Starz T/A 17

iTrader: (6)

I really don't think that GM would do this to compete with Lambos or Ferrari's but more for the 300zx, evo, skyline, etc type of cars that fall in the 40-70kish price range. Like someone said I don't see someone buying a Corvette over a Ferrari because although the performance is similar there in different classes of buyers, most of people who buy Ferrari's are buying the name. But a guy looking at a 45K Evo could easily buy a 50 k Corvette instead if it appealed to him.

skorpion317

iTrader: (8)

When I say "average guy", I'm not talking about the guy flipping burgers at McDonald's. I mean a middle-class guy who has a decent job, owns a house, etc. - "living the American Dream."

I'm missing the point of this engine because there isn't any point to it. Like I pointed out earlier, GM is not going to spend $1 billion+ on developing an engine that will only be used in a small handful of vehicles.

The "young millionaires" market isn't very large - there's something like 8 billionaires in the U.S. Under the age of 40. I couldn't find any numbers on the amount of millionaires under 40, but it can't be big - a couple thousand, maybe? It makes no sense to chase after them. Hell, some of them might already own Corvettes.

I don't get why some in this thread think that the Corvette isn't competitive because it's got an OHV engine. It's not like OHC engines are the "best" engines, not by any stretch of the imagination. Also, look at some of the other cars Corvette competes against. The Porsche 911 has a rear-mounted flat-6. Should the Corvette do the same to be "competitive" with it? The Lamborghini Gallardo has a mid-mounted V10 and AWD. Should the Corvette do the same to stay "competitive"? Competition doesn't mean "copy your rivals," it means "bring your best weapon to the table, and see who wins". GM's weapon is the LSx. It's proven itself time and time again, on the racetrack, on the street, and in sales. It's cheap, simple, reliable, fuel-efficient and makes great power. And yet some people think that it would be a good idea for GM to spend $1 billion+ developing the exact opposite of the LSx just to fill some tiny niche market.

skorpion317

iTrader: (8)

Name a car that matches the Corvette's capabilities in the $40K-$70K price range. There isn't one. It's been said time and time again that the Corvette is the best "bang for the buck."

And let's not forget, the LSx is the most popular engine for an engine swap in recent memory. It's been swapped into EVERYTHING - Japanese and Euro imports, classic muscle cars and hot rods, modern muscle cars, foreign and domestic trucks, kit cars, boats - I've even seen a plane that had an LSx in it. You don't see anyone doing that with Ford's modular V8s, or the Evo's 4G63, or Nissan's VQ35, or Chrysler's new Hemi.

turbo

iTrader: (10)

The average guy/middle class still can't afford a $50,000 car when he makes $50,000! Not to mention middle-class is argumentative, its solely based on geographical area and income. We can argue what middle class is and where all day. I am talking about the income rates based in the U.S. and over 50% of our nation's public earn less than $50,000 annually.

Who said it will cost $1 billion? You would bet GM would invest in an engine that could be used in "only" several vehicles, especially the truck and/or SUV market. Also, a car manufacturer cannot stay competitive by bringing the same ol' engine to the table every time, they will lose customers. Why do you think cars undergo redesigns every few years....because the people demand it. So by introducing another engine option, GM will stay fresh, competitive and expand.

This was just an example and never meant that GM would chase "just" this market. I was simply pointing out that the our world is changing..

Starz T/A 17

iTrader: (6)

Just because its not as fast doesn't mean its not competition. If that was the case people would buy a ZR1 instead of a ferrari and nobody would buy mustangs over F bodies. But speed isn't everything, a lot of people buy what appeals to them and not what exactly is the fastest car out there.

And honestly people with the mindset "lets just keep doing what were doing because it works" is what made GM go under the first time. If everyone did that nothing new would come out. Why would GM of ever developed the LSx platform when the LT's were getting the job done. When the LS platform was originally being developed Im sure there was a chance it could have flopped, but look what it turned into, and you never know until you try.

88blackgt

Not directly related, but this may be a sign of the times:

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/06...ling-v-8s.html

Also funny to everyone that said the EB wouldnt sell.

Irunelevens

I am talking about the new Corvette being a better car overall, and maybe using the V8/TT combo for one model. Nobody is talking about getting rid of the "bang for the buck" pushrod motors, or pushing the base price up. I am talking about making a real and true "super car" top model that nobody has to make any excuses for. And people would pay for that.
Exactly
What year do you think this is?
Thank you for that.

skorpion317

iTrader: (8)

Just an informal poll I found on a Corvette forum:

http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/...-buyer-16.html

They asked how old the C6 buyers on the site were. The vast majority were 40 and older - these are the guys who have the money to spend on a Corvette. Like I said, these guys probably have decent jobs, own a house, etc. Seeing as they're mostly over 40 (the largest group was 50-59), their kids, if they have any, are probably out of the house. All of these factors add up to disposable income. These guys probably aren't rich, but they do have enough money to spend on a toy like a Corvette.


I've provided information about the kind of money GM is spending on the Gen V program. The Gen V engines have the benefit of being based on the existing LSx architecture, and the years of development behind the LSx. Even with this advantage, GM is still spending well over a billion dollars on the Gen V program. It will be an evolutionary step up from the Gen IV engines. You can safely assume that developing a brand-new engine family from scratch would cost at least that much, if not more.

And GM hasn't brought the same engine to the table. If they did, we'd still have the LS1. Instead, we've had over a decade of evolutionary designs that have constantly improved, and the Gen V will continue that trend. GM stays competitive by improving an already highly-successful product, not by spending a ton of money developing an engine with limited applications and no advantage over the LSx design.

skorpion317

iTrader: (8)

I didn't say other cars weren't competition. I just said there's no other car in that price range that gives you the Corvette's performance (not just speed - handling, braking, even fuel economy). It's a great car for the money.


The old GM didn't have the mindset of "Let's keep doing what works". They continually did what DIDN'T work, and that's what landed them in bankruptcy.

GM developed the LSx engines because the LTx engines wouldn't get the job done with regards to performance, fuel economy, and emissions compliance. For the forseeable future, the LSx engines (with the upgrades the Gen V's will bring) will continue to get the job done, and do the job well.

skorpion317

iTrader: (8)

There already is a "supercar" Corvette. It's called the ZR1.

Irunelevens

You obviously aren't paying attention to what I'm saying.

skorpion317

iTrader: (8)

I have been paying attention to what you're saying.

The ZR1 is already a "super car" top model, and I don't think anyone is making any excuses for a car that just ran a 7:19.63 at the Nurburgring.

I just don't see how it would make any sense to make an even more expensive "special" model that, in all likeliness, wouldn't improve on the ZR1's performance capabilities in any way.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

I agree.

Though I believe that this twin turbo 3.0L V8 (if it were to ever even happen that is) is being touted as more of a base or entry level Corvette motor/model and not so much of a 'Z06/ZR1 level' type car. I think.

SparkyJJO

iTrader: (11)

Maybe it is because it is late, but I find it funny the things that some of you heatedly argue over

Irunelevens

No, you aren't paying attention at all. You just seem to be making up your own version of what I say. Let's make this clear; I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ONLY PERFORMANCE. Defining a "super car" is not as easy as performance. When I referred to not having to make any excuses for the Corvette anymore, I am talking about the WHOLE CAR. Stuff that has been "good enough" in the past should be improved upon anyway; like giving the top Corvette coilover suspension (or maybe all of them). The ZR1 is a great car, don't get me wrong... but underneath all that fantastic performance, it's still a $115k car that is built like a $45k car. Of course now I'm sure I will be accused of hating the Corvette/GM/America, but whatever.

JD_AMG

And what does this have to do with the 3L turbo engine?
Also, FYI, GM is spending more money making composite leaf springs rather than coil springs. Many [ignorant] people don't realize that things are done on the Corvette for a certain reason beyond price...

skorpion317

iTrader: (8)

From Wikipedia:

The ZR1 is definitely "very fast", and it definitely has "sporting handling to match". It's definitely "sleek and eye-catching". It may not be priced "in a rarefied atmosphere of it's own" in relation to far more expensive super cars, but compared to other Corvettes it's very expensive. Seems like the ZR1 covers all the "supercar" bases to me.

JD_AMG

Sometimes its best to ignore him, hes in his own little world.
What hes talking about is he thinks the Corvette should have the build quality and interior like an Audi R8 or Ferrari etc. Hes totally ignoring the fact that it would push it further out of everyones price range.
Hes one of the guys with those excuses you hear :"Corvette is faster all around" "Oh yeah, but car X has better interior".

jimmy169

I think the problem with the corvette is it's just too bland. I love the car and it's capabilities, but I couldn't stand to picture myself in one. That style and shape seems to be perfected, but it's just so old. A supercharged ZR1 is badass but I have had a trans am and dsms and turbo cars before, there is something about turbo cars for me that is more exhilarating. Something about the way the power comes on is not so linear but feels good because of that. I think corvette needs a dramatic change. It's perfected what it is, which is awesome, but it gives this feeling of stagnation. The same thing gets old. If it offers different packages, not just a turbo package, which is what this new rumor suggests, I think it's the best of both worlds. Those that like the performance aspect, or just want a big v8 have that option, but those that want something they may find more exhilarating than a big blown v8, even if it was ultimately a little slower, will have that option too, something new and different to inject new life into the vette name. Just my humble opinion. Nothing against the tried and true, but I personally would love a turbo v8 and would gladly save for one over the tiptronic gtr. But if I had to choose between a gtr and z06 or zr1, I would choose the gtr. I love the sound and feel of turbo, and that may qualify me as a ricer to some for liking the sound but I'm sure a lot of people here love the sound of their v8's which would just be a hypocritical double standard.

Whats interesting to note is that you seem to have a collection of nice cars (from your sig. pic) which sort of makes you their target costumer. Personally, I share your opinion but I couldn't afford their next corvette, it would only be something I would start saving for if I was interested. I always wondered if those that seem like they could afford it are open to something different like this article suggests. I can only hope more people like you let GM know your interest in something like this.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

No, but you might now be accused of ridiculing and banishing the Corvette's interior/underpinnings to a level FAR BELOW where they actually are.
Once again, yes a Ferrari 458's or even Lamborghini Gallardo's interior materials/switchgear might very well be superior to a Corvette ZR1's. But please don't make it out to be like we're comparing a 1984 Yugo to a 2011 Bentley here, the gap just isn't quite as big as some seem to make it out to be.
And when you factor vehicle (and maintenance) costs into the mix the Corvette's interior might even be considered superior but again we're not talking price here either (though price is still almost always a factor, even for most exotic car/supercar buyers).






EXACTLY.