View Poll Results: what do you think?
really clean, nice looking Vette....
174
31.46%
a very different Vette but we'll sure as hell take it.
165
29.84%
i'll be ordering one soon.......
98
17.72%
No thank you
116
20.98%
Voters: 553. You may not vote on this poll
Thoughts on the new corvette?
#1816
I'm really curious to see how the new car drives and the dynamics of it. Making sure they're ahead of the C7 platform isn't easy as that platform is quite capable. I hope the improvements aren't just a tire upgrade.
While the variants will be faster, the C7 Z51's overall performance will give us a good indication of the potential of the platform.
The dramatic shift might also reset the aftermarket tuner pecking order also as it's not just another iteration of tried and tested platform.
While the variants will be faster, the C7 Z51's overall performance will give us a good indication of the potential of the platform.
The dramatic shift might also reset the aftermarket tuner pecking order also as it's not just another iteration of tried and tested platform.
#1817
Race Director
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
If really concerned about being safest on the road, you're better off driving something other than any sports car when you're looking eye level at someone else's bumper.
The following users liked this post:
Porsche911dream (10-09-2019)
#1818
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
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
The following users liked this post:
CaymanCarver (07-29-2019)
#1819
Race Director
Originally Posted by STG
Angled shot with whatever car is nearest will not show true representation.
Remember the GT3 has a removed back seat and totally unusable space.
Here are the #'s
C8 2.7" longer than GT3 and nearly 2" narrower
If that's a "really big car" so be it I guess ....
Attachment 1306829
Attachment 1306830
Attachment 1306833
Remember the GT3 has a removed back seat and totally unusable space.
Here are the #'s
C8 2.7" longer than GT3 and nearly 2" narrower
If that's a "really big car" so be it I guess ....
Attachment 1306829
Attachment 1306830
Attachment 1306833
Once again, I will post the facts ...
The following users liked this post:
GT3FZS (08-13-2019)
#1820
You won't get one for 60K
Saw it up close yesterday, Probably impossible to get one at 60K at first much like getting a 35K Tesla. Front end is Ferrari derivative, not bad. Back end is terrible, too much like previous models. They have a brand new platform and had the chance to start a new look and blew it.
The following 2 users liked this post by JHW911:
CaymanCarver (07-29-2019),
GT3FZS (08-13-2019)
#1821
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Marineland FL
Posts: 12,535
Likes: 0
Received 3,460 Likes
on
2,361 Posts
They should have gone back to round tail lights:
The following users liked this post:
GT3FZS (08-13-2019)
#1822
Instructor
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.
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.
"GM got zero bids from suppliers to produce the C8's six high-pressure diecast aluminum structural parts. Those parts are too exotic and will be required in too much volume for anybody to handle. So they learned to produce them themselves."
https://www.popularmechanics.com/car...hevy-corvette/
This makes me think Porsche had the same constraints in their strut top hat design, that part should have been high pressure die cast, but Porsche production volume is lower than c8
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/...=1613839&i=140
#1823
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.
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.
#1824
Pro
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.
#1825
Instructor
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/here-s...-ar186096.html
the 63 photos of c8 cutaway illustrate the beefiness of frame, it may not translate to stiffness, but the heavy gage section and gussets imply strength, i cannot envision frame damage from hitting curbs , particularly due to the torque to yield bolted connections acting as springs that distribute loads over a larger area avoid concentrated loads and stress risers from a chassis being too stiff thus in case of c8 metal fatigue and stresses due to wheel impacts absorbed throughout frame not all at the initial load transfer point of bottomed out strut to top hat mount on gt4.
adhesive connections have no elasticity thus are stiff till point of catastrophic failure
the 63 photos of c8 cutaway illustrate the beefiness of frame, it may not translate to stiffness, but the heavy gage section and gussets imply strength, i cannot envision frame damage from hitting curbs , particularly due to the torque to yield bolted connections acting as springs that distribute loads over a larger area avoid concentrated loads and stress risers from a chassis being too stiff thus in case of c8 metal fatigue and stresses due to wheel impacts absorbed throughout frame not all at the initial load transfer point of bottomed out strut to top hat mount on gt4.
adhesive connections have no elasticity thus are stiff till point of catastrophic failure
The following users liked this post:
2slow2speed (07-29-2019)
#1826
Rennlist Member
Die casting usually requires much greater parts volume to justify the hardware and bring the cost savings. Forging would work but that drives up cost. Perhaps they could have instead compromised to use simpler shapes, maybe they ran out of time and weren’t expecting the no bids.
Last edited by ace37; 07-29-2019 at 03:29 PM.
#1827
Instructor
Die casting usually requires much greater parts volume to justify the hardware and bring the cost savings. Forging would work but that drives up cost. Perhaps they could have instead compromises to use simpler shapes, maybe they ran out of time and weren’t expecting the no bids.
IMO this kind of frame and production method will disappear for the 2023 4-cam 5.5L, 760hp TT, it has to in order to make space for the turbos and wider engine.
Frame development is likely ongoing on 2023 TT since current frame flexes too much with the high torque 5.5 TT as reported 3/12/19 in early testing.
"one prototype equipped with a particularly powerful, 900-1,000 hp version of the supercar’s new twin-turbocharged V8 engine experienced “structural distortion of the aluminum spaceframe,” upon acceleration which even broke the rear engine compartment glass. This has sent Chevy back to the drawing board for the new MR platform, although it’s not clear if this problem has been solved yet." (as of 3/12/19)
Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2019/03/...#ixzz5v5JPNiN0
Good see that DCT can take that kind of power
I expect fixed roof, bonded and riveted T7 extrusions with forged parts at critical nodes, perhaps even at spring perches ; no way GM would want GT4 type issues once the chassis stiffness is ramped up.
The following users liked this post:
Nm2far (07-29-2019)
#1828
Torsional stiffness is all about handling, so its benefit would be in preventing an accident. If cars collide torsional stiffness isn't much of a factor, There are lots of reviews for the safest cars on the internet, and I didn't find a Porsche on any of the lists that I viewed. Below is just one of many, but it is one of the most comprehensive.
https://elmersautobody.com/safest-ca...auto-accident/
#1829
Instructor
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
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
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.
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-re...992-cabriolet/
Chevy’s “all bolts and no welds” clearly are destroying the cars rigidity figures.
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.
Worth noting that some German cars with exceptional stiffness have had issues with primary structures cracking and failing over time...
Ya get what ya pay for. At least somewhere.
So even the coupe Corvettes are essentially roadsters/convertibles. Compared to other convertibles, they are in the ballpark for stiffness. C8 will apparently be stiffer than the 992 convertible.
EDIT: Somehow i forgot that the C6 Z06/ZR1 did have a fixed roof! Which allowed it to be about the same stiffness (slightly stiffer) but *lighter-weight* vs. base and GS coupes. They kinda skipped this approach for the C7 and went with more power over lighter-weight for the Z06. Doh...
FWIW I am an aerospace structural engineer, and have designed and/or analyzed structures for space, air, and road vehicles. Lately I've been working on a bonded carbon fiber spectrograph for the biggest telescope ever built by humans. ~2600 lb., 13' x 3' x 4', first mode > 50 Hz. Now that is stiff! For good reason...
IMO sports cars don't need to have bank-vault levels of rigidity to be good at what they do. There's a point of diminishing returns on chassis stiffness for sports cars, and honestly I think even my 987.2 Cayman is already beyond it. It feels much stiffer than my BRZ. But it's 250 lb. heavier BRZ is nearly as fast at slower tracks (did 1:23.1 at Thompson in the BRZ last Friday, vs. 1:22.7 in the Cayman the next day in similar conditions). I would be willing to trade some of the Cayman's stiffness for less weight...
All that said I have always been more a fan of fixed-roof sports cars over roadsters/convertibles, partly due to more efficient structure with greater stiffness/weight.
Who knows, maybe the Z06 or ZR1 version of the C8 will have a fixed roof?
Last edited by ZDan; 07-29-2019 at 03:26 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by ZDan:
bertram928 (07-29-2019),
Nm2far (07-29-2019)
#1830
Late Porkchops
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I can see GM doing things like using a less expensive water pump housing or radiators or things like that .
But I can not see them having things like frame breakage or having these cars twist and shear and beat themselves to pieces.
Im Old School as y'all know. I haven't been a fan of the adhesive bonding Porsche frame bits either but they say it works and is an improvement so Ill have to go with it.
Porsche has been very diligent about keeping these cars on a diet and keeping the weight down though and I have to believe GM looks at that too.
But I can not see them having things like frame breakage or having these cars twist and shear and beat themselves to pieces.
Im Old School as y'all know. I haven't been a fan of the adhesive bonding Porsche frame bits either but they say it works and is an improvement so Ill have to go with it.
Porsche has been very diligent about keeping these cars on a diet and keeping the weight down though and I have to believe GM looks at that too.