New 2014 Corvette Stingray (all new C7)

[stealthn]

Bet it wouldn't pass the offset crash test.....

[Sarc]

Originally Posted by mikeesik

But for over $70G's, the Engine ought to be in the rear.

Here you go

[daleflesburg]

Sarc: Yes! Much better looking. You could even smooth off the door and eliminate the vent hole.

The new cars styling kinda makes me itch. Somewhere between the first Countach and the first Viper Coupe. Mean looking, but not what I want. Too many parts seem wrong. The ass is too fat and the shape of the rear cockpit area, the two bumps in the top that look like a Viper coupe roof line.

If they were going all out, why not a totally modern vacuum molded unit (fighter aircraft technology). The Construction concept looks like they borrowed from the Fiero of the mid 80s.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by mikeesik

But for over $70G's, the Engine ought to be in the rear.

Really?

Why?

Aston Martin Vantage


Keep the vette with an engine up front, introduce a mid-Caddy.

Cadillac Considering Mid-Engine Halo Car | AutoGuide.com News

[onewhippedpuppy]

Lots of fantastic front-engined cars for well over $70k, that was a poorly informed comment.

[VINMAN]

I just cant understand why some of you guys get so butthurt when an American made vehicle performs well.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by VINMAN

I just cant understand why some of you guys get so butthurt when an American made vehicle performs well.

^^^this.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by VINMAN

I just cant understand why some of you guys get so butthurt when an American made vehicle performs well.

It seems to me that most car enthusiasts are biased, ill-informed, and emotional when it comes to automobiles outside of their narrow preference. There's really nothing wrong with that, we should all know and understand what appeals to us.

It's a lot like our enthusiasm for women: some will argue why a busty redhead is better than an athletic blonde........

The automotive equivalent of this:

[intakexhaust]

Vette styling? Like it or not, at least you know what it is. Sure seems many of todays SUV, cars looked morphed.

Good looking Ford.

[intakexhaust]

Back in '64, many Vette owners had dealers remove and redo the split rear window of the prior year.

As for the '14, wait until the aftermarket gets a hold of it. Yikes

[daleflesburg]

I do not know about anyone else, but I have just never liked the Corvette. In about 60, I drove a 56, and never got over how crude it was compared to a 59 356. I just have a thing for the cars. And I think this one is more 'brutish' that any. I actually liked the looks of the last rendition.

[intakexhaust]

Originally Posted by kaisen

The rails are indeed hydroformed aluminum. The bulkhead, windshield frame, central backbone, and roof hoop are also aluminum. The aluminum structures are clearly seen in photo above.

The floors are Carbon-Nano-Composite.....they used to be balsa wood (no kidding)

The body is a mix of SMC (Sheet Molded Composite) and Carbon Fiber.

The suspension sub-assemblies (photos above) are aluminum intensive

Still has carbon composite leaf springs

Still has pushrods too....

There's nothing wrong with balsa when used in the right application. Ultra light and very stiff when small cubed as core. No corrosion either. Used for years in high-end race boats.

[polo classic]

American cars at their best. Here they go spending millions on the new engine, and still use pushrods!!!!

I guess 4 valve technology is hard for US GM......Bugatti only had it in 1926 (or was it earlier)

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by polo classic

American cars at their best. Here they go spending millions on the new engine, and still use pushrods!!!!

I guess 4 valve technology is hard for US GM......Bugatti only had it in 1926 (or was it earlier)

And how does this have any bearing on the cars capabilities?

[polo classic]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

And how does this have any bearing on the cars capabilities?

Most 4-valve engines are more efficient. They have combustion chambers better suited for FSI. With a poly-quad design you will have similar torque as well, from idle and up

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by polo classic

American cars at their best. Here they go spending millions on the new engine, and still use pushrods!!!!

I guess 4 valve technology is hard for US GM......Bugatti only had it in 1926 (or was it earlier)

The results matter more than the method

The new pushrod 2-valve 6.2L LT1 in the new C7 Vette makes more horsepower and torque than any naturally aspirated new Porsche 911 motor, yet weighs LESS and uses less fuel.

And comes with a 100,000 mile warranty.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by polo classic

Most 4-valve engines are more efficient. They have combustion chambers better suited for FSI. With a poly-quad design you will have similar torque as well, from idle and up

Completely uninformed statement, simply not true

[polo classic]

Originally Posted by kaisen

Completely uninformed statement, simply not true

Well, that was what I read in the latest Popular Hotrodding when they interviewed the GM engineers (or was it Hot Rod?)

[RWebb]

yes, the engine ought to be in the rear...

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by polo classic

Well, that was what I read in the latest Popular Hotrodding when they interviewed the GM engineers (or was it Hot Rod?)

GM engineers said that 4 valves per cylinder would have been more efficient and made more torque?

Yet every gasoline powered V8 engine they make for towing or hauling ass is a pushrod two-valve design??

Again, all the proof you need is in the results.

Smaller, more compact, more torque, broader powerband, fewer parts.....

It's all a trade-off. Two, three, four, even five valves per cylinder all have the applications where they shine. Same with cam-in-block, single overhead cam, or double overhead cam. Same with timing belt, timing chain, or gear drive. All just different ways of getting the results depending on the desired metrics.