SS, C7, Z07, ZR1 ? ....call it what you want for $100K!

http://jalopnik.com/cars/detroit-aut...r+1-301413.php

Looks neat.

I wish GM would do more than just put a supercharger on a regular corvette.

Would be nice if they had a corvette engine with overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, variable valve timing and direct injection. Instead they go for big displacement and a bolt on supercharger.

But I guess that wouldn't be as profitable for them and the average 80 year old Corvette owner doesn't know the difference and doesn't care.

As usual, GM selling a $80,000 car for $100,000. I only wish they could hide it better.

Vito



"Anthony Cesaroni" <acesaroni@cesa

roni.net> wrote in message ...
> Better shots here.
>
>
>
> http://blog.cardomain.com/blog/2007/12/2009-zr1.html
>
>
>
> I have a 95 extensively worked over from the ground up by Rippie and
> Lingenfelter. The 2009 is very interesting but doesn't sound as nice as my
> LT-5 version from the cockpit videos I've seen. All those cams, valves and
> revs I guess.
>
>
>
> The question is now, should I go with it or hold off for the Duramax TDI
> version? :-))) See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22340556/
>
>
>
>
>
> Anthony J. Cesaroni
>
> President/CEO
>
> Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
>
> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
>
> (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
>
> (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
>
> "Billy Ryman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://jalopnik.com/cars/detroit-aut...r+1-301413.php
>>
>>
>
>
>

Talk about old news! Sheesh!

Billy Ryman wrote:
> http://jalopnik.com/cars/detroit-aut...r+1-301413.php
>
>

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:38:21 -0800, "Uncle_vito"
> wrote:

>Looks neat.
>
>I wish GM would do more than just put a supercharger on a regular corvette.
>
>Would be nice if they had a corvette engine with overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, variable valve timing and direct injection. Instead they go for big displacement and a bolt on supercharger.
>
>But I guess that wouldn't be as profitable for them and the average 80 year old Corvette owner doesn't know the difference and doesn't care.
>
>As usual, GM selling a $80,000 car for $100,000. I only wish they could hide it better.
>
>Vito
===========================
Well Vito....I am not 80 but at 64 I guess I'm getting there ..
However
I disagree with you on the engine types..I know the difference and
like it as it is..And with the new Cafe standards I bet you get your
wish for a high teck ohc 4 valve engine in another 10 years but the
100,000 price tag is ginna be even more...

Bob G.

Where are the pics of your 95?

--
ZÿRiX
(¯`'..(<>..<>)..'´¯)

"Anthony Cesaroni" > wrote in message
...
> Better shots here.
>
>
>
> http://blog.cardomain.com/blog/2007/12/2009-zr1.html
>
>
>
> I have a 95 extensively worked over from the ground up by Rippie and
> Lingenfelter. The 2009 is very interesting but doesn't sound as nice as my
> LT-5 version from the cockpit videos I've seen. All those cams, valves and
> revs I guess.
>
>
>
> The question is now, should I go with the 2009 or hold off for the Duramax
> TDI version? :-))) See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22340556/
>
>
>
>
>
> Anthony J. Cesaroni
>
> President/CEO
>
> Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
>
> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
>
> (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
>
> (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
>
>
> "Billy Ryman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://jalopnik.com/cars/detroit-aut...r+1-301413.php
>>
>>
>
>

Be careful what you wish for 'cause it might come true....


http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/01/g...esign-in-2011/

Uncle_vito wrote:
> Looks neat.
>
> I wish GM would do more than just put a supercharger on a regular
> corvette.
>
> Would be nice if they had a corvette engine with overhead cams, 4 valves
> per cylinder, variable valve timing and direct injection. Instead they
> go for big displacement and a bolt on supercharger.
>
> But I guess that wouldn't be as profitable for them and the average 80
> year old Corvette owner doesn't know the difference and doesn't care.
>
> As usual, GM selling a $80,000 car for $100,000. I only wish they could
> hide it better.
>
> Vito
>
>
>

I'm a helluva lot closer to age 80 than Bob G.
but, share his approach on this. (I'd say that
Bob G. has demonstrated wisdom, well beyond his
limited years.) -- maybe there's hope for the
boomers after all! (8-)

I must admit that quad-valve is a 'new and
revolutionary' concept. But, cut my teeth with
OHC on an AlfaRomeo in the late '50s.

Corvette owners do manage to, "muddle through"
with high reliability, good gas mileage and
respectable performance without running at 8500 rpm.

The only good reason I see for going your route
is in a formula environment with a hard
displacement limit. Below 6000 rpm, pushrods
work fine and give the suspension and styling
guys some design slack.

The blown Mustangs have done well on the street
and in the marketplace and have been profitable.
I can't fault Corvette for adopting what's
worked well for Lingenfelter or Callaway. Us
'old farts' might tend to say that they borrowed
the idea from my 'bride's' Buick.

As far as 'doing more' than just a blower, how
about an "off road" Nitrous option?

At one time, I felt as you do but, as I've
listened to the various OHC-quad analyses I have
to agree that it's a natural for mid- or
rear-engined configurations.

If you value engine "features," better to spend
your bucks on a Cadillac or Lincoln or, better
yet, an Infiniti or 350Z.

--
pj

"Billy Ryman" > wrote in message
...
> http://jalopnik.com/cars/detroit-aut...r+1-301413.php
>

Good machine for around town -- to & from church on Sunday.

Yes, I have been looking hard at that Cadillac CTS with the direct
injection, 4 valves per, valve timing and direct injection. I worry that
Cadillac as a division won't maintain the consistency for its marque to
maintain hi resale value. When a car gets to be over $30,000 or so, it is
not a 'throw away' and resale value is critical.

I am 55 and own a 64 roadster that I bought in 91. I belong to a Corvette
club and the members fall all over themselves every time GM comes out with
new variants. I am just never convinced that the latest model is the BEST
GM can do. Seems to me there are obvious GM shortcuts with each model.
Like the boring interior with the C6 and the very expensive leather upgrade
option that should be standard in all the cars.

Later

Vito


"pj" > wrote in message
...
> Uncle_vito wrote:
>> Looks neat. I wish GM would do more than just put a supercharger on a
>> regular corvette. Would be nice if they had a corvette engine with
>> overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, variable valve timing and direct
>> injection. Instead they go for big displacement and a bolt on
>> supercharger. But I guess that wouldn't be as profitable for them and the
>> average 80 year old Corvette owner doesn't know the difference and
>> doesn't care.
>> As usual, GM selling a $80,000 car for $100,000. I only wish they could
>> hide it better.
>> Vito
>>
>
> I'm a helluva lot closer to age 80 than Bob G. but, share his approach on
> this. (I'd say that Bob G. has demonstrated wisdom, well beyond his
> limited years.) -- maybe there's hope for the boomers after all! (8-)
>
> I must admit that quad-valve is a 'new and revolutionary' concept. But,
> cut my teeth with OHC on an AlfaRomeo in the late '50s.
>
> Corvette owners do manage to, "muddle through" with high reliability, good
> gas mileage and respectable performance without running at 8500 rpm.
>
> The only good reason I see for going your route is in a formula
> environment with a hard displacement limit. Below 6000 rpm, pushrods work
> fine and give the suspension and styling guys some design slack.
>
> The blown Mustangs have done well on the street and in the marketplace and
> have been profitable. I can't fault Corvette for adopting what's worked
> well for Lingenfelter or Callaway. Us 'old farts' might tend to say that
> they borrowed the idea from my 'bride's' Buick.
>
> As far as 'doing more' than just a blower, how about an "off road" Nitrous
> option?
>
> At one time, I felt as you do but, as I've listened to the various
> OHC-quad analyses I have to agree that it's a natural for mid- or
> rear-engined configurations.
>
> If you value engine "features," better to spend your bucks on a Cadillac
> or Lincoln or, better yet, an Infiniti or 350Z.
>
> --
> pj
>

"Uncle_vito" wrote in message

.....I belong to a Corvette club and the members fall all over themselves
every time GM comes out with
new variants.


Welcome to the American automobile industry!