STG

Canes78

Good luck getting one anywhere near 65 even in base trim. They are almost or will be sold out of this years production in a few days. Most of the dealers are gouging the price. The base model probably isn't the Z51 package and you have to have that as a start. Unless they have changed it so much that the Z51 isn't a performance upgrade anymore. I just traded my 17Z06 for the 991TT and while I have always been a Corvette guy, except for a 14GT500 and a 17GT350, I really don't like the rear end of the new car. It looks like a camaro. But from the front it screams 458 at me. Oh well, I am sure it is a great car and once the Z06 comes out and it can be had at or below list, I will probably take another look at it. IMHO
Randy

9914s

Can not wait to see pictures of STG’s corvette.

ZDan

Yes, that's absolutely correct for aluminum, which is what the primary structure of the C8 is. Properties in the weld and the heat affected zones are significantly reduced. Only way to get them back is to re-heat-treat the entire welded structure, which is impractical and will cause distortions and deformations. However with fast robotic "cold-welding" the effect is minimized and you can compensate by placing welded joints in areas of lower stress and beef-up the weld areas. I still think the reason they went with very large castings and a few major bolted joints is for repairability vs. welded aluminum structure.

Yet again you prove that you don't even know what stiffness is...
Let's say the C8 stiffness figure is indeed 15,000 N-m/deg. That does NOT mean it only "withstands" 15,000 N-m of "twist". It is not a *strength*, it is a *stiffness*. It doesn't tell you anything about how much twist the frame will ultimately withstand. For sure it will take a LOT more than 15,000 N-m before permanently deforming or failing. 15,000 N-m is how much torsion is required to twist the frame by 1 degree, and at that load it's going to be within the elastic range and will not see permanent deformation. I.e. it will "spring back" to its original shape with the load removed.

Closed-roof cars are inherently going to be stiffer than open-roof cars. But we are in an age where stiffnesses are high enough and natural frequencies are so far above suspension natural frequencies that this is not an issue even for very high-performance open-top sports cars.

Yeah, we get it, you hate GM over this and that is fine. Nobody is going to insist that you must love them and buy a C8.
But it doesn't mean you can continue to talk about stuff you have little knowledge of and not get called out on it....

I see you've posted some more b.s. but frankly I can't keep up with you, so congrats, you're "winning"!

sithot

Something to think about as the saber rattling over "brand" continues. I like a lot of cars that are NOT a Porsche. I've also driven enough C1 - ??? Corvettes to understand they were never "as good" as some other cars when it came to fit and finish but always appreciated them for the value offered.
________________________________________________________________________ _____________
The first NSX was good only because it wasn't great
The first-generation NSX was as exotic as chicken nuggets, but brilliant. Nuance counts for a lot in supercar game.
BY SAM SMITH JAN 13, 2015 Road and Track


I distinctly remember the first time I drove an Acura NSX.

This is the kind of thing people say when they talk about legendary cars. It's often followed by hyperbole, because the person in question was either amazed ("THAT CAR WAS INCREDIBLE!!") or not amazed and is attempting to seem punk-rock by knocking a beloved icon. (Google-friendly terms with which to learn more about this: "Internet," "traffic whoring," "jaded-*** clickbait.")

Both of these approaches are ridiculous as fuel for an interesting discussion. They miss the nuance, and every good car has nuance, because cars are a human product. Like people, no human product is 100 percent good or bad, even the ones famous for being good or bad. Examples: The Mazda Miata is cheap and wonderful but, in the pantheon of great sports cars, ultimately bland next to something like an Alfa Spider. The Renault Le Car was a roly-poly pile of goat feces, but few small hatchbacks are more fun in traffic. Walt Disney wasn't a saint; Hitler and Idi Amin probably had redeeming qualities in the dark recesses of their livers or toe jam or something.

That said: I drove an NSX once. I was not impressed.

Set aside the sentiment for a moment—even having an opinion about the NSX's road manners is a privilege. This is not a common car, and most of the ones sold here came early in the production run, with fat tires and tall, old-school-supercar gearing. I wasn't working in this business at the car's launch and somehow missed driving an NSX until 2013. An acquaintance who used to work for Car and Driver (Hi Dave!) bought one after a long search, and he was nice enough to let me drive his car around Detroit. He was employed by C/D when NSXs were still in production, and he'd wanted one forever. As we backed the thing out of his driveway, he said something about never being able to get the car out of his head.

"OK," I thought, "Fair enough. Know the problem."

Car and Driver's Pat Bedard called the Acura "the first mid-engine supercar that doesn't act like a parole violator." You climb into that cockpit in the 21st century, it just seems old. And not steel-dash-and-carburetors old, just forgettably recent.In high school, my best friend's mom had a late Acura Vigor. (Side note: We need more cars named with words that mean "physical strength" and date to Middle English.) The NSX's interior was like the Vigor's, if the whole car had been flattened in a hydraulic press and sprayed with leather. The door tops were lower. The controls were intelligently placed. Everything seemed carved out of that weird and indestructible hard plastic found in every Japanese four-door from 1988 to 1999.

That engine, with its titanium rods and 8000-rpm redline, sounded surprisingly like nothing, just understated Japanese V-6. The induction honk at high rpm was nice, if quiet; every Ferrari I've driven, and even a few Civic Si's, would out-shout it. What's more, the gearing was long enough that you almost never heard the engine in its happy place. The shifter was long in throw and wandy. Not unpleasant or great, just there. It was fast but not exceedingly so; I imagined taking an NSX to a California canyon, only to be outgunned by some jerk in a slammed GTI with springs and bars.

It wasn't all quiet. The view out the windshield was fantastic—panoramic and tall, with the top of the dash seemingly a few inches above your navel. You could see out of the car in traffic. The cockpit was roomy. The manual steering was talkative and buttery, even by classic-car standards. Thousands of miles away, Alpine passes beckoned.

But you know all this. The reviews in period said this. This is the cliché.

"Dave," I said, "What made you buy this thing?"

We talked for a few minutes. He said all the right things, stuff I wanted to say but just couldn't feel in my gut. It just felt like… a car. And that's the problem, has always been the problem, is why people knock it: You drive something that looks like this, it ought to blow your hat in the creek. (Flashback to the early 1990s, when I was riding with my dad and saw an early NSX in our neighborhood. Me: "Hey, an Acura NSX!" Him: "That's no Acura." Me: "Yes! Yes it is! It's amazing! When I grow up and live in a Frank Lloyd Wright house on the moon with custom-engraved rocket launchers because I'm a famous spaceman hero president, I'm going to drive one of those!" Him: Silence, turns up radio.)

An old friend once called driving the average Ferrari "fistfights and ********." That's been true of every good exotic I've been in. We want our nutso cars to be nutso, to justify the expense, the looks, and the impracticality. Only the NSX, there was no nutso or impracticality. There was only a car that worked, that needed little maintenance over big mileage, that had been tuned by Shigeru Uehara and Ayrton Senna and Bobby Rahal (Uehara and Senna and Rahal!) There were exotic bits, and the car was definitely a serious, special achievement in construction and tuning, but its light was under a bushel. Driving around with Dave, I imagined owning one to be like owning an E30 M3 or a Civic Si—two other great cars that aren't blindingly quick or flashy. You try to tell your friends why you swoon, but they're not buying it. "No, really! The engine has piston speeds higher than blah blah blah! The rods are made of this! The cams do that!"

And then they look out the window and wonder why they're getting blown off by a minivan at a stop light, and why you spent your money on an obvious ***** replacement that makes you seem… underhung.

I couldn't get my head around the Acura, at least not in that drive. Dave, the owner, is a very smart guy; I respect his opinion immensely, and I wanted to like it. We parted ways, and I went home, a little disappointed.

And then I started thinking about it. It took weeks. I couldn't get the car out of my head. I wanted to know why. I wanted to figure out some kind of justification, to see what I'd missed. I spent lunch hours watching videos of Senna pitching NSXs around Suzuka. I read countless road tests of the thing, imagined chucking it along some foggy Wales B-road at warp speed like the guys at British Car Magazine X or Y. I hounded the classifieds and forums. Who wants one? Why? How? What do people with an NSX do when they're not selling or buying or obsessing over those paper-crease fenders with a glass of whiskey in a dark garage?

Turns out the answer is simple: They drive the ever-loving hell out of them.

Novel idea. Any Ferrari or Lamborghini owner will tell you cars like that spend a lot of time sitting. Parts are expensive, service moreso. (Don't believe the modern hype about that stuff being cheap if you're smart. I've been around enough blown-apart 512s and 328s and 360s on lifts and seen enough Ferrari parts catalogs. You can make it less expensive. But you own one for more than a year or two, it'll blow your wallet to pieces.) Every mile or nondealer service—cheaper than dealer service—knocks down resale, and few exotics are cheap enough that the average owner doesn't care about resale. Even the guys with multiple private jets think about this.


An old friend once called driving the average Ferrari "fistfights and ********."
But NSX owners drive the **** out of their cars. They drive them constantly, for hundreds of thousands of miles, in all weather. (Aluminum cars largely shrug off winter and wet.) All that stuff that minimizes the drama over a 30-minute drive adds up to low fatigue, and you wanting to get back into the car over and over again, over 30 months. Or 60, or 90. It's marriage as opposed to one-night stand. Reading forum accounts, it's like the car specializes in a friendly, indestructible sort of intimacy. Some people use them every day, are proud of the door dings and battle scars. Many people track them, unafraid of burning through expensive this or that, because it barely happens, at least by exotic standards. And the joy is apparently how the car is simply there all the time. It's comfortable and quiet enough for road trips. Spouses like it. Dogs ride in it, and their claws don't rip the thick, durable leather. Then there's the amazing chassis—something I admittedly didn't scratch the surface of in my short street drive. It's like a Civic that behaves like a period Ferrari, dresses like a runway model, and offers the ownership headache of a pair of blue jeans. And the speed, well, you stop caring about that so much, because even an early NSX is fast enough to get you into trouble, and it does all of those other things so well. Mileage affects resale, but prices show that the market is far from afraid of 200,000-mile NSXs.

Yes, I thought. I could use one every day. Strap a car seat into the right side and haul my daughter around. Maybe hang an exhaust on it to fix the noise. Fit a lighter flywheel. Later gearing from an NSX-R. Tweak the things that keep the fringes from being batty. And then just use it every day. It would, of course, be far less expensive than doing the same with anything Italian. I can't imagine that'll be the case much longer.

I've spent a lot of time over the past year thinking about these cars. It came to me at one point, though I don't remember when. It's nuance. I often spend the last three or four minutes before I fall asleep at night staring at the ceiling, thinking about it. (Also, if I'm being honest, the razor wail of a flat-crank Ferrari V-8 and Scarlett Johansson in pretty red dresses. But also titanium rods and how the Forever Supercar doesn't want a pint of blood every mile, just time and pavement.)

There is an all-new NSX coming at this year's Detroit auto show. We'll see the production version, due in 20TK, and no one will be surprised, because that car will basically be an evolved version of the Acura/Honda show car that's been trotted out for years. We know what this car is going to look like. It's a hybrid. It's all-wheel-drive. It shares a basic profile with the first NSX, but not much else.

I don't want it, in part because of what I just listed. I know that makes me sound like a luddite knuckle-dragger, and I hope I change my mind the first time I drive the new car, because we need more things not made for luddite knuckle-draggers. And I hope, above all, that everyone else stays in the dark about that first NSX. Because at some point, I'm going to have to buy one and use it for years, driving all over creation. And it's going to be a lot easier to justify if they're still the happy side of cheap.

Canes78

I have a version of every Z06 starting with the C5. I modified them and beat the sh*t out of them and the only problems I had were when I put more HP and TQ to components then they were capable of handling. Up until my first C7Z06. I couldn't even do spirited driving for very long on back roads without it going into limp mode. Traded it for a GT350 and I loved it. You can track that thing all day and have no trouble. But alas, not what I was looking for. Traded it on a 17C7Z because I believed it when the dealer told me they had solved the overheating issue for the 17 model year. Hah!!! What a joke. Same story, two or three laps at best and limp mode. So, I am glad that they have solved the cooling problems with the automatic but I will wait and see this time. As to fit and finish, I am sorry, it is not that close. My vette's have nice enough finish but the Porsche is another level. But I still love Corvettes and think they are great cars, especially for the money.
Randy

ZDan

YES, they're both *directly comparable* as targas! So what's with the deference to the Bugatti as being a "vert", all caps proclaiming the C8 is *not* a "vert", strongly suggesting that Bugatti OK and C8 garbage, then followed by parenthetically admitting it is indeed an apples-to-apples, targa-to-targa comparison?

It boggles the mind the mental and verbal gymnastics you'll do to validate expensive more "exotic" cars while putting down the Corvette....

And it's considerably heavier and more than 2x more powerful... Anyway its less stiff than my 3050 lb. 265hp Cayman. Does that mean it isn't *nearly* stiff enough, or does it mean that my Cayman is *way* stiffer than it needs to be? Something for you to ponder...

K-A

Again. Not ignoring. I’ve said over and over again that I don’t buy verts because I feel their structures are too compromised, and heavy. Also safety is a huge concern. The C8 doesn’t have a solid roof option. So it’s 15K rigidity figure is what it is. E.g: soft.

I mean as of current times. Why would I move the goalposts to favor the Vette? If we were talking a year ago before the GT2 came out, I’d say you have a point. But right now in this reality moment, the 911 is faster. I expect the Z06 to track faster than a GT3 RS with 200 more HP and even close to the same price.

It’s not just about track performance. It’s about structural integrity, which torsional rigidity plays a big part in. It’s also about safety, which has always been a big GM red flag.

Fact is, you can rewrite on the importance of torsional rigidity to favor the Vette. But torsional stiffness has long been the benchmark figure to determine how strong and well a chassis is built, for a reason.

I’ve always been fairly obsessed with torsional rigidity figures. So much so that I pay attention to how different cars feel in “tank like-ness,” and torsional rigidity correlates to a more solid car, especially as miles and abuse piles up, every time. My old E Class had a 29K figure, and felt solid, until I got a 5 Series with a 37,500 figure, which felt far more solid and rattled less. There’s a reason car manufacturers use torsional rigidity as the sole barometer to tout their cars material construction and solidity, but also largely safety. Just because guys want to feel good about the C8 and refuse to admit it may have any compromises, doesn’t change that.

And I don’t buy the “chassis are so stiff nowadays it doesn’t matter” excuse for a second. Cars have a very long way to go in that regard. Used C7 Vettes with their weak 14K figures often get trashed for how well they hold up after being driven hard.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...hicle_Dynamics

K-A

Is there a mental block with C8 fanbois that ignores when someone criticizes it and they follow said criticism with equal criticism of the more “exotic” cars as well?

For the billionth time: I’d never buy a 911 vert or targa for the structural compromises, amongst other things. But Porsche offer a solid roof.

And I’d never buy a Bugatti targa either. Where did I say 22K is “ok?” A hardtop Bugatti I imagine has a 40-50K+ figure. That’s a world of difference from the targa. I think 22K is less than I’d want from a heavy, powerful beast.

One reason the Bugatti’s figure won’t be as notable though: They don’t sell 30K a year and will barely be driven, nevermind tracked. It won’t benefit C8’s if or when they’re on the used market with 40K miles and feel noticeably looser and have excessive cowl shake. And yes, this is a common theme with used Vettes as is, and that is often correlated to torsional rigidity. I’m not making up some hypothetical scenario. There are anecdotal exceptions, but again, manufacturers themselves use T.R as the barometer example as to tout how strewn together their cars are. Just read their literal press releases.

STG

https://www.motor1.com/news/362564/c...-guide-custom/




So awesome all the customization options:

https://www.gmfleetorderguide.com/NA...stic/printbook



https://www.motor1.com/news/362232/c...karound-video/

d00d

I'm chalking up the C8's torsional rigidity value to the removable top, and not the construction technique.
The GT4's front strut towers, and probably other structures, are fastened in similar fashion with mechanical pop rivets and adhesive.

My C4 had cowl shake when the top was removed, but otherwise any flex wasn't noticeable.
I don't recall any rattles, but the door seals around the top leaked in the rain.
Even though torsional rigidity is less important when the engine and drive wheels are on the same end, a higher value allows one to better tune the suspension.

Looking forward to the Z06!
Please GM make it a high revs NA, and don't make the aerodynamic bits look like something from JC Whitney.

fast1

As a many decade owner of 911s, I share your love for Porsches. My first Porsche was a 911E which I purchased in 1970 for a little over $7K, and I have owned almost every new model since then. My policy has been to custom order my Porsches and keep them for a long time. So although Porsches have always been expensive to buy, if you keep them for 8 - 10 years, they are quite reasonable to own. Moreover, I enjoyed my 911s as much in year 9 or 10 as I did in year 1. Can't say that for many other sports cars. Nevertheless it's very unlikely that I will ever buy another new 911 for two reasons: prices have become obscene and the departure from NA engines. So that's why I'm following the C8 so closely. It's been a long time since I owned a Corvette. I bought a C3 and had a litany of problems, and like you I have a lot of reservations about the Corvette. But I will be following C8 reviews closely, especially by owners. If they are good I'll buy a C8, more than likely the Z06 version.

At this point, however, I'm far from sold on the C8. Although GM claims a sub 3 second 0-60, I highly doubt that the time will be replicated when the car is reviewed by the magazines. OTOH I have always been able to replicate or exceed the official times published by Porsche. Although 0-60 times don't mean much to me, marketing gimmicks turn me off. So let's hope that this sub 3 second time isn't one. IMO it's far too early to say that the C8 is a great success or disappointment at this time. We'll know a lot more in a years time. In the mean time I'll be rooting for the C8. It would be nice to buy an outstanding, well equipped sports car for under $80K.

Nm2far

I had an 08’ Boxster S RS60. Less structural rigidity than the C8. Handled like it was on rails. Felt more nimble than my current much (2x +) stiffer GTS CS2. Solid as new at 69K when I sold it. None of these cars are race cars, just sporty passenger vehicles. I’m guessing at real world, even sporty, on the road use these will see you won’t notice the difference, even at higher mileage. Track cars see a lot of abuse, which is why I’ll pay to use someone else’s. It may be the ultimate test of longevity and build quality but it’s bragging rights that most cars will never see, and for those that do you can still buy 2 nicely appointed C8, one for track and one for the road and still have money left over for the price of one GT3 RS

Unless they are not permanent thread locked, I don’t see the bolted pieces loosening being an issue, but certainly one that can lower insurance premiums and the overall cost of ownership.

Michael T

I agree. I have had a 996, a 997 and two 991's as daily drivers. I placed a deposit on the C8 and it will be my fifth Corvette over the years. It is not about affordability, I could care less about exclusivity, it is about value.

A ten quart oil change on my 991 was $370 most recently and used to be $160. The Macan has stressed the Porsche service capacity. Porsche has had its share of issues (IMS, GT3 motors, self destructing door panels on 991), as has Corvette over the years. My four Corvettes to date have only had two one-day repairs, HVAC control unit in a C5 and a yaw sensor in another C5. Two of the cars had no repairs.

Porsche and Corvette are both great cars, but the value proposition for the C8 will tilt the playing field a bit.

CaymanCarver

+10
Its the same set of shills circling around one another.
They've become a fact of "Forum Life" these days and maybe its time some adjustments were made.

IMO they're devaluing the Forum(s) and doesn't help the free flow of honest information about a car. Which is why the Automotive Forums have been so great.
They're getting paid. I wonder if the Forum is getting any direct benefit as well? If it's not, it should.




The high quality C8 interior. Really? You can't line that shyte up any better than that?
This would drive my OCD a little nuts.

On the C7, alignment of body panels and elsewhere was a big complaint.. doesn't look like its been fixed yet.


Friend of mine owned a 2016 C7 Z51 for about 6 months.. asked him why he got rid of it and he said "don't get me wrong, it checked off all the boxes but it just didn't have a soul".

I'll post more about "the soul of a car" later.

Another fake review.

First he says the car in the video is a Z51 and eludes to it having the "0-60 Z51 Performance Package", then I think I heard him say it was $55K !!!!
He started the car and rev'd the engine, but he didn't drive it.. not even one inch.

Preach it brother!!!

In other news today:
GM is beginning to shutter its Warren Transmission plant laying off 335 American workers.