|
Originally Posted by rcallen484
(Post 1582181569)
I am surprised it has a 6.2 liter engine. I was convinced it was going to be a 5.5 To me this means they believe they have hit a sweet spot with 6.2 liter.
|
the biggest surprise for me has not been seen yet...it will be the rear design, especially the lights. I am not against a radical departure from what we are used to, I just hope they do it right. Everything else I've seen so far says "Corvette".... I hope the rear doesn't ruin that...
I am a bit concerned about the cylinder deactivation...hopefully it is executed well. I don't care to see it on the higher performance models. |
Originally Posted by ~Stingray
(Post 1582182436)
If the car comes out looking "exactly" like the rendering we all know, I will be surprised that GM stuck with it. It doesn't scream Corvette in my opinion and I feel it just doesn't grab your eye like the previous models did or the more classics ones.
I know a lot of people don't like the stingray concept, but I felt it really made you want one. Even if you were not a Corvette lover. That is where I feel GM has dropped the ball. Its not about appeasing the already accepting market, its about that market plus getting people to turn away from the other options. I feel it has lost Corvette essence if that makes any sense. Drawings usually don't do things justice, so hopefully my surprise will end up being nothing at all, but it missed the mark on the "exciting new look" by a long shot in my opinion. |
Originally Posted by oldvtr
(Post 1582182991)
They explained the 6.2 decision - it gave the best sized 4 cyl engine when cylinder deactivation is implemented. We have seen engines too small for a car's weight that get worse gas mileage than the same car with a somewhat larger engine. Wouldn't be surprised to learn that something like a 5.5 was considered early-on until cylinder deactivation was added and testing revealed less than desired economy.
It's an interesting set of compromises, to be sure. A 3.1L is a big four-banger. I think inefficiencies from a too-small motor have more to do with having to run it at higher rpm; the best-case scenario is low-rpm WOT, right? So you want your engine right-sized for that. I would guess they went bigger so that they could run in four-cylinder mode more of the time. Imagine never using all eight cylinders in one's daily commute... |
The low hp number surprised me
|
|
I like it .....Looks more modern/current......I love that rear end....I love the whole thing.....I think I like it :)
|
Though I'm not very bothered by it, I did expect a larger initial horsepower figure as well. Hoping this belies a <3,100lb curb weight.
The more I look at the renderings, I'm finding myself developing a nostalgia for the C5/C6 hatch and rear glass design. I'm saddened it's (seemingly) going away. I'm still excited about the car and have faith it will look great in the flesh, but I can say that overall, I'm also surprised they've (again, seemingly) abandoned as many trademark features as they have in one reiteration. |
Originally Posted by Z_Rocks
(Post 1582181732)
I'm surprised with DI & VVT the numbers were not north of 480.
|
No problem with the engine specs except the cylinder deactivation.
|
Oh, and I'm suprised / disappointed that they recycled the LT nomenclature yet again and so soon.
Reading through GM High Tech Performance is going to be confusing as hell. "This 3rd Gen restomod comes with a brand new LT1 from GMPP"..... uh, the new, er, old new, er new old one? |
I am surprised at all the negativity about the car on this forum. Let's remember how much negativity there was about the C5's huge butt (I bought one and loved that car and quickly got over its rear end) and then when the C6 first appeared, the hated of its exposed headlights (again when it first appeared -- and, yes, I bought/have one and really like it), yet C5 sales were great, and before the recent recession, the C6 sold over 40,000 units in 2006.
So, while I remain surprised about how much there is, on this forum (and even more of it on the other forum) C7 "dislike of this", and "intense dislike of that" C7 feature, I will not be surprised at C7 sales being good! And, I will buy a C7 and will really like its improvements, and love driving it!!! |
Originally Posted by Jinx
(Post 1582183253)
Where did they explain that? Is there a long-form video or article out there somewhere with details like this? I believe you, I just wonder what else is in there -- do you have a link?
It's an interesting set of compromises, to be sure. A 3.1L is a big four-banger. I think inefficiencies from a too-small motor have more to do with having to run it at higher rpm; the best-case scenario is low-rpm WOT, right? So you want your engine right-sized for that. I would guess they went bigger so that they could run in four-cylinder mode more of the time. Imagine never using all eight cylinders in one's daily commute... This is how GM explained the decision to go with 6.2L for the LT1..... "While previous speculation had the new small block pegged at 5.5-liters, GM says they went with a larger 6.2-liter displacement because of the advantages of cylinder deactivation, which effectively has the LT1 operating as a 3.1-liter V4 under lighter loads. If GM had made the engine's displacement smaller, the V4 mode wouldn't have provided as much power, and thus drivers wouldn't have the engine operating in cylinder deactivation mode as often in daily driving. By operating in full-on V8 mode more often, GM would have negated the efficiency benefits of going with a smaller displacement." http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/24/g...tte-c7-videos/ |
Suprise to me was having the audacity to make the entire body look NOT like a Chevrolet . Nothing smiles on it. Nothing says Americana Route 66 on it. And the rear - regardless of light shape - looks like so many "doggie bearing down for duty" sports car butts.
|
Originally Posted by elegant
(Post 1582184029)
I am surprised at all the negativity about the car on this forum. Let's remember how much negativity there was about the C5's huge butt (I bought one and loved that car and quickly got over its rear end) and then when the C6 first appeared, the hated of its exposed headlights (again when it first appeared -- and, yes, I bought/have one and really like it), yet C5 sales were great, and before the recent recession, the C6 sold over 40,000 units in 2006.
So, while I remain surprised about how much there is, on this forum (and even more of it on the other forum) C7 "dislike of this", and "intense dislike of that" C7 feature, I will not be surprised at C7 sales being good! And, I will buy a C7 and will really like its improvements, and love driving it!!! |
Originally Posted by roundlight lover
(Post 1582184216)
Suprise to me was having the audacity to make the entire body look NOT like a Chevrolet . Nothing smiles on it. Nothing says Americana Route 66 on it. And the rear - regardless of light shape - looks like so many "doggie bearing down for duty" sports car butts.
That said, I still have faith in the car upon its debut. I trust it will be breathtaking. But I agree in that it is going to be a very polarizing car, and it has shed much heritage along the way. |
Originally Posted by JoesC5
(Post 1582184062)
This is how GM explained the decision to go with 6.2L for the LT1.....
"While previous speculation had the new small block pegged at 5.5-liters, GM says they went with a larger 6.2-liter displacement because of the advantages of cylinder deactivation, which effectively has the LT1 operating as a 3.1-liter V4 under lighter loads. If GM had made the engine's displacement smaller, the V4 mode wouldn't have provided as much power, and thus drivers wouldn't have the engine operating in cylinder deactivation mode as often in daily driving. By operating in full-on V8 mode more often, GM would have negated the efficiency benefits of going with a smaller displacement." http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/24/g...tte-c7-videos/ |
I'm not surprised about anything to be honest. The only thing I may be a little surprised about is their choice of narrower tires. But it does make sense since narrower tires are better for economy. And if the car is lighter, the tires may not have to be as wide.
|
I am surprised at what appears to be a 60" plasma screen TV for the rear window.
|
Originally Posted by CarBoy
(Post 1582185552)
I am surprised at what appears to be a 60" plasma screen TV for the rear window.
:D |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:22 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands