The Corvette - Sophistication in Simplicity

[Kitdy]

I was driving downtown today when I spotted a Daytona Sunset Orange C6 Corvette. It was being driven by a middle age man rather unsurprisingly, and as I saw him drive by in the opposing lane I gave him the thumbs up as I do to all drivers of special cars that I like that I see on the road. I saw this car and knew right away I had to share my thoughts about this Corvette, and all Corvettes with you guys.

As it drove by me, something popped in my head - Ferrer's supposed (I say supposed as I can't find any reputable source that links da Vinci to it) Leonardo da Vinci signature quote - "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."

I was thinking to myself - is not the Corvette the ultimate expression of this maxim in the sportscar world? Here is a car that in Canada starts at 67k, and a mere 49k in the States, but punches well above it's weight when compared to more exotic (read: European) competition. The Corvette in all it's versions is more simple than it's primary rivals and enjoys a huge fan base - partly because it is so accessible to the common (middle-aged) person - ok who am I kidding - man. This car is also much easier to maintain and work on and servicing is much less of a nightmare when compared to European exotica - or even relatively attainable European performance cars such as your C 63s or M3s, or RS4s (not exactly the same class, but these are cars with less performance for more cost).

Gearheads seem to love bare bones track day cars - Atoms, Caterhams, and what have you - they are simple, relatively cheap, and can eat much more expensive cars for breakfast even at their relatively cheap price point. They are drivers cars, enthusiast cars. Whatever you want to call them, these are the cars that touch that primal instinct in each one of us - the thrill of the growl of the engine, the beautiful but simple and sexy lines, the enjoyment of rowing your own gears. I would include the Corvette as a car like this but only much more practical. Sure, there are automatic Corvettes, but we all know that the manual is the way to go - the 'Vette has had a 6 speed since the C5 (1997!) which as far as I can think of is before 6 speeds caught on in performance cars. While other mainstream performance car manufacturers are pushing manuals to the edge of extinction, Chevrolet has kept the manual in the Corvette for ages - sure, maybe because it's cheaper than some semi-auto or DCT or what have you advanced gearbox, but isn't that what enthusiasts want? Review after review that I have read of late has all complained about the lack of available manual gearbox in cars, or the poor quality of a semi-auto 'box (Audi R8 anyone?) yet many, and I would say many on this website (UCP seems to lean European car-wise, even for the North American posters) the Corvette isn't really thought of as an alternative.

Why? Does it get bad mileage? No, manual LS3 equipped Vettes get 7.7L/100km or 37 mpg highway and they make 430 horsepower. Are they heavy? No, the base model is 3200 pounds (the V8 R8 for comparison (yes it has AWD I know) is 3400 pounds) and has a 51/49 balance. In fact, as we looked at extensively in another thread, the LS7 is a very light engine and has one of the better power to mass ratios for any naturally aspirated engine out there. Why do people give the Corvette a hard time? Is not this the car that all the performance car drivers on this site should want? Is it because it is Chevy or American that people don't want it? Or it's rougher around the edges and doesn't handle as well? Guess what, you probably won't be able to afford that Ferrari you dream of, but you know, there is a chance that if you work hard, you may one day as a middle aged man may be able to afford that "simple" Corvette.

So many reviewers and fans seem to decry the Corvette for it's parts bin interior saying that it's a huge turnoff. I think these people have fallen afoul of what truly matters in a car (at least for me, and as a performance car enthusiast) - how it drives. The reviews I have read have been glowing in their praise for the Corvette, mind you, they were American, but even the snobs at EVO gave the Auto 'boxed 'Vette 4 out of 5 stars - 4 stars for an Auto from EVO! What would they have given the manual (admittedly, I dunno as a quick search only yielded a review for the C6 with a slushbox)

The Corvette may use some outdated technology (leaf springs, however good they are are not modern, OHV has been out of date for at least 30 years now) but it simply works so damn well. It is simple - it is beautiful, it is fast, it drives well. It may not handle like a Ferrari, sound like a 911, be as trendy as an Audi, or look like a Lamborghini, but it performs 90-95% as well as these Europeans at a half, a third, a quarter, a fifth the price depending on what you compare it to, and depending on what version you have your eye on.

The Corvette isn't a throwback - it never has been, it doesn't need to be retro. It has always stuck to it's core principles - inexpensive, fast, big engined, glorious sounding, and yes, simplistic - plastic rear end be damned, this is a great car.

It's so refreshing I think to see a car that sticks to it's core principles - those mentioned above - when so many other manufacturers seem to doing everything possible to further remove us from the driving experience - self parking cars, adaptive cruise control, undefeatable electric nannies, and all sorts of electronic gizmos that add weight and do little to a) make the driving experience more enjoyable or b) make driving the car much easier. I imagine Ferrer's voice in my head (keep in mind I have no idea how he sounds - I imagine him with a British accent sometimes when I read his posts due to his use of the British variant of the English language) saying that we have lost the true path - cars are fatter, and less involved than ever. Well hold the phone there, because there is one car at least that sticks true to it's roots, and the roots of enthusiast driving - the Corvette.

So next time you see someone (probably a man in his 40s-60s) driving a Corvette, whatever Corvette it is, maybe give a thumbs up and knowing nod to the driver - he/she may be driving the "poor man's sports car" as my dad so derisively dubbed the Corvette (a negative image of this fine car the he instilled on me at a young age and an image only recently have I banished from my mind) but the driver may well be an enthusiast who should be respected in these parts. If you read this and still think Corvettes are shit, and you don't like them (I don't even think many of you think that), that's fine but I hope after reading this that if you didn't before, that now you respect Corvettes.

I hope you enjoyed reading, I wanted to share that with you guys.

Now, what do you guys say?

[wwgkd]

Completely agree and have for a while. You can even toss a bicycle into the back of a Vette without having to disassemble it.

[clutch-monkey]

it is rough, but meh. i like the Z06.

[f6fhellcat13]

Hey, it isn't Ferrer's sig!

[cargirl1990]

Well Kitdy has a point for sure! I have always loved the Vette and it's a vehicle that's easier to possess and maintain better than your average excotic car. The price is an absolute steal let alone the performance and trim levels you can pick from. You may get a small V8 but it packs a punch. Basically, Corvettes a such a good deal and give such good performance is why some, or many of us guys and gals love this car so much.

[f6fhellcat13]

Kitdy you've gone soft. What happened to your militant days of "no leaf springs and pushrods are oudated bulshit!"?

I am, surprisingly, in almost complete agreement with you. The cost argument may not stand up elsewhere, but if I was in the market for a new (I don't know why I would be) sportscar I would easily choose the 'Vette. Among "highbrow" American sportscar drivers there is obviously a stigma against Corvettes. It is viewed as a trashy mid-life schlong-extender and I have had encounters with this sort of stupid driver. However, that isn't really a fair way to judge a car. It's a prejudice thing that's pretty rampant in car circles. For example: I bet most of us to some degree dismiss Japanese cars and the associated tuning culture because some twat in a fart-canned, whistle-tipped, and mechanically-stock Civic blasts down the "Shuto" (aka your street) at 4 in the morning. The guy is an asshole, sure, but that doesn't mean that without proper work his car couldn't be quite cool. Same with the 'Vette. Besides it isn't like any modern Porsche or Ferraroghini driver will be any better-mannered.

[Ferrer]

The Corvette actually got it 6-speed 'box much earlier, in 1989.

And of course I agree and good ol' school rant is coming later today.

Hey, it isn't Ferrer's sig!
The first time I heard it, it was Revo who said it. I liked it, so I kept mentioning it. And then you got as your signature. :)

[clutch-monkey]

Why? Does it get bad mileage? No, manual LS3 equipped Vettes get 7.7L/100km or 37 mpg highway and they make 430 horsepower. Are they heavy? No, the base model is 3200 pounds (the V8 R8 for comparison (yes it has AWD I know) is 3400 pounds) and has a 51/49 balance. In fact, as we looked at extensively in another thread, the LS7 is a very light engine and has one of the better power to mass ratios for any naturally aspirated engine out there. Why do people give the Corvette a hard time?

same reason the GTR's and STi's and Honda's get given a lot of shit; the fanboys and to some extent the people that drive them lol.

[Kitdy]

it is rough, but meh. i like the Z06.

I think that's more power than I'd want in a car that I would like to drive to work every nice summer day ideally. My friend's dad is a urologist and he drives a red (All Corvettes are Red) manual C5 to work every nice day in the summer. If I am gonna shell out for a Corvette, I want to get my money's worth, and I just think that 500+ hp is too extreme for daily use. Hell, the 430 that the LS3 puts out is well more than I need, maybe even want.

A Z06 would be one hell of a weekend warrior though.


You may get a small V8 but it packs a punch. Basically, Corvettes a such a good deal and give such good performance is why some, or many of us guys and gals love this car so much.

I think you mean big V8. The 6.2L LS3 in the current 'Vette is rather large for a modern V8 engine, and the LS7 is the largest V8 engine in a production car you can buy I would educatedly guess. Audi hovers around 4L for their V8s, as does Ferrari, the big Northstars are 4.4L, the old Modular V8 was 4.6 and 5.4 (5.4 I'd consider large), and the new 5L Mustang is on the verge of a large V8. A 6.2 is very big, and a 7 is monstrous. I dunno even what I'd consider a Cadillac 472/500, potentially gargantuan?

Even the old various 5.7 litres used in C4 and C5 'Vettes were pretty big for a V8, at least when one considers the rest of the world market and the time they were built.


Kitdy you've gone soft. What happened to your militant days of "no leaf springs and pushrods are oudated bulshit!"?

What can I say? My taste in cars has changed hugely over the years - especially since I joined this website and got more interested about them. I educated myself and learned more.

I feel the conclusions I draw now about cars are far more valid then they were when I first joined or even when you and I had leafspring/pushrod that conversation last year.

Now I recognize that the LS7 is an American institution.


The Corvette actually got it 6-speed 'box much earlier, in 1989.

Didn't know that - that is very forward thinking.


And of course I agree and good ol' school rant is coming later today.

Looking forward to it. On this subject or another?


same reason the GTR's and STi's and Honda's get given a lot of shit; the fanboys and to some extent the people that drive them lol.

I think it's unfair to judge a nameplate based on the people who drive the car.

Judging individual cars modified by their owners and/or previous owners is fair game though - the fart can Civic hatchback is endemic to Toronto and I hate the shit outta those cars which have that modification.

[ruim20]

A Z06 for me, some of it because of the power and a lot of it because of the styling, the details that set it apart from the regular one make it the modern Corvette, i find ot a very well designed car, the only 'black' spot is the inside.

[RacingManiac]

Corvette is special just for the fact that every generation its significantly better than before(and the late model of the same gen is noticeably better than the early one), which means some serious amount of R&D gets put in it, which means money is being spent on it. Thats rare for any car, and rarer for something out of GM's lineup. I always like to joke with my friend that Vette is the only car GM spends money and use real engineers on. If you can spend a ton of money on a car(to make and design, and ultimately sell at a high price), its easier to make a good car. But if you make a ton of these, at relatively low price, and still end up having a good product, thats real good and smart engineering work. The car will always be a shiny beacon in the GM's lineup showing that they can do real competitive product thats desirable, and I think after the whole auto-crisis some of that thinking is starting to trickle down to other cars. Which can only be a good thing...

BTW, reading a description like 505 bhp, dry-sump lubricated V8, 6 piston monobloc caliper brake, aluminum and composite frame and suspension, composite bodyworks, 6 speed manual, 4 sec 0-60, 198mph top speed. It reads like any expensive sports car from Europe, until you get to 24MPG high way, and MSRP at $75K US.....Z06 is a hell of a car...

[Ferrer]

I've always been a big fan of simplicity. I personally think that most of the time simplicity brings us better cars, at least from the petrolhead's point of view, which let's be brutally honest, it's all that matters here. That doesn't mean that sometimes sophistication can give us better cars, but it's usually the sort of engineering that costs a lot to develop.

But let's start with simplicity. These days it's difficult to find a simple car on the market, and this is especially true with mass market cars. There are exceptions like trackday cars or specially focused sportscars, but they aren't the norm and in any case they are not practical to most people, even most enthusiasts. The problem is that the segment that represents enthusiasts is very small indeed and as a result doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things of an automotive corporation.

And there's another added problem. There's a group of people, and a rather large one at that I'd say, that like cars but either they don't like them that much or they simply can't understand them. You know who am I talking about, the "Look me! I've got me some flappy paddles! I'm then next Lewis Hamilton!" sort of person. These do even more harm than the average Joe, because since they are larger in number than us, they even take control over what we should decide, the sportier cars, like hot hatchbacks, sportscars and the like. They are the culprits that cars like the Ibiza Cupra are only offered with an automatic gearbox.

Of course there's the general laziness in today's society which doesn't help either. Yes, we want the performance, we want the excitement, we want the sportiness but it shouldn't be too difficult, too complicated, to dangerous. We want everything, but without the effort. Which is why gadgets like 5-way traction controls, active steering or active anti-roll bars are developed. They make us feel like heroes without actually having to be one.

However, as I said in the beginning not all sophistication is necessarily and always bad. There's place where it can be welcomed. For instance, I like the new clever engines with direct fuel injection, variable valve everything and geometrical turbochargers. I'm no engineer, but I'm sure that they are slightly more complex that the good ol' carbed, 2-valve, normally aspirated lumps that used to power cars. Likewise could be said about modern suspension design or exotic new materials that provide strength and lightness at the same time. In my opinion the line is simple, if it doesn't affect the driving experience or it enhances it, it's welcomed, if it detracts from the driving experience I don't want it.

Despite all, though, not everything is negative and if you concentrate really hard you can still find some gems in today's automotive landscape. There's the Corvette, of course, which simple, fun and cheap, but there's also the Mustang. I like the Ford. It's not the last word in modern technology but it is an honest car, it's a bit of fun, a V8, some wheels and off you go. It's cheap and it doesn't care. If you want to drive entry level BMWs are an attractive proposition too. Forget about the options list, just go for the most powerful engine you can afford and all you'll have is a superb chassis, a superb engine, a steering wheel, some pedals and some levers between the seats and you don't really anything else to drive. And of course you can always go for the cheaper end of the market, where you'll find little surprises that are a lot of fun despite their econobox heritage. Cars like the Panda 100HP, the Swift Sport or the Twingo RS.

Maybe old cars were better, I don't know I haven't driven enough of them to judge, but the fact of the matter is that there's still some old school fun to be had with modern cars .My suggestion would be, hurry up and grab them now, before they ruin those too.

[cargirl1990]

Well Kitdy, what you just said tells me I need to do more research.

[wwgkd]

Well Kitdy, what you just said tells me I need to do more research.

I think you may have been confused by the whole "small block" thing, which is really left over from the days of muscle cars and manly engines.

That said, the LS7 is incredibly compact for a 7 liter engine. Roughly on par with many of the the smaller displacement V8s using over head cams from europe etc.

[Kitdy]

I think you may have been confused by the whole "small block" thing, which is really left over from the days of muscle cars and manly engines.

That said, the LS7 is incredibly compact for a 7 liter engine. Roughly on par with many of the the smaller displacement V8s using over head cams from europe etc.

The LS7 according to some sources I've found has about 1.1 hp per pound, which compares rather favourably to it's competition as well.

Chevy shoulda ran an ad campaign when the Z06 launched.

Maybe something like this:

The LS7: An American Institution™.

[NSXType-R]

I think you mean big V8. The 6.2L LS3 in the current 'Vette is rather large for a modern V8 engine, and the LS7 is the largest V8 engine in a production car you can buy I would educatedly guess. Audi hovers around 4L for their V8s, as does Ferrari, the big Northstars are 4.4L, the old Modular V8 was 4.6 and 5.4 (5.4 I'd consider large), and the new 5L Mustang is on the verge of a large V8. A 6.2 is very big, and a 7 is monstrous. I dunno even what I'd consider a Cadillac 472/500, potentially gargantuan?


You're forgetting the 6.2 that Mercedes uses in almost all its AMG cars. It's interesting the approach Mercedes does in a V8 and what Chevy does to a V8.

No, I sometimes rant about simplicity in cars to my engineer roommate. He's not a car guy- he doesn't romanticize about fixing cars in your own garage. He just likes to make things more efficient, which isn't always simple.

If you really want to argue simplicity look at the Honda CRX. That car eeked out 50 mpg in the 80's with no hybrid bullshit. Granted cars were a lot lighter and less safe, but what does that say about cars now? If you really want simplicity, you'd go for carburetors and magnetos and all that. :D

But honestly, even a "simple" car like the Corvette is fuel injected, has an OBDII port, etc. It's technically not simple at all, it's just slightly more old fashioned. It's a wonderful car, the Corvette. I used to give it a hard time because I never liked anything American growing up, I was all import, and to an extent, I still am. But I do appreciate other cars much more now, and the engineering behind all of it. I appreciate it for it's bang for the buck factor and all the other things you mentioned.

All in all, it's a lot of fun discussing about cars. :D

[culver]

Just a few Corvette tid bits. I have always found the C4 to be a fascinating Corvette. GM really worked to show off technology in that car and it had a lot of new and creative thinking in that car. However I also feel like it was less than the sum of it's parts.

As was already mentioned the 6spd came out in something like 1989. Keep in mind that was actually replacing a 7 speed that was introduced in 1984. The whole idea of both gear boxes was to deliver decent performance without taking the EPA mileage hit. The Corvette's very torquy V8 can easily handle short shifting and low revs to maximize mileage. However, the EPA test is very specific about when you can shift. The EPA test of the time (and maybe today) doesn't allow you to shift into say 3rd until you are going 30mph (as I recall). The 6spd is used because the double overdrive makes for great highway cruising mileage. Incidentally the current Honda Civic auto is also a double overdrive unit for the exact same reason. The 1-4 shift is a way of allowing 4th gear to count as 2nd for the EPA test. It's a hokey solution but the test's inflexibility isn't really fair to a very torquy car like the Corvette. The 1984-1988 manual cars had a 4+3 gearbox. It was a 4 spd with computer controlled overdrive in the three top gears giving a total of 7 speeds. The idea was if you were on the gas you got the 1:1 ratio of of the overdrive unit. If you were off the gas you got the reduced ratio. This again was a way to try to retain the performance of the 5 spd they had used in the C3 without taking the over 2mpg EPA hit a 5spd shifted according to the EPA standards would take. The engineers estimated that the real world mileage difference between the 5spd and 7spd was about nothing.

As most on this forum know I think the leaf spring design is really cool. Basically it represents a more modern thought on suspension design than just about anything out there. The rest of the suspension is quite modern. The car uses double A-arms all around. Alloy suspension arms are common today but the Corvette was the first production car to use them back in 1984. The composite leaf spring is years newer than any other automotive spring technology. The leaf spring dates back to the 1970s though it has been improved since. Metal coil springs are 1800s or earlier. No question the leaf spring is the most advanced passive spring design used on any car. Also remember the Corvette (and Caddy) were the first to use the magnetic dampers which are probably the most advanced dampers used on any car today.

That doesn't mean I think the car is flawless. The one I drove (a 2005 model) was a bit numb and was also so composed at normal speeds as to feel dull at times. The interior is better than it often gets credited but it also isn't as cheap as people think. By that I mean the actual cost is higher than it's perceived cost. That's a bad thing. That means GM isn't delivering value to their customers in that regard. The seats also need to be better. From what I understand most of the off the shelf seats available to OEMs such as those used in the Caddy CTS don't fit in the rather narrow space between the center tunnel and the structural door sills (the famous hydroformed frame rails). Thus it isn't a cheap or simple mater to upgrade the Corvette's seats in context of an OEM program. That means the C6 is basically stuck with the same seats that the under funded C5 team was able to scrounge up. Too bad because the car does need better seats.

I really like the C6. I can't wait to see what the C7 will bring.

[Matra et Alpine]

represents a more modern thought on suspension design
I was staying out of this "love fest" .... until I read that :)

It is NOT "more modern" by any stretch.
It's old tech they use modern materials on to try to make up for it's core disadvantages.
IF - as it did originally - you keep away from adding a sway bar ( anti-roll bar to real people :) ), THEN you can lay claim to it as Chapman-esque ( the car designer, NOT the Monty Python member :) ) ie one part doing two jobs.

RETAINING it ( not "modern thought" ) means they keep the traditionalists happy and they dont' face the penalty of repackaging the rear end and losing some trunk ( boot:) ) space.

It's a good idea to keep it for all the reasons above.
Just lets not try rebranding it as "modern thought on suspension design" ... I only have the one change of underwear today and you made me spoil that already :)

As for the rest ... I am doing my best to refrain.
Corvette's are great cars ... but not GREAT cars.

EDIT: ref for the "first alloy suspension" please ? The RX-7 used alloy arms in first gen iirc, pre-dating the date given. Just wanting to ensure UCP quality :) I'm presuming the reference is to the first to use all A-arms, all round, all alloy - kind of a focus in till we can claim uniqueness

[culver]

I think it is more modern. The only part that could be considered old tech is the idea of a cantilevered spring. All four types of common automotive springs date back over 100 years (leaf/cantilever, coil, torsion, pneumatic). The double pivot leaf setup I think was first introduced by Fiat with the 128. That would make it the newest of the layouts. The idea of using fiberglass for the spring was introduced in the late 1970s. Again that was later than the others. So with that in mind I would say it is a more modern spring design.

I don't think they retain the spring to keep traditionalist happy at all. Visit a Corvette forum and you will find lots of people complain about it though often the are not correct in their understanding. The C4 moved from coils to the leaf. The C5 guys had no intention of retaining it until it became clear that despite it's cost it was the best solution for the job given their packaging constraints.

The use of double A arms as compared to a multi-link setup is up in the air for me. A-arms were introduced I think in the 1930s. I'm not sure when we would say the first multi-link came out.

The magnetic shocks are clearly very new and modern parts.

So with all that in mind I don't think it's fair to say the Corvette suspension design is somehow less modern than the competition. At the subsystem level it's certainly not that old. It's not like a Mustang where Ford was making a largely out of date design (live axle) work. The only reason why people have ever claimed the Corvette suspension is old school is because they wrongly associate the leaf spring in the Corvette with old school leaf spring designs.

As for the alloy claim, I might have the exact claim incorrect. Michael Lamm makes the claim in his book about the 1984 Corvette. I don't have it handy to read the details. It might have been first forged rather than cast arms. When I get my hands on the book next I'll try to find out what the exact claim was.

[henk4]

just for the record, Citroen's hydropneumatic suspension was first introduced in 1954, and was used at the rear axle of Traction Avant 15CV. So it is not well over 100 years old....

[Kitdy]

As for the rest ... I am doing my best to refrain.
Corvette's are great cars ... but not GREAT cars.

Geh, that's fine I suppose, but I think that the Corvette along with the 911 are about as close to "objective" great sports cars as any car can come - yes a lot has to do with their history, but I mean what else can you say? Both are icons, and both have survived so long and have legions of fans for a reason.

No shit Matra a Corvette isn't exactly your cup of tea, and that's fine, but I think you can recognize that it is great for many other people.

There are cars I don't like (sorry to inform you henk, but I am not keen on Citroens) but I respect them and consider cars like the 2CV and DS and Traction Avant and SM to be great or superb cars even - this is just one example.

Can you see past your own biases and preferences to see that the Corvette is great? It seems like you can to be honest.

I think that it helps in a critical sense regarding anything to be able to recognize that just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's garbage or worthless or what have you. Seeing the other side and thinking outside oneself's own biases/preferences is a skill I find many people lack.

[Matra et Alpine]

McDonalds is great food for many MANY people.

But I'd not say it was GREAT food.
So the comparison and prefernces don't come in to it.

OBJECTIVELY the Corvette is a formula car that has MANY drawbacks and makes up for it by squeezing as much power and as much rubber as possible to counter them.

"bias" is not something I woulg say I have.
Evaluating the engineering and driver experience, then it does not rank "GREAT".
Your "defence" of the points raised in the critique and questioning don't show very much "thinking outside" :) and plenty of bias :)

And the 911 example almost proves the case ... it is a HORRENDOUS layout and takes a lot of smarts and tech to make it handle decently and even then WILL bite hard when the moment of inertia catches you out.

The MX-5 is a better example of a sports car than either I'd say :)
Designed from the start to engage the driver and provide the "best experience".
Doesn't need lots of power to go from A to B fast, or lots of tech.

So coming back "great for many other people" ... enjoy the Big Mac

[culver]

just for the record, Citroen's hydropneumatic suspension was first introduced in 1954, and was used at the rear axle of Traction Avant 15CV. So it is not well over 100 years old....

Hydropneumatic is the only one I'm not certain is older than 100 years. Still it's older than the fiberglass spring.

[Kitdy]

McDonalds is great food for many MANY people.

But I'd not say it was GREAT food.
So the comparison and prefernces don't come in to it.

OBJECTIVELY the Corvette is a formula car that has MANY drawbacks and makes up for it by squeezing as much power and as much rubber as possible to counter them.

"bias" is not something I woulg say I have.
Evaluating the engineering and driver experience, then it does not rank "GREAT".
Your "defence" of the points raised in the critique and questioning don't show very much "thinking outside" :) and plenty of bias :)

And the 911 example almost proves the case ... it is a HORRENDOUS layout and takes a lot of smarts and tech to make it handle decently and even then WILL bite hard when the moment of inertia catches you out.

The MX-5 is a better example of a sports car than either I'd say :)
Designed from the start to engage the driver and provide the "best experience".
Doesn't need lots of power to go from A to B fast, or lots of tech.

So coming back "great for many other people" ... enjoy the Big Mac

Matra it's hard to reason with a person who thinks he's always right. I see validity in some of your points and you may even be right but your attitude of always being correct is very grating at times. I have acknowledged that I could be wrong... Have you?

EDIT: Sorry to lash out like this, but I've been biting my tongue many times when seeing you post in some threads and I wanted to get this out.

No hard feelings man, I just wanted to air this grievance with you.

[henk4]

Hydropneumatic is the only one I'm not certain is older than 100 years. Still it's older than the fiberglass spring.

air suspension came about four years after hydro...and just a question, if they would produce a carbon fiber leaf spring, would you call that a new suspension system?

[culver]

air suspension came about four years after hydro...and just a question, if they would produce a carbon fiber leaf spring, would you call that a new suspension system?

Pneumatic springs were first used in the late 1800s. The first automotive uses were as I recall on buses prior to WW2. Cars used them starting I think in the mid 1950s.

What makes the fiberglass leaf spring new (relatively speaking) is that it's not a tempered metal spring or a pneumatic spring.
Firestone Industrial Products ~History (http://www.firestoneindustrial.com/history/index.shtml)
A CF spring could be considered another step but based on what I know it would actually be arguably a step back. The fiberglass spring is great for two reasons. First, it has very high energy density. That means the amount of potential energy it can store per kg of spring weight is higher than any metal spring and perhaps higher than even an air spring. Now the actual spring element of an air spring of course is light as air but the rest of the structure adds quite a bit of weight to the total. In addition to low weight, the fiberglass spring can handle much greater strain that even Nitinol which has the highest allowable strain of any metal.

The fiberglass spring not only does it's job as well as any metal spring, it does open up doors that were basically not open to metal springs. The double pivot transverse layout doesn't work well with metal springs. The 128 did it but it would still suffer from inter-layer friction like any multi-leaf spring. Metal mono-leaf springs couldn't withstand the strain needed to make the multi-pivot work. The fiberglass spring made it possible.

However, just as the Citroen system hasn't seen wide spread use most likely due to cost, the fiberglass spring use has been very limited. While the spring does have advantages and in the W-body cars I believe it wasn't used with a supplemental roll bar. However, the performance advantage of the leaf spring isn't so great that the higher cost can be justified in most cases. As such the use of fiberglass springs has generally been limited to heavy trucks where the lighter weight and long service life make it cost effective and in a few automotive applications where packaging gives it an advantage (Corvette, Volvo 960).

Regardless of any of this, I don't think there is ANY validity to the claim that the Corvette suspension is old school. I don't see it as having huge advantages over more traditional designs (minus the mag shocks) but I don't think there is any justifiable way to say it is old school or not throughly modern.

BTW, don't think I'm discounting the Citroen system. It's more that just a spring and I could easily be convinced that it is more advanced in concept than any other auto system (waiting for the fully active systems).

[Rasmus]

I think that's more power than I'd want in a car that I would like to drive to work every nice summer day ideally. My friend's dad is a urologist and he drives a red (All Corvettes are Red) manual C5 to work every nice day in the summer. If I am gonna shell out for a Corvette, I want to get my money's worth, and I just think that 500+ hp is too extreme for daily use. Hell, the 430 that the LS3 puts out is well more than I need, maybe even want.

Not really, no. You get used to it, like you get used to 50" TV.

When my car was only 550 on the crank, it felt okay. In fact, I've driven that car the nicest out of the ones I've had. I have a new blower coming in, I'm aiming for 700, and I fully expect it to be daily drivable.

There's more to it than just sheer power. My old mom hated the black GTI that I took Cyco around CPH and to Koenigsegg in, yet the current car she's perfectly fine with. The GT reaches approx. 220 as fast as the GTI did 100, so there really is an awfully big difference. Plus, she feels much more comfortable and confident driving the GT.

[Ferrer]

Geh, that's fine I suppose, but I think that the Corvette along with the 911 are about as close to "objective" great sports cars as any car can come - yes a lot has to do with their history, but I mean what else can you say? Both are icons, and both have survived so long and have legions of fans for a reason.

No shit Matra a Corvette isn't exactly your cup of tea, and that's fine, but I think you can recognize that it is great for many other people.

There are cars I don't like (sorry to inform you henk, but I am not keen on Citroens) but I respect them and consider cars like the 2CV and DS and Traction Avant and SM to be great or superb cars even - this is just one example.

Can you see past your own biases and preferences to see that the Corvette is great? It seems like you can to be honest.

I think that it helps in a critical sense regarding anything to be able to recognize that just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's garbage or worthless or what have you. Seeing the other side and thinking outside oneself's own biases/preferences is a skill I find many people lack.


McDonalds is great food for many MANY people.

But I'd not say it was GREAT food.
So the comparison and prefernces don't come in to it.

OBJECTIVELY the Corvette is a formula car that has MANY drawbacks and makes up for it by squeezing as much power and as much rubber as possible to counter them.

"bias" is not something I woulg say I have.
Evaluating the engineering and driver experience, then it does not rank "GREAT".
Your "defence" of the points raised in the critique and questioning don't show very much "thinking outside" :) and plenty of bias :)

And the 911 example almost proves the case ... it is a HORRENDOUS layout and takes a lot of smarts and tech to make it handle decently and even then WILL bite hard when the moment of inertia catches you out.

The MX-5 is a better example of a sports car than either I'd say :)
Designed from the start to engage the driver and provide the "best experience".
Doesn't need lots of power to go from A to B fast, or lots of tech.

So coming back "great for many other people" ... enjoy the Big Mac


Matra it's hard to reason with a person who thinks he's always right. I see validity in some of your points and you may even be right but your attitude of always being correct is very grating at times. I have acknowledged that I could be wrong... Have you?

EDIT: Sorry to lash out like this, but I've been biting my tongue many times when seeing you post in some threads and I wanted to get this out.

No hard feelings man, I just wanted to air this grievance with you.
The GREAT thing about (most) cars is that they don't need to be judged objectively.

[Kitdy]

Not really, no. You get used to it, like you get used to 50" TV.

When I drive around my old man's 225 hp TL it's kinda a pain in the ass. It is way faster than anything else that I drive on a regular basis and even it with it's relatively meager power to weight ratio begs you to go faster when you are doing the speed limit on a city street.

It's tempting to lay the pedal down to the floor but things get extralegal and dangerous quick if you push it - I can't imagine how tempting it'd be to push a car like yours or a Z06 to the limit.

I don't want a car that has that much power that I can't use regularly - at least in your case there's a track nearby and you race it frequently. Here, were I to be in the situation to be able to do so financially, I'd have to drive a hour and a half southwest to drag race it (at Cayuga) or an hour north east to road race it (at Mosport). Even if I did have the money and desire to take my car to the track, doing it more than a few times a year would be costly, and take a very long period of time and a lot of dedication.

I have no hard limit or anything like that, but I think about the top end of power and weight I'd want in my car would potentially be something like 300
hp and 3000 pounds - keep in mind, I have not driven a car with that sort of power for any length of time so maybe this is too much power, or even to little (I doubt that).

A G37 or 370Z or Duratec 37 'Stang or 335i, or E46 M3 is about as much power as I can see myself wanting I think.

Also, I drive at very reasonable speeds now that I have grown a little older and wiser. There is still a thrill I get from driving a car hard, but I am wary of the police, and more importantly, I am wary of endangering myself and others when I do so. I despise drivers that put their own personal driving thrill in front of safe driving, and I am basically of the view - unlike some others here - that there are some speeds which are never really safe to drive at. You want to drive like Michael Schumacher or whoever Dale Earnhardt or whoever your racing hero is? Save it for your Playstation or better yet the track.

I basically drive pretty relaxed now and with the flow - or even sometimes slightly slower than the flow - of traffic. What the hell then is the point of me wanting a 550 or 700 hp Mustang like the one you've got? Even if it is easy to drive (something I take with a grain of salt - I might even consider temptation a factor in how easy a car is to drive) I can basically never fully exploit it's power on public roads. Sure I can hit highway cruising speeds easily, and on ramps would be enjoyable, but I'd be travelling at my desired speed within such a quick amount of time that it'd not even be worth it for me to have bought or built a 500+ or even 400+ hp car.

Ultimately, in my eyes, there is such a thing as too much power, just as there is such a thing as too little power. Surely there is such a thing as too fast and too slow, right? So why not what I mention above?

[Rasmus]

Because the limit is higher. We basically agree, but I ask you to consider the following.

In my experience it's when a car puts down more than 600-650 to the wheels that it becomes unusable. Much more than that and it simply cannot lay down the power on the street in any efficient manner. You spin tires left and right. Up until that point you are pretty safe, and most cars in that range will drive just as fine, and be as docile as many other daily drivers.

These high horsepower cars don't need to be pushed hard to reach any kind of speed limit. Subsequently you drive them completely different. Compared to your average family sedan you have so much more torque at a lower RPM that you can cruise along in a high gear. Because they hardly break a sweat, they never really beg you to push harder or to floor it. You never really feel the need to honestly. That's what I meant when I said the GT is the one I've driven the nicest. I beat the piss out of that old Golf GTI -- again, ask Chris. Of course, it also depends on how the motor builds torque but that's a separate discussion.

So, we basically agree. I'm just saying the HP limit is higher than what you might expect. Hell, it was higher than what I expected myself. Having all that power makes it easier to get out of a potentially dangerous situations, and throttle moderation comes automatically -- as it does with all cars. You do get used to it. You learn to respect it. And you do use it every time you drive the car.

[wwgkd]

When I drive around my old man's 225 hp TL it's kinda a pain in the ass. It is way faster than anything else that I drive on a regular basis and even it with it's relatively meager power to weight ratio begs you to go faster when you are doing the speed limit on a city street.

It's tempting to lay the pedal down to the floor but things get extralegal and dangerous quick if you push it - I can't imagine how tempting it'd be to push a car like yours or a Z06 to the limit.

I don't want a car that has that much power that I can't use regularly - at least in your case there's a track nearby and you race it frequently. Here, were I to be in the situation to be able to do so financially, I'd have to drive a hour and a half southwest to drag race it (at Cayuga) or an hour north east to road race it (at Mosport). Even if I did have the money and desire to take my car to the track, doing it more than a few times a year would be costly, and take a very long period of time and a lot of dedication.

I have no hard limit or anything like that, but I think about the top end of power and weight I'd want in my car would potentially be something like 300
hp and 3000 pounds - keep in mind, I have not driven a car with that sort of power for any length of time so maybe this is too much power, or even to little (I doubt that).

A G37 or 370Z or Duratec 37 'Stang or 335i, or E46 M3 is about as much power as I can see myself wanting I think.

Also, I drive at very reasonable speeds now that I have grown a little older and wiser. There is still a thrill I get from driving a car hard, but I am wary of the police, and more importantly, I am wary of endangering myself and others when I do so. I despise drivers that put their own personal driving thrill in front of safe driving, and I am basically of the view - unlike some others here - that there are some speeds which are never really safe to drive at. You want to drive like Michael Schumacher or whoever Dale Earnhardt or whoever your racing hero is? Save it for your Playstation or better yet the track.

I basically drive pretty relaxed now and with the flow - or even sometimes slightly slower than the flow - of traffic. What the hell then is the point of me wanting a 550 or 700 hp Mustang like the one you've got? Even if it is easy to drive (something I take with a grain of salt - I might even consider temptation a factor in how easy a car is to drive) I can basically never fully exploit it's power on public roads. Sure I can hit highway cruising speeds easily, and on ramps would be enjoyable, but I'd be travelling at my desired speed within such a quick amount of time that it'd not even be worth it for me to have bought or built a 500+ or even 400+ hp car.

Ultimately, in my eyes, there is such a thing as too much power, just as there is such a thing as too little power. Surely there is such a thing as too fast and too slow, right? So why not what I mention above?

You're being reasonable. Sometimes reason and passion don't mix. I also drive slowly and carefully on public streets, but if I had a Z06 I'd find a way to get it on a track. Maybe AutoX or something. It would happen. It's like having an incredibly hot girlfriend. Yes, the dating process may seem like it would be frustrating, but the payoffs worth the wait (I'd imagine ;) .)

I'd also get new seats, but at least now I know why they're less than stellar, thanks whoever pointed that out.

[Kitdy]

Because the limit is higher. We basically agree, but I ask you to consider the following.

In my experience it's when a car puts down more than 600-650 to the wheels that it becomes unusable. Much more than that and it simply cannot lay down the power on the street in any efficient manner. You spin tires left and right. Up until that point you are pretty safe, and most cars in that range will drive just as fine, and be as docile as many other daily drivers.

These high horsepower cars don't need to be pushed hard to reach any kind of speed limit. Subsequently you drive them completely different. Compared to your average family sedan you have so much more torque at a lower RPM that you can cruise along in a high gear. Because they hardly break a sweat, they never really beg you to push harder or to floor it. You never really feel the need to honestly. That's what I meant when I said the GT is the one I've driven the nicest. I beat the piss out of that old Golf GTI -- again, ask Chris. Of course, it also depends on how the motor builds torque but that's a separate discussion.

So, we basically agree. I'm just saying the HP limit is higher than what you might expect. Hell, it was higher than what I expected myself. Having all that power makes it easier to get out of a potentially dangerous situations, and throttle moderation comes automatically -- as it does with all cars. You do get used to it. You learn to respect it. And you do use it every time you drive the car.

Fair enough Ras, but then again who's to say that our power limits are different?

Then there's the old maxim - it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive fast car slow. Driving something with moderate power on public roads may be more fun as you could safely - legally even - stretch it's legs out.

I imagine that's not entirely the case with your car.

Keep in mind, I have yet to drive something like your car on the streets - maybe it is just as easy as you say. I'd certainly love to try.


It's like having an incredibly hot girlfriend. Yes, the dating process may seem like it would be frustrating, but the payoffs worth the wait (I'd imagine ;) .)

The trick is to find a girl you are attracted to (maybe not blazing or anything, but what percentage of blazing girls are pleasant to talk to anyways?) who is not high maintenance and more fun to hang out with. Besides, just becuase a chick is hot doesn't mean she's any good in bed.


I'd also get new seats, but at least now I know why they're less than stellar, thanks whoever pointed that out.

That was culver. He seems to know everything about just about everything for modern GM vehicles and a lot in general about suspension design.

You really gotta speak up more around here culver - I learn a shitload from every one of yours posts.

[wwgkd]

Keep in mind, I have yet to drive something like your car on the streets - maybe it is just as easy as you say. I'd certainly love to try.


This. I doubt many of us have. Ras, you really need to go on tour to give us all a chance. :D



The trick is to find a girl you are attracted to (maybe not blazing or anything, but what percentage of blazing girls are pleasant to talk to anyways?) who is not high maintenance and more fun to hang out with. Besides, just becuase a chick is hot doesn't mean she's any good in bed.


I take a simpler route. I just look for women willing to put up with me and then find out if they're too crazy to be worth it. :)



That was culver. He seems to know everything about just about everything for modern GM vehicles and a lot in general about suspension design.

You really gotta speak up more around here culver - I learn a shitload from every one of yours posts.

Right. I had a suspicion but there were a lot of long posts and I was too lazy to read through them all to find it again. Of course then I got bored and read through them to find it, but you beat me.

[Kitdy]

This. I doubt many of us have. Ras, you really need to go on tour to give us all a chance. :D

Yeah - I think the GTA is about a 12 hour drive form NC, so feel free Ras.

Speaking of the 'Stang, do you have any pictures of the engine bay? How is the (potentially never-ending) build going?


I take a simpler route. I just look for women willing to put up with me and then find out if they're too crazy to be worth it. :)

That's a solid route. Maybe I should try that out.

[henk4]

Pneumatic springs were first used in the late 1800s. The first automotive uses were as I recall on buses prior to WW2. Cars used them starting I think in the mid 1950s.

BTW, don't think I'm discounting the Citroen system. It's more that just a spring and I could easily be convinced that it is more advanced in concept than any other auto system (waiting for the fully active systems).

I wasn't trying to defend the system in any way, just mentioned it as you said that all major suspension systems are at least a hundred years old.
for good order, here is description how it works

Hydropneumatic suspension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

although I have feeling that Citroen may have contributed themselves to this section....

I am curious to know what pneumatic systems were used in the 1800s. I found the buses, on which GM apparently based their fheir first air suspension systems for the late fifties Cadillac.

[henk4]

The GREAT thing about (most) cars is that they don't need to be judged objectively.

so any post by you regarding the 1-series should start with: "I THINK...." ;)

[Matra et Alpine]

Matra it's hard to reason with a person who thinks he's always right. I see validity in some of your points and you may even be right but your attitude of always being correct is very grating at times. I have acknowledged that I could be wrong... Have you?

EDIT: Sorry to lash out like this, but I've been biting my tongue many times when seeing you post in some threads and I wanted to get this out.

No hard feelings man, I just wanted to air this grievance with you.
"Better out than in".

I've been highlighting inconsistencies in comments and reviews.

I can't really be held up as that bing "my" bias .. can I :) ???

"right" is a very subjective thing in forums too.
It's too complicated to provide all the historical background adn rationale to an opinion, some based on facts, some on actual experience, some on second hand experience, some on "reading", sone om quoting other forums. So when I am saying things if I dont' preface it then it is direct first hand experience.

In that case, having lived it, experienced it then for me it IS the only "truth", the rest are subjective mental evaluations.

When putting these in black and white, we dont' have the delicacy of being in conversation, then it will ALWAYS sound "arrogant" or "grating".
But thems the way forums are .. the way any non-verbal, non-interactive communication is in reality.

But coming back to the FACTS.
I think they stand and so does the rationale behind them.
They may not sit well with the WHOLE picture - and thus why I will always say the Corvette is a great car. But it falls well short of being "GREAT". The thread seemed to be becoming a corvette-wank and shodl we leave errors in forum posts or do our best to explore the comment in both a positive and critique manner ?

I vote yes. But maybe I'm wrong :) :) :)

PS: and being a forum, I'm one who believes there is no point in putting in poinltess "yes" posts or "qft" every second post to show agreement. Again in conversation it woudl be a nod of the head to show agreement. Dont' ahve that hear and frankly woudl HATE to see a forum full of single word " agreed" posts. Is that what "grates" ? That the points in agreement dont' get praise lauded on them ? Understandable, but think of the unintended consequences if we had everyoen do that :(

[Matra et Alpine]

In my experience it's when a car puts down more than 600-650 to the wheels that it becomes unusable. Much more than that and it simply cannot lay down the power on the street in any efficient manner.
Agree, but for sake of compelteness then that is for cars of high mass.
You take the likes of a Lotus 7 (and copies) then half that has entered the world of "too difficult" away from track.

Having all that power makes it easier to get out of a potentially dangerous situations, and throttle moderation comes automatically -- as it does with all cars. You do get used to it. You learn to respect it. And you do use it every time you drive the car.
Another possible case of different circumstances ? :)
To have a car with lots of power get good traction then you up the tyre sizes. In areas where you get torrentail rain or where road state means you get puddling then those big fat tyres become a liability and nobody can control aqua-planing. When it happens you're a passenger hanging on hoping the wave breaks :( The heavier 'vette is helping that ?
So in that situation the things that make the power "usable" - ie good tyres and traction become a liability.
It's that vicious circle we enter when we increase power in any vehicle :(
In dry conditions there is nothing better than having a power/weight ratio near the 1 region. In wet however - on same tyres - it's suicidal.

NOT because of the power,. but because of all the things done to use/deliver that power.

With the RS200 you NEVER ran the tarmac setup if it was wet - even if it was a tarmac event and wet WIDE tyres were available. You went to a narrower tyre or it would leap in random directions on hitting standing water.

[Ferrer]

Regarding the question about power, it's not all about the speed. These days you can lose your license in pretty much anything. Even the cheapest of city car get to do 160km/h or more. So having more power is not about the speed. Or maybe it is parlty, but not all.

In my opinion the best thing about power is acceleration. And acceleration is not only fun and enjoyable but safe too. For instance if you have to overtake someone ina convetional road it's best to stay on the other lane as little time as possible. And you are certainly going to stay less time there in a 300bhp car than you will in 150bhp car. That's why passing someone in the Jag is so easy and safe, just foot down and you are done. In the BMW you've got to plan it much more carefully, and many times desist if you are not quite sure.

And then there's an added bonus. Power can sometimes give you the soundtrack as well. Let me bring up the Jag again. We were going to settle for the V6 model, and while that may have been lovely, I'm sure it doesn't have the same great noise that the V8 has. And that alone could be worth the extra expense, the extra carefulness with the throttle and everything really.

Finally, as Rasmus says, you get used to it. If you drive 150bhp car, one with twice the power may sound like a lot and unpractical to drive. But if you start driving one you'll get used to it. You'll know when it's time to drive relaxedly and carefully and when you can open the taps and enjoy fully the engine you've paid with your hard earned cash. I've always been against the idiotic power wars between manufacturers, but deep down I'm petrolhead. So yes, I like the power, I like the speed and I like the acceleration.

so any post by you regarding the 1-series should start with: "I THINK...." ;)
All my posts actually start with an (invisible) "I THINK..." :)

[culver]

I wasn't trying to defend the system in any way, just mentioned it as you said that all major suspension systems are at least a hundred years old.
for good order, here is description how it works

Hydropneumatic suspension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropneumatic_suspension)

although I have feeling that Citroen may have contributed themselves to this section....

I am curious to know what pneumatic systems were used in the 1800s. I found the buses, on which GM apparently based their fheir first air suspension systems for the late fifties Cadillac.

When I was doing a side project on an air spring suspension for a truck I read up on air springs. The earliest attempts were from the late 1800s. I don't recall the application but I think it might have been rail cars.

[Rasmus]

Speaking of the 'Stang, do you have any pictures of the engine bay? How is the (potentially never-ending) build going?


Meh, I had a blower meltdown almost 2 months ago now. I shipped the unit over to Rotrex, and it's been sitting there since then. Thankfully it looks like I'm finally getting a new unit, but I don't know which one yet. They're talking about shipping me a new, not yet released version of the C38 for testing. Whatever I get, I've told them I'll be sticking the smallest pulley on there that I can find.

Next up the car is going down to Florida for the new Ford Racing manifold that's finally out.


Fair enough Ras, but then again who's to say that our power limits are different?

Then there's the old maxim - it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive fast car slow. Driving something with moderate power on public roads may be more fun as you could safely - legally even - stretch it's legs out.

I see your point, but I'm not too sure. I've gotten in trouble more times than I can count in slow to moderately fast cars.



I imagine that's not entirely the case with your car.

Keep in mind, I have yet to drive something like your car on the streets - maybe it is just as easy as you say. I'd certainly love to try.


This. I doubt many of us have. Ras, you really need to go on tour to give us all a chance. :D



Yeah - I think the GTA is about a 12 hour drive form NC, so feel free Ras.


Well if you guys come here, I can set up a comparison test between a stock GT, a bolt-on, mine, and probably a few other interesting builds that aren't Fords.


Agree, but for sake of compelteness then that is for cars of high mass.
You take the likes of a Lotus 7 (and copies) then half that has entered the world of "too difficult" away from track.

Another possible case of different circumstances ? :)
To have a car with lots of power get good traction then you up the tyre sizes. In areas where you get torrentail rain or where road state means you get puddling then those big fat tyres become a liability and nobody can control aqua-planing. When it happens you're a passenger hanging on hoping the wave breaks :( The heavier 'vette is helping that ?
So in that situation the things that make the power "usable" - ie good tyres and traction become a liability.
It's that vicious circle we enter when we increase power in any vehicle :(
In dry conditions there is nothing better than having a power/weight ratio near the 1 region. In wet however - on same tyres - it's suicidal.

NOT because of the power,. but because of all the things done to use/deliver that power.

With the RS200 you NEVER ran the tarmac setup if it was wet - even if it was a tarmac event and wet WIDE tyres were available. You went to a narrower tyre or it would leap in random directions on hitting standing water.

Trust you to be the lacking voice of reason. We agree, of course. It depends on power to weight -- and that was also part of my point, the amount of horsepower has to be effectively put down.

You'd have to be some kind of wonder muppet to go hit triple digit speeds in a fast car on the streets if it was pissing down.

I've always said I wouldn't want the GT if I lived in the UK, and probably would switch to a smaller car even in DK, but the new Vettes are not really that big. Surely they don't feel so big when you're driving them. The C6Z is about the same weight as a new VW GTI. The E60 M5 is sitting at over 1800kg, and the RS6 over 2000kg, yet both have more hp than the Z but both feel like luxury liners.

[Matra et Alpine]

Trust you to be the lacking voice of reason. We agree, of course. It depends on power to weight -- and that was also part of my point, the amount of horsepower has to be effectively put down.
Thanks for the positive response to what maight have been seen as criticism or "being right" (sic) :) :)

You'd have to be some kind of wonder muppet to go hit triple digit speeds in a fast car on the streets if it was pissing down.
How do you find it in the 70-80mph hitting flooded tramlines on freeway or standing water ? I've had many a car - including fully setup and booted rally cars - bring my heart rate up at low-ish speeds when on fat rubber :(


I've always said I wouldn't want the GT if I lived in the UK, and probably would switch to a smaller car even in DK, but the new Vettes are not really that big.
Mate runs his 'Vette doing passegner laps on the 'Ring and GP circuit. It's a big car. Probably doesn't look so big in the land of Fleet's Lincolns. All is relative :)

Surely they don't feel so big when you're driving them. The C6Z is about the same weight as a new VW GTI. The E60 M5 is sitting at over 1800kg, and the RS6 over 2000kg, yet both have more hp than the Z but both feel like luxury liners.
Agreed, you just wouldn't push either of those that hard on the best twisties roads in Europe. ( and not even some tracks. An M5 stripped for track was struggling at Knockhill and the driver is a known "good'un", so can't just opt for the "may have been a slow driver" ) Did have some possibly superb footage on my camera but the card's corrupted - DAMN :( :( Trying various recovery packages now in the hope of getting 'em back :)

Take for example Lotus Evora, 8 inches shorter, 4 inches narrower. Doesn't sound a lot and it's not MASSIVE, BUT the point is where the driver is in relation to all that space. A Z06, the drivers head is 2/3 from front, 1/3 from rear and worse 3/4 from front wheel and 1/4 from rear wheel. Evora is dead centre - pretty much. What that gives is a more control of the vehicle dynamics in twisties. When we talk about "big" for driving then I cetainly mean more about the relation of the driver mass to the vehicle mass and the tyre contact points as they are what makes the handling difference. The physical also comes in to it and even more so in a Viper or worse a Panoz.

Of course going from hillclimb one weekend in a Lotus 7 copy to rallying the next in a Mini then I find that shock even greater. And hence why I'll tend to add comments in these kind of discussions. Each has it's place and enjoyment ... NOTHING beats looking over a long bonnet on a nice sweeping road ( of course *I* am drooling over E-type memories ) unless it's looking past an apex on a twisty and sticking the car right in to it and throttling through.

Yes, can't do that in cities ... but that's why Scotland is God's country for driving enthusiasts :) :) - and bikers :)

[wwgkd]

How do you find it in the 70-80mph hitting flooded tramlines on freeway or standing water ? I've had many a car - including fully setup and booted rally cars - bring my heart rate up at low-ish speeds when on fat rubber :(


Wasn't directed at me but figured I'd jump in sime my daily driver is running 12.50s (315s). I haven't done any highspeed racing, but I've done quite a bit of stuff that shows you how bad things can go at even single digit speeds. If the road has any significant standing water on it I slow down to much lower than 70-80mph, even if I'm in a 75 zone.

I could see having to drive fast in the rain if you're racing (you possibly were in that scenario?) but otherwise there's no big hurry. May as well slow it down and get there in one piece. Enjoy the road on a better day, where the massive power and rubber comes back into it's own. Wouldn't really call that a knock against the fat rubber cars, just knowledge of it's limits. Same way I wouldn't take a Z06 offroading.

Edit: I think even if I were driving an elise with uber rain tires that I knew wouldn't hydroplane I would still slow down just because the people around me may not be in the same boat. Then again I tend to think the most danger on the road doesn't come from my own vehicle but from other peoples.

[henk4]

When I was doing a side project on an air spring suspension for a truck I read up on air springs. The earliest attempts were from the late 1800s. I don't recall the application but I think it might have been rail cars.

I just did some checking about the use of fiberglass, and apparently during the 1952 olympics, an american was the first to use a fiberglass pole vault. Pole vaults are now also made of carbon fiber.

[Matra et Alpine]

I could see having to drive fast in the rain if you're racing (you possibly were in that scenario?) but otherwise there's no big hurry.
Thankfully short circuit and hillclimbs you know where the cros track rivers are and puddling.
Rally on tarmac is another BIG problem with other visul clues to warn .. the most important one being GET ON TO NARROWER/WET tyres :)
My worst ones have been on British roads :(
SOME motorways have bad tramlines where heavy trucks have created dips that don't clear water. Other - espacilly newer ones :( - have areas where it doesn't shed water as quickly so the road can be clearish but suddenly hit an ince of water across the road.
Even in light rain this can be an issue. That was the case I guess I was referegin to.
As you say, the best way to stop aquaplaning is to reduce speed - and thus still a Q on the BIG 'vette rear rubber how is it. In this case how much slower do we need to drive to be "safe" from serious aqua planing.

May as well slow it down and get there in one piece. .... Wouldn't really call that a knock against the fat rubber cars, just knowledge of it's limits. ....Edit: I think even if I were driving an elise with uber rain tires that I knew wouldn't hydroplane I would still slow down
Trying to learn from experienced owners how big a drop that is on moern 'vette on modern rubber on ordinary roads.

Then again I tend to think the most danger on the road doesn't come from my own vehicle but from other peoples.
Have driven in Florida where I pulled it over and parked up rather than share space with grannies in tanks and big rigs durign a downpour :)

[DesmoRob]

Nice write up Kitdy, and well said. Because the corvette is so attainable, it does fall into the hands of many people that give it a bad name, but that is just something we need to look past. As it stands, its a fantastic car for a fantastic price. That said, I choose not to be one of those people that doesn't afford the Ferrari they dream of, and I wont resort to corvette ownership :D.

[Matra et Alpine]

£47,000 in the UK for a new C6.

£50K gets a Lotus Evora.

Sorry about presenting facts .... but which would it be ?
Perhaps explains why the only Edinburgh Corvette dealer closed 2 months ago :(
and top selling UK dealer for Lotus Evora is .... in Edinburgh :)

[Ferrer]

£47,000 in the UK for a new C6.

£50K gets a Lotus Evora.

Sorry about presenting facts .... but which would it be ?
Perhaps explains why the only Edinburgh Corvette dealer closed 2 months ago :(
and top selling UK dealer for Lotus Evora is .... in Edinburgh :)
Wow, cheap Corvettes in the UK. Here the Evora is cheaper, by ten grand almost.

I can see the appeal of both, though.

[Rasmus]

In the UK, Evora, hands down. Over here, the C/Z.

New Evora; $73k
New C6; $50k
2nd hand C6Z; less than $40k. Them sum'bitches be droppin' in value like they be crazy!

[henk4]

I wanted to make a comparison here, but the Corvette is no longer available. The Evora is 80k Euro, last price (2009) for the C6 was 90k.

[Matra et Alpine]

In the UK, Evora, hands down. Over here, the C/Z.
Interesting. Why, is the Evora not receiving good write-ups ?
It's a classic piece of Lotus engineering.
Handles and performs like an Exige when you need it, does town and motorways like a uber-saloon.

2nd hand C6Z; less than $40k. Them sum'bitches be droppin' in value like they be crazy!
hmmm, again we need to be careful on different country attitudes to car markets ... BUT that would be taken as a poor reflection on the REAL VALUE of the car.
I was taken aback to see 18 month old Evoras selling for only £2K less then the brand new one.
Now THAT is the kind of resale value I only dream about with an RX-8 ( the other extreme :) )

[Rasmus]

Well for one, I'm not sure the Evora has reached the US yet. That, and a Lotus i just generally a rare bird around here. I know of only two; one 111s JPS and an orange Exige.

There are many reasons why the Vettes are popular over here.

Brand recognition -- The archetypal All American sports car.
Not an import -- many people take pride in buying American.
Big V8 with that V8 sound -- gotta give them that.
Customizing/power potential -- for the enthusiasts.
Price -- affordable for most.
Maintenance -- services are generally cheap, and there are many places to go to.
American roads -- big, wide, and not that many hard turns.
"What's a Lotus?" -- sad but true.


The Vettes are no where near the quality level of typical European sports cars, but they do offer a load of value for money. Any attempt at rationalizing a purchase of a sports car is deemed to be futile, but money talks.. and at the end of the day a Z is ridiculously fast for the money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Laps#The_Power_Board).

Am I calling the car good? No, not really. Just driving it, it's okay, but not spectacular. There are many I'd rather have. However,

[Matra et Alpine]

:) Corvette's are rare here :)

Am interested on the second hand prices. 25% is about the norm for an "ordinary" car. Do second hand values in the US tend to all drop about the same or is the C6Z you cite just a "bad example". Do other "performance" cars drop by as much ??

The Evora prices are a little "contrived" as Lotus is efectively building to order based on their sales success and factory capacity. So people will pay to get one NOW rather than wait the 8-10 weeks.

[Rasmus]

Kelly's Blue Book. (http://www.kbb.com/used-cars)Everybody dealing with used cars live and die by it.

2006 Z06 with a low 50,000 miles in 'Good' condition: $36,550.

It also depends on demand. A really bad example is the GT500KR. Because dealers had to pre-order the cars, many ended up with quite a few KRs sitting on different lots. Just before Christmas last year, an acquaintance of mine managed to pick up a new KR from a Ford dealer for just under $50k. They went for $100k when business was good.

[Matra et Alpine]

^^^ ahm that's something we dont' see in the UK which I think is a US dealership issue.
When supply is low the dealer can chose to set a price ABOVE the manufacturers sales price, yes ?
Not here. Even when demand high, supply low the dealer sells at "List" -- usually you can get a discount down from the "list" price on normal cars - about £500 in the UK :(

Of course it means on the really exclusive cars a VERY licrative market.
Mate twice "sold" his Ferrari before he bought it having put down the £20K to order one, by the time the car came round he was offered MORE than he woudl ahve to pay. Earned him more one year than 6 months salary :)

Kelly's is like the UK Glass's (http://www.glass.co.uk/) trade "black book" or the man in the street's Parkers (http://www.parkers.co.uk)

[Ferrer]

Well for one, I'm not sure the Evora has reached the US yet. That, and a Lotus i just generally a rare bird around here. I know of only two; one 111s JPS and an orange Exige.
It has.

First Lotus Evora delivered to an American customer — Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/20/first-lotus-evora-delivered-to-an-american-customer/)

^^^ ahm that's something we dont' see in the UK which I think is a US dealership issue.
When supply is low the dealer can chose to set a price ABOVE the manufacturers sales price, yes ?
Not here. Even when demand high, supply low the dealer sells at "List" -- usually you can get a discount down from the "list" price on normal cars - about £500 in the UK :(
That's a strange thing about the US market, I'd never pay list price for any car, yet there it seems normal to even pay more to get it. Also we are used to order cars exactly to our spec and the wait for them to be built, while they expect to drive off the dealer with something the same day they visit.

Another difference is the complete lack of choice inside model lines.

[roosterjuicer]

very nice piece there. 'Bout time someone on this darn website agrees with me on something!

[Badsight]

I think you mean big V8. The 6.2L LS3 in the current 'Vette is rather large for a modern V8 engine, and the LS7 is the largest V8 engine in a production car you can buy I would educatedly guess. Audi hovers around 4L for their V8s, as does Ferrari, the big Northstars are 4.4L, the old Modular V8 was 4.6 and 5.4 (5.4 I'd consider large), and the new 5L Mustang is on the verge of a large V8. A 6.2 is very big, and a 7 is monstrous. I dunno even what I'd consider a Cadillac 472/500, potentially gargantuan?

Even the old various 5.7 litres used in C4 and C5 'Vettes were pretty big for a V8, at least when one considers the rest of the world market and the time they were built.
at 625cc per cylinder , 5.0 is the optimum size . . . . . . . . good rev limit & excellent torque

over 100mm pistons require efficient combustion chambers , & the other way - long stroke - kills you maximum revs

over 650cc per cylinder (5.2 liters & over) & your looking at trade-offs in efficiency/max revs

ferraris new 4.5L would have to be my personal favourite , but a much cheaper purchase would be the new Coyote 5.0 by Ford (& the last gen modular V8 was koeinsegg's choice of development engine , they are not exactly slow or unreliable)

[P4g4nite]

At this point in time a Corvette isn't much less complex than most other sports cars, even compared to a Porsche 911.
A Z06 is considerably more complicated, making use of many advanced construction techniques and materials.

When I think of something simple I find it hard to picture a 190mph supercar botherer with all necessary hard/software that goes along with that.
I'm more likely to think of something like the MX-5 which is cheap, light and simple in a way the Corvette could never, responsibly, be and yet still manages to be one of the most enjoyable cars to drive there is.