Nissan GT-R V-Spec

[Panama Jack]

How profitable the company as a whole is is not an indicator of how profitable these 2 individual cars are.

The corvette is produced at 6 or 7 times the annual unit volume of the GT-R, that's hard to make up.

Only becase the GTR has not been sold in US. With time that will change.

U.S. has the biggest car market in the world I believe.

My point was that Nissans manufacturing process is a lot more efficient.

As 565 pointed out only one U.S. plant manufactures corvetes, where as the GTR can be made along side other vehicles.

Think about the exchange rate also. IF the dollar was where it was 5 years ago you think GTR would sell for its proposed price? It would sell for even less.

I think the GTR is more profitable than what most of you guys think.

[Lebowski]

Only becase the GTR has not been sold in US. With time that will change.

U.S. has the biggest car market in the world I believe.

My point was that Nissans manufacturing process is a lot more efficient.

As 565 pointed out only one U.S. plant manufactures corvetes, where as the GTR can be made along side other vehicles.

Think about the exchange rate also. IF the dollar was where it was 5 years ago you think GTR would sell for its proposed price? It would sell for even less.

I think the GTR is more profitable than what most of you guys think.

I thought I read here that Nissan's own target is 5,000 global units.  That includes the US.  That is a tiny volume number, the corvette sells something like 30,000 global units.

That's a lot of R&D dollars to be allocated among a small unit volume.  The C6 on the other hand isn't all that different from a C5, so allocating the R&D across 30k units/yr since 1998 is a much lower per unit cost.  Of course R&D is just one cost, but still all that effort to just sell 5k units a year!  I hope they plan to increase that.

[MX793]

I thought I read here that Nissan's own target is 5,000 global units.  That includes the US.  That is a tiny volume number, the corvette sells something like 30,000 global units.

That's a lot of R&D dollars to be allocated among a small unit volume.  The C6 on the other hand isn't all that different from a C5, so allocating the R&D across 30k units/yr since 1998 is a much lower per unit cost.  Of course R&D is just one cost, but still all that effort to just sell 5k units a year!  I hope they plan to increase that.

I'd say it's all the more impressive if Nissan can sell such a car at the price they're selling it at and, supposedly, be making a profit on the car.

[Raza]

When you can produce as much power from a pushrod as you can an OHC engine and get as good or better fuel mileage, what is so wrong about that?  The leaf spring is a single transverse spring that acts more as an anti-roll bar then anything if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not saying it's bad.  I'm just saying it's simple and/or old school compare to the GT-R

It's more of a fibreglass plastic hybrid.  It's not true fibreglass.  Fibreglass on it's own is very heavy.

Oh well, you learn something everyday.

I agree.  I'm not a big fan of Corvettes, but I admire them for their straightforward and simple engineering.  I don't like computers doing my driving for me, which is why I like cars like the Viper, Corvette, Mustang, etc.

A lot of car companies are guilty of over-computerizing.  The GT-R just seems the most egregious offender as of late.

[sportyaccordy]

I guess Nissan and GM manage to save money in different areas.  The Nissan GT-R is built along side Infiniti G35s, G37s, 350z's, and many others at Nissan's Tochigi Assembly Plant.  And though the Premium midship platform and VR38 power-plant are all new, they still share benefit from the large scale production streamlining at that plant.

By comparison GM's Corvette is built in Bowling Green, and shares that plant only with the super low volume XLR and XLR-V.  The Corvette only shares it's platform with the XLR and they are one of the very few all Sheet molding compound bodied cars that GM has left.  The previously mentioned composite transverse leaf springs are also a Corvette and XLR unique element.

Perhaps I'm dense, but if the factories are already built, really the only indicators of production cost on these babies are the manhour rates behind the labor on them, and the number of manhours needed to build them. I just don't see the Vette costing anywhere near what the GT-R costs to make. Engineering-wise, material-wise, marketing-wise... no way. The C6 was evolutionary, the GT-R was basically brand new from the ground up...

[FlatBlackCaddy]

Isn't the GT-R hand assembled(or maybe that was just the motor?).

[Soup DeVille]

Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about engineering, but aren't things like a pushrod V8 and leaf springs fairly simple and old school?  And as for cheap to make, take into account fiberglass instead of carbon fiber, and cheap plastics on the interior (I don't know about the GT-R's though). 

The GT-R has more computing power than most governments.  The Corvette seems simple, straightforward and endearingly old school (and all the better for it, in my opinion).

Just because it has pushrods doesn't mean it's simple. It's one of the most refined pushrod engines ever built- sodium filled exhaust valves, titanium retainers, siamesed cylinder walls. There's a lot of technology in use in that motor that gets very little press, and it gets the damned job done, doesn't it?

There's also no real difference in "technology" between a coil spring and a leaf spring- neither of them are anything more than a material that's meant to be bent. The Corvette does have the optional magnetic fluid shocks that are so backwards that Ferrari uses them, but that's another story.

There was a lot of carbon fiber used in the older Z06. I don't know how much is in use in the new Vettes, but the material they do use is not the same stuff you'd find in a sparkly bass boat. It's something better, lighter, stronger, and all that jazz. GM calls it "fiber reinforced plastic," butit's true construction is proprietary.

I guess my point is that just because something uses familiar technologies does not make it inferior to the new-fangled gadgetto-tron.

[Raza]

Just because it has pushrods doesn't mean it's simple. It's one of the most refined pushrod engines ever built- sodium filled exhaust valves, titanium retainers, siamesed cylinder walls. There's a lot of technology in use in that motor that gets very little press, and it gets the damned job done, doesn't it?

There's also no real difference in "technology" between a coil spring and a leaf spring- neither of them are anything more than a material that's meant to be bent. The Corvette does have the optional magnetic fluid shocks that are so backwards that Ferrari uses them, but that's another story.

There was a lot of carbon fiber used in the older Z06. I don't know how much is in use in the new Vettes, but the material they do use is not the same stuff you'd find in a sparkly bass boat. It's something better, lighter, stronger, and all that jazz. GM calls it "fiber reinforced plastic," butit's true construction is proprietary.

I guess my point is that just because something uses familiar technologies does not make it inferior to the new-fangled gadgetto-tron.

I said I liked it better.

[Soup DeVille]

I said I liked it better.

I know. Just trying to get across what I meant too.

[GoCougs]

If they had on balance and advantage, they'd be used all over the place. Leaf springs on a Corvette exist because it's a legacy holdover.

The criticism of the Corvette's ride and handling no doubt stem from the fact that it serves double duty as spring as well as sway bar.

[S204STi]

If they had on balance an advantage, they'd be used all over the place. Leaf springs on a Corvette exist because it's a legacy holdover.

The criticism of the Corvette's ride and handling no doubt stem from the fact that it serves double duty as spring as well as sway bar.

I think you're absolutely right, and here's why:

" Disadvantages

-Packaging can be problematic; the leaf must span from one side of the car to the other. This can limit applications where the drivetrain, or another part, is in the way.

-Materials expense. Steel coils are commodity items; a single composite leaf spring costs more than two of them.

-Design complexity. Composite monoleafs allow for considerable variety in shape, thickness, and materials. They are inherently more expensive to design, particularly in performance applications.
-Cost of modification. Due to the specialized design and packaging, changing spring rates would require a custom unit. Coil springs in various sizes and rates are available very inexpensively.

-Susceptibility to damage. Engine fluids and exhaust modifications like cat-back removal might weaken or destroy composite springs over time. The leaf spring is more susceptible to heat related damage than conventional steel springs.

-Perception. Like pushrod engines, the leaf spring has a stigma that overshadows its advantages. "

From same link.

My main point on the last page is that most people display their ignorance a bit when they rag on the Vette for it's suspension design, when there are plenty of good reasons to use it.  That said, like you pointed out, there are also certain disadvantages.

[Panama Jack]

I'd say it's all the more impressive if Nissan can sell such a car at the price they're selling it at and, supposedly, be making a profit on the car.

You summed it up much better than I did. 

[565]

The criticism of the Corvette's ride and handling no doubt stem from the fact that it serves double duty as spring as well as sway bar.

No it doesn't.  As I explained many times repeatedly, your reasoning makes no sense on any level whatsoever.

As I explained before, if they didn't want to have the anti-roll effect, they simply had to use the older fixed mounts from the C4 rear suspension or the C3 rear suspension, rather than the new fancy swiveling mounts.  Then the leaf spring would function exactly as a a coil spring, and they'd actually save money.

Obviously GM decided to take as much load off the anti-roll bar as possible.  It's not like they managed to save money on not including the anti-roll bar, because it still has one, but set at a less aggressive spring rate.

Any criticism about the Corvette's ride and handling is a result of GM rushing the Corvettes to market without as much track testing and tuning as needed.  The GT-R has been spied on the Ring since 2001.  That's 7 years of Ring testing.  The C6 Z06 spent two weeks at the Ring just months before it's release.  The ZR-1 is slated to be released late this year and just started to appear on the Ring now.  The 2001 Z06 was rushed to market before development was even completed to make sure the SVT Cobra R couldn't claim the title of being faster than the Corvette.  The 2002 Z06 was basically tuned and set up in one 24hr track blitz around Gratten raceway, a rather smooth circuit (my owner's video included that in the introduction).  And the C5 Z06 continued to receive changes and upgrades to the tuning of the rear shocks.  The C6 Z06 is the same way.  The 2007 Z06 also had revised shock tuning 

The problem with Corvette is not the quality of the components.  It's got great pieces.  Corvettes are exactly the sum of it's components, but not any more.  It's the fact that American Engineers (and I dare say American culture in general) are the type of people to get it close enough and then just call it a day.  The Japanese are the type to slave away and get every tiny detail just right.  Even on these supposed amazing new domestics like the new CTS and Malibu suffer from the same mistakes.  Sitting in these cars you can see where the American Engineers just half assed it because they couldn't be bothered to sweat the fine details.  The same thing happens with the suspension of the Corvette.  They picked the best layout possible (double wishbone rather than the economy car struts found in Porsches and BMW's), they spared no expense and developed a great transverse spring system, and they then couldn't be bothered to spend more than a few days actually fine tuning the thing. 

The one thing that using a transverse leaf spring capable of providing roll resistance actually changes from a coil spring is something that Corvettes do amazingly well.  That is to provide a huge amount of roll resistance while maintaining a soft ride.  The ride in my Z06 is softer than the 350Z I drove and countless other cars.  I'm not alone as Road and Track echoed that the C5 Z06 had a more forgiving ride than the E46 M3, 350Z, or 911 Targa, while having the most balanced track performance.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

I thought I read here that Nissan's own target is 5,000 global units.  That includes the US.  That is a tiny volume number, the corvette sells something like 30,000 global units.

That's a lot of R&D dollars to be allocated among a small unit volume.  The C6 on the other hand isn't all that different from a C5, so allocating the R&D across 30k units/yr since 1998 is a much lower per unit cost.  Of course R&D is just one cost, but still all that effort to just sell 5k units a year!  I hope they plan to increase that.

I just skimmed my new issue of car and driver, it said that nissan will be making 12,000 units annually. I don't know how many will make it to the U.S but i'm guessing that we may(in the U.S) get as many as 5000.

[GoCougs]

No it doesn't.  As I explained many times repeatedly, your reasoning makes no sense on any level whatsoever.

Perhaps it makes no sense on any level too you, but to me it makes perfect sense. The mediocre stress analyst in my says a dynamic member taking stresses from multiple inputs will result in less-than-linear responses.

As I explained before, if they didn't want to have the anti-roll effect, they simply had to use the older fixed mounts from the C4 rear suspension or the C3 rear suspension, rather than the new fancy swiveling mounts.  Then the leaf spring would function exactly as a a coil spring, and they'd actually save money.

Obviously GM decided to take as much load off the anti-roll bar as possible.  It's not like they managed to save money on not including the anti-roll bar, because it still has one, but set at a less aggressive spring rate.

I have no doubt that they intended (or rather expected) the anti-roll effect.

Any criticism about the Corvette's ride and handling is a result of GM rushing the Corvettes to market without as much track testing and tuning as needed...

You (and others) assert the "more expensive" characteristic (which I do not accept) of the transverse leaf spring suspension a corollary to parity if not superiority to a coil spring suspension. And then you assert that the handling/ride criticism as GM rushing the tuning process? Sorry, I do not accept that logic (reasoning implicitly addressed below).

The problem with Corvette is not the quality of the components.  It's got great pieces.  Corvettes are exactly the sum of it's components, but not any more.  It's the fact that American Engineers (and I dare say American culture in general) are the type of people to get it close enough and then just call it a day.  The Japanese are the type to slave away and get every tiny detail just right.  Even on these supposed amazing new domestics like the new CTS and Malibu suffer from the same mistakes.  Sitting in these cars you can see where the American Engineers just half assed it because they couldn't be bothered to sweat the fine details.  The same thing happens with the suspension of the Corvette.  They picked the best layout possible (double wishbone rather than the economy car struts found in Porsches and BMW's), they spared no expense and developed a great transverse spring system, and they then couldn't be bothered to spend more than a few days actually fine tuning the thing. 

The "problem" (as in, there is no problem) with the Corvette is that it is an extreme compromise vehicle. If you want to bring to market 90%+ the performance of six-figure exotic for the price of well-equipped F-150, you're going to make compromises.

As to "lazy" American engineers - this is ridiculous. Having been on more than few engineering teams seeing a product go from idea, to white board, to prototypes, to production, your "call it a day" assertion is jaw-dropping; I'm surprised you even went there. 

The vast majority of the American auto industry's issues are not engineering, but constraints put onto the engineering teams from afar - from schedule (not enough time to test/refine), to budget (not enough money to do it right) to Big Labor (poor designs as reflected by accommodating outdated/inferior manufacturing methods the unions imposed upon automakers).

The one thing that using a transverse leaf spring capable of providing roll resistance actually changes from a coil spring is something that Corvettes do amazingly well.  That is to provide a huge amount of roll resistance while maintaining a soft ride.  The ride in my Z06 is softer than the 350Z I drove and countless other cars.  I'm not alone as Road and Track echoed that the C5 Z06 had a more forgiving ride than the E46 M3, 350Z, or 911 Targa, while having the most balanced track performance.

Maybe - but at the end of the day, if the Corvette was all-new for '05, it never, EVER would've had transverse leaf springs, and in general terms if the advantages were truly there, you'd see them all over the place save for cheapo European run-abouts and other cheapo applications (golf carts).

Transverse leaf springs are used in the Corvette because they're a legacy hold-over dating back to 1962. I can't imagine that I'd ever be swayed from thinking otherwise.

[565]

Transverse leaf springs are used in the Corvette because they're a legacy hold-over dating back to 1962. I can't imagine that I'd ever be swayed from thinking otherwise.

How could it be a legacy if it's new and its predecessor didn't have it?

No, the composite leaf springs capable of transfering roll resistance (which is what you are complaining about)on the Corvette are a relatively new design.  The all around tranverse swivel mounts debuted on the C5 and the front spring debuted on the C4.  How could it be a legacy from a 1962 design when the car in 1962 didn't even have it?

Alot of GM cars had leaf springs in the 60's and 70's, everything from your basic Malibu to your Cadilliacs have changed to coils. Why would GM keep it for their premier sports car?

I'm sorry but you are being unreasonably stubborn on this topic, you've been shown the true drawbacks of the transverse leaf spring (costs and packaging), but you stubbornly maintain that somehow it negatively effects handling.  You've given no reason on your unreasonable suspicions on the roll resistance expect vague words on multiple stresses and reasonanced but you can't produce any tests or proof related to the C5.  And guess what, no well informed educated source has anything negative to say about the Corvette's spring design short of uninformed people thinking "leaf springs must be bad!!!" And your constant claim that it's just "legacy" is completely moot because the older Corvettes did not have anti-roll resistance leaf springs, it can only be a legacy if time ran backwards.

As for American engineers being "lazy," I merely stated facts on development times, development arenas, and the final results. Track development times are shorter, the track list is more meager, and the final result less satisfying.  No one can dispute how long (or short in this case) or where GM tested their C5 and C6 (when they so obviously proclaim it).  No one can dispute that the 2001 Z06 was rushed to market with it's long list of problems and numerous upgrades the following year. 

[MX793]

If the leaf spring in the Vette is so great, why do the C5R and C6R use a traditional coil-over setup?

[GoCougs]

Me, stubborn? No ways.

[565]

If the leaf spring in the Vette is so great, why do the C5R and C6R use a traditional coil-over setup?

This has been discussed before many times.  Basically it's mostly the disadvantages part which would be alot more significant in a race car than a road car.

-Design complexity. Composite monoleafs allow for considerable variety in shape, thickness, and materials. They are inherently more expensive to design, particularly in performance applications.

*Racing teams need a large assortment of coil springs of different rates for different tracks and conditions that are readily available.  Having to design and fabricate a new composite monoleaf for each one is ridiculous.  There are like just a handful of C5R's and C6R's, having to develop a large set of different leaves for just a handful of cars is not realistic. Spring winding equipment is cheap, and racing coil springs are standard issue.

-Cost of modification. Due to the specialized design and packaging, changing spring rates would require a custom unit. Coil springs in various sizes and rates are available very inexpensively.

*Changing spring rates would require a custom unit.  Basically a no no for racing there.

-Susceptibility to damage. Engine fluids and exhaust modifications like cat-back removal might weaken or destroy composite springs over time. The leaf spring is more susceptible to heat related damage than conventional steel springs. "

*Heat, racing?  Yeah pretty much explains itself.

Basically to answer the question of why C5R's and C6R's use coil springs, we can just ask the reverse question.  Could a racing team realistically use composite leaf springs?  They'd have to custom develop and fabricate each one, for just a few cars, vs just buying readily made racing coils or winding their own.  They'd have to worry about heat damage since these race cars are all running extremely hot.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/technical-forums/13582-corvette-leaf-springs-3.html

"I speculate the reason the Corvette racing car uses the coils is due to ready parts availability. A racing coil spring is not vehicle specific. You specify diameter, rate, etc and you get a spring. Additionally, spring winding equipment is very flexible. So if say Hyperco doesn't have the exact spring you want they can make it relatively inexpensively and quickly.

However, the fiberglass leaf spring is application specific. As such it would be a custom fab job to make just a few springs for the car. This isn't a big deal for the production Corvette. What's 200 prototype springs when GM will make well over 100,000 of the production springs. In racing we might be talking about wanting say 10 sets of 10 different rates. Given that most racing dampers short of those used in F1 are designed for coil over applications, why not use what is readily available? In this case I really think it's a case of what works easily for the application vs what works in volume."


So why does C5R and C6R's not use leaf springs?  Because it's basically impossible to do so. 

[Soup DeVille]

If the leaf spring in the Vette is so great, why do the C5R and C6R use a traditional coil-over setup?

The spring rates in racing use are many times what a street car uses: I'd wager that the Cirvette's stock rear spring rate is something like 150 lb/in, while a race car's setup could easily top 900 lb/in

[GoCougs]

Meh - I find it hard to buy into the manufacturing angle. If there was an advantage, and the rules let them use it, they'd easily find a way to get them made.

IMO, they get booted from the race car for two reasons:

1.) Geometric limitations imposed on suspension geometry;

2.) The dynamic issues of the transverse leaf application (three independent functions) are too difficult to mediate in a road racing environment.

[565]

Meh - I find it hard to buy into the manufacturing angle. If there was an advantage, and the rules let them use it, they'd easily find a way to get them made.

IMO, they get booted from the race car for two reasons:

1.) Geometric limitations imposed on suspension geometry;

2.) The dynamic issues of the transverse leaf application (three independent functions) are too difficult to mediate in a road racing environment.

If Pratt and Miller found some handling benefit in the coils springs, surely they would have included coils in the road going version of their C6R.

When Pratt and Miller built their dream road going C6RS without having to follow any of the ACO Lemans rules they changed almost every aspect of the car.  They beefed up the chassis and suspension, made the body entirely out of carbon fiber like their race cars, and installed a custom 8.2 liter NA engine.

http://blogs.corvettefever.com/6229852/corvette-news/pratt-miller-introduces-c6rs-supercar/index.html

They had the liberty to change everything on the car, and they certainly did. They spared no expense in crafting an all carbon fiber body, a custom 8.2 liter engine, custom powertrain, custom adjustible suspension. But guess what they didn't carry from the racing C6R's?  Yep that's right, this ultimate Vette, the one designed by the same racing company that put coil springs in the racing version, still uses the same composite leaf springs.

The single aspect unchanged from the original Z06 would have been the easiest and cheapest thing for Pratt and Miller to change.  Yet they kept the composite leaf springs.  They found reason to change every other aspect of the car, but even with their immense leman's experience with their coil sprung racers, they kept the road going version on transverse leafs.

[MX793]

The spring rates in racing use are many times what a street car uses: I'd wager that the Cirvette's stock rear spring rate is something like 150 lb/in, while a race car's setup could easily top 900 lb/in

Getting 900 lbs/in out of a leaf spring would not be a problem.

[Soup DeVille]

Getting 900 lbs/in out of a leaf spring would not be a problem.

But it might be a bit larger than they'd want to sling underneath a race car.

[S204STi]

Getting 900 lbs/in out of a leaf spring would not be a problem.

Fabricating one would be.  Much easier to find coil springs than custom transverse leaf springs.  I have a feeling a lot of the reason the C6R uses coilovers is because they are more adjustable and tunable on the fly.

[GoCougs]

If Pratt and Miller found some handling benefit in the coils springs, surely they would have included coils in the road going version of their C6R.

When Pratt and Miller built their dream road going C6RS without having to follow any of the ACO Lemans rules they changed almost every aspect of the car.  They beefed up the chassis and suspension, made the body entirely out of carbon fiber like their race cars, and installed a custom 8.2 liter NA engine.

http://blogs.corvettefever.com/6229852/corvette-news/pratt-miller-introduces-c6rs-supercar/index.html

They had the liberty to change everything on the car, and they certainly did. They spared no expense in crafting an all carbon fiber body, a custom 8.2 liter engine, custom powertrain, custom adjustible suspension. But guess what they didn't carry from the racing C6R's?  Yep that's right, this ultimate Vette, the one designed by the same racing company that put coil springs in the racing version, still uses the same composite leaf springs.

The single aspect unchanged from the original Z06 would have been the easiest and cheapest thing for Pratt and Miller to change.  Yet they kept the composite leaf springs.  They found reason to change every other aspect of the car, but even with their immense leman's experience with their coil sprung racers, they kept the road going version on transverse leafs.

Say what you will, but the development budget for this car is but a fraction of that of the race version.

When you change critical aspects of performance of such a high achiever as the Z06 (power, aerodynamics, unsprung and vehicle weight) not touching the stock production suspension springs would be all but negligent.

Sure enough, the spec sheet informs us of a "combined air spring and composite leaf spring" suspension.

In short, this "ultimate" Vette effectively has proxy coils.

[565]

Say what you will, but the development budget for this car is but a fraction of that of the race version.

When you change critical aspects of performance of such a high achiever as the Z06 (power, aerodynamics, unsprung and vehicle weight) not touching the stock production suspension springs would be all but negligent.

Sure enough, the spec sheet informs us of a "combined air spring and composite leaf spring" suspension.

In short, this "ultimate" Vette effectively has proxy coils.

But the leaf spring remains, that's the point.  You are so hell bent on the existence of leaf springs giving some kind of handling defect with roll resistance, surely Pratt and Miller would have removed the leaf springs if this defect existed.  They fitted air springs already anyway,  it would have been trivial for them let a stiffer set of springs take all the load and remove the leafs if they caused any handling defect.  But they purposely left the leaf springs.

[Lebowski]

But the leaf spring remains, that's the point.  You are so hell bent on the existence of leaf springs giving some kind of handling defect with roll resistance, surely Pratt and Miller would have removed the leaf springs if this defect existed.  They fitted air springs already anyway,  it would have been trivial for them let a stiffer set of springs take all the load and remove the leafs if they caused any handling defect.  But they purposely left the leaf springs.

You realize you're arguing with a man who thinks Beowolf the movie is "deep", right?

[565]

You realize you're arguing with a man who thinks Beowolf the movie is "deep", right?

I guess us Vette guys just have to admit that some people won't give composite leaf springs a chance.

[Lebowski]

The "problem" (as in, there is no problem) with the Corvette is that it is an extreme compromise vehicle. If you want to bring to market 90%+ the performance of six-figure exotic for the price of well-equipped F-150, you're going to make compromises.

You keep trying to argue that the Corvette is the ultimate compromise vehicle, and that simply isn't the case.

I don't think anyone who buys one expects it to have the interior quality or the handling of a $100k+ exotic.  Anyone who does is an idiot.

I don't see how a car that, as you say it, has 90%+ the performance of a six figure exotic, yet still holds 2 sets of golf clubs in the boot, gets 25+ mpg on the highway, is many many many times cheaper to maintain and service than a $100k exotic, is many times more reliable than a $100k exotic, and can be serviced by any local chevy dealership, all for the price of a loaded F-150, is a compromise.  In fact, I'd say it's the ultimate anti-compromise sports car.

The only areas where it really lacks is quality of certain components, like interior pieces and paint.  But personally, I can hardly think of ANY domestic car, at any price, that has very good quality interior components or good quality paint, so it's not like the corvette is some one-off example that has to give up those things in order to get 90%+ exotic performance for the price.