C7 Updates

[steveb01z06]

Yes, CAFE standards are averaged over the entire fleet, now, but the EPA seems to have the ability to change rules on a whim, and I bet there aren't that many gearheads in leadership positions working there.

But a collapsed dollar would be worse for products that are not essentials.

 

[02VetteCoupe]

I understand your point, but the fastest cars around a track have 13 inch wheels, not 20. Yes the brakes can be bigger, but wheels are driving the entire design. Width, not height, is going to enhance performance, and the new car has narrower wheels than the C5 or C6, at least on the front.

I still think that too much attention is being paid to things that maybe make a long weekend trip more enjoyable, but they do slow the car down and make it more expensive.

I'd like to see a hard-core performance version, and not by adding a SC and 300 lbs.

Well the front rims are the same width as the C5 fronts and the rears are half an inch wider... and after all, the C5 fronts are narrower than C4's behemoth fronts. As were the C5 Z06's. And the C5 was a great leap in all around performance. I have faith they can at least make a fast Corvette lol

 

[02VetteCoupe]

What makes me think the Vette will be gone (along with all other high-powered, large personal vehicles) has to do with acronyms: EPA, CAFE, and most recently, GAO. I'm sure you know that the EPA has been pushing for much higher CAFE standards, which is hardly friendly to powerful cars. And just last Friday, the GAO issued a report that stated that the current economic situation in the US is "unsustainable" and if not corrected will result in the "collapse of the dollar." This, also, will be bad for big, powerful cars, along with just about everything else.

So, I actually feel kind of stupid talking about something as inconsequential as the empty weight of a car that could be the swan song of GM, but it's also possible this won't happen. But when the GAO errs, it's usually on the side of optimism.

I think all FAST cars would be fine if they let them be the fast cars and stop making 550HP sedans lol

 

[steveb01z06]

Well the front rims are the same width as the C5 fronts and the rears are half an inch wider... and after all, the C5 fronts are narrower than C4's behemoth fronts. As were the C5 Z06's. And the C5 was a great leap in all around performance. I have faith they can at least make a fast Corvette lol

Both my 86 Z51 Coupe and my 01 Z06 have 91/2 inch wide front wheels. The primary design goal of the C5 was to carry two people and their golf bags to the golf course. This was a publicized goal. My 86 had no problem beating the C5's in organized competition until the Z06 arrived on the scene.

I think about the only thing performance wise that the C5 was a big step forward in was top speed. The all-around performance improvement came when they developed the LS6, increased wheel widths, changed to steeper gears, and reduced weight.

 

[02VetteCoupe]

Both my 86 Z51 Coupe and my 01 Z06 have 91/2 inch wide front wheels. The primary design goal of the C5 was to carry two people and their golf bags to the golf course. This was a publicized goal. My 86 had no problem beating the C5's in organized competition until the Z06 arrived on the scene.

I think about the only thing performance wise that the C5 was a big step forward in was top speed. The all-around performance improvement came when they developed the LS6, increased wheel widths, changed to steeper gears, and reduced weight.

Do you have a B2K car? Anyways, I still believe that overall, the performance was a fairly noticeable increase for the C5. I owned a 92. That LT1 was nothing stacked against the LS1. How long have you tracked your 87? Also, congrats for showing up the guys with their newer models. I want to track my car some day. I've only been to the strip. Running lean with 290rwhp and 280rwtq and old tires I ran a 12.9 with a not-so-good 60'. My car has 315 and 320 respectively after tune, plus new tires that hook up. I'd bet on mid 12s if I go back in the summer.

 

[02VetteCoupe]

So I know the hype about the new tech incorporations for the LT1 is primarily economy related, but I remember when they said "at least 450hp" and TQ... I think we can expect more than 450. They said the torque from 2k to 4k was equal to the Z06. I'm thinking 460+. Remember, 450 is only 14 above current base C6 with the exhaust package... and TQ is currently like 424? I'm thinking they will surprise us. Plus they said in early lap testing, the car was beating current GS times. Anyways, can't wait to see one in person and drive one.

 

[1analguy]

...They said the torque from 2k to 4k was equal to the Z06. I'm thinking 460+. Remember, 450 is only 14 above current base C6 with the exhaust package... and TQ is currently like 424? I'm thinking they will surprise us. Plus they said in early lap testing, the car was beating current GS times...

It should be a bit faster than a GS. It weighs about the same and has an edge in power, so why not?

 

[steveb01z06]

It does not HAVE to be lighter to be faster. Better chassis control will go a long way to reducing lap times, and I don't remember this much concern, if any, being voiced about how fast a new car is around the track until the C7 came along. I think there is a lot of engineering talent at GM, so if their stated goal is to make the car faster than the old car, I would be surprised if they didn't accomplish that, even with a little more weight on the car than they want.

The weight issue is in part due to conflicting goals: the chassis and drivetrain and aero engineers want to make it lighter and faster and the entertainment and nav, hivac, and NVH engineers want to make it heavier and slower.

And for the straight-line crowd, with a 50/50 weight distribution, it should get off the line a little better than the C6, which has a front weight bias, so the 0-60 time will probably be better, even with the same power to weight ratio.

 

[Rob]

I think we should probably wait to see what Corvette Engineering has up their sleeves. It's quite possible that different models of the C7 will have different weights depending on what they offer for packages. The sport seats may weigh less than the standard touring seats...and maybe nav and other luxury options will only be offered with certain packages that won't be offered on certain models that afe geared for higher performance and/or track duty. Right now I think it's too early to speculate much and draw conclusions.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[1analguy]

...The weight issue is in part due to conflicting goals: the chassis and drivetrain and aero engineers want to make it lighter and faster and the entertainment and nav, hivac, and NVH engineers want to make it heavier and slower...

The article in the March issue of Automobile magazine finally confirms this. The engineers did save a lot of weight in the frame, suspension, seats, body materials, etc. However, the LT1's added hardware accounts for an additional 30lbs. So does the infotainment system. The door beams had to be beefier to pass the latest side impact standards, and the torque tube has gone from aluminum to steel in order to address NVH issues brought about during 4 cylinder operation. And let's not forget, the car itself is actually a bit larger than the C6. So really, they fought the good fight on mass increase...and achieved a draw. It could have been worse...