Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I didn't realize that they had stopped. This is one thing that always gave Ford kudo points over GM in my booj.


For the same reason that the $112,600* Corvette ZR1 is still using the same leaf-springs that were on the bottomside of the covered wagon that my ancestors rode across the Appalachian Trail in the early 1800s.


* = I am not making this **** up. A new Corvette now costs over one hundred thousand dollars. The base model ZR1 with no options costs more than a brand new 911 Carrera S Cabriolet! See for yourself: 2013 Chevy Corvette ZR1 | Performance Sports Car | Chevrolet

**** that noise. **** it right in the goat-hole.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Bryce

iTrader: (24)

That looks familiar. Remember this?


Mike sold his twin 88mm 383 stroker project a year ago. Now this pops up.

That hard top has been on my Miata.

And the award for most variety of high HP powerplants in a miata goes to:




Edit: More info on the setup: HERE

Bryce

iTrader: (24)

More pics of the car:







2,000HP worth of batteries.

Opti

'

Actually, the C6 uses a composite single leaf not a spring steel leaf or leaf pack as in the "old" style which has been around since, well along damn time.

It is also lighter than a comparable set of coil springs and positions the weight lower in the chassis than a coil spring setup plus the use of a transverse leaf allows the use of smaller lighter weight roll bars to achieve the same roll stiffness.

plus you can get the LOWZ by adjusting the factory bolts.

You mentioned Porsche, in 2000 they patented a front suspension setup utilizing a transverse leaf, very similar to the corvette, mentioning the beneficial stability characteristics of the setup.

I like them because they made major strides in a technology everyone else considered obsolete, and it works for the vast majority of corvette owners, it may not be the absolute best for some situations but it works very well, similar to another thing utilized in the vette.... the old 2 valve OHV engine, which they made very power dense and efficient.

So sexy

18psi

iTrader: (76)

Indeed.

On the one hand, its crude and oversimplified. On the other hand, its super fast, super sexy, and just plain WORKS.

I both liked and hated my c5....Would definitely get a c6 sometime

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

I'm sorry, but the non-functional stanced vette looks like ***.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I agree that the current-gen Corvette is an impressive technological achievement, and bears little similarity beneath the skin to its pickup-truck-derived ancestors.

But I'm annoyed by what the Corvette has evolved into over the decades. It started life as a relatively simple roadster- not a highly refined sports car, but something fun to drive around in and relatively affordable. In adjusted (2010) dollars, most Corvettes of the C1-C3 era cost between $25-30k. In other words, about the same as a base model 2014 Camaro with a few options on it.

And who can deny the stylistic appeal of a Stingray / Mako II Corvette? They were in a league of their own, like nothing else that had ever crawled along terra firma. Sex on four wheels.





Today, the Corvette has evolved into a grotesque parody of its former self. Chevy has created a vehicle which retains the brute-force nature of the original and refined it into something capable of actually holding its own on a racetrack.

And I can respect that. It's a technological achievement, and I'm sure it's a perfectly capable track car.

But why?

Seriously- if I'm a rich person shopping for a trackday car that I can also drive to the country club, and I've got money to burn, I'm not going to the Chevy dealership because, frankly, my parents were not brother and sister. I'm hitting up Porsche and Lotus, in that order.





And if I'm an average guy who wants a Corvette just because I've always wanted one since I was a kid and had a poster of it hanging on my wall, then I'm pretty fucked. I'm going to have to shell out an absolute minimum of $52,000 for this gaudy monstrosity, and that's with absolute bare-bones 1LT model with no options:



Seriously? That's roughly double what I used to be able to buy a Corvette for, and the damn thing looks like a retro-futuristic version of an early-90s Camaro! Why does a $112,600 version of that car even exist? It just offends me on general principle that they would have the temerity to ask as much (or more) for this... thing as for a vehicle with an actual racing pedigree that isn't, well, a Chevy.

golftdibrad

Joe

these guys



take offense to you saying the corvette has no actual racing pedigree

Erat

iTrader: (5)

Yeah, i completely agree. You make a good car, and you run with it if it sells.

You're going for a porsche. Well lets not forget what a porsche started out as...



Don't get me wrong, the reason i drive a miata and not a c5 corvette is because of price. I'd much rather have a c5 or even c6 now that prices are going down... Hell the price of a 91 miata new was much less than a new 2013 miata even adjusted for price.

I would much rather have the vette than any porsche though. A lotus on the other hand... Well, there's where the argument ends...

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Joe - When was the last time you were actually at a trackday?

The C1 and C2 Corvettes have safety, performance, and comfort comparable to today's Honda Accords. The reason there is a $100k+ Corvette is because it has super car performance. I find that far more palatable than having a $100k Cayman that got there just from adding options.

This is just one of the several Corvettes that were at the track the last time I was there (with a Porsche Club):

Erat

iTrader: (5)

To add the the subject even more. I think it was James May, or even Clarkson who asked why every new car must be benchmarked on the nurburgring. I also think it's stupid and silly.

This, much like the early Corvette is a COOL car.


Not meant to be super fast. Not setting records. Could have been raced, but like the early corvette, didn't do it very well. But what it did do well, and why i love it. Is because it's a drivers car, it's sexy. It's the exact opposite of what the current 911 is.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Porsche has spent the last 75 years perfecting a bad idea.

And to further demonstrate their corporate leaders' audacity they have artificially restrained development of the vastly superior layout of the Cayman (mid engine more bueno than rear engine) to keep it slower and less capable. It is a demonstration of the triumph of marketing driving the company over substance.

vehicular

iTrader: (3)

Hussey's poverty track day rig.

Tekel

iTrader: (2)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I completely agree with you about the Cayman vs. the 911. And in truth, if I were going to buy a Porsche, it would PROBABLY be a 981 Boxster as opposed to any 911.

You do have to admit, however, that the current-gen 911 has overcome the flaws inherent in the rear-engine design. That ****** handles like a fighter jet.

I cited the 911 in this example because it's the most well-known Porsche, it costs more than the Cayman / Boxster, and is generally held in higher prestige by the sort of people who buy new Porsches from the dealership. As such, it seemed like a better real-world comparison to the $112,600 Corvette.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Except the comparable Porsche (the Turbo) lists for $137k.

And that's before you add any options. Here's a window sticker for a 2011 Turbo S. It's over $200k.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)