By on April 26, 2013

While I’m not taken with the styling of the C7 Corvette, it’s hard to argue against the value proposition; $51,995 ($1,400 more than the base C6 Coupe) will get you into a base model C7 Corvette, while the droptop model will cost $56,995. For the improvements in performance, fuel economy and interior materials, it’s a paltry increase. I can’t help but wonder about rumors of an entry-level C7, with a smaller displacement V8 and less feature content. What kind of pricepoint could Chevrolet realistically offer that car at? $52k doesn’t exactly make it a car for the everyman, but for what you are getting, it’s almost impossible to beat.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

119 Comments on “C7 ‘Vette Just $1,400 More Than Outgoing Model...”


  • avatar
    sunridge place

    The model you see in the picture is priced at $73k. People wanted a nicer interior on the Corvette? Ok…then you gotta pay for it.

    3LT interior package, with leather-wrapped interior ($8,005)
    Z51 Performance Package ($2,800)
    Competition sports seats ($2,495)
    Exposed-carbon-fiber roof panel ($1,995)
    Magnetic Ride Control with Performance Traction Management ($1,795)
    Dual-mode exhaust system ($1,195)
    Carbon fiber interior trim ($995)
    Sueded, microfiber-wrapped upper interior trim ($995)
    Red-painted calipers ($595)
    Black-painted wheels ($495)

    • 0 avatar
      TonyJZX

      do you actually need all that shit though?

      Z51 looks about the only stuff that you could justify? that’s just me though… Corvettes should be simple cars… i wanted all that electro doo hickeys I’d get a goddamn GTR…

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        I’m glad they left all that sh1t as an option. Some people care more about raw performance than a leather wrapped interior for 8k.

        Likewise other buyers my care more about fondling their dashboards than the performance handling package.

        More choice is good.

        • 0 avatar
          cargogh

          True. The choices are good to have. I hope GM has thwarted that nonsense of it being faster, better handling, more fuel efficient etc., but some of the surfaces aren’t soft touch plastic, and the fit and finish is off slightly. That really got old.
          This new one’s interior has some similarities to the new Jag.
          For those naysayers, at least they can be told to have a nice glass of shut the f up, and order the upgrade.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      I don’t think leather on every surface that isn’t carbon fiber is what was missing from the C6. If the standard switchgear is better, the instruments and panel fit and finish are better, and the seats are equal to the rest of the car; then the base interior should be what people wanted without all the extras. The C6 eventually offered expensive trim options that didn’t deal with the fundamentals. Assuming they did with the C7, I don’t see the need to spend $12,500 on interior options.

    • 0 avatar
      dan1malk

      So, all that is still ~$11,000 less than a BASE 911 Carrera, and ~$26,000 less than a BASE GT-R.

      Sounds like a win to me.

      • 0 avatar
        tkewley

        If the C7 offers comparable levels of build quality and overall refinement to those two, I would agree. Given GM’s history with the Vette, however, that is unlikely to be the case.

        • 0 avatar
          dan1malk

          Unlikely is a very pessimistic way of looking at it. Just about every new GM vehicle has at least matched its competition in those regards. There’s no reason to think the Corvette would be any different.

          Also, as crude as you think the current Vette may be, there is no way the GT-R is $50,000 more refined than even a base C6.

          We’ll just have to wait and see, I guess. Should be fun to watch!

          • 0 avatar
            Cubista

            “…there is no way the GT-R is $50,000 more refined than even a base C6.”

            Comparing those two cars isn’t reasonable. The C6 IS a base model; it isn’t going to provide a realistic challenge to the GT-R in any way whatsoever. It is the Corvette to buy for people who want to be able to say that they own a Corvette. If you want a Corvette that will be able to compete with the GT-R (which has NO base model; every one off the line is designed to be the destroyer of worlds), you’ll need to pay a helluva lot more to buy a Z06 just to sit at the table…or a ZR1 if you want a chance to deal the cards.

    • 0 avatar
      Chicago Dude

      3LT interior package, with leather-wrapped interior ($8,005)
      Competition sports seats ($2,495)
      Exposed-carbon-fiber roof panel ($1,995)
      Carbon fiber interior trim ($995)
      Sueded, microfiber-wrapped upper interior trim ($995)
      Red-painted calipers ($595)
      Black-painted wheels ($495)

      You can’t fool me! Those are Porsche option packages! Oh wait, no. That is way too cheap for a Porsche.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      Are they offering Corvette tailights as an option?

    • 0 avatar
      icemilkcoffee

      $8000 for a leather interior? $600 for red paintedcalipers? Wow. I would skip all that gee-gaw and just have the Magnetic Ride and maybe the sports seats.

    • 0 avatar
      Thinkin...

      Though credit where it is due – even this decked out car looks… terrible. That awkward elevated front-quarter angle must be the worst possible for this car. It makes the front end lose it’s chiseled facade, the hood looks impossibly short while the rear-end is cartoony large and out of proportion with the rest of the car. Add to that the overexposed and saturated reds, and most of the character lines and creases are gone, leaving an mess that looks more like a bad kit body on a C3.

      It’s impressive, to find a photo where a car that normally looks pretty hot to come off as soo… meh.

  • avatar
    Reino

    If they offered a smaller-displacement Corvette, would they reuse the LS3 or make a new engine that is a smaller version of the LT1?

    GM kind of closed the door of a lower-end Corvette back in 1998 when they started putting the Corvette engine in the Camaro. As long as the Camaro keeps having the same engine as the Corvette, they cannot sell a Corvette with lesser performance than the Camaro. If the next gen Camaro gets the LT1, then there is no chance of a smaller engine Corvette.

    But like you said, $52k is a good bottom for the base Corvette, and there is no need to go lower. Z06 and ZR1 would still be available to go higher.

    If GM wants a less expensive roadster that shares some looks with the Corvette, they should do a modern version of the Sky/Solstice. (Case: the Boxster still sells very well despite sharing a showroom with the 911…but no one dreams of owning a cheaper 911 with a Boxster engine).

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      As long as the low content Corvette weighs at least 500 lbs less than the Camaro, it won’t need the same engine to run rings around it.

      • 0 avatar
        Caboose

        @ CJ,

        Sounds like what you’re really asking for is a Club Sport edition. Cut electronics and unnecessary luxury features, and thus cut weight…and price. Sell it as a casual track-day special, a la Miata Club Sport.

        Sed contra: if you take that reasoning to its logical conclusion (smaller, ligher ‘Vette with smaller, lighter engine, for smaller price) haven’t you just bought an FRS?

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          There’s plenty of room between $52K and $26K, between 450 hp and 200 hp. A 3,000 lb, 350 hp Corvette CS would deliver Cayman S performance with at least a 30% discount.

          • 0 avatar
            Caboose

            Agreed. But we both know they wouldn’t give you a 30% discount on such a car. Hell, they’d probably charge *more* for it. The discount, if any, wouldn’t be more than 10-15%, I would think. Still, like you, that is the car I would buy, if only because it would be more usable on the street.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            70% of the price of a stripped Cayman S is $44,800. I don’t know that Chevrolet could go that low, but it would seem like a good target price for a low content Corvette. Unfortunately, there probably wouldn’t be much of a market for such a car. Today’s buyers demand lots of toys in their daily drivers, and anyone that could afford it as a second car could afford a Cayman R, which would be even more stripped and yet far more expensive.

        • 0 avatar
          icemilkcoffee

          I hope they bring back the notchback. It’s lighter than the fastback.

          On that note- has anyone seen the weight of this C7 Vette yet?

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Well the LS3 isn’t “smaller displacement” for starters. The engine is 5.5L the LS3 is 6.2. The L76 is 6.0, there is the 5.3 but that is a truck engine that bows at the altar of torque. The 4.8 is God awful. I believe the LS1 5.7 is not being produced anymore anywhere in the world in any configuration. the LS2 is a thirsty L76 (sort of).

      It would ironically have bigger displacement, with less power – I don’t see how the math adds up.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    Holy cr*p Batman!

    The 1963 Stingray was sooooo much better looking. This looks like it’s a Hot Wheels design gone wrong.
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.soksa.com/assets/publicDocs/userFiles/icy/image/1963_Corvette_Stingray_SportCoupe.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.soksa.com/thread.aspx?sku%3D321&h=1714&w=1200&sz=183&tbnid=DQJUvJFL2RAQ5M:&tbnh=109&tbnw=76&zoom=1&usg=__TAenD0wOtrO5RVxr3uxJnfaObc0=&docid=0ibfny92IIkDRM&sa=X&ei=lr16Uc-7N-m10AHFmICwCA&ved=0CDYQ9QEwAA&dur=2354

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Jaguar doesn’t build anything to rival the appearance of the 1963 E-type either. Ferrari doesn’t build anything as beautiful as the 250 GTO. Regulations and aerodynamic knowledge are reasons. I don’t care much for the photos I’ve seen of the C7, but I’ll wait until I see one on the street. The photos of ones that didn’t have the carbon fiber roof panel with painted bridges to nowhere on the sides make a big difference. I didn’t like the photos I saw of the C5 when it came out, but many versions of that car looked great in traffic. Maybe this car will be the same.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        Hommage a Marlin.

        http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r265/navy2kcoupe/C7-Marlin.jpg

      • 0 avatar
        icemilkcoffee

        Let’s be honest- the C4 and C5 generations are not notable for their looks. The C4 looks like a non-descript door wedge. The C5 looks like a C4 that’s gotten old and fat.
        The C6 generation, on the other hand, is a lean-muscular, handsome design.

        • 0 avatar
          NMGOM

          icemilkcoffee….

          I agree. The C6 was a very nice looking car (the exterior).

          My frustration with this new C7 is that, deep down inside, I was hoping for a slam-dunk, and it’s just not there.

          I really wanted:
          1) An unquestionably gorgeous, sleek, and agressive exterior;
          2) An standard interior that finally put all complaints to rest;
          3) At least 500 HP, minimum, right off the bat;
          4) Base Price: not more than $50K.

          This would have been a home run, not just a single to first base. Two years ago, Tadge Juechter and Ed Welburn were worried about “not screwing it up”. Well, they did just that.

          Juechter’s projection is that now the Corvette has to sell 15K units every year to make the books came out right. It’s not happening, at least not so far.

          ————

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          The C4 looked great in 1984. I didn’t like the cosmetic changes that were made to it over the years one bit. If someone were to build one with ’84 wheels and bodywork combined with the late-run LT1 and 6-speed, that would be a pretty desirable car in my book. I think that around 1991 they were even building them to a reasonable level of quality. The only thing I didn’t like about the 1984 Corvette as a 14 year old spectator was that many of the early ones were in an unfortunate silver and grey two-tone paint scheme. At a party I went to a dozen years ago, there was a pristine red early C4 in the garage. It still looked great.

          The C5 wasn’t as impressive on its debut, but I think they look fantastic in traffic, provided they don’t have chrome wheels. It just doesn’t photograph well.

          Perhaps I like the early C4 because it replaced the C3. The C3 had been in production my entire life, and it wasn’t an improvement over the C2s that were still common on the street in any way. When it came out, it had quality issues that blunted its chances at being loved. The interior wasn’t as comfortable as the C2s, and nothing could follow the Sting Ray’s styling. Then it remained in production forever, as its looks were blunted by impact bumpers and its performance was drained by emissions controls and CAFE. Perhaps the bar was very low for a new Corvette in 1983, but the C4 stacked up well against other sports cars of the time and it looked like a modern Corvette without the cartoonishness of some C3s.

  • avatar
    Larry P2

    “but for what you are getting, it’s almost impossible to beat.”

    There is no “almost” about it. Even at $73,000, it is less than half the price of a similarly-equipped Porsche, and performance- and handling-wise, will stomp a new mud hole in the Porsche.

    • 0 avatar
      NMGOM

      Larry P2….

      On the books, yes. But have you ever driven a Corvette and a 911 Carrera S back-to-back?

      But people don’t buy a Porsche 911 Carrera S over a Corvette because of horsepower or skid-pad results.
      They buy a Porsche – –
      Because of its honor, long racing heritage, and brand cachet;
      Because of international acclaim and German reputation;
      Because of its light and precise road-sensitive steering;
      Because of its outstanding reliability and good repair record;
      Because of its meticulous craftsmanship and top-quality materials;
      Because of its rear-biased weight distribution and traction;
      Because of its adjunct systems, like PASM and a 7-speed PDK transmission;
      Because of its uncluttered, traditional exterior design.

      Against these things, Corvette cannot compete. Are these Porsche features worth $20K more? No, they are worth $50K more, so you would be getting a bargain.

      ————————

  • avatar
    Sgt Beavis

    That price is very impressive, but the ‘vette has a problem in that it’s buyers are getting older, not younger. The wages of younger buyers is also going down. IMO GM and other manufacturers are heading for some real trouble in a couple of years.

    • 0 avatar
      Reino

      I think the purpose of the extreme redesign is to attract younger buyers.

      • 0 avatar
        cognoscenti

        First ‘Vette I’ve been inspired by in 20 years – and the price is coming into focus for me. I’m middle-aged, still have all my hair, and have also been chasing a good used NSX for as many years.

        You know, $52K to $72K is coincidentally a direct comparison for quality prior-facelift and post-facelift NSXs, respectively (all those in excellent condition that is). That is a major improvement for Chevy in my honest opinion.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      Corvette annual sales were generally in the 20-30,000 range for a long time (with a bump into the 40s during the malaise era). They crashed into the low teens in 2009 and never recovered. I seriously doubt GM can recover its costs at that level, unless they keep the C7 around for 20 years to ride the boomer wave into the ground before throwing in the towel.

  • avatar
    Larry P2

    Once again, the interior fetishists and the GM haters are out in force, and this time blowing a thick smoke of obfuscation. I believe the negative comments about this car are meant as a dishonest diversion from the painfully obvious: Porsches (this car’s only real competitor) are by comparison, jaw dropping, stratospherically-overpriced, vastly inferior in acceleration and handling, fragile mechanically, unreliable and undependable pieces of steaming sh!t, and subject to the vicious, sociopathic whims of ass-raping expensive rapacious Porsche stealerships.

    But yes, Porsches, given all of the above, have vastly more stunningly gorgeous leather seats and soft touch switchgear that will cause the interior fetishists to erupt in spontaneous, involuntary ejaculation.

    You should get SOMETHING to brag about, in return for triple or quadruple the price. (I just priced out a loaded John Cooper Works Mini-Cooper, which hit the scales with a scalding 208 horsepower (far less than half of the C7 Vette) and a price tag of $49,000 +.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      Well, the Cadillac ATS beat the AudiA4, Motorweek/Cars.com/USAToday:
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/04/08/46000-sport-sedan-challenge-bmw-cadillac-acura-volvo-audi-mercedes-benz/2060349/

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      “Once again, the interior fetishists and the GM haters are out in force, and this time blowing a thick smoke of obfuscation.”

      Where is this interior fetish, hatred, and obfuscation being expressed? I’m willing to wear the GM-hater label, but I don’t see how my comments or anyone else’s come close to resembling your characterization of the article or discussion here.

    • 0 avatar
      OneAlpha

      I’ve checked out plenty of new cars and honestly, I don’t understand why so many car mags and autojournos hate the interiors of American cars. They seem fine to me.

      Because of the seeming disconnect between the reality I’ve encountered and the statements in the magazines and on websites deriding American interiors, I don’t even consider complaints about American cabins valid anymore.

      My theory is that because American cars are so good in every other respect, the interior is the last place the autojournos can seemingly get a complaint to achieve any traction.

      After all, they’ve gotta sound difficult-to-please, or they’ll lose face. And since they can’t really legitimately trash anything else about the car, well…

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        You really can’t be serious about that, can you? The interior is really the only glaring weak spot in the C6 Vette. And while I often are at odds with CJ, his comment about what was done to the C6 interior while missing so much of what was wrong with the underlying interior design/materials is spot on. Get the basics correct first, and then add upgrades to that. And skip using too many corporate parts; a Vette should have its own steering wheel and controls, or at least use the best ones…tactile feedback is one strong determiner of initial quality and in that regard the C6 interior is a failure. Let’s hope the C7 in real life took care of all that. I hope the beancouters were kept at bay. Charge an extra $500 and let the positive comments fly over the web. That is what is needed to change the perception (valid or not) about American interiors….

      • 0 avatar
        Compaq Deskpro

        Here’s a Crown Vic Police Interceptor interior. I have one of these and love it.

        http://images.gtcarlot.com/pictures/64487624.jpg

        It has so much legroom I can take my foot off the petals and fully extend them. The radio is standard shape, so I can throw a Pioneer head unit in there. Rubber floors are easy to vacuum. Hard plastic dashboard is durable and easy to clean. Same steering wheel as an F-150. The car steers when I turn it, so who cares? I got a leather Grand Marquis split bench seat from the junkyard, incredibly comfortable for $30 each. HVAC is a foolproof 3 knobs. It gets cold or hot when I need it to. It’s a good interior, and it’s cheap as dirt.

  • avatar
    Morea

    And the Corvette is kicking the the over-inflated rear end of the 911 in the American LeMans Series. (OK, after only two races but few believe the 911 has what it takes to beat the ‘Vette, Z4, Viper and 458 Italia that it competes with.)

    • 0 avatar
      juicy sushi

      The 911 currently being campaigned is the old 997 design. They just started the race program of the 991 (it debuted this year at the Silverstone WEC round). The 997 is pretty badly outdated and outgunned at this point. That said, the C7 is not yet on the track, and I think the Corvette is a superior package from which to build a race car. I can’t wait to see the C7-R.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The Corvette needs to sell to mass market and a $39, 995 V6 base model with 17″ wheels and desent size tires and brakes would do that. It’s a univeral business model because it works.

    Or does anyone think the cheap, stamped steel Camaro could exist on just SS and ZL1 sales? There’s absolutely no reason for the Corvette, as we know it, to be the top models on cars that are mass produced and sell to the masses. Including rentals.

    Is it better that the Corvette be cacelled from lack of profitability and never “sold out”?

    If a V6 Mustang can get 31MPG and still deliver decent perfomance, a V6 has to be good for mid to high 30s.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      I meant “…no reason not to be the top model…”

    • 0 avatar
      Dubbed

      I wish it wasn’t this way, but you are not making any sense..

      Automotive legacy be damned.

    • 0 avatar
      sunridge place

      Your thought process is flawed by thinking the Corvette is not a profitable vehicle as is. I’ve been through this once with you–you are flat out wrong.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        GM keeps the Corvette around because every OEM needs a loss leader, flagship. At least that’s GM’s thinking. Car makers don’t always let us in on the profitability of every car, but besides common sense, we have their action that are a dead giveaway.

        The Camaro has no such sentimental value for GM. Nor the expensive hardware and is a cheap build that’s mass produced. When sale drop to 3X current Corvette sales, it’s gone in 60 seconds.

        • 0 avatar
          sunridge place

          There are certain things in life I’ve learned from experience…Don’t eat tacos from street vendors in Mexico, for example.

          I need to add ‘don’t try to interact with DenverMike about the money side of the automotive business.

          Your proof of lack of profitablity in the Corvette is the fact that they killed the Camaro back in 2001 when sales dropped but didn’t kill the Corvette when sales dropped?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            OK. Never mind common sense or that the Corvette’s profitability has always been in question.

            “A loss leader, or simply a leader … Chevrolet’s Corvette was originally intended in the 1950s to be an “image builder” and loss leader for General Motors, …”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

            “Wha…??? TTAC thinks Chevy should discontinue the Corvette … visible. GM should kill it …”

            http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/02/editorial-general-motors-death-watch-232-the-chevy-corvette-must-die/

            “Loss-leader are products offered at a loss… We’ll even explain how Corvette Stingrays lead you to buy other vehicles from Chevrolet.”

            http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/season-2/2013/04/20/loss-leaders-how-companies-profit-by-losing-money-1/

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            Really @DM?

            I know what a loss leader is. Thanks for the first link that:

            a. accurately describes a loss leader as an item primarily sold in retail grocery stores (advertise milk for $2 a gallon and assume they’ll buy everything else they need during that trip to the grocery store)

            b. states the Corvette started out 60 years ago as a loss leader but soon become profitable. ‘Substantial annual profit’ is the exact quote from that link

            Brillant use of posting links to prove your own point invalid and wrong.

            Then a Farango link? You completely miss the point of that story…it was sarcasm. I don’t think I’ll be able to explain to you what Farango meant there and make you understand it. The internet doesn’t have that much bandwidth.

            The last link talks (once again) about why the Corvette was started 60 years ago. It probably was a loss leader back then.

            They declare its sales as ‘pocket change’ in the global sales of 9 million. It is pocket change in the big picture…but that doesn’t mean it loses money.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Nine million dollars would look great in my checking account, but you obviously know very little about the amount it takes to hand build an exotic (materials) car plus all other overhead and R&D. Just the labour costs had to eat half that, from the foundry to the car carrier.

            There isn’t an OEM on the planet that can build 14,xxx exotics for 9 million dollars. That’s absurd. That’s why true exotics sell for up to 1/4 million and still have to be bought out by VW and Fiat.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            They have robots too.

            Look!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD7ipFXq9NQ

            Ok, I’ll ask. What does 9 million dollars have to do with this discussion? I must know.

            Why didn’t you comment on the fact that you sent me a wikipedia link that said the corvette was profitable?

            Here’s your link again.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

            I’m observing some very boring UAT testing for a project I’m on that will last 6 more hours and I’m working from the comfort of my condo …please continue.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            That 9 million evaporates quickly, bring an exotic to market. If 14,xxx Cavaliers only grossed 9 million, you’d have to kill the whole line, regardless. And burn the factory.

            GM prices their cars at what consumer will accept, not what will turn a profit. The Volt should be price at over $100,000 to turn a profit.

            And somehow GM can make a flagship, halo car profitable when less subsidized OEMs can’t? Where’s the Supra? Oh, there’s the LFA, but check out it’s price.

            I know the Corvette has an emotional hold on fanboys, including GM brass, but that doesn’t mean it’s profitable. GM is in a unique position where it can never die. Nor will the Corvette. Regardless of profitability or not.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            I’m not a fanboy. Pretty sure my time and comments here have established that.

            How did you pick $9 million dollars ‘gross’ when discussing the Corvette?

            Gross profit of $9 million on the Corvette?
            Gross revenue of $9 million on the Corvette?

            Please explain.

            Also, I’ll ask again. You sent me some links try to show me how the Corvette is a ‘loss leader’ (actually, the links all state is WAS a loss leader 60 years ago)..one of those links stated that the Corvette was profitable.

            Here’s that link again.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

            Please comment on that…oh yeah, you seem caught up on ‘hand built’…please comment on the robots and assembly line in the youtube link.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            OK then, what is the profit margin of the Corvette? I thought you had a dollar figure when you said “sales of 9 million”. Actually you’ve got zip.

            You assume, ‘If GM Builds, It Has To Be Profitable’. Are we still talking about the same (new) GM?

            The Corvette is not expendable and killing it is not an option, no matter how much it takes a loss. All cars, even Corollas, have to sell at a huge volumes or at a high price to turn a profit. With any car with such exotic materials, dedicated hydro form, alloy chassis, the cost go up exponentially.

            I don’t know why you feel the Corvette needs to turn a profit. Clearly it doesn’t need to. It’s a great car regardless. If it turned a profit, we would know how much, like we do the Silverado and GM trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            Oh boy.

            I do not assume ‘if GM build it, it must be profitable’

            I don’t ‘feel the need for the Corvette to make a profit’….I feel the need to correct your incorrect assumptions (god knows why…it can be painful and remind me of my street vendor tacos in queretaro mexico that nearly killed me and taught me a valuable life lesson)

            Follow me here. One of the links you pushed mentioned that GM sells 9 million vehicles a year globally and the Corvette was just ‘pocket change’ in that environment.’ I thought you actually read and understood the links you sent as ‘proof’….my bad.

            I was just making a reference to that. That wasn’t a dollar figure. That was 9 million vehicles. Its irrelevant to our conversation, I was making that point.

            Since you like links, I’ll re-re ask.

            Why did one of the links you sent as ‘proof’ the Corvette is a loss leader acknowledge that it started that way 60 YEARS AGO also acknowledge that it started turning a profit a few years later? Please, for the love of god, at least acknowledge that.

            You like to say ‘hand made’ as if all Corvettes are made like an artist creating a sculpture…then I show you a real assembly line with humans and robots building Corvettes.

            You like to mention ‘exotic’ materials as if the Corvette is made of gold and priced like a McDonalds value meal. You pay for those exotic materials.

            Here’s what I will say…and I’ll add a link.

            The C7 does need to go above the 14k sales to make a profit with the investments made for this generation….but you must look at a vehicle over its lifecycle.

            The 2013 C6 run of 14,xxx units had very minimal ‘investment’ as it completed a run over a number of years.

            Look… very, very few companies or product lines are profitable for 60 years in a row when you look at each year. The Corvette has had ups and downs. You seem to think that its just a money pit with justification.

            Here’s a good link. Please read it. All the way through.

            http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/interviews/tadge-juechter-is-the-chief

            Yep…they do need to pick up sales into the mid 20,000 unit range for ROI. Hell, the all new Avalon is doubling its sales over the last few months with an all-new vehicle. I think the C7 will manage that. If they get into the 30,000 unit range, it’ll be a cash cow….not just profitable.

            Also, pay attention to the comments about the fact that the C7 was on hold during bankruptcy and the feds looked at the books and approved and encouraged the development of the C7 based on what they saw.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s highly possible the Corvette turned a profit one point. Sales were relatively booming at one point. But why is it ever acceptable to take a loss on any car. Whether it’s the ’50s or now? All cars should turn a profit including the Volt.

            You got me on the “hand built” detail and it’s just a detail. Engines are hand built as are ZR1s

            Right, the Corvette is made of exotic materials if not processes, but sold at F-150 and Silverado prices. I mean, they cross over at some point.

            It comes down to sales volume on every car. If the Corvette rides cycles of profit and loss, from year to year, it’s definitely on a down cycle now. The thing is, the Corvette’s sales figures are never coming back up. The fresh C7 may surge up to 16K sales next year, but they’ll shoot back down soon enough.

            That’s why it needs to appeal to youths like a V6 Camaro or Mustang does. Even as rentals. Something has to happen otherwise, when sales are at 5k annually, someone will have to admit it needs to die. What car has remained profitable at 14K annual sales or less?

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            Some progress….baby steps.

            ‘why is it ever acceptable to take a loss on any car. Whether it’s the ’50s or now? All cars should turn a profit including the Volt’

            Okay…Toyota really was stupid with that damn Prius…it lost money for years…what a bunch of morons.

            ‘Engine are hand built as are ZR1s’

            ZR1 ENGINES are built by hand. So are Z06’s ENGINES. The vehicles are not hand assembled. Did you watch the frickin’ video? The was a ZR1 going down the line. What other ‘proof’ do you need.

            http://gmpowertrain.com/pbc/corvette-engine-build-experience/overview

            They also cost a lot more than normal corvettes. That cost of hand production of engines is easily absorbed by the higher PRICE of the vehicle.

            ‘It comes down to sales volume on every car. If the Corvette rides cycles of profit and loss, from year to year, it’s definitely on a down cycle now. The thing is, the Corvette’s sales figures are never coming back up. The fresh C7 may surge up to 16K sales next year, but they’ll shoot back down soon enough’

            A lot to digest here…its not always about sales volume…if it was GM wouldn’t have gone bankrupt.

            Selling 14k units in 2012 with the same basic C6 model designed in the mid 2000’s does not mean it lost money.

            You say the Corvette is ‘sold at F-150 and Silverado prices’…that is just absurd. Yes, some F-Series and Silverado’s sell above 50k…a small percent…but the overwheming majority of Corvettes transact over $60k and the cost footprint isn’t even close. Stop trying to compare the Corvette to mass produed vehicles.

            Let’s agree to this, you think C7 will surge up to 16k sales a year from 14k sales now.

            Let’s look at thing at the end of 2014CY. Don’t be that guy who jumps out in October 2013 as the new Corvette is launching and say ‘gotcha’

            Something tells me you still won’t get it.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            If the Corvette in not a mass produced vehicle like the Silverado, what is it? Isn’t mass production the key to turning a profit. The less you sell, the more it needs to sell for.

            A $60,000 average transaction price doesn’t guarantee a profit by any means. With an F-150 or Silverado, definitely. With a Corvette? It’s your guess vs mine. We definitely know the Corvette cost many times more to bring to market and build than a Camaro so it comes down to production figures.

            The Corvette may start to break even at 30,000 units, but a cash cow? No. Besides, that takes us back to building Corvettes for the masses. Staying with the same grey hair demo is what’s killing sales. The Corvette must join the mainstream right next to the Camaro. The V6 Camaro pays the bills and the SS/ZL1 lure them into the showroom. It’s a team effort and one can not survive without the other.

            The Camaro was an early ’90s design by its days before it was killed off. It should have been pure profit regardless of low volume, right?

            We don’t know what the feds saw or what was negotiated. Did they sign off on the Volt too?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @sunridge place
            Your loss:)

            The guy is not quite bright enough to be a light. So I’ll call him Denverlantern.

            He thinks there is a full size pickup market in Europe and he claims to have travelled to Espange several dozen times.

            Go for it:-)

          • 0 avatar
            thomm

            And the e30 M3 was a response to the svo mustang. :-D

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          Corvette is a profitable program for GM, and will likely always be the top performance model for Chevrolet. It has nothing to do with the emotion you imagine business decisions to be based on.

          GM has done a great job moving Corvette prices up to levels that generate profit at low volume.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            I used actual prices of dealer inventory in Greater Detroit to estimate average price, by model, then applied final production volumes to estimate sales dollars.
            The average list price of the (13,466) 2013 Corvettes produced is estimated to be $71,878 with an average dealer cost of $63,043. That means for 2013 MY, Corvette generated $849 million in GM factory sales.

            It seems likely that per unit gross profit is at least $10,000 and may be as high as $20,000 each or 15.8%-31.6% of the dealer sales dollars. That would mean Corvette earned between $135M and $270M in 2013 MY.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s clear the dealers can make some profit off of Corvettes, but that’s a difterent topic. And doesn’t include rebates. Dealers may receive and sell approx 10 Corvettes per year, but that about half may left overs from the previous year or years. Meaning dealer’s current stock may be approx half 2013s and half 2012s with a handful of 2011s. Most would be prime for rebates, but they’re all expensive to keep around.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            Don’t bother Doc…DenverMike literally thinks that the sum of the ‘exotic’ parts and cost of the ‘handmade’ cars exceeds what GM charges their dealers to buy the cars.

            He thinks the Corvette is a ‘loss leader’ meaning they lose money on each sale regardless. He probably thinks each Corvette costs $70,000 to build and sells for $60,000.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “Is the Corvette profitable for GM?”

            It’s a commonly asked question, by anyone with basic to vast understanding of the industry. Why doesn’t anyone question the Impala’s profit margin (for GM)?

            And the base price of Corvettes hasn’t kept pace with inflation and a well equipped SS Camaro is creeping up on its base price. Sales would slip ever further if GM priced it where it should be.

            The only thing that keeps the SS/ZL1 Camaro and Mustang GT/Boss 302/GT500 programs alive are their base V6 editions. The Corvette is no different, except it anything but cheap to build and bring to market.

            The Corvette needs a V6 and cheesy (for a Corvette), ‘secretary’s’ edition and daily rental models. And it would put drivers born after the Truman Administration behind the wheel. That would also keep the Bowling Green plant going all year.

          • 0 avatar
            mike978

            Denver mike please look at the link below
            http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/chevys-2-5-billion-corvette.html
            Which details some of the finance side of the Corvette. It isn’t just sales, there is merchandising too. It is safe to assume GM makes a profit, I suspect they are working on selling 20-25K a year with the new model.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            Corvette cologne anyone?

            http://www.thefind.com/beauty/browse-corvette-cologne

            DenverMike will come back and say the cologne is hand made and the exotic carbon fiber they use makes it a loss leader in the mens fragrance business.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Mike978 – Licencing revenue is good for the over all profitability of GM and reinforces another reason for having or keeping loss leader.

            Other money makers within the Corvette “economy” are outside of GM (the OEM) and excellent for Chevy dealers and aftermarket.

            There’s no doubt the Corvette is an American icon that should never die, and probably too much so to be killed off, no matter what.

            $4,000 rebates are typical for base 2012 Corvettes that dealers still can’t get rid of. $2,000 for 2013s.

            http://www.mccluskeychevrolet.com/index.htm

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            Only in your world does the existance of a rebate prove that a car loses money.

            So, the estimated $70 million annually that the Corvette generates in licensing (they basically have to walk to the mailbox, open up the mail, then deposit those checks) doesn’t count towards the revenue of the Corvette program?

            By the way, that $70 million in licensing fees covers annual payroll of the Bowling Green plant with about $20 million to spare.

            I can’t figure out if you’re not very bright or just stubborn.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I didn’t say the rebates prove or disprove profitability. Nothing can prove or disprove profitability unless GM opens their books. And we don’t know exactly how far 70 million goes towards a profitable Corvette line, once the dust settles.

            The Corvette’s profitability would never even come into “question”, if it all made sense.

            The Ford GT was a similar project, but Ford called it a losing write-off, from the start. It’s GM that’s being stubborn. Ford could have kept pushing through the losses for those magic licencing dollars.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            ‘The Corvette’s profitability would never even come into “question

            Uhh…you’re kind of the only one questioning it here.

            ‘if it all made sense’

            I’m starting to understand you better. You can’t comprehend rather simple concepts. You think things like ‘a car has has to be mass produced to be profitable’

            If you can’t get over that one thought, I’m afraid you are a lost cause. You have zero sense of pricing/scale of production etc. You think if make a vehicle cheaper and sell more of them that your profitability increase automatically.

            You can’t comprehend that the Camaro in 2001 was killed because it was a very low margin vehicle with tanking sales and a massive manufacturing footprint while the Corvette is a high margin vehicle with a very small manufacturing footprint and can absorb a downturn a hell of lot better.

            That said, C7 does need to move into the 20k plus annual unit range for awhile and it is a big bet. I’m thinking China could help here too…even if its just a few thousand units per year.

            Until yesterday, I think you thought that Corvettes were hand made and didn’t have modern production techniques.

            Go back to endless arguing the chicken tax..and good lord do NOT try and compare a Ford GT where they only ever made 4000 or so units to the Corvette.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @DM the analysis is about GM revenue, not dealer profit. The average unit price GM got from a dealer for the run of 2013 Corvettes was $63,000, well above the manufacturing costl. I estimate by at least $10,000-$20,000 with no inside knowledge. That leaves substantial funds for product development program overhead as well as profit.

            Consider that GM generated well over $800,000,000 dollars in sales revenue from Corvettes last year, the last year of an 8 year run. The $70M you are focused on is less than 9% of the sales dollars last year.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Hand built or not, even you said not to compare it to a mass produced car. The Corvette is crazy expensive to bring to market, regardless.

            The amount of units sold is highly critical to profitability regardless of how you try to downplay it when it comes to the Corvette. A car that’s expensive to engineer, hydro-form and build must spread the costs over say, a minimum of half a million cars in its entire production run. Not even a disposable Cobalt is immune to that.

            Then you agree its low volume is what killed the old Camaro that happened to be a quickly mass produced, cheaply made/engineered, made of stamped steel and for the masses. So which is it?

            There’s absolutely no way the Ford GT could have turned a profit. Period.

          • 0 avatar
            sunridge place

            I am now adding reading comprehension as another item you struggle with.

            ‘There’s absolutely no way the Ford GT could have turned a profit. Period.’

            Where the hell did I say it did? I was telling you NOT to compare a vehicle (the Ford GT) that only ever built and sold 4000 units in its entire lifetime to the Corvette which sells hundreds of thousands of units over the lifetime of a design.

            ‘Then you agree its low volume is what killed the old Camaro that happened to be a quickly mass produced, cheaply made/engineered, made of stamped steel and for the masses. So which is it’

            No, I said what probably killed the Camaro in 2001 was low MARGIN along with tanking sales. They had a large manufacturing footprint and couldn’t justify it either. They also had an aging F body that needed a big investment to get up to par with upcoming safety standards and couldn’t justify the investment with low margins and declining sales. The Corvette is NOT a low margin vehicle.

            Here’s another take on the Camaro discontinuation.

            http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0409phr_2007_chevrolet_camaro/

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The 4th generation Camaro was “low MARGIN”? Where are you getting that? You need it to be true to prove your point, but says who?

            If there’s low profits from low volume and total production costs for the 4th generation are not covered, it’s logical there may not be money in the till for ‘5th’ generation R&D or a reason to pull money from successful lines like the Silverado for another low volume and therefor, low profit generation of Camaros.

            You’ll agree the Ford GT was a recipe for wasting corporate funds, but do you really think Ford could have turned it into a winner by pricing it to meet the Corvette and cranking out 14,xxx yearly units whether the public demanded them or not? Just so Ford can hand out rebates on most of them?

  • avatar
    Acd

    That seems like a lot of car for the money. Most likely the majority of cars will be loeded up with options that will drive up the price.

    I was in a Jaguar dealer a few weeks ago and an XF 2.0 (four cylinder!)was around $48,000 which seemed like a lot.

  • avatar
    BMWnut

    Less power for less money? Intriguing concept. It would still be a very fast car. Come on GM, you know you want to do it.

  • avatar
    Larry P2

    Or, GM could ape Porche’s marketing plan with the Boxter S, which starts at about $61,000 and. boasts a whopping 300 or so horses.

    GM could charge a LOT more money for a LOT fewer horses, according to Porsche’s playbook

    • 0 avatar
      cargogh

      Going Ferrari’s route and stripping it of everything, but charging $10,000 more is no good either.

    • 0 avatar
      Reino

      EXACTLY. GM can come out with a lesser-powered car, on the same platform, for less money, and share the platform costs with the Corvette.

      Perfectly fine. JUST DON’T CALL IT A CORVETTE!

      The biggest complaint about the Boxster/Cayman is that it doesn’t have the 911’s 3.4 engine. But how often do you ever hear someone complain that the 911 doesn’t come with the Boxster/Cayman 2.7 engine?!

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        “Perfectly fine. JUST DON’T CALL IT A CORVETTE!”

        Take a lower powered Corvette, wrap the styling from that Buick prototype that was shown in China around it, and call it the Reatta.

  • avatar
    skor

    Hideous.

    • 0 avatar
      Summicron

      Agree but also curious…. which competitor would you say is beautiful?

      • 0 avatar
        NMGOM

        Hi Summicron – – –

        I can’t answer for “skor”, but here may be some better-looking possibilities:
        1) Ferrari F12 Berlinetta (not “LaFerrari” – that back end kills it);
        2) New SRT Viper;
        3) Koenigsegg Agera R;
        4) Pagani Huayra;
        5) New Aston Martin Vanquish;
        6) New Chevy Camaro;
        7) New Ford Mustang;
        8) Lamborghini Aventador and Gallardo Spyder;
        9) Ferrari 458 Italia;
        10) BMW Z4;
        11) New Porsche Cayman R, Boxster S, and 911 Carrera S;
        12) Sion FR-S (GT86) and Subaru BRZ;
        13) Mercedes SLS AMG (marginally – still has black-encrusted side louvre);
        14) New Jaguar F-type.

        Oooops….. Gee, that seems to be just about everybody else. Sorry, got carried away. (^_^)..

        —————-

    • 0 avatar
      juicy sushi

      Aside from the tacked-on look of the rear spoiler, I have to say, this looks pretty good to me. It’s a very contemporary look, and I might prefer things a bit differently, but the overall shape is pretty good. I really like the front end. I dislike the way it’s a targa with a differently coloured roof panel, but I presume a hard top will be along eventually.

      • 0 avatar
        Summicron

        Wish skor would hang around to answer a civil question prompted by his own comment.

        Seriously, given the constraints, mandates and laws of physics that burden all modern vehicles, to me they look like peas in a pod at every price or performance point.

        As CJ points out, the sinuous, sexy, minimalist beauty of an XK-E is never coming back.

  • avatar
    Dubbed

    How come there are so many folks who want a watered down Vette.. A car that could only be cheaper by 6 to 8 grand with a detuned or weaker V8. Since the car is made out of aluminum, carbon fiber, and other expensive and “exotic” materials.. Has a single factory all to itself. And is the only vehicle built off of the Y platform.

    I’m really confused by the fact that a sizable number of the B&B would have Chevy make up the lost in revenue by just pumping out more. Just to have a fire sale at the end of the year. (GM is the worst domestic at keeping inventory at “acceptable” levels.)

    If you want a cheaper Vette just do what Ferrari tells its customers who want a cheaper, “entry” Ferrari. Go buy yourself a used one.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      You’re probably right that there isn’t a market for a $45K, low content Corvette. Even most $28K cars spoil their drivers with content that was only in $65K+ cars a decade ago. The idea that people would sacrifice heated, power seats and Bluetooth streaming audio in order to have a purer driving experience is a fantasy. It’s a more fun fantasy than waiting to see what range topping models Chevrolet uses to keep the C7 on buff-book covers as it ages though.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Because it gives them something else to beotch about. Oh if GM had just done this…what, no Coach leather interior, magnetic ride control, and HUD for $40K – those losers!

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I think we were all just speculating on what the content of the rumored lower priced Corvette model would be, but go ahead and react like someone just stepped on your open wound.

    • 0 avatar
      juicy sushi

      I agree, I don’t think a decontented ‘vette would work well. What I think is interesting is how much demand might come from Europe. Some of the coverage in the European press (like Pistonheads for example) is really positive, especially how much of a pure, old-school feel the Corvette has compared to the computers, turbos and no fun, only efficiency approach of the Germans). The C7 may surprise to the upside.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      …And is the only vehicle built off of the Y platform….

      And that might be the answer…The XLR used the Vette platform but the project was a failure. However, the concept was not. If failed because GM botched the execution and priced it way over what its perceived value was. Maybe the new GM might try again, but fully develop the car and price it accordingly. Also, could this platform be adapted to make a two/four door performance sedan?

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Off topic but this reminded me. On this date in 1962 the Avanti by
    Studebaker made it’s debut at the New York Auto Show. IMHO one of the most beautiful cars ever built.

    • 0 avatar
      Summicron

      I was 7 yrs-old but I remember my brothers’ car mags flipping out over it. Cover photos everywhere…. good times.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Later that spring there was a small local auto show. We went after church where I saw it for the first time. The salesman gave me a brochure. I keep that for years.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          From that brochure…

          http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z256/jimbob1955_2007/Avanti%201963/bg33_zps74a35022.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            Summicron

            Sweet Jesus, that’s beautiful.

            They’re seriously talking about bringing back carrier pigeons from their DNA… I’d rather bring back Raymond Lowey.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            IIRC, the real magic was that the stunningly beautiful body was bolted to some plebeian Studebaker underpinnings – but they pulled it off.

          • 0 avatar
            StatisticalDolphin

            I think that Passenger Pigeon is the candidate species targeted for revival.

        • 0 avatar
          Summicron

          No one will ever bend metal like that again. And I’ve always been in love with the Hawk series, too. A body shop a couple miles away has a ’58 Golden Hawk on display, no price, just Inquire Within…. I know better.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    …even monkeys fall out of trees

  • avatar
    Larry P2

    A lower-powered cheaper Vette. And how about making it Volkswagen-diesel powered and a station wagon, with a $50,000 optional mink interior like a Porsche, with a transmission that grenades at 50,000 miles and costs more to fix than the car is worth?

    This is TTAC: Whatever GM has done, it is automatically wrong and despicable. And if it produces a gorgeous sports car that has truly astounding, jaw-dropping handling and acceleration, embarassing cars costing two or three times as much, well, there’s nothing about this problem that cannot be fixed with a $50,000 interior.

  • avatar
    CelticPete

    There is no reason for the lower powered vette. The strength of these cars along with the Chrysler cars Challenger is the tremendous engine you get for the price.

    After so many years of getting abused – alot of people have missed out on an interesting fact. OHV V-8 now offered by two of the domestic manufacturers really excellent performance at a VERY LOW PRICE for the manufacturer. They don’t take up much space – they don’t have to weigh alot and with cylinder deactivaction they can get pretty respectable gas mileage.

    I rented a Dodge Challenger for a week and got about the same gas mileage around town as I do in an Audi 2.0T. The Audi is a few MPG ahead but its not the huge chasm people think.

    But here is the thing dollars to doughnuts a sophisiticated DOHC direct injected turbo engine costs ALOT more then a Hemi or the new Chevy engine.

    The lower powered V-6 engine would likely cost Chevy more – especially if it had a turbo.. Even with the old iron block the Hemi is pretty impressive – I’d bet that the new LS engine is going to be awesome..

    Even the older LS3 engine is really sweet at everything except fuel economy.

    http://www.camaro5.com/forums/wiki.php?title=LS3+engine+specifications

    Almost 300lbs of torque off the line..and peaking at 420lbs of torque. An engine like that is really flexible. The only reason to downside is fuel economy and I find that in real world driving the cylinder deactivation is pretty effective (at least it is in the Hemi).

  • avatar
    stuki

    If the Japanese finally manage to succeed in grenading their own currency and economy, GM may need to keep costs in check to compete. Last time the Yen was low, things were looking rather scary for the Big once was 3.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I like the looks of the Corvette and I hope they do sell them in great numbers. GM needs some cash and the US needs more employment.

    TTAC missed the launch of another GM product. This might even give this Corvette a good run for its money around a race track.

    Imagine the Chev SS, but better, much, much better. TTAC where are you with this one.

    http://www.news.com.au/national-news/hsv-commodore-super-sedan-is-holdens-fastest-ever/story-fncynjr2-1226629539865

    • 0 avatar
      Larry P2

      It is the simple and proven pushrod engine of the Vette that makes it so cheap, bulletproof, lightweight, powerful, reliable, and delivers fantastic gas mileage. This drives the Volkswagen-fetishists infecting TTAC into wild paroxysms of frenzied hatred.

      How DARE GM produce a simple and bulletproof engine that is not materially different than is in their trucks! The fact that this unassuming motor, in all of its simple glory, actually delivers what it should is of no consequence. Porsche and VW have it right according to TTAC: Build an overly-complex (for no good reason), easily explodable engine where the rapacious and felonious thieves at the dealership are entitled to their frequent extortionate shakedowns, with the poor owner helplessly bent over the table with their pants down around their ankles.

      TTAC is fully invested with the Porsche/VW Stockholm syndrome: they relate to the terrorists, not the terrorized.

      • 0 avatar
        juicy sushi

        Just wondering where exactly that coverage on TTAC is? The comments and article here are very much the opposite (outside of disagreements about styling). And it’s not like Porsche/VAG isn’t roundly mocked or condemned here on a regular basis. According to the B&B all VW’s are unreliable money-pits. And I’m not sure I can recall a positive article about Porsche.

        Perhaps you should try reading the comments and articles and then interacting with us, rather than loud accusations which don’t fit with reality.

  • avatar
    cdrmike

    What a chocolate mess of a car. It looks like some kind of Nippon nightmare. Too many damn vents, holes, strakes and candy looking crap everywhere. That’s not American muscle, that’s foofoo looking import silliness. And, yes, get the hell off my lawn!

  • avatar
    carrya1911

    Wouldn’t an “entry level” Corvette end up as direct competition with the higher-end Camaros?


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

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States