GM Press Release: Chevrolet Lifts Lid on 2014 Corvette Stingray Convertible

[1analguy]

The Z51 convertible has the same transmission and differential coolers as the Z51 coupe. No convertible (Z51 or otherwise) will get the fender-top inlet vents, as there is no room for them. The Z51 convertibles have their cooler inlet vents under the car.

This has me wondering why, during the C7 coupe reveal, did GM claim that every vent on the car was necessary, when they now admit that some were not? Why didn't they use the under-car cooler inlets on the coupe as well as the convertible, and lose some of the needless excess visual distraction present on the coupe? The guy in charge of developing those fender-top inlets claims that they had a hell of a time getting them to flow enough air to supply the coolers...even admitting that they barely made the minimum requirement. If those vents are located exactly where they need to be, then just poking a hole and trimming it out should have done the job nicely. Instead, making them work was a huge struggle. Then the convertible team goes and accomplishes the same goal without resorting to poking additional (ugly?) holes in the car's body. I'm beginning to believe that those fender-top vents may be there because a stylist insisted on them. I can just hear it now: "the race car has them, so I want them on our car, too", or some similar edict. Perhaps I'm just being too suspicious, but it's starting to smell a little fishy...

Additionally, just when we thought that the huge argument over which C6 frame the C7 guys were claiming their improvements over (base/GS steel frame, or Z06/ZR1 aluminum frame) had been settled on the C6 aluminum frame, this press release again specifically states that the C7 frame is blah, blah stiffer and blah, blah lighter than the C6 steel frame. Gads, they really need to get their crap together...

 

[Evolution1980]

? The guy in charge of developing those fender-top inlets claims that they had a hell of a time getting them to flow enough air to supply the coolers...even admitting that they barely made the minimum requirement...Then the convertible team goes and accomplishes the same goal without resorting to poking additional (ugly?) holes in the car's body.

Interesting observation, Bob.

 

[LLC5]

The Z51 convertible has the same transmission and differential coolers as the Z51 coupe. No convertible (Z51 or otherwise) will get the fender-top inlet vents, as there is no room for them. The Z51 convertibles have their cooler inlet vents under the car.

This has me wondering why, during the C7 coupe reveal, did GM claim that every vent on the car was necessary, when they now admit that some were not? Why didn't they use the under-car cooler inlets on the coupe as well as the convertible, and lose some of the needless excess visual distraction present on the coupe? The guy in charge of developing those fender-top inlets claims that they had a hell of a time getting them to flow enough air to supply the coolers...even admitting that they barely made the minimum requirement. If those vents are located exactly where they need to be, then just poking a hole and trimming it out should have done the job nicely. Instead, making them work was a huge struggle. Then the convertible team goes and accomplishes the same goal without resorting to poking additional (ugly?) holes in the car's body. I'm beginning to believe that those fender-top vents may be there because a stylist insisted on them. I can just hear it now: "the race car has them, so I want them on our car, too", or some similar edict. Perhaps I'm just being too suspicious, but it's starting to smell a little fishy...

Additionally, just when we thought that the huge argument over which C6 frame the C7 guys were claiming their improvements over (base/GS steel frame, or Z06/ZR1 aluminum frame) had been settled on the C6 aluminum frame, this press release again specifically states that the C7 frame is blah, blah stiffer and blah, blah lighter than the C6 steel frame. Gads, they really need to get their crap together...

The vents are necessary for track driving, and since the coupe body style is intended for track use, has to be built for those clients even if they never see a track day. I am sure that the convertible vents flow less air than the coupe, which is acceptable for the intended use of the vehicle.

 

[1analguy]

...I am sure that the convertible vents flow less air than the coupe, which is acceptable for the intended use of the vehicle.

I have no way of knowing which (or, if either) vent inlet configuration flows more air...and neither do you, unless you served on the C7 development team. An axiom in logic states that when two things are both equal to a third thing, then they must also be equal to each other. Since GM has already stated/admitted that the coupe's fender-top inlets barely squeaked past the minimum air flow requirement, then logic dictates that the convertible's under-car inlets must flow at least that same minimum amount, or GM would've thrown in the towel and left the transmission and differential coolers off of the convertible...then being forced to somehow limit (or deter) the convertible's extended high-speed usage. Why would they offer identical cooling equipment on both the coupe and convertible Z51s if they weren't anticipating (and could not support) equally-serious usage with both? This is not a C6 Grand Sport situation...GM has stated that the coupe and convertible will be equally capable. So, except for the configurations of their tops, the two C7s were intentionally designed to be functionally equal.

Either the fender-top vents on the coupe were already finished and fixed as part of the design when the convertible team found their under-car cooler inlet solution, or...the coupe's fender-top inlets are actually a cosmetic design element that was forced by styling, rather than engineering, goals. Flip a coin as to which scenario is accurate. Either way, my (limited?) deductive ability leads me to the conclusion that the coupe's fender-top inlets may well be unnecessary...

 

[ltmax]

I have no way of knowing which (or, if either) vent inlet configuration flows more air...and neither do you, unless you served on the C7 development team. An axiom in logic states that when two things are both equal to a third thing, then they must also be equal to each other. Since GM has already stated/admitted that the coupe's fender-top inlets barely squeaked past the minimum air flow requirement, then logic dictates that the convertible's under-car inlets must flow at least that same minimum amount, or GM would've thrown in the towel and left the transmission and differential coolers off of the convertible...then being forced to somehow limit (or deter) the convertible's extended high-speed usage. Why would they offer identical cooling equipment on both the coupe and convertible Z51s if they weren't anticipating (and could not support) equally-serious usage with both? This is not a C6 Grand Sport situation...GM has stated that the coupe and convertible will be equally capable. So, except for the configurations of their tops, the two C7s were intentionally designed to be functionally equal.

Either the fender-top vents on the coupe were already finished and fixed as part of the design when the convertible team found their under-car cooler inlet solution, or...the coupe's fender-top inlets are actually a cosmetic design element that was forced by styling, rather than engineering, goals. Flip a coin as to which scenario is accurate. Either way, my (limited?) deductive ability leads me to the conclusion that the coupe's fender-top inlets may well be unnecessary...

Agreed, analguy! I was also wondering about the need for these fender vents (although their presence doesn't bother me nearly as much as the Viper-like frownface grille or the multitude of lines) and then they showed the ragtop without the vents. That gave the lie right there as to the 'essential necessity' of their presence, but I think there's other work to be done to clean up - not entirely re-do, not resort to retro - this body treatment. Tail lights MUST be re-done - not returning to round ones, maybe a clean hexagonal shape for each. There's still ~4 months before production and I know it's all set, but maybe some cleanup could be done by launch. Here's to hoping!

 

[Huskerman]

Listening to GM talk they are pretty proud of those taillights........spent a lot of time on them to get them just right........trust the aftermarket, there will be plug and play taillamp systems withing a year I'm thinking........

 

[Tony Alonso]

Tail lights MUST be re-done - not returning to round ones, maybe a clean hexagonal shape for each. There's still ~4 months before production and I know it's all set, but maybe some cleanup could be done by launch. Here's to hoping!

Given the integrated nature of those light shapes with the side vents, I don't think hope would lead to any change, especially this close to the release. Maybe hoping for the 2015 model year would be useful

 

[1analguy]

Personally, I have no problem with the shape of the tail lights. It's the 3D effect that's a little too "Wurlitzer jukebox" for my taste. The rear, as a whole, is just too busy...but it does look way better in the few renditions I've seen where the only change was that the entire diffuser was painted body color. If they would just do that, and then remove the mascara around the lights, and then remove the unnecessary fender-top inlets, and then paint the "A" pillars and top, and then paint the hood vents, and then get rid of the 2/3 of the grill that's actually fake, and then...oh, crap. I'm ranting again...:ugh

 

[Tony Alonso]

... then paint the "A" pillars and top

I thought the standard coupe top was body colored, unlike the transparent or carbon fiber roofs. The grey car in the photos appears to have one.

 

[1analguy]

I thought the standard coupe top was body colored, unlike the transparent or carbon fiber roofs. The grey car in the photos appears to have one.

I forgot about that. You're right, of course...and thank goodness, too. The standard top is CF...they just paint it, which is cheaper than what they have to do to make exposed CF presentable. That's just one less thing that I'll have to pay to get painted if I ever buy one...though I'd probably go for the convertible anyway. I've just realized that I like the convertible much better than the coupe. I just hope they won't be price gouging for the convertible as they have in the past...

 

[Rob]

I forgot about that. You're right, of course...and thank goodness, too. The standard top is CF...they just paint it, which is cheaper than what they have to do to make exposed CF presentable. That's just one less thing that I'll have to pay to get painted if I ever buy one...though I'd probably go for the convertible anyway. I've just realized that I like the convertible much better than the coupe. I just hope they won't be price gouging for the convertible as they have in the past...

MSRP - 2013 Convertible: 54,600
MSRP - 2013 Coupe: 49,600

$5,000 difference between the two models. Every automotive manufacturer that I know of charges more for the convertible over the couple due to the additional engineering that goes into a convertible.

So, I'm just curious how/why you consider a $5,000 increase for a convertible to be "price gouging"?

 

[73shark]

I agree that convertibles cost more today but IIRC, the coupes started out costing more. Not sure when the roadster got higher but suspect it might have been in '68 w/ the Shark design.

 

[1analguy]

...$5,000 difference between the two models. Every automotive manufacturer that I know of charges more for the convertible over the couple due to the additional engineering that goes into a convertible.

So, I'm just curious how/why you consider a $5,000 increase for a convertible to be "price gouging"?

That $5,000 premium used to be applied to cover the cost of modifying an existing coupe to produce a new convertible. That's just not the case with the C7. GM has proudly announced that there is no "additional engineering" in the convertible (vs the coupe). For one thing, they've gone to great lengths to insure lower production costs by specifically engineering a common frame for both coupe and convertible. The only change of note that they have to make for the convertible frame is to leave off the coupe's top-support hoop. Yes, the assembly process will deviate at some point, depending on whether a coupe or convertible is being produced, but realize that a targa coupe is a fairly complex assembly task in its own right...and in any case, that process deviation was always part of the original production plan. It's not like they decided to do a convertible version of the coupe after the coupe was finished and already in production (as is often the case with convertibles). That would require "the additional engineering that goes into a convertible" that you mentioned. Using your "additional engineering" argument in the case of the C7, one could just as easily argue that the C7 targa coupe required "additional engineering" (vs the convertible). But no...these two versions of the C7 were designed and planned for in parallel, and as a result, the engineering and other associated costs of each were spread across the whole platform right from the start. The happy result of this preemptive common engineering should be that the C7 will be in the same situation as the C2...which was that the C2 coupe and convertible were similar in price, because their frames were the same and their design/planning was paralleled as well. If we consider the difference in the actual amount of in-process finessing between the C7 targa coupe and the convertible to be a relative wash...and just look at the difference in cost of the parts lists between the targa coupe (with its CF top) and the convertible, then I submit that the convertible might actually be cheaper to produce than the coupe.

This should have been no different for the C5/C6, either...yet there was that $5,000 surcharge for the convertible. Hence, my "gouging" assertion. Do you honestly believe that the C5/C6 convertible cost them 10% more to produce than the coupe, when both were planned at the same time, similarly used the same frame, and the process did not require any unforeseen changes? I come from an automotive manufacturing background, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that.

Any noteworthy difference in price between the two C7 models will be driven by the Marketing department trying to squeeze as much as possible out of their relatively-few convertible customers, not by any slight difference in manufacturing costs. Marketing is looking at the past willingness of a few people to pay a handsome premium for a post-coupe-engineered convertible, so they charge the already-accepted egregious premium...and are then forced to plan on relatively few convertible sales. This is a "Catch 22" situation if ever there was one. It would be very interesting to see what the sales balance would be between the C7 coupe and convertible if they were instead priced reflecting their actual cost to produce, as the C2s were. Didn't the C2 roadster outsell the C2 coupe by close to two to one?

 

[73shark]

That $5,000 premium used to be applied to cover the cost of modifying an existing coupe to produce a new convertible. That's just not the case with the C7. GM has proudly announced that there is no "additional engineering" in the convertible (vs the coupe). For one thing, they've gone to great lengths to insure lower production costs by specifically engineering a common frame for both coupe and convertible. The only change of note that they have to make for the convertible frame is to leave off the coupe's top-support hoop. Yes, the assembly process will deviate at some point, depending on whether a coupe or convertible is being produced, but realize that a targa coupe is a fairly complex assembly task in its own right...and in any case, that process deviation was always part of the original production plan. It's not like they decided to do a convertible version of the coupe after the coupe was finished and already in production (as is often the case with convertibles). That would require "the additional engineering that goes into a convertible" that you mentioned. Using your "additional engineering" argument in the case of the C7, one could just as easily argue that the C7 targa coupe required "additional engineering" (vs the convertible). But no...these two versions of the C7 were designed and planned for in parallel, and as a result, the engineering and other associated costs of each were spread across the whole platform right from the start. The happy result of this preemptive common engineering should be that the C7 will be in the same situation as the C2...which was that the C2 coupe and convertible were similar in price, because their frames were the same and their design/planning was paralleled as well. If we consider the difference in the actual amount of in-process finessing between the C7 targa coupe and the convertible to be a relative wash...and just look at the difference in cost of the parts lists between the targa coupe (with its CF top) and the convertible, then I submit that the convertible might actually be cheaper to produce than the coupe.

This should have been no different for the C5/C6, either...yet there was that $5,000 surcharge for the convertible. Hence, my "gouging" assertion. Do you honestly believe that the C5/C6 convertible cost them 10% more to produce than the coupe, when both were planned at the same time, similarly used the same frame, and the process did not require any unforeseen changes? I come from a manufacturing background, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that.

Any noteworthy difference in price between the two C7 models will be driven by the Marketing department trying to squeeze as much as possible out of their relatively-few convertible customers, not by any slight difference in manufacturing costs. Marketing is looking at the past willingness of a few people to pay a handsome premium for a post-coupe-engineered convertible, so they charge the already-accepted egregious premium...and are then forced to plan on relatively few convertible sales. This is a "Catch 22" situation if ever there was one. It would be very interesting to see what the sales balance would be between the C7 coupe and convertible if they were instead priced reflecting their actual cost to produce, as the C2s were. Didn't the C2 roadster outsell the C2 coupe by close to two to one?

I like your logic.

My guess is that it is either because they build fewer soft tops (economies of scale) or just because they can (gouging). Probably the latter.

 

[1analguy]

...My guess is that it is either because they build fewer soft tops (economies of scale) or just because they can (gouging). Probably the latter.

But see, my last point was that their gouge pricing is what causes fewer convertible sales. They don't need to charge that much...and if they didn't, then there would be a lot more convertible sales. This might be especially true with the C7, as this time around they have made a point of making the convertible every bit as capable as the coupe.

 

[1analguy]

...Every automotive manufacturer that I know of charges more for the convertible over the couple due to the additional engineering that goes into a convertible...

Not Porsche. Comparing their two all-new 2013 981s, they charge $2,200 more for their Cayman (not even a targa, mind you, but a simpler fixed-roof coupe) than they do for the convertible version Boxster. This is because, like the C5/C6/C7 Corvettes, they are two different versions of the same car that were also designed and developed in parallel. Porsche is a company that has demonstrated at every turn that they are willing to gouge with the very best of them, yet even they refused to charge more than the coupe when pricing the convertible Boxster. They do charge nearly $12,000 more for the 911 Cabriolet than they do for the 911 coupe, but that car actually is a converted unibody coupe and so did require all the "additional engineering" we've been talking about...and then some. Even so, it lost a lot of chassis integrity in the process. It's also Porsche's "cash cow" and has a different target audience and a different equipment level.

Funny, isn't it, how a hacked-up-coupe-based convertible has to cost so much more, and yet ends up being less of a car. I'm glad the Corvette convertible was properly engineered from the start...

 

[73shark]

But see, my last point was that their gouge pricing is what causes fewer convertible sales. They don't need to charge that much...and if they didn't, then there would be a lot more convertible sales. This might be especially true with the C7, as this time around they have made a point of making the convertible every bit as capable as the coupe.

You're correct but I suspect that the increased drop-top sales would be at the expense of a lot of coupe sales due to some buyers stretching to buy a Corvette in the first place.

I'm sure that GM has analyzed this and decided that gouging works. ad

 

[1analguy]

...I suspect that the increased drop-top sales would be at the expense of a lot of coupe sales due to some buyers stretching to buy a Corvette in the first place...

Oh, absolutely. Their current convertible pricing policy has created an artificial, but compelling, incentive to purchase a coupe rather than a convertible...even among folks who would really rather have a convertible. Last year, when I was seriously considering the purchase of a new C6 GS, even though I really wanted a convertible, I just couldn't justify the extra cost (vs a coupe) when I considered all of the options that all that extra money could buy. I could move up from a 2LT convertible to a 4LT coupe for the roughly the same money...and gain a hand-built, dry-sump version of the LS3 in the bargain! If both model's prices reflected their true cost-to-produce, we'd all be free to buy the car we really wanted in the first place. I can't see why it would matter to GM if they sold more convertibles and fewer coupes, as long as they sold the same number of Corvettes. It's not like they'd be giving anything up.

 

[Evolution1980]

1analguy, I see the point you are making about the "gouging" for the convertible. Your logic is sound. However, you are looking at it from a buyers standpoint and not a sellers standpoint. Whatever vehicle(s) you currently own, I could likely apply your logic to each of them and state that the mfg or seller gouged you.

The manufacturing & sales channel is all about making a product for the least amount of money and charging the most that the market will bear. I don't think the pieces-parts and engineering costs that went into the ZR-1 amounted to an additional $60,000 over the price of the coupe, or whatever the cost delta was between the base, Z06, GS, and whatever else (Maybe it did if I think deeper about it, but for the sake of this particular conversation...)

GM could charge even less for the C7 than they are. But they aren't for the simple reason that they decided the sweet spot for the MSRP by using various formulas and market research. Of the various factors, one of those is, "What is the predicted price someone will pay for this product?" GM has determined that Joe Public will buy the base model for "X" and will buy the convertible for "X + $5000". If you call that gouging, then every single producer of goods and services that has various levels of said goods & services is guilty of "gouging" as you define it. I don't think it's fair to pick on GM and/or the Corvette brand for using tried & true manufacturing & sales models that are used by every other manufacturer out there.

 

[73shark]

1analguy, I see the point you are making about the "gouging" for the convertible. Your logic is sound. However, you are looking at it from a buyers standpoint and not a sellers standpoint. Whatever vehicle(s) you currently own, I could likely apply your logic to each of them and state that the mfg or seller gouged you.

The manufacturing & sales channel is all about making a product for the least amount of money and charging the most that the market will bear. I don't think the pieces-parts and engineering costs that went into the ZR-1 amounted to an additional $60,000 over the price of the coupe, or whatever the cost delta was between the base, Z06, GS, and whatever else (Maybe it did if I think deeper about it, but for the sake of this particular conversation...)

GM could charge even less for the C7 than they are. But they aren't for the simple reason that they decided the sweet spot for the MSRP by using various formulas and market research. Of the various factors, one of those is, "What is the predicted price someone will pay for this product?" GM has determined that Joe Public will buy the base model for "X" and will buy the convertible for "X + $5000". If you call that gouging, then every single producer of goods and services that has various levels of said goods & services is guilty of "gouging" as you define it. I don't think it's fair to pick on GM and/or the Corvette brand for using tried & true manufacturing & sales models that are used by every other manufacturer out there.

So you're saying that if the convertible was $5K cheaper than the coupe, they sell more convertibles than coupes but the total sales would be the same. Would make an interesting experiment.