JerryU

Yep, agree the Corvette has a bright future- in fact it's doing very well now!

Just finished reading the January 2019 Road & Track and the ZR1 beat 7 other cars they tested for their "Performance Car of the Year!"

The $122,095 ZR1 came in first with the $964,966 McLaren Senna coming in 2nd!

It was also ahead of the $353,800 Ferrari 488 Pista and $294,250 Porsche 911 GT2RS.

I'd say it did very well!

WKM

PCMIII

So why is the FE ZR1 being discontinued? The demand is obviously there, but according to "insiders" here, it will be gone once the ME is for sale.

PCMIII

It was previously a Chrysler A/C plant and wore the Chrysler blue paint for many years after GM bought it.

JerryU

With the lower "Polar Moment of Inertia" the C8 ZR1 replacement will be even quicker! Looking at pic below, it's easier to turn a mid engine car around a corner than one with the engine forward. Pic is an attempt to show for the same weight it takes less force to turn a dumbbell that an equal weight barbell. Therefore for a car it takes less tire traction. Or for a given amount of traction you can go faster.

The ZR1 was rated top for number of reasons BUT not performance at NCM Motorsports Track.

There are the results:
1st: McLaren Senna @ 1.23.34 lap speed
2nd Porsche GT2R6 @ 1.24.22 lap speed
3rd Corvette ZR1 @ 1.25.93 lap speed

mschuyler

You are correct. June of 1981. Yet another example of fake news to bolster an argument. If you want to argue a point of view and don't have the facts, just make stuff up.

Supermassive

Because the "demand" isn't there for a $140k+ Corvette...3000 cars sold in a first year run of a model does not equate to high demand. GM makes the high end versions because the lower spec models make the real money.
GM can make the car super fancy, target exotics, and cost more than the current ZR1, and it will flop hard. It could loterally be the best car ever made and it will still fail because its a GM product. Sure, if they continue to make the C7 with a mild refresh they might make a bit of money, but it would be a severely missed opportunity. GM needs to hit the 30k+ a year manufacturing figures and a warmed over C7 aint gonna hit those numbers.

These "leaks" are a joke, made by people who just like to rile others up. Add Just the right amount information that is widely known and you can make anything seem believable to the gullible and those that already have a preconcieved notion in their heads about the direction GM should go to make them happy. It is frustrating that so many people throw logic and reason out the window to fit these speculative "leaks" into a reality of their own making. Its as if these people forget that this car is being made by GM, in a post bailout world, where they need to guarantee a certain level of profitability to the board in order to do anything.

The Ford GT is such a bad example to hold onto as to how GM "could" make an exotic because it is literally a homologated race car made with a cost is no object mindset, that makes negligible money for Ford and doesn't really affect sales of the rest of its fleet because its a spaceship in comparison to everything else it makes. Not to mention that Ford didn't have the capability to make the car themselves and instead pays Multimatic to make them.
Everyone stuck on output percentage of the BG plant are also losing sight of the real issue. Even at at the low percentage of output vs. Capability the BG plant remains profitable. It doesn't need to churn out cars to make a profit, but it does need to make enough Corvettes to make a profit and the slumping sales of the C7 are having an impact so something new needs to be built.

GM won't kill off the GS, Z06, or even ZR1 monikers because they are all very recognizable Corvette nomenclatures with historical connotations and related to performance versions of the Corvette. At this point getting rid of these trim names in favor of some new codes that have zero attribution to performance levels would require way more advertising work than just continuing with the GS, Z06, and ZR1 trims...advertising costs money and that seems like wasted profit for no discernible gain.

The Manta Ray name is dumb, it was likely trademarked to keep it from being used by some tuner company like Hennessey. Trademarks are applied for all manner of reason, including keeping it free for use at a later date, even if GM never uses the name it is protected from being used by other companies. Same thing goes for the Zora name. If the mid engine Corvette isn't called the Corvette Zora I would frankly be surprised.

Atari_Prime

Suddenly I have the desire to buy a Diablo...

Maxie2U

vndkshn

KERS systems can't be used to start/stop the car without the engine. See La Ferrari. The true hybrid systems in cars like the P1 and 918 can. F1 hasn't used KERS in several years now.

I think it makes sense for GM to make the jump to a hybrid. As badass as the Ford GT is, I was instantly disappointed when they did not go hybrid at that price point.

ShagVette

Almost 3 months old info.

JerryU

Would have put up the sketch of the ~$70,000 C8 but I have sworn to secrecy!

Shaka

Just a few things. First. Polar moment of inertia would apply to the chassis properties contained within it's structure only as an indication of rigidity. The Corvette chassis in this case, has a low PMI. IE, it flexes like a bitch. Two. The correct term for what you are describing is Polar or Planor second moment of inertia which is the mass moment of inertia or the rotational motion resistance of an object, in this case the whole car. Third. The C7 ZR1 has two large mass centroids placed at each end of the chassis where the bending moment is the least.(Allows a lighter structure than ME cars). The C7 chassis' lack of torsional rigidity and a very compliant suspension, optimises the friction circle at each tire and is much more efficient than the other two cars in this regard. It will perform better on a constant radius, constant speed turn and out perform the other two cars on braking. The tires will last longer because of the more even loading. In constant speed events the Vette will beat both cars. Forth. Check the weight of each car. 3600, 3300 and 2650 lbs for the McLaren. makes a big difference in the numbers. Accelerating the mass on these particular cars the Vette will be at a disadvantage on most road courses that don't have hard braking areas. Fith. The Vette will have a slower initial or incipient rotation rate about it's vertical axis at entry or turn in, but that means, an indication of a spin is well within the average human reaction time. You loose it in the other two cars, you're done. These 3 cars are only usable because of electronic and technological wizardry. The Vette is much more difficult to drive at the limit but you will live to tell the story and have more fun.

JerryU

You don't need KERS to implement Start/Stop just an electric water pump! But once it's installed in a C8 it will work just fine for that purpose.

Boy you are out of date! Yep KERS came and went in ~2009 but has been back and all teams have used it for the past >5/6 years! It's required to be competitive! When it is used in the C8 the gasoline engine will stop when the car stops as is does in the wife's BMW SUV and the electric KERS motor will propel the car from a start or low speed until near cruising speed then the gasoline engine will turn on.

Going from a stop to cruising speed consumes a lot of energy- just turn on your instant mpg and watch. Then when braking or even costing the electric motor turns into a generator and charges the small battery. In current F1 that is a Lithium battery and weights ~30 pounds. Then like in F1 the KERS can be used to get ~150 hp for 5 or 6 seconds when driving in anger!

JerryU

The C7 chassis is very ridged about 25% more than the C6.

There is one big mass on the C7! There are no two large mass centroids! The differential/trans doesn't come close to the mass of the engine, rad and other "stuff" up front!

When you are in a turn you must rotate the car! Having a modified Corvair with the weight is the rear I know all about what rear traction it takes to keep the rear from swinging off the road (sometimes didn't catch it)- just like Porsches of the day!

I drive my Grand Sport at the limit, albeit around the fountain at the end of my street! It is very forgiving when the rear steps out and is easy to get back at the moderate speed I am going!

What is funny, Zora who worked with Dr. Porsche in Germany knew the right place for a motor was in the middle. That is where the German race cars of the 1930's had their engines! He worked on those. The issue when he built the first sports car, after the war was there was no money so he was forced to use the "peoples car" as a base. Suggest you go back to "read some more!" Make a few free body diagrams and see if you can understand they dynamics occurring in transients in a turn!

Shaka

So how do you splain the 50% weight at the rear tires? Do this little exercise on your GS, will yeh?. No sports car flexes like a Vette, none. I examine your chassis somewhere in this forum and praise it's properties. You don't understand why this is a good thing for a street HP sports car. GM will never give actual chassis stiffness numbers because dumb folks will think it's bad compared to the competition. I also explained how to perform corner weight adjustments the right way on your car. I have before and after torsional and bending numbers before and after my roll cage installation which I measured directly with locked down wheel hubs and solid shocks which are the reference points. Results are really shocking to the unschooled. Search for it, you may learn something.


res?

Shaka

JerryU

First GM does publish the stiffness of the fame! Quoting: "The C7 stiffness is 14500 Nm/deg, They also quote the C6 figure as 9000 Nm/deg." 14,500-9,000 = 5,500/9,000 = a 61% improvement.

Second weight distribution and where the weight is are two different things! My Corvair had 55% of it's weight on the rear wheels. Would not be surprised if the C8 is not far from that! The difference is the weight in the C8 is toward the center NOT in the rear like my Corvair!

I tried to describe that issue with the simple equal weight long bar bell versus a short dumbbell. If you can visualize the torque required to get both to turn perhaps you'd understand why, when in the apex of a turn where the car must rotate, the tire force required is less with the weight more in the center. Or said another way for the same lateral tire force available you can go faster with the weight in the center.

It's easy to move weight without getting it in the center. My '34 sedan street rod has a 502 cid BB Chevy engine. It's set back in the chassis as is the front seat! In that case it has a heavy, narrowed 9 inch Ford rear and a ridged, heavy, adjustable 4 bar link rear suspension. The battery, like the C7 is in the far right rear. It has 53% of it's weight on the rear 16.5 inch section width tires. Great for what it was designed for, acceleration in a straight line. But even though it has an independent front suspension, sway bars front and rear, with that long barbell weight distribution it's not designed for canyon carving! BTW, very familiar with 4 wheel scales. My street rod has adjustable coil overs on all 4 wheels and for drag racing we set a bias to counter reaction torque at launch.

C5Dobie

jimmyb

Correct. And they MIGHT use this is SOME Corvette....