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.
Logic, not rumors:
1. Corvette C7 dominates the $50-80K segment, but its 8 competitors are offering new models and upgrades. Unless Corvette plans to abandon this segment, it
must offer something new with upgrades. The ME is too expensive and not wanted by many traditional Corvette buyers.
2. The Blackwing is being made at BGA and has nowhere to go now that CT6 V is dead. The 10 speed powertrain is ready to go into the C7 with few modifications. Why not the C7?
3. The LT1 can be upgraded to ~500 hp and matched to the 7 spd manual or 10 spd auto (already done in Camaro) so make it the base powertrain for Stingray.
4. The Stingray can be the value proposition it has always been while still offering the highest performance in the segment.
Point 1 and 4 are the kickers for me to feel there is a future with a FE and a ME Corvette. We don't KNOW what the ME costs GM in comparison to the FE at this point, and it will be a bit apparently before we see the car and the price tag, and from there until costs/profits of the ME are known, but I can easily see it costing more if all of this technology that is being rumored is actually going the in the car. I can easily see a scenario where the Stingray is updated to a new C8 and the ME is another generational line that it up-market and going after the bigger players (Lambo/Ferrari/McLaren) in a more aggressive and refined way.
I'm not willing to say the FE Corvette is dead forever once the ME launches.
Yes, MGU-H, and it isn't working out well for everyone and we do not see a single road version of it (at least from a manufacturer, there are prototypes from at least one turbo manufacturer, but I'm not aware of any systems actually installed except for prototypes/show cars. Point?
Funny, in WWII we did things very quickly that could not be done today with a "that won't work attitude!" In my "Man Cave" I have one cylinder (of the 18) from a WWII Corsair, etc. It started prior to our entry into the War with 1800 hp. Buy the end of the War it could develop 2800 hp! Had a prof who worked for Curtis Wright and he talked about what was done to increase power in their radial engines. I have NOS intake and exhaust valve for the engine. the exhaust were sodium cooled. The NOS plug has 4 electrodes like some advertised today! I also have a pic of the engine on the wall that used two Turbos and one supplied supplemental power to the prop! Yep they did what today we would consider impossible in that short of time--It can be done again!
Agree, but on tangent, I think it's currently going down the wrong path (or at least partially). I think a version of hydrogen and hybrid technology makes the most sense.
I worked in the Corporate Office of the largest Industrial gas business. In business meetings ~30 years ago they were excited about hydrogen cars! Perhaps, but if I were GM I sure would not put many eggs in that basket- at least not yet! Perhaps if I were Mack truck as they could put fill stations along key interstates. But I'd start with natural gas for trucks!
<br /><br />I'm not willing to say the FE Corvette is dead forever once the ME launches.
<br /><br /><strong>NOBODY </strong>at Corvette or GM has ever said the FE is finished, period. Corvette knows that many of its traditional buyers have little interest in a ME and want an FE which every competitor in the segment offers, except Porsche. Killing the FE Corvette V8 that has been successful for 63 years would be a corporate blunder on the level of New Coke.
I worked in the Corporate Office of the largest Industrial gas business. In business meetings ~30 years ago they were excited about hydrogen cars! Perhaps, but if I were GM I sure would not put many eggs in that basket- at least not yet! Perhaps if I were Mack truck as they could put fill stations along key interstates. But I'd start with natural gas for trucks!
I know several people that are all for natural gas. For good or bad though, the natural gas movement is dead. It boils down many want to avoid using natural resources insofar as possible, changing from oil to natural gas would just be exchanging one for another.
Word is that GM benchmarked the Corvette GT’s NVH against German luxury tourers from Mercedes Benz and BMW. Not sports cars, tourers.
.
This line is why I think it is BS. Why would GM benchmark MB and BMW for NVH when Cadillac already has them beat by a country mile?
That is not me being a homer either, my DD is a Mercedes S65. I love that car but ANY Caddillac being sold today will do better in NVH at half the price or less.
The other part that is unrealistic is the special corvette mechanics. The mechanics don't work for GM, they work for the dealerships and dealers won't be able to keep them on staff unless they have the business to warrant the salary. The reason companies like Ferrari can have specialized mechanics is because owners will still bring their 1965 Ferrari to the dealer to have the 12 carbs tuned every spring. That market doesn't exist for Corvette. So unless GM is planning on a ton of warranty work to keep them busy, it will be Joe the Chevy Cruz mechanic who takes a half hour training class to also be certified on the C8.
This all sounds pretty goofy. Presumably you are the same guy who posted very similar look-at-me chatter just before the C6 and C7 launches. Good for getting people’s attention, not so much for reliably predicting anything.
A 5.5 L twin turbo V8 that’s “frightening to floor”? No wonder Jim Mero retired --- he floored it once and was frightened away! You’re clearly making up this stuff.
Dumping the Z06 designation because its “alphanumeric gibberish”? Even though it’s been around and respected since the 1963 Sting Ray came out? Not likely. GM moving away from alphanumerics? Gee, the new Caddy small SUV that JUST came out is the XT4. Huh?
The engineering investment in the DCT is twice what a regular manual or auto is? How can Honda afford both both?
Corvette will be a brand unto itself? Tadge has already debunked that idea. Will there be a Corvette pickup to compete with the Silverado?
You’re gambling your future livelihood just so a few CF members will be less disappointed later on? Generous of you. Better not tell your wife and kids what you’re risking.
All the rest, about luxury this and that is just blather.
You figured out how to have your 15 minutes of fame, albeit for a very small audience. Now go away.
One last thing: Now would be as good a time as any to give us the insider’s word on which booth the C8 will be in at Detroit.
I know several people that are all for natural gas. For good or bad though, the natural gas movement is dead. It boils down many want to avoid using natural resources insofar as possible, changing from oil to natural gas would just be exchanging one for another.
Probably the delay is because of the cost to implement the stations, engine conversions etc. It's still better than oil.
Natural gas is big overseas! We recently shipped 275 of our patented product used on welders to a large US customers plant in the Czech Republic where they make various products for natural gas liquefaction and shipping. Their plant in Louisiana has ~800 systems on welders making natural gas processing compression and shipping containers.
Italy was getting liquid natural gas on ships from Libya. Some of their cars use it for fuel. No longer a stable source. The other option in Europe is Russia by pipeline but with the political situation can be shut off any time! We're a much more dependable source!
So, these hackers that get caught don't have skills?
Originally Posted by vndkshn
They don't get caught via simple IP tracing and/or the email address they registered with on a forum.
Exactly! Hacking into a system is not what we're talking about here. That leaves a lot of fingerprints, but even so a lot of hackers are never caught.
What I was referring to is NOT "hacking." It's about catching an individual who signs an NDA and violates it by posting inside information. It's about an individual who registers a new account under a pseudonym. He walks into a Starbucks, uses the public wi-fi, posts a message, and never uses that account or that IP address again.
That person will not be found, and it doesn't require any skill at all.
Probably the delay is because of the cost to implement the stations, engine conversions etc. It's still better than oil.
Natural gas is big overseas! We recently shipped 275 of our patented product used on welders to a large US customers plant in the Czech Republic where they make various products for natural gas liquefaction and shipping. Their plant in Louisiana has ~800 systems on welders making natural gas processing compression and shipping containers.
Italy was getting liquid natural gas on ships from Libya. Some of their cars use it for fuel. No longer a stable source. The other option in Europe is Russia by pipeline but with the political situation can be shut off any time! We're a much more dependable source!
Stepping past the argument of which is better, in the Western world we are going to the way of electric. And electric is growing at an exponential rate. Efforts are being made to improve solar charging. And efforts are being made to shorten battery charge time to about 10 minutes. Once you accomplish either of these goals, it is game over for any natural resources.
We have a long way to go! Unless solar is subsidized significantly it won't happy very fast! Solar was less than 1% of the electric power generated in 2017.
Recently consulted for one of the largest fabricators of the very large wind towers. Found out they only have a 20 year planned life! Every time those huge blades pass the tower it creates a very large load. The fatigue life is 20 years from that cyclic loading. That's if there are no significant weld defects- which is why I get hired! The huge subsidies are what made the economics viable. Expansion will end when it does!
In my former life we were almost exclusive suppliers of certified welding consumables to the fabricators making ~10 inch thick Nuclear reactor containment vessels and other components. I watched all the US fabricators close down years ago. We no longer have the capability. For the now defunct plants that were being built in SC the South Koreans were booked with French and other reactor containment vessels so they were being built in China! Just as well those projects stopped!
Electric and renewables are coming. And there's no stoppin them.
Originally Posted by JerryU
^^^
We have a long way to go! Unless solar is subsidized significantly it won't happy very fast! Solar was less than 1% of the electric power generated in 2017.
Recently consulted for one of the largest fabricators of the very large wind towers. Found out they only have a 20 year planned life! Every time those huge blades pass the tower it creates a very large load. The fatigue life is 20 years from that cyclic loading. That's if there are no significant weld defects- which is why I get hired! The huge subsidies are what made the economics viable. Expansion will end when it does!
In my former life we were almost exclusive suppliers of certified welding consumables to the fabricators making ~10 inch thick Nuclear reactor containment vessels and other components. I watched all the US fabricators closed down years ago. We no longer have the capability. For the now defunct plants that were being built in SC the South Koreans were booked with French and other reactor containment vessels so they were being built in China! Just as well those projects stopped!
What your handy chart fails to indicate is the pace at which renewables technology is accelerating--both in terms of efficiency and cost. From photovoltaic cells to batteries, the technology is evolving and becoming commercial-ready in increasingly shorter cycles. Your chart will look very different at 10 and 20 years.
The chart also does not reflect the zombie status of coal. It's dead. And getting deader all the time--based solely on cost and efficiency (not politics).
What your handy chart fails to indicate is the pace at which renewables technology is accelerating--both in terms of efficiency and cost. From photovoltaic cells to batteries, the technology is evolving and becoming commercial-ready in increasingly shorter cycles. Your chart will look very different at 10 and 20 years.
The chart also does not reflect the zombie status of coal. It's dead. And getting deader all the time--based solely on cost and efficiency (not politics).
Exactly right. Jerry's chart represents what is happening TODAY. It has nothing to do with five years from now. The only reason "sedans are dead" is because people are waiting for a well-priced EV and holding off on yet another sedan. People will then plug them in (after hours when the grid is not at its peak) and new solar power will add to the grid to compensate. This idea tat EVs "don't work" because you can't drive cross country is laughable. A commute of 50 miles a day is considered a long commute. That's all the range you need and the average EV will be more than 200. It's a no-brainer.
What your handy chart fails to indicate is the pace at which renewables technology is accelerating--both in terms of efficiency and cost. From photovoltaic cells to batteries, the technology is evolving and becoming commercial-ready in increasingly shorter cycles. Your chart will look very different at 10 and 20 years.
The chart also does not reflect the zombie status of coal. It's dead. And getting deader all the time--based solely on cost and efficiency (not politics).
Batteries are not a renewable energy source. That is like calling a Chevy Suburban gas tank a renewable energy source because you can fill it with E85 ethanol.
Photovoltaic cells are, but they are not accelerating at any significant rate compared to our energy needs. Most of the increase in renewables is in wind power and that is just now getting to where it is about comparable to hydroelectric which has been a dying energy source for 50 years. No single renewable will come close to matching coal currently or in the near future. All of them together probably won't match it.
The cost of coal depends on where you are. In the center of the country from Ohio south to the Florida panhandle it is pretty cheap because transport is nil, and that is even after the environmental regulations that limit its efficiency. California which has both substantial amounts of wind and hydro and has the 3rd largest oil production in the country pays 19 cents a KW/hr for electricity. Meahwhile coal produced electricity in Kentucy and Alabama is about 10 cents a kw/hr.
It is the same pretty much everywhere, look at the states that still use a lot of coal and they are states with a lot of iron ore and cheap electricity rates. The states that have transitioned away from it pay more for electricity.
This idea tat EVs "don't work" because you can't drive cross country is laughable. A commute of 50 miles a day is considered a long commute. That's all the range you need and the average EV will be more than 200. It's a no-brainer.
EVs work as commuter vehicles, they don't work as all around flexible vehicles demanded by the American public today. That is all the range you need to get to and from work on a daily basis but you need far more range to go on infrequent trips which most people do take and you need space most EVs (and most sedans) don't have to legally and comfortably haul children and pets. The average drive is well under 50 miles a day but there will be millions (or 10s of millions) of people driving 500 miles or more in the next three weeks to visit family for the holidays. There are certainly other options for those infrequent trips but you are crazy if you think people don't want to do that in their car. As an example I currently have 6 vehicles; I asked my wife to look at the new Jaguar electric SUV to replace her expedition. My argument was you can drive it to work every day and we have other vehicles for long trips. She said no, she wants to be able to get up and go where she wants in her car.
You only need to look at the gas tanks put in sedans to illustrate the falacy in your argument - The average gasoline powered car gets better than 30 miles a gallon, so why have car makers put 15-20 gallon tanks in their sedans for years if drivers only need a 50-mile range. Surely a 3 gallon motorcycle tank would suffice and they could save space and weight.
Also the reduction in sedan sales is not because people are waiting for EVs, it is because they are moving to SUVs and trucks with more flexibility in terms of cargo, people and towing, and they are doing it at the expense of efficiency. Truck and SUV sales are up, if people were just not buying and waiting for EVs they would be flat. EVs fill a role today and that role will expand, but they are not going to replace SUVs, nor do I honestly think they will eclipse gas powered vehicles in terms of market share in my lifetime.
What your handy chart fails to indicate is the pace at which renewables technology is accelerating--both in terms of efficiency and cost. From photovoltaic cells to batteries, the technology is evolving and becoming commercial-ready in increasingly shorter cycles. Your chart will look very different at 10 and 20 years.
Originally Posted by mschuyler
Exactly right. Jerry's chart represents what is happening TODAY.
People will then plug them in (after hours when the grid is not at its peak) and new solar power will add to the grid to compensate.
It's a no-brainer.
Hmm, It's NOT Jerry's Chart, I just highlighted the wishful thinking of some!
Hay, maybe a fusion reactor will come to reality and will save us all!
Keep dreaming, maybe it will come true!!
The gasoline engine has a way to go to improve it's efficiency.
PS: I'll highlight one other thing in the chart I did not mention. Almost half the 11% renewable "stuff," biomass, is mostly hydrocarbon. Our ASME section recently visited a 75 million dollar biomass boiler installed by one of the largest companies in our area. It produces 16 megawatts of electricity. They burn tree stumps, branches etc from one of our States renewable crop, harvested trees, much cut for paper. And one other thing they use, up to 20% ground up tires in what is burned and get a "clean" exhaust. It uses a fluidized bead boiler, renewable BUT not carbon free!
Cart before the horse. Majority of our power comes from coal. Hydropower that isn't naturally existing (and obviously finite) is NOT green....most additional hydropwer is created by flooding surrounding forest etc. which on top of killing everything also results in methane gasses being released from the decaying organic matter & that in turn is another negative on the atmosphere/ozone. How about wind power? Yeah - unless its from places remote and/or in the ocean (and good luck not disturbing the surrounding environment in doing so) - essentially we level giant swaths of land/forest in order to put up big windmills. Until the majority of power is created from TRULY renewable resources EV's are a drain/negative for the environment and NOT green. Period.
Also consider the current traditional gas vehicle is essentially 100% recyclable vs. EV lithium ion batteries that are simultaneously NOT recyclable, hazardous waste, AND are produced using non-renewable natural resources like cobalt, nickel, lithium (at the current projected rate of EV adoption into the car market we'll essentially rape the world of its cobalt reserves by 2030-2050 all in the spirit of making a fraudulent "green" appliance to get us from A to B.
Really good idea, eh?
I've been in the metals recycling/manufacturing/mining industry my whole life - BELIEVE ME the EV dream is a fraud on the American people.
If you don't think its political you're in denial, of course that was for the initial push, now its become big business & who knows what the end game is......of course we could address all our clean energy needs simply by building more nuclear plants, but bring that up & you'll never get elected amiright?
I think best thing would be to invest more heavily into solar energy & start incorporating it as part of building code in ALL hardscape/large urban areas - ie: if you could make windows that double as solar panels then change building codes in NYC REQUIRING all building to utilize them going forward, give credits to companies to retrofit em, the solar shingles Musk is engineering look promising too. I don't disagree solar is a great alternative for energy, I just think EV's are a joke/fraud from a marketing standpoint as a "green" technology when in short, they simply aren't. Once the majority of the energy grid is based off REAL green sources like solar, is a sham.
For instance - at the shopping plaza down the street from my house they just put up a string of Tesla "supercharging" stations....I KNOW where the power comes for my district, majority comes from incinerator trash burning plants & coal fired plants. I think the best way to hammer this point home to the lemmings & sheep running around w/ false narratives about EV"s would be to "cut the wire" from the grid that powers these charging stations & instead park a big 'ol CAT diesel generator next to them & plug into that.
Cart before the horse. Majority of our power comes from coal. Hydropower that isn't naturally existing (and obviously finite) is NOT green....most additional hydropwer is created by flooding surrounding forest etc. which on top of killing everything also results in methane gasses being released from the decaying organic matter & that in turn is another negative on the atmosphere/ozone. How about wind power? Yeah - unless its from places remote and/or in the ocean (and good luck not disturbing the surrounding environment in doing so) - essentially we level giant swaths of land/forest in order to put up big windmills. Until the majority of power is created from TRULY renewable resources EV's are a drain/negative for the environment and NOT green. Period.
Where are you getting your information from? Most of our electricity comes from Natural Gas. Name some forests that have been flooded? I have seen lots of wind farms that are NOT in remote areas. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
This data is from 2017, so renewables will be some what higher now.
Where are you getting your information from? Most of our electricity comes from Natural Gas. Name some forests that have been flooded? I have seen lots of wind farms that are NOT in remote areas. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
This data is from 2017, so renewables will be some what higher now.
Replace coal w/ fossil fuels -sorry, but that's semantics. Point is vast majority is not green....therefore, majority of the power used to propel the EV's is not green.....which means (you're following along here right?) - EV's are NOT the green vehicles they're peddled to be.
Without getting into details - I'll let you do your research on your own - I have provided a very thorough review of hydropower generation & the associated environmental impacts/greenhouse gases produced as a result. You can read all about the flooding practices there. I'm not making this stuff up - its just that it doesn't fit the political narratives that have brainwashed the majority of this country so it therefore isn't relative for mainstream news/consumption. Sad. https://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploa...b.-14-2012.pdf
I bet you believe all the "single stream" recycling that your local govt. forces you to do in conjunction w/ the likes of companies like Waste Mgmt all gets recycled properly & goes to the right place too? Not your fault - we're never told when it becomes too costly for them to justify it the trash haulers go ahead & wind up incinerating all your "recycables" in that 2nd trash bin just like anything else. More of the false narrative.
12-12-2018, 05:02 PM
