RE: Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (C7): Review
Discussion
tannedstamina said:
If RHD is going to Australia, surely it can come to the UK?
http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-reviews/car-n...
"Senior General Motors executive rules out the Chevrolet Corvette for Australia, saying the numbers don't add up and work has not begun."http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-reviews/car-n...
http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/corvette...
Max_Torque said:
I wasn't taking a pop at the vette, i was just interested in exactly which car the Vette engineer was talking about in the engine comparison quote!
They love to try and smear BMW's face in the mud. Supposedly they're comparing it to the engine out of the F10 550i if you can believe that.. An engine out of a family sedan (albeit a relatively quicker one) that really isn't meant to be anything exceedingly special in the first place. A more worthy comparison would be the S65B40 or S63TU against the LT1 if anything. Don't know why they bother comparing a C7 Stingray to a 550i in the first place..I'm starting to get really tired of this anti-BMW thing GM loves to pull with every car they make. Walked into the GM stand at the car show last spring with a BMW M shirt on and got verbally attacked by a Cadillac rep without speaking one word to anyone but my dad. Not a brilliant way to sell cars!
I presume they're referring to the M5. Now, let's face it: a twin-turbo, quad-overhead-camshaft V8 will never be as compact or as light as a naturally-aspirated single-camshaft overhead-valve engine. GM get a lot of stick for persisting with OHV, from people who know no better and forget that OHC is actually the older technology. They're just taking an opportunity to stick up for what they believe to be best. Certainly, considering that the outgoing LS3 motor is so compact and light for what it is, yet will take insane amounts of boost (the LSA and LS9 variants produce 550 and 638bhp respectively, but I understand the LS9 can be taken to 850hp, then you're into bigger superchargers, or turbos. The blocks, heads and internals will take 1200hp no problem. Bombproof doesn't even begin to describe how robust these engines are. You try putting the same levels of boost on a BMW V8 on stock internals and you're headed for disaster.
Incidentally, I'm sure the same applies to all other European manufacturers, and likely Japanese ones too. GM just happen to view BMW as their principal rival in the performance car market. For what it's worth, I really like the look of the new Cadillac ATS...
Incidentally, I'm sure the same applies to all other European manufacturers, and likely Japanese ones too. GM just happen to view BMW as their principal rival in the performance car market. For what it's worth, I really like the look of the new Cadillac ATS...
RoverP6B said:
I presume they're referring to the M5. Now, let's face it: a twin-turbo, quad-overhead-camshaft V8 will never be as compact or as light as a naturally-aspirated single-camshaft overhead-valve engine. GM get a lot of stick for persisting with OHV, from people who know no better and forget that OHC is actually the older technology. They're just taking an opportunity to stick up for what they believe to be best. Certainly, considering that the outgoing LS3 motor is so compact and light for what it is, yet will take insane amounts of boost (the LSA and LS9 variants produce 550 and 638bhp respectively, but I understand the LS9 can be taken to 850hp, then you're into bigger superchargers, or turbos. The blocks, heads and internals will take 1200hp no problem. Bombproof doesn't even begin to describe how robust these engines are. You try putting the same levels of boost on a BMW V8 on stock internals and you're headed for disaster.
^ This.The American pushrod V8 is the most affordable,practical,easy to work on,way of making power.Possibly with the exception of a pushrod V12 which was arguably Jaguar's mistake. RoverP6B said:
Pushrod V12, XJ?
Firstly, not all OHV engines have pushrods - pretty sure my old Rover had hydraulic lifters. Secondly, the Jag V12 was SOHC per head (quad cam in the XJ13).
You've misunderstood the comment.I was making the point that the Jag V12 'would arguably have been' a lot easier to work on and just as powerful using pushrods instead of OHC hence my comments concerning Jaguar's arguable mistake at least from a maintenance point of view.While I had just guessed that you'd confused a pushrod engine in the case of the Chevy V8 with OHV which is obviously a given being that it's either side valve or OHV and in the case of OHV it just then being a matter of valve operation.In the case of hydraulic 'lifters' in a Rover V8 it's still a pushrod engine the lifters just being the cam followers in the form of either solid or hydraulic which then act on the pushrods. Firstly, not all OHV engines have pushrods - pretty sure my old Rover had hydraulic lifters. Secondly, the Jag V12 was SOHC per head (quad cam in the XJ13).
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 19th January 19:39
RoverP6B said:
You may well be right. I'm not sure I've heard of OHV V12s being built - can anyone correct me? I don't know to what extent the Jag V12 relied on its OHCs for refinement or keenness to rev...
I think,like all the european thinking to date that you're referring to,both the XK and the V12 were at the pioneering stage in the common use of the OHC layout as opposed to pushrod valve actuation based on race engine thinking at the time.It's always seemed to me to be a flawed idea in thinking that pushrod valve actuated engines aren't suited to high engine speeds.When the fact is they are more than capable of handling any engine speeds required for most applications road or race up to relatively very high levels,including top fuel dragsters,as proved by the US car manufacturers and tuners over the years with the added benefit of being much easier and simpler to work on.There is at least one specialist in the states producing Chevy based pushrod V12'S.
www.falconerengines.com/faq.php?faq=falconer_v12
However as I've pointed out the terminology isn't OHV v OHC.The term 'Overhead valve' ( OHV )only differentiates the actual 'valve positioning' in the cylinder IE overhead or side.
Overhead cam ( OHC ) differentiates the method of OHV valve 'actuation' in the form of camshaft position.In which case it's either the camshaft is fitted in the block using pushrods and rockers or it's overhead cam valve actuation in which the camshaft/s is/are fitted in the head/s working the valves directly from above.
There's also cam in head ( CIH ) in which the cam is still in the head like OHC bit it doesn't actuate the valves directly from above it still uses rockers like the Opel 6 cylinder 12 valve engines and some early BMW engines amongst others.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 19th January 21:59
loveice said:
Is LT1 the same as LS3?
What options does the test car have to make it more than £8k over the base price?
LT1 is a completely new engine, it's smaller and lighter than the old LS3 and it also has direct injection.What options does the test car have to make it more than £8k over the base price?
Regarding the options can't remember on the C7 what packages are called but the press car will have the best spec including sat nav etc.
I will get to see the C7 Z06 at Daytona this weekend as one is supposed to be on display at the Corvette Corral. Believe it is the grey one that was on display in Detroit.
www.hotrod.com/feature_stories/hrdp_1302_2014_chev...
Maybe it would be a good idea to offer an LS7 option.While it's obvious that at least deleting the AFM system aftermarket will be one of the first things on many buyers' list.
Maybe it would be a good idea to offer an LS7 option.While it's obvious that at least deleting the AFM system aftermarket will be one of the first things on many buyers' list.
900T-R said:
Furthermore, £170 just buys you six litres of decent engine oil and a filter. If that all the cost your car has attracted in 17 months time, I'd suggest either you're not driving it all that much or you're about to offload it to some unsuspecting punter pretty soon. My diesel estate just needed four new 18" tyres and brakes all round. That part of the bill alone added up to a grand and a half. It's rather disingenious not to take these costs into account just because you may not have had to replace tyres or brakes (which again would indicate that your car is more of a garage queen).
Four new Bridgestones on the TVR OTOH cost less than £400. I made the mistake of assuming the front brake pads would be pretty much worn after 35,000 miles that included some pretty intense PH-type runs and a track session, on replacing them the DS2500s that came out turned out to have about 80% left.
So Swerni has only paid a small cost during ownership (and you clearly state your car has only worn it's brakes by 20% in 35,000 miles) and yet you accuse him of trying to offload a problematic car to an unsuspecting Punter? Pretty disingenuous if you ask me. Four new Bridgestones on the TVR OTOH cost less than £400. I made the mistake of assuming the front brake pads would be pretty much worn after 35,000 miles that included some pretty intense PH-type runs and a track session, on replacing them the DS2500s that came out turned out to have about 80% left.
How about you stick to promoting your car's strengths.
Personally I love the new Corvette, would have one tomorrow, may well still, AND I own two Morgans but I would never buy a TVR
Boshly said:
So Swerni has only paid a small cost during ownership (and you clearly state your car has only worn it's brakes by 20% in 35,000 miles) and yet you accuse him of trying to offload a problematic car to an unsuspecting Punter? Pretty disingenuous if you ask me.
So you think the true maintenance costs for any car -let alone a powerful and relatively heavy RWD machine - over 17 months can be as low as the cost of a single oil change service with the car being driven regularly? Even though - for starters - a set of tyres will be somewhere north of a grand? Welcome to man maths, I guess... 
900T-R said:
So you think the true maintenance costs for any car -let alone a powerful and relatively heavy RWD machine - over 17 months can be as low as the cost of a single oil change service with the car being driven regularly? Even though - for starters - a set of tyres will be somewhere north of a grand? Welcome to man maths, I guess...
The Corvette is not a heavy car. Tyres - depends how hard you drive it, I guess. Can't comment on what they would cost to replace. However, every Corvette owner I've met speaks with evangelistic fervour about how they've got 911 Turbo/GT2 performance for base-model Carrera money and that they're incredibly reliable and relatively cheap to run. Oodles of V8 torque and a tall sixth or even seventh gear should also mean quite decent MPG.I am well aware of man maths thanks (I use it to justify most of my purchases 
)
However if you use a set of tyres every year (with reasonable usage) or even every other year then whatever car you are driving has an issue, or the driver has even my X6 and RRS didn't need new tyres after 12 and 15k miles respectively.
I appreciate you're going to come back with wear costs but that's not the point as he didn't incur that cost
Anyway bit of a non argument; just wanted to make my point.
) However if you use a set of tyres every year (with reasonable usage) or even every other year then whatever car you are driving has an issue, or the driver has
even my X6 and RRS didn't need new tyres after 12 and 15k miles respectively. I appreciate you're going to come back with wear costs but that's not the point as he didn't incur that cost
Anyway bit of a non argument; just wanted to make my point.
Interesting TVR analogy. I went from a C6 Z06 to a mk1 Tuscan S. Other than being RWD, relatively light and having over 300bhp per tonne, I would say they drive very differently. Corvette very composed, safe, stable and easy to drive fast, Tuscan... none of those things (but being narrower and RHD it was more usable). But which is more fun? The Tuscan by a mile (but by several miles compared to everything else I've driven). Would still buy another 'vette - maybe this one.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff