[Press] GM Gives First Look at C6

[Rob]

From TheCarConnection.com:

GM Gives First Look at C6

Think of this photo as the first official "spy shot" of the next-generation Corvette C6. It was offered up by GM's North American President Gary Cowger, though there was a sparsity of details to go with the pic. But in recent weeks, TheCarConnection has learned at least a few details about the '05 two-seater. The "base" Corvette should punch past 400 horsepower. "It will have more of everything," according to Bob Lutz, GM's Vice Chairman and "car czar." And that's going to be especially true of the Z06 version, which is likely to top the 500-hp mark. The design will be evolutionary, says development chief Dave Hill, while the C6 "will (use) a lot of race car technology that will make it a better car. But it won't be a race car plunked on the street." Plans call for the coupe version to take its public bow at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit next January, then hit the street at the start of the 2005 model year. By the '06 model year, Chevy will add a convertible and then the updated Z06.

 

[Edmond]

The "base" Corvette should punch past 400 horsepower. "It will have more of everything," according to Bob Lutz, GM's Vice Chairman and "car czar." And that's going to be especially true of the Z06 version, which is likely to top the 500-hp mark.

You gotta love a car that will have more of everything!:L:L:L

500-hp? Looks like Mr. Lutz is personally gunning for the Viper.

 

[msiska]

Still toooooo much camo! Also...C5 mirrors and there's a bigger higher resolution pic on a couple of the other sites that show camo behind the front wheel (it bulges). But the hood is interesting and the curve along the top of the front 1/4 panels is pronounced. Looks very interesting!!

 

[Corvette-Pilot]

Originally posted by Rob "It will have more of everything,"

I bet it will
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[jimxo]

As it should be $$$$$$.


A fully loaded Toyota mini-van (2004) AWD, Entertainment system/leather listed out at $46,322.00-yikes! Plus there selling for sticker.

 

[CFour]

Just good ole GM propaganda folks. How awful it is they wont offer a convertible the first year. I wonder why? Is it because they just don't have the engineering prowess to get all 3 cars done at once? Why not intro the vert first and not the coupe? Looks like GM is still not up to par at getting platforms to market within there time frames.

 

[Rick Daniel]

Just good ole GM propaganda folks. How awful it is they wont offer a convertible the first year. I wonder why? Is it because they just don't have the engineering prowess to get all 3 cars done at once? Why not intro the vert first and not the coupe? Looks like GM is still not up to par at getting platforms to market within there time frames.

This process has proven its self with the C5. 97 the Coupe, 98 the Vert and 99 the HT. Unless you would call the C5 a total flop its hard to argue this method.

 

[sac001]

That front quarter shot looks an aweful lot like a Ferrari! I hope they really mean Evolution, cause even though they take baby steps, I think if you look at the evolution of the early C4 to the current C5, you can see the curves coming back.

Can't wait till January!

Steve

 

[Rob]

Just good ole GM propaganda folks. How awful it is they wont offer a convertible the first year. I wonder why? Is it because they just don't have the engineering prowess to get all 3 cars done at once? Why not intro the vert first and not the coupe? Looks like GM is still not up to par at getting platforms to market within there time frames.

Ross, you're starting to sound like your nylons are getting tight again.

Out of curiosity, the C5 was engineered to be a convertible from the start. Why did they wait until 1998 to introduce the Convertible?

 

[SlowRide]

Just good ole GM propaganda folks. How awful it is they wont offer a convertible the first year. I wonder why? Is it because they just don't have the engineering prowess to get all 3 cars done at once? Why not intro the vert first and not the coupe? Looks like GM is still not up to par at getting platforms to market within there time frames.

A convertible was not offered in the C4 until 1986, two years into production (the first Vert since 1975). I design new product for my company (not automotive unfortunately) and I can assure you, there is an incredible amount of work that goes into the design and testing of a new product. I do not find it strange or a lack of commitment by Chevrolet to not have a Convertible available for the first year. As Rick Daniel stated, they didn’t offer a Vert in ’97. Yet the C5 boosted the Corvette sales. For instance over the last 10 years….

1993-20,479 built
1994-23,330 built
1995-20,742 built
1996-21,536 built

then the C5…
1997-just 9,752 built
1998-it jumps to 31,084
1999-33,270
2000-33,682
2001-35,627
2002-35,767
2003-35,469

These are impressive numbers for the C5 considering that it was developed under budget cuts and set backs.

With the proposed HP numbers from Lutz, the C6 should be a knockout.

 

[CFour]

This process has proven its self with the C5. 97 the Coupe, 98 the Vert and 99 the HT. Unless you would call the C5 a total flop its hard to argue this method.

They way I understood it in 1997 because the car was "all new" they were having production problems with the car in general so this is why C5 was introduced in a three tier plan. When it came to the hard top GM had no idea at all what to do with it so this is why it was pushed to the third model year and it turned out to be a dismal failure. The Z06 was "cooked up" just to get the fixed roof version to sell. The way I see it there should be no reason at all to three tier C6 because its not an "all new" car as C5 was so this leads me to that age old GM problem of quality is forcing GM to produce C6 to a 3 tier program once again. I also notice they are not saying C6 will have a early intro any more. The fact that the XLR is also delayed means "platform quality woes" once again for GM. Funny how it didn't take Nissan a whole model year to intro the Z vert.

 

[CFour]

A convertible was not offered in the C4 until 1986, two years into production (the first Vert since 1975). I design new product for my company (not automotive unfortunately) and I can assure you, there is an incredible amount of work that goes into the design and testing of a new product. I do not find it strange or a lack of commitment by Chevrolet to not have a Convertible available for the first year. As Rick Daniel stated, they didn’t offer a Vert in ’97. Yet the C5 boosted the Corvette sales. For instance over the last 10 years….

1993-20,479 built
1994-23,330 built
1995-20,742 built
1996-21,536 built

then the C5…
1997-just 9,752 built
1998-it jumps to 31,084
1999-33,270
2000-33,682
2001-35,627
2002-35,767
2003-35,469

These are impressive numbers for the C5 considering that it was developed under budget cuts and set backs.

With the proposed HP numbers from Lutz, the C6 should be a knockout.

hehehe GM NEVER intended for there to be a C4 Vert. The only reason they rushed one to market was because of DISMAL sales after the 1984 model year. This was highlighted because C4 was of DISMAL quality. It had nothing to do with how long it took to design a vert. Did you know that sales of C4 fell over 50% in 1985 from 1984? hence the 86 vert was borne.

 

[CFour]

Ross, you're starting to sound like your nylons are getting tight again.

Out of curiosity, the C5 was engineered to be a convertible from the start. Why did they wait until 1998 to introduce the Convertible?

One simple reason they had so many quality issues with the coupe they decided to delay the vert until the platform was better under control. Its eaiser to fix one sinking ship then two.

 

[SlowRide]

hehehe GM NEVER intended for there to be a C4 Vert. The only reason they rushed one to market was because of DISMAL sales after the 1984 model year. This was highlighted because C4 was of DISMAL quality. It had nothing to do with how long it took to design a vert. Did you know that sales of C4 fell over 50% in 1985 from 1984? hence the 86 vert was borne.

You need to check your numbers again. The 1984 Vette was the second highest production year of the Corvette at 51,547. The number dropped to 39,729 in 1985. Hardly 50%.

 

[CFour]

You need to check your numbers again. The 1984 Vette was the second highest production year of the Corvette at 51,547. The number dropped to 39,729 in 1985. Hardly 50%.

OOhhh not so fast that number of 51k was including the missing 1983 model year dear. the so called 1984 model year was 18 months long. Aso this totally invalidates 03 being the 50th year for Corvette If the car was not marketed as a 1983 model how can you possibly say 03 is the 50th year of the Corvette? GM loves to lie and stretch the truth a missing year is a missing year in my book. I wonder legally if GM could be sued for selling 03 models as the 50th year of Corvette I bet they could be. One non saleable vin car at the NCM does not make a 1983 model year.

 

[Edmond]

They way I understood it in 1997 because the car was "all new" they were having production problems with the car in general so this is why C5 was introduced in a three tier plan. When it came to the hard top GM had no idea at all what to do with it so this is why it was pushed to the third model year and it turned out to be a dismal failure. The Z06 was "cooked up" just to get the fixed roof version to sell. The way I see it there should be no reason at all to three tier C6 because its not an "all new" car as C5 was so this leads me to that age old GM problem of quality is forcing GM to produce C6 to a 3 tier program once again. I also notice they are not saying C6 will have a early intro any more. The fact that the XLR is also delayed means "platform quality woes" once again for GM. Funny how it didn't take Nissan a whole model year to intro the Z vert.

From what I've read, that's why they introduced the Z06. GM was contracted to build xxx number of hardtops and the regular hardtops weren't exactly easy to sell so they put some more HP and performance into it and it sold. Kind of sucks if you think about it, they did it because they were forced to.

 

[SlowRide]

OOhhh not so fast that number of 51k was including the missing 1983 model year dear. the so called 1984 model year was 18 months long. Aso this totally invalidates 03 being the 50th year for Corvette If the car was not marketed as a 1983 model how can you possibly say 03 is the 50th year of the Corvette? GM loves to lie and stretch the truth a missing year is a missing year in my book. I wonder legally if GM could be sued for selling 03 models as the 50th year of Corvette I bet they could be. One non saleable vin car at the NCM does not make a 1983 model year.

Ok, lets say that the 1984 model ran for 12 months. That would still equal 34,364 if we go by an 18 month selling period which is not too shabby for a new design. That's 24,612 more than the C5's first year. (My info states 17 months which would edge it up to 36,386). According to Dave McLellan..."The federal government defines the model year by its emission certification rules which state that the model year can contain only on January 1. We had lots of spirited discussions about uninterrupted Corvette tradition, but in the end we opted for the logic of building for 17 months and the attendant reduction in paperwork of not having to recertify for the 1984 model year."

With all the frivolous lawsuits occuring today, it wouldn't surprise me for someone to lodge a suit. Although I do not believe that person would be a true Corvette fan. Rather, someone who either wanted to smear the Corvette marque or who wanted money.

2003 - 1953 = 50 Years.

If the C6 can equal the sales and performance success of the C5, it will be a welcome addition to the Corvette line. From what GM is slowly leaking out, it should do just that. Corvette people want sexy looks coupled with raw, brute power. I think that the powers that be are listening. No other GM brand pulls at the heartstrings like the Corvette. I firmly believe that GM will do their best to deliver.

 

[ROCKETBLOCK]

ANYWAY............ The spy shot from GM is nice. Thanks to Rob for posting it! OH YEAH BABY!!! I think it will be a winner!

 

[JBsC5]

The stepped introduction of coupe..then convertible along with Z06 is marketing wizardry at its best.

I am always amazed how Corvette can be featured in some many magazines..year after year.

The corvette team are fantastic at getting free press on the car..year after year..month after month..

The staged launch will guarantee continued Magazine covers and that does stimulate sales in the showrooms..

Smart moves as far as most experts are concerned.

Flat out works

And for us as enthusiasts..its nirvana..every month or two..we get to read and see the Rave reviews!

I think its kind of fun and once the C6 actually breaks cover both in photographs and in technological article advances..

The Party continues..

 

[blocker44]

If the car was not marketed as a 1983 model how can you possibly say 03 is the 50th year of the Corvette? GM loves to lie and stretch the truth a missing year is a missing year in my book. I wonder legally if GM could be sued for selling 03 models as the 50th year of Corvette I bet they could be.

You could argue that the 2003 model is the 50th. I have omitted the 1983 model year in the following chart. The 25th anniversary model was actually the 26th model year. Anyone owning a silver anniversary model should be suing GM.
1953 1963 1973 1984 1994
1954 1964 1974 1985 1995
1955 1965 1975 1986 1996
1956 1966 1976 1987 1997
1957 1967 1977 1988 1998
1958 1968 1978 1989 1999
1959 1969 1979 1990 2000
1960 1970 1980 1991 2001
1961 1971 1981 1992 2002
1962 1972 1982 1993 2003