Why are people so blinded by the "camaro lights" to realize what the c7 is?
01-16-2013, 01:42 AM
#81
Team Owner
Member Since: Apr 2001
Location: Elmhurst, IL (West Suburb of Chicago) & Home of MEGA Horsepower
Posts: 26,714
Received 584 Likes
on
399 Posts
St. Jude Donor '06
Answer to the OP's questions:
Because the really ugly, non-corvette looking rear end (not just the camaro style tail lights), but the ENTIRE rear end, KILLS the entire awesome looks of the C7!
I actually LOVE the C7 looks from every angle, until the entire rear end comes into play. The entire rear end just looks really ugly, doesn't fit the rest of the lines of the car, just kills the exterior looks of the C7 for me and many others. I mean CHIT GM, finish the car properly, looks like a mack truck rear ended the rear end and flattened it all out. JUST make the rear end match the rest of the car, like the new Viper and any other super car out there, and you hit a home run. But to me, the bases were loaded and GM hit into a triple play, all b/c the ENTIRE rear end on the C7 is an EPIC failure (in my opinion).
And yes, I still hate the smiley face front end of a base C6 coupe, but the C7 I love (until I see the rear end).
Jim Hall of Halltech engineering sized it up pretty well and I agree with him 100%.
Because the really ugly, non-corvette looking rear end (not just the camaro style tail lights), but the ENTIRE rear end, KILLS the entire awesome looks of the C7!
I actually LOVE the C7 looks from every angle, until the entire rear end comes into play. The entire rear end just looks really ugly, doesn't fit the rest of the lines of the car, just kills the exterior looks of the C7 for me and many others. I mean CHIT GM, finish the car properly, looks like a mack truck rear ended the rear end and flattened it all out. JUST make the rear end match the rest of the car, like the new Viper and any other super car out there, and you hit a home run. But to me, the bases were loaded and GM hit into a triple play, all b/c the ENTIRE rear end on the C7 is an EPIC failure (in my opinion).
And yes, I still hate the smiley face front end of a base C6 coupe, but the C7 I love (until I see the rear end).
Jim Hall of Halltech engineering sized it up pretty well and I agree with him 100%.
I actually love the overall style of the C7, the wide body attitude, the sleek design and attention to every detail...... until you look at the Camaro tail lights and section after section rear end. It looks like they wanted to make the rear end the butt of jokes (pun intended) The moment I saw the drawings, I decided not to buy a C7, but after the reveal, the rest of the style redeemed the car and put it on my list of must haves for our business. I have a friend that will have one of the first 100 cars, so buying our own, was not critical, but having seen it now makes sense.
Having said that, we are on a list for first round delivery and plan on doing the intake in carbon fiber within a month or so after testing. We'll likely sell it right after that. Had the rear end been even close to the Corvette look, it would be a keeper for my wife. Maybe the idea was to appeal to the Camaro guys, who love that look and want to move up a notch or two with the C7. It should shave a half second off the 1/4 mile compared with the Camaro, and match the ZL1.
Don't forget, this car is for the masses, not the pure horsepower junkies like you find on this forum, so horsepower was not first consideration, nor was weight.
As most everyone knows, the 427 will not be returning, so most of us will likely keep our iconic muscle car, and just mod it along the way.
I would hate to be the designer that signed off on the rear end, since it is going to kill it for many Corvette junkies. There are some things easy to fix, and make better, but having to redesign the entire rear end is not one the aftermarket will likely venture into.
Jim Hall
Having said that, we are on a list for first round delivery and plan on doing the intake in carbon fiber within a month or so after testing. We'll likely sell it right after that. Had the rear end been even close to the Corvette look, it would be a keeper for my wife. Maybe the idea was to appeal to the Camaro guys, who love that look and want to move up a notch or two with the C7. It should shave a half second off the 1/4 mile compared with the Camaro, and match the ZL1.
Don't forget, this car is for the masses, not the pure horsepower junkies like you find on this forum, so horsepower was not first consideration, nor was weight.
As most everyone knows, the 427 will not be returning, so most of us will likely keep our iconic muscle car, and just mod it along the way.
I would hate to be the designer that signed off on the rear end, since it is going to kill it for many Corvette junkies. There are some things easy to fix, and make better, but having to redesign the entire rear end is not one the aftermarket will likely venture into.
Jim Hall
Last edited by Mopar Jimmy; 01-16-2013 at 01:50 AM.
01-16-2013, 01:49 AM
#82
Instructor
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Roseville CA
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-16-2013, 03:32 AM
#84
It is camaro simular that is for sure. I showed a picture today to my brother and he thought it did resemble the camaro rear too and so did my wife. I never put the words in their mouth so the story tells the truth. This is what corvette owners want i feel. They want the best sports car by chevrolet and that is the corvette. They pay a fairly big chunk more and do want to be recognized as buying the top car and a corvette should not resemble the camaro. Now that's my opionion yours may be different.
01-16-2013, 03:51 AM
#88
Racer
Member Since: Nov 2008
Location: Morehead KY
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Literally every other post i see is " omg camaro taillights.. omg i hate it.. it looks like a camaro.. omg the car is ruined because it has camaro taillights.. omg it looks like a new camaro". Are people forgetting both cars are chevys flagship cars? Did people forget that in 1998, they slapped the new ls1 motor from the 1997 Corvette into the 1998 base model z28 without any changes whatsoever? I've never come across a group of people that are so ashamed of a car sharing similarities within its OWN BRAND while being completely blinded of the car they are "hating" on.
People are so stuck up in their own *** crying about how the taillights are now in the same shape group as the Camaro and are completely failing to realize that the new c7 is a masterpiece and has completely pushed the envelope as far as an american made ~55k dollar car is capable of. Looking at the current c6, This new car couldve been the C8 as far as technology goes.
The Corvette and Chevy needed this more than ever. Considering the fact the Fords/Chevy's low end ecoboxs have more refinement and technology than the c6.
People are so stuck up in their own *** crying about how the taillights are now in the same shape group as the Camaro and are completely failing to realize that the new c7 is a masterpiece and has completely pushed the envelope as far as an american made ~55k dollar car is capable of. Looking at the current c6, This new car couldve been the C8 as far as technology goes.
The Corvette and Chevy needed this more than ever. Considering the fact the Fords/Chevy's low end ecoboxs have more refinement and technology than the c6.
01-16-2013, 03:53 AM
#90
Racer
Member Since: Nov 2008
Location: Morehead KY
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh yeah on another note, you know that there will be aftermarket suppliers that will give it a new tail end with the four tail lights more than likely because of this outcry by the traditionalists. So just be patient . . .
01-16-2013, 03:57 AM
#92
Mavidatt i know i emailed one of the vendors already and said you guys are gonna make a killing just make a whole new back end for the c7. They actually told me they are already in the process of something. Some like but very few and me i just can't get over it too. Im trying and it's day 3 and it just isn't growing on me period.
Last edited by Just Cruise; 01-16-2013 at 04:03 AM.
