RE: New Corvette revealed at last!

[Peakybillington]

can we have a RHD one please

[benzpassion]

So now we know what the 'F' in F-Type stands for - F***ed.

Chevrolet Stingray:

450 hp V8, 1,400 kg, 0-60 sub 4s, manual box, $50k.

Jaguar 2006 XK, GT barge, short-wheelbase, aka '2013 F-Type' 'sports car':

340 hp V6, 1,600 kg, 0-60 >5s, slusher-only, $70k.

Jaguar - 'when hype meets the road'.

Time to quit marketeering, Gaydon, and start actual engineering.

Bravo, Chevrolet/GM's engineers!

[Fire99]

I love 'Vettes but visually this one may take a while to grow on me. Fair play for being bold with the design though.

[E38Ross]

benzpassion said:

So now we know what the 'F' in F-Type stands for - F***ed.

Chevrolet Stingray:

450 hp V8, 1,400 kg, 0-60 sub 4s, manual box, $50k.

Jaguar 2006 XK, GT barge, short-wheelbase, aka '2013 F-Type' 'sports car':

340 hp V6, 1,600 kg, 0-60 >5s, slusher-only, $70k.

Jaguar - 'when hype meets the road'.

Time to quit marketeering, Gaydon, and start actual engineering.

Bravo, Chevrolet/GM's engineers!

OK - we'll see what sells more over here then shall we.

the jag isn't going to be slusher only either, they've already said that - keep up with the times. you're also forgetting import tax on the vette.

the read end is truly vulgar, but the front ain't bad.

[qube_TA]

I think this looks fantastic, it's a little bit busier and fancy than the C6 but completely want one.

They've definitely stepped up their game, well done GM.

[MonteV]

TheDeadPrussian said:

I've always admired the 'vette, but could never actually own one because of the awful interior design and quality (I've rented a couple on trips to the US) - the interior design on this looks better and if they can match 'European' interior quality, it would definitely be a contender (LHD or not).

I agree.

[Krikkit]

Looks absolutely outrageous. Excellent.

[LuS1fer]

I LOVE it!

Fantastic effort from Chevrolet.

As a C4 and C5 owner and a man who never like dthe C6, this re-invents the Vette magic and makes me lust for one again

Even when I had a C5 Z06, I was a bit of an apologist for the big-butt styling (the coupe was much better) but here is a car that needs no excuses and I can see it selling like hot cakes.

I know a lot of traditionalists bemoan the loss of the glass wrap-round hatch but that's been around since 1980 (last of the C3s..) and it's stale and time to move on. I like the Camaro-esque/LFA rear end. It really needs no apologies and given the sheer UGLINESS of current Ferraris, this should be mind-blowing.

It does now make the Viper a 2nd choice too.

[AlpinaB5s]

walsh said:

Just needs guns. Really like that...

It does look like the bd child of bumblebee and a 599. The quad exhaust is just far too silly.

[365daytonafan]

Looks nice but someone explain why Chevrolet persist with transverse leaf springs on the Vette?

[DanielSan]

I prefer the old one.

[robmlufc]

C7R please!

[LuS1fer]

365daytonafan said:

Looks nice but someone explain why Chevrolet persist with transverse leaf springs on the Vette?

Sure. They do the same job as coil springs and take up far less space.

[g3org3y]

Krikkit said:

Looks absolutely outrageous. Excellent.

[edo]

love child of the last 'vette and a gtr.

[tinkertaylor]

I prefer the prior version...dislike the rear end a lot...maybe it'll grow on me

[bagseye]

i was wondering how long it would take to get onto the leaf spring topic. Seems to be they know what theyre doing on that front (or rear).

[stephen300o]

Looks nice, the front is a little bland and unadventurous though.

[British Beef]

E38Ross said:

benzpassion said:

So now we know what the 'F' in F-Type stands for - F***ed.

Chevrolet Stingray:

450 hp V8, 1,400 kg, 0-60 sub 4s, manual box, $50k.

Jaguar 2006 XK, GT barge, short-wheelbase, aka '2013 F-Type' 'sports car':

340 hp V6, 1,600 kg, 0-60 >5s, slusher-only, $70k.

Jaguar - 'when hype meets the road'.

Time to quit marketeering, Gaydon, and start actual engineering.

Bravo, Chevrolet/GM's engineers!

OK - we'll see what sells more over here then shall we.

the jag isn't going to be slusher only either, they've already said that - keep up with the times. you're also forgetting import tax on the vette.

the read end is truly vulgar, but the front ain't bad.

The point is, Jag already make a nice fast, good looking and heavy GT car - the XK. The F type, is more of the same, only slightly smaller, slightly lighter and slightly cheaper.

This Corvette, in principal, should have been closer to what the F type was designed to be - lightweight, fast and about the same price as a specced up Boxster S - as this is surely the target audience.

Lets see what the Vette costs in £ and if it comes RHD. The best "bargain" supercar out now is the GTR, at £70k (odd) that has to be the cost and performance benchmark for this.

[IDrinkPetrol]

365daytonafan said:

Looks nice but someone explain why Chevrolet persist with transverse leaf springs on the Vette?

Mostly because they are a better engineering solution.

Thieved from Wikipedia but basically echoes what I've always understood about them and saves me typing it all out:

Advantages
Less unsprung weight. Coil springs contribute to unsprung weight; the less there is, the more quickly the wheel can respond at a given spring rate.
Less weight. The C4 Corvette's composite front leaf weighed 1/3 as much as the pair of conventional coil springs it would replace. Volvo reported that the single composite leaf spring used in the rear suspension of the 960 Wagon had the same mass as just one of the two springs it replaced.[8]
Weight is positioned lower. Coil springs and the associated chassis hard mounts raise the center of mass of the car.
Superior wear characteristics. The Corvette's composite leaf springs last longer than coils, though in a car as light as the Corvette, the difference is not especially significant. No composite Corvette leaf has ever been replaced due to fatigue failure, though steel leafs from 1963 to 1983 have been. As of 1980, the composite spring was an option on the C3.
As used on the Corvette, ride height can be adjusted by changing the length of the end links connecting the leaf to the suspension arms. This allows small changes in ride height with minimal effects on the spring rate.
Also as used on the C4 front suspension, C5, and C6 Corvettes, the leaf spring acts as an anti-roll bar, allowing for smaller and lighter bars than if the car were equipped with coil springs. As implemented on the C3 and C4 rear suspensions with a rigid central mount, the anti-roll effect does not occur.
Packaging. As used on the C5 and later Corvettes the use of OEM coil over damper springs would have forced the chassis engineers to either vertically raise the shock towers or move them inward. In the rear this would have reduced trunk space. In the front this would have interfered with engine packaging. The use of the leaf spring allowed the spring to be placed out of the way under the chassis and while keeping the diameter of the shock absorber assembly to that of just the damper rather than damper and spring.[9]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring for the full article and to follow citations]