ace37

+2

I think they’re trying to learn from HD’s miscalculation. Good idea conceptually, hope they nailed it. Styling is meh to me but the basics sound promising. I’ll wait and see.

STG

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/07/28/...arly-sold-out/

There you go .... buyers are voting with their wallets. Who needs polls or cheap shots against their owners. C8 is selling itself. No hype needed.

STG

https://www.motor1.com/news/362169/g...-other-buyers/

Caustic

Its definitely both. The layout defines the shape, and the aggressiveness adds to it.

I took a completely scientific poll of 1 other person about the look of the car, my significant other. I showed her the picture of the gray C7 with the blue C8 in the background and asked her which one she liked better. She said the blue one in the background. I then asked why. She said, "That blue one looks like a Ferrari or a Lamborghini. Compared to the other car, it just looks like its on another level."

I feel that there will be many people that will look at it in a similar fashion. We talk about competitors for the car, and we name GT3s and GT4s. But the real competitor is a base model 718, a Z4, or maybe even the new Supra. On the other end of the cost spectrum Acura NSX and Audi R8. Maybe even the person looking at a used 991 S. This vette will probably be cross shopped more than any other previous vette.

Even if some of those people don't actually buy the C8, GM has given them pause, and made them look. That is a step forward from not even being in the thought process. Isn't that what image is all about, at least being in the conversation?

fast1

[QUOTE]The median salary of the owner of a 2018 991 is over $400K. I just don't see many 911 owners wondering down to their local Chevy dealer to buy a C8. Just speculating but I suspect that people who make that much money are very image conscious, and a Chevy product just won't cut it for them. Toyota recognized this behavior 30 years ago when they went through the considerable expense of establishing an entirely new dealer network for selling their luxury Lexus models. It would have been very expedient for Toyota to use their massive Toyota dealership network to sell their luxury brand, but they believed that buyers of high end luxury cars would be reluctant to buy their Lexus from a dealer that sold $15K Toyota Corollas. Given their Lexus sales over the years, I'd say that Toyota got it right.

The last time I went to a Chevy dealer was 15 years ago. I was looking to buy a used Toyota Corolla for my son when he turned 16. Back then Toyota Dealers were asking $8K for 4 - 5 year old Corollas, and they wouldn't negotiate on the price. So I did some research and discovered that the Chevy Prizm was a Corolla clone. A local Chevy dealer was asking $6K for a four year old Prizm, and they eventually accepted my $5500 offer. So I bought it for 30% less than a Corolla with similar mileage. I did all the maintenance on the Prizm, and quickly found out that most of the parts for the cars were identical except for one thing. The part in the Toyota box retailed for 25% more than the identical part in the Chevy box. I asked the guy at the auto parts store about this, and he laughed and told me that Toyota was considered to be the more prestigious brand and commanded a higher price. He also told me that he would suggest that his Corolla customers buy the Chevy part, but they refused despite the 25% premium. Despite the part being identical, they were willing to pay extra since they still believed the Toyota part was higher quality over the identical Chevy part.

I appreciate that Chevy has made considerable strides in improving the quality of their cars, but back then a Toyota was considered to be more prestigious than a Chevy because of the quality disparity between the manufacturers.

2slow2speed

IIRC the C7 GS had all the Z51 goodies. Back when I looked at the C7 Stingray with Z51, the additional boxes to tick would have been the competition seats (bucket seats) and the Performance Data Recorder package. Should be similar for the GS since the Bucket Seats and the PDR were optional items. The competition seats on the Z51 that I drove at the track were really good seats.

I believe that the cars in the $55K range probably don't have either option, since the cars that you are referring to seem to be vehicles ordered for the floor and not custom ordered vehicles.

Stay away from vehicles equipped with the Z07 package, the CCB's on the C7 are cheaper than PCCB's but still a lot more expensive than regular cast iron rotors and associated pads.

JCviggen

I wouldn't call a 12-yr old's impression of what a spaceship looks like on the inside "leading edge". It looks like a mess to me, especially that vertical row of buttons and the shape of the steering wheel which makes no sense. It's not round, OK, but the MF buttons and even shift paddles are too far down for where your hands actually hold the wheel at 9 and 3.

Completely shutting the passenger out of everything is weird too when all you've got for MM/nav controls is the touch screen which you can't realistically operate while driving.

K-A

Looks stunning. And promising that he can fit (I heard from reports that a 6’5 guy found it cramped in headroom).

Annnnnd that ruins it. The 991 looks far better and more expensive, imo. Simple, timeless shape with a scalpel like relative size, compared to a bulky plasticy jumble of lines that are sure to age far more vastly. The C8 looks like a sedan next to the 991. And aside from height, it actually has sedan like dimensions (and width like a Cayenne).

K-A

I’ve looked into *TORSIONAL RIGIDITY* and this is what I’ve discovered:

The C7 has about 14,000 deg/nm of torsional rigidity (GM set a “target” of 14,500 and said they got within 5% of that.... i.e they couldn’t even accomplish such a flagrantly low target). That is HORRENDOUS and explains why so many people say after tracking them extensively, they don’t feel the same and loosen up significantly. Also explains why Vettes in general are known to be rattle traps.

14,000 deg/nm is lower than you’ll find any car today, entry BMW’s are over 30,000 deg/nm.

If I remember correctly, someone above noted that GM says the C8 will be 20% stiffer. That’s also embarrassingly atrocious and puts it at well under 20K. This explains why Vettes feel famously flimsy.

Compare to the 991 which Porsche stated is 30% stiffer than the 997, which was 33,000 deg/nm. Putting the 991 at around 40,000 deg/nm. And the 992 is even stiffer.

Chevy’s “all bolts and no welds” clearly are destroying the cars rigidity figures.

I’m still very enthusiastic about the C8, but too many fanboys are looking at the paper stats and not digging deep to see where the cost savings come in.

Looks like one place is in INHERENT CONSTRUCTION (what you can’t see won’t hurt you, so says “we killed people with faulty ignition switches that saved pennies per car” GM), which is kinda of.. you know.. a big deal. Would you rather be in a car with 40,000 degrees of withstanding force, or a paltry 17,000 (C8 approximate figure), which is lower than a 2014 Cruz, in an accident? GM are famously the WORST at torsional rigidity while VAG are about the best.

Ya get what ya pay for. At least somewhere.

2slow2speed

Sigh... Look here for your answer: https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...mpetitors.html

K-A

That literally confirms what I said, so it provides the same answer (unless that’s what you meant).

The C7 had a disastrously low 14,500 deg/nm target and GM stated they came within 5% of said target. So it’s even flimsier than a paltry 14,500 deg/nm. Seriously, find one car on sale today with a lower rigidity figure. You’ll find it hard to impossible. Clearly this is a massive area where “pennies saved for faulty life threatening ignition switches” GM has been able to keep costs down.

Sure, the new 992 might have a nubbin, a luxury sedan like interior that’s feels more designed for calm Sunday cruises than spirited track romps, and a soulless sounding turbo motor, and costs a lot more, but if you’re in a pileup where other cars are putting every area of your cars structure to the test, you’ll appreciate the detailed engineering Porsche puts in that GM doesn’t (which thus provides you a better bargain).

I don’t even have a dog in this race as I can’t stand the bland sound of the 9A2 turbos, and admire an N/A 6.2L (sure, I’ll even accept the ancient pushrods) hulking at the mid of an attainable car, but let’s be objective here. The C8 isn’t magically supplying a potion that no car manufacturer could crack. They literally bolted the structure together which provides statistically fragile resistance to bending. Maybe that doesn’t matter to many shoppers, maybe it does, but it’s important to note.

2slow2speed

Hmm. Did you miss the point about the car been designed to be a targa top? instead of a coupe? And how that affects torsional stiffness?

What used to be the delta between a Boxster and a Cayman in regards to torsional stiffness?

Would you call the Boxster a deathtrap? Since the 987 Boxster S probably had about the same chassis torsional stiffness as the targeted torsional stiffness of the C8.

This particular topic has been discussed here on Rennlist as well: https://rennlist.com/forums/991/8765...parison-2.html

K-A

But we’re stuck with the targa top. I’d much prefer a solid roof to get tons of rigidity back.

Those figures just reiterate how far behind GM is in chassis construction, rigidity wise. The 987 came out how long ago? No coincidence Vette owners state the cars completely change and loosen up when tracked hard. Or rattles ensue when mileage adds up.

Separately, it’s funny how one 991 typo (it says 30K when the real number is 40K) got copy/paste reposted so many times. It’s really impressive that they were able to increase the 997’s way ahead of its time 33K figure by 30%. The C8 at a considerably smaller percentage of improvement above a dismal 14K? Not so much.

2slow2speed

Yes, I would much rather have a hard top as well, but for me that is not a deal breaker. Who knows, if enough folks ask for the real coupe it might be offered 2-3 years down the line like they did with the C5..

Since I know that the 987.1S level of stiffness (I used to own one) it should be sufficient to keep me happy. As long as the suspension is doing what it is supposed to be doing, this is where the double wishbone/front and rear should help. And not having to deal with torsional forces from the front to back due to the engine and the DCT been enclosed in the rear sub frame structure should help as well.

Just like you I am more concerned about the bolting part of some of the aluminum components, is it just bolted or bolted and bonded with an adhesive? Hopefully the folks over at corvetteforums will get some answers from the Principal Engineer (who seems a lot more accessible than PAG folks overall)

In regards to the 991 without knowing the full magic that PAG did, it is not possible to know if the net effect was positive or negative making the chassis more rigid but raising the center of gravity would not be good (for example)

d00d

The torsional rigidity concerns me, but they could get serious and bring back the fixed roof on the Z06 since it's geared towards track use.
Also wish that engine to be a NA version of the Blackwing.

I didn't like any Vette after my C4 until the C7, and the ones in between haven't aged gracefully to my eyes.
Since I initially disliked the C7 rear, but now think it's acceptable, maybe the C8 look will grow on me as well.

GM could have done much better with the rear if they didn't feel the need to accommodate golf clubs.
<any George Carlin golf joke here>
That was the first thing I saw was the wide and flat expanse, Testarossa like, where instead they could have elegantly tucked the corners in.
Seems a infrequent use played an out sized role in their feature list.
Do Millennials even golf?
My GT4's passenger seat is fine with carrying golf clubs, and just take two cars when you're going to the course with another person.