Corvette ZR1 with minor mods and a safe tune nets 598rwhp

[Matra et Alpine]

even brilliant engineers will fail if put in untenable situations.

The American Cavalier being a perfect example.
A very capable car in Europe, but the "US market needs are different" mentality meant the built-to-a-low-price ensured it was sh!tty for you guys.

[Bleeding Heart]

The American Cavalier being a perfect example.
A very capable car in Europe, but the "US market needs are different" mentality meant the built-to-a-low-price ensured it was sh!tty for you guys.

American cars are low cost but then, they sacrificed some elements of the car... So, i agree with you there...

[monaroCountry]

So... what you're telling me is that the ZR-1 engineering couldn't handle the 620 bhp under the bonnet and they should lower the power output of the engine... Am I right there???

The LS9 would be one of the more reliable 600hp+ engine out there along with the Viper engine.

[culver]

The Caviler is an example of a car which was kept around far to long. Additionally, it emerged from a dark period in GM's history when the management got the idea that they could treat cars as a commodity items. There was lots wrong with GM at that time. If you read All Corvettes are Red you can get an idea of some of the structural problems GM had at the time. Don't blame the Cavliler on the capabilities of GM engineers. Things like the hydroforming of large parts, and at a lower cost than outside vendors. That is an example GM engineering innovation.

There is truth to the US market is different comment. As proof look at the US Accord vs the Euro Accord. Clearly Honda sees the two markets as different thus they split the Accord line in 1998.

If you look at GM engineering throughout the 1980s it really was fits of inspiration and brilliance marred by having to attach that brilliance to vehicles designed under a poor design structure.

Let me offer a bit of an example. In the 1960s each GM division was fairly autonomous. A Pontiac really was different than a Chevy and a Buick. The divisions shared some of the same central technologies but they were actually encouraged to compete with each other. On one hand that can be seen as an inefficiency but if you don't have enough external competition to keep you sharp, why not use internal competition to do the same thing? It worked to.

Roger Smith decided that style was too inefficient. He saw that each time a division did something like say design new doors Pontiac wouldn't learn the lessons that Chevy had learned. There were many groups doing the same thing. So why not combine them. The old system was rather vertically integrated where the program manager in charge of a vehicle would have under his control, a group to handle almost every type of engineering that vehicle would need. That gave the program managers very good control over the design of that vehicle. However it made it hard to coordinate engineering between platforms.

Roger Smith changed things. He decided to set up centers of excellence. GM would now have a group which specialized in doing doors. Another would specialize in say suspension (I honestly don't recall the exact areas of specialization but again it was mentioned in "All Corvettes are Red"). The logic being that now the door group could become VERY good at doing doors for all the GM groups.

The failure of this system was the lack of a team goal. The program managers now had to request the door group help them with a new car. This made it hard to get good and timely cooperation between the groups. Designs may not have been delivered on time and it was hard to do the sorts of engineering give and take that is often needed to make a design work if the engineering groups have been split apart and are under different leadership. Perhaps with the right level of tweaking the idea would have worked nicely. However, as it was implemented in the 1980s it was a complete failure.

The C5 Corvette program was almost a skunk works project inside of GM. Contrary to the notion that it was a GM priority, the car was almost killed off. The C6 ZR1 architecture traces it's lineage directly back to the C5. The C5 was developed under dire conditions starting as far back as 1989.

Anyway, for those who think they know what's right and wrong with GM I would strongly encourage you to read All Corvettes are Red. It is a great book for those interested in the development of cars as well as those who are interested in the internal workings of GM during that time.

I know this all may sound like blind GM support. Funny as the closest think to a GM car I've ever owned is a SAAB 900 (the later one). I do want to have pride in the US car companies and they do have some reasons to be proud. More to the point, there are plenty of reasons to bash the US companies. However, I would hope that the reasons people post are legitimate rather than imagined. It's like all the people bashing the Corvette leaf springs and claiming they are the cause of any Corvette handling problems. It shows more about what they don't know than what GM doesn't know. At the same time the Corvette is reported to have less stable handling at the limits than say a 911 so clearly their is something that's different. If we are going to bash GM we should bash them for that.

[Ferrer]

Superb post, culver.

Thanks.

[werty]

btw, Corvette IMO is one of the only product that GM actually do proper engineering work on(and spend real money on too). They really treat it as their real halo product and lots of innovations and technology goes into that.....and the upshot is that as a halo product it is an absolute bargain....

Very true

I would like to add though, that modifying the ZR1 is a waste of time when you should be modifying the lighter more potentially fast Z06

end thread

[f6fhellcat13]

I second culver's thoughts about All Corvettes are Red.
Good book

[monaroCountry]

Very true

I would like to add though, that modifying the ZR1 is a waste of time when you should be modifying the lighter more potentially fast Z06

end thread

How about the cheaper base C6?

[ThisBlood147]

How about the cheaper base C6?

+1 The Z06's biggest trump is its lightweight carbon fiber body. But for building a crazy Vette, the LS7 is just too limited. A built LS3 would have much more modding potential IMO. Much cheaper price out of the door and many more aftermarket options. Plus the motor is just so much smoother and more refined than GM's race-bred 427. If I had my way....I'd take the LS3 in a Z06 body/chassis with the ZR-1's suspension and brakes. Then I'd do a little mild cam with a good tune and call it a day.

IMO, the ZR-1 is the perfect example of a car that is fast enough just as it is from the factory. Too much more and the car is gonna be too much work to keep a handle on. This is why so few ppl who buy exotics or supercars spend any money trying to "hotrod" them. You paid a premium price for a car that blows other cars off the track right from the factory.........why mess that up by trying to alter its engineers' design aspects?

[werty]

How about the cheaper base C6?

I would agree with you there if we were just talking about power, if the Z06 werent already beautiful from the factory...the c6 body and wheels dont do anything for me

but yes, the c6 has plenty of potential as well, so I guess I just agree that all corvettes models are great to play with, but the zr1 seems too pricey for what you get...thats just me

[f6fhellcat13]

IMO, the ZR-1 is the perfect example of a car that is fast enough just as it is from the factory. Too much more and the car is gonna be too much work to keep a handle on. This is why so few ppl who buy exotics or supercars spend any money trying to "hotrod" them. You paid a premium price for a car that blows other cars off the track right from the factory.........why mess that up by trying to alter its engineers' design aspects?

There are companies that mod supercars, but they usually ruin them in some way while doing it. They either screw up the looks, handling, reliability, etc...

[Falcon500]

There are companies that mod supercars, but they usually ruin them in some way while doing it. They either screw up the looks, handling, reliability, etc...

But then you have somthing special a rarity that will be remberd in passing from an article in road and track or prehaps hot rod magazine so when your showing it off at a car show you will have a few amazed bystanders who are impressed by your obscure and overtly impractical machine and you shall be amazed at how poor the resale value of this rare machine really is.

The cars arnt the only things screwd up by this setup imo.

although that said the enthusiests who buy it too keep it forever are usually very happy people the people who buy it for an oddity and an investment are often bitter when they find this lesson out.