Get your V8 'Vette while you still can!
Chevrolet considering twin-turbo V6 for next Corvette
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/03/stingray-concept.jpg)
Fans of classic Americana, here's yet another anniversary to keep in the back of your mind: 2013 marks the 60th anniversary of the Chevrolet Corvette. And, while we don't have to tell true Corvette aficionados this, here's another interesting little nugget of knowledge: the original version of Chevy's iconic sportscar came equipped with a six cylinder engine.
Where are we going with all of this? According to Autoweek, there is a distinct possibility that a downsized six cylinder engine will be offered in the next generation (C7, for those keeping track) of the Chevrolet Corvette, and there's an apparent push to try and get the car out the door in time to celebrate the car's 60th anniversary.
Yes, we know a downsized engine for the Corvette isn't exactly the newest rumor 'round the block ? we've been hearing whisperings about the C7 'Vette since before the C6 model went public ? but with the recent revelation that Saab had been working on a transmission for a twin-turbo V6-powered Corvette, it's worth sharing once again.
Link: http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/09/report-chevrolet-considering-twin-turbo-v6-for-next-corvette/
Good God no. Maybe a small displacement twin turbo V8, but definitely not this.
Everything I've read says Chevy has a new generation of small block V8 in the works that will debut in the C7 Corvette.
Quote from: MX793 on August 10, 2010, 03:30:31 PM
Everything I've read says Chevy has a new generation of small block V8 in the works that will debut in the C7 Corvette.
They do, and they want to make the Corvette lighter but with similar power out of a smaller V8.
They should weld a couple turbo Ecotecs for a 4.0L TT V8 with 500+ HP.
Quote from: MX793 on August 10, 2010, 03:30:31 PM
Everything I've read says Chevy has a new generation of small block V8 in the works that will debut in the C7 Corvette.
:hesaid:
Quote from: MX793 on August 10, 2010, 03:30:31 PM
Everything I've read says Chevy has a new generation of small block V8 in the works that will debut in the C7 Corvette.
Maybe the twin-turbo V6 will be an option?
It's going to have a 5.5L V8
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 10, 2010, 03:39:37 PM
Maybe the twin-turbo V6 will be an option?
No V6s in a Corvette. Thats like the FWD Mustang Ford tried to build in the 80s. No matter how bad things get, there are some moves that are just unforgivable.
This is garbage rumours. There is a 5.5L V8 coming out for the next Vette.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 10, 2010, 04:39:48 PM
No V6s in a Corvette. Thats like the FWD Mustang Ford tried to build in the 80s. No matter how bad things get, there are some moves that are just unforgivable.
You mean these "Pinto Mustangs"? :tounge:
(http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/attachments/mustang-ii-talk/39454d1202415709-1976-mustang-cobra-ii-76cobra2.jpg)
a) They should go back to their rotary engine project for the vett
b) the Ford Probe was a damn good car damn it
Quote from: r0tor on August 10, 2010, 05:14:49 PM
a) They should go back to their rotary engine project for the vett
b) the Ford Probe was a damn good car damn it
a) God no. I want Mazda to be the only one doing that.
b) The first Probe was a rolling POS. The MX-6 was much better. The 2nd Probe was much better car.
No where did GM say the engine is going to be 5.5l. Those rumors only exist because of ALMS and the GT2 rulebook. It could be bigger and it could be smaller. We won't know until specs are released by GM.
I like that rendering.
TT V6 would be excellent.
I want it to be true mid engined, 2+2, TT V6, AWD. That is my dream vette. It will do everything my current Vette cannot, which is have all weather capability, be more balanced in corners, carry extra passengers in a pinch, and have silent effortless acceleration.
My dream car.
Quote from: 565 on August 10, 2010, 07:42:38 PM
TT V6 would be excellent.
I want it to be true mid engined, 2+2, TT V6, AWD. That is my dream vette. It will do everything my current Vette cannot, which is have all weather capability, be more balanced in corners, carry extra passengers in a pinch, and have silent effortless acceleration.
My dream car.
So basically you want something that's not a Vette?
Quote from: 565 on August 10, 2010, 07:42:38 PM
TT V6 would be excellent.
I want it to be true mid engined, 2+2, TT V6, AWD. That is my dream vette. It will do everything my current Vette cannot, which is have all weather capability, be more balanced in corners, carry extra passengers in a pinch, and have silent effortless acceleration.
My dream car.
Toss in a pickup bed for carrying bicycles or dirt bikes and may be a 6000 lbs tow rating so you can take a couple of jet skis to the lake on the weekends, and now you're talking.
Quote from: thecarnut on August 10, 2010, 07:43:40 PM
So basically you want something that's not a Vette?
It will be better.
Quote from: 565 on August 10, 2010, 07:42:38 PM
TT V6 would be excellent.
I want it to be true mid engined, 2+2, TT V6, AWD. That is my dream vette. It will do everything my current Vette cannot, which is have all weather capability, be more balanced in corners, carry extra passengers in a pinch, and have silent effortless acceleration.
My dream car.
Now I see why Raza clowned me about my hardtop 2+2 Miata (no offense)
Some cars are just defined by their attributes... the Corvette is one of them. What you are describing sounds like an MR GT-R, or an old Renault rally prototype
Quote from: 565 on August 10, 2010, 07:42:38 PM
TT V6 would be excellent.
I want it to be true mid engined, 2+2, TT V6, AWD. That is my dream vette. It will do everything my current Vette cannot, which is have all weather capability, be more balanced in corners, carry extra passengers in a pinch, and have silent effortless acceleration.
My dream car.
So you want a Lotus Evora with AWD and some turbos.
Quote from: 565 on August 10, 2010, 07:42:38 PM
TT V6 would be excellent.
I want it to be true mid engined, 2+2, TT V6, AWD. That is my dream vette. It will do everything my current Vette cannot, which is have all weather capability, be more balanced in corners, carry extra passengers in a pinch, and have silent effortless acceleration.
My dream car.
I'll take yours since you hate it so much.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on August 10, 2010, 03:27:00 PM
Get your V8 'Vette while you still can!
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/03/stingray-concept.jpg)
Looks like something Batman would drive.
(http://www.carstyling.ru/resources/concept/large/1990_Corvette_CERV-III_Concept_02.jpg)
Mid engined, AWD.
If Corvette chief engineers like Zora Arkus-Duntov had their way instead of the bean counters at GM, Corvette would be mid engined long ago, and probably AWD by now.
2+2 seating and twin turbo V6 is just icing on the cake.
GM has already kicked the mid engined and V6 rumors in the sack.
Why do so many people want the Corvette to be something it's not? Just ask for another Fiero instead.
Quote from: 68_427 on August 11, 2010, 09:25:18 PM
GM has already kicked the mid engined and V6 rumors in the sack.
Due to bean counters no doubt.
Is anything mid engine and 2+2?
Evora
Quote from: 565 on August 11, 2010, 09:24:09 PM
(http://www.carstyling.ru/resources/concept/large/1990_Corvette_CERV-III_Concept_02.jpg)
Mid engined, AWD.
If Corvette chief engineers like Zora Arkus-Duntov had their way instead of the bean counters at GM, Corvette would be mid engined long ago, and probably AWD by now.
2+2 seating and twin turbo V6 is just icing on the cake.
Beat me to it.. The CERV III was pretty cool looking...
Quote from: VTEC_Inside on August 12, 2010, 12:51:10 PM
Beat me to it.. The CERV III was pretty cool looking...
....for 1990.
dude the CERV III still looks awesome...I remember that car in Test Drive III, and I thought it was actually going to be the next Corvette :frown:
While we're busy making the Corvette mid-engined, let's make the 911 front-engined!
Quote from: 565 on August 11, 2010, 09:31:50 PM
Due to bean counters no doubt.
The bean counters are actually an integral component of the Corvette legacy.
The Vette has always been touted as the Everyman's sports car--a personal slice of the American Dream for anyone industrious enough to work for it.
Now granted, this has been somewhat of a minor illusion. A new Vette is beyond the means of your average, red-blooded male.
But at the end of the day, it comes closer than anything else, and this relative affordability is a big part of what makes the Corvette so loved by all of us.
If GM could give us a mid-engined, AWD, twin-turbo'ed Vette, AND keep it affordable, I would be all for it. But you know as well as I do that they cannot. Therefore your idea sucks big fat donkey balls.
This is a case where the bean counters got it 110% correct. The Corvette would not exist today had the CERV III ever saw production.
Quote from: Tave on August 12, 2010, 04:09:50 PM
The bean counters are actually an integral component of the Corvette legacy.
The Vette has always been touted as the Everyman's sports car--a personal slice of the American Dream for anyone industrious enough to work for it.
Now granted, this has been somewhat of a minor illusion. A new Vette is beyond the means of your average, red-blooded male.
But at the end of the day, it comes closer than anything else, and this relative affordability is a big part of what makes the Corvette so loved by all of us.
If GM could give us a mid-engined, AWD, twin-turbo'ed Vette, AND keep it affordable, I would be all for it. But you know as well as I do that they cannot. Therefore your idea sucks big fat donkey balls.
This is a case where the bean counters got it 110% correct. The Corvette would not exist today had the CERV III ever saw production.
Someone understands.
If it ever became a mid engine V6 it would be a Corvette in name only and would die a quick death.
Quote from: Tave on August 12, 2010, 04:09:50 PM
The bean counters are actually an integral component of the Corvette legacy.
The Vette has always been touted as the Everyman's sports car--a personal slice of the American Dream for anyone industrious enough to work for it.
Now granted, this has been somewhat of a minor illusion. A new Vette is beyond the means of your average, red-blooded male.
But at the end of the day, it comes closer than anything else, and this relative affordability is a big part of what makes the Corvette so loved by all of us.
If GM could give us a mid-engined, AWD, twin-turbo'ed Vette, AND keep it affordable, I would be all for it. But you know as well as I do that they cannot. Therefore your idea sucks big fat donkey balls.
This is a case where the bean counters got it 110% correct. The Corvette would not exist today had the CERV III ever saw production.
Twin Turbos and AWD aren't some magical expensive combo. GM could save money by sharing both with existing cars instead of reserving LSX engines for Corvettes and occasional Cadilliacs. Also considering the Corvette already rides on a dedicated chassis, there isn't much more cost making it mid engined. The mid engined MR2 didn't cost all that much more than the front engined Miata. Nor does the current mid engined Boxster cost much more than the front engined Z4. The problem with mid engined chassis is that it cannot be shared with a front engined one, but as nothing shares the Corvette chassis anyway (XLR failed), there is no huge cost saving.
The thing that made Corvette's sell was not only affordability. Alot of cars are affordable, an Aveo is affordable. The thing that made recent Corvettes sell, the thing that made me buy a Corvette, was the fact that absolutely NOTHING could get close to its level of performance for the price. It is not just affordability, but undeniable VALUE. There was no doubt that performance value was untouchable when the C5 Z06 was released.
I honestly don't know if I can say the same today. Making the same decision today that I made those years ago, the Corvette no longer looks like the bargain it once was. I can honestly say I probably wouldn't buy a Corvette over the competition now.
The current base 430hp Corvette costs around 50K, runs about 115 in the 1/4 mile. However for about that same 50K, I could get myself a 414hp M3, comfortably seats 4, runs similar 114s in the 1/4 mile, with a more modern chassis, and BMW refinement. It'll do nearly everything the C6 does, and still be a sedan. By comparison in 2002, the 405hp C5 Z06 was 50K and ran 116mph 1/4 miles, and the 333hp E46 M3 was also 50K and ran 104mph traps. The competition has been bounding forward, and Corvette has been stuck running in place. Sure the current C6 is now as fast as the old Z06, but it costs just as much.
Or say I wanted a drop top Corvette, running around 55k. But now for about the same coin I could get a Boxster S. In 2002, the Boxster S was a wimpy little thing. Now it is a machine that manages to trap around 110mph in the 1/4 mile, and has sublime handling, and that Porsche badge counts for something. Honestly I'd have a hard time justifying a C6 vette purchase over a boxster S now.
Or say I wanted the track ready C6 Z06 for 75K. The C5 Z06 once ruled autocross and track days when it was released. Now I'd have a seriously sour taste in my mouth when the similarly priced 80K Nissan GT-R trouces all over a new C6 Z06 on the race track, all while being a 2+2, and having all weather abilities.
Corvette isn't the same value it once was. That's why GM needs to make a big move with the next Corvette to say ahead of the competition.
For me to buy another Corvette, it needs to blow the competition away for less money, like it once did.
I'm fine with a mid-engined car, but it won't be a Corvette. Just like the new Charger shouldn't be called a Charger since it has 4 doors. And like a mid-engined 911 would no longer be a 911.
Quote from: 565 on August 12, 2010, 08:18:03 PM
Twin Turbos and AWD aren't some magical expensive combo. GM could save money by sharing both with existing cars instead of reserving LSX engines for Corvettes and occasional Cadilliacs. Also considering the Corvette already rides on a dedicated chassis, there isn't much more cost making it mid engined. The mid engined MR2 didn't cost all that much more than the front engined Miata. Nor does the current mid engined Boxster cost much more than the front engined Z4. The problem with mid engined chassis is that it cannot be shared with a front engined one, but as nothing shares the Corvette chassis anyway (XLR failed), there is no huge cost saving.
The thing that made Corvette's sell was not only affordability. Alot of cars are affordable, an Aveo is affordable. The thing that made recent Corvettes sell, the thing that made me buy a Corvette, was the fact that absolutely NOTHING could get close to its level of performance for the price. It is not just affordability, but undeniable VALUE. There was no doubt that performance value was untouchable when the C5 Z06 was released.
I honestly don't know if I can say the same today. Making the same decision today that I made those years ago, the Corvette no longer looks like the bargain it once was. I can honestly say I probably wouldn't buy a Corvette over the competition now.
The current base 430hp Corvette costs around 50K, runs about 115 in the 1/4 mile. However for about that same 50K, I could get myself a 414hp M3, comfortably seats 4, runs similar 114s in the 1/4 mile, with a more modern chassis, and BMW refinement. It'll do nearly everything the C6 does, and still be a sedan. By comparison in 2002, the 405hp C5 Z06 was 50K and ran 116mph 1/4 miles, and the 333hp E46 M3 was also 50K and ran 104mph traps. The competition has been bounding forward, and Corvette has been stuck running in place. Sure the current C6 is now as fast as the old Z06, but it costs just as much.
Or say I wanted a drop top Corvette, running around 55k. But now for about the same coin I could get a Boxster S. In 2002, the Boxster S was a wimpy little thing. Now it is a machine that manages to trap around 110mph in the 1/4 mile, and has sublime handling, and that Porsche badge counts for something. Honestly I'd have a hard time justifying a C6 vette purchase over a boxster S now.
Or say I wanted the track ready C6 Z06 for 75K. The C5 Z06 once ruled autocross and track days when it was released. Now I'd have a seriously sour taste in my mouth when the similarly priced 80K Nissan GT-R trouces all over a new C6 Z06 on the race track, all while being a 2+2, and having all weather abilities.
Corvette isn't the same value it once was. That's why GM needs to make a big move with the next Corvette to say ahead of the competition.
For me to buy another Corvette, it needs to blow the competition away for less money, like it once did.
:rolleyes:
blah blah blah
You're lying to yourself if you think GM can make an affordable, AWD, mid-engined, twin-turboed Corvette.
Quote from: Tave on August 13, 2010, 08:01:05 AM
:rolleyes:
blah blah blah
You're lying to yourself if you think GM can make an affordable, AWD, mid-engined, twin-turboed Corvette.
c/s w/o the snarkiness
The Vette has been an evolutionary design that's had its costs trimmed down by sharing engine development costs with trucks and Cadillacs
A mid engined Corvette with a new V6 (V6????) and a competitive AWD drivetrain would w/o a doubt cost more than the current car, and not necessarily be much of a good value. Plus it would alienate the Vette's market and probably be a sales failure. Just a bad idea.
Plus yes while the M3 has come a long way, I don't think there's price parity. A similarly equipped M3 would cost about $10-15K more than a C6, and would be at the ceiling rather than the starting point of the car's overall performance. Not to mention the aftermarket for the C6 is cheaper + better than that of the M3. All those advantages, which are key to many Vette buyers, would disappear with your proposed design.
If you want a GT-R, buy a GT-R.
Quote from: Tave on August 13, 2010, 08:01:05 AM
:rolleyes:
blah blah blah
You're lying to yourself if you think GM can make an affordable, AWD, mid-engined, twin-turboed Corvette.
If Nissan could make an affordable AWD, twin turboed GT-R that performed on the level of supercars, GM certainly could as well if they put enough effort into it, considering the much larger economy of scale.
Quote from: 565 on August 13, 2010, 09:03:34 PM
If Nissan could make an affordable AWD, twin turboed GT-R that performed on the level of supercars, GM certainly could as well if they put enough effort into it, considering the much larger economy of scale.
IIRC, Nissan loses money on every GT-R.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 13, 2010, 10:03:27 AM
c/s w/o the snarkiness
The Vette has been an evolutionary design that's had its costs trimmed down by sharing engine development costs with trucks and Cadillacs
A mid engined Corvette with a new V6 (V6????) and a competitive AWD drivetrain would w/o a doubt cost more than the current car, and not necessarily be much of a good value. Plus it would alienate the Vette's market and probably be a sales failure. Just a bad idea.
Plus yes while the M3 has come a long way, I don't think there's price parity. A similarly equipped M3 would cost about $10-15K more than a C6, and would be at the ceiling rather than the starting point of the car's overall performance. Not to mention the aftermarket for the C6 is cheaper + better than that of the M3. All those advantages, which are key to many Vette buyers, would disappear with your proposed design.
If you want a GT-R, buy a GT-R.
The LSX series engines don't even share that much with GM's truck engines anymore, they have evolved too far for performance use now. For all intents and purposes they are dedicated performance engines. By comparison using a twin turboed version of existing passenger car V6's in GM's lineup, the company wouldn't have to maintain an entirely seperate line of engines.
A modern unibody mid engined chassis wouldn't be that much more expensive than the unique composite body on hydroformed frame chassis that the Corvette currently rides on. The current setup is a model of waste. The engines are built in Detroit, and then shipped all the way to Kentucky to Corvette's dedicated plant. Nothing else gets built that that plant, because Corvette's composite construction is so different. If GM moved Corvette to a ordinary unibody frame and build the Corvette in the same plant other GM cars are built at, massive savings can be made. GM knows that the Kentucky plant was a waste, because they tried to expand its production to cars similar to the Corvette in build theory, like the XLR and Kappa cars, but they all failed.
Nissan manages to make the GT-R affordable because it shares techology with other Nissan cars and is built at the same Nissan plant. By comparison Corvette is built at its own dedicated plant, with its own dedicated hardware (no other car uses its composite construction or expensive composite leaf springs, balsa floors, etc, etc)
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 13, 2010, 09:07:47 PM
IIRC, Nissan loses money on every GT-R.
Where did you read this?
If anything Nissan is careful to make sure the car is not sold at a loss, slightly bumping up the price as prices for materials change and the exchange rates change. Carlos Ghosn planned the car to be profitable from the get go, stating that "the GT-R is forbidden to lose money." It was never designed to be a car sold at a loss for a halo effect only. By comparison, GM allowed the Kappa cars to be sold at a 10K loss per unit, hoping that building a concept showcar would generate a halo effect. Clearly that wishful thinking was faulty as the Kappa cars are no more.
I remember quite a few sources saying the GT-R lost money, at least the first year or so. Considering Nissan has continually raised the price, it seems likely.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 13, 2010, 09:36:09 PM
I remember quite a few sources saying the GT-R lost money, at least the first year or so. Considering Nissan has continually raised the price, it seems likely.
If Nissan was okay with the GT-R losing money and serving as a halo car, then they wouldn't bother raising prices. If anything they raised prices to match demand, which shows they care about profit.
Compare that to GM that refused to raise prices on the Kappa cars despite increasing losses.
I'm curious where these sources are that said the GT-R lost money, because most of what I read stated the contrary.
Quote from: 565 on August 13, 2010, 09:03:34 PM
If Nissan could make an affordable AWD, twin turboed GT-R that performed on the level of supercars, GM certainly could as well if they put enough effort into it, considering the much larger economy of scale.
Theoretically, most likely. Practically (UAW, CAFE, now-nationalized, et al.), probably not.
Quote from: 565 on August 13, 2010, 09:16:50 PM
The LSX series engines don't even share that much with GM's truck engines anymore, they have evolved too far for performance use now. For all intents and purposes they are dedicated performance engines. By comparison using a twin turboed version of existing passenger car V6's in GM's lineup, the company wouldn't have to maintain an entirely seperate line of engines.
GM would still have to invest & retool the motors to deal with the added heat management & all that. Plus, even with the extra tech on the LSx, I highly doubt the motor would be any smaller/lighter/cheaper/more responsive than the current V8. The only advantage would be increased gas mileage, which is already pretty good in base C6s, and is not of much concern to the average Corvette owner anyway. I don't know what you spent on your car but I'm sure there were cars with 90% of the performance and much better practicality + gas mileage around the same price point.
Quote from: 565 on August 13, 2010, 09:16:50 PMA modern unibody mid engined chassis wouldn't be that much more expensive than the unique composite body on hydroformed frame chassis that the Corvette currently rides on. The current setup is a model of waste. The engines are built in Detroit, and then shipped all the way to Kentucky to Corvette's dedicated plant. Nothing else gets built that that plant, because Corvette's composite construction is so different. If GM moved Corvette to a ordinary unibody frame and build the Corvette in the same plant other GM cars are built at, massive savings can be made. GM knows that the Kentucky plant was a waste, because they tried to expand its production to cars similar to the Corvette in build theory, like the XLR and Kappa cars, but they all failed.
Right, but even in this waste GM is still making a profit on Corvettes. They have a tried and true cash cow that they can improve incrementally. I don't think the gamble of developing a whole new chassis and alienating the Vette's market base is worth it. Plus as idealized as you make it sound, said chassis would be significantly heavier and most likely be some bastardized hack job from the Camaro or something. It would make more sense for them to just go to a conventional FR unibody built at another GM plant- however, the X body frame is a great base for a sports car (I believe the S2K had the same architecture).
Quote from: 565 on August 13, 2010, 09:16:50 PMNissan manages to make the GT-R affordable because it shares techology with other Nissan cars and is built at the same Nissan plant. By comparison Corvette is built at its own dedicated plant, with its own dedicated hardware (no other car uses its composite construction or expensive composite leaf springs, balsa floors, etc, etc)
What other Nissan cars have a rear mounted AWD transmission, active rear differential, turbochargers, direct injection, etc.? Tech-wise the GT-R seems to be out on its own. The engine block is very loosely based on the VQ but is different enough that it has a different family name. Not to mention I'm sure Nissan spent a bundle on development.
The Vette on the other hand has had most of its development spread out over the last 3 generations. Its engines are simple and closely related in architecture to other GM motors. And if need be GM can easily do away with the waste + needlessly unique parts w/o drastically changing the Vette driving experience. The waste is more a reflection of GM's poor management than the Corvette being something truly isolated + unique like the GT-R.
The LS engines will always exist unless GM completely loses all common sense. They are an absolute cash cow in the aftermarket.
Quote from: 565 on August 13, 2010, 09:03:34 PM
If Nissan could make an affordable AWD, twin turboed GT-R that performed on the level of supercars, GM certainly could as well if they put enough effort into it, considering the much larger economy of scale.
Uh, check again Hoss. Sticker on a GT-R is almost TWICE that of the base Vette.
MSRP on the GT-R: $84,060
MSRP on the Vette: $48,930
Affordable my ass. That's not even anywhere CLOSE to the same ballpark. You're talking BMW 7-Series money right there. It's far out of the reach of the average American.
And as I already conceded, the Vette is still out of reach of the average American, but at least it comes a lot closer.
The LSx and truck engines are of the same family notably with the LS3 and Vortec 6200 being kissing cousins. This has been Chevy's MO since 1955 to have one engine family leveraged across many, many platforms.
And Sporty, the C6's popularity has dwindled with 2009 being the Corvette's worst sales year since 1961. I'm not so sure it's because there is competition - IMO at least part of it is that people want a little more of a refined experience.
The space frame chassis, plastic body panels, and rear mounted trans-axle, is lost on most Corvette buyers. All that stuff is expensive and doesn't necessarily work any better and some of it works worse. A C7 with a more traditional unit-body chassis/suspension/drive train configuration, and more upscale interior, is where IMO it should go.
A mid-engine AWD twin turbo V6 Corvette would not do well in the market.
The past couple years have seen historic lows across almost every major automaker, across almost every model. That the economy imploded and Detroit had a massive heart attack says nothing specific about the Corvette.
I predict that while future iterations will grow more refined (as the C6 was to the C5), fundamentally the Corvette will always compromise on refinement for performance and cost.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 15, 2010, 12:56:52 PM
And Sporty, the C6's popularity has dwindled with 2009 being the Corvette's worst sales year since 1961. I'm not so sure it's because there is competition - IMO at least part of it is that people want a little more of a refined experience.
I would bet that has more to do with the recession than the C6's waning popularity.
I agree though that a lot of the unique factors that define the Corvette can go. But as I said initially, the V8 + RWD + 2 seat hatch config can't.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 15, 2010, 02:35:07 PM
I would bet that has more to do with the recession than the C6's waning popularity.
I agree though that a lot of the unique factors that define the Corvette can go. But as I said initially, the V8 + RWD + 2 seat hatch config can't.
Indeed. Premium sports cars as a segment fell over 40% in 2009 compared with 2008, and the lower end of the segment (price-wise) seemed to have been the worst hit. Corvette sales were off a bit more than that, but sales of the Cayman, Audi TT, SLK, and Viper were all off by more than the 40% average for the segment.
Quote from: Tave on August 15, 2010, 11:56:16 AM
Uh, check again Hoss. Sticker on a GT-R is almost TWICE that of the base Vette.
MSRP on the GT-R: $84,060
MSRP on the Vette: $48,930
Affordable my ass. That's not even anywhere CLOSE to the same ballpark. You're talking BMW 7-Series money right there. It's far out of the reach of the average American.
Comparison of the GT-R to the base vette? When the GT-R falls somewhere between the 75K Z06 and the 115K ZR1 in performance while having the added bonus of 2 seats, more safety features, more tech toys, and all weather ability?
The base Vette performs more closely to the BMW M3, which starts at a closer price, performs similarly, offers more luxury and refinement, even with the BMW nameplate markup.
Corvette value just ain't what it used to be.
The 50K C5 Z06 competed on even footing with the 120K 996 Turbo. Now it takes the 115K ZR1 to run with the 130K 997.2 Turbo. Where's the value?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 15, 2010, 02:35:07 PM
I would bet that has more to do with the recession than the C6's waning popularity.
I agree though that a lot of the unique factors that define the Corvette can go. But as I said initially, the V8 + RWD + 2 seat hatch config can't.
Sure, I think a lot of it does have to do with the recession, but there have been plenty of bad recessions (and long strikes) since 1961 as well.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 16, 2010, 05:11:04 PM
Sure, I think a lot of it does have to do with the recession, but there have been plenty of bad recessions (and long strikes) since 1961 as well.
No recessions like this one.
Quote from: 565 on August 16, 2010, 04:55:27 PM
Comparison of the GT-R to the base vette? When the GT-R falls somewhere between the 75K Z06 and the 115K ZR1 in performance while having the added bonus of 2 seats, more safety features, more tech toys, and all weather ability?
Uh yes, of course. We're talking about dollar/performance and affordability for middle class buyers.
YOU contended that GM can build an affordable, AWD, twin-turbo charged, mid-engined Vette, and then you offered the GT-R as an example of such a car.
The PAINFULLY obvious flaw in your argument is the fact that the GT-R is nowhere near affordable to most anyone. In other words, your hypothetical Vette is, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, likely to cost at least TWICE what the current car costs.
Considering that the VAST majority of Corvettes purchased are...wait for it...NOT Z06s or ZR-1s, and are in fact the $50K run-of-the-mill Vette's, your suggestion is the automotive equivalent of seppuku. You would be alienating almost every buyer and eviscerating the very concept that the brand was built on: that of the Everyman's sports car. The Corvette would not last 10 years after such a change. At most, you'd be talking about a limited run of a very cool, but nonetheless short lived halo car, a la the Ford GT.
Not to mention the GT-R.
Isn't mid-engine. I want paying attention when I clicked "post".
Fucking blackberry.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 16, 2010, 08:32:22 PM
Not to mention the GT-R.
This was lol worthy.
But yea, a twin turbo V6 4 seater mid engined car sounds... French most realistically, European at best and in no way like an evolution of the Vizzette. I think it would be a cool engineering exercise by GM, but there's no way they could do it for the price of the current Corvette (or anywhere close).
I think if they tossed the leaf springs & x-frame body there could be some cool Vette based cars. A Cadillac branded 4 door Vette based hatch would be incredible. New CTS?
Quote from: Tave on August 16, 2010, 07:07:55 PM
short lived halo car, a la the Ford GT.
The Ford GT ceased production due to new safety regs implemented in 2007. I think Ford would have produced more if they could have.
I have to admit, a big part of me would love to see something resembling a Corvette with a longitudally-mounted LS7 displayed through the glass fastback rear hatch :mrcool:
but yeah, no AWD, no V6, and no rear seats. All of that is just crazy talk.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 16, 2010, 09:07:53 PM
This was lol worthy.
But yea, a twin turbo V6 4 seater mid engined car sounds... French most realistically, European at best and in no way like an evolution of the Vizzette. I think it would be a cool engineering exercise by GM, but there's no way they could do it for the price of the current Corvette (or anywhere close).
I think if they tossed the leaf springs & x-frame body there could be some cool Vette based cars. A Cadillac branded 4 door Vette based hatch would be incredible. New CTS?
Three is a LOT of unnecessary expense in those goofy leaf springs, the plastic body panels, the space frame and the rear tranny + torque tube. It's all pretty much worthless.
I think GM could build a car like that which 565 pines for about Corvette money; look at the Camaro SS and upcoming Z-28 for what GM can do for $30k - $48k.
For example I think a lightened version of the Zeta chassis with AWD and TTV6 could be done for $50-60k; won't be GT-R performance but I bet it could match C6 objective performance and be a much better car (just don't call it 'Corvette').
Quote from: GoCougs on August 16, 2010, 10:50:28 PM
Three is a LOT of unnecessary expense in those goofy leaf springs, the plastic body panels, the space frame and the rear tranny + torque tube. It's all pretty much worthless.
I think GM could build a car like that which 565 pines for about Corvette money; look at the Camaro SS and upcoming Z-28 for what GM can do for $30k - $48k.
For example I think a lightened version of the Zeta chassis with AWD and TTV6 could be done for $50-60k; won't be GT-R performance but I bet it could match C6 objective performance and be a much better car (just don't call it 'Corvette').
Bear in mind though, the Camaro's platform, for what I understand, was already developed in Australia. IIRC, it's basically the GTO II, no? Plus GM itself is still subsidized. I don't think the Camaro is representative of what 565 is envisioning here development wise.
And "better car" is highly subjective? Cheaper than a base Corvette? No. Cheaper than a Z06? Still probably not. Plus the car would be so different in character than a Corvette, outside of the performance envelope I don't know that they'd be comparable. Is the GT-R a better car than the Corvette? It depends who you ask. It's definitely faster around a race track, but personally beyond that I hate it. Likewise I'm sure there are people who like/hate both, and love the GT-R but hate the Corvette. Objectively they're too dissimilar to make such a statement.
I am not sure what the Zeta chassis is, but if its the Camaro chassis there's no way they could lighten it + reconfigure it for MR, develop a new-to-GM TTV6, and develop a GT-R rivaling AWD system, and make a profit at even $70K, unless they threw an electric motor between the engine + tranny and called it a performance hybrid + got more federal funding for it.
The Zeta chassis is the platform underpinning the Camaro. As you guessed, it was borrowed from Holden of Australia, where it has been in production since 2006.
GM should just build a new Fiero. A tiny little two seat mid-engined V6 sports car.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 17, 2010, 05:58:50 AM
Bear in mind though, the Camaro's platform, for what I understand, was already developed in Australia. IIRC, it's basically the GTO II, no? Plus GM itself is still subsidized. I don't think the Camaro is representative of what 565 is envisioning here development wise.
And "better car" is highly subjective? Cheaper than a base Corvette? No. Cheaper than a Z06? Still probably not. Plus the car would be so different in character than a Corvette, outside of the performance envelope I don't know that they'd be comparable. Is the GT-R a better car than the Corvette? It depends who you ask. It's definitely faster around a race track, but personally beyond that I hate it. Likewise I'm sure there are people who like/hate both, and love the GT-R but hate the Corvette. Objectively they're too dissimilar to make such a statement.
I am not sure what the Zeta chassis is, but if its the Camaro chassis there's no way they could lighten it + reconfigure it for MR, develop a new-to-GM TTV6, and develop a GT-R rivaling AWD system, and make a profit at even $70K, unless they threw an electric motor between the engine + tranny and called it a performance hybrid + got more federal funding for it.
The Zeta point I was trying to make was that GM can leverage an appropriate traditional chassis from elsewhere.
As to other practical barriers are legion but I was just thinking in theory; the economies of scale and scope primarily are there.
The Corvette is not a good car when it comes to ride, fit/finish, and refinement. All of this would be addressed in spades by using a more traditional chassis layout.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 17, 2010, 11:47:50 AM
The Corvette is not a good car when it comes to ride, fit/finish, and refinement. All of this would be addressed in spades by using a more traditional chassis layout.
But its traits as a sports car would be compromised. Those objectives would be important if say, Cadillac wanted another go at the XLR, but they're secondary on the Corvette.
Quote from: Vinsanity on August 17, 2010, 11:59:06 AM
But its traits as a sports car would be compromised. Those objectives would be important if say, Cadillac wanted another go at the XLR, but they're secondary on the Corvette.
Which traits? Virtually no other sports cars are space frame + plastic body panels + leaf springs.
Aren't the space frame chassis and fiberglass body used to keep the car's weight low? That would be pretty important in a sports car. And IIRC, the Corvette's leaf spring design is unique to the car, and given its specs and geometry, actually results in superior handling compared to coil springs.
Quote from: Vinsanity on August 17, 2010, 12:53:40 PM
Aren't the space frame chassis and fiberglass body used to keep the car's weight low? That would be pretty important in a sports car. And IIRC, the Corvette's leaf spring design is unique to the car, and given its specs and geometry, actually results in superior handling compared to coil springs.
No way. The leaf springs are what is blamed for the squirrelly handling when at the limit.
Yea I can't see a metal beam having the same linearity in response as a spring over the same displacements. Like Cougs once said I think that's a big part of why they developed the magnetic shocks for the C6. I hear the C4 rode like a dump truck. I would bet conventional springs would handle + ride better. Some traditions aren't worth keeping.
I skimmed wiki's Corvette article, and caught mention that the leaf springs were introduced on the C4 for improved handling, but at the expense of a jarring ride quality.
I don't see how leaf springs/torsion bars could improve either TBH
The 911 has less power and weighs more yet is just as quick/fast; superior traction, better power band, better tranny/shifting, chief among the reasons.
Go look at the average C6 - you can spot inconsistent body panel gaps at 10 paces, and like all Corvettes there's all sorts of shimmy and shake.
Those leaf springs absolutely blow chunks and exist solely because they are a legacy throwback dating all the way back to the first C2 of 1963.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 17, 2010, 05:49:06 PM
The 911 has less power and weighs more yet is just as quick/fast; superior traction, better power band, better tranny/shifting, chief among the reasons.
I don't know about a better power band, but pretty much everything else you listed as an advantage is due to the added $$$$$ put into the 911's parts, or the fact that the engine hangs off the back and aids in braking and accelerating. A base Carrera is a good $25K more, 300lbs less and only 60 HP down on a C6, with superior launch traction and better engineered parts. With all that it wouldn't make sense for it not to perform about as well.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 17, 2010, 02:37:18 PM
I don't see how leaf springs/torsion bars could improve either TBH
it appears I was mistaken regarding the handling benefits; it looks like most of the advantages are related to lower weight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring#Advantages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring#Advantages)
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 17, 2010, 05:56:28 PM
I don't know about a better power band, but pretty much everything else you listed as an advantage is due to the added $$$$$ put into the 911's parts, or the fact that the engine hangs off the back and aids in braking and accelerating. A base Carrera is a good $25K more, 300lbs less and only 60 HP down on a C6, with superior launch traction and better engineered parts. With all that it wouldn't make sense for it not to perform about as well.
My point being that the 911 achieves relatively low weight - only ~100lbs more than the C6 while being both larger and a 4-seater - without the more expensive space frame, plastic body panels and leaf springs.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 17, 2010, 11:05:14 PM
My point being that the 911 achieves relatively low weight - only ~100lbs more than the C6 while being both larger and a 4-seater - without the more expensive space frame, plastic body panels and leaf springs.
The 911 is about as much of a 4 seater as the C6. The only reason they were able to fit that parcel shelf between the front seats and the rear shock towers is because the engine hangs behind the rear axle. In the C6, from what I understand, the front seats are basically resting on the rear shock towers (making rear seats an impossibility)
Not to mention, the base 911 costs about 70% more than the base C6. I agree that there's stuff the C7 should do away with, but it shouldn't look to the 911 for ideas. They won't work.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 17, 2010, 11:05:14 PM
My point being that the 911 achieves relatively low weight - only ~100lbs more than the C6 while being both larger and a 4-seater - without the more expensive space frame, plastic body panels and leaf springs.
The 911 and the Corvette are almost exactly the same size.
It also has a smaller engine, a much more compact drivetrain, and (probably the most important part) commands a 63% premium over the Corvette.
The more you guys insist on comparing the Corvette to cars that cost WAY more than it, the more I think you're beyond bonkers if you believe GM can build this hypothetical Uber-Vette for a reasonable price tag.
Quote from: Tave on August 16, 2010, 07:07:55 PM
Uh yes, of course. We're talking about dollar/performance and affordability for middle class buyers.
YOU contended that GM can build an affordable, AWD, twin-turbo charged, mid-engined Vette, and then you offered the GT-R as an example of such a car.
The PAINFULLY obvious flaw in your argument is the fact that the GT-R is nowhere near affordable to most anyone. In other words, your hypothetical Vette is, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, likely to cost at least TWICE what the current car costs.
Considering that the VAST majority of Corvettes purchased are...wait for it...NOT Z06s or ZR-1s, and are in fact the $50K run-of-the-mill Vette's, your suggestion is the automotive equivalent of seppuku. You would be alienating almost every buyer and eviscerating the very concept that the brand was built on: that of the Everyman's sports car. The Corvette would not last 10 years after such a change. At most, you'd be talking about a limited run of a very cool, but nonetheless short lived halo car, a la the Ford GT.
The GT-R compares with the Z06, a supposed performance bargain. The Z06 has all the favorable things going for it to be a performance bargain as well, being based off a cheaper model. And yet still the GT-R manages to perform better for similar prices.
I already gave a good car to compare to the base vette, the BMW M3, which starts at a similar price, performs similarly.
You need to reconsider why the Corvette sells. It's not some sort of brand loyalty. We know how much good brand loyalty did for American cars like cadillacs and Tauruses. It's not just because it's affordable, because many many cars are very affordable like the Cavalier, and we know how well that sold. The thing that drives Corvette sales is VALUE. The ONLY real reason why it sold in recent years is because it performed like cars costing twice as much. There used to be a time that NOTHING could touch the Corvette's performance bang for the buck. That is simply no longer true today. Look at all the competition that has sprung up around the Corvette. We are at a point when Corvette needs a major overhaul to stay competitive.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 17, 2010, 01:04:30 PM
No way. The leaf springs are what is blamed for the squirrelly handling when at the limit.
No the leaf springs are fine. The squirrely limit is really mostly seen on the Z06's because of not enough shock tuning and the basic fact that the C5/C6 chassis is now about 15 years old and has a torsional rigidity of about 25hz, while modern sports coupes and sedans are more than twice as stiff (50+hz).
Quote from: 565 on August 18, 2010, 10:11:53 AM
The GT-R compares with the Z06, a supposed performance bargain. The Z06 has all the favorable things going for it to be a performance bargain as well, being based off a cheaper model. And yet still the GT-R manages to perform better for similar prices.
I already gave a good car to compare to the base vette, the BMW M3, which starts at a similar price, performs similarly.
You need to reconsider why the Corvette sells. It's not some sort of brand loyalty. We know how much good brand loyalty did for American cars like cadillacs and Tauruses. It's not just because it's affordable, because many many cars are very affordable like the Cavalier, and we know how well that sold. The thing that drives Corvette sales is VALUE. The ONLY real reason why it sold in recent years is because it performed like cars costing twice as much. There used to be a time that NOTHING could touch the Corvette's performance bang for the buck. That is simply no longer true today. Look at all the competition that has sprung up around the Corvette. We are at a point when Corvette needs a major overhaul to stay competitive.
You're right. It does need a complete overhaul, but it doesn't need be a completely different class of car. It's not a Corvette anymore if you do that. It needs to stay V8 F/R 2 seat stylish sports car. It's just that for the last 26 years, the Vette's shadow hasn't changed and it's got a shitty interior, shitty seats, and is generally considered a toy in a time when people aren't buying toys. The last one being a big reason to the recent sales slump.
Quote from: 565 on August 18, 2010, 10:11:53 AM
You need to reconsider why the Corvette sells. It's not some sort of brand loyalty. We know how much good brand loyalty did for American cars like cadillacs and Tauruses. It's not just because it's affordable, because many many cars are very affordable like the Cavalier, and we know how well that sold. The thing that drives Corvette sales is VALUE. The ONLY real reason why it sold in recent years is because it performed like cars costing twice as much.
And your solution is to offer a car which costs twice as much as the current car and performs like cars that cost twice as much as the current car?
Quote from: 565 on August 16, 2010, 04:55:27 PM
Comparison of the GT-R to the base vette? When the GT-R falls somewhere between the 75K Z06 and the 115K ZR1 in performance while having the added bonus of 2 seats, more safety features, more tech toys, and all weather ability?
Worse looks, automatic transmission, fixed roof, and inferior drivetrain setup thrown in for free!
Quote from: Tave on August 18, 2010, 06:23:24 AM
The 911 and the Corvette are almost exactly the same size.
It also has a smaller engine, a much more compact drivetrain, and (probably the most important part) commands a 63% premium over the Corvette.
Actually, if we're counting, I do believe the 997 is longer than the Corvette. :lol:
Quote from: Raza link=topic=22739.msg1380525#msg1380525 date=1282151046
Actually, if we're counting, I do believe the 997 is longer than the Corvette. :lol:
Yes, exactly 1" longer, 1.4" narrower, and 2.5" taller.
Quote from: Tave on August 18, 2010, 06:23:24 AM
The 911 and the Corvette are almost exactly the same size.
It also has a smaller engine, a much more compact drivetrain, and (probably the most important part) commands a 63% premium over the Corvette.
The more you guys insist on comparing the Corvette to cars that cost WAY more than it, the more I think you're beyond bonkers if you believe GM can build this hypothetical Uber-Vette for a reasonable price tag.
Hey dawg you dropped context somewheres along the way.
The point wasn't comparing the two cars in total but countering the assertion that the Corvette's unique features contribute to its being a sports cars ("But its traits as a sports car would be compromised"); other performance cars use more traditional chassis and suspension layouts and perform as well (usually better) whilst being better overall cars.
And like I said look what GM can do for $50k (560 hp Z28) to $60k (560 CTS-V). Take a smaller variant of either chassis for a 2+2 configuration, add AWD, substitute in a V6TT in the 425-450 hp range, and voila, one has in effect an 80th percentile GT-R for about the same cost as a Corvette. It's 100% doable, if GM had both the opportunity and the inclination.
Even the Corvette at $50k is a good example - there is a LOT of unnecessary cost in both design and materials thrown into the space frame chassis, plastic body panels, leaf springs, rear tranny + torque tube. Swap these non-necessities for unit-body chassis, steel body panels, traditional tranny layout and substitute AWD and V6TT and voila redux.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 18, 2010, 12:00:33 PM
Hey dawg you dropped context somewheres along the way.
The point wasn't comparing the two cars in total but countering the assertion that the Corvette's unique features contribute to its being a sports cars ("But its traits as a sports car would be compromised"); other performance cars use more traditional chassis and suspension layouts and perform as well (usually better) whilst being better overall cars.
And like I said look what GM can do for $50k (560 hp Z28) to $60k (560 CTS-V). Take a smaller variant of either chassis for a 2+2 configuration, add AWD, substitute in a V6TT in the 425-450 hp range, and voila, one has in effect an 80th percentile GT-R for about the same cost as a Corvette. It's 100% doable, if GM had both the opportunity and the inclination.
Even the Corvette at $50k is a good example - there is a LOT of unnecessary cost in both design and materials thrown into the space frame chassis, plastic body panels, leaf springs, rear tranny + torque tube. Swap these non-necessities for unit-body chassis, steel body panels, traditional tranny layout and substitute AWD and V6TT and voila redux.
Why would you want to ditch the transaxle? All that engineering is already done. Besides, if you stuck a traditional tranny back in, the footwells will get smaller and the transmission tunnel will get bigger.
Quote from: 565 on August 18, 2010, 10:22:38 AM
No the leaf springs are fine. The squirrely limit is really mostly seen on the Z06's because of not enough shock tuning and the basic fact that the C5/C6 chassis is now about 15 years old and has a torsional rigidity of about 25hz, while modern sports coupes and sedans are more than twice as stiff (50+hz).
The leaf springs are very bad. Not only does one spring service both sides of the car, the spring also serves as a secondary anti-roll bar. Thus, one single suspension member is simultaneously bending in torsion + bending on its long axis. This is asking for infinite dynamical issues, and precisely explains the Corvette's excessively squirrely handling and flinty ride.
Expect the C7 and onward to have either coil springs or only leaf-springs + closed loop magnetic particle shocks as standard.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 18, 2010, 12:00:33 PM
Hey dawg you dropped context somewheres along the way.
No, I think that was you.
QuoteThe point wasn't comparing the two cars in total but countering the assertion that the Corvette's unique features contribute to its being a sports cars ("But its traits as a sports car would be compromised"); other performance cars use more traditional chassis and suspension layouts and perform as well (usually better) whilst being better overall cars.
While costing twice as much. Where was that context? Oh yeah...
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 17, 2010, 05:56:28 PM
I don't know about a better power band, but pretty much everything else you listed as an advantage is due to the added $$$$$ put into the 911's parts, or the fact that the engine hangs off the back and aids in braking and accelerating.
QuoteAnd like I said look what GM can do for $50k (560 hp Z28) to $60k (560 CTS-V).
Oh, two not-sports cars that use drivetrains sourced from the Corvette. Another bonehead comparo.
I don't care much for the leaf spring setup myself, but I think the space frame, fiberglass body, and especially the rear transaxle is worth keeping around. They all serve to keep the car lightweight and purpose-built. Ditch those things, and watch the weight go up, and performance suffer. Yes, the M3 is approaching the performance/value realm of the Corvette, but the M3 is the ultimate iteration of the 3-series; the point at which the Corvette is just getting started. The ultimate iteration of the Corvette? The ZR1.
If anything, I'd say that AWD, a turbo V6, and 2+2 seating configuration would be worthless on a Corvette.
Quote from: Vinsanity on August 18, 2010, 12:29:00 PM
I don't care much for the leaf spring setup myself, but I think the space frame, fiberglass body, and especially the rear transaxle is worth keeping around. They all serve to keep the car lightweight and purpose-built. Ditch those things, and watch the weight go up, and performance suffer. Yes, the M3 is approaching the performance/value realm of the Corvette, but the M3 is the ultimate iteration of the 3-series; the point at which the Corvette is just getting started. The ultimate iteration of the Corvette? The ZR1.
If anything, I'd say that AWD, a turbo V6, and 2+2 seating configuration would be worthless on a Corvette.
Right - and yet the M3 uses traditional construction and layout - no space frame, no plastic body panels, no rear tranny + torque tube, no goofy leaf springs. Or, alternatively, if the M3 employed those construction techniques it'd be a much more expensive vehicle.
If BMW had the economies of scale and scope of GM (especially in the power plant) and cheaped the interior down to the level of the Corvette, I betcha we'd easily see the $58k M3 at $48k (= base MSRP Corvette).
(See that Tave?)
My point was that the Corvette's design gives it potential for true supercar performance in the ZR1, whereas the M3 is close to, if not at its max potential, being based on the 3-series sport coupe/sedan.
As much as it pains me to say it, Cougs makes a great point. For $60K would you rather a used Z06 or a new M3? To me the choice seems obvious.
However, the base Corvette is no slouch. I'm pretty sure it's faster in all directions than an M3, which still makes it a great performance bargain (unless I'm mistaken), and is really more in line with what the Vette is about. It's still faster than a lot of more expensive cars (the most important one being the 911), which is what the Vette has always been about. This 2+2 twin turbo ATTESSA-PRO spaceship could not do the same.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 18, 2010, 01:03:55 PM
(See that Tave?)
Yes, I see you, as well as 565, comparing the Vette (sports car) to a compact sedan which weighs 500 pounds more, costs more, is slower, and doesn't corner as well.
And yes, I also see you saying stuff like, "if only BMW had the advantages of economy of scale of GM," not realizing of course, that the 3-Series enjoys so many advantages in economy of scale over the Corvette that it isn't even funny.
Quote from: Vinsanity on August 18, 2010, 01:12:10 PM
My point was that the Corvette's design gives it potential for true supercar performance in the ZR1, whereas the M3 is close to, if not at its max potential, being based on the 3-series sport coupe/sedan.
Okay, I see, and one thing for sure we'll never see a 638 hp M3 from BMW's factory!
Quote from: Tave on August 18, 2010, 01:45:10 PM
Yes, I see you, as well as 565, comparing the Vette (sports car) to a compact sedan which weighs 500 pounds more, costs more, is slower, and doesn't corner as well.
And yes, I also see you saying stuff like, "if only BMW had the advantages of economy of scale of GM," not realizing of course, that the 3-Series enjoys so many advantages in economy of scale over the Corvette that it isn't even funny.
The only person comparing the Corvette and 911 is you.
Nah, remember I said both economies of scale and scope; I seriously doubt that BMW could build the C6 for ~$48k.
Sure they could. But BMW would put in good seats, aluminium or carbon fibre bodywork, a DOHC V8 with 8 throttle bodies, iDrive, coilovers, and a quality interior. If BMW didn't do any of that they could easily sell it for $48K.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 18, 2010, 09:26:24 PM
The only person comparing the Corvette and 911 is you.
Come again? We're talking about the M3 v. Corvette.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 18, 2010, 01:03:55 PM
Right - and yet the M3 uses traditional construction and layout - no space frame, no plastic body panels, no rear tranny + torque tube, no goofy leaf springs. Or, alternatively, if the M3 employed those construction techniques it'd be a much more expensive vehicle.
If BMW had the economies of scale and scope of GM (especially in the power plant) and cheaped the interior down to the level of the Corvette, I betcha we'd easily see the $58k M3 at $48k (= base MSRP Corvette).
To recap, the M3, which is a compact sedan (or coupe) is 500 pounds heavier, costs more, is slower, and corners worse than the Vette, which is a sports car. Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah:
Quote from: Tave on August 18, 2010, 01:45:10 PM
Yes, I see you, as well as 565, comparing the Vette (sports car) to a compact sedan which weighs 500 pounds more, costs more, is slower, and doesn't corner as well.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 18, 2010, 09:26:24 PMNah, remember I said both economies of scale and scope; I seriously doubt that BMW could build the C6 for ~$48k.
This is a meaningless argument. No other company on Earth besides GM can build a Corvette for 50 grand, because no other company has put the backwork into building Corvettes.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 18, 2010, 01:45:05 PM
However, the base Corvette is no slouch. I'm pretty sure it's faster in all directions than an M3, which still makes it a great performance bargain.
The difference is marginal at best, or in the M3's favor depending on how you look at things.
From the latest tests from Car and Driver.
C6 GrandSport.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/10q2/2010_chevy_corvette_grand_sport_vs._2010_lotus_evora_2010_porsche_cayman_s-comparison_tests/2010_chevrolet_corvette_grand_sport_page_3
0-60: 4.3 seconds
1/4mile: 12.6 @ 115mph
0-130: 16.4 seconds
70-0: 154 ft
Skidpad: .98G
Lanechange: 63.3mph
BMW M3
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/10q3/2011_audi_rs5_vs._2010_bmw_m3_2011_cadillac_cts-v-comparison_tests/2010_bmw_m3_page_4
0-60: 3.9 seconds
1/4mile: 12.4 @ 114mph
0-130: 16.5 seconds
70-0: 153 ft.
Skidpad: .96G
Lanechange: 70.4mph (previous test)
Seriously, even as a current Vette owner, I cannot see a reason to buy the Vette from a performance point of view. Considering the cars start within 5k of each other, the value equation is the same. Add to that BMW offers 5 years of free maintanence, a premium dealership service, far greater build quality and refinement, more usable room and practicality, I cannot justify buying the vette at all anymore.
A show of hands. Who here would actually buy the Grand Sport over the M3 with their own cash? I certainly would not, and that's worrying because I once easily choose the C5 vette over the E46 M3 (and the rest of the world).
Those handling #'s seem incredibly low; I have seen slalom speeds of ~70 or so for the Vette
I personally would def get the M3 of course, but simply because I have no use for a 2 seater car. If the Vette had 4 seats (???) I would go for that. The M3 is at the threshold of its performance capabilities, and would take significant investments to push further. The Vette can get significant performance increases with mild mods like an exhaust, etc. To that end there's some added appeal + value.
I think it's less of a matter of the Vette not stepping it up as it is the M3 stepping it up incredibly. The M3 benefited tremendously from being able to use the M5 engine architecture. From there it was easy peasy.
In any case the Vette 3000GT MR-4 would not work.
That M3 has the auto-clutch manual option which is a significant price adder. With the 6sp M/T the M3 is in a dead heat acceleration-wise with the C6.
I'm having trouble seeing the "potential" the C6 has above the M3. What is it exactly? The M3 is at its performance peak simply because BMW has other cars above it, like the M6.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 19, 2010, 10:11:45 PM
That M3 has the auto-clutch manual option which is a significant price adder. With the 6sp M/T the M3 is in a dead heat acceleration-wise with the C6.
I'm having trouble seeing the "potential" the C6 has above the M3. What is it exactly? The M3 is at its performance peak simply because BMW has other cars above it, like the M6.
If you put enough money and engineering into a car, you can make it really fucking fast, but the M3 is at the peak whereas the Vette is just a camshaft away from blowing the doors of the M3.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 19, 2010, 10:11:45 PM
I'm having trouble seeing the "potential" the C6 has above the M3. What is it exactly? The M3 is at its performance peak simply because BMW has other cars above it, like the M6.
Like SVT666 said, you put a little work in a Vette, you have a significantly faster car. Equivalent parts for the BMW would cost 2-4x as much, and still not have as dramatic an effect. Plus the Vette already has the 500lb advantage w/more torque etc...
These things matter to some people. I wouldn't get a Vette over an M3, but I would def consider a CTS-V sedan.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 20, 2010, 06:35:08 AM
Like SVT666 said, you put a little work in a Vette, you have a significantly faster car. Equivalent parts for the BMW would cost 2-4x as much, and still not have as dramatic an effect. Plus the Vette already has the 500lb advantage w/more torque etc...
These things matter to some people. I wouldn't get a Vette over an M3, but I would def consider a CTS-V sedan.
Oh, please please don't go down the "torque" road. The M3 4.0L V8 is a far superior engine, and precisely why with a little less power and moderately more weight the M3 is just as quick (or quicker with the DSG) than the C6.
That same amount of "little less work" on the M3 will yield probably better performance increase simply because the M3 V8 is a much better platform as shown by the spread between peak HP rpm and peak torque rpm:
M3 4.0L V8:
414 hp @ 8,300 rpm and 295 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm
Spread = 4,400 rpm (!!!)
C6 LS3 V8:
436 hp @ 5,900 rpm and 425 lb-ft @ 4,600 rpm
Spread = 1,300 rpm
The stupefying broadness of the M3's power band! GM is pretty much reaching the max capacity for reliability, durability and emissions with its current N/A V8, and its relative ease of being modified doesn't do much but confirm that it is (very) old technology.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 20, 2010, 10:55:17 AM
Oh, please please don't go down the "torque" road. The M3 4.0L V8 is a far superior engine, and precisely why with a little less power and moderately more weight the M3 is just as quick (or quicker with the DSG) than the C6.
That same amount of "little less work" on the M3 will yield probably better performance increase simply because the M3 V8 is a much better platform as shown by the spread between peak HP rpm and peak torque rpm:
M3 4.0L V8:
414 hp @ 8,300 rpm and 295 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm
Spread = 4,400 rpm (!!!)
C6 LS3 V8:
436 hp @ 5,900 rpm and 425 lb-ft @ 4,600 rpm
Spread = 1,300 rpm
The stupefying broadness of the M3's power band! GM is pretty much reaching the max capacity for reliability, durability and emissions with its current N/A V8, and its relative ease of being modified doesn't do much but confirm that it is (very) old technology.
Looking at those # and you reasonably say BMW engine still has more performance potential and the LS3? And the LS3 is reaching it's peak in performance and reliability? I can't read any sarcasm in your remarks
Quote from: NomisR on August 20, 2010, 11:36:49 AM
Looking at those # and you reasonably say BMW engine still has more performance potential and the LS3? And the LS3 is reaching it's peak in performance and reliability? I can't read any sarcasm in your remarks
Look how broad that power band is! 4-valve, OHC, and VVT/L = far far greater ability to move and control air through the engine, which is
the most fundamental aspect of engine performance. The whole of the InnerWebs has been down this road a gazillion times before - pooprods, 2-valve, no VVT/L is very very limited in this regard, and why pretty much no one else builds pooprods.
The reason why the ZR1 uses a S/C 6.2L is because the LS7 was at its peak for power, reliability and emissions.
You know what? Cougs is right. Screw having different cars for different people. We should all have M3's because they are obviously the best. Want a different experience? Too bad, it would be inferior so it sucks.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 20, 2010, 12:25:52 PM
Look how broad that power band is! 4-valve, OHC, and VVT/L = far far greater ability to move and control air through the engine, which is the most fundamental aspect of engine performance. The whole of the InnerWebs has been down this road a gazillion times before - pooprods, 2-valve, no VVT/L is very very limited in this regard, and why pretty much no one else builds pooprods.
The reason why the ZR1 uses a S/C 6.2L is because the LS7 was at its peak for power, reliability and emissions.
I think GM purposely leaves a lot on the table with the LS engines because they know how important responsiveness in the aftermarket is. Plus the motors have been documented as underrated (430HP motor putting down 390rwhp???) Doesn't bode well for the actual performance #s but ultimately dyno #s and strip times are very important to the Corvette crowd; whereas the V8 in the M3 is basically a very expensive black box.
Not to mention (why am I even going here) the simplicity of the LSx motors do wonders for overall engine weight & cost. Again doesn't explain why a Vette costs as much as an M3 (profitability?), but it makes sense from a business standpoint. Sometimes super technology isn't necessary.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 20, 2010, 12:25:52 PM
Look how broad that power band is! 4-valve, OHC, and VVT/L = far far greater ability to move and control air through the engine, which is the most fundamental aspect of engine performance. The whole of the InnerWebs has been down this road a gazillion times before - pooprods, 2-valve, no VVT/L is very very limited in this regard, and why pretty much no one else builds pooprods.
The reason why the ZR1 uses a S/C 6.2L is because the LS7 was at its peak for power, reliability and emissions.
You're forgetting about packaging and weight of the engines. The pushrod engines can realistically afford to have higher displacement with at lower weight and is more compact than a similarly powered OHC V8. It also means the components are less stressed and additional room for power increases. Simplicity is the key.
Quote from: NomisR on August 20, 2010, 10:36:18 PM
You're forgetting about packaging and weight of the engines. The pushrod engines can realistically afford to have higher displacement with at lower weight and is more compact than a similarly powered OHC V8. It also means the components are less stressed and additional room for power increases. Simplicity is the key.
(http://www.hahakiri.com/wp-content/uploads/_OhMyGod.jpg)
:lol:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 20, 2010, 09:57:19 PM
I think GM purposely leaves a lot on the table with the LS engines because they know how important responsiveness in the aftermarket is. Plus the motors have been documented as underrated (430HP motor putting down 390rwhp???) Doesn't bode well for the actual performance #s but ultimately dyno #s and strip times are very important to the Corvette crowd; whereas the V8 in the M3 is basically a very expensive black box.
Not to mention (why am I even going here) the simplicity of the LSx motors do wonders for overall engine weight & cost. Again doesn't explain why a Vette costs as much as an M3 (profitability?), but it makes sense from a business standpoint. Sometimes super technology isn't necessary.
The motors are SAE rated and in general chassis dynos are terrible.
Chevy ain't building a lot of capacity (= $$$) into the motors to cater to the minuscule of buyers who might do something serious to the engine.
I wouldn't call the LSx motors bad but they aren't as (nearly) as good as the competition; anything from the M3's 4.0L, to the Mustang GT's 5.0L, to Toyota's 5.7L, are much better.
How are LSx engines worse? I can't say I've ever heard someone complain about them. They are considered a strength in the Corvette and other top performance cars at GM.
Quote from: NomisR on August 20, 2010, 10:36:18 PM
You're forgetting about packaging and weight of the engines. The pushrod engines can realistically afford to have higher displacement with at lower weight and is more compact than a similarly powered OHC V8. It also means the components are less stressed and additional room for power increases. Simplicity is the key.
At a car show I went to this summer I saw a '32 Ford with a DOHC V8. It was cool, but there was one problem - packaging. The heads stuck out the side of the engine compartment and the builder had to fabricate a special piece to fit over them and it just wasn't ideal.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 21, 2010, 10:06:55 AM
The motors are SAE rated and in general chassis dynos are terrible.
Chevy ain't building a lot of capacity (= $$$) into the motors to cater to the minuscule of buyers who might do something serious to the engine.
I wouldn't call the LSx motors bad but they aren't as (nearly) as good as the competition; anything from the M3's 4.0L, to the Mustang GT's 5.0L, to Toyota's 5.7L, are much better.
The engines are good because they get the job done stock at the required cost + weight + size, and leave plenty of room for more. Might not rev to 8K but who cares? It's a good + cheap engine
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 21, 2010, 07:09:42 PM
The engines are good because they get the job done stock at the required cost + weight + size, and leave plenty of room for more. Might not rev to 8K but who cares? It's a good + cheap engine
Exactly. Who cares what redline is if you have 430 hp.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 21, 2010, 07:15:18 PM
Exactly. Who cares what redline is if you have 430 hp.
W/a lot more available through simple bolt ons. I can't see a Corvette owner complaining about the engine. I could see an M3 owner wanting more torque though.