[Press] GM Gives First Look at C6

[ROCKETBLOCK]

Add 50 years to 1953 and you get 2003. The Corvette has been around since it inception 50 years ago.

 

[CFour]

Add 50 years to 1953 and you get 2003. The Corvette has been around since it inception 50 years ago.

50 years minus 1 1983 = 49 years thats how I see it.

 

[MoeJr]

The C6 looks to be a nice ride. They are addressing the Viper with the added HP's. I still think 450HP should be standard and 500+ in Z06 form. It will sell well because it will still offer the ultimate bang for the buck when compared to other cars in its class. I am a Vette lover to the core and love all Vettes.

CFour it is obvious to me that you aren't a true Vette lover as a true lover would not be putting down any year Vette. I own an 84 and it runs like a watch and I am very proud to drive it. I do not find anything subpar about it. I personally take offense of your remark that C4 was dismal.

:bar

 

[Rob]

50 years minus 1 1983 = 49 years thats how I see it.

Ross, sometimes, your posts are depressing because you are so pessimistic when it comes to Corvette.

It's one thing to state facts and be realistic. It's another to always look on the negative aspects of something.

The damn car has been in production for 50 years. 1983 Corvettes were built as 1984 Corvettes on paperwork. Regardless of the paperwork, there were Corvettes being built in 1983. Hence - 50 years of production. :eyerole

 

[Brett]

The damn car has been in production for 50 years. 1983 Corvettes were built as 1984 Corvettes on paperwork. Regardless of the paperwork, there were Corvettes being built in 1983. Hence - 50 years of production.

Right on Rob!

CFour, I'm sorry but you are just flat out wrong here, and there is no "opinion" about it. This is FACT. The car was never canceled, or taken out of production--there was just a delay because of technical problems. Simple as that. Period.

You claim to be objective and factual, but here is an example of you clearly being anti-Corvette.

I do like your "other-side" opinions most of the time. It is good to hear something other than constant fanboy gushing, as it helps me figure out the factual middle ground between the two. But you have just been taking it too far lately.......



Brett

 

[6 Shooter]

1983 Vette

I thought there was @ least 1 1983 CorVette built. Seems like I remember seeing 1 in a museum picture.

 

[JonM]

Factoid- 47 were built for the year 1983...The National Corvette Museum has the only 1983 known at this time. Production began in January of 1983 and the press received their first view of the 1984 Corvette in January of 1983. In February, the first production 1984 Corvettes were sold to the public. In March of 1983, the 1984 Corvette officially went on sale in the United States, except for California and a month later, in April, the 1984 Corvette went on sale in California.

http://www.corvettemagazine.com/2000/january/83/83p1.asp

 

[kingman]

Marketing Hype!!!!!!!!!

Right now the new Caddy will fill the convertible production for the first couple of years. And there are alot of wanabee's that must have that first new car on the block syndrome, this is GM's target right now.

We will have to wait until 2006 to get what we want!

Gm's future is in the Caddy, not the vette and don't ever forget it.

What we really need is a Vette that will retail under $40,000 loaded, with the performance level of our present 06.

Alan

 

[LMN8R]

The term "anniversary" has nothing to do with the number of model years that a car has been in production. You can have anniversaries of cars that have not been in production for decades, like the Model T, the "Tucker," whatever. We don't say that Buick, Ford, Cadillac, etc are not celebrating 100 years because they took time off to build stuff (tanks, Jeeps) for WWII.

The first definition of "anniversary" in Webster's is: "1 : the annual recurrence of a date marking a notable event."

The "notable event" in question here is the making of the first Corvette. This would be the 50th year since that event, hence it is the 50th anniversary.

It wouldn't matter if they didn't make a car since then. Of course they have, and they've made them every year, but that is irrelevant.

-Greg

 

[Brett]

That's true, LMN8R, but what makes the Corvette's special is that it is 50 consecutive years. So the entire population of Corvettes had a 50th--not just the '53. Each year is a part of that 50 year milestone. Not many other cars can say that--especially sports cars. That is what we are defending here.

ANY car that is ever made will eventually have it's 50th anniversary. There is nothing special about that. It's consecutive years that means something.



Brett

 

[CFour]

Ross, sometimes, your posts are depressing because you are so pessimistic when it comes to Corvette.

It's one thing to state facts and be realistic. It's another to always look on the negative aspects of something.

The damn car has been in production for 50 years. 1983 Corvettes were built as 1984 Corvettes on paperwork. Regardless of the paperwork, there were Corvettes being built 1983. Hence - 50 years of production. :eyerole

My point underlines what you just said, "the damn car has been in production for 50 years" GM DID NOT produce an 83 model year its simple 3rd grade math folks, I know GM has y'all brainwashed but its just simple math to me.

 

[LMN8R]

Brett..

So, should the 2004 model year be the 50th "anniversary" of a car that debuted in '53 using that logic? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[CFour]

Yes indeed! 2004 is the true 50th model year. Im just saying folks if NO 1983 was sold to the public how can you say Corvette is 50 model years old? You could say the Idea is 50 years old yes... but you sure can't imply its been continusly built for 50 years as GM would like everyone to think. GM tried to whitewash the fact over that the first model year of C4 was so F@@@ed up that they had to crush what they had and go back to the drawing board. That would not bode to well with the car buying public. Then when they did get the car up in running the Greedy bean counters in Warren decided that they would sell more cars if the called it an early intro 1984. Did you see the 1997 C5 intro as an early 1998? it was nearly the same situation. the 1997 Model year was only 4 months long. GUESS WHY they didnt call the 97 a 98? It would have been to embarassing for the general once again to have a failed intro of Corvette and loose still another model year. Its really quite simple folks.

 

[LMN8R]

Somatics

"50 years of production" is one thing. I really do think that there is a point to be found somewhere in that argument.

An anniversary, which is what the car says on its emblem, is another thing. 2003 is the 50th anniversary of something that began in 1953 by any definition that you can find. I refuse to believe that I've taken the "stupid pill" here.

 

[kingman]

It's show biz period and all is fair in the world of advertising.

Look at all of the new car advertising, today a local dealer is selling 30 new 2003 vette coupes loaded for $40,500, but then it says it includes recent coll grad 400, Olds loyalty 2000 and then some other loyalty 2000, and then military 500.

It's all b-ll.

Alan

 

[MoeJr]

CFour there were 1983 Corvettes built and had 83 Vin tags. These cars were driven by the press at a review in Dec.82. Whether or not they were sold to the public they were built and that qualifies in my book as a model year. There is still one 1983 corvette out there in a museum. They article on this car I believe in Corvette Fever a few months ago. I think this thread is bein poisoned by your negative attitude. It is about the C6 not whether the Vette is 50 or not.

:bar

 

[ROCKETBLOCK]

Let's face it. This thread should be about the 50th year for Corvettes. Not about Cfour and his opinion of others that post here. :t

 

[Rob]

Since I started this thread and it was supposed to have been about the C6 and it has strayed into semantics about what is and isn't a 50th anniversary, I am now closing this thread.