By on January 13, 2013

 

Chevy’s revived both the LT1 and the Stingray name for the C7 Vette. Apparently it’s got a better power/weight ratio than the Porsche 911 or Audi R8, though GM didn’t say what the car weighs. Personally, I think the C6 is gorgeous, so I’ll have to reserve judgement until I see this thing in the flesh tomorrow. Right now, I’m not so sure I’d take this one over a C6, crappy interior and all…

Among the key features:

-5 Driving modes including “Eco”

- A 7-speed manual with skip shift and active rev matching

- A digital display

-Lots more carbon fiber

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

176 Comments on “2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray: Worthy Of The Name?...”


  • avatar
    twotone

    It looks like something out of Italy or Japan rather than Detroit (and that’s a complement). Very nice in the photos, love to see it in the metal. Too bad about the “skip shift”, however. Hopefully, it can be defeated. Will it have a dual clutch automated manual option?

  • avatar
    Silent Ricochet

    I cannot wait to hear and see this thing in person. I cannot wait to see some hard numbers of it’s engine and performance both on the track and off. And quite honestly, I think it’s one of the most beautiful cars I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Absolutely gorgeous. I’m so glad they changed up that rear end; the renders and whatnot of this car that I saw earlier this year had a hideous rear end and taillight config.

    GM also did a pretty good job marketing and teasing this car. I know the big thing on TTAC right now is how car manufacturers tease the reveals of their cars, but at least GM made this one slightly interesting. The GT5 idea was ingenious, especially to get a following with the younger crowd. I also know that not many people here like the General, but you gotta admit, they did a great job. I didn’t grow up with the original Stingrays, but do I think this is worth of the name? Yes.

    Well Done GM, Well Done.

    • 0 avatar
      Tick

      You obviously don’t know how to comment correctly on TTAC. The right way is to nit-pick tiny details and compare it to an obscure car from 15 years ago. If you can compare it to your much older personal car of the same model, that’s even better. Just remember you have to make up some baloney about it being more “pure”. It absolutely has nothing to do with the fact that you can’t afford the new one. It has to be because your just so much more automotively enlightened than other people. If you can throw something in about soccer moms driving SUVs to the mall, that’s even better.

      You made the fatal mistake of saying something positive about a car, especially an expensive American one. You should know by now that the only good cars are A. Cheap B. Obscure C. Under-powered and D. Unreliable. Don’t worry, you’ll learn.

      (Seriously though, it was nice to see someone say something positive for a change. It is a beautiful car, and I’m not even a huge Corvette guy)

      • 0 avatar
        Charliej

        +1

      • 0 avatar
        d524zoom-zoom

        “You obviously don’t know how to comment correctly on TTAC. The right way is to nit-pick tiny details and compare it to an obscure car from 15 years ago. If you can compare it to your much older personal car of the same model, that’s even better. Just remember you have to make up some baloney about it being more “pure”. It absolutely has nothing to do with the fact that you can’t afford the new one. It has to be because your just so much more automotively enlightened than other people. If you can throw something in about soccer moms driving SUVs to the mall, that’s even better.”

        +1000 thank you for the explanation. The newbies need to know this. I’ll add that everything the General does, is, was, and will be wrong

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        Great post.

        (And that’s why I call ‘enthusiasts’ hipsters.)

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        @Tick

        +5,000

        THIS THIS THIS

        THANK YOU.

    • 0 avatar
      SomeGuy

      I agree. I NEVER have considered a new car, but this could be the very first. I am so happy they are pushing forward in design. Great comment.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      This car looks so much better in subdued colors, rather than bright ones, for reasons I can’t explain.

      It’s a gorgeous car.

      The things I wish GM would do is put some really retro, but genuine, gauges on the dash, for everything from RPM to oil temperature – the kind of gauges outlined with real metal, with easy to read white numbers/letters against black backgrounds – along with a thicker steering wheel rim.

      Other than that, this thing is bad ass. If it comes in at the 50k to 70k price point, depending on options and the motor selected (normally aspirated vs supercharged, etc.), it’s going to offer unrivaled, world class value, and will steal sales from far more exotic vehicles.

  • avatar
    Steve-O

    It’s pretty wild and at first blush I think they nailed it. At this point I think they needed to go radical without rehashing too many previous Corvette styling cues. Looking forward to seeing it in the flesh at the next NYIAS.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    I like the Stingray name and sure, it’s worthy of it. Why not?

    • 0 avatar
      Charliej

      Why not? The original Sting Ray was such a giant leap from the previous Corvette, that people will expect this car to be that far ahead of the previous car. In this case, the previous car is so good that a leap of that magnitude is not possible. Looking at the photos, I think they got the shape right. Some of the details, I am not sure about. I would like to see the car in the flesh before making a final judgement. I am not a big GM fan, but it looks nice to me. I hope they brought the interior up to the standards of the rest of the car.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        GM might as well use the Stingray name/heritage regardless of whether the C7 lives up to it. It’s trademark/namesake otherwise sitting idle on a shelf, but do you think there will be a better time to use it?

        I have to ask if you think the current/recent Impala and Malibu live up to their heritage?

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        Tick, from up above, has a comment or two for your comment.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Technically, the beautiful, world beating, revolutionary Corvette of the past was called the Sting Ray. Two words. The merely re-skinned, less practical, cramped, compromised-forward-visibility-suffering, teething problem riddled disappointment that followed in 1968 was called the Stingray. One word. Perhaps this car will prove to be worthy of its name.

  • avatar
    ott

    This is the car GM needed badly. What a machine! Love the Ferrari-esque camel hide interior, and the red interior is also gorgeous! This will be a tough choice… Does the interior come in any other colours? I assume black will be offered, but what about matching blue, or gray, or yellow?

  • avatar
    james2k

    I wish the Eight-Speed Aisin automatic made the cut. Can anyone tell if the roof is still a targa top?

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    GM did throw everything they had at the Corvette’s 6.2 V8, but 450 HP is about what Ford gets out of the 5.0 (Boss) with nothing cutting edge.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Yeah, I don’t think that hatch open will hold 48″ wood pallet like my 2000 C5.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Talking about peak HP numbers solely doesn’t show all of the power under the curve.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        Yes, the LT1 has 70 ft-lb more torqueat peak, and over a much broader range. There is no comparison in the outputs of these two engines, not to knock the wonderful Ford V8.

    • 0 avatar
      Jellodyne

      Isn’t DOHC is pretty cutting edge stuff compared to pushrods?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        I don’t know how cutting edge DOHCs are, and I’m sure they date back to the Nixon Administration at least, but a high tech Corvette 6.2 should at least embarrass any 5.0 found in a Mustang. Not so, or not by much actually.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        The Corvette is how many hundreds of pounds lighter than the Mustang GT?

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        DOHC dates back to 19-teens or so, maybe even earlier. It is costly, heavy and bulky and does offer better breathing and thus more specific output in HP per Cubic Inch than achieved with pushrod designs. The LT1 is smaller and lighter than the Ford 5.0L DOHC, for example, and offers much better output per pound and cubic volume of the overall engine package. It probably costs $500-$1,000 less than the Ford to build. (The old LS engine series cost about $600 less than Ford’s modern SOHC V8.) In the end, beauty is as beauty does.

  • avatar
    stuntmonkey

    The circle of life… small svelt Ferrari 308′s morphed into the ostentatious Italian versions of the Firebird Trans Am, while the Corvette is morhping into a front engine Ferrari.

  • avatar
    Monty

    Holy cow! Gorgeous, that’s all I’ve got. That is the best looking vehicle out of GM in decades.

    Call that a home run, styling wise, at least.

  • avatar
    NMGOM

    I am not an overwhelming Corvette fan, but I must say, this “bankruptcy”, “catch-up” car is doing a lot of things right. When the C-8 comes out with rear-mid engine, as Tadge started working on in 2007, they’ll be doing everything right.

    But I still have some concerns about even this admittedly very nice car:
    1) Can the rev-matching be turned off? I’ll do my own, thank you very much.
    2) 0-60 in under 4 seconds is passe. All cars in that echelon do this. I was looking 3.3-3.5 sec.
    3) The side-slash vent bothers me esthetically, but that may be just me: I wanted better integration.
    4) What happened to the manual hand brake? Where did it go? I use that for driving, not just parking.
    5) Did they finally get to a 48 (F) / 52 (R) weight distribution?
    6) 26 mpg? Doesn’t the current C-6 Corvette get 26 mpg? Where is the progress there? I wanted 30 mpg, considering they now have variable valves and cylinder deactivation.
    7) Will they be doing right-hand drive for the UK and Australia? That would be a real sign of confidence.

    In short, it’s a very good car for $50K (base Corvette), and nothing can match the price-per-performance point. But will it sell in Germany against Porsches? If they want to be “international”, they gotta play with the big boys.

    In the meantime, I think it will give the SRT Viper a run for its money stateside!

    ————–

    • 0 avatar
      NMGOM

      One more concern, a continuation from above:
      8) The rear spoiler looks liked it was a glued-on afterthought. Not cool. Looks cheap. Isn’t there a more majestic way to handle that? And the BIG BLACK BUMPER section is a bit overwhelming for me. Yes, yes, it’s all too much Camaro-esque in feeling…

      But as others reported below, at least the front end is well done.

      ————–

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Considering the buyers in the past and in the future there will never be a rear-mid engine Corvette. No rotaries either!

      My 2000 Targa Coupe base with a tune and bolt-on performance stuff and about 3000 lbs weight could best 35 MPG at 65 mph. This one might hit 40 mpgs.

    • 0 avatar

      Typically, cars like the Corvette sell in Europe because of novelty, not necessarily how well they benchmark against the latest and greatest from Porsche. This is the exact same reason that Europeans won’t buy the “world-class” CTS’s we keep trying to foist upon them, but will buy ostentatious and often-oversized Escalades in a second…

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        This car may in fact benchmark pretty damn well with the “latest and greatest” from the Fatherland.

      • 0 avatar
        NMGOM

        golden2husky…

        Yeah. Let’s see some Nürburgring lap times for this new base Corvette vs the “simple” 911 Carrera, Carrera S, or GT-3, as done by Horst Von Saurma-Jeltsch.** Again, we’ll have to forego pure price equivalency, but over in the Fatherland, a $55K Corvette here may be $70K anyway (estimate only!). Nonetheless, lap times are not the same as driving feel, and Washburn seems to have implied that they solved that problem. We’ll see.

        ** Previous Corvette runs were not great, except for the ZR-1:
        http://www.sportauto.de/rundenzeiten-nuerburgring-nordschleife-3649995.html?p=3&sort=ZeitNS&order=ASC

        —————

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        The base and GS Corvettes should handle better than they do on paper or in theory and far from world class. In real life, they’re a bit twitchy and snap happy. In the hands of professionals, it’s one thing, but the typical owner is best advised to steer clear of their Corvette’s limits.

        Even still, the Boss 302 has be nipping at the GS Corvette’s heals on tracks all over. Yeah, live axle and all…

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        911′s are not in the same price class, so that is not the target I had in mind. But I said “latest and greatest” instead of being more specific so I’ll eat that one. However, comparing the tough to drive at high speed present car is not what I had in mind. I would like to think that twitchiness would have been exorcised from the new model but time will tell. At least the interior no longer looks like it was lifted from a Cobalt….

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        I wouldn’t compare this C7 to a Porsche of any type. It’s more like a poor man’s Ferrari, complete with form factor and looks. It’s not trying to handle like a champ, nor should it. For the price, and for what you get, it’s competitive no matter what part of the world you’re in…. at least if the interior is 2013 Viper-esque in quality.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        Actually, the C6 Corvette already handles better than the Porsche. The C7 is better yet.The only thing the Porsche is better than the Vette at is launch because of the rearward weight bias. After that, and on any road course, Corvette is the superior performer. This has been noted in many comparison tests in recent years.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The front looks really generic/cheap and the back is too Camaro-ish. I’m not sure how I would’ve designed it any better, except a Corvette must have concealed headlights. I don’t know if they’re banned now, but I would mod my own. Those headlights look aftermarket Altima though.

    • 0 avatar
      sunridge place

      @DenverMike

      7:58pm: ‘The front looks really generic/cheap’
      8:49pm: ‘From the pictures, I thought the front looked great, but the video didn’t do it any favors’
      11:18pm: ‘I don’t see how it could be profitable, with all the carbon fiber, hydroformed spaceframe and so forth’

      So, you moved from the front looks cheap in the videos…back to the pictures make the front looks great…and then conclude that there is no way the Corvette is profitable.

      You also state that the Corvette hasn’t been relevant for decades?

      11:28pm: ‘America hasn’t been warm on the Corvette for decades. It may be America’s official sports car, but what does that mean anymore?’

      Oooooookay.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Publicity/brochure pictures are like ‘glamour shots’, but do you want to discuss the car or just discuss the discussion?

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        It was more your lines about the Corvette not being relevant and a money-loser that had me rolling my eyes.

        Reminded me of the Yogi Berra quote about a restaurant:

        ‘Nobody goes there anymore. Its too crowded.’

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          I found that comment a bit strange. The Corvette is an Icon in the US, like the F150.
          Get rid of the Corvette and you have some awfully generic looking sedans and pretty bland virtually everything else.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Oooookay… Having a real conversation about the Corvette around here is like bringing up politics or religion at a kid’s birthday party.

        I don’t mean to offend, but I’m still waiting for the part of the conversation where you bring up a counter point. Anything?

        How is the Corvette still relevant if they can’t give the thing away? And it’s not the economy like GM claims… There’s still a huge high end market for cars. Heck D3 dealers can’t stock enough 55-$60K lifestyle pick-ups.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “How is the Corvette still relevant if they can’t give the thing away? And it’s not the economy like GM claims… There’s still a huge high end market for cars. Heck D3 dealers can’t stock enough 55-$60K lifestyle pick-ups.”

        It’s comments like this that sunridge is getting at. In comparison to the competition, Corvettes are flying off the shelves. It handily outsells anything comparable.

        The high end sports car market is large, but it’s also fragmented. There are more choices available now than ever before, this is why the Corvette doesn’t sell in the volume it did 40 years ago.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Re-introduction of the Camaro (and its 2SS and other high end models) had as much to do with Corvette sales going down than the economy.

        They used to build a lot more base coupes (cheaper)than they do now. Their production mix for 2012MY:

        http://www.corvetteblogger.com/2012/06/06/final-2012-corvette-production-statistics/

        Most of the build is well above 60k.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “The high end sports car market is large, but it’s also fragmented. There are more choices available now than ever before, this is why the Corvette doesn’t sell in the volume it did 40 years ago.”

        Most OEMs know when to quit fighting a dying or “fragmented” market. Halo cars are a thing of the past now and Italian super cars can enjoy taking the loss and surrendering to VW.

        Remember “Corvette Summer” with Mark Hamill? (Thanks golden2husky) Remember “VANESSA”? Well surfer vans were also quite the rage…

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Please DenverMike…enlighten us with your list of Corvette competitors…and please show us all the OEM’s running away from the premium sports car market.

      • 0 avatar
        tuffjuff

        I’d love to see where I can get a C7 or even C6 competitor for $50k, new, with the package you’re getting from the Vette, without modding something, in the United States.

        It’s not a Porsche. It’s not a GT-R. It’s a little in between. The only thing you could ever truely knock about the Vette was the gross interior. Hopefully this C7 helps fix that argument, especially after what Dodge has done with the new Viper. That said, the new Viper is waaaay more expensive than this Corvette. I bet if Chevy had an extra $40,000 to work with for the base price of this C7, they’d do a bunch of fun extra stuff.

        You’re missing the point, which is fine. Also, not sure how much money it costs GM to use an engine they developed 10+ years ago and last retuned twice (now and in…. 2008?), both retunes minor modifications that I think were solely intake/exhaust based. Point being, the 6.2 isn’t a brand new engine, and that alone helps GM make money on the thing. Re-using some of the same parts, such as this, combined with the fact you’ll find far more optioned out Vettes than base models, and it makes total sense.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Here’s some Corvette competitors. The Supra, Ford GT, RX7, 3000 GT, NSX, 300ZX… See a pattern here? Most smart OEMs know when to throw in the towel! Not GM…

        Profits or a long production run was never a goal for the FGT. Also, 92% of 2012 Corvettes built (thanks for the link) start at under $60K. Yes most GS convertibles produced do sticker’s near $63K, but 2012 Corvettes (other than the ZR1 and Carbon) average a well under $60K sticker, before rebates.

        You likely find a huge selection of 2011 and a few 2010 Corvettes on GM lots.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        DenverMike

        Per cars.com there are 5377 new Corvettes in dealership inventory in the US. 2660 are listed over $65k. I’ll do the math for you…that’s about half of them.

        Its as if you see the base price for a Grand Sport in the 50′s and have never heard of optional equipment.

        The plant will stop building current generation in February and won’t start up the new one until July or August. They sell about 1000 per month. There will be people who want to scoop up some of the previous generation.

        Thanks for your desperate concern about the #’s in inventory right now…but they are ok.

        Interesting list of competitors to say the least. NSX is coming back…why would they do that? That’s just stupid.

        Nissan still plays in this space in the US (and gets crushed by the Vette) with the 370Z and GT-R.

        Ford GT? They build, at most, 2000 of those a year during a time the Corvette was selling 30,000 a year. It was more a competitor to the Z06/ZR1 types.

        Mitsubishi 3000GT and Supra as a competitor to the Corvette? Yep, those two vehicle have been discontinued and thus your point about the Corvette being a money loser is proved!

        Good lord.

        Here’s a helpful link for you:

        http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2013/01/usa-2012-sports-car-sales-figures.html

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Right, half of the Corvettes remaining in stock sticker over $65K, but the expensive ones are the last to sell. Even 3,000 out of 11,000 Corvettes is still a minority, if my math is right.

        Also, the current Corvette inventory is likely the more expensive Corvettes left over from the current and previous 2 or 3 model years.

        The NSX is coming back, but how limited will production be? No one is saying the NSX will be anywhere near profitable and that’s why the FGT was for such a limited run.

        If cars only remained on production when profitable, would the Volt have ever existed?

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Good grief..am I debating a 14 year old?

        You just told me that 92% of the 2012′s built were priced in the $50,000 range…then I proved you completely wrong.

        ‘Even 3,000 out of 11,000 Corvettes is still a minority, if my math is right’

        I’m trying to figure out what the heck you mean by that…let me try.

        Because there are 3000 over $65k (note that I used %65k not $60k–so there is a batch priced %60,000-$65,000 that I didn’t include) and then you lost me. Are you saying that all the $50,000 ones they built sold and they haven’t sold any of the high priced ones?

        Help me out here buddy…you lost me.

        The majority over Corvette’s built are priced over $60,000…many well over that #. Its not even close. It is a profitable brand of its own in a way.

        You are trying to compare it to ultra low volume super cars (of which the Corvette does compete with the ZR1 in this generation)

        So, your take is that Chevy should kill all but the top end of the Vette family and only produce ZR1′s to compete with the super cars while they lose money during that or just kill the Corvette all together because they lose money on it.

        Whatever.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        I’ll help you out a bit….restrict it to 2013MY only Corvette:

        4372 in Inventory
        2221 list over $60,000
        50%

        4372 in Inventory
        3584 list over $65,000
        81%

        Got it?

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Like GM or the Corvette or not, they manage to consistently sell ~30k units a year. That’s a lot of volume for a car that retails around the 60k level, super car or not. GM is surely seeing some profit from the program.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Easy there Danio…they have been selling in the low to mid teens annually since the economic crisis and the introduction of the Camaro.. a little over 14,000 units last year.

        I also need to correct a typo above:

        2013MY Corvette from cars.com

        4372 in Inventory
        2221 list over $65,000
        50%

        4372 in Inventory
        3584 list over $60,000
        81%

        Got it?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Never mind inventory, that just tell you which Corvettes are NOT selling. You’re proving my point for me… Which of the 2012, 2011 and 2010 do you think are left over and remain in stock? The bargain basement Corvettes? Heck no, it’s the high end models you speak of that refuse to leave the lot and they make up a tiny fraction of production no matter how you slice it.

        In the end, it doesn’t matter for how much cash the average Corvette leaves the lot for after rebates. FGTs sold for over $100,000 and still didn’t come close to turning a profit for Ford.

        Volts would also sticker over $100,000 if GM was to serious about turning a profit.

    • 0 avatar
      sunridge place

      They built 404 2012 ZR1′s (over $100k cost) there are 16 left…so 96% of them have sold…and, by the way, Chevy has been paid for 100% of them.

      Do you want me to keep going? You really should quit while you’re behind.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        That says nothing about how much $$$,$$$ it takes to bring each ZR1 to market and hand build them. 404 is a ridiculous low # of cars. Of any car.

        If you only (hand) build 11,000 Malibus a year, that don’t share a cheap steel body with any other GMs, you’d better get at least $100,000 for each and every one of those stinkers. Then hand build them around hydroformed spaceframes, carbon fiber and other exotic stuff and you’re looking at a real loser.

        The Corvette has absolutely nothing in common with the assembly line model/concept, mass production or profits. We are talking about GM here, right?

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        My bad. I seem to remember them quoting those sales numbers at the peak of interest of the C6.

        In spite of DenverMike’s suggestion that GM cancel the Corvette, I’m glad they’re continuing with a new and even more awesome generation.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        I’ve never said GM should cancel the Corvette, I’m a car enthusiast 1st and foremost, but from a profitability/business standpoint, GM isn’t doing itself or its stockholders (US) any favors with halo cars and loss-leaders. I’d borrow one from a brother-in-law without hesitation!

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Yes, DenverMike it takes a lot of $$$$$$ to hand-build a ZR1 with special material…that’s why the customer pays of lot of $$$$$$ to buy one.

        Lets say a ZR1 invoices at $100,000…414 of them generates $41 million of revenue.

        You act like you know the labor/material cost of a high end car…you don’t. Quit pretending you do.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “You act like you know the labor/material cost of a high end car…you don’t. Quit pretending you do.”

        You quit pretending 1st… 41 million is a drop in the bucket, compared to R&D, marketing and other Bowling Green overhead. Labor and exotic material/processes are nothing in comparison. Without the magic of mass production and mass sales especially on low volume exotics, profits will never happen. Ask Lamborghini, Ferrari, Bentley, and the like. They’re up to 1/4 million for each car and still can’t turn a profit on their own.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Is $770 million a year enough revenue for you?

        That’s one year if they invoice 14,000 units at an average of $55,000.

        $770 million for the 2012 model year…a model year that didn’t have ‘major’ engineering costs. A model year that was essentially building the same thing they’ve been building since 2005….same tooling etc.

        Bowling Green has 484 hourly and 101salaried employees.

        http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/company_info/facilities/assembly/bowlinggreen.html

        Lets pay the hourly people 80k a year to cover hourly and benefits…lets pay the salaried people 120k a year. That’s $50 million per year in payroll.

        The ‘handbuilders’ cost you 6.6% of your revenue. Yes, if the entire Corvette line was all high end ZR1′s and that’s all they built, they would lose their a#$….its not all they build.

        Lets have 20 engineers etc (random guess) working on the Corvette and pay them $200,000 per year. There’s 4 million bucks…less than 1% of revenue. By the way, those 20 engineers are probably doing some work that benefits other vehicles too.

        What am I missing?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @sunridge place
          Quit while you’re ahead with this guy. He’s a lemon.

          Ask him about the full size pickup truck market in Europe.

          His technique is to get you to research and find links and information. Whilst he laughing at you.

          He’ll then asks for more information for you to prove yourself.

          Start to hit him up to provide links to substantiate his claims. You’ll lose him.

          He’s the worst kind of troll.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “Is $770 million a year enough revenue for you?”

        No not really. 770M is a lot to you and me, but peanuts to build a world class (attempted) supercar (?) You have no idea how much $$$ is left, once the dust settles. If you buy a business based on gross receipts and assume the rest, you’re in for a rude awakening.

        The Camaro is around 4.5 Billion gross yearly revenue, thrown together on an assembly line, made of cheap steel & hard plastics and is still totally expendable, even when sales drop to 3 times more than what the ridiculously expensive to build, Corvette, sells right now!!!

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Ok…how about $4.9 billion?

        That’s a 7 year run of revenue on the Corvette at $55k invoice price and 14,000 units a year. Its not like they re-engineer the thing each year.

        I guess nobody should build expensive things because you can’t make money selling low volume expensive things. Nice thinking. And, Chevy should stop making the Corvette in order to improve their financial performance.

        You’ll have to explain your Camaro comment again…it makes no sense.

        ‘is still totally expendable, even when sales drop to 3 times more than what the ridiculously expensive to build, Corvette, sells right now!!!’

        Yes, the Corvette is more expensive to build than the Camaro…that’s why they are so expensive….I thought we covered that already.

        I also think its funny that you think Ferrari loses money.

        http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1103_the_world_of_ferrari/viewall.html

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        The ridiculously cheap to build Camaro was killed off in 2002 and it was an old, long amortized early 90′s design. Sales were a relatively robust 29,XXX units.

        The Corvette’s average sticker price isn’t quite 2X the price of the current Camaro, but it’s a crazy expensive to build and likely 4X more than the Camaro’s cheap mass produced build. But then sticker price is meaningless without volume.

        Now million dollar Ferrari Enzos don’t exactly need so much volume and you’re right, Ferrari is profitable, but from a lot of sources of revenue other than direct car sales.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        I have no idea why they killed the Camaro back in 2002 nor do I see why it proves the Corvette loses money as you claim it does.

        Maybe the costs of the plant didn’t support it? 29,000 units isn’t accurate as that was the final year # in a year where the stopped production in May. They were down to 40k or so annual units on a cheap car…low margins.

        The Corvette has a ton of margin…trust me. I’ve tried to show that to you and you seem to either not understand it or you ignore it.

        ‘Ferrari is profitable, but from a lot of sources of revenue other than car sales’

        Chevy doesn’t make money selling LS1 crate engines in addition to the estimated revenue I’ve already shown you?

        Really? They lose money selling those engines through GM Performance Parts too?

        Ok..whatever.

        This whole thing started with a statement that the Covette runs a close second to the Volt as a loss-leader.

        You are wrong. Its okay…move on. Ford couldn’t pull it off in this segment…Chevy can….its okay.

      • 0 avatar

        DenverMike, I completely understand what you were trying to say. I too believe that the Corvette probably doesn’t break even let alone turn a profit. Toyota had a very capable sports car too, the Supra which they had to kill for the very same reason. Toyota is(was) run by business people who understood profits trump excitement. It wasn’t worthwhile selling a low volume sports car to a small group of auto enthusiasts. Add to the ‘Vette, the CTS-V Sedan, Coupe, Wagon and Camaro ZL1 probably don’t make enough money to make the investment worthwhile either. Same goes for the soon to debut Chevy SS. This is why many hold GM dear. It is run (at least partly) by car people who care about getting the very best machines priced honestly to common folk. It is about making cars by people who really really care about cars for people who really really care about cars. You can buy a 556 HP beast for around $70K from GM or spend nearly five times more for a 550+ HP car from Toyota. As long as GM remains profitable quarter after quarter and year after year, it is fine by me that they throw some money away for the sake of making some “drivers” cars. If GM was run by business people, they would kill the Corvette, slap a Buick badge on the Equinox, put a $3K premium over the Chevy, call it the new Rendezvous and sell 4 times as many as the Corvette plus net around $6K per car in profit.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “I have no idea why they killed the Camaro back in 2002…”

        Could it be that profits were no longer there when the ridiculously cheap to build and long amortized 2002 Camaro’s volume when away? It would’ve cost too much to bring a new generation Camaro to market for a market that had almost entirely disappeared? Or are you just saying GM is stupid? It’s gotta be one or the other.

        “The Corvette has a ton of margin…trust me.”

        You have shown absolutely nothing to back that up except for conjecture and I should just “trust” you? I at least have common sense to back up my points. All you can only come back with is “I have no idea why…”

        “Really? They lose money selling those engines through GM Performance Parts?”

        When did I say that? GM’s parts division crate engine sales are good for business, but do precious little to amortize the Corvette.

        “Ford couldn’t pull it off in this segment…”

        No, Ford built a tribute car for itself with no intention of ever turning a profit on them, hence their extremely limited production run. That’s the difference. Common sense lets us know halo cars and profits are like oil and water.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        You are simply unable to connect my points.

        You said Ferrari is profitable because they make money from other sources.

        LS1 crate engines are ‘another’ source for GM for the Corvette. How is that any different? You say crate engine sales don’t help amortize Corvette costs? How the hell can that be true?

        Mark Reuss said today that the new Corvette will be profitable. Are you calling him a liar?

        Yes, low margin vehicles in the 40,000 sales range like the 2001 Camaro get killed.

        High margin vehicles like the Ferrari that sell 7000 units a year and have other sources of revenue make a profit..as you finally acknowledge.

        Corvette has twice the sales of Ferrari (and had 4 times as many recently) AND has other revenue sources…but Corvette loses money?

        You never answer back to evidence of sub 10% labor costs on the Corvette that are general industry standards.

        If your point is that the Corvette doesn’t generate the AMOUNT of profits of a truck or SUV….of course you’re right.

        If your point is that the Corvette is a money loser that GM should eliminate to improve financial performace…you are wrong.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “LS1 crate engines are ‘another’ source for GM for the Corvette. How is that any different? You say crate engine sales don’t help amortize Corvette costs? How the hell can that be true?”

        LS1 crate engines would sell regardless of the Corvette program. Now if you what to talk about Corvette jackets from the gift shop and trademarks, I’m listening, but Ferrari is all over the motorsports world in Europe not to mention their own theme park.

        “Mark Reuss said today that the new Corvette will be profitable. Are you calling him a liar?”

        I’m not calling him a liar, but perhaps overly optimistic. But then why did he even bring it up if the Corvette is currently profitable???

        “Yes, low margin vehicles in the 40,000 sales range like the 2001 Camaro get killed.”

        Are you saying the Corvette has some sort of diplomatic immunity the saves it from being rightfully killed off?

        “If your point is that the Corvette doesn’t generate the AMOUNT of profits of a truck or SUV….of course you’re right.”

        Why the heck would anyone imply that? Now who’s unable to connect points??? I’m saying that the obscene profitability of GM trucks and SUVs allow the Corvette and Volt programs to exist. Drrrr…

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        ‘LS crate engines would sell regardless of the Corvette program. ‘

        But, of course, they won’t help amortize the cost for the Corvette according to you. Using that same engine in other vehicles like the CTS-V? Nope, that helps GM but doesn’t help amortize the Corvette.

        You need to look up the definition of amortize.

        The fact that their Tremec tranmission is shared across many other vehicles? Nope, that won’t help amortize the cost.

        HVAC in current generation shared with GM lineup. Nope, won’t help the Vette.

        Stereo in current generation shared with GM lineup. Nope, won’t help the Vette.

        Magnetic Ride control shared. Nope, won’t help the Vette.

        Reuss didn’t bring it up. Someone asked him the question and he answered it.

        If you think the Corvette carries the same margin as the Camaro did back in the 90′s, I think we’re at an impasse.

        Yes, if Hyundai started from the ground up and wanted to develop a halo car to grab some press, they would lose money.

        If I wanted to start Sunridge Auto Corp and sell a super car…I would lose my a#$.

        Corvette has been and will be integrated into a large organization. They command high prices and have enough volume to generate profits on this model.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        Corvette is a profitable carline for GM, not a loss leader, regardless of all these efforts to decipher how much money is in it, GM structured the program to be profitable at low volumes.

        They have stated that the niche products, like Z06, ZR1 and the Cadillac CTS-V’s cover incremental development costs with sales volumes in the few dozen a year after which they are also profitable!

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @dr olds – Wasn’t GM was losing money on a the relatively high volume Camaro in ’02 with a ’92 design and a drivetrain straight off of Silverados?

        I don’t know about you, but I trust the word of GM like you do any politician!

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Regarding the 2002 F-body Camaro. It was a 10 year old body and chassis design with falling sales assembled in an under-utilized plant that in it’s heyday built 5x the volume.

        The costs of bringing a replacement to market were expensive and the plant had high overhead.

        I’m sure many of us recall the on again/off again ordeal that the Zeta Camaro was, there were points in time where it appeared it would never hit the market at all. In 2002, no one would have guessed that a resurgence in the pony car market would take place like it has. Now, the Camaro outsells the Mustang.

        Even the rarely discounted Challenger manages to sell between 30 and 50k units a year.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “Under-utilized assembly plant”??? What is Bowling Green!!! How you can figure GM can build a profitable, hand built, extremely low volume super car with exotic materials is nothing short of drinking the GM Kool-Aid.

        If an all-new for’03 Camaro (that never happened)and even the current Zeta Camaro were both iffy propositions, from a profitability perspective, why didn’t GM blink on building the new C-7 Stingray? Answer? Profitability is irrelevant and never a consideration… Not unlike the cash losing Ford GT.

        The pony market never went away in the early ’00s, just the selection and quality went away. The Mustang was still a hot seller at the time.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        @DenverMike- Danio summarized the situation well. You shouldn’ trivialize the continuing development costs to maintain a vehicle series, though. That, and advertising to support specific models.

        The new Camaro is capacitized with a program structured to be profitable at today’s volumes. Corvette’s higher prices allow lower volumes yet.

        Corvette is profitable today, and appears likely to become moreso with the sales boost a new model typically gains.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        DenverMike

        ‘“Under-utilized assembly plant”??? What is Bowling Green!!! ‘

        Bowling Green is a 1,000,000 sq ft plant with 585 employees.

        A plant like Lordtown (Cruze) is 6,000,000 sq ft with 4500 employees.

        I have no idea how big the Ste-Therese plant that built the Camaro was back in the day…but I’ll be you it was a hell of a lot bigger than Bowling Green.

        Educate yourself.

        http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/company_info.html

        click on ‘Assembly’ on the right size.

        Or better yet, as an auto enthusiast, go there and take the plant tour someday.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @dr olds – I realize the ongoing development costs can be astronomic, especially on a line of extremely low volume cars, hand built with highly exotic materials, even when spread out over 10, or so, years.

        The Corvette does carry a high sticker, but it’s not much higher, and often less than top pony cars or pick-ups. The Corvette clearly, is priced where it’ll (barely) sell and not necessesarily where it needs to be to turn a profit.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        An 8 year run @ 22,000 annual units X $58,000 invoice= $10 Billion

        That can buy a lot of R&D.

        The new Corvette will get back over 20,000 units at least. But, you probably (incorrectly)believe the actual car is sold at less than the cost of the materials and labor so that’s irrelevant.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        10 billion is still a weak # when spread out over 8 years. There’s also a lot of zeros behind all the cost/overhead, over and above hand assembly and exotic materials and processes.

        But expecting the Corvette market to double in the coming years is a little insane. Baby boomers are about done climbing in and out of Vets. Gen X’ers and Ys won’t be much interested.

        I don’t think there’s much wrong with great cars that’ll never turn a profit, some of which I may buy when thier value drops enough, but there’s definitely no shame in it. It’s just the reality of halo cars. I don’t see why Vet/GM fans get upset though. Is there any shame in GM selling the Volt for much less than it costs to make? Of course not!

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Do you even understand numbers?

        I didn’t project a ‘doubling’ They sold 14k last year. Doubling would be 28k. I projected 22k.

        Will you at least acknowledge that the manufacturing footprint (and thus cost) in Bowling Green is not the same as the Camaro in 2002?

        Oh yeah, I’d like you to meet someone. Meet John Fitzpatrick.

        https://twitter.com/CamaroFitz

        Marketing Manager for the Corvette AND Camaro. Shared duties. Less cost. I’m sure lots of people are shared between the programs thus sharing the overhead costs.

        Just like lots of components on the Corvette are shared with other GM vehicles and just like you couldn’t do if I started Sunridge Auto Corp and ONLY built high end performance sports cars.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Why make such a big dealio over a production forecast??? It’s an arbitrary # someone pulled out of their butt anyway. So 22,000 isn’t quite “twice”? Oooookay.. Sorry, I was going off the 11,XXX 2012MY production.

        Anyways, you can’t seriously compare the cost of bringing a Zeta platform’d Camaro to market with a C-6 Corvette? Or C-7 for that matter. Most cars within a OEM, brand or group do share various part #s, but the Corvette is on its own when it comes to some major components, not the least of which are the body, alloy spaceframe and transaxle. Some are made of some pretty exotic materials and processes.

        It’s the combination of the Corvette’s extremely low production/volume, exotic parts/processes unique to the Corvette and let’s not forget hand assembly, that kills any chance of it turning a profit.

        The high volume/mass produced Camaro, OTOH, has the long amortized Zeta platform that’s simple stamped steel, spot welded and painted by robots that never take breaks, sick days, maternity leave and the like.

        Total night and day difference from a profit perspective. Still, the Camaro’s neck is on the chopping block if sales drop to 3 or 4X *more* than what the Corvette sells now.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        So…its about robots? You want robots? They have 48 robots!!!!

        http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1208_corvette_museum_delivery_program_and_plant_tour/

        They have robots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Does that help?

        I get it. You heard that halo cars lose money. You heard that some ultra-fancy sports cars lose money. Ford lost money on the GT so GM must lose money on the Corvette…in spite of the clear differences in the vehicles

        It okay to be wrong. I hope you learned a bit through this thread. It would be nice if you could acknowledge some of that after every thing I’ve shown you.

      • 0 avatar
        Athos Nobile

        Jesus!, I had to scroll up the way to reply. There we go…

        “Why make such a big dealio over a production forecast??? It’s an arbitrary # someone pulled out of their butt anyway.”

        Oh dear…

        “Anyways, you can’t seriously compare the cost of bringing a Zeta platform’d Camaro to market with a C-6 Corvette? Or C-7 for that matter. Most cars within a OEM, brand or group do share various part #s, but the Corvette is on its own when it comes to some major components, not the least of which are the body, alloy spaceframe and transaxle. Some are made of some pretty exotic materials and processes.”

        Corvette (of any generation) must have a fair deal of parts sharing. We may start with standard parts and go from there. That’s not a bad thing, it is actually quite positive.

        “It’s the combination of the Corvette’s extremely low production/volume, exotic parts/processes unique to the Corvette and let’s not forget hand assembly, that kills any chance of it turning a profit.”

        A car which volume goes between 10K to 30K a year is not exactly an “extremely low” volume affair. 500/year cars is.

        I would also like to be enlightened about the exotic processes employed in making a Corvette. And don’t get me wrong, I love Corvettes.

        But other than the composite body panels, an interesting matter by itself, everything else must be done by a combination of casting, forging, welding, gluing, extruding, stamping, and heaps more… nothing really esoteric there.

        The dressing of the BIW must be something similar to what happens in any high volume car… at a much longer cycle time. Instead of 60 seconds, they may have available 5 minutes for example.

        “The high volume/mass produced Camaro, OTOH, has the long amortized Zeta platform that’s simple stamped steel, spot welded and painted by robots that never take breaks, sick days, maternity leave and the like.”

        Well, the workers that work in general assembly and also in the press, body and paint shop have some different ideas. Actually some of those guys perform welds in places were the robots just can’t go. Then you need QC, logistics and other support services.

        The “dressing” of the BIW is made by workers of carne y hueso. With tools, but let’s call it “manual”.

        And you went into some adventurous terrain with that “simple stamped steel”. The new advanced high strength steels are anything but simple. I actually think it’s some kind of alchemy thing.

        “Total night and day difference from a profit perspective. Still, the Camaro’s neck is on the chopping block if sales drop to 3 or 4X *more* than what the Corvette sells now.”

        Camaro is tooled to be run and have a break even point of X numbers of units/year. Same goes for Corvette, substitute X for Y. In both cases the objective is being profitable.

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        @Athos

        Thanks for trying…but DenverMike will just come back with something like ‘carbon fiber costs a lot’ without realizing that the Corvette costs a lot.

        Then, he’ll say, ‘high end trucks and high end pony cars can cost that much’

        Then, it will be ‘there’s a lot of R&D and overhead’ so the Corvette must lose money.

        He just doesn’t understand numbers and automotive process. He read that halo cars and super-duper sports cars lose money somewhere and can’t get past that.

        Thanks for trying.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        It takes a real blind leap of faith to believe there’s profit at the end of the Corvette rainbow. Yeah, I’d love to own one too, but let’s get real here…

        I hated telling you guys the truth, actually. It’s like when I tell Christians there’s no God and kids there’s no Santa Claus. I’ve gotta do it, and can’t stop. Believe me, I don’t enjoy it…

        As expected, I get a lot of protests and yeah I have no proof. Yeah, that’s a real strong point you have there! Yes I have nothing… Other than good ole’ common friggin’ sense…

        In the end, I still don’t get why you cannot just own, drive and enjoy a Corvette, but also have to believe it creates a profit for the mother ship (or tax payers). Plenty of folks are fans and or owners of Chevy Volts, supercars or other halo cars, and enjoy the F out of them and never look back…

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @DenverDud
          I haven’t seen you provide any links to prove yourself. You just keep on shooting questions.

          Go back to PUTC and multipost me under your other URL names.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        @DenverMike- Corvette is profitable at today’s volumes. GM knows this, whether your fuzzy math with no data makes you believe otherwise or not.

  • avatar
    cargogh

    I looked forward to this unveiling like it was Christmas, but with worry that not only would I not like it, but actual buyers wouldn’t. The Corvette is America’s apple pie and I want it to win all the blue ribbons. It wasn’t what I expected visually, but when I looked at it, not as what I anticipated or a Corvette, it is a very good looking automobile. So add the name, and it still is. This is another rare time, when like the CTS coupe, it is nothing like I thought it would be, but better.

  • avatar
    Athos Nobile

    I love the name, and the accompanying logo.

    And I would like to see round tail lamps. The Camaroesque thing doesn’t work for me.

    Other than that, I approve. The front is gorgeous.

  • avatar
    OnlineAlias

    This is a huge improvement over practically anything that GM has done since the 60′s. My only complaint is that the wheel offsets should be deeper…the flatness of the wheel makes them look small and not very aggressive.

  • avatar
    mulled whine

    Very pretty. Great job Chevy.

  • avatar

    No thanks

    VIPER SRT puhleassssssse.

  • avatar
    zznalg

    I haven’t liked any Corvette very much since the original Stingray. They went way downhill in the 70′s. The 80′s sucked. The C5 was promising. The C6 was not enough after the C5. This is the first Corvette in my adult lifetime that I would consider (lust after) buying. Therefore, tentatively, before any road testing, I deem it “Stingray” worthy! I am excited about Corvettes for the first time in a very long time.

  • avatar

    Stingray is great. interior pleasing. rear end dull. general exterior styling appears overworked. doesn’t make me “have to have one”. the Motor Trend concept was much nicer looking.

    • 0 avatar
      Type57SC

      “overworked” is a good term. I was going to say it looked like Michael Knight had hit the “super-pursuit” mode button on a C6, but “overworked” is probably more balanced.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        Upon viewing the pictures, I thought jokingly to myself “one would think they could have found more places to put folds and creases”

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        The “folds and creases” (as well as the square-ish back end) seem to give it a familial resemblance to fit in with the Camaro. I like the overall look, but IMO, anything that moves it toward the Camaro is going the wrong direction.

  • avatar
    ltcmgm78

    The head-on shot of the Stingray when they unveiled it made the backside of the vehicle look really huge, but I think that was because of the angle. The other photos show it looking much more balanced. My only criticism are the squared taillights. I expected that they would come out round. Otherwise, I really liked the way it looked and can’t wait to see how they look at LeMans!

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    World class. Would love to see a base model in yellow. Almost as cool as a new 911. Far more desirable than the Viper. Might be more desirable than the Nissan GTR.

  • avatar
    Mr. K

    I agree about the square tail light lenses. No thanks on a vette that resembles a bu’ from the back!

    http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/01/Malibu-LTZ-rear-night-450×337.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      Agreed on the tail lights. Corvettes always seem to blend top-drawer performance with bargain components and/or build quality.

      I’m not a Vette fan, but my favorite was the C4 series. I thought they had the cleanest styling.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Somehow, adding a B pillar and a quarter window looks odd, but that’s just because Corvettes never had that feature before. Sort of Nissan 380Z-ish, but not in a bad way.

    Love the chrome accents, too.

    Yes, I believe it is more than worthy of the name.

    I need to see one in person, which will be relatively soon.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Think Pontiac GTO/Holden Monaro for the quarter window. That rear hatch used to be all glass wrap around. Lots of weight saved by less use of glass and it moved lower on the body for lower center of gravity.

    • 0 avatar
      Muttley Alfa Barker

      To me, the B pillar and rear quarter window reminds me more of the Toyobaru FR-86-Z triplets than the Z-cars.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    Looks great! Can’t wait to see it go head to head with the new Viper.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    The C6 had the potential to emerge as the basis for an iconic design, akin to the 911. It makes no sense that they tossed that out and replaced it with what appears to be a fairly generic design.

    The interior does look much improved, though, which counts for something. But why they couldn’t have just improved on the C6, including a world-class interior, I don’t know.

    • 0 avatar

      Sorry Pch 101, but I think this looks better. That exterior is quite striking.

      As to the interior it looks pretty good though the center console could be smaller. Also the gear shift looks pretty bad. Otherwise, interior-wise though a little contrived looks pretty good.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “I think this looks better.”

        I don’t (and the photos look better than the video footage.)

        But more to the point, it doesn’t look like a Corvette, which is the issue here. The car that I’ve seen thus far doesn’t match the nameplate. The nameplate has a certain legacy that is obliged to support, and this design doesn’t convey that.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      The C5 was considered a mid-year from the C4. The C6 was just a continuation. This one looks like it got a Lexus infusion of Japanese street fighter body kit.

      Maybe a pumped up Lotus?

      • 0 avatar

        Hey Norm, nah don’t think it looks Japanese. I think it looks pretty American with some vague Euro-ness in there. Maybe something about the long hood. Honestly, I think that’s a compliment. Japanese cars have their own design language that frankly doesn’t fit very well with American brands.

    • 0 avatar

      Totally with you there PCH

    • 0 avatar
      NMGOM

      Pch101..

      I agree, too….

      By starting over stylistically, there was plenty of opportunity to get into trouble, and that’s what happened.

      Had the bankruptcy not occurred, we would NO DOUBT (are you reading me, NormSV650 (^_^)) have had a mid-rear engine Corvette for this C7 generation. As I said, that project was already in the works, but would have been a very expensive remake. Talk about REALLY starting from scratch! But the better enclosure geometry would have allowed a turbo DOHC engine that can rev higher and get better gas mileage. (Example: Audi just came out with the smallest V-8 ever made, and it delivers 520 HP, while propelling the heavy (4750 lb.) S8 at 27 mpg: imagine what that engine could do in a 2950-lb Corvette! See Link http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/2013-audi-s8-first-look.html)

      When the C-8 does come out, you may expect a split in the product line to simulate what Porsche did: 911 vs Boxster/Cayman. Except here it will be enhanced C-7 vs mid-engine C-8. That would satisfy both camps. But before tying ourselves into that idea more thoroughly, let’s see what Corvette comes out with during the summer and fall, as the do the Z06 and ZR1 equivalent.

      ————–

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Smallest V8 ever? Hardly. Just off the top of my head FIAT and Lancia both had V8s in the 2.0l range in the 50′s, and I am sure there were plenty more small production car V8s. There were tons of 1.5l V8 racing engines too, right up into the ’80s. Coventry Climax probably most famously.

        But I agree that the days of relatively low-tech gigantic pushrod lumps are pretty much numbered. In theory you can get high 20′s out of a long-geared Corvette, on the highway, on cruise control, downhill with a tailwind, but around town you are looking at high teens at best. Driven gently. And while *I* personally could care less, our (and Europes) elected governments certainly do care.

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        My sister owned a C6 and routinely got high-20s on the highway loafing along in top gear at the speed limit.

        Regarding the pushrod LT1, I saw an interesting graphic that superimposed its outline with that of the Coyote and an MB (I think) V8. The LT1 looked puny by comparison, so there is definitely a packaging advantage with the pushrod design. As with all engineering decisions, it’s about tradeoffs.

      • 0 avatar
        NMGOM

        krhodes1…

        Thanks for the clarification. I did misquote the articles. Sorry.

        I think the original comment (which, of course, I can’t find again) was, “the most compact V-8 made in current production”, but, if I remember one article, it meant: for the displacement or horsepower offered. In other words, that analysis conclusion was normalized. Please see link.

        http://www.autoweek.com/article/20121016/CARNEWS/121019880

        Nonetheless, a taller rear-mid enclosure, available with a mid-rear engine design, would take the pressure off having to stay with a non-turbo, older push-rod configuration. More engine options open up, such as turbo-charging and DOHC or Quad overhead-cam when using 4 valves per cylinder.

        ———–

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    C6, GT-R, & Hyundai Genisis coupe have a freaky drunken encounter and 9 months later…

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    My favorite part of the design is the 60s stingray looking rear window treatment.

  • avatar
    Pig_Iron

    Reminds me of the BMW Z4 M Coupe. Aren’t most new Corvette buyers older and more conservative than the general population? If so, this bold styling exercise may become a low, low volume machine.

    I can see it disappearing altogether if it drops below 10,000 units a year. Anyway, today let’s celebrate the project team’s bold courage, and hope the styling doesn’t become dated (or hated) 24 months down the road. With others already calling it Frankenvette and Aztec lovechild, it’s clearly not everyone’s cup of tea.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    Funny how everyone is seeing some different in this car. While i agree that is generally attractive (I don’t like the tailights), I had to do a double take when I saw the picture because at first I thought it was a Ferrari 599. This isn’t a intrinsically bad thing since I think the 599 is a great looking car. However, the C6 was distinctively, without a doubt, a Corvette and wouldn’t be confused for anything else. I think this has too much generic sports car elements to it. Like the Camaro, I also think it’s overdone and looks too cartoony in the details. As I write this post I keep going back to look at it and the more I do, the less I like it.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Can’t wait to read a Vellum Venom on this one. There are a lot of lines going on here. However it is very striking – I find it an extremely good looking car – looks are of course subjective. It certainly makes a statement – and more so than the C4, C5 and C6 have.

    If the base specs are going to get you to 60 in four flat, 450 HP under the right foot, and the crappy interior of the C6 has been exorcised (the Power of Lutz compels you! The power of Lutz compels you!) AND this comes in at the low $50s base – I think GM has a winner.

  • avatar
    Crabspirits

    Whoa whoa whoa, you guys LIKE this? Looks like a Ferrari F12 with a blocky roof, none of the elegance, and Pep Boys aisle boy racer plastic crap applied anywhere possible.

    More crap tech to make this not a driver’s car, or did I read that wrong?

    Don’t even get me started on that horrid interior.

    Can’t wait for the Vellum Venom piece on this car.

  • avatar
    Mark in Maine

    Busy, busy, busy – look up “Hodgepodge” anywhere, and these images are going to come up. That said, I really like the ray badge from Mitchell’s original Stingray on the front fender . . .

  • avatar
    carmandan

    I’m going to have to see this car in person before I make a final judgement but from the pictures I’m less than impressed.The back end still looks too big and all the angles and folds are not to my liking.
    I prefer a car that is more rounded and smooth. The interior seems to be an improvement from the pictures. I do not like the blacked out wheel look. I hope there is an option of other wheels for old guys like myself. I like polished aluminum and chrome in some cases. Horsepower is about the same and mileage is not a great improvement. Also not really liking the small quarter window. Right now between a Gen. 6 and this car I would take the Gen. 6. Maybe after seeing one in the flesh I will have a different opinion. I am in my late 50′s and probably am in the demographic group that will contain the most buyers for this car. I do not see it being a really big hit there.

  • avatar
    Alexdi

    Huge relief on seeing this, some of the spy shots had me questioning. Love the front. Love the back. Side profile is more cohesive than the C6. Interior is lovely.

    For the first time in years, I actually want a Corvette. A lot. Now I’m curious if the car drives smaller than the last one.

  • avatar
    Pug

    On modern cars, it’s pretty standard to wall the transmission tunnel with plastic/pleather/leather, down to a point below the highest point of the seat-bottom. It makes a car look more finished. I was hoping the C7 would finally get a proper tunnel wall, and was disappointed.

    I want to know why Vettes are different. Is it ’cause the tunnel is much hotter than normal, and a deeper wall would trap heat? Or do Vette people like seeing some carpet beside them, ’cause it makes them feel they’re sitting deep in the car? Or is it another reason?

    I know there’s some high-class cars which don’t wall the tunnel very deep, and they look alright, but I’ve always felt the Vette looked awkward in this regard, and still do with the C7.

  • avatar
    Lemmiwinks

    Beautiful. Bee-you-tea-full.

    Modern Corvettes have never appealed to me beyond respect for their straight-line prowess and being cheap looking powerhouses delivering a lot of bang for the buck. The sight of this machine has summoned a visceral reaction that makes me want to want to know more, more, and more.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    Im a little surprised so many like this. Im no design guru but to me this looks way over done, angles everwhere, tacked on parts, cheap inserts,etc. I also thought Ferrari at first, but a bad Ferrari with a bunch of junk added to it.

    Back end in particular.

    Maybe other colors or in person it will be better. I dont know. The c6 isnt georgeous,but the lines were overall clean and taught i think. this is exact opposite.

    But i am also one that prefers cars that look clean and sleek. Porsche over ferrari or lamborghini. A GTI over a Civic Si. C6 over a Mustang.

    This one is just too much.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    “which ’rounded and smooth cars’ do you like?”

    Probably mid-80′s Ford Tempo… ;)

    Oops…meant to reply to Sunridge’s comment above!

  • avatar
    cwallace

    Any guesses on how much one of these will cost? I’m completely ignorant about Corvettes, prior to seeing those photos anyway…

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    Love the high-end model, still gaudy and the quarter windows look cheap even on my tiny cell phone screen. I’m sure the only production version resembling the show car will cost north of 100k. The decontented plasticky crap 40-50k ‘vettes with their chrome wheels, ugly body panels. and sluggish fat guy friendly AT trannies will be the true test if they can make one cheap and still tolerable.

    To be fair, this is by far the LEAST white trash looking Corvette in decades, and will probably be pretty fast in high-end trim.

    But those don’t sell and don’t represent the face of the brand. I want to see what GM can do with a 50k price point, since that will be all I’m willing to spend.

    I’m also sure that they’ll have more stuff than a similarly priced Porch-uhh, but those are prettier.

  • avatar
    dabradler

    Nobody is talking about the most important features, how big is that hatchback trunk and what do those LED daytime running lights look like lit up. They look like a strip LED lights which is way cooler than the bulb led lights you see on so many cars.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    Corvette’s design is driven by engineering to make it work better. The car is completely new except for 2 parts and more capable in base form than the track upgrade GS package on the C6. Immensely greater performance capability and all we’ve seen is the base car. These will be hot!

  • avatar
    danio3834

    I love the looks of the front fascia, hood and fenders. I was shocked a bit by the rear.

    Still, very excited for this car. The powertrain will make it.

  • avatar

    Nice job Chevy! I am glad Chevy borrowed very little from the past and made the new Corvette a revolutionary design rather than an evolutionary one. While this might disappoint the ‘Vette faithful, it is an important direction for Chevy to take. The current ‘vette is not an aspiration for anyone. It always gave the best bang for the buck with unmatched performance numbers but was lacking in the futuristic looks dept. The C7 with a its touch of Euro flair should change everything.

    Dislikes: Black A-Pillar, too many vents, center exhausts, the rear brake light is positioned too high and the asymmetric dash. I’ve always liked symmetric dashboards. Can’t wait for the C7.R to debut which might be the baddest Corvette ever.

    • 0 avatar
      NMGOM

      alluster…

      “While this might disappoint the ‘Vette faithful, it is an important direction for Chevy to take.”

      The ‘Vette Faithful may be even more disappointed when the direction to take moves toward the rear-mid engine C8! But that car, with a 44(F)/56(R) weight distribution, could really lay power down in corner exits, and would be a dragon slayer with regard to Porsche and BMW on the ‘Ring.

      ————-

  • avatar

    The 2014 Vette will hopefully rest the myth that Chevy performs well only in a straight line. It never matters that Chevy has absolutely dominated every race series they compete in. Most wins and championships in Nascar, more than Ford, Toyota and Dodge combined. Embarrassed Honda in IndyCar racing with 11 wins out of 15 races in 2012, also winning the championship and manufacturer title. ‘Corvette Racing’ has absolutely dominated Ferrari, BMW and Porsche in the GT series with most wins and championships including 2012. The WTCC Cruze has murdered BMW in the touring car series for the last three years and Holden has always dominated the V8 supercar series.

    • 0 avatar
      NMGOM

      alluster…

      ” ‘Corvette Racing’ has absolutely dominated Ferrari, BMW and Porsche in the GT series with most wins and championships including 2012.”

      This is true for the ALMS series to which you refer. But Corvette had appealed to Atherton to ease up on the HP restriction because their “redesign” had more air resistance. And the ALMS management let it happen! So the HP/Wt ratio for Corvette in 2012 was higher than BMW, Ferrari, and Porsche. (That won’t happen again in 2013, if BMW is allowed to race the Z4 GT3 as a homologated car in America.)

      Also, the Nürburgring lap data for Corvettes (except ZR1) have not been radiant, compared to Porsche 911 GT3 and Carrera GT versions. But perhaps this will be the year of change, when the Z06 and ZR1 equivalent vehicles are introduced. Who knows? See Link.
      http://www.sportauto.de/rundenzeiten-nuerburgring-nordschleife-3649995.html?sort=ZeitNS&order=ASC

      ————–

      • 0 avatar

        “because their “redesign” had more air resistance. And the ALMS management let it happen! So the HP/Wt ratio for Corvette in 2012 was higher than BMW, Ferrari, and Porsche.”

        Thanks for bringing it up. I forgot Chevy had to lower their HP output to be more fair to the competition though that didn’t change the outcome in anyway. Its not Chevy’s problem if Porsche, BMW and Ferrari couldn’t match Corvette’s HP/WT ratio. Chevy’s domination in ALMS predates the C6.R.

        “Also, the Nürburgring lap data for Corvettes (except ZR1) have not been radiant, compared to Porsche 911 GT3 and Carrera GT versions. ”

        Except the ZR1? I am not sure what the argument is. Its not like the Porsche times are that of a base 911 or the BMW times are that of a base 3 series. It was a special high performance GT2 RS that leads the ZR1 by 1 second. Both the Z06 and ZR1 have posted faster lap times than the GT3 and Carrera GT. The only BMW in the top 60 is a M3 GTS at 57th place. There are 8 Chevrolets including the Camaro ZL1 with faster lap times than the fastest BMW. The only Audi a R8 V10 in the Top 60 is at 49th, again outpaced by 8 Chevrolets including the ZL1.

  • avatar
    brianb

    this is pathetic the front end looks like the new viper. Y cant they think of there own design for the “supercar”. Just pathetic!!!

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    It does look like a Corvette. Unfortunately, the Corvette it most looks like is the one that Mark Hamill drove in Corvette Summer. Even if all the busy, gimmicky details can be ignored, I don’t know how anyone can look past the blacked out A-pillars intersecting with the body colored door tops. That’s about as bad as design can get. Maybe this car would look okay in black, preferably in the dark!

  • avatar
    Volts On Fire

    If nothing else, the C7 looks to be the crowning achievement in Ed Welburn’s apparent quest to ghettofy the entire GM lineup.

  • avatar
    Nick

    My only regrets are that a) I can’t afford one and b) even if I could I doubt I’d fit. Sigh.

  • avatar
    gessvt

    Absolutely love the rear quarter windows and backlight. Interior looks like a thorough update of the LT1 era C4s, which I personally liked, aside from the fit and finish.

    Interesting design objective in tying Chevrolet models together through common taillight shapes. Camaro, Malibu, Corvette…am I missing others?

    • 0 avatar
      Pig_Iron

      “Absolutely love the rear quarter windows and backlight.”

      I’m pretty jaded when it comes to new designs, but I’d say I think those two features make it look “grown-up”. It has more a a grand touring look to it, which appeals to me. Overall it’s pretty loud and proud styling. I hope it flies.

  • avatar

    they tried to make it more than it is and in the process came up with a Corvette by Committee.

  • avatar
    Mykl

    I *loved* the C5. When the C6 was released, I was instantly a fan and my infatuation with the C5 died immediately (it has since recovered).

    This is a fantastic looking car (love it), but my desire to own a C6 hasn’t suddenly disappeared

  • avatar
    campocaceres

    Overall I like it. I agree with some here that think it’s overall a coherent look, if a bit more ostentatious. However, I’m not as hung up on the car’s heritage; I just think when I see it, I still see “Corvette” in its overall shape and some details carried over from the C6 and that is enough for me. So, in my case, the “Stingray” name doesn’t bother me. I can see where some are coming from when they think it’s overstyled, however.

    I think they managed to make the tail-lights work, even if I’m not overly thrilled that they borrowed the trapezoidal shape from the Camaro. The headlights are pretty generic for that style of car, but most manufacturers aren’t yet ready to go radical with that yet. Personally, I’d be curious if they could ever utilize LED’s to sort of the hide the headlights and head back towards something almost resembling the old pop-up headlight style. Hey, maybe the next generation will go back to a cleaner look.

    Interior looks good. Anyone else see the Toyota Supra’s interior?

    Truly what made me a genuine fan of the Corvette is actually driving one, though, regardless of anything else. As long as how it feels piloting the car from the cockpit matches the the way the previous generation feels, everything else is gravy.

  • avatar
    ZekeToronto

    Am I the only one seeing a lot of Lotus Evora influence in the exterior styling? That’s not a bad thing in my view … I just wish they’d looked inside the Evora too.

  • avatar
    Type57SC

    I’m struck by how the Viper design blends the vents in more integrally (if that’s a word). This design looks like after the clay was done, it was thrown to Engineering and they walked around with a Sharpie marking X’s where they wanted vents.

  • avatar
    daiheadjai

    Not a GM fan, but this car is stunning.
    I’m probably from a (slightly) younger demographic at 29, but I feel like this car has just the right styling to grab attention (in a good way – not like the Azteks or Jukes of the world).

  • avatar
    stryker1

    So GM makes the Tiburon now? That’s cool, that’s cool…


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India