Shifter6

The C5 was so revolutionary, its basic architecture continues on to the C7. Sure it’s all aluminum, and has cast and extruded sections instead of all hydroforming, but it’s pretty much the same overall structure and design.

That indicates two things, one the C5 chassis was quite a step for GM at the time, especially considering the C4 design. And two, that the C7 is just a continual evolution of the C5 chassis. That is not necessarily a good or a bad thing. Those hoping for more structure changes underneath the body panels may be disappointed, but let’s be honest; the C5/6 chassis was/is pretty good for what it needs to do.

IMO, it does put some more pressure on GM to come up with fundamental changes for the C8 chassis.

Supersonic 427

The C7 chassis is more evolutionary than revolutionary and is basically the same as the C5/C6 chassis. It has proven to be a good design. There have been only 4 different chassis in the 60 years of Corvette ....C1-53-62, C2/C3-1963-1982 C4 1984-1996 and C5/C6/C7 1997-to date.

Michael A

Having owned both a C4 and a C5, I can tell you that the C4 was flimsy, and the C5 was solid. I'm looking forward to an even stiffer chassis in the C7. A stiff chassis improves ride, handling, and reduction of squeaks and rattles.

Michael

SCM_Crash

Don't fix it if it ain't broken. The chassis is something that hasn't needed improvement. With so many other things to improve on, the chassis engineering was one of the least necessary items to focus on. That's not to say a LOT of time and work didn't go into the C6's or C7's chassis, but it is saying that they didn't spend extra time learning something from the ground up. They've had nearly 20 years of experience with this chassis so they have a good understanding of how it works and what to expect.

BlueOx

The hydroformed frames were a single gauge of metal. The C7 is a completely different design because it uses all the different sections/castings/extrusions/connection tech you mentioned. It also significantly increases stiffness and reduces weight. Because it has to support the same basic Corvette form factor, it doesn't look much different but will significantly out-perform the C5/C6 design.

Not sure I'd even call the C5 frame revolutionary but it has been a great design.

jvp

Tadge addresses this in his Car and Driver online interview with Csaba Csere. As he says, the fundamentals of the chassis haven't changed. The load paths are all the same: front-mid engine, rear drive, passengers are sitting in the same spot (and aren't getting any smaller), etc.

It's likely that if the car stays driven by the same set of wheels, and the engine is mounted in the same basic spot, that the chassis won't fundamentally change much at all.

jas

JoesC5

Mike Mercury

and the thanks for the hydroformed chassis and rear transaxle goes to Dave McLellan

not Dave Hill

63Corvette

This is a 60 year old production sports car chassis, which is still "state of the art" as far a lightness and stiffness (torsional rigidity) go

Bill Dearborn

C5 Chassis was really stiff compared to previous Corvette Chassis and the ones from other manufacturers. On top of that the gave the car double A arm suspension at all 4 corners which is the best you can do in that arena. McPherson struts aren't competitive and you don't see many purpose built race cars using them. Especially in money is no object series like F1.

If you look at Corvette racing history you see the C5/C6 Chassis has been extremely successful especially at the amateur level. As technology changes you can improve the pieces of the package but the basic structure is sound and doesn't need to change since they swung for the fences and hit the home run ball right from the start.

Bill

JudgeNjury

the c7 has 5 different aluminum sections per side with varied thickness per section dependiing on torsional stiffness desired per section.

Conceptually and in execution it's quite different than the revolutionary Hydro formed steel chassis of the c6 and c5.

I've been a big fan of GM s Hydro formed steel frame rail design.

That said the c7 which is 99 lbs lighter and 57 % stiffer is quite an innovation

gs_M6

Word, C5 was the industry's first to use hydroforming, C6 again for self piercing rivets

petermj

The only thing this indicates is that GM is cheap and neither GM or C7 buyers are serious about improving the car. As long as removable roof design continues and no matter how much improvement GM will claim, nothing will get better. GM had a good chasis, in last ZR1 and Z06 but apparently this not the buyers wanted. If GM was serious, there would be a space frame hardtop for performance minded buyers and convertible for those who just like the looks of the car.

Dominic Sorresso

Why do people continually forget that an OEM is not only building for performance but that they also need to satisfy safety, repairability, and maintenance concerns. We do a lot of bench racing here about what the engineers should do, but I would suggest we have little idea of what they deal with in terms of solving requirements that often contradict each other. Yes it's a compromise but that's the only way it's ever going to get built unless you want a single purpose vehicle.

Bad_AX

I agree with the OP that the C5 was revolutionary.

The areas of the C7 chassis that most disappoint me is the retention of the mono-leaf springs and low tech suspension bushings/joints. These are the items most often discarded when owners seek to improve the handling of their cars. If the engineers at GM got serious, I'm sure we would see something better than the polyurethane and steel spherical joints offered by the aftermarket.

BTW Tage and Harlan, how about some optional Clubsport shocks for the next Z06?

ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER (OEM) PROJECT OFFICE
ThyssenKrupp Bilstein of America
2075 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 100
Troy, MI 48084

BWF07

I really don't understand why you continue to post such negative statements. I think you are in for a rude awakening when the testing by the outside sources begins. As I said in another post I cannot think of a Corvette generation change that was not an improvement to the past and this one will be no different.

Entity83

+1

Even with all the demands that they are tasked to meet, They still deliver A car that performs and sets the benchmark. They are listening to us. Some things they can control, other things not so much...

BlueOx

Here is a little more thought about the chassis and the springs...
http://rumors.automobilemag.com/2014...#axzz2LpHH3INY

rcallen484

Because he is, plain and simple, a We all KNOW that you can't have a serious performance chassis w/o a fixed roof.



If we are all REALLY lucky, he will explain to us all how the C7 torque tube is a structural component of the frame

Shaka

What do you suggest?