What's after Z06?

Man, the more I read about the Z06, the better it gets! I'm wondering
how can Cheverolet improve on it? Like what's the next model gonna be
like?

Here's the things I can think of, I'm probably way off base, but I like
to dream:

1. Mid-engine Corvette
2. Carbon Fiber body frame
3. Sequential Manual Gearbox
4. Supercharged
5. Carbon fiber driveshaft

How can they make this car any lighter than it is? Perhaps swapping
out aluminum parts for magnesium?

What do you think guys? How can they impvoe on this car?

Maby this is ?

http://www.factoryfive.com/table/ffr...TM/GTMkit.html

wrote:
> Maby this is ?
>
> http://www.factoryfive.com/table/ffr...TM/GTMkit.html
>
So, all you have to do is buy a C5, a Porsche, and this kit, and put a
years labor into it to get a homemade streetable car that drives like a
C5 and looks sorta like a cross between a C6, a GT40, and an NSX?

heres a future concept type... for the corvette..
they call it the C12... thats double of C6.. :-)

http://www.fast-autos.net/callaway/callawayc12.html

heres more....
http://www.callawaycars.com/

DaLoverhino wrote:
> Here's the things I can think of, I'm probably way off base, but I like
> to dream:

Interesting thoughts. If I may throw in an engineer's perspective:


> 1. Mid-engine Corvette
My personal guess is the Corvette will stay with the traditional front
engine layout. It's too much a part of the car's character. Actually, I
think the C6's engine is far enough aft to qualify as a front-mid engine
layout.

> 2. Carbon Fiber body frame
OMG the cost! OMG the difficulty of repair! And I'm not sure the energy
dissipation characteristics of carbon fiber would make for a very good
crash test.

> 3. Sequential Manual Gearbox
Ya betcha. Or an infinitely-variable box.

> 4. Supercharged
Maybe if 500 hp isn't enough... but bet they can get more than that out
of the 7L V8.

> 5. Carbon fiber driveshaft
I thnk the Corvette's drive shaft is already pretty light. One of the
advantages of the aft gearbox is that the driveshaft needs to transmit
much less torque, thus is much thinner and lighter. Only payback is
higher RPM of the shaft....


> How can they make this car any lighter than it is? Perhaps swapping
> out aluminum parts for magnesium?
Ummmm... magnesium is lighter than aluminum but not as strong for its
weight. And although it casts well and can can be machined it doesn't
form very easily in other production processes. I think in most cases a
good aluminum alloy is stronger for its weight than a magnesium alloy,
and also likely more cost-effective. Magnesium's also more vulnerable to
corrosion than aluminum.


> What do you think guys? How can they impvoe on this car?
Hard to do at the cost - it's awesome.

-- V

In article <LOGpf.8$sA3.3@fed1read02>,
Vandervecken > wrote:

> > 1. Mid-engine Corvette
> My personal guess is the Corvette will stay with the traditional front
> engine layout. It's too much a part of the car's character. Actually, I
> think the C6's engine is far enough aft to qualify as a front-mid engine
> layout.

Careful - similar comments were heard for years about the hide-away
headlights...

(Several months back there was a discussion here about GM's styling and
I commented the Corvette looked to me like a Viper. And I still think
the new C6 looks awfully similar to the Viper. Look at the issue of R&T,
or was it Motor Trend, or was it Car and Driver,... with the GT-40,
Viper and C6 comparison. Fold the pages so you can see both pictures of
the individual Corvette and Viper on their description pages and tell me
the C6 doesn't strongly resemble the Viper - headlights, nose air inlet,
side fender vents... Yes there are certainly differences, but not like
when you look at the GT-40!)

Here's waving to ya - \||||

Owen
___

'67BB & '72BB

-- not affiliated with JLA forum in any way -- alt.autos.corvette is
original posting --
___

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

Very much Viper-ese.

But if you look at the whole Chevrolet line-up, or all of GM's for that
matter, you see that GM Design has lost the ability to think for themselves
and are copying a lot of look from elsewhere. Most of it isn't a good look
they are copying.

Bill Mitchell must be turning about 6500 rpm in his grave over some of this
stuff.

GM Design was usually fresh and occasionally radical. There were often
copying of traits of others in parts, but so does everyone else. But the
overall design never copied.

The press accused the '63 Sting Ray of copying the Jaguar XKE, but it really
was derived from the '59 Stingray. The XKE was a natural progression from
the XK-D and D-Type.

The '68 Corvette coupe was often described as copying Ferrari's roof line
and fender line, however, the '68 Corvette was based on the '65 Mako Shark.
Ferrari probably copied that and simply executed the design faster than
Chevy.

Camaro, while it copied the basic Pony Car design, copied no one with that
front end that looked almost like one wide grill.

But today, Chevy is using Toyota Corollas and their trucks look like
abortions from mixed Japanese truck unions.

The Impala, once a fresh look that lead the way, with over 800,000 Impalas
alone produced each year in the '60s (not counting the same bodyline in Bel
Air, Biscayne, and so on), is relegated to a Toyota Camry clone.

And I wonder why I can't find a car I want to buy new. And GM wonders why
they have to tighten their belt on their expenses because they are having
trouble selling cars.


"Barking Rats" > wrote in message
...
> In article <LOGpf.8$sA3.3@fed1read02>,
> Vandervecken > wrote:
>
>> > 1. Mid-engine Corvette
>> My personal guess is the Corvette will stay with the traditional front
>> engine layout. It's too much a part of the car's character. Actually, I
>> think the C6's engine is far enough aft to qualify as a front-mid engine
>> layout.
>
> Careful - similar comments were heard for years about the hide-away
> headlights...
>
> (Several months back there was a discussion here about GM's styling and
> I commented the Corvette looked to me like a Viper. And I still think
> the new C6 looks awfully similar to the Viper. Look at the issue of R&T,
> or was it Motor Trend, or was it Car and Driver,... with the GT-40,
> Viper and C6 comparison. Fold the pages so you can see both pictures of
> the individual Corvette and Viper on their description pages and tell me
> the C6 doesn't strongly resemble the Viper - headlights, nose air inlet,
> side fender vents... Yes there are certainly differences, but not like
> when you look at the GT-40!)
>
> Here's waving to ya - \||||
>
> Owen
> ___
>
> '67BB & '72BB
>
> -- not affiliated with JLA forum in any way -- alt.autos.corvette is
> original posting --
> ___
>
> "To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
> -- Ann Hayman Zwinger

Tom in Missouri wrote:
> Very much Viper-ese.
>
> But if you look at the whole Chevrolet line-up, or all of GM's for that
> matter, you see that GM Design has lost the ability to think for themselves
> and are copying a lot of look from elsewhere. Most of it isn't a good look
> they are copying.
>
> Bill Mitchell must be turning about 6500 rpm in his grave over some of this
> stuff.
>
> GM Design was usually fresh and occasionally radical. There were often
> copying of traits of others in parts, but so does everyone else. But the
> overall design never copied.
>
> The press accused the '63 Sting Ray of copying the Jaguar XKE, but it really
> was derived from the '59 Stingray. The XKE was a natural progression from
> the XK-D and D-Type.
>
> The '68 Corvette coupe was often described as copying Ferrari's roof line
> and fender line, however, the '68 Corvette was based on the '65 Mako Shark.
> Ferrari probably copied that and simply executed the design faster than
> Chevy.
>
> Camaro, while it copied the basic Pony Car design, copied no one with that
> front end that looked almost like one wide grill.
>
> But today, Chevy is using Toyota Corollas and their trucks look like
> abortions from mixed Japanese truck unions.
>
> The Impala, once a fresh look that lead the way, with over 800,000 Impalas
> alone produced each year in the '60s (not counting the same bodyline in Bel
> Air, Biscayne, and so on), is relegated to a Toyota Camry clone.
>
> And I wonder why I can't find a car I want to buy new. And GM wonders why
> they have to tighten their belt on their expenses because they are having
> trouble selling cars.
>
= = = = = = =
I wouldn't look for the situation to change. For the last 15 years, GM
styling has been "focus grouped" to death. Good example of this was the
Olds Aurora. Solid, well-integrated design--attractive car with a
marvelous amount of utility as it came out of the styling salon and hit
the exhibition turntable. The underlying platform was well matched to
the design (but not "universal" enough to support two or three other
"badge" cars.) The executive board then crammed that design through
focus groups to "guarantee" its financial future and broaden its
"badgeability." Result, a vanilla offering where head clearance and
sill height ruined the excellent lines from the salon.

When the executive committee looks at fresh designs, they tend to recall
financial disasters like the Chrysler Airflow, the Tucker, the Kaiser
Darin, the Studebaker, and the Edsel (I don't vouch for its jukebox
freshness but did persuade my Dad to take me crosstown to an Edsel
dealer for opening night.) Result, we get things like the Packard
Patrician, Olds Aurora, the Buicks, Mercury etc. With the current
financial situation at GM, the paranoia and paralysis will probably
continue. Possibly right into bankruptcy.

One thing that Corvette has going for it in this "extrusion" process is
that GM has a goal of taking the car global. Its focus groups will
therefore include some Euro, Latin, Asian and Islandia thinking. Taken
in context by good designers who can still keep the design integrated
rather than a "horse designed by a committee" it might survive and
prosper in the marketplace.

Sorry to say this but if it doesn't prosper it's gone.

Good driving over the holidays--please stay safe and be back here in
January. I'll cover 2000 miles in the next week--much of it in
"Stabilitrac" country with the 'vettes home in the garage.

C'ya and I'll be wavin' in January.

--
…PJ
’89 HookerCar, ’02 E-blu 6-spd Coupe
= = = = = = =
>
> "Barking Rats" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article <LOGpf.8$sA3.3@fed1read02>,
>>Vandervecken > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>1. Mid-engine Corvette
>>>
>>>My personal guess is the Corvette will stay with the traditional front
>>>engine layout. It's too much a part of the car's character. Actually, I
>>>think the C6's engine is far enough aft to qualify as a front-mid engine
>>>layout.
>>
>>Careful - similar comments were heard for years about the hide-away
>>headlights...
>>
>>(Several months back there was a discussion here about GM's styling and
>>I commented the Corvette looked to me like a Viper. And I still think
>>the new C6 looks awfully similar to the Viper. Look at the issue of R&T,
>>or was it Motor Trend, or was it Car and Driver,... with the GT-40,
>>Viper and C6 comparison. Fold the pages so you can see both pictures of
>>the individual Corvette and Viper on their description pages and tell me
>>the C6 doesn't strongly resemble the Viper - headlights, nose air inlet,
>>side fender vents... Yes there are certainly differences, but not like
>>when you look at the GT-40!)
>>
>>Here's waving to ya - \||||
>>
>>Owen
>>___
>>
>>'67BB & '72BB
>>
>>-- not affiliated with JLA forum in any way -- alt.autos.corvette is
>>original posting --
>>___
>>
>>"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
>> -- Ann Hayman Zwinger
>
>
>

"But today, Chevy is using Toyota Corollas and their trucks look like
abortions from mixed Japanese truck unions."

Youre right ! I actually hated the new corvette design, especially the
open headlights. (trying too hard to be ferrari ?) The flip headlamps
have been to me a defining element of the corvette since the stingrays.
Hard to see one without the flip lamps.

But I recently drove the C6 and it does perform like a corvette. Got me
from 0-60 in about 5 seconds. (yes, my driving is terrible!) So it
redeems itself in performance. The look still screams japanese
wannabe. (don't know why) but thats ok.. i guess