quote:

Originally posted by R!CH ya i'll give it a rest i guess. i doubt he'll ever say a damn thing to me about the vette. he probably did some google research and realized he was full of shit.

I already answered your question. As I said, it's not so much the physicalities of any American car that galls me. It's the ethos behind them. The Corvette is no different. I couldn't give a fuck how good you think the brakes or engine are. Like all American cars, it has no finesse or subtlety. All brawn, no brain.

Since you ask, no, I don't know a lot about the Corvette. I don't bother to follow American cars. Answer me this though. At a time when every car manufacturer in Europe is using CVT and DSG or equivalent, what kind of transmission is the Corvette using?

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

Last edited by Domesticated on Dec-11-2009 at 23:50

And the thing that most annoys me about corvettes, the cheap plastic bodywork. 1:35 - 1:40 in the video shows what im on about. i dont want my car to do that.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Since you ask, no, I don't know a lot about the Corvette. I don't bother to follow American cars. Answer me this though. At a time when every car manufacturer in Europe is using CVT and DSG or equivalent, what kind of transmission is the Corvette using?

The fact that the Corvette and related American muscle continues to rely upon a basic stick and clutch transmission isn't something that necessarily works against it, and I think this relates to the point I was outlining earlier. Whether by consequence or by intent, there's a classic (stupid?) simplicity to these cars that have their own sense of appeal, and you more or less find this with enthusiasts of, say, classic roadsters, who prefer the sports car built upon that simple, straightforward template. Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that a car like the ZR1 has the elegance and character of a late 60's/early 70's European roadster, but I am saying that not being the brainiest member of the club doesn't necessarily detract from the value and pleasure of owning one.

Jeremy Clarkson in the above video serves as an example of one such enthusiast, as he remarks during the test drive as to how the ZR1 has a 'proper gearbox,' rather than some electronic semi-manual gearbox.

___________________
He traded sands for skins, skins for gold, gold for life. In the end, he traded life for sand. Afari, Tales

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost The fact that the Corvette and related American muscle continues to rely upon a basic stick and clutch transmission isn't something that necessarily works against it, and I think this relates to the point I was outlining earlier. Whether by consequence or by intent, there's a classic (stupid?) simplicity to these cars that have their own sense of appeal, and you more or less find this with enthusiasts of, say, classic roadsters, who prefer the sports car built upon that simple, straightforward template. Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that a car like the ZR1 has the elegance and character of a late 60's/early 70's roadster, but I am saying that not being the brainiest member of the club doesn't necessarily detract from the value and pleasure of owning one.

Okay, I suppose I can partially understand that sensible explanation. However, two things:

a) Does sticking with a basic formula make the car any easier to drive? Having a CVT or DSG transmission affects the way a car drives, but it doesn't make any difference to the actual effort the driver has to put in. What is the advantage in sticking with old technology?

b) If manufacturers purposely pursue a simplistic, classical approach, how long are they going to stay with it? Are Chevrolet still going to be making combustion engine cars with basic transmissions 100 years from now?

No, it seems implausible to me that this approach is followed on purpose. Rather, I think it's a response to what the consumers want. Or, more likely, what the consumers have been led to believe they want after so many years.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Okay, I suppose I can partially understand that sensible explanation. However, two things: a) Does sticking with a basic formula make the car any easier to drive? Having a CVT or DSG transmission affects the way a car drives, but it doesn't make any difference to the actual effort the driver has to put in. What is the advantage in sticking with old technology? b) If manufacturers purposely pursue a simplistic, classical approach, how long are they going to stay with it? Are Chevrolet still going to be making combustion engine cars with basic transmissions 100 years from now? No, it seems implausible to me that this approach is followed on purpose. Rather, I think it's a response to what the consumers want. Or, more likely, what the consumers have been led to believe they want after so many years.

You're probably right in your conclusion that these production decisions aren't made in some spirit of preserving an automotive tradition, but it nevertheless has its appeal in that regard, but perhaps more importantly, it's a cost-reducing decision that makes supercar performance more accessible. If the Corvette were to even approach the production quality of its Italian rival, the 'bang for the buck' factor quickly goes out the window, and that's one of the biggest cards this car has to play. The ZR1 is a real 'if it doesn't bother you...' kind of car; the typical plastic, no frills GM interior and body, the gaudy and bit crude appearance- if these things don't bother you, then you will have scored yourself a remarkable deal in comparison to what you could be paying for such performance (assuming that's most of what you care about).

It also needs to be said (in response to your above points) that the ZR1 is an atypical example of GM's overall production mindset. That is, this car will only fall in the hands of the few, but their more commonplace cars have come an impressively long way in terms of sophistication and class (like the mid-sized Malibu).

___________________
He traded sands for skins, skins for gold, gold for life. In the end, he traded life for sand. Afari, Tales

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose And the thing that most annoys me about corvettes, the cheap plastic bodywork. 1:35 - 1:40 in the video shows what im on about. i dont want my car to do that.

that's the dumbest complaint i've ever heard. the corvette body panels are made of fiber glass and carbon fiber. the clear coat of the carbor fiber costs $60k per gallon. composite materials strip unnecessary weight off the car, lower its center of gravity, and in the event of a collision transfer energy away. cheap plastic bodywork would not be able to withstand 205 mph speeds. also i have bad news about your car, i can bend metal body panels just the same. i can try to bend them just as much as i can a composite, but then you'd have to pay someone to bend them back.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Okay, I suppose I can partially understand that sensible explanation. However, two things: a) Does sticking with a basic formula make the car any easier to drive? Having a CVT or DSG transmission affects the way a car drives, but it doesn't make any difference to the actual effort the driver has to put in. What is the advantage in sticking with old technology? b) If manufacturers purposely pursue a simplistic, classical approach, how long are they going to stay with it? Are Chevrolet still going to be making combustion engine cars with basic transmissions 100 years from now? No, it seems implausible to me that this approach is followed on purpose. Rather, I think it's a response to what the consumers want. Or, more likely, what the consumers have been led to believe they want after so many years.

why do corvettes use pushrod v8s and leaf springs also? because they can. you can blab all you want about how much more advanced coilovers and dual overhead cams are, but at the end of the day the corvette still pulls 1.1 lateral gs on the skid and turns out over 100 hp per liter. and they don't break. what can you really say about the corvette's design when it outperforms cars that cost 2, 3, 6, 11 TIMES the zr1? that's why they're made the way they're made. some people don't like paying $400 for an oil filter (ferrari) when they can get the same performance out of a car that takes a $40 filter.

___________________

yea thats an italian supercar being introduced with Evanescence

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by bas we're just rolling in that sweet sweet Beatport chedda SON. I PUT DIAMONDS IN MY SALT SHAKER SO I CAN HAVE CRUSHED DIAMONDS ON MY FOOD...it makes my dookie twinkle!!!

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH that's the dumbest complaint i've ever heard. the corvette body panels are made of fiber glass and carbon fiber. the clear coat of the carbor fiber costs $60k per gallon. composite materials strip unnecessary weight off the car, lower its center of gravity, and in the event of a collision transfer energy away. cheap plastic bodywork would not be able to withstand 205 mph speeds. also i have bad news about your car, i can bend metal body panels just the same. i can try to bend them just as much as i can a composite, but then you'd have to pay someone to bend them back. why do corvettes use pushrod v8s and leaf springs also? because they can. you can blab all you want about how much more advanced coilovers and dual overhead cams are, but at the end of the day the corvette still pulls 1.1 lateral gs on the skid and turns out over 100 hp per liter. and they don't break. what can you really say about the corvette's design when it outperforms cars that cost 2, 3, 6, 11 TIMES the zr1? that's why they're made the way they're made. some people don't like paying $400 for an oil filter (ferrari) when they can get the same performance out of a car that takes a $40 filter.

Uh, carbon and fiberglass don't bend like that bumper cover did. That's plastic. Sure, there's a lot of composites in the Vette - there always have been, but that bumper cover has to be made of the cheapest, thinnest glass-reinforced-plastic body shit ever if it deforms like that with a simple touch.

It's a simple car that punches well above it's weight in terms of performance. Where it's lacking is refinement and sophistication. If you can do without such things, this is a great performance car. If you enjoy more quality fit & finish, better interior materials and sophistication, it's not the car for you.

I don't think that they'll be able to squeeze much more life out of it in it's current form though. Hell, at 7 liters for the engine, it's bloody massive, so it relies only on the domestic US market where fuel is cheap (I can't see anyone wanting to put 1.70 euro / L of high-grade fuel into this thing). At some point, the power will overwhelm what few more chassis improvements they can get from their leaf springs and they will either have to evolve or stay where they are as an automotive anachronism.

The Pratt & Miller GT1 Vettes that run in the ALMS and FIA GT's all run coil-over suspension like all the other sportscars they compete with.

___________________
Paul

Why do people insist on saying that the Corvette still uses leaf springs for its rear suspension?



Do you see leaf springs in this image?

THIS is a leaf spring suspension.



The engine size in the Corvette also doesnt correlate to shitty feul economy. the LS series engines actually get pretty good mileage for a huge horsepower V8. On the highway they will get 15mpg City and 24mpg highway. That's better than the new 2010 M3 that will do 13/19, and still better than my VW R32 that is rated at 18/23.

I will agree that the corvette isn't in the least a refined car, but it's not supposed to be. Its a performance bargain for those who love raw power, and lots of people love the feeling of a raw power sports car.

And I don't even like Corvettes. I just hate badge whores and snobs that slag North American cars when some of them are actually good vehicles.

quote:

Originally posted by Colin Andrews Why do people insist on saying that the Corvette still uses leaf springs for its rear suspension? [IMG]http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Chevrolet-Corvette-C6-rear-suspension-1024x768.jpg[IMG] Do you see leaf springs in this image?

do you see any other type of suspension besides leaf springs? i see mounts for a transverse leaf spring assembly and its corresponding monotube shock absorber. this is the setup the corvettes have been using since 84, when they ditched coilovers.

here's a better pic for you...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse Uh, carbon and fiberglass don't bend like that bumper cover did. That's plastic. Sure, there's a lot of composites in the Vette - there always have been, but that bumper cover has to be made of the cheapest, thinnest glass-reinforced-plastic body shit ever if it deforms like that with a simple touch. It's a simple car that punches well above it's weight in terms of performance. Where it's lacking is refinement and sophistication. If you can do without such things, this is a great performance car. If you enjoy more quality fit & finish, better interior materials and sophistication, it's not the car for you. I don't think that they'll be able to squeeze much more life out of it in it's current form though. Hell, at 7 liters for the engine, it's bloody massive, so it relies only on the domestic US market where fuel is cheap (I can't see anyone wanting to put 1.70 euro / L of high-grade fuel into this thing). At some point, the power will overwhelm what few more chassis improvements they can get from their leaf springs and they will either have to evolve or stay where they are as an automotive anachronism. The Pratt & Miller GT1 Vettes that run in the ALMS and FIA GT's all run coil-over suspension like all the other sportscars they compete with.

how is the corvette not mechanically refined when it has literally perfected all the technologies it employs. 15/24 epa is a pretty impressive fuel economy for a 7 liter 427 big block that turns out 505 hp and 470 tq. find me another sports car that does the same or better. 75 mph avg on the slalom, 1.1 lateral gs on the skid, enough said about the chassis. people have been doubting the technological limits of the corvette for decades and yet it manages to make performance gains in every iteration without impacting the sticker price significantly.

the vette is a simple, raw and honest driving machine. it has never pretended to be anything else. it's pure lasting performance for the performance-minded customer. maybe the leather in the lamborghini feels better against your gucci slacks, but a real driver of performance cars doesn't give a shit about that. you can own a monster corvette and a fully loaded mercedes sedan for less the 'ultra-plush supercars'. the corvette has more aftermarket than any other production car so its stock refinements are not really an issue. the bottom line is if you like the performance of cars like the porsche gt2 and ferrari 599, but aren't a millionaire and value every dollar you make, then the corvette is the de facto sports car for your money. that applies to the 99% of us that like and talk about fast cars.

none of the gt1 cars are anything like their production counterparts. by regulation they are all spec'd within very tight tolerances of each other, thus their suspension dynamics are all close and drastically different from production. you're basically pitting chassis and engine block against chassis and engine block. not even the engine is mounted at the same spot. none of this means the coilover they use is better. it could cost 1000% more, offer 10% stiffness gain and ruin the ride quality on city streets.

___________________

Last edited by R!CH on Dec-12-2009 at 22:38