RE: Soleil Anadi: The Dutch Corvette

[LuS1fer]

Slickskid said:

I don't think it was so much that buyers were clamoring for a live axle as most buyers probably don't know/care. I've seen so many cases where even car people don't understand the technology they are talking about (look at everyone who rags on the Corvette for the leaf springs). Sure some drag racers want the live axle but really, I think Ford used it because it was cheap. The stories of retrofitting Cobras with live axles should be considered a condemnation of the particular IRS that car had rather than proof that a good IRS wouldn't be much better than a live axle. The IRS in the Cobra was severely compromised by, as you mentioned, the need to fit into existing chassis hard points on a chassis that dated back to the 1970s. Given the challenges the designers faced it's amazing it was even as good as it was.

I don't think Ford listened to the customers beyond, "we don't want to pay too much" and "it needs to drive good". Ford was able to deliver both with the live axle. It would be interesting to know how much better (or not) the car would have been with an IRS. Even if it didn't help the handling, some extra rear seat room would be nice.

Well you should find out in 2014. Whether it is an economy or not, Ford didn't go cap in hand to the US government when GM and Chrysler were in the poo and so from that point of view, profit has to take priority. Indeed, I wonder now much profit GM are losing by competing with the Mustang.

On another note, the Mustang is significantly lighter than the Camaro - is this to do with the weight of an IRS setup?

My own view is that a car should be entertaining and fun. What you can't deny on the "economy front" is that unlike GM, Ford haven't left the Mustang to crab along with no development - they've put in a brand new 5.0 engine and vastly increased the ability and trackability of the stock Mustang GT with their "track pack" which really doesn't smack of economy so much as a free bonus.

[BlackPrince]

5 USA said:

...said the guy with the white stick.

I'd hate to think you might ever be tempted to a Porsche 911, BMW anyseries or TVR whichisit!!

imo the same basic coke bottle shape of the Corvettes hasn't changed since the C4, significantly anyway or even detailwise, save for the inclusion of non-popup headlamps on the C6.

And I agree that the 911 hasn't changed enough, or at least that things started to go horribly wrong after the 993 (I like the 997 GT3 & RS tho).

TVRs are defunct now, and what common thread binds BMWs of the last 30 yrs other than the design of 4 front headlights?

Tho this guy w/ the white stick thinks that your C5 isn't too dissimilar in ext appearance to the C4, its certainly a cracking car and in the UK at least you'll hardly ever see one coming the other way.

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/corvette-c6rs-...

My fav vette. That thing looks and sounds demonic

[LuS1fer]

therehas been a generic resembalnce betweeen the C6 and C4 which was acknowledged when it was designed. I actually still like the C4 better than the C6 and my favourite of the 4/5/6 is still easily the C5.

The C3 is a marmite design and outlandish but I love it - it was radical even in the 60s - and I also love the C1 and 2. It's only the C6 I've never taken to - looks a bit Japanese if anything and designed to a brief rather than a concept.

I understand why Corvette has played it safe and tried to maximise sales by providing golf-club space but it really does need to up its game in the looks department and get back to the future (as most of its predecessors did).