May Car & Driver has ME on the cover...
 

Their artist rendering is stunning...and damn close to the real thing I bet.

Thanks for the pic.....lol

I know...hang tight. Let me work on some IMGR uploads.

I renewed my Car and Driver subscription recently, in response to a mailer they sent, but sent a letter with the renewal saying if the magazine was going to continue to spew its anti-Trump politicized bs, they can cancel me instead. I bought the mag to support one of the few mags left, and to read about cars, not see cartoon drawings of Trump and hear their political views from their ever shrinking pulpit.

Surprisingly...my subscription ceased. So be it.

too plain

That car looks boring as hell. I don't care if it's faster than a Chiron. I look at it, and my reaction is "eh".

FirstVetteSoon's renders are WAY better.

I just showed these pics to 6 different car guys and they all felt the same way.

Should have used FVS's. Way more interesting. The writeup has a high bs factor as well.

Seems to have caught a lot of the cues we've seen from CAD & fascia shots, and fits the profile of the camoed betas and alphas we've seen out in the wild. To me it looks purposeful but a bit chunky in a Camaro sort of way -- in particular (a) the distance from the top of the rear wheel well to the top of the fender is HUGE, and (b) the hood seems realy high (which could make the "big trunk" fans happy, I suppose.)

I can only hope that the renderer was "fooled" by the foam bits that are under the cladding on the test vehicles.

My bet is that the details are close, but the profile is wrong.

Does anyone remember how close car and driver was when they posted their c7 render? Im trying to find the magazine cover

Very close.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.cor...341d3dbcb6.jpg

That looks about right for the base car. Higher performance models will have more flash and aero, possibly additional intakes for cooling too.

Maybe one of our resident render and photoshop experts can add some interest. Intakes on top of the rear quarters, plenty of room for additional air if needed. More pronounced side skirt and a front splitter. Maybe a good vent, although that could compromise whatever trunk space is up there.

To my eye the base C7, C6 and C5 are much more basic expressions of Corvette, maybe cleaner than the higher performing siblings. I think that is a nice starting point.

PC

Why do they think it needs to be heavier? That does not make any sense to me.

They did a couple, which were similar to the very accurate Jalopnik leak but in both cases had a few serious "misses." Their first render really missed the headlights (which were hideous) and the second one suffered from some of the rear-end chunkiness which afflicts this one.

I think the render looks great by the way. I'd imagine the real one will be more nuanced but similar.

it looks better than the camo version

It looks good overall but is kind of bland.

But it is also another sign that this will not be a high dollar supercar.

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.

They're full of shit 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.