It is difficult to keep abreast of the latest technology and materials, so what you have stated no longer is valid. I have a bunch of notes that I posted today in skanks :List of Technologies." thread. Check it out.

The C8 will be a magnesium intensive vehicle. Not if, but when the C9 FE Vette is built, it will derived from the C8. Since the C5, there has been a progression and to some extent, design legacy for subsequent Corvettes.

My first venture into CAD was in 95 with AutoCad 14. $6000. I still have it in my old computer. It had stress and strain PIPs and could calculate the weight of the components when added, call a B of M and create DWGS of tubing or sheet metal and fish mouth and bend the tubes. It had no provision for legacy or AI design. I use Solid Edge and Solid Works which to some extent has legacy in that I can import files of earlier designs. I also have the same CFD add on in each. I change the shape and instantly gives me frontal area, total drag and coefficient. Amazing.
I can do forms and smoothing. The file can be printed or milled with a matrix or hard file.
The concept design begins with a solid which becomes a tubular space frame if I want. My buddy who is doing my new frame has a cheap version of CATIA, only $30 000. Chrysler abandoned CATIA for IBM which Fiat and Ferrari use.
Around 2000, F1 cars using CATIA required 9 generations in order to advance their designs. GM just renewed their $100 million contract with Seimans and their NX system.
The C8 could not be built without this technology that has only been available in the last 5 years both in AI computers and materials science. Read magnesium..

The methods that GM will use comes from aerospace and the aircraft industry. Corvette will be light and strong and a cheap sports car, both ME and FE. It will be the standard of the world.
They will be built and manufactured side by side in the future.
The FE car is already in the system. The new FE car will share many components with the ME car and when the market demands it, the industrialization can also be produced in an instant.

The software will combine the designs , far cheaper than extending the obsolete design of the C7 of which the NX system will employ certain design features of the old cars dating back to the C5.
The magnesium engine cradle and subframes can be redesigned within minutes. This includes the castings. It will explore other systems within GM and incorporate what is deemed appropriate.
There will be a massive technology transfer from Corvette to other divisions with GM, also thanks to NX. Corvette will survive for that reason alone.

Problems with manufacturing software compatibility with outside suppliers will be a thing of in the past, all components will be manufactured in house. Remember LS7 cylinder heads? No supplier can afford Seimans stuff.
I'm having difficulties with the guy milling my body in Michigan and with my buddies fancy CATIA system because of my program.

Seimans is the leader in the two tier voltage systems also which the C8 will use.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.cor...f904fe8afb.jpg
This magnesium engine cradle/subframe casting can be reconfigured in an instant to a FE component.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.cor...ff7d0b4cbc.jpg
This front subframe B can be a rear subframe with the same DCT X axle that the ME car has. This windshield is the same as a C7. All the radiators will be the same and mounted the same hard points.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.cor...429dd35ad.jpeg
No problem converting this to a FE car.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.cor...8907bf7b9b.jpg
Solid Edge generated design.

Well, some people think they want to price it way to high to sell lots of them. Has Chevy ever done this? Seems inconsistent.....

10K sales was by a professional automotive analyst. The auto industry is very reliant on projections of demand.

No, the frame and structure of the C7 is quite different from the C5 and C6.

"So-called" professional automotive analyst. Ask 100 "industry analysts" to predict something in any industry, and you get at least 80 different predictions. Anyone can bestow themselves with that title.

Manufacturers do not rely upon them for their production decisions. They have better sources of data.

I'm with you completely, believe me. I think you have to consider the pace of this forum though, and the general ability of what the average here can pallet (before they just call someone delusional or stupid...lol.) Sometimes Tadge himself could be in here in disguise, and some member here who sells insurance will be calling him a delusional idiot. I started using Solidworks back in probably 2007 or 2008, designing turbo manifolds I then fabricated for one off forced induction systems, along with getting parts made from a machinist friend I had. I even designed an "clubhouse" for my little bro and generated him a cut list and inventory requirement, which was very helpful to me when I started working with Factory Five, who basically designed the GTM the same way, and then get the material notched/pre-cut outa China. In 2012 I distanced myself from the platform, and building cars in general, because my life exploded and my partner went to the big house...so our car manufacturer went bye bye...along with all my money.

ANYWAY...I'm with ya though. I think what I question slightly, is how swiftly a company the size of GM can truly implement new techniques into their engineering workflow, and the way the entire management/work structure breaks down. There's no question that GM will invest the money, but it's like a cruise ship...it can't turn on a dime. I agree with you though, that initial design and testing is pretty rapid, and rapid prototyping is also on the move. I think this shows in GM's desire to allow the line to become more modular and allow instantaneous engineering changes, modifications, etc.

I agree though, and you can see the flexibility in BMW's CLAR architecture that extending, widening and modifying engineered structures is built into the system. The 3, 4, 5, 7 series and I think even the SUV's are intended to all be built on the same core architecture. So, to say C8 can't be mid and front engine...I mean...of course it can.

In the end, Gm will still have to align all the practices...in terms of design, engineering, prototyping and testing. I would venture to say they are on the forefront in some ways, but probably in the dark ages in other ways, which leads to internal conflict and delay.

No, the only ones called delusional are folks who read an official GM press release that C7 production will be ending soon, and find ways to interpret that as meaning C7 production is not ending soon or that a C7.5 will be revealed with the new C8, just because no one said that wouldn't happen. If that's not delusional, I don't know what is.

Tadge re-emphasized again this morning in a talk at BGA that while they are not ready to announce an official date of C7 production end, it will be very soon." I'll come back and post a link to that video in a minute.

I think we might have an explanation for this UAW quote. Watch the video in the thread below, first few minutes are about the last C7 being produced(particularly from 4:00).

From the video:
"That car will not have been produced. We are still and will still be producing seventh generation cars for a while. We haven't determined or announcedthe last date, that will be coming soon. This auction will actually occur well before this car is produced. You are actually buying the rights to the car."

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...26-2019-a.html

It is COMPLETELY delusional. The other issue is the guys they tout as "proof." Some analyst nobody has heard of spouting ridiculous figures, or some UAW guy who doesn't even work in the BG plant. Or the ubiquitous "my sources claim" crap. How can anyone claim a positive from a negative? It's New Math for sure. I really suspect we're dealing with children here. They can't be serious.

Early theories were that the potential for the C7 to carry along the C8 were plausible, due to limited information, timing and some mixed signals. I think the real discussion we're having here is, is the C8 ME the ONLY thing we will see moving forward, as a replacement for the current C7. My position, based upon a variety of very validated and proven facts, is that it is likely we are seeing an expansion of the Corvette brand.

The facts that I believe are undeniable at this stage:

1. New GM assembly lines allow manufacturing of multiple platforms and automobiles = fact proven and documented by GM.
2. Barra has now confirmed over 400 new jobs, but prior to the announcement I have pointed out, along with others, the fact that Bowling Green granted a tax incentive to add 270 jobs minimum
3. The plant retooling was done mid cycle, not end of cycle, which is 100% different than anything in the past. Currently there are C7's being built in the plant, AND they have already built over 40 pre-production C8's. I believe the C7 is being built on the old line, and the C8 is being built on the new line, which is multi platform capable.
4. GM is betting on Corvette, and not just because they moved the engine position...733 million into Bowling Green comes with a LARGE expectation of ROI.

You have to explain these facts, because it's clear they don't expect to just replace FE with ME (technically FR for MR...but this forum likes to say ME and FE), and build the same 35k-40k units per year. To justify this investment they're aiming at MUCH more than that, so it's only going to happen with multiple platforms.

To call the dual platform crowd delusional, the burden on YOU is to prove/debate the points I've put above...explain it. Sell me on the fact that C8 is MR only...and done. Are you saying Engineering/design/marketing sold to the board that moving the engine was going to double sales? Doubtful.

Yeah, GM is definitely on the move with mass reduction. You could see them using Corvette as kind of a development platform with the carbon processes they were using on the splitters and things that were painted versus visible carbon weave. Now the new top level GM truck bed in carbon looks like it'll be a game changer.

Inevitably, under the prior admin, the future fuel mileage standards and requirements forced companies to have to push into this realm of mass reduction, which I think is a great f'n thing. Bring on the 3k lb Corvette again (wishful thinking).

thanks for the link, I like to try to keep up but...life ya know...got me on a different course these days (though trying to get back...laying some carbon as we speak that goes on Corvettes!...older ones though...lol)

That's the world we live in now. We didn't find evidence of trump colluding with Russia but We didn't find evidence of trump not colluding so it means he must have.......

Oops. Sorry about that..

Design/shape wise it's not... it's the same thing. Production and materials wise yes it's very updated. Strip a C5/6/7 and put them all next to each other and look at the frame shapes, the engine/trans positions, and the suspension pieces and they're all basically the same car.

There is alot of logic here and I notice no reply.

I think the main point that the plant expansion in terms of space and labor is key, they are going to build more than just the ME Corvette there. Otherwise the ROI on both the plant and the ME just isn't there. We've read until we are all blue in the face that the base price of the Corvette can only be so high, and at the same time that there is a max number of 2 seat sports cars that people will buy. The only way for both of those statements to be correct in light of the plant expansion is for two different vehicles to be built there.

The C8 may be ME only, but that doesn't mean they can't introduce a new FE model or some other vehicle to be built at the same plant. A FE sports car or a CUV "based" on the Corvette theme (like the Urus/Cayenne) would seem to be the most logical.

I think it's entirely possible the plant was refurbished and retooled to be able to handle more than the production of Corvettes, and to position it for long-term future production needs well into the next decade. I just don't think it's likely they are going to build more than one Corvette platform at a time, and I don't think GM has immediate plans to build another vehicle platform there.

The plant expansion and re-do was done mid-cycle because it was a very large project, and in light of rapidly declining C7 demand in mid-2017, coupled with an oversupply at that time, it was a perfect time to do a 4 month shutdown. Recall that the deepest discounts occurred during the fall of 2017 during the shutdown to move that large oversupply. I suspect we'll begin seeing similar discounts with incentives in the near future to move current C7 stock.

There are patent schematics of a new FE Caddy sports car, but that appears to be on the alpha platform. It's very handsome even just in a basic CAD/line drawing. It would make more sense to build that wherever they already build other alpha-based cars.

Clearing up for you now? lol
lol

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.cor...da84e422c7.png

The problem with a public forum, and in some ways the advantage, is that there are no rules and no one is in charge and able to set the tone. Xerox and IBM developed the green light, yellow light, red light concept of meetings that are set for targeting new ways of thinking and/or significant change.

The OP and KITT, among a few others, are quite willing to function in the world of both “green light” ... conceptualization without criticism, and “yellow light” ... questioning and commenting on such brainstorming. But too many people come in instantly at full bore yellow light with extreme predetermined criticisms and zero open minded brainstorming as is required under green light. And, a relatively small number, thankfully, come in at full bore unproductive “red light” ... no brainstorming, no questioning and clarifying, e.g. “The decision is made, shut up, you’re a moron, what’s your problem” etc etc etc.

Bowling Green was hugely expanded and some commitments have been made. Why and what is the ultimate objective? We simply don’t know.

The only thing we can be certain of is that there is a definite fairly aggressive plan to utilize such facilities, probably with two or three potential and flexible options based on the marketplace and how the C8 is received and what subsequent market surveys determine.

Please consider keeping in mind or being open to the general facts that:

- Ferrari’s best selling vehicle right now is the new FE sports car; and
- Porsche largely survived because of their SUVs and to a lesser extent the smaller sports cars; and
- Porsche and Ferrari have both tested the waters on 4 door or 4 seat sporty GT touring cars; and
- Corvette and the CAD V Cars have a natural capacity for great synergy; and

- lastly, keep in mind that such innovative products could greatly benefit GM globally as well as domestically ... MAYBE...

Problems and questions:

- Is the Corvettes survival truly strictly based on focused product utility and quality and then only at a very high volume?
- Can Cadillac & Corvette coexist in a GM performance oriented segment without breaking those units off from their parents?
- Is Fords new domestic car and SUV game plan a short term deviation or the new industry norm that must be dealt with?

There are many other possibilities and questions. We can only be certain that, unlike some on this forum, the planners and leaders at GM are not shutting the door on any options at this stage. They have certainly not permanently shut the door on FE cars or any other performance oriented products. Within 12 months I think we'll have a better picture where Corvette, Cadillac, and the Bowling Green facility are headed.