[MyFragileHalogen]

Originally Posted by alex2364

This just killed the Supra, M2, Cayman, anything else that’s under $100k and a lot of cars above it.

Why not include our M3/M4s into that death list too?

One remaining question would be just how reliable it would be.

[TXSTYLE]

Badass!!! That is all.

[See5]

Originally Posted by The HACK

First, there's the way it generates these insane test results. While it's not smoke and mirrors, they do it by benchmarking to a set of numbers rather than having a certain overall goal in mind. 0-60 in 2.9s? DCT, launch control, and insanely short 1-2-3 gear (in one of the promo videos they talked about how that sub 3 second is achieved because 3rd gear is engaged at the same time 2nd is. Which means you need to shift to 3rd to get to 60). What they don't tell you is that 4,5,6,7 and 8 all have to be geared super tall in order to retain some sort of civilized highway mileage, and that the transmission is going to force you to shift from 1-4th every time you're not above 3,000 RPM in first (it's call skip shift. Look it up). Or that number requires a ton of mass to be placed on the rear axle, hence the move to a mid engine rather than a front engine design, but that sacrifices a 50/50 weight ratio. Rumor again has it, that unlike other mid engine cars at the usual 40/60 split, the C8 is actually closer to the typical rear engine 911s at 30/70.

There's nothing insane about that 0-60 in today's time. The 992S and 991GTS both achieve 3 second flat 0-60 runs. A good DCT, high mechanical torque, great weight transfer(the Corvette will most likely set the rear shocks to full soft on launch, started with the C6 ZR1), and great traction will do that. The C8 DCT has the ability to use both internal transmission shafts on launch for even better torque transfer.

The chief engineer says that 1st gear is very steep, and 2-6 are closely bunched together with 7 and 8 being highway gears.

There's no skip shift. No GM automatic has ever used that technology. That was only for vehicles with the T-56 and its derivatives.

As for the weight distribution, the 991/992 are around 38/62 with mid engined cars like the 720S and 488GTB around 42/58. Moving away from 50/50 isn't a sacrifice and it will be almost impossible for the C8 to come in at a static 30/70. I don't know where you got that rumor.

While this is all great for certain benchmarks, the car is built to meet and beat these benchmarks in mind, so from an overall package's perspective, other areas are compromised or more tech added to compensate. Notice the front tire to rear tire stagger is now 235/315? An 80mm stagger. Chassis is likely going to experience significant amount of understeer that they'll attempt to tune out using suspension trickery. End result is the car is likely going to be very fast, but just as Randy Pobst points out, even on the C7 platform the Corvette is excessively snap happy once all the traction aids are turned off, and on track it just doesn't feel connected to the driver like other top of the line chassis from Porsche, BMW, or the über exotics it claims to go up against.

The tire setup is 245/305. That's the same setup used by Ferrari and McLaren. Significant understeer? I seriously doubt it.

The C7 didn't feel like the other cars because it runs a significantly larger front tires than the others, which dulls steering feel. Jason Cammisa had a good article on this recently as he noticed that the GT350 is very hard to keep in a slide because they sacrificed steering power for feel, making it tough to turn the 285s up front quickly.

Nothing about the C7's chassis can be drawn from regarding the C8. The C7's snappiness was not evident in the Z51 and GrandSport model but did rear its head in the Z06 and ZR1. The C8's move to a midengine layout should solve that problem. I don't know how you could draw a parallel between the two.

The C8 also should provide better steering feel due to its much shorter, more direct linkage to the steering rack, and narrower tires across the range.

Second, if you read the press and the reveal information right, the C8 is about 10% stiffer than the C7. By extrapolation that's about 17,000Nm/degree of deflection, which is about 1/2-2/3 of what your typical cars in this competitive range has. My MZ4 Coupe is 32,500Nm/degree of deflection, and when I drive it, you know it...It feels like it's carved out of a single block of forged aluminum. The Corvette, on the other hand, due to the longer wheelbase, wider, and heavier, flexes and moans into each and every turn like a convertible. Again, it's fast, don't get me wrong, and blindingly so, and enough so that you sort of overlook that particular flaw...But it just shows another area where GM must cut corners to offer this car at a price that they can compete at. $60K means no CF tub, no exotic braces and engineering that goes into making it super stiff to handle the rigors of high performance, no high-end material to ensure that they're not making a 3,600lbs behemoth and using a torque-y but low revving pushrod to overcome that mass disadvantage.

The Corvette never registers as high as other vehicles because its not a unibody, so torsional strength will look deficient in comparison to cars that are essentially a shell with subframes bolted on.

The actual structure itself is very stiff.

From MT:

But the team reports that the torsional stiffness is better than that of the C7 and several key competitors.

Outside of the C4, I haven't driven any modern Corvette that flexes like an old convertible. The C5 gained critical acclaim for its chassis engineering at the time of its introduction. Rattling targa tops sure, full on chassis flex and cowl shake? Not a chance. And I've driven every generation and version from the base C5 to C7 Z06 especially not the hardtop C5 and C6, and the new C7s.

If you look at the C8 chassis, the size of the center tunnel and the way it ties the chassis structures together should tell you enough. This is also an all aluminum chassis, which something many of its competitors don't feature.








These corners you talk about being cut, I'm not seeing them.

Which makes my third point. One of the reasons the C8 is so heavy compared to most of its competitors, which it is...At 3,600 lbs sans driver, it's in the M4 range and it doesn't even offer a back seat. It's because of the demographic demands. It's sold, still, primarily to OLD PEOPLE. Old people that doesn't want to have to climb over a huge threshold that keeps a chassis stiff. Old people that doesn't want a stiff ride as they cruise in their mid engine supercar on a Sunday afternoon. Old people that insist they must have trunk space to carry 2 sets of golf clubs as they trek on their retired asses to a golf course on a Tuesday afternoon. Old people that wants their friend in a Porsche to know that they can beat them on a stop light, but never actually do so. With that in mind, you can sort of understand why GM engineered the C8 the way they did.

The 911 weighs in at 3450lbs now as well.

Both cars are designed to be extremely versatile for sports cars. They've been within about 200lbs of each other for about 25 years now and this generation hasn't changed that.

Yes, there are engineering compromises that need to be made. The Corvette, especially not a base model, cannot be a hardcore sportscar with the ride of a cement truck.

I don't know how much you think $60K 500hp sportscars are supposed to weigh though.

Which is a good segue to why, despite it being an aspirational brand (yes Corvette is a brand. Try and find an exterior bow-tie logo on the car independent of the actual Corvette logo. You can't), the demographic continue to get older and older. That's right, a recent poll on Corvette Forum revealed that the AVERAGE owner's age for the latest generation, the C7, is approximately 68 years old. Sixty. Eight.

The average Corvette owner is 59. I understand your point, but this was fairly easy to find.

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Orange or Blue?

[Grumpy Old Man]

Doesn't anyone care about the gas mileage?

Below, we've listed every specification that GM has provided so far regarding the C8 Stingray.
ENGINE
Type: LT2 6.2L V8 VVT with direct injection and Active Fuel Management (cylinder deactivation)

Bore & stroke (in / mm): 4.06 x 3.62 / 103.25 x 92

Block Material: A319-T7 cast aluminum with cast-in iron cylinder liners and nodular main bearing caps

Oiling System: Dry sump-type (7.5-qt. capacity); includes oil-spray piston cooling

Oil Type: Dexos 2 0W40 synthetic

Cylinder Head Material: 319-T7 cast aluminum

Combustion Chamber volume: 59cc

Compression Ratio: 11.5:1

Valvetrain: Overhead valve, two valves per cylinder; dual-equal variable valve timing.

Valve Size (in / mm): 2.13 / 54 hollow (intake) & 1.59 / 40.4 sodium filled (exhaust)

Fuel Delivery: Direct injection with Active Fuel Management: Max pressure: 2,175 psi (15 Mpa / 150 bar)

Firing Order: 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3 (all cylinders); 1-7-6-4 (with deactivation)

Throttle body: 87mm single bore (electronic)

ECU: GM E99 (32-bit processing)

Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm): 495 / 369 @ 6450 rpm (with performance exhaust)

Torque (lb.-ft./ Nm @ rpm): 470 / 637 @ 5150 rpm (with performance exhaust)

TRANSMISSION & AXLE
Type: M1L 8-speed dual clutch (DCT)

CHASSIS & SUSPENSION
Front Suspension: Short/long arm (SLA) double wishbone, forged aluminum upper and cast aluminum L-shape lower control arms; monotube shock absorbers (46mm /); Magnetic Selective Ride Control 4.0 available on Z51. Adjustable front lift with memory is available

Rear Suspension: Short/long arm (SLA) double wishbone, forged aluminum upper and cast aluminum L-shape lower control arms; direct-acting stabilizer bar; monotube shock absorbers (46mm); Magnetic Selective Ride Control 4.0 available with Z51

Steering Type: Bosch/ZF variable-ratio rack-and-pinion with electric power assist; includes Active Steer Stops with available Magnetic Ride Control 4.0

Steering ratio: 15.7:1

Turning Circle: 11.6 m (std.); 11.1 m (with FE4 Magnetic Ride Control)

Brake Type: Front and rear E-boost-assisted discs with Brembo four-piston/two-piece front calipers and four-piston/monobloc rear calipers. With Z51: Front and rear E-boost-assisted discs with Brembo four-piston monobloc caliper at front and rear

Brake Rotor Size (in / mm):

Front: 12.6 x 1.18 (321 x 30)

Front: 13.3 x 1.18 (345 x 30) – with Z51

Rear: 13.6 x 1.02 (339 x 26)

Rear: 13.8 x 1.06 (350 x 27) – with Z51

Wheel Size:

Front: 19-inch x 8.5-inch (w/5 x 120mm bolt pattern)

Rear: 20-inch x 11-inch (w/5 x 120mm bolt pattern)

Tire Type and Size:

Stingray: Michelin Pilot Sport ALS

Stingray with Z51: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S

Front: 245/35ZR19

Rear: 305/30ZR20

EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase (in. / mm): 107.2 / 2722

Overall Length (in. / mm): 182.3/ 4630

Overall Width (in. / mm): 76.1 / 1934

Overall Height (in. / mm): 48.6 / 1234

Track (in. mm): (front) 64.9 / 1648 (rear) 62.4 / 1586

INTERIOR DIMENSIONS
Headroom (in. / mm): 37.9 / 962

Legroom (in. / mm): 42.8 / 1086

Shoulder Room (in. / mm): 54.4 / 1381

Hip Room (in. / mm): 52.0 / 1321

WEIGHTS & CAPACITIES
Dry Weight (lb. / kg): 3366 / 1530

Cargo Volume (cu. ft. / L): 12.6 / 356.8

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

What was wrong with the Corvette FRP leaf spring? There were many advantages to using it? Weight, packaging, durability, to name a few.

From what I've read:

1. No room left for it in mid-engine configuration.
2. Coil springs are cheaper.

[Alfisti]

I am buying a sports car in this price range within 12 months but I just cannot get past the looks, hybrid Ferrari/Camaro .... looks like a Duplo set car.

[dparm]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man

Doesn't anyone care about the gas mileage?

Probably similar to C7 if not better. Mine can get 30mpg on the highway pretty regularly; AFM turns off half the cylinders, and 7th gear is like 0.49:1 I think.

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man

Doesn't anyone care about the gas mileage?

Below, we've listed every specification that GM has provided so far regarding the C8 Stingray.
ENGINE
Type: LT2 6.2L V8 VVT with direct injection and Active Fuel Management (cylinder deactivation)

Bore & stroke (in / mm): 4.06 x 3.62 / 103.25 x 92

Block Material: A319-T7 cast aluminum with cast-in iron cylinder liners and nodular main bearing caps

Oiling System: Dry sump-type (7.5-qt. capacity); includes oil-spray piston cooling

Oil Type: Dexos 2 0W40 synthetic

Cylinder Head Material: 319-T7 cast aluminum

Combustion Chamber volume: 59cc

Compression Ratio: 11.5:1

Valvetrain: Overhead valve, two valves per cylinder; dual-equal variable valve timing.

Valve Size (in / mm): 2.13 / 54 hollow (intake) & 1.59 / 40.4 sodium filled (exhaust)

Fuel Delivery: Direct injection with Active Fuel Management: Max pressure: 2,175 psi (15 Mpa / 150 bar)

Firing Order: 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3 (all cylinders); 1-7-6-4 (with deactivation)

Throttle body: 87mm single bore (electronic)

ECU: GM E99 (32-bit processing)

Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm): 495 / 369 @ 6450 rpm (with performance exhaust)

Torque (lb.-ft./ Nm @ rpm): 470 / 637 @ 5150 rpm (with performance exhaust)

TRANSMISSION & AXLE
Type: M1L 8-speed dual clutch (DCT)

CHASSIS & SUSPENSION
Front Suspension: Short/long arm (SLA) double wishbone, forged aluminum upper and cast aluminum L-shape lower control arms; monotube shock absorbers (46mm /); Magnetic Selective Ride Control 4.0 available on Z51. Adjustable front lift with memory is available

Rear Suspension: Short/long arm (SLA) double wishbone, forged aluminum upper and cast aluminum L-shape lower control arms; direct-acting stabilizer bar; monotube shock absorbers (46mm); Magnetic Selective Ride Control 4.0 available with Z51

Steering Type: Bosch/ZF variable-ratio rack-and-pinion with electric power assist; includes Active Steer Stops with available Magnetic Ride Control 4.0

Steering ratio: 15.7:1

Turning Circle: 11.6 m (std.); 11.1 m (with FE4 Magnetic Ride Control)

Brake Type: Front and rear E-boost-assisted discs with Brembo four-piston/two-piece front calipers and four-piston/monobloc rear calipers. With Z51: Front and rear E-boost-assisted discs with Brembo four-piston monobloc caliper at front and rear

Brake Rotor Size (in / mm):

Front: 12.6 x 1.18 (321 x 30)

Front: 13.3 x 1.18 (345 x 30) – with Z51

Rear: 13.6 x 1.02 (339 x 26)

Rear: 13.8 x 1.06 (350 x 27) – with Z51

Wheel Size:

Front: 19-inch x 8.5-inch (w/5 x 120mm bolt pattern)

Rear: 20-inch x 11-inch (w/5 x 120mm bolt pattern)

Tire Type and Size:

Stingray: Michelin Pilot Sport ALS

Stingray with Z51: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S

Front: 245/35ZR19

Rear: 305/30ZR20

EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase (in. / mm): 107.2 / 2722

Overall Length (in. / mm): 182.3/ 4630

Overall Width (in. / mm): 76.1 / 1934

Overall Height (in. / mm): 48.6 / 1234

Track (in. mm): (front) 64.9 / 1648 (rear) 62.4 / 1586

INTERIOR DIMENSIONS
Headroom (in. / mm): 37.9 / 962

Legroom (in. / mm): 42.8 / 1086

Shoulder Room (in. / mm): 54.4 / 1381

Hip Room (in. / mm): 52.0 / 1321

WEIGHTS & CAPACITIES
Dry Weight (lb. / kg): 3366 / 1530

Cargo Volume (cu. ft. / L): 12.6 / 356.8

What’s weird is that the EPA forced Chevrolet to reduce the highway fuel economy to 25mpg from 29mpg. Driving on the highway at 80 mph, I routinely get 32+mpg. Even if somehow the C8 is less efficient, I’m guessing it will still get 29-30mpg.

[N54Yankee]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

What was wrong with the Corvette FRP leaf spring? There were many advantages to using it? Weight, packaging, durability, to name a few.

Another plus is that it allows more room for wider wheels. My C6 Z51 has 325/275 tires on wider wheels without having to do a wide body conversion.

[Housekeeping]

Curious why they didn’t make at least 500hp, another 5hp....simply as a physiological sales point. I do like it.

[spazzyfry123]

Originally Posted by Sy1616

Curious why they didn’t make at least 500hp, another 5hp....simply as a physiological sales point. I do like it.

My guess is to further emphasize the difference in upcoming models like the Z06 to seem to be that much better than the base. If the base HP figures start with a "4" as its first digit but the mac daddy starts with a "6" or a "7"... That's like two or three more!!

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Sy1616

Curious why they didn’t make at least 500hp, another 5hp....simply as a physiological sales point. I do like it.

I think it's fairly challenging to take that engine to "500hp" as well, a bunch of guys on the camaro forums try to do it with some exotic intake manifolds and other mods, pushing a 6.2 to nearly as much power as the bigger engine in the C6 Z06 at 505hp. Due to the small block pushrod configuration which has packaging, weight and CG advantages, you have more difficulties revving up to astronomical RPM levels where more HP would be possible. In this "give and take" reality, this is probably a reliable SAE number that they were able to make with the already decent LT1 basis.

[alex2364]

I contacted one of the top 3 Corvette dealers in the US and he already has 400 deposits out of 600 allocations for next year. I decided to put my name in line in case I decide to get one when my lease ends next June.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

To keep pushing the limits without having to do ridiculous things, they do need the mid engine.

And to enable hybridization. I'm willing to bet that's the biggest reason the switch was made. Long-term niche viability in a changing automotive landscape. Chevy already pretty much has the American-made two (or two-plus-two) seater market to itself. That market won't become marginalized until the majority of Baby Boomers die off, and that's at least 10-15 years away.

Think about what the C8 will be in the next 5-6 years -- and what the C9 could be in, say, 2025. Realize that except for some key revisions (the ditching of leaf-spring use being one), the hardware of the C8 fundamentally differs little from the C7. That will allow Chevy to incrementally develop the Corvette, year by year, to drive consistent sales and keep the car vital in the landscape of both its competition and the automotive industry in general.

The more I think about what the C8 is, the more I'm impressed with the thinking behind it and its positioning as basically a Halo car for the masses. I mean, Ford isn't really even building passenger cars anymore, and its comparable Halo car is effectively unobtanium -- and Dodge isn't even in that game anymore now that the Viper is dead and the Hellcat(s) are milking the muscle-car wayback machine niche for all it's worth.

What does that say about the direction Chevy wants to go with the C8? Everything, in my mind.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

From what I've read:

1. No room left for it in mid-engine configuration.
2. Coil springs are cheaper.

I really wasn't asking why GM didn't use them for the C8; I understand why they didn't. I was asking if WestRace thought they were a design compromise on previous generations.

[Humdizzle]

Originally Posted by See5

The tire setup is 245/305. That's the same setup used by Ferrari and McLaren. Significant understeer? I seriously doubt it.

The C7 didn't feel like the other cars because it runs a significantly larger front tires than the others, which dulls steering feel. Jason Cammisa had a good article on this recently as he noticed that the GT350 is very hard to keep in a slide because they sacrificed steering power for feel, making it tough to turn the 285s up front quickly.

exactly.

people think that more tire is always better. in reality its often not the case. Cars like the viper and other front engine sports cars need to run a huge tire up front for grip/lap times... at the expense of steering feel and balance on the limit.

my 458 runs a 235 tire up front and a 295 in back. There is almost zero understeer. and the front end darts in way faster than my gtr did with 285s up front. You don't need much tire up front when there is no weight

[Socal_R8]

Was supposed to meet a fellow bimmerposter to sell him some tires I posted, but I told him let's just meet at my local Chevy dealership that is having a preview show tonight from 4-8pm of the new C8.... he was all for it of course

Got lucky and was invited to get a sneak peek before the crowds descend upon the place later today.... got to sit in in and take pics and videos and talk to the Chevy reps all about this amazing new Vette.

Never been a Vetter guy until I saw this bad boy debut the other day and even more so now that I got to see it in person.

The car is a game changer!!! My love for a 981 Cayman is fading fast and now I'm seriously considering selling my pride and joy 92 NSX to get one of these!!!

Sales guy told me as of right now there is a $5000 ADM and a lottery for the first allotments

Z51 pkg will be about $8k, but well worth it.

Not much other pricing info as of right now but should be ready by early August

Unfortunately the car displayed was in my least fav color(Lake Blue) but was still beautiful... the interior is futuristic cockpit style with very nice Nappa leather throughout.... everything is driver focused and at your finger tips


If my wife wouldn't kill me I would have put my deposit down right there, that's how sold I am on this car!!!

Figure I'll just wait it out and when a couple of my other cars are paid off in a year or two there will gen some good deals on some CPO's.


Anybody in the Temecula area should go check it out today!!! 4-8pm. It's gonna be crazy so get there early or maybe show up late would probably be better.

I'll try to post more pics and vids later as I'm running short on time right now but here are a few...

[FaRKle!]

What did you think of the door handles? When I saw how they're slanted (and you have to hit a button underneath to open the door?) it made me wonder about the ergonomics/human factors of it. Looks like it'll be super awkward to try and use your right hand to open the driver's door or left hand for passenger's side.

[Socal_R8]

Originally Posted by FaRKle!

What did you think of the door handles? When I saw how they're slanted (and you have to hit a button underneath to open the door?) it made me wonder about the ergonomics/human factors of it. Looks like it'll be super awkward to try and use your right hand to open the driver's door or left hand for passenger's side.

No, it's super easy touch button underneath the side vent.....think of it as a huge door handle

[NickyC]

Good grief this thing is amazing. Most likely my next car in 2-3 years after the M4 unless something great in a manual comes out for similar pricing (fat chance but I can dream).

I don't even mind giving up my love of individuality for this, because I have to imagine they're going to sell a boat load and we'll see them everywhere.

[N54Yankee]

Originally Posted by FaRKle!

What did you think of the door handles? When I saw how they're slanted (and you have to hit a button underneath to open the door?) it made me wonder about the ergonomics/human factors of it. Looks like it'll be super awkward to try and use your right hand to open the driver's door or left hand for passenger's side.

C6 and C7 have similar “handles” it an electronic touchpad that just needs a tap of the finger(s) to pop open the door electronically as long as you have the pod in your pocket, no pulling necessary. Easy as pie.