2014 C7 Chevrolet Corvette

[vtmike]

Originally Posted by RogerR

It wasn't meant as a jab. It's just that many people say "I'm an engineer" but that doesn't always mean they are in their area. Ask me a question about air conditioning thermodynamics and I will be slow to reply. Ask me about chemical engineering and you might as well ask me about poetry. Not my area.

I also happen to know a few people in the racing world who are very good engineers in practice but have no degree to back their claim to the title.

I'm a civil engineer dealing mainly in hydrology, and hydraulics. I pointed out I wasn't an automotive engineer. The only reason I mentioned education and occupation was a comment directed at me to go back to school.

To each their own. I wouldn't buy one. Even in the road and track interview (one with the leaked cover with photo of c7) with one of the engineers he mentions trying to attract a new generation of buyer other than baby boomers. They aren't doing it with me because of the low revving ohv engine and suspension setup. Same for all of the younger car enthusiasts I work with. Most all of us would buy a base cayman before buying any vette.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by vtmike

I'm a civil engineer dealing mainly in hydrology, and hydraulics. I pointed out I wasn't an automotive engineer. The only reason I mentioned education and occupation was a comment directed at me to go back to school.

To each their own. I wouldn't buy one. Even in the road and track interview (one with the leaked cover with photo of c7) with one of the engineers he mentions trying to attract a new generation of buyer other than baby boomers. They aren't doing it with me because of the low revving ohv engine and suspension setup. Same for all of the younger car enthusiasts I work with. Most all of us would buy a base cayman before buying any vette.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

I'm glad I guess correctly on the type of engineering degree. Of course I did kind of cast a wide net with my guess.

No one said you had to buy one of course. I can sympathize with the thoughts of a Cayman over a Corvette. I rather like the Cayman myself. However, the notions of the low revving motor are somewhat questionable. The suspension isn't flawed at all and certainly the struts used by the Cayman are typically considered "inferior" to double A-arms. Do you remember the outcry from Civic fans when Honda dumped the double A-arm front end for struts?

This is not to day the Cayman won't have superior steering feel. It does help that the Cayman has an engine behind the driver, doesn't often have a LSD (LSDs cause understeer) and has narrower tires. GM has been working to address these things over the years with the C6 and I suspect the C7 will be even better.

The motor is simply a mater of what you like. The great torque of the Corvette motor goes a long way to forgiving a low redline. The motor has some very impressive attributes. It's small, light, great power, good mileage (when driven for mileage). It also has some downsides. It has so much power you really don't get to push it to redline much if you do you are going really fast really quickly. If you don't rev match well you will notice that 6+ l motors have a good bit of engine braking. The rev match feature of the C7 should help in that regard.

Since you have mentioned liking reviews I will mention this one. It's a few years old, Road and Track, "V8 Exotics". The Ferrari was the winner but the LS3 was picked as their favorite engine, beating the Ferrari.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-reviews/car-comparison-tests/v-8-exotics-final-thoughts?click=main_sr

I suspect many of your friends would fall in love with the V8 if given an honest chance.

Edit to change the link

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by vtmike

....To each their own. I wouldn't buy one. Even in the road and track interview (one with the leaked cover with photo of c7) with one of the engineers he mentions trying to attract a new generation of buyer other than baby boomers. They aren't doing it with me because of the low revving ohv engine and suspension setup. Same for all of the younger car enthusiasts I work with. ...

Let's change perspectives. If you saw a spec sheet for a next-gen sports car and it listed the suspension as:

*Aluminum double wishbone [SLA] control arms with anti-roll bar and carbon fiber springs

Most would probably sploosh their pants. When they then find out that those carbon fiber springs are oriented in a cantilever orientation instead of 4 spirals, everyone and their mom gets negatively emotional and pissed off that it's low-tech. It's an immature reaction at best.

Nobody gets their panties in a wad over the early Porsche 911's that use torsion springs, which are the same thing as coil springs except linear instead of coiled. Cantilever springs work too, they flex longitudinally instead of axially. You've likely used one your entire life, it's the style of spring in a Swingline stapler. It's a very simple concept once you take the emotional baggage out of it.

-->Appealing to younger audiences is an oft chased thing in the automotive world. Scion tried it with the xA and xD when they launched and they ended up with an empty-nest baby-boomer demographic! MINI thought they were being youthful too and ended up with a similar demographic, albeit wealthier and with the MINI being used as a the 3rd or 4th car. The 86 twins are curious as most that actually had an AE86 are old enough to no longer be considered overly young, and that leaves their children that grew up loving them because their father loved it too. The Corvette likely needs a fresh marketing perspective, but also its price point puts it outside most Gen X & Y'ers capability. I've said it before and I still feel it's relevant; the Corvette needs to future-proof itself by offering a Hybrid powertrain that showcases high technology in a sporting context. A big sexy V8 will always sound amazing and they shouldn't take that away, but use the electric motor facet to push tire-shredding torque to AMG SL65 levels of ridiculousness while simultaneously allowing for respectable fuel economy during the daily grind.

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

A big sexy V8 will always sound amazing and they shouldn't take that away, but use the electric motor facet to push tire-shredding torque to AMG SL65 levels of ridiculousness while simultaneously allowing for respectable fuel economy during the daily grind.

I'd consider 450 at 2000 rpm tire-shredding.
Granted, the AMG makes a huge amount more at less than another thousand RPM, but I'm not so sure that a hybrid option would do a whole lot unless you're just using it as a way to improve MPG.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by n2oinferno

..... but I'm not so sure that a hybrid option would do a whole lot unless you're just using it as a way to improve MPG.

If that were true then Porsche needs to be informed their 918 is doing it wrong.

[LSxJunkie]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq1evt2grpY"]Spied! 2014 Corvette Stingray (Unedited Clip) - YouTube[/ame]

I'll have mine in that color.

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

If that were true then Porsche needs to be informed their 918 is doing it wrong.

I'm a huge fan of the 918, but the price is absurd. Someone's gotta pay for R&D on a limited run hypercar though, I suppose. But how many Vettes would sell if it were priced similarly, at $845,000? Of course, we know at least one would sell, since the one at Barrett-Jackson went for $1,050,000. That's probably about it though.

[dem00n]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKrQrAn_hNA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKrQrAn_hNA[/ame]

Its odd, sometimes it looks really long, others time it looks really short.

[Gixxersixxerman]

ive heard on more then one occasion that the new C7 is revolutionary instead of evolutionary.. to me it seems like an upgrade to the C6.. and the C5 is the biggest revolutionary vette since the first.. i mean the late 80's and early 90's were crap in my eyes.. ive drove a 66 vette, 82 limited, and an assorted 85 to 95.. and was never pleased.. even tho a vette was a dream car to me.. like most late 70's babies, growing up it was just cool, and i had the vette poster next to my countach posters.. but my first drive i was so disappointed, i worked at a shop that the owner specialized in vettes and thats how i came across driving so many.. i have drove one C5 and one C6.. and those were what my dreams were of.. insane handling and scary acceleration.. that C6 Z06 was nutts.. i just don't see whats so revolutionary about the C7.. it looks great it grew on me fast.. i still not a fan of the rear.. but i like the front and side profile.. but i just don't get whats so much more special about this new update

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by dem00n

Its odd, sometimes it looks really long, others time it looks really short.

Well damn, I think this just made it on my bucket list. Good work GM

[vtmike]

Hi

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Let's change perspectives. If you saw a spec sheet for a next-gen sports car and it listed the suspension as:

*Aluminum double wishbone [SLA] control arms with anti-roll bar and carbon fiber springs

Most would probably sploosh their pants. When they then find out that those carbon fiber springs are oriented in a cantilever orientation instead of 4 spirals, everyone and their mom gets negatively emotional and pissed off that it's low-tech. It's an immature reaction at best.

Nobody gets their panties in a wad over the early Porsche 911's that use torsion springs, which are the same thing as coil springs except linear instead of coiled. Cantilever springs work too, they flex longitudinally instead of axially. You've likely used one your entire life, it's the style of spring in a Swingline stapler. It's a very simple concept once you take the emotional baggage out of it.

-->Appealing to younger audiences is an oft chased thing in the automotive world. Scion tried it with the xA and xD when they launched and they ended up with an empty-nest baby-boomer demographic! MINI thought they were being youthful too and ended up with a similar demographic, albeit wealthier and with the MINI being used as a the 3rd or 4th car. The 86 twins are curious as most that actually had an AE86 are old enough to no longer be considered overly young, and that leaves their children that grew up loving them because their father loved it too. The Corvette likely needs a fresh marketing perspective, but also its price point puts it outside most Gen X & Y'ers capability. I've said it before and I still feel it's relevant; the Corvette needs to future-proof itself by offering a Hybrid powertrain that showcases high technology in a sporting context. A big sexy V8 will always sound amazing and they shouldn't take that away, but use the electric motor facet to push tire-shredding torque to AMG SL65 levels of ridiculousness while simultaneously allowing for respectable fuel economy during the daily grind.

I'll say the leaf has its advantages. I can't get past the non linear spring rate (not sure if it's caused by the mount points allowing the center to flex providing the anti roll effect or the spring itself). I also don't like the fact you have the spring (crosstalk effect) and roll bar providing the roll resistance but functioning in a different manner from one another. It seems like it would make it much more difficult to set up.

As far as new cars go, I'm excited to see what Ford brings to the table with the new Mustang. The Coyote engine is awesome providing low torque, relatively high revs, and respectable efficiency. If direct injection is added it will only get better. A lot of people think it will have an independent rear suspension (fixing its current main fault in my opinion). Modern styling if anything like the focus and fusion will be great. It's the only car that made me second guess buying the frs and think about waiting until it's released. I'm hoping it delivers and I have a hard decision in replacing the frs with the new Mustang or keeping what I have.

[RogerR]

Gixxersixxerman,

I would say you are right, this is an evolutionary car. Even though almost no parts are carry over it's clear the chassis is an evolution of the C6 which was of course an evolution of the C5. The C4 was actually a very revolutionary car but I also think it was less than the sum of it's often very interesting parts. The C3 was an evolved C2. The C2 was revolutionary, the C1 wasn't.

So the C2 strikes me an revolutionary mostly because it was one of the earliest cars with a multi-link rear independent suspension. Funny that some people think the car still has a rigid axle thanks to the leaf spring yet the Corvette was one of the first cars to have what would be considered a modern IRS. Prior to the Vette, Jag E-Type and Lotus that all came out about the same time IRS suspensions were typically swing axles. The two Brits and the Corvette were the first to have a multi-link rear suspension. I mean BMW would still be using semi-trailing arm rear suspensions into the 2000s.

The C4 was really interesting on many levels. It's a car with lots of creative design ideas and several firsts. In addition to being the first to use fiberglass leaf springs front and rear it also was the first production car with forged alloy suspension arms. The first LCD instrument display. One of the earliest 5 link multi-link rear ends and a pioneer in several other areas. Still, the chassis wasn't strong enough to be a targa (it was designed to be a T-top but the higher ups said go targa). The interior also struck me as cheap feeling.

The C5 clearly was a revolutionary design. It wasn't perfect but the level of chassis rigidity and light weight was revolutionary at the time. Also if you read the book All Corvettes are Red (a must read for any car fan, even ones who don't like GM cars) you can see that much of the turn around at GM really started with the C5.


vtmike,
The non-linear spring rate is not inherent in the spring. As with coils the linearity of the spring rate can be adjusted as the engineers see fit. A more progressive rate is common on road cars as it helps the ride. Basically it's a trade off.

"I also don't like the fact you have the spring (crosstalk effect) and roll bar providing the roll resistance but functioning in a different manner from one another. It seems like it would make it much more difficult to set up."
The crosstalk effect is identical to that of a traditional roll bar. The wheels don't know how the suspension is connected. What the left wheel knows is, at a given position of the left wheel plus a given position of the right wheel, the suspension arm is pushing down with X N of force. Some of that force comes from the ride spring and some from the sway bar. The wheel doesn't know the difference. The leaf can be tuned such that from the POV of the suspension, if you looked at a force vs displacement surface plot, you couldn't tell if the car used leaves or coils. It simply makes no difference.

You might be correct that it's more difficult to setup. However, GM has the tools to set this up. What ever the target ride and roll rates, they can hit it with either coils or the leaf. It's just the leaf will be lighter and package better in the process (and suck more money away).

I'm really looking forward to the new Mustang as well. I haven't driven the current 5.0 cars. However, I have driven the older models. I was actually really blown away by an '04 Cobra. I think the Fox body was a junky car but MAN I couldn't believe how SMOOTH the motor was. I mean I expected power and noise. The engine delivered. What I didn't expect was vibration levels that BMW would have been pleased with. It's funny, I'm quick to sing the praises of the power, compact size and light weight (about the same as a Nissan V6) of the GM LS V8s. However, the Corvettes I've driven always felt just a bit cammy. It was never a stupidly smooth motor like a BMW I6. The Ford V8 in the old Cobra wasn't light, it wasn't efficient and it wasn't small. But it was smooth and really had great character.

Go figure.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by RogerR

I would say you are right, this is an evolutionary car. Even though almost no parts are carry over it's clear the chassis is an evolution of the C6 which was of course an evolution of the C5. The C4 was actually a very revolutionary car but I also think it was less than the sum of it's often very interesting parts. The C3 was an evolved C2. The C2 was revolutionary, the C1 wasn't.

You have to be kidding.

[vtmike]

Originally Posted by RogerR

Gixxersixxerman,

I would say you are right, this is an evolutionary car. Even though almost no parts are carry over it's clear the chassis is an evolution of the C6 which was of course an evolution of the C5. The C4 was actually a very revolutionary car but I also think it was less than the sum of it's often very interesting parts. The C3 was an evolved C2. The C2 was revolutionary, the C1 wasn't.

So the C2 strikes me an revolutionary mostly because it was one of the earliest cars with a multi-link rear independent suspension. Funny that some people think the car still has a rigid axle thanks to the leaf spring yet the Corvette was one of the first cars to have what would be considered a modern IRS. Prior to the Vette, Jag E-Type and Lotus that all came out about the same time IRS suspensions were typically swing axles. The two Brits and the Corvette were the first to have a multi-link rear suspension. I mean BMW would still be using semi-trailing arm rear suspensions into the 2000s.

The C4 was really interesting on many levels. It's a car with lots of creative design ideas and several firsts. In addition to being the first to use fiberglass leaf springs front and rear it also was the first production car with forged alloy suspension arms. The first LCD instrument display. One of the earliest 5 link multi-link rear ends and a pioneer in several other areas. Still, the chassis wasn't strong enough to be a targa (it was designed to be a T-top but the higher ups said go targa). The interior also struck me as cheap feeling.

The C5 clearly was a revolutionary design. It wasn't perfect but the level of chassis rigidity and light weight was revolutionary at the time. Also if you read the book All Corvettes are Red (a must read for any car fan, even ones who don't like GM cars) you can see that much of the turn around at GM really started with the C5.


vtmike,
The non-linear spring rate is not inherent in the spring. As with coils the linearity of the spring rate can be adjusted as the engineers see fit. A more progressive rate is common on road cars as it helps the ride. Basically it's a trade off.

"I also don't like the fact you have the spring (crosstalk effect) and roll bar providing the roll resistance but functioning in a different manner from one another. It seems like it would make it much more difficult to set up."
The crosstalk effect is identical to that of a traditional roll bar. The wheels don't know how the suspension is connected. What the left wheel knows is, at a given position of the left wheel plus a given position of the right wheel, the suspension arm is pushing down with X N of force. Some of that force comes from the ride spring and some from the sway bar. The wheel doesn't know the difference. The leaf can be tuned such that from the POV of the suspension, if you looked at a force vs displacement surface plot, you couldn't tell if the car used leaves or coils. It simply makes no difference.

You might be correct that it's more difficult to setup. However, GM has the tools to set this up. What ever the target ride and roll rates, they can hit it with either coils or the leaf. It's just the leaf will be lighter and package better in the process (and suck more money away).

I'm really looking forward to the new Mustang as well. I haven't driven the current 5.0 cars. However, I have driven the older models. I was actually really blown away by an '04 Cobra. I think the Fox body was a junky car but MAN I couldn't believe how SMOOTH the motor was. I mean I expected power and noise. The engine delivered. What I didn't expect was vibration levels that BMW would have been pleased with. It's funny, I'm quick to sing the praises of the power, compact size and light weight (about the same as a Nissan V6) of the GM LS V8s. However, the Corvettes I've driven always felt just a bit cammy. It was never a stupidly smooth motor like a BMW I6. The Ford V8 in the old Cobra wasn't light, it wasn't efficient and it wasn't small. But it was smooth and really had great character.

Go figure.

I wonder how much is by design and what is unintended side effect. From what I could gather from various Vette forums with what appeared to be knowledgeable people commenting is the leaf used in the Vette is neither predictably progressive or regressive in its change in spring rate with deflection but does some weird things. I can't imagine that's by design but is maybe a side effect of the center of the spring between the 2 mounts flexing changing geometry as the suspension travels. But maybe it is. I would love to see a graph of deflection vs force for the Corvette.

I also would like to see a graph of deflection of one side vs anti roll force on the opposite side for the leaf spring and compare that to the effect from a roll bar.
I would bet the shape of those graphs are quite different. Someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm wrong.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2