2500 lb C7 Corvette possible?
 

A 2500 pound weight Corvette will go a long way to giving the C7 a phenomenal new lease on life. Many benefits will accrue to a high-powered sports car with weight near that number. Decreasing Lbs per HP is probably the cleanest path to improve overall performance. Side benefits are improved gas consumption improved tire wear, even smaller tires will yield slot-car like traction on curves. And with less weight there may be considerably less stress on most stressed components.

What kind of weight target has been mentioned for the C7. Or do we have to wait for the C8 to get real on weight?

I know there have been thousands of legislated federal rules over the last 40 years which impact weight in all cars, but I can't seem to forget how phenomenally a 1969 Lotus Elan I once owned handled, and that car weighed around 1,750 lbs (less after I removed the seat belts lol). In my mind this would be a goal worthy of our best engineers' best efforts. :thumbs:

No, not possible.

The Mazda Miata barely squeaks under 2500 pounds.

The Miata is a unibody car. It's not a car with lightweight technology but just a small car with traditional construction.

The Lotus Elise is about the same size as the Miata and it comes in at about 2000 pounds. It has an aluminum frame in tall cross sections and a fiberglass bodywork.

The Corvette has a hydroformed steel girder frame (in tall cross section) and a fiberglass bodywork.

The Z06 Corvette has a hydroformed aluminum girder frame (in tall cross section) and a fiberglass bodywork.

And so the Corvette will pretty much be okay if it doesn't change its current construction type.

However the Corvette could improve fuel mileage, while keeping the V8, but going to the Northstar engine.

The Lotus Elise also had under 200hp, cost as much as a Corvette, was unrealistic as a daily driver for most people, and IIRC only came to the US with special exemption from 2.5mph bumper standards.

I don't see the Northstar engine coming back.

And C7 will be doing quite well to hit the ground around 3,100 at its debut.

Perhaps if carbon fiber production techniques continue to push the time and cost of that product down, we'll be able to see more use of it in the Vette down the road, which would help.

If the Corvette weighed less then it could have a smaller engine and transmission while keeping its power-to-weight ratio.

But the only smaller engines with good balance are the inline-six and the boxer-six.

Well, the Lincoln LS had a 32-valve V8 at 3.9L size. The 32-valve Northstar sitting in my garage with 185,000 miles on it is 4.6L size.

Considering the Corvette's very good construction type, one way to lower weight would be the 98" wheelbase that I suggested in another subject.

But Bowling Green is doing a $131 million dollar refitting and we don't yet know what that means for the Corvette.

Horsepower is not an issue when lightweight vehicle technology is the subject. Only power-to-weight ratio should be considered.

But the Corvette does have a better power-to-weight ratio than the Elise. However, the Elise can do quarter mile times in the 13's.

A relative of the Elise, the 2-Eleven, makes 1477 pounds weight in road trim. So the Elise is not really that sparten even though it weighs 500 pounds less than a MX-5.

You nailed it Jinx. The heck with its size and weight; it is not livable in daily use. :thumbs:

The OP has too much time on his hands and is just stirring the pot. He knows, as we all do, that anything even at 3,000 pounds is unrealistic or unlikely, let alone 2,500 pounds. :cheers:

Have you EVER driven one, let alone lived with one of these flyweight cars? I think not. :nonod:

After you live with one in daily use for a while, come on back and tell us all about it. :cheers:

The Corvette is a flyweight car in a 400 horsepower category. Go compare it to a Camaro.

I want a 3000 pound Corvette with 98" wheelbase and a 32-valve Northstar engine. Also, a 47.7" roof height.

To your first point, I know that! :flag: You don't have to tell me anything about a Camaro or any other car.

As to your latter point; don't hold your breath. :D

Ladies and Gentlemen....announcing the new 700 hp 572 ci COMPLETELY CARBON FIBER MOTOR in the new C7 Corvette!!! Weighing in at a measly 150 lbs, this new motor is showcased in Jay Leno's new C7 AWD, 4 seater, weighing in at a total 2743 lbs! MSRP $498,000

:rofl: :rofl:

Thanks for that. :cheers:

That's rich! :D literally at $498K....

The interesting thing I think is that the new Cadillac ATS comes in at 3200 pounds. That is pretty stinken light for a sedan. However, this has nothing to do with a corvette.

Yeah, and a few years from now the GM small block V8 will produce over 800 hp and weight 110 lbs. A few years from now people will also still barf at the idea of a V6 in a Corvette.:U

That was the wheel base from 1963 to 1982. 98 inch wheel base down from the old wheel base of 106 if I remember correctly.
z51vett:hide:

Whats so great about a northstar is the 32 values or what it's wider and is a packaging problem and its old tech. Oh and my 427 1967 vett weighed in at 3000 pounds give or take.
z51vett:hide:

The new C7 (ok not really): 2,300 lbs and a V-12...sure it's a one-off probably built by a rich man and the design is well.... special, I guess Chevy can't beat this and meet government regs at the same time is what I hear people saying. If you give this thing one more foot in length you can probably have almost as much storage space as in the Vert's trunk (note the space behind the seats in one of the photos).

As to can't live with them and they're "uncivilized" I guess that's up to you. I lived with my Elan for 2 years, drove it all over, made interstate trips and never felt I was lacking space....... maybe because that's what sports cars were back then. I finally let it go when I bashed it into an unmovable object... :eek:

http://www.moal.com/04_gallery/11gatto/index.php

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/12/m...powered-gatto/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/au...pagewanted=all

And Shank has a good point there, I'm anticipating that the ATS will break some old preconceptions about what America can build..... but we'll see. I hope Chevy engineers are as innovative on the C7 as the Caddy ones appear to be. :thumbs:

I did. I used it as a daily driver and enjoyed it greatly. I was not exactly svelte at the time at 30 pounds overweight. The Elise was centainly spartan as compared to the Corvette, but it was not a problem for me or my wife.

Perhaps my ownership of the Elise allows me to be a lot more appreciative of the posh current Corvette interior. :thumbs:

While I agree with you on ALL of those awesome benefits, 2500 pounds is simply out of the question, unfortunately.
The car is expected (by both the buying public and the corporate decision makers alike) to have too much content and be too quiet along with all of the safety and emissions requirements for it to really go anywhere below 3000 (maybe 2900?) pounds.
It would require a major change in focus/direction (and likely a HUGE reduction in power output) for the nameplate to get the weight down that low.
Think of the transition from the heavier 300ZX twin turbos down to the lighter, less powerful 370Zs (after a few years hiatus of course).





Very cool cars, I've been somewhat of a fan of those since the late '70s. The Sprint models and the special 'Gold Leaf' editions, Minilite wheels etc. :yesnod:
When the Miata first came out I was like: "hmm, I wonder where some of that car's influence came from?" LOL. :D

Power to weight is not the only factor to consider. Total power, and cd and frontal area are the primary determinants of top speed (see the 4000+ pound Veyron).

The 2005 Elise I had with the Sport pack theoretically could do 0-60 in 4.0 secs (with a 8000rpm clutch drop), but a 385hp, 3000 pound 2001 Z06 with a similar 0-60 kicked its bottom from there on up.

My brother had a 1967 Europa that weighed ~1500, that was spartan compared to the Elise, the Z06 was a luxury car by comparison to the Elise. The current Corvette is head and shoulders above the 2001 Z06. I don't get the complaints. Sports cars are supposed to be spartan.:rock:

:iagree:





102" actually. :yesnod:

The Northstar is dead and pales in comparison to the current LSx engines, in terms of size, weight and power. The Gen V engine will be even better than the LSx Gen IV small block.

The Corvette needs better fuel mileage. They ARE talking about a turbo V6. But a 32-valve Northstar would have the balance of a V8. And we see from the Lincoln LS that a V8 has no problem as small as 3.9L.

A 5.0 32-valve Ford Mustang engine makes 420 horsepower. That's more horsepower-per-liter than the LS engines.

My 2012 Kia Rio is 2403 pounds straight off the dealer lot. Base model, no crazy options. 1.6 Direct injection and I get 40mpg on the highway. Think about that.

And it's a tiny car (outward appearance at least) Inside - i'm almost 6'2 and 215lbs and have plenty of room.

It's a skinny short car though, once you start adding a 5-7L engine, 345mm tires/rims, all that jazz weight starts to skyrocket. It quite literally takes two tires put together to equal the width of the rears on my Z06. Kinda funny :)

If GM can really ramp up and get carbon fiber for cheap they could make a nice dent in the weight, but it's all about how much joe six pack is willing to pay.

I said in my first post concerning the weight of the Corvette:

"And so the Corvette will pretty much be okay if it doesn't change its current construction type."

But see, they might change the construction type of the Corvette.

They have to keep the large frame for the horsepower but they could replace the fiberglass bodywork with hydroformed steel bodywork. If they do that the weight goes up 200 pounds. Could they do that ? Yeah, that's how the Solstice is built.

2500Lbs is simply unrealistic for a Corvette under $200K.

/story

Now I don't believe that the Corvette has to be super light weight to have a "new lease on life" and honestly, I'm not aware that it needs one.

True, but at the roughly 31mpg that some people are getting out of their base C6s on the highway, it's not exactly delivering poor fuel economy at the moment either, especially for a 430+hp, 190mph car. ;)
But yes, better fuel economy would be welcome and might even be mandatory if the car is going to survive well into the future.
I just know if going with DOHCs and 4 valves per cylinder is the only way to achieve it, as you seem to be implying. :)






The cars aren't actually fiberglass anymore, it's another form of plastic (SMC I believe?) now.
And they won't be adding 200 pounds (nor making the body out of steel) to the next Corvette. It might not lose too much (or any) weight for 2014 (though I still think it will), but it certainly won't be gaining any either.

So you want to use the Northstar that is at least 50 lbs heavier than an LS3 while having 130 fewer hp in your super light weight Corvette?

The new Coyote 5.0 is truly an impressive engine, but still does weigh more than an LS3, while making less power and torque.

In my humble opinion horsepower per liter is irrelevant for a street car that's primary market does not tax displacement. Direct Injection and the associated higher compression ratio, combined with reductions to internal friction and the rumored more advanced valvetrain, when coupled with some weight reduction will provide all the fuel consumption improvement necessary in a car that makes up such a comparatively low percentage of fleet volume.

I would like to see the C7 be as light as possible too, but think fewer than 3000lbs is probably unrealistic, and even that is not going to be easy.

The above is all just my opinion and could very well be off base. We'll all find out in January :)

The SOLSTICE?? What the.....???:toetap::ack:

As someone sated the Northstar is heavier than the LSx. It is also bigger is external size, and gets worse fuel mileage. Not to mention as someone else did lower horsepower.

Power per liter is of little consequence.

No, it's 3400 pounds, for the base car. Nearly 3500 pounds for the enthusiast turbo-4 version, and over 3500 pounds for the 320hp V6 automatic.

It's still impressively light for a luxury sedan, but it's yet more evidence of how wholly unrealistic calls for a 2500lb Corvette are.

I'd love to see cars get lighter, but it's going to take serious rationalization of safety standards and new manufacturing technology to make significant reductions, especially in cars like Corvette.

And yes, pounds-per-horsepower is an important metric. The US Elise never saw the right side of the 10lb/hp line; the Corvette crossed it fifteen years ago. Nuff said.

As for the Northstar fanboy, your favorite engine is dead for very good reasons.

.Jinx

True.
Of course the car that it's installed in also weighs 400+ pounds more than a Corvette as well. ;)




:iagree:

I thought I saw 32xx somewhere, but anyway the base is 3315.

I think 30xx-3150 would be possible within the price, but I don't know if it will happen.

I'll be damned, you're right -- GM released six days ago: base 3315, 3461 with the V6. And 22/32 mpg for both the fours.

I wonder how much those numbers will climb with typical options.

.Jinx

I think one useful area to attack with carbon fiber products is the unsprung weight of the car. Featherlight wheels, that make OEM wheels, CCWs and OZ racing wheels look like lead bricks by comparison, have always been available, but cost something like $10,000 for four. I would imagine that an order for tens of thousands of those wheels could reduce the cost substantially, and although the weight savings over current stock wheels might only be 30lbs, 30lbs off of unsprung weight is a substantial savings.

The problem with using the power per liter measure is you get an underpowered car that way. The LS engines are getting more power per pound and physical dimensions than the other manufacturers. That is why people are replacing BMW, Miata, 944, 911 and older Nissan Z engines with LS engines. They get more power, for the same or less weight in a smaller overall size package. The Northstar is dead because it weighs too much, is too big and is too complicated. You don't see people putting them or Ford OHC engines in other cars with smaller displacement OHC engines since they don't fit. Late last year one of the other instructors at a WGI driving school took me for a ride in his LS1 powered 944. I asked him why he made the switch and his answer was reliability, less maintenance while at the track, more power, less weight and better performance. The car was awesome on the track, it cornered like it was on rails and ran as fast or faster than most of the top dog cars that were there that day and when he finished the session he pulled into the garage and walked away until the next session.

You start going with a smaller displacement OHC V6 with a Supercharger on it and you get a heavier engine with larger outside dimensions. All that crap necessary to place the cams on the top of the engine adds weight higher in the car and requires more room for the engine.

Bill

A 2500 LB Vette sounds like my dream daily driver. I have owned, driven daily, and loved, a 2000 lb Scirocco, 2100 lb FIAT X-1/9 and a 2800 lb Porsche 944. They had more than enough creature comforts for me, driver-friendly seating and communicative handling! Of course, they were terribly slow by today's standards (or, for that matter, Y2K standards).

I think it is conceiveable that you could create a safe, legal, reasonably comfortable and dependable, mass-produced, 300 HP/300 lb-ft torque, 2500 lb sports car for $50K -- but it would be a somewhat spartan vehicle. The market would be very small given today's consumer preferences. Think a stripper Miata with a 4 liter DI alloy V8. All systems -- wheels, tires, brakes, shocks, springs, AC, power assists, etc. would be "right-sized" for this somewhat smaller platform. If Miata can give you all that with 170 HP for $25K, then another $20K or so should put it over the top.

Now something like this would be really great if it somehow had the tractability and dependability of the Vette, which I am sure it does not: http://www.ronsusser.com/inventory.htm?id=884 But then, I'm older now and it would need to fit a couple golf bags plus my wife. No way...:lol:

Back in the mid-80's there was a company called "Monster Miatas", which converted new-build Miatas to be equipped with Ford 5.0L V-8's. I came close to getting one, especially after driving one, but decided on a new Firebird Trans Am, instead. This is the best I can do about recollecting that vehicle. It was a pocket rocket!

A few years back, carbon fiber wheels broke in GP motorcycle road racing and they are not popular. They should work but I don't know where they are currently used.

For street cars, the Volk CE28N and the Volk TE37 are incredibly light and strong. They are just forged aluminum but hot-forged at extremely high pressure. Also, the alloy might be more exotic than expected. Upgrade Motoring lists the Volk TE37 Corvette wheels in 19 x 12 + 57 and 18 x 9.5 +35. Then Vivid Racing says that they are discontinued.

On the 32-valve Northstar engine for the Corvette:

It would be a high-output Northstar and not a Cadillac Northstar. It would have horsepower-per-liter similar to the 2013 Ford Mustang 5.0. And the Corvette would get better fuel mileage than the Mustang because the Corvette weighs less and is pushing less air.

But they have talked about a turbocharged V6 for the Corvette. It could happen at any year point. A 32-valve Northstar, on the other hand, keeps the balance of a V8. Also, we see from the Lincoln LS that a 32-valve V8 has no problem as small as 3.9L.

The 2013 Ford Mustang 5.0 V8 makes 420 horsepower.
.
.

I hope you mean mid-90's or we're in some very weird time-warp :rofl:

Seriously great fun, I'm told.

Heh, some of those decades were a bit hazy . . . I think you are correct.

After driving the V-8 Miata, I told the guy, "You don't drive this thing, you AIM it." He laughed, but I walked. Crazy fast car.

With all due respect, I don't understand your fixation with the Northstar engine for use in the C7. Compared to the current LS series engines, the Northstar is inferior as to

1) size/packaging,
2) weight,
3) hp,
4) power under the curve (common for 4/multi-valve engines),
5) efficiency,
6) higher center of mass (negative to handling),
7) cost (since it wouldn't likely be leveraged across as many platforms as the Vette engine base architecture is).

I frankly don't want a heavier, physically larger, more difficult to package, more expensive, torque deficient engine in my sports car in general, my Vettes in particular.

B Stead, I'm curious why you're pushing the Northstar engine so much. Why do you feel the new LS series of engines (or even the Gen IV for that matter) will be inadequate?


<edit> Damn OnPoint beat me by 2 minutes. I guess his screen name is pretty accurate. :lol:

:iagree:

Volume does not always bring the price down. If there's a constraint on materials, or the production process is fundamentally time-intensive (as it is with carbon fiber), bigger orders may make bigger problems.

.Jinx

Horsepower per litre is irrelevant. How do you still not get this? The size of the empty space that the pistons travel through doesn't matter. What matters is the size of the whole engine. What matters is the mass of the whole engine. Measure the stuff that's there, not the empty space inside. When you do, you find that the modern Chevy smallblocks provide more power in a physically smaller lighter-weight package than DOHC V8s do.

It has no problem producing small horsepower, either.

You keep saying Northstar would be better, but you fail to provide any believable reasoning to support your case.

.Jinx

:iagree:
My buddy has a Monster Miata with a Ford 302.
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...s/Miata/V8.jpg

Here's a Miata with a LS1

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...a/LS1Miata.jpg

I have a Flying Miata turbo that puts out 275 HP without the added weight and cost of a V8. Still weighs 2,460 lbs., power to weight ratio rules.

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...Picture002.jpg
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...ata/Miata8.jpg

I dig those Monster Miatas but like the Miata LSx conversions even more. :thumbs:




I sure hope it's not for the very same reasons that we've all seen others cling to in the past...that typical cliche' (but somewhat misinformed) "old tech" versus "new tech" thing....or the usual "hey, DOHCs/multi valves per cylinder are what most of the European and Japanese manufacturers use so Corvettes should have it too!" :D

Sorry, but you obviously know nothing about what makes for an efficient engine. The northstar engine was not particularly efficient, particularly when you consider the displacement and power output. There is a reason for this. It is internal friction. A DOC overhead cam V8 has 4 times the internal friction in the cam train and much more spinning mass than an SBC with only one cam. Plus it's a much heavier engine and very top heavy, which is bad for handling and it is larger than the LSx SBC. What you should be wishing for is an SBC with pushrod 4 valve heads. But that won't happen until the patent runs out on the Arao Engineering 4 valve bolt on head.

http://www.araoengineering.com/

The guy who runs the company is an unscrupulous #$%^&%^$ and he wanted so much to license it to GM that they told him never and they'd just wait till the patent ran out. He also seems to like to take peoples money and not deliver anything other than empty promises. But if the patent were to expire tomorrow, GM would suddenly start producing 4 valve pushrod heads and the SBC would get a huge performance boost with very little weight gain and almost no increase in internal friction.

I always chuckle when I see that, and you're right, one sees it often.

Truth is, OHC technology had widespread application in aircraft and motor vehicles prior to OHV technology. Thus the old tech is actually OHC.

Simple fact of the matter is that neither one is new tech, and they each offer advantages and disadvantages relative to the other.

In our market - where the controlling government doesn't tax displacement (for now anyway), OHV has many advantages over OHC for the Vette.

The Elise did go below 10 pounds/hp in the supercharged form. However, nowhere the close the current Corvettes'

As you know less weight has many advantages than just improving pounds/hp.

I am one of the strange ones that is all for less weight, even to the sacrifice of some creature comforts. Maybe they could make something like the BMW CSL and Porsche Club Sport lightweight models. Manual everything except windows. Surprisingly electric windows on the Elise saved a couple of pounds.

The C6 aluminum frame is about 136 punds lighter than the steel frame IIRC. so it should be easy to get that kind of weight savings out of the base model.

In the US market? Was it real or did it evaporate under SAE standards?

The base model Z06 is this, but most Z06s get optioned up. I doubt there are more than a handful of buyers interested in a more-expensive-lightweight version of the base Corvette, e.g. narrow body with more expensive lightweight wheels and more expensive lightweight body panels and no options. Something tells me people would want to check the lightweight options and then add 3LT or 4LT... see C5 Z06.

As for the frame, we all want the lighter-weight frame to be standard on C7 :)

.Jinx

Under 2500#, is possible but unlikely due to expense. There would be massive amounts of titantium and carbon fiber to be possible. No AC, no radio, etc.

Its kinda funny to me to hear about all the weight reduction everyone wants in the vette. Porsche is one of the leaders in small lightweight cars. Which has been the at the very heart of sports car racing for decades.... American cars (vettes, camaros, mustangs) big cars with, high HP. vs. European cars, small, lightweight, adaquate HP.

The Battle still continues, the more that things change, the more they stay the same.

The C6 doesnt even have a spare tire, for weight savings I suspect.
The saftey equipment may be upgraded in the C7, that means more airbags and thats adds weight.
I still dont see why it doesnt have a spare tire, but i've read how allot of auto makers are seeing into not having a spare tire to save weight and adding a can of fix a flat and a inflater.
At least my old C4 has a spare tire, thanks C4 engineers.:thumbs:

:iagree:

Yup - a Dusenberg Model J (1928 - 1937), for example, had a 8 cyl DOHC 4 valve/cyl engine of 420 ci and 265 hp. Hot for its day - yes! New tech now - uh, no! :crazy:

With extended mobility tires, an onboard spare and jack are pretty much obsolete. You could safely drive 50 miles or more with a tread surface puncture. And you don't even have to pull over or get out of the car at a busy road side.

Also, I might be wrong, but the C5/C6 has less ground clearance than the C4. I imagine that makes it more difficult to get a jack under the car while on the side of the road.

The 2014 will lose 200- 300 lbs.

I could see 200 pounds. Al frame alone is nearly 140 pound difference. Getting another 60 would be impressive, tho.

:rofl: :rofl:

I think Hades will freeze over first. :lol:

:iagree:

A 200 to 300 pound reduction is possible (but quite unlikely IMHO), but at what size and cost sacrifices?.

Even a 2,500 pound car is possible, but it wouldn't be a Corvette.:flag:

How many cars in the Corvette performance class (or faster) weigh less than 3,000 pounds? How many supercars?

I do love the Sky turbo. It should have been saved and not that I'd ever want it to replace the Vette I liked this concept....

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...untitled-1.jpg

:iagree:

3100 lbs would be a win.

:iagree:

None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Nocht. Dim. Null.

:cheers:

Whoa - you got real close to summoning Beetlejuice there. . . . . :rofl:

OMG, you're right. I apologize for the gaffe. :cheers:

:iagree:as well.
I think 3100-3150 could be the magic number too even if this 'aluminum frame' rumor doesn't actually happen...I'm suspecting that there will be a roughly 50-100 pound reduction in weight.
If the car does get an aluminum frame we could be looking at 3000 (3050?) pounds even.

For many years the Corvette has been lighter than the Porsche 911. It is only with the 991 that the Porche 911 is right there and maybe slightly lighter.

Yes, they had 220hp and then there may have been 240 and 260hp Exige variants that all were under 10 pounds per HP curb weight.

What I read was the next gen MX5 Miata would be 2-300 lbs lighter than today's model. If they can do that GM can make the C7 200 lbs lighter. They are shooting for 2200lbs

car drops 100 lbs but driver gains 100 lbs. zero net effect. :willy:

IMO there are several elements within the Vett community:

1 Would like GM to build a MP4-12 that has Corvette looks. The coupe, roadster and competition version. Turbo V-8, et al

2 Would like GM to build, as the base Vett, an updated, track ready Z06. Lighter, DI 6.2lt,
al chassis et al

3 Would like a street and long range cruise ala the MB SL series. Autoshifting manual, two engines, 6.2lt NA and 6.2lt Supercharged.

Does that c over everyone?

Yeah my source was able to tell me that the base model will get an aluminum frame so 3000-3050lbs could well be in the picture.

Some of you have pretty modest weight reduction guesses for C7. I thought the new car was supposed to be a major change? Hmmm.

My '10 3LZ Z06 with NAV and chromies weighed in at 3157 on race shop scales, now it is at around 3070 lb with some weight reductions like Akro Ti exhaust, Coleman 2 piece rotors all around, lighter weight Michelin Pilot Sport SS tires... Mix that with its slightly elevated race shop dynoed 474 rear wheel h/p (a few mods that keep warranty intact) and this car flies.

The factory could easily offer a Ti exhaust since it did with C5 Z06. If the C7 is supposed to be smaller dimensionally, and possibly a smaller engine, it does not seem like very much progress to come in at about the weight I am already at.

I know the 11's and up Z06 Z07 models porked out a bit more (according to every weight posted in all the car mags) I guess because of adding a lot of ZR1 stuff and the current GS models are well over 3300 lbs, but it still seems to me that C7 that is a really new generation, could at least match my current '10 weights.

OTOH, the poster that is hoping for 2500 lbs is likely in for a major disappointment.

Good news, hope it's true. :)





:iagree:

"Major change" doesn't offer a real definition as to what is changing and could come in many different ways.

There could be some weight loss in the engine compartment and some in the frame but we really aren't being given anything to ponder of substance by GM in that regard.

I suspect the majority of change is more the interior quality (which we KNOW has to change), available engines, wheelbase, looks, etc.

Yes, nut are scale weights "curb weight" which is all fluids including fuel.

Maybe just half a tank, I don't recall.

The curb weight for 2001 Z06 was 3130 pounds. With an aluminum frame it would be below 3000 pounds. Lighter seats, wheels, tires brakes.... would have dropped another hundred pounds. Carbon fiber more weight gone.

Really 2900 pounds should be possible.

I think we're too addicted to giant wheels and fat tires and a roomy cabin to duck under 3,000 pounds. Look at the spy shots; you can only take so much mass out of feet that big.

:iagree:

3115 lbs was only for the 2001 FRC.

The 2012 Z06 coupe weighs 3199 lbs with the latest aluminum/magesium frame. Dropping the 300 lbs to 2900 lbs would be a real stretch, especially without charging a whole lot more. I just don't see the necessity...I guess we will just have to wait and see.

I'm not quite sure the C5Zs could have gotten lighter seats... They were already as crappy and basic as it gets and they didn't even have side bolsters.

I agree Babe, on all points.

To all posting 'this' is possible and 'that' is possible; you are all correct. ANYTHING is possible, including weights of 2,500, 2,900, 3,000 pounds. Again, will it still be a Corvette, and at what cost (dollars or interior room or luggage capacity or amenities)?

The Corvette remains one of the lightest high-performance sports cars available today. :flag: :flag:

"Possible" is an expansive word. Conspiracy theories thrive in the possible.


Better to ask yourself what's realistic or practical.
Even better to ask yourself what's likely.

A 2500lb C7 isn't any of those.

The Z06 could not make the drop but the base could drop 136 by going to the aluminum frame. THey coulg with thinner glass like the 2001 Z06.

The current Z06 is heavier in part due to the dry sump system.

The 2001 Z06 could have had lighter seats. Look at the Opel seats GM has developed.

There are many weight saving tricks that have not yet been used. Some will be piloted on the Corvette before going mainstream. All of the tricks will be important because dropping weight is critical to improving mileage across the entire GM product line.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, because I do. I just don't really see the point if it makes costs go up significantly. Relating this to the FRC is missing a major point about the larger glass and hatch area/hardware of the coupe. Certain weight saving 'tricks' can make the GM and the Vette engineers look a bit desperate and the resulting product look kind of 'cobbled' up.

What exactly is the point/need for this much weight loss? Very few people will care...it won't help sales that much.

The indications are the the large curved glass is going away. There has been work on coated polycarbonate rear glazing that would reduce weight. There has been much talk of lower cost methods of producing carbon fiber panels. Someone is producing a "carbon fiber" SMC that is just as light and easier to use.

GM went to great efforts to reduce the weight of the Corvette's steel frame by adjusting the thickness in various places to have the strength in the right places and less weight in others. They could do the same with the alumnum frame or change its alloy. Or carbon fiber in the frame. Or do ceramic or polymer blocks.

I have not desire to see the cost increase. The reality is that all manufacturers have to increase mileage across their lines. The Corvette will be a test bed for thta. A big piece of the R&D cost will not be carried by the Corvette model so all the cost will not fall on the Corvette, mostly the production cost.

Don't be scared or concerned; be excited!

I am excited but am also a bit concerned at cost. Sales are bad enough already!:eek:

:iagree:

I read yesterday that they are looking to move toward a Porsche sized Vette. Without making the thing completely out of fiber size is the only way to get the weight way down. The RX7 was 2800lb and really squirrely at 650hp? And now with the good traction and handling controls GM doesn't need as broad of stance! SIZE IS EFFICIENCY!

There is certainly a correlation between size and weight. However, regarding "not needing the old broad stance", I must disagree.

The C7 must be sized to fit the American male. The cockpit must allow for plenty of shoulder room, and that affects the width of the car. I've sat in several import sports cars and had my left shoulder bang on the car door when it was closed. I would have to sit tilted to the right. :ack:

Besides, from a styling and sales perspective, you just can't expect C7 buyers to give up the wide body stance, complete with massive tires. Granted, the greenies want to put skinnies on all cars, but the C7 buyer won't stand for it.

The Corvette IS Porsche 911 sized now! :yesnod:

The Corvette C6 is 174.6" long, 72.6" wide, 49.0" high and weighs 3,208 pounds.

The Porsche 911 is 176.8" long, 71.2" wide, 51.3" high and weighs 3,075. I believe the newest version shed another 30 pounds, but....

Not sure who wrote the article, but they had some misconception (as many do) of just how small the Corvette is. :cheers::cheers:

Jackhall99, you are so right about size comparisons to the 911's. :yesnod: I finally quit arguing with people, I'm not sure what kind of optical illusion the C6 designers drew-up but many people think it's "big". :eek:

Maybe we grew-up with a 911 that to most looks much the same now as it did 40 years ago and we/I don't realize the inch here, inch there growth of the Porsche over that time, only the height is less now than in 1969. Of course it weighed around 2200 lbs back then..... :yesnod:

:iagree: The 911 has evolved nicely over the years, but as you say it has added pounds over the years. :cheers:

I know the feeling . . . :D

The 911 and Corvette have been same-sized for, what, 20 years? Also, IIRC, the Porsche only recently got lighter and more fuel efficient than Corvette.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I've been lucky in that regard; 175 coming out of HS in 1960 and 178 today. :yesnod: Don't ask me how as I LOVE to eat and beer is a favorite beverage. :lol:

Hmmm?
 

I can't find it now, but, yesterday I read something here off the front page that a GM guy I have heard of before said the Vette is already good with stuff about the 427 convertible, and I thought he said they were working to get the Vette down to the size of a Porsche. And I wouldn't have been surprised, without looking at the numbers, if a Porsche was smaller. Maybe he was referring to weight, but, there is alot of room in back and I don't have a boom box? Also, I didn't think he was referring to the C7 size.

I'm no P-car fan, but I think the 911 has some vestigial back seats, no?