediately recognized some Italdesign (Giugiaro) Nardo and W12 in the overall shape. In this case this is LaFerrari territory then. Forget about hat 500-ish horsepower numbers. This is more like north to 800 or even 1000. This long tail says it all.
