C7 Corvette

[livingVoice]

MotorTrend's take on the new Corvette, but not sure if the nose is that accurate.

[leaftye]

I'm still hating those lights. The grill opening looks like it has lips. Goth lips.

[JustinCSVT]

MotorTrend's take on the new Corvette, but not sure if the nose is that accurate.

Nothing about it is accurate.

[SVTDanny]

Ugh, all of these are terrible.

[LFZ]

I work for a company who builds suspension components for the C5/C6 and 5th Gen Camaro.
I can say that without a doubt this statement is horridly wrong.

We currently own a C6Z and a Camaro ZL1... in fact if you want to buy a ZL1 we've got one for sale!

Nice. I have you guys coils and sways on my Z.

[surefooted]

MotorTrend's take on the new Corvette, but not sure if the nose is that accurate.

It's like Motor Trend hasn't seen any spy shots, never got any inside info and hasn't heard any rumors. In other words, You could have done a better job guessing what the C7 would look like 5 years ago.

[Seabird]

I'm sure that everyone will recall Motor Trendy's attempt to predict what the C6 would look like a few years ago.

[JsnVR6Corrado]

I said it's a slab sided tank. Maybe this will help get my point across. I'm referring to the proportions of the mass. Do you see how high the sides of the car are?

I didn't attack anyone; why don't you all just take a breath and calm down. Really

These comments are the key to understanding why the Camaro looks bigger.

If a wedge has the same overall dimensions it will look smaller than a rectangle. The actual volume of the Camaro is more than the actual volume of the Genesis which is why it looks bigger.

Maybe we can use good ole' Archimedes anecdote and put them in a pool and see which displaces more volume.


Back on Topic, I can't wait for a new vette so that the C6 drops in price and I can get one.

[leaftye]

These comments are the key to understanding why the Camaro looks bigger.

If a wedge has the same overall dimensions it will look smaller than a rectangle. The actual volume of the Camaro is more than the actual volume of the Genesis which is why it looks bigger.

Maybe we can use good ole' Archimedes anecdote and put them in a pool and see which displaces more volume.

Which should be easily understood by anyone that survived grade school geometry. I don't see what's hard to understand why the Camaro would be bigger even if it had the same width, length and height. It appears bigger because it is bigger. It's even easier to understand if you've taken a class that mentioned Archimedes.

[kingrukus]

I'm sure that everyone will recall Motor Trendy's attempt to predict what the C6 would look like a few years ago.

That looks like an updated C4.

[rynodyno312]

That looks like an updated C4.

The C5 is an updated C4; the C6 is an updated C5. They have a lot more in common than you might think.

[mellbergVWfan]

The C5 is an updated C4; the C6 is an updated C5. They have a lot more in common than you might think.

Oxcart suspension?

[rynodyno312]

Oxcart suspension?

Same basic transverse leaf sprung suspension, yes. Obviously the drivetrains and interiors have changed, and they now use hydroformed frame rails, but it's really the same basic chassis setup used in 1984, with updated geometry and better materials.

[JustinCSVT]

Same basic transverse leaf sprung suspension, yes. Obviously the drivetrains and interiors have changed, and they now use hydroformed frame rails, but it's really the same basic chassis setup used in 1984, with updated geometry and better materials.

That's news to me. Really, besides body shape and the use of leaf springs, the C4 and C5 have nothing in common. That's a big reason why the C5 program look so long to develop. The C5/C6 can move parts backwards and forwards with each other. The C7 will have the same basic structure as the past two but I doubt you'll be able to put new parts(besides wheels) on a C5 or C6.

[compy222]

That's news to me. Really, besides body shape and the use of leaf springs, the C4 and C5 have nothing in common. That's a big reason why the C5 program look so long to develop. The C5/C6 can move parts backwards and forwards with each other. The C7 will have the same basic structure as the past two but I doubt you'll be able to put new parts(besides wheels) on a C5 or C6.

with the reported massive change in size/weight and width, i don't see parts from C6's just jumping onto C7's interchangeably. perhaps some of the wheels, offsets, etc. but not much.

[nmap]

Oxcart suspension?

I can fix that! Just ask LFZ.

[rynodyno312]

That's news to me. Really, besides body shape and the use of leaf springs, the C4 and C5 have nothing in common. That's a big reason why the C5 program look so long to develop. The C5/C6 can move parts backwards and forwards with each other. The C7 will have the same basic structure as the past two but I doubt you'll be able to put new parts(besides wheels) on a C5 or C6.

As I said, it's the same basic chassis setup, not the same car entirely or the same parts.

I guess I was too generous in the amount they have in common. As far as I know They both use frame rails, transverse leaf springs, both have double a-arms in front, the brakes are very similar, and they used the same automatic transmission. To me, that is pretty close, even if the parts don't interchange.

[c615586]

I'm sure that everyone will recall Motor Trendy's attempt to predict what the C6 would look like a few years ago.

That is hideous.

[JustinCSVT]

As I said, it's the same basic chassis setup, not the same car entirely or the same parts.

I guess I was too generous in the amount they have in common. As far as I know They both use frame rails, transverse leaf springs, both have double a-arms in front, the brakes are very similar, and they used the same automatic transmission. To me, that is pretty close, even if the parts don't interchange.

LOL I guess. To me, they aren't even near each other. It's just like going from the 993 to 996. Yeah, they have the same basic setup but they really aren't close.

[justskidn]

As I said, it's the same basic chassis setup, not the same car entirely or the same parts.

I guess I was too generous in the amount they have in common. As far as I know They both use frame rails, transverse leaf springs, both have double a-arms in front, the brakes are very similar, and they used the same automatic transmission. To me, that is pretty close, even if the parts don't interchange.

They have no more in common than the 1989 Miata and the 2012 Miata. The C4 chassis was based around 2 large perimeter, fabricated box structures. In that design it wasn't too dissimilar as compared to the Lotus Elise. The C5 radically changed the way loads were carried through the chassis. The central structure is now the transmission tunnel with the well advertised hydroformed rails acting as the secondary structure (both are critical of course). So in this regard the fundamental chassis design is much different. Yes, they both use the transverse leaf springs but that's like claiming the B4 Passat and the current Passat have the same suspension because both use coils. The rear suspensions are much different. The C4 used a multi-link setup were the drive shaft was one of the suspension arms (a design dating back to the C2 and to the early Jag IRS). The C4 rear leaf was centrally mounted so the left and right sides weren't tied together to create a sort of anti-roll effect (the infamous "cross talk" that some vendors use to market coil springs to buyers who don't understand that cross talk is a GOOD thing). The C5 rear suspension followed the lead of the C4 front suspension and used widely spaced pickups that allowed the leaf spring to double as an anti-roll bar. The C5 used double A-arms at all 4 corners vs the C4's rear multi-link design. The C5 put the transmission in the back of the car vs next to the engine. This means the C5 also got new transmission housings since the old units were designed to bolt to the engine directly.

The cars aren't close at all.

[uncleho]

They have no more in common than the 1989 Miata and the 2012 Miata. The C4 chassis was based around 2 large perimeter, fabricated box structures. In that design it wasn't too dissimilar as compared to the Lotus Elise. The C5 radically changed the way loads were carried through the chassis. The central structure is now the transmission tunnel with the well advertised hydroformed rails acting as the secondary structure (both are critical of course). So in this regard the fundamental chassis design is much different. Yes, they both use the transverse leaf springs but that's like claiming the B4 Passat and the current Passat have the same suspension because both use coils. The rear suspensions are much different. The C4 used a multi-link setup were the drive shaft was one of the suspension arms (a design dating back to the C2 and to the early Jag IRS). The C4 rear leaf was centrally mounted so the left and right sides weren't tied together to create a sort of anti-roll effect (the infamous "cross talk" that some vendors use to market coil springs to buyers who don't understand that cross talk is a GOOD thing). The C5 rear suspension followed the lead of the C4 front suspension and used widely spaced pickups that allowed the leaf spring to double as an anti-roll bar. The C5 used double A-arms at all 4 corners vs the C4's rear multi-link design. The C5 put the transmission in the back of the car vs next to the engine. This means the C5 also got new transmission housings since the old units were designed to bolt to the engine directly.

The cars aren't close at all.

Thank you

[Mazda 3s]

As I said, it's the same basic chassis setup, not the same car entirely or the same parts.

I guess I was too generous in the amount they have in common. As far as I know They both use frame rails, transverse leaf springs, both have double a-arms in front, the brakes are very similar, and they used the same automatic transmission. To me, that is pretty close, even if the parts don't interchange.

They have no more in common than the 1989 Miata and the 2012 Miata. The C4 chassis was based around 2 large perimeter, fabricated box structures. In that design it wasn't too dissimilar as compared to the Lotus Elise. The C5 radically changed the way loads were carried through the chassis. The central structure is now the transmission tunnel with the well advertised hydroformed rails acting as the secondary structure (both are critical of course). So in this regard the fundamental chassis design is much different. Yes, they both use the transverse leaf springs but that's like claiming the B4 Passat and the current Passat have the same suspension because both use coils. The rear suspensions are much different. The C4 used a multi-link setup were the drive shaft was one of the suspension arms (a design dating back to the C2 and to the early Jag IRS). The C4 rear leaf was centrally mounted so the left and right sides weren't tied together to create a sort of anti-roll effect (the infamous "cross talk" that some vendors use to market coil springs to buyers who don't understand that cross talk is a GOOD thing). The C5 rear suspension followed the lead of the C4 front suspension and used widely spaced pickups that allowed the leaf spring to double as an anti-roll bar. The C5 used double A-arms at all 4 corners vs the C4's rear multi-link design. The C5 put the transmission in the back of the car vs next to the engine. This means the C5 also got new transmission housings since the old units were designed to bolt to the engine directly.

The cars aren't close at all.

[l88m22vette]

Like everything but the lips and the taillights. Its tradition GM, many of you weren't even born yet, don't change the F-ing lights. PLEASE. Why you are making the Corvette follow the Camaro's styling path I don't understand. That is blasphemy, and completely goes against the Corvette's pseudo-independent status from Chevy and all the peon cars it makes. Yes the Camaro is a peon car as compared to the Vette, its awesome and all that, but the Corvette is its own league and shouldn't be almost dumbed down because Welburn loves Transformers.

Idiots

[kingrukus]

Credit to Corvetteforum poster BlueOx.

looks similar to the jalopnik rendering.

[c615586]

looks similar to the jalopnik rendering.

Yup. Just realized the same thing and came back to the forum to delete my post. Doh!

I've never been a corvette guy, but for some reason, I'm unreasonably excited about this car.

[thetopdog]

looks similar to the jalopnik rendering.

I think it IS the Jalopnik rendering. I honestly can't see any differences besides possibly the gas cap changing from round to square

[c615586]

I think it IS the Jalopnik rendering. I honestly can't see any differences besides possibly the gas cap changing from round to square

You're right. I think one of the corvette forum guys was just messing with folks. Less than two months to go. I'm sure there will be a ton of leaks in the coming days.