Notices
991
Sponsored by:

2014 Stingray

 
Old 01-16-2013, 07:48 PM
  #61  
neanicu
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
neanicu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ny
Posts: 9,286
Default

Originally Posted by SharpMan View Post
God I get sick of this...the 'Vette gets 26+mpg on the highway...what do you want in terms of efficiency?
Even so,I still don't understand why they need a 6.2L engine to get 500 and change HP...
Cylinder deactivation?! I'd be very interested how that system is working for them...
What I see here is poor engineering...and it shows in every aspect of this car : crappy design,Playstation interior etc.
BTW,if you didn't know,in some European countries you pay yearly taxes and insurance for your vehicle according to the engine's capacity. 6.2L...lots of $$$$!!!
' Competitive in all markets ' ?! Guess again!

Last edited by neanicu; 01-16-2013 at 08:09 PM.
neanicu is offline  
Old 01-16-2013, 07:53 PM
  #62  
chuckbdc
Super User
 
chuckbdc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 2,991
Default

Originally Posted by ljpviper View Post
I have a 997 and I just miss the go-cart feel that the 991 seems to have lost. Now the body of the 991 is a nice evolution of the series. No complaints with that.

The c7 seems to be a mishmash of different cars.
Uh oh. The Chevy engineer in the Bedard interview described how they engineered the old "lump of iron in the front" out of the C7, using the feel of the 991 as a goal. That sort of dampening of old cues seems to really upset people- until they learn what is relevant to the higher performance.

Will have to see the C7 in person to really know how it looks, but have a feeling the rear end will look as overdone as the pics.
chuckbdc is online now  
Old 01-16-2013, 10:46 PM
  #63  
Justin N
User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 243
Default

The problem with the vette is that the only market for them to sell to is the corvette crowd- I just don't see any competitors to it. It's fast, but can't compete in the same league as the bimmers, audis, and of course our lovely P-cars in most other aspects...

To reiterate and expand on what someone else said in this thread..
Front of a Ferrari
Side of a GTR
Rear of a Camaro..

Interior of a Cavalier...with a Nav screen..
Justin N is online now  
Old 01-16-2013, 10:50 PM
  #64  
holminator
User
 
holminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 957
Default

Maybe next time they will copy a third gen Mazda RX-7. It would be a super improvement.

Last edited by holminator; 01-17-2013 at 09:50 AM. Reason: Howard Hughes fingernails too long for typing apparently.
holminator is offline  
Old 01-16-2013, 11:33 PM
  #65  
DrJay
User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 860
Default

Originally Posted by holminator View Post
Maybe next time they will copy a third gen Mazda RX-7. If would be a super improvement.
Those were great cars...
DrJay is offline  
Old 01-17-2013, 09:48 AM
  #66  
mtbscott
User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 820
Default

Originally Posted by SharpMan View Post
There seems to be more love for the 'Vette in the GT3 forum. They get that it's bang-for-the-buck and not about making the same "statement".
I went over and read the GT3 thread after you mentioned it...haha, many of them already have C6 Vettes for track cars in addition to their GT3's. Whole different mentality than I see here.
mtbscott is offline  
Old 01-17-2013, 10:08 AM
  #67  
jumper5836
Super User
 
jumper5836's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: great white north
Posts: 8,137
Default

Originally Posted by mtbscott View Post
I went over and read the GT3 thread after you mentioned it...haha, many of them already have C6 Vettes for track cars in addition to their GT3's. Whole different mentality than I see here.
Yah because the majority here all concerned about their leather interior, iphone 5 plug-in, what child seats fit in the back and how many functions they got on their center console.
jumper5836 is offline  
Old 01-17-2013, 10:27 AM
  #68  
holminator
User
 
holminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 957
Default

I call bull****. The majority here have been concerned about pricing, options, delivery dates, and after market items like exhausts, shocks, and other items that the car really does not need in my humble opinion. Check out the thread headlines. It's obvious and the subjects have become boring. Fact is all of us 991 owners know we have an outstanding product and remain excited for the possibilities of knowing the vehicle better in the coming months.

That said, anyone know how to remove the cup-holders? lol I crack myself up.

holminator is offline  
Old 01-17-2013, 10:32 AM
  #69  
Rainier_991
User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset West, South Africa
Posts: 175
Default

Originally Posted by jumper5836 View Post
Yah because the majority here all concerned about their leather interior, iphone 5 plug-in, what child seats fit in the back and how many functions they got on their center console.
Not quite. More about driving on normal roads everyday...

"Where are your parents ?"
"Dead"
"Oh I'm sorry to hear that, what happened to your mother ?"
"Got killed by a Porsche"
"And your father ?"
"Got killed by a Porsche"
"That is terrible. What do you do all day ?"
"Drive a Porsche..."

Rainier

(Slight adaptation of a old German joke involving a farm tractor. Sorry, could not help it).
Rainier_991 is offline  
Old 01-17-2013, 11:50 AM
  #70  
jmm
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 80
Default

Originally Posted by neanicu View Post
Even so,I still don't understand why they need a 6.2L engine to get 500 and change HP...
Cylinder deactivation?! I'd be very interested how that system is working for them...
What I see here is poor engineering...and it shows in every aspect of this car : crappy design,Playstation interior etc.
BTW,if you didn't know,in some European countries you pay yearly taxes and insurance for your vehicle according to the engine's capacity. 6.2L...lots of $$$$!!!
' Competitive in all markets ' ?! Guess again!
Whatever you do, don't seek a career in engineering.

6.2 liters with cylinder deactivation is 3.1 liters.
jmm is offline  
Old 01-17-2013, 12:58 PM
  #71  
neanicu
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
neanicu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ny
Posts: 9,286
Default

Originally Posted by jmm View Post
Whatever you do, don't seek a career in engineering.

6.2 liters with cylinder deactivation is 3.1 liters.
I will follow your advice and don't get into engineering this late in life. Although I understand very well the principle of ' cylinder deactivation ' ,I will say this : it involves a lot more than what you've mentioned here. Those cylinders that are being ' deactivated ' are following the movement of the crankshaft,Up/Down and Left/Right in the case of the boxer engine. So even though there still is drag,that is efficiently reduced by allowing a lot more air in the combustion chamber and keeping exhaust gases from previous cycles. This is achieved by allowing the throttle body to be fully opened even though you are nowhere near full throttle.
So on a ' deactivated ' cylinder the exhaust and intake valves remain closed due to the control of oil pressure solenoids. What's most important for fuel efficiency is that the computer deactivates fuel injectors on the respective cylinders.
Now to get back to my point,what I meant is that the trend from top manufacturers these days is to reduce engine capacity and using forced air(Turbo) to provide power for different reasons : fuel economy,tougher regulations(including what I've mentioned before about some European standards) etc. And I'll provide some examples here : Mercedes AMG went back down to 5.5L(even though they're still calling their models 63....don't ask me why...)from 6.3L,but is making more power and torque by using a Bi-Turbo system,BMW M division dropped their really good V10s for a V8 Bi-Turbo and I can go on...
Corvette said...no...we'll continue making big engines and compete on the European market. Very ' smart ' move!
Good luck!
neanicu is offline  
Old 01-17-2013, 01:54 PM
  #72  
jmm
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 80
Default

Whatever works for them.

Read up on it. It's a heck of an engine and their rationale is "tight." It's the first pushrod engine with direct injection. And it's cheaper than a Mercedes engine. One of the things that make European cars so expensive is the expensive way they've solved their engineering hurdles. Corvette has a different set of priorities when they design.

I drive a 991 and I appreciate not just its engineering, but its excellence. But that doesn't mean I can't admire Corvettes. I certainly don't feel threatened by them, nor do I rush to put them down. They "hit the mark" they are aiming for just like Porsche does.
jmm is offline  
Old 01-17-2013, 02:08 PM
  #73  
LastMezger
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
LastMezger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 6th gear!
Posts: 3,911
Default

Originally Posted by neanicu View Post
Even so,I still don't understand why they need a 6.2L engine to get 500 and change HP...
Cylinder deactivation?! I'd be very interested how that system is working for them...
What I see here is poor engineering...and it shows in every aspect of this car : crappy design,Playstation interior etc.
BTW,if you didn't know,in some European countries you pay yearly taxes and insurance for your vehicle according to the engine's capacity. 6.2L...lots of $$$$!!!
' Competitive in all markets ' ?! Guess again!
I still don't get why the displacement gets panties in a twist.

It's an unstressed motor and is simple and inexpensive to manufacture. The 'Vette is HALF the money of a C2S.

It's powerful, compact, reliable, fuel efficient and sounds amazing. What difference does it make that it's 6.2L? Doesn't adversely affect the driving experience so so what?

The things I've enjoyed about Porsches over the years haven't had anything to do with volumetric efficiency.
LastMezger is online now  
Old 01-17-2013, 02:09 PM
  #74  
neanicu
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
neanicu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ny
Posts: 9,286
Default

I certainly do not feel ' threatened ' ,I wish them all the best!
I still believe that forced induction is the way to go for future applications. Tri-Turbo technology is already old news.
With the new technology,you do not need large capacity engines to produce a lot of power.
Small,very light,efficient and most importantly CLEAN is what I see in the future.
Clean diesel is one example.
I'm thinking of an ideal 1.3-1,4L engine with Tri or even Quad Turbo producing 500-600HP...
I believe they've been running something similar in F1 years ago...
neanicu is offline  
Old 01-17-2013, 02:10 PM
  #75  
holminator
User
 
holminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 957
Default

Errr, too much weight in the front? That might suck the fun out of driving it for me. Just me I guess. I'm okay with that epiphany. A lighter smaller front, mid-mounted engine would have been better. Oops, I just dumped chum into the water over at the Cayman tank. lol Everybody run!

holminator is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 2014 Stingray


Contact Us - About Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: