[See5]

Originally Posted by The HACK

First, there's the way it generates these insane test results. While it's not smoke and mirrors, they do it by benchmarking to a set of numbers rather than having a certain overall goal in mind. 0-60 in 2.9s? DCT, launch control, and insanely short 1-2-3 gear (in one of the promo videos they talked about how that sub 3 second is achieved because 3rd gear is engaged at the same time 2nd is. Which means you need to shift to 3rd to get to 60). What they don't tell you is that 4,5,6,7 and 8 all have to be geared super tall in order to retain some sort of civilized highway mileage, and that the transmission is going to force you to shift from 1-4th every time you're not above 3,000 RPM in first (it's call skip shift. Look it up). Or that number requires a ton of mass to be placed on the rear axle, hence the move to a mid engine rather than a front engine design, but that sacrifices a 50/50 weight ratio. Rumor again has it, that unlike other mid engine cars at the usual 40/60 split, the C8 is actually closer to the typical rear engine 911s at 30/70.

There's nothing insane about that 0-60 in today's time. The 992S and 991GTS both achieve 3 second flat 0-60 runs. A good DCT, high mechanical torque, great weight transfer(the Corvette will most likely set the rear shocks to full soft on launch, started with the C6 ZR1), and great traction will do that. The C8 DCT has the ability to use both internal transmission shafts on launch for even better torque transfer.

The chief engineer says that 1st gear is very steep, and 2-6 are closely bunched together with 7 and 8 being highway gears.

There's no skip shift. No GM automatic has ever used that technology. That was only for vehicles with the T-56 and its derivatives.

As for the weight distribution, the 991/992 are around 38/62 with mid engined cars like the 720S and 488GTB around 42/58. Moving away from 50/50 isn't a sacrifice and it will be almost impossible for the C8 to come in at a static 30/70. I don't know where you got that rumor.

While this is all great for certain benchmarks, the car is built to meet and beat these benchmarks in mind, so from an overall package's perspective, other areas are compromised or more tech added to compensate. Notice the front tire to rear tire stagger is now 235/315? An 80mm stagger. Chassis is likely going to experience significant amount of understeer that they'll attempt to tune out using suspension trickery. End result is the car is likely going to be very fast, but just as Randy Pobst points out, even on the C7 platform the Corvette is excessively snap happy once all the traction aids are turned off, and on track it just doesn't feel connected to the driver like other top of the line chassis from Porsche, BMW, or the über exotics it claims to go up against.

The tire setup is 245/305. That's the same setup used by Ferrari and McLaren. Significant understeer? I seriously doubt it.

The C7 didn't feel like the other cars because it runs a significantly larger front tires than the others, which dulls steering feel. Jason Cammisa had a good article on this recently as he noticed that the GT350 is very hard to keep in a slide because they sacrificed steering power for feel, making it tough to turn the 285s up front quickly.

Nothing about the C7's chassis can be drawn from regarding the C8. The C7's snappiness was not evident in the Z51 and GrandSport model but did rear its head in the Z06 and ZR1. The C8's move to a midengine layout should solve that problem. I don't know how you could draw a parallel between the two.

The C8 also should provide better steering feel due to its much shorter, more direct linkage to the steering rack, and narrower tires across the range.

Second, if you read the press and the reveal information right, the C8 is about 10% stiffer than the C7. By extrapolation that's about 17,000Nm/degree of deflection, which is about 1/2-2/3 of what your typical cars in this competitive range has. My MZ4 Coupe is 32,500Nm/degree of deflection, and when I drive it, you know it...It feels like it's carved out of a single block of forged aluminum. The Corvette, on the other hand, due to the longer wheelbase, wider, and heavier, flexes and moans into each and every turn like a convertible. Again, it's fast, don't get me wrong, and blindingly so, and enough so that you sort of overlook that particular flaw...But it just shows another area where GM must cut corners to offer this car at a price that they can compete at. $60K means no CF tub, no exotic braces and engineering that goes into making it super stiff to handle the rigors of high performance, no high-end material to ensure that they're not making a 3,600lbs behemoth and using a torque-y but low revving pushrod to overcome that mass disadvantage.

The Corvette never registers as high as other vehicles because its not a unibody, so torsional strength will look deficient in comparison to cars that are essentially a shell with subframes bolted on.

The actual structure itself is very stiff.

From MT:

But the team reports that the torsional stiffness is better than that of the C7 and several key competitors.

Outside of the C4, I haven't driven any modern Corvette that flexes like an old convertible. The C5 gained critical acclaim for its chassis engineering at the time of its introduction. Rattling targa tops sure, full on chassis flex and cowl shake? Not a chance. And I've driven every generation and version from the base C5 to C7 Z06 especially not the hardtop C5 and C6, and the new C7s.

If you look at the C8 chassis, the size of the center tunnel and the way it ties the chassis structures together should tell you enough. This is also an all aluminum chassis, which something many of its competitors don't feature.








These corners you talk about being cut, I'm not seeing them.

Which makes my third point. One of the reasons the C8 is so heavy compared to most of its competitors, which it is...At 3,600 lbs sans driver, it's in the M4 range and it doesn't even offer a back seat. It's because of the demographic demands. It's sold, still, primarily to OLD PEOPLE. Old people that doesn't want to have to climb over a huge threshold that keeps a chassis stiff. Old people that doesn't want a stiff ride as they cruise in their mid engine supercar on a Sunday afternoon. Old people that insist they must have trunk space to carry 2 sets of golf clubs as they trek on their retired asses to a golf course on a Tuesday afternoon. Old people that wants their friend in a Porsche to know that they can beat them on a stop light, but never actually do so. With that in mind, you can sort of understand why GM engineered the C8 the way they did.

The 911 weighs in at 3450lbs now as well.

Both cars are designed to be extremely versatile for sports cars. They've been within about 200lbs of each other for about 25 years now and this generation hasn't changed that.

Yes, there are engineering compromises that need to be made. The Corvette, especially not a base model, cannot be a hardcore sportscar with the ride of a cement truck.

I don't know how much you think $60K 500hp sportscars are supposed to weigh though.

Which is a good segue to why, despite it being an aspirational brand (yes Corvette is a brand. Try and find an exterior bow-tie logo on the car independent of the actual Corvette logo. You can't), the demographic continue to get older and older. That's right, a recent poll on Corvette Forum revealed that the AVERAGE owner's age for the latest generation, the C7, is approximately 68 years old. Sixty. Eight.

The average Corvette owner is 59. I understand your point, but this was fairly easy to find.