several serious reasons the C7 is inadequate
01-13-2013, 09:46 PM
#81
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Western NYS
Posts: 1,041
Received 554 Likes
on
204 Posts
2022 C7 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2018 C7 of Year Finalist
I picked the 05 Z06 because, according to the C7 fans, its definitely faster than the current C7, so it makes the point even more solid that the C7 doesnt do the job a brand new version of the vette should, which is at least be faster than the lower priced mustang on a friggin ROAD COURSE.
01-13-2013, 09:49 PM
#82
Melting Slicks
I think the OP has unrealistic expectations and apparently thinks GM can defy physics and economics.
1. Weight: First we do not know the final weight. GM has not released that, they have stated that they saved ~ 120-130 lbs in Al frame and composite use in body panels. I too wish the car was sub 3000 lbs but I suspect for the target price, that was not possible. I am amazed that the base car is coming with a CF hood and roof and can be done for the proposed MSRP. That's amazing! It also suggests that the Z06/ZR1 replacements are likely to have a lot more CF bodywork.
2. Power. With the advent of DI for the same displacement, you can tune for more power or economy. They clearly split the difference here. I think the devil is in the details. If they have a torque curve of the Z06 in a car that is lighter than a Z06, that should be a fun car to drive. Keep in mind this is the BASE car.
They probably left a little on the table for a mid-cycle bump in power. Also, as no doubt they have already planned if not built the successor to the Z06/ZR1, they probably wanted to keep a significant HP delta between this car.
3. Power relative to competition - Frankly the use of HP numbers should be banned. What matters in power:weight and we know the corvette spanks the mustang and nearly all other competitors in that fight.
4. Acceleration - mid to low 3's? Given the FE/RWD configuration of this car, low 3's on street tires is going to be difficult no matter the HP. The super C7 vette, whatever they call it, will have the same problem. They might be able to hit 3.2 or 3.1 if we see a F1 style transmission in the future. With a proper manual - it's not likely due to the limitations of physics.
5. There are loads of styling cues that link this with the C2 and C3 - the entire front of the care, rear hatch, etc.
1. Weight: First we do not know the final weight. GM has not released that, they have stated that they saved ~ 120-130 lbs in Al frame and composite use in body panels. I too wish the car was sub 3000 lbs but I suspect for the target price, that was not possible. I am amazed that the base car is coming with a CF hood and roof and can be done for the proposed MSRP. That's amazing! It also suggests that the Z06/ZR1 replacements are likely to have a lot more CF bodywork.
2. Power. With the advent of DI for the same displacement, you can tune for more power or economy. They clearly split the difference here. I think the devil is in the details. If they have a torque curve of the Z06 in a car that is lighter than a Z06, that should be a fun car to drive. Keep in mind this is the BASE car.
They probably left a little on the table for a mid-cycle bump in power. Also, as no doubt they have already planned if not built the successor to the Z06/ZR1, they probably wanted to keep a significant HP delta between this car.3. Power relative to competition - Frankly the use of HP numbers should be banned. What matters in power:weight and we know the corvette spanks the mustang and nearly all other competitors in that fight.
4. Acceleration - mid to low 3's? Given the FE/RWD configuration of this car, low 3's on street tires is going to be difficult no matter the HP. The super C7 vette, whatever they call it, will have the same problem. They might be able to hit 3.2 or 3.1 if we see a F1 style transmission in the future. With a proper manual - it's not likely due to the limitations of physics.
5. There are loads of styling cues that link this with the C2 and C3 - the entire front of the care, rear hatch, etc.
01-13-2013, 09:58 PM
#83
Performance numbers are one thing....that awful Camaro rear end is quite another...The new Vette is a reason for better designers to get busy and create some attractive body panels..could actually help the aftermarket body panel busienss being so ugly,,,, expecially the rear!
For what it is, I'm not as against the front of it as I thought I would be....but it does seem to have a total lack of design integration as a whole theme...Arrdvark and Camels come to mind, certainly not Pinninfarina!
I'm keeping my C5.....and in a few years I'm sure its going to cost a boatload of mony to keep going...but if this is the alternative to go newer, NO THANKS, I'll keep my oldster running....
For what it is, I'm not as against the front of it as I thought I would be....but it does seem to have a total lack of design integration as a whole theme...Arrdvark and Camels come to mind, certainly not Pinninfarina!
I'm keeping my C5.....and in a few years I'm sure its going to cost a boatload of mony to keep going...but if this is the alternative to go newer, NO THANKS, I'll keep my oldster running....
01-13-2013, 10:01 PM
#84
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2009
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the OP has unrealistic expectations and apparently thinks GM can defy physics and economics.
1. Weight: First we do not know the final weight. GM has not released that, they have stated that they saved ~ 120-130 lbs in Al frame and composite use in body panels. I too wish the car was sub 3000 lbs but I suspect for the target price, that was not possible. I am amazed that the base car is coming with a CF hood and roof and can be done for the proposed MSRP. That's amazing! It also suggests that the Z06/ZR1 replacements are likely to have a lot more CF bodywork.
2. Power. With the advent of DI for the same displacement, you can tune for more power or economy. They clearly split the difference here. I think the devil is in the details. If they have a torque curve of the Z06 in a car that is lighter than a Z06, that should be a fun car to drive. Keep in mind this is the BASE car. They probably left a little on the table for a mid-cycle bump in power. Also, as no doubt they have already planned if not built the successor to the Z06/ZR1, they probably wanted to keep a significant HP delta between this car.
3. Power relative to competition - Frankly the use of HP numbers should be banned. What matters in power:weight and we know the corvette spanks the mustang and nearly all other competitors in that fight.
4. Acceleration - mid to low 3's? Given the FE/RWD configuration of this car, low 3's on street tires is going to be difficult no matter the HP. The super C7 vette, whatever they call it, will have the same problem. They might be able to hit 3.2 or 3.1 if we see a F1 style transmission in the future. With a proper manual - it's not likely due to the limitations of physics.
5. There are loads of styling cues that link this with the C2 and C3 - the entire front of the care, rear hatch, etc.
1. Weight: First we do not know the final weight. GM has not released that, they have stated that they saved ~ 120-130 lbs in Al frame and composite use in body panels. I too wish the car was sub 3000 lbs but I suspect for the target price, that was not possible. I am amazed that the base car is coming with a CF hood and roof and can be done for the proposed MSRP. That's amazing! It also suggests that the Z06/ZR1 replacements are likely to have a lot more CF bodywork.
2. Power. With the advent of DI for the same displacement, you can tune for more power or economy. They clearly split the difference here. I think the devil is in the details. If they have a torque curve of the Z06 in a car that is lighter than a Z06, that should be a fun car to drive. Keep in mind this is the BASE car.
They probably left a little on the table for a mid-cycle bump in power. Also, as no doubt they have already planned if not built the successor to the Z06/ZR1, they probably wanted to keep a significant HP delta between this car.3. Power relative to competition - Frankly the use of HP numbers should be banned. What matters in power:weight and we know the corvette spanks the mustang and nearly all other competitors in that fight.
4. Acceleration - mid to low 3's? Given the FE/RWD configuration of this car, low 3's on street tires is going to be difficult no matter the HP. The super C7 vette, whatever they call it, will have the same problem. They might be able to hit 3.2 or 3.1 if we see a F1 style transmission in the future. With a proper manual - it's not likely due to the limitations of physics.
5. There are loads of styling cues that link this with the C2 and C3 - the entire front of the care, rear hatch, etc.
2. with all due respect, what you say is just a list of excuses.look at it this way: shouldnt variable valve timing, direct injection, and reworked combustion chambers add up to more than 14 horsepower? its their mistake if they are saving up EVERYTHING for the mid model bump. i think they should make a splash now..if their big plan is to attract young buyers and change the equation, shouldnt they be way beyond the M3 or hell the AMG C63?
3. the corvette does not spank the mustang Gt500 in power to weight. mustang = 5.28 hp/lb, C7 6.8 hp/lb..
4. again, the GT500 hits 0-60 in 3.0 with a manual setup so I think Corvette should be able to do that
5.subjective..i agree with you mostly
I think we should have gotten traction and more power instead of a mild drop in weight...this C7 doesnt really have any "new" ideas or technology..its just the "latest" stuff...or really just "recent" stuff...
is it too much to ask GM to figure out a way to give us near AWD traction without the cost of an actual AWD setup? whatever happened to innovation? only realistic in hindsight, is it?
01-13-2013, 10:02 PM
#85
Race Director
Member Since: Oct 2001
Location: Miami, FL America's Herpe
Posts: 12,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By stupid do you mean the GT500 will be 2 seconds faster than an 05 C6 Z06 at Laguna Seca?
Power matters...this is a CORVETTE forum right? Are we seriously saying that less power is okay? WTF has happened here??
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html
Power matters...this is a CORVETTE forum right? Are we seriously saying that less power is okay? WTF has happened here??
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html
There was no '05 Z06.
Don't let that stop your butt hurt though.
01-13-2013, 10:02 PM
#86
Advanced
Member Since: Dec 2009
Location: Whitman MA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-13-2013, 10:05 PM
#87
Melting Slicks
I picked the 05 Z06 because, according to the C7 fans, its definitely faster than the current C7, so it makes the point even more solid that the C7 doesnt do the job a brand new version of the vette should, which is at least be faster than the lower priced mustang on a friggin ROAD COURSE.
by your reasoning, perhaps I should compare new Corvette times to old GT500 times.For ***** and giggles, I looked up ALL the laptimes for the '13 GT500 on the site you linked:
Laguna Seca: Slower than any of the latest (2011 listed) Z06 runs. No Grandsport times listed
GingerMan Raceway: GT500 not only has a slower laptime than a base C6, it's the slowest laptime of any car listed. Slower than a Porsche Boxster. Awsome...
Grattan Raceway: Faster than a Z51 C6 by less than a second. Pummeled by both ZR1 and Z06. No Grandsport times listed.
Sachsenring: No vette times to lose to, but it has a slower time than the ZL1 on here.
Virginia International Raceway: Slower than the Grandsport Corvette by over 2 seconds!
Again, this car is supposed to be faster than a C6 Grandsport in base form, and lo and behold, look how the Shelby's laptimes compare to the latest of Chevy's offerings. Oh. My. God.
Last edited by C3DeedlyDee; 01-13-2013 at 10:09 PM.
01-13-2013, 10:07 PM
#89
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Bagpipes put the "fun" in "funeral"
Posts: 69,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-13-2013, 10:12 PM
#93
Drifting
Stop starting these theoretical threads people. The HP numbers are not necessarily final. No tests have been released. A lot of people said jalopnik was crazy and this car basically looks 100% like their original rendering. The 13 gt500 was estimated at 600 HP, then, 650, and finally ended up with 662. Give it time.
01-13-2013, 10:15 PM
#95
Burning Brakes
Member Since: May 2008
Location: Huntington Beach Ca
Posts: 933
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
1- the jump from C5 to C6 was a 50 hp increase!! the C6 to C7 is 14? isnt that a K&N filter on the LS3? they say the torque is like the LS7 at low rpms..will have to see how relevant that is.
2- the base C6 was as fast as the previous Z06!! The C7 will weigh more than the C6 Z06 and have 50 hp less power....is that supposed to be exciting? Im not saying the base C7 should be a C6 ZR1..but its been 8 years!!! The C7 should be breaking the C6's records in a big way!
3- when the C6 came out with 400hp, it had *100HP* more than the brand new mustang...the C7 with 450HP isnt doing anything special..thats just average now for sports cars
4- this car needs to be in the solid mid 11's with a mid to low 3 second 0-60 to be exciting, especially at $59 grand.
5- this car has no links to the stingray..calling it that is ridiculous...it doesnt have the curves and it doesnt have the mystery
Heres what the C7 SHOULD have been:
200 lbs lighter..figure it out GM
better seats and a somewhat nicer interior
535 hp
11.4 quarter mile, 3.4s 0-60
LED headlights (not LED DRL's)
NOT a camaro rear end
$55000 base model with those specs
2- the base C6 was as fast as the previous Z06!! The C7 will weigh more than the C6 Z06 and have 50 hp less power....is that supposed to be exciting? Im not saying the base C7 should be a C6 ZR1..but its been 8 years!!! The C7 should be breaking the C6's records in a big way!
3- when the C6 came out with 400hp, it had *100HP* more than the brand new mustang...the C7 with 450HP isnt doing anything special..thats just average now for sports cars
4- this car needs to be in the solid mid 11's with a mid to low 3 second 0-60 to be exciting, especially at $59 grand.
5- this car has no links to the stingray..calling it that is ridiculous...it doesnt have the curves and it doesnt have the mystery
Heres what the C7 SHOULD have been:
200 lbs lighter..figure it out GM
better seats and a somewhat nicer interior
535 hp
11.4 quarter mile, 3.4s 0-60
LED headlights (not LED DRL's)
NOT a camaro rear end
$55000 base model with those specs
:c razy:
01-13-2013, 10:16 PM
#96
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2009
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except you took the '05 Z06 and not the CURRENT C6 Z06. There is a difference, you know? Now the Z06 has revised suspension, improved aerodynamics, and much better tires than the crap Eagle F1 tires they first had. With time comes design progress. It's a crazy concept, I know by your reasoning, perhaps I should compare new Corvette times to old GT500 times.
For ***** and giggles, I looked up ALL the laptimes for the '13 GT500 on the site you linked:
Laguna Seca: Slower than any of the latest (2011 listed) Z06 runs. No Grandsport times listed
GingerMan Raceway: GT500 not only has a slower laptime than a base C6, it's the slowest laptime of any car listed. Slower than a Porsche Boxster. Awsome...
Grattan Raceway: Faster than a Z51 C6 by less than a second. Pummeled by both ZR1 and Z06. No Grandsport times listed.
Sachsenring: No vette times to lose to, but it has a slower time than the ZL1 on here.
Virginia International Raceway: Slower than the Grandsport Corvette by over 2 seconds!
Again, this car is supposed to be faster than a C6 Grandsport in base form, and lo and behold, look how the Shelby's laptimes compare to the latest of Chevy's offerings. Oh. My. God.
by your reasoning, perhaps I should compare new Corvette times to old GT500 times.For ***** and giggles, I looked up ALL the laptimes for the '13 GT500 on the site you linked:
Laguna Seca: Slower than any of the latest (2011 listed) Z06 runs. No Grandsport times listed
GingerMan Raceway: GT500 not only has a slower laptime than a base C6, it's the slowest laptime of any car listed. Slower than a Porsche Boxster. Awsome...
Grattan Raceway: Faster than a Z51 C6 by less than a second. Pummeled by both ZR1 and Z06. No Grandsport times listed.
Sachsenring: No vette times to lose to, but it has a slower time than the ZL1 on here.
Virginia International Raceway: Slower than the Grandsport Corvette by over 2 seconds!
Again, this car is supposed to be faster than a C6 Grandsport in base form, and lo and behold, look how the Shelby's laptimes compare to the latest of Chevy's offerings. Oh. My. God.
The point is that the GT500 is in the same league as the corvettes on a road racing course, and costs $5k less than the C7. It is in no way just faster in a straight line.
01-13-2013, 10:17 PM
#97
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2009
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop starting these theoretical threads people. The HP numbers are not necessarily final. No tests have been released. A lot of people said jalopnik was crazy and this car basically looks 100% like their original rendering. The 13 gt500 was estimated at 600 HP, then, 650, and finally ended up with 662. Give it time.
I agree with you about the numbers though, no way did all those engine changes add up to only 14hp, unless its all for MPG.
01-13-2013, 10:20 PM
#98
The C7 to me is like a blind date that you cant wait to be over...I guess I will be optimistically be waiting for the C8. Now if she was a monster in the sack I would give her another chance....only until somethin nicer came along...GM did not out do themselves with this car....I hope they outsell the C5's or the C6's, but I would bet against it big time!!! GM you could of done a better job. I will say for the money, I would spend another 20 grand and buy the zr-1. I wouldn't even consider the C7. Again, I hope I am proved wrong, cause I am a vette lover......let the jury decide!!!
01-13-2013, 10:22 PM
#99
Le Mans Master
01-13-2013, 10:23 PM
#100
Racer
Member Since: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
acannell, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and start attacking you, but want to point out why I think your expectations are unrealistic:
You mentioned low to mid 3s 0-60. Problem is not power, but traction and transmission. For that to happen, especially on the street, you have to be on drag radials day in day out. My Z06 would be lucky to get low 4s on most street surfaces, because not once have I NOT spun through 1st, and I have Cup tires...
Mid 11's? Again, highly unrealistic because the Vette lacks 1) AWD, and 2) dual clutch transmission. Couple those 2 together you have yourself a $100k car. Hotshoe drivers may get it into the 11's, but trashing the transmission synchros in short order.
HP - we don' know yet. Yes 450 is a little low, but the drive-ability will be awesome, better than my LS7. Likewise, the street manners of the LS2 was better than LS6.
Also, look at the efficiency of the Vette. Find ONE Japanese or Euro car, 450+ hp, with better mileage. In fact, most 350/370Z get no better mpg than my car, and I spank them pretty bad...
You mentioned low to mid 3s 0-60. Problem is not power, but traction and transmission. For that to happen, especially on the street, you have to be on drag radials day in day out. My Z06 would be lucky to get low 4s on most street surfaces, because not once have I NOT spun through 1st, and I have Cup tires...
Mid 11's? Again, highly unrealistic because the Vette lacks 1) AWD, and 2) dual clutch transmission. Couple those 2 together you have yourself a $100k car. Hotshoe drivers may get it into the 11's, but trashing the transmission synchros in short order.
HP - we don' know yet. Yes 450 is a little low, but the drive-ability will be awesome, better than my LS7. Likewise, the street manners of the LS2 was better than LS6.
Also, look at the efficiency of the Vette. Find ONE Japanese or Euro car, 450+ hp, with better mileage. In fact, most 350/370Z get no better mpg than my car, and I spank them pretty bad...