Unless we see a rear- or mid-engine Corvette, someone will say it isn't really all new.

This looks like an old thread from 6 months or a year ago. With what we've now seen, :crazy:

Yea, us ole phartz can remember that.

Actually I believe the only generational change was C-2 to C-3 where they retained the frame and wheelbase. Every other generation has had a frame and wheelbase change. That is kind of major.
C-1 102" wheelbase
C-2 and C-3 98"
C-4 96.2"
C-5 104.5"
C-6 105.7"

Even if same wheelbase and mechanical similarities, the bodies are so different that I consider it a major change. Both absolutely iconic on their own and in their own right.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/1967-corvette-5.jpg

http://www.web-cars.com/images/vette...68-BnW_a_s.jpg

Oh, I agree. I was quite surprised when I first found out they were basically the same car underneath. My point was mostly the c-5 to c-6 was a major changes even if they were similar looks wise, and will the c-7..

I find it Ironic that some call the C-6 the c-5.5 and others are now calling the c-7 the c-6.4.. No one ever called the C-3 a C-2 1/2.

No one ever called any Corvette a C1, C2, C3 or C4 until the C5 came out.

A 57 was called a 57. A 63 was called a 63, A 68 was called a 68, etc.

Nicknames where straightaxle, Stingray(even though they were Stingrays(Sting Ray), sharks.

Really?
I don't feel that way about the new car at all. :confused2:

What do people mean when they say, "all new Corvette?"

What do people mean when they say, "you can still recognize it as a Corvette?" What is the essence of being a Corvette? See the book, Corvette from the Inside, for one person's opinion.

How much does styling play a role vs mechanical changes?

Seems to me that a lot of commentators on this thread haven't said what they mean by "all new."

:iagree:
It was interesting that back in 1967 we had the Sting Ray but anxiously awaited the new Mako Shark based on the 65-66 Mako Shark I and II concept cars (later renamed). When the new car finally arrived in 1968 we were a little surprised it had no "Mako Shark" emblems replacing the 63-67 "Sting Ray" emblems. In fact it had no emblems at all that one year. Then in 1969 they surprised us by declaring the car a "Stingray", one word now, with Stingray emblems now added to the fenders that were bare in 1968. It must have been an afterthought by the marketing department, now realizing that "Sting Ray" had become iconic. Yet the new car no longer had the continuous peak all the way around so it no longer resembled an aquatic sting ray very much. We found it odd to have to call this new car Stingray when it looked nothing like the Sting Ray as we knew it. So we ended up calling these cars Sharks even though Chevy decided not to.

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWcahrb1BwE

Cool video, thanks. Nice find, I don't recall ever seeing it. The first 1965 Mako Shark was a non operational "push car" with cool ribbed cast aluminum side exhausts. This video must have been done to introduce the second, fully operational Mako Shark now called "II" which did not have side exhausts. It was modified numerous times, losing its rear window louvers but gaining a ZL-1 engine and chrome side exhausts and a long tail and the name "Manta Ray". It still resides at the Heritage Center and is frequently displayed even though the paint is getting kind of scratchy. The name "Mako Shark" was pushed farther back in history and applied to the old solid axle concept car last known as the "Shark".

That car shows GM's early dedication to recycling. It began as Bill Mitchell's personal red 1958 Corvette. He had the GM Styling studio redo it as the XP700 in red with silver coves. Later it became the XP755, then the Shark for a long time, then finally after the Mako shark II became the Manta Ray the Shark was renamed Mako Shark. It went from red to gold, then silver, then light metallic blue fading down to white, then darker slate blue fading down to white. The engine went from base 283 to fuel injected to supercharged to an aluminum ZL-1. Now THAT'S recycling!

Sorry about the O.T, but gotta do something to kill time while waiting for more C7 tidbits


.

It's almost obvious the C7 will be version C5.2, similar to the C6 being version C5.1. Being developed during the worst recession in recent history and during bankruptcy, it's safe to assume it won't be a clean slate design. The spin that only a few parts carry over is crap, since just moving one hole, or making the part 1mm different qualifies for that nonsense. The car is still going to have basically the same chassis and suspension, and even the LS3 engine, with a few added changes and a new designation.

If the C8 is not a clean slate design, it's going to be game over for the Vette. Hopefully GM will continue to do well, assuring that.

Did Colorado C6 send you?

Porsche does the evolution thing. In fact the whole industry practices evolution. Still, there are significant changes from one generation to the next, and this one's no different. To those throwing around decimal points: get over yourselves. The 2014 Corvette will be the seventh-generation, period.

.Jinx

You obviously haven't done much reading on what the new LT1 engine is all about. It's more than a "few added changes".

Sure back in the 70s in high school they were all just called Corvettes or Sting Rays. But we did recognize the major body style changes as related families. I heard the term Corvette fourth gen abbreviated c4 when I worked for the auto division HQ of the railroad back in Detroit in 87. And actually the last three generations should be called y1 through y3 as current corvettes are Y bodys, but that didn't make sense as there had been three previous Corvette generations with a body style destination of 9. So C became the Corvette designation. Unlike the Camaro which is currently called an F5 as it is an F body, and the F designation has been in the VIN since the beginning on Camaros and Firebirds.

You clearly have not been following this at all. The LT1 reverses the positions of the intake and exhaust valves and dramatically reduces the valve angle changes the shape of the ports along their length, a new style of intake manifold. ANout the only things that are the same are the bore centers, the bore and stroke.

I will ask essentially the same thing. If changing all but two parts does not make it a different generation, what would it take. The engine would have to run on monkey farts? It would have to be a hover car? The body would have to make of actual glass?

As different as people think the C2 and the C3 were, they were essentially the same car with new fenders and bumpers. By upir standards the 911 has had only one geration, so no new versions since its introduction.

C5 to C6 had the same general shape. Other than that they changed everything on the car.

So no one who thinks the C6 was a C5.5 or the C7 is a C6.4 has stepped up to say what it takes in their mind to be a "new" car. or How changing 99.9% of the arts of a product does not constitutes a new product or at least the next generation, or next big release (like going from software Version 6.x to 7.0)?

IMO ... the C5 to C6 was a big change and deserved the next generation C6 label. The C6 to the C7 is even a newer car with bigger changes between the generations. Anyone who thinks the C7 is a C6.x is smokin' something. :crazy2: