New C6 Pixs not a Photo Chop

[KOPBET]

Dear bashing police,

Take it easy. For the record, no one is bashing anybody. This is not about agreeing or disagreeing with him or anyone else. The only thing I might be guilty of is an inadvertent hijack about copyrighted pix for which I appologize.

 

[Rick Daniel]

Hey folks can`t we all just get along.

 

[Ctfoodguy2000]

It is realy unfortunate; the atmosphere has changed dramaticly over the last few months on this web site. Lets all take a deep breath and treat each other with dignity & respect. If you have nothing nice to say, why not say it to yourself and not post it?

From a guy that loves Vettes and works to dam hard to argue!

 

[tyrel]

Okay, I saw those pics over at the other corvette forum, and I was amazed that all those guys were slobbering over themselves about how much they liked "the new C6".

First of all, I'm highly skeptical that GM would even allow these pictures to be here in the first place. One call from a lawyer and the site hosting those pics would be down before you can say Jack Sprat.

Secondly, nothing is carved in stone. Until the C6 is revealed in January, it's all speculation. The pictures in question could be a mule or a design prototype or a modified C5, IT'S ANYONE'S GUESS. It's amusing how so many people can be so gullible. I'm just amazed that so many people would instantly jump on the bandwagon and assume that this is the new C6, without a shred of proof that it is. Remember that "alien autopsy" film? There were many people who believed that it was a real alien. Yeah, and Elvis is still alive too.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but you really can't believe something until you see it, and January is less than two months away. That said, I hate the new pics. I still think the front looks like a squished Dodge Neon and the back is even uglier and even more bulbous than the back of the C5. If...IF...this is the C6, looks like I'll be holding on to my C4 until the C7.

 

[rocklyons]

to Tyrel

Unless GM owned the photos they would have no right to injoin anyone from posting them. It appears that these photos (whether genuine C-6 or not) were taken by some third party somewhere not on a GM site. The person taking the picture owns the copyright unless he was hired by someone to take it, in which case the employer owns the copyright.

The worse thing that could happen at this stage would be for the copyright holder to demand that they not be shown.

 

[modman]

My first impression is that these are decoy photos taken of a "project" car. Funny to think that maybe some GM execs are giggling like girls about how everyone is "taking the bait" on these photos.
Do you see "evolutuion" in this car?
I'm just always skepticle until proven otherwise.

 

[billagroom]

People who have seen the C6 Say this is the real deal.

Originally posted by Hib Halverson That's the 2005 Corvette full "body in white". My guess is someone caught a body at an outside supplier.

 

[atmmac]

Okay, I saw those pics over at the other corvette forum, and I was amazed that all those guys were slobbering over themselves about how much they liked "the new C6".

First of all, I'm highly skeptical that GM would even allow these pictures to be here in the first place. One call from a lawyer and the site hosting those pics would be down before you can say Jack Sprat.

Secondly, nothing is carved in stone. Until the C6 is revealed in January, it's all speculation. The pictures in question could be a mule or a design prototype or a modified C5, IT'S ANYONE'S GUESS. It's amusing how so many people can be so gullible. I'm just amazed that so many people would instantly jump on the bandwagon and assume that this is the new C6, without a shred of proof that it is. Remember that "alien autopsy" film? There were many people who believed that it was a real alien. Yeah, and Elvis is still alive too.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but you really can't believe something until you see it, and January is less than two months away. That said, I hate the new pics. I still think the front looks like a squished Dodge Neon and the back is even uglier and even more bulbous than the back of the C5. If...IF...this is the C6, looks like I'll be holding on to my C4 until the C7.

Ill be hanging on to my C5 for a while looks like a corvair type failure!

 

[Tom73]

Ill be hanging on to my C5 for a while looks like a corvair type failure!

Hay now, what is wrong with the Corvair??? It was probably one of the best cars built in its time. Just that it was killed off in favor of the Camaro because of the Mustang. The Corvair has the distinction of being the only car fully tested by and proven to be safe by the Federal govt.

By the way, this is my '64 vert.

tom...

 

[tt-rexx]

corvair

it was killed by ralph nader for being unsafe i think

 

[HOTMOTORSPORTS]

Didn't the Corvair get pulled because it rolled over with ease?

Chuck

 

[Tom73]

Didn't the Corvair get pulled because it rolled over with ease?

Old wives tail. No more likely to roll over than a Porsche.

tom...

 

[DRTH VTR]

The early ones had a defective rear axle design that allowed the outside rear wheel to tuck under the car under hard cornering. The car would then be unrecoverable and roll. A device that limited axle travel was left out, apparently to save money. Later models included such a device. It's too bad, as the car had some really good qualities, too.

 

[tt-rexx]

old but true

old but still true. ralph nader killed the corvair because it was unsafe that was his claim to fame and the first time we ever heard of him. after that it was consumer this and consumer that.
and he is still active in this role. today

 

[Tom73]

Re: corvair

it was killed by ralph nader for being unsafe i think

First lets get one thing corrected. The 'vair is not unsafe. It was tested by the Feds after the press that Nader generated and was found, by the Feds, to be just as safe as anyother car of the day.

If any thing nader extended its life. Chevy had planed to drop the car after the 65 model year but due to the publicity they did not want to appear to give in so extended it through the 69 model year.

It was the Mustang that killed the 'Vair. Chevy put all of its development behind its Mustang fighter, the Camaro.

I know this is hijacking this thread, sorry, but you may find this of interest.

In the January issue of Corvette Magazine, there is an article about the introduction of the ’68 Corvette. That article has some interesting comments about the Corvair.

Pete Estes presided over a new era in which the Corvette faced a sharp increase in competition from cars made not only outside the US but also within General Motors itself. The initial threat came from the Corvair, which had rebounded from its lukewarm debut to score a marked success as the first of Detroit’s small sporty cars. The turbocharged Monza Sypder was a sharp-looking convertible that approached the performance of the original six-cylinder Corvette, offering a much cheaper alternative to Chevy’s powerful two-place sports car. With its Sting Ray-inspired rear suspension, the much-improved Corvair also had the potential to be developed for even higher performance and handling—high enough, perhaps, to challenge the Corvette outright.

Before it had a chance to become dangerous, that menace was defused by Estes: All further development of the air-cooled flat-6 was stopped in the spring of 1965. The focus of design and sales efforts in this size and price class was to be shifted to Chevrolet’s upcoming Mustang fighter, the Camaro—a car that was cheaper to build than the Corvair, and therefore a better moneymaker for Chevrolet.

tom...

 

[HOTMOTORSPORTS]

Tom73:

Here is a site that supports what your saying. This site states that the rear suspension was an ingenious design!

It was several things and timing that was its demise:

http://www.vex.net/~guru/corvair/whatww.htm

Chuck

I'll bet your '64 has some good value to it!

 

[tt-rexx]

safe

yes they did prove it safe but the damage was done. sales bottomed out and johnny carson had a new line of jokes.my father wanted to buy one until i told him he didn't want to be seen in a fugly unsafe car so be bought a ss impal.

 

[Tom73]

The first generation 'Vair did have a rear suspension that would allow the rear wheel to tuck under in certian situations. This is where the half shaft only has a u-joint on the inboard end and is solid at the out board end. Same was true for the VW bug, the Trimuph Spitfire, and most other early low buck IRS setups. Believe that the early Porsche was also in this group but not sure there.

The second generation 'Vair had the Corvette rear suspension, just with coil springs rather than the transverse leaf spring. A case can be made for the 2nd generation being the best handling car of its day.

I have to say, that second to a classic Vette, I would take a 'Vair. I love my 64.

tom...

 

[DRTH VTR]

From the above link

"Unsafe - Thanks To Cost-Cutting
The fact is, no matter how much we try to deny it, there was a definite problem with the 1960-1963 Corvair. And that problem, a weakness in the rear suspension, was not a problem of design - as the original designs for the Corvair in fact took this into account. The problem was clearly that marketing and cost-cutting won out over intelligent engineering. The designers that planned the Corvair knew that anti-sway bars would be needed to support the added weight of the rear-mounted engine. But to save a measly $4 per car, those bars were not included in the final product, and the inevitable disaster struck."

There was a problem with the rear suspension, for whatever reason. I understood it to be a short-sighted cost savings "$4/car", as above.

 

[Tom73]

And I now return this discussion back to the C6 photos