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 im correct Lamborghini did this with the V12 Miura/Espada maybe Jarama, too. But they did many things on the same chassis
Thanks
Went back and did a bit of research. The C7 chassis is an evolution of the "backbone" design originally proposed by Lotus, then owned by GM, for the C5. While a big fuss was made over the hydroforming of the side rails which made the chassis economically feasible for GM production rates, it is a backbone design. Interesting SAE papers out there on the C5 chassis.
Lotus later did the Indy mid rear car, for GM, on a backbone design. This evolved into a much more production ready ME, the CERV III design, by GM, again on a backbone design. I'm stretching it a bit here because I don't know the details of the present C7 chassis but that chassis appears to be adaptable to FE and ME because the backbone design enables replacement of the front and rear portions while maintaining the cab which contains the backbone.
So, the FE could well be more than a transition car, or at least has the potential to remain in production as a seperate line along with the ME because both can be based on the same backbone chassis architecture. That solves the problem of engineering resources as much work is transferable accross the two, the FE and ME.
It also might explain the rumors of chassis issues. Sharing a basic chassis architecture sounds easy, but the details have got to be very complex.
Last edited by Kodiak Bear; 08-19-2018 at 04:36 PM.
Reason: Spelling
I would take a Corvette over Porsche even if it costs more. And I'm talking about the C7....we don't even know just how much better and desirable the C8 might be? I can't wait!!
I love Corvette, but I love Porsche too. At the 90-100k range the interior, finish, and performance of a slightly used 911 greatly exceeds a “base” Corvette.
60k Corvette vs 90k 911 = Corvette
90k Z06 vs 90k 911 = Corvette
90k Z06 vs 180k 911 Turbo = Corvette
Zerv02, thank you for the information. I hope you are wrong on pricing. There is no reason for a rear mid-engine car to be appreciably more expensive than having the engine in front of the passengers.
People keep asking for soft touch materials. There is some value to that, but they tend to be less durable on surfaces that get a lot of touching. As an example, I have a number of soft touch surfaced remotes in my house. They all eventually lose their soft touch surface. It peels off, or the kids pick it off not sure which starts first, the peeling or the picking. I like the different interior levels, I just wish some of the options weren't so tied with the surface options. I understand the purpose of the bundles, I just think they are poorly bundled. Lotus used to have sport packages and luxury packages and it was possible to get both. IIRC with the Corvette you have to get one of the higher level interior in order to get the video recording system? Why do I want a luxury interior to get a performance option. That makes no sense to me.
I agree with you completely about the soft touch materials. I may be in the minority but I really do not see anything wrong with the current quality of the C7 interior. I’m sure it can and has been improved a bit but as you say, this is not a luxury sports car. I for one am not intending to try to impress anyone with the fact that the leather was collected from 17,000 rare ground voles. And handstitched, then the entire skin scraped down to a thinness of one micron in order to save 27 g of weight. Just give me decent leather with nice stitching, comfortable seats that can recline somewhat. Don’t know what the deal is with some of these rare sports cars that make you sit so straight up and down that you’re back breaks . And nice plastic/metal finishes and I would be happy.
Last edited by firstvettesoon; 08-19-2018 at 08:51 PM.
I agree with you completely about the soft touch materials. I may be in the minority but I really do not see anything wrong with the current quality of the C7 interior. I’m sure it can and has been improved a bit but as you say, this is not a luxury sports car. I for one am not intending to try to impress anyone with the fact that the leather was collected from 17,000 rare ground voles. And handstitched, then the entire skin scraped down to a thinness of one micron in order to save 27 g of weight. Just give me decent leather with nice stitching, comfortable seats that can recline somewhat. Don’t know what the deal is with some of these rare sports cars that make you sit so straight up and down that you’re back breaks . And nice plastic/metal finishes and I would be happy.
Correct. The hydroformed rail design made the frame of the C5 much stronger and more torsionally rigid than the C4. It was also very economical and was deployed into the truck chassis designs as well. In the C5-6, the hydroformed rails run the length of the frame. The C7 marked quite the departure from this as the hydroformed frame is now divided into the rear, cockpit, and front sections that are welded together. In the C5-6 era they were worried that weld joints would diminish the rigidity. They must have overcome these issues with the C7. It also raises a very interesting possibility of making variants of the same frame substructures to accommodate a ME and FE design. It might significantly reduce the cost burden of having both platforms although this would be a radical departure from GM's business model.
Originally Posted by Kodiak Bear
Thanks
Went back and did a bit of research. The C7 chassis is an evolution of the "backbone" design originally proposed by Lotus, then owned by GM, for the C5. While a big fuss was made over the hydroforming of the side rails which made the chassis economically feasible for GM production rates, it is a backbone design. Interesting SAE papers out there on the C5 chassis.
Lotus later did the Indy mid rear car, for GM, on a backbone design. This evolved into a much more production ready ME, the CERV III design, by GM, again on a backbone design. I'm stretching it a bit here because I don't know the details of the present C7 chassis but that chassis appears to be adaptable to FE and ME because the backbone design enables replacement of the front and rear portions while maintaining the cab which contains the backbone.
So, the FE could well be more than a transition car, or at least has the potential to remain in production as a seperate line along with the ME because both can be based on the same backbone chassis architecture. That solves the problem of engineering resources as much work is transferable accross the two, the FE and ME.
It also might explain the rumors of chassis issues. Sharing a basic chassis architecture sounds easy, but the details have got to be very complex.
Zerv02. Thanks for taking the time to explain to us again what you know about the different models. I was , however, simply referring to and interested in the logo design . If you didn't see a logo on the indentation in steering wheel , perhaps , you can at least draw the outline of the indentation or zoom in at other areas of the interior where potentially the logo is shown and tell us what it looks like (I e. is it a V Cross flag, an oval, circle etc...). To date , no one knows what the C8 logo looks like . You may have Breaking News info, without getting anyone in trouble.
Its the Corvette logo, just modified/modernized and pays homage to Zora Duntov
Steven, for the sake of an awesome (99% of it) thread PLEASE just eliminate the nonsense and leave this one open.. this is the most time i have spent in this section of the forum since its inception lol...
PS. just think about all the NEW speculation after next weekend!! gonna have to get one of the GM Engineers drunk enough to give it up??
As for FE v ME --- i trust Mike Furman, and several other KNOWN big shots, when they say the FE car will be built alongside of the ME car for some time -- because once they go ME? there's no turning back... and after 2 or 3 years when the hype of something DIFFERENT slows down they will know where they stand.. and it's for that reason I strongly believe they are going to do a C7.5 or C8 FE car because why not? think C5 to C6 not C6 to C7...
keeping both cars FE and ME (Ala Ferrari...) they can either continue with the next gen ME car or if it doesn't work the way they thought (Fiero) it becomes a high end only car.... GM has to maintain some 2 seater corvette for the mainstream. they just sell too many no matter what discount you see.. it's still plenty profitable to this company in a variety of ways imo (advertising / hype / maintenance / continuity, etc..
While I don't agree with all of the above underlined, it does make the most sense to me. As an example of where I disagree, while it's expensive, just by going ME does not IMO mean it's forever. If it's a mistake because the public won't buy it (in numbers sufficient), it could be gone at some point. After all, had they not found a good use for the FRC fixed roof coupe of late '90s it would have been gone. That was just a design, not an entirely different development tho. Of course, there was the Solstice/Sky and it's (so far) nowhere to be seen.
Steven, for the sake of an awesome (99% of it) thread PLEASE just eliminate the nonsense and leave this one open.. this is the most time i have spent in this section of the forum since its inception lol...
PS. just think about all the NEW speculation after next weekend!! gonna have to get one of the GM Engineers drunk enough to give it up??
As for FE v ME --- i trust Mike Furman, and several other KNOWN big shots, when they say the FE car will be built alongside of the ME car for some time -- because once they go ME? there's no turning back... and after 2 or 3 years when the hype of something DIFFERENT slows down they will know where they stand.. and it's for that reason I strongly believe they are going to do a C7.5 or C8 FE car because why not? think C5 to C6 not C6 to C7...
keeping both cars FE and ME (Ala Ferrari...) they can either continue with the next gen ME car or if it doesn't work the way they thought (Fiero) it becomes a high end only car.... GM has to maintain some 2 seater corvette for the mainstream. they just sell too many no matter what discount you see.. it's still plenty profitable to this company in a variety of ways imo (advertising / hype / maintenance / continuity, etc..
when the ME is added to the lineup any thoughts on whether they will drop any of the FE models? Otherwise it would be:
stingray
grand sport
z06
Zr1
+ mid engine making it 5 models?
Also would the ME, assuming it's a "base version" cost less than a zr1? Not sure how many zr1s would sell if a ME were less and sold alongside for the first year. Or any FE model that cost more than the base ME.
when the ME is added to the lineup any thoughts on whether they will drop any of the FE models? Otherwise it would be:
stingray
grand sport
z06
Zr1
+ mid engine making it 5 models?
Also would the ME, assuming it's a "base version" cost less than a zr1? Not sure how many zr1s would sell if a ME were less and sold alongside for the first year. Or any FE model that cost more than the base ME.
I am not sure how well you sell the ME costing ZR1 money if it’s the basic base car with a pushrod motor & your first ME out the gates. That means the fast version comes out over 200k. IMO this seems very risky as some buyers will wait a few years since this is your first ME.
Speculation time: I would drop the stingray keep all wide body cars and put the base ME at 70k as the new corvette baseline. Now you have the GS at 66k, Z at 70k then the ZR1 at 132k. Stingray goes away plant only builds wide body FE cars along with the new ME and you don’t have two baseline cars competing (ME and C7). Another advantage you won’t have multiple panels which saves cost and complexity by only producing two versions that fit all products (FE and ME). No one I know is paying close to MSRP on any of the C7”s. By doing this you don’t alienate most of your buyers while bringing the Corvette a little more upmarket by increasing the C7 by 10k going to a FE/GS. Then if you want a new ME it starts at 14kish more than the base C7 did the prior year. Customers will still be getting discounts on the FE and have their manuals and extra space for travel & GM will be getting MSRP all day long on the new ME. Now you increase the interest with new buyers to the brand, because they can get an ME at incredible price and GM has limited risk without alienating their core customers. Winning::
Its the Corvette logo, just modified/modernized and pays homage to Zora Duntov
Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Are you saying the logo resembles the C7 Corvette logo as far as proportions and angles, just modified/modernized and pays homage to Zora? If that is a correct statement, then, folks, we may actually be looking at the C7 ME Zora and not the C8.
I'm not a production line engineer. However, it's reasonable to assume that a it's considerably cheaper to build one model on one line than 2 models on 1 line. Cheaper in actual money, and to a higher quality level as well.
Why would GM increase their build cost say $3500 for both a FE & ME each when the entire additional parts for the ME cost them $1500? The ME is better in every way, so apply the production savings to controlling costs of the ME.
No one in their right mind is going to pay within 10% of the cost of a ME, for a FE.
It's only a matter of time until somebody outside GM's inner sanctum actually sees the C8 and this could very easily be that time.
So what happens here? The armchair engineers and self anointed experts on all that is "corvette" immediately go into seizures of tourettes syndrome and scream at their displays yelling "FAKE..FRAUD..LIAR" and more,
and yet not one of you has a ******* clue if it's right or wrong. Talk about a group think mentality.
A secret can't be kept forever, and I think GM has done a fantastic job of keeping the C8 under wraps, but details are going to leak out, or be purposely leaked.
Went back and did a bit of research. The C7 chassis is an evolution of the "backbone" design originally proposed by Lotus, then owned by GM, for the C5. While a big fuss was made over the hydroforming of the side rails which made the chassis economically feasible for GM production rates, it is a backbone design. Interesting SAE papers out there on the C5 chassis.
Lotus later did the Indy mid rear car, for GM, on a backbone design. This evolved into a much more production ready ME, the CERV III design, by GM, again on a backbone design. I'm stretching it a bit here because I don't know the details of the present C7 chassis but that chassis appears to be adaptable to FE and ME because the backbone design enables replacement of the front and rear portions while maintaining the cab which contains the backbone.
So, the FE could well be more than a transition car, or at least has the potential to remain in production as a seperate line along with the ME because both can be based on the same backbone chassis architecture. That solves the problem of engineering resources as much work is transferable accross the two, the FE and ME.
It also might explain the rumors of chassis issues. Sharing a basic chassis architecture sounds easy, but the details have got to be very complex.
Kodiak Bear,
To add to your research, the discussion on the adaptability of the C7 frame was discussed by many, including me, even before there was a C8 section on CF. See the below link to post #7, 1/27/16. Then look at the reference from even farther back to 8/14/14 in post #40, from the C7 Z06 Section
^^^ I agree! Put a few more $$$ in the interior and overall car and shut up all the critics. A small % of people don't care or even know what good quality is but I would say most people do and appreciate it and would pay a little more for it.
The incremental cost to make the interior high end is small. Porsche makes a killing on their leather upgrades, I bet its 80 percent profit and in general that is a $3000 minimum upgrade depending on how far you go with it and what car you start with.
My problem with American automakers has always been this. They have the capability to build cars, in all aspects, on par, they just chose not to.
They came out with the ATS-V, a far more entertaining and fun car to drive than the competition(save the Alfa) and put a **** interior in it, but charged M3 money. Then they have to discount it down to where the interior is. I drove one and loved it, it really is a 4 door C7 but the interior was crap. I spend a lot of time in my cars. I average 60K per year and split it pretty evenly among them. I just could not live with the interior coming out of an S4.
On the flip side the Alfa interior with the leather package is really nice in a car that is highly entertaining to drive and priced pretty reasonably for what it is, you can do inexpensive and nice at the same time. It has a very polarizing interior. The stock interior material quality is crap, really really bad. Add the $750 leather package and they cover the whole thing in leather. Pricing makes no sense to me at all.
My wife was going to go the ATS-V route and instead did the Alfa partly due to the interior.
The difference in the end is Porsche engineering runs the company. GM Finance run GM. Until that changes they will continue to make generic cars which is why Cadillac continues to fail.
I am not sure how well you sell the ME costing ZR1 money if it’s the basic base car with a pushrod motor & your first ME out the gates. That means the fast version comes out over 200k. IMO this seems very risky as some buyers will wait a few years since this is your first ME.
Speculation time: I would drop the stingray keep all wide body cars and put the base ME at 70k as the new corvette baseline. Now you have the GS at 66k, Z at 70k then the ZR1 at 132k. Stingray goes away plant only builds wide body FE cars along with the new ME and you don’t have two baseline cars competing (ME and C7). Another advantage you won’t have multiple panels which saves cost and complexity by only producing two versions that fit all products (FE and ME). No one I know is paying close to MSRP on any of the C7”s. By doing this you don’t alienate most of your buyers while bringing the Corvette a little more upmarket by increasing the C7 by 10k going to a FE/GS. Then if you want a new ME it starts at 14kish more than the base C7 did the prior year. Customers will still be getting discounts on the FE and have their manuals and extra space for travel & GM will be getting MSRP all day long on the new ME. Now you increase the interest with new buyers to the brand, because they can get an ME at incredible price and GM has limited risk without alienating their core customers. Winning::
I think your speculation makes a lot of sense.
I don't think the base ME will sell for ZR1 money either, however I think the ZR1 and Z06 will be hard to sell if/when they're sold alongside a base ME (assuming they cost more). Even with less horsepower the ME would be the new thing everyone wants and would put the power down better than the higher hp FEs.
So maybe they'll first come out with a hi-po ME sold alongside the FE's and later come out with the lower priced base ME as they drop more FE variants.
08-19-2018, 04:27 PM
