backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by flyingpants1.. on Jul 12 at 4:53 AM

More power and better fuel efficiency than previous generation Corvette

It wasn't so long ago that you were guaranteed to get poor fuel economy if you purchased a high-powered sports car. However, with manufacturers all around the world working hard to provide their vehicles with the best fuel efficiency possible, even sports cars and now getting downright miserly when it comes to fuel consumption.
 
A perfect example is the new EPA estimated 29 mpg fuel efficiency rating granted to the Chevrolet Corvette Stingray.

At 29 MPG, the Stingray is the most fuel-efficient “high horsepower” sports car on the market according to GM. The 455hp Stingray has an EPA estimate of 17 mpg in the city and 29 MPG on the highway. The new Corvette also has a driver selectable Eco-mode which boosts efficiency to 30 mpg on the highway. Eco-mode is available on Stingrays equipped with the seven-speed manual transmission.

“The Corvette Stingray establishes the benchmark for modern performance cars by using technologies to deliver more performance and more miles per gallon,” said Tadge Juechter, executive chief engineer for the Corvette. “We expect more and more performance cars will follow Corvette’s example.”

The Eco-mode enables Active Fuel Management, which allows four of the eight cylinders in the high-powered V-8 engine be disabled for better fuel economy. Stingrays that feature the six-speed automatic transmission also get Active Fuel Management, but that fuel management is active in all drive modes unless the drivers using the manual-shift mode and steering wheel paddles.

 
EPA estimates for the automatic Corvette are not available.

Chevrolet points out that the highway fuel efficiency rating for the new Stingray is 11% better than the previous Corvette despite the new 6.2-liter V8 engine producing 6% more power compared to the previous Corvette.
 
The Stingray coupe will go on sale this fall with the convertible coming later in the year.

Source: GM



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Bah
By Motoman on 7/9/2013 11:09:31 AM , Rating: 2
Hardly seems worth it - shutting off 50% of the motor for 1 more MPG (1 29th)?

Obviously you still have to deal with all the friction and other mechanical resistance to spin the whole motor - which means the 4 remaining cylinders have to work that much harder.

Not sure I'd bother.

Having said that, anyone else think they failed on the rear end of the car? The front end looks Corvetteish - the rear end, though...doesn't.




RE: Bah
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/9/2013 11:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hardly seems worth it - shutting off 50% of the motor for 1 more MPG (1 29th)?

Obviously you still have to deal with all the friction and other mechanical resistance to spin the whole motor - which means the 4 remaining cylinders have to work that much harder.

Not sure I'd bother.


I tend to agree with you. If I'm not mistaken, this new C7 is actually heavier than the C6, and much of the weight went towards the cylinder deactivation feature.


RE: Bah
By Motoman on 7/9/2013 11:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, well...what are the chances you could gain 1 MPG by cutting 100 pounds from the weight of the car?


RE: Bah
By GulWestfale on 7/9/2013 11:37:47 AM , Rating: 3
this is necessary not from an engineering point of view, but from a marketing one. all those hybrids would consume less gas if they didn't have to carry around batteries and an electric motor either... but the market demands it, and so here it is.

the rear end looks awful. why would they try to visually link their halo car with the camaro? sure, the camaro might be a fine car, but it's not exactly a looker. chrysler got the design and the proportions 100% right with the challenger, but the camaro looks too narrow and too tall. and the corvette now looks like a cheap prop that escaped from a michael bay movie. sad.


RE: Bah
By Mint on 7/9/2013 12:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
this is necessary not from an engineering point of view, but from a marketing one. all those hybrids would consume less gas if they didn't have to carry around batteries and an electric motor either... but the market demands it, and so here it is.
Right, cause that weight does absolutely nothing for efficiency and it's all one giant ruse...

News flash: Real world driving involves more than just constant speed cruising.


RE: Bah
By Totally on 7/9/2013 12:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree the rear end looks horrible but after some digging around it isn't the case of borrowing from the Camaro. They tried, and obviously failed, to recreate the look of corvette stingray concept from a couple years ago.


RE: Bah
RE: Bah
By N.Witcraft on 7/9/2013 10:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
I love how the Daytona Prototypes look with a similar style. . . But but without the racing vents it is an odd mix of bold and timid. All around not as smooth as the other Stingrays.


RE: Bah
By Mint on 7/9/2013 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
100 lbs for cylinder deactivation?!? Do you even know how it works?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpL4nFosRe0
You don't need to add near that much weight.

As for its effectiveness, yes, piston/crankshaft friction is still there, but you can get rid of losses from airflow through the valves. Also, if you look at engine BSFC charts, you can see that all engines are most efficent at around 70-80% throttle. It stands to reason that, for example, running 4 cylinders at 80% (and the remaining 4 having minimal parasitic drag) is more efficient than 8 at 40%.

GM's system doesn't seem so hot if it only goes from 29 mpg to 30 mpg, though. And why can't they just have it work automatically instead of needing an eco mode?


RE: Bah
By hubb1e on 7/9/2013 1:24:44 PM , Rating: 3
The eco mode on the manual may be an issue of drivability, NVH, or noise. Whatever it is, there's a tradeoff someplace and the engineers decided to let the driver decide if he wants to accept that tradeoff. With the automatic there's a fluid coupling between the engine and the transmission which probably allows the engineers to get around that tradeoff through proper tuning of the driveline.


RE: Bah
By Mint on 7/9/2013 1:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. Even at idle I can image a Corvette's engine note being something you don't want to mess with or your target market will get angry.


RE: Bah
By Alexvrb on 7/10/2013 12:33:35 AM , Rating: 3
Hubble is right, it's more transparent with a torque conveter. You don't even know it's working, and you can run it in AFM mode more often, so the gains are slightly bigger. But I suspect they'll continue to work on AFM + MT combos, either way it only works in Eco mode, I wouldn't complain about a free highway MPG with the push of a button.


RE: Bah
By Jeffk464 on 7/9/2013 1:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah its a little disappointing, Honda's attempts returned the same disappointing results.


RE: Bah
By Samus on 7/9/2013 1:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone has a different implementation. Daimler/Chrysler use alternating cylinder deactivation (except on first-gen Viper which cut cylinder 3-4 & 7-8) where cylinders are sequentially deactivated. This makes sure all pistons fire and prevents carbon buildup and lubrication problems. It is, however, not as refined as modern systems and I don't believe Mercedes uses the technology anymore because of diminishing returns.

But I felt it was the best implementation because it kept the firing order "balanced."


RE: Bah
By freedom4556 on 7/10/2013 7:25:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And why can't they just have it work automatically instead of needing an eco mode?
From what I understand from Motortrend interviews with GM people, the reason they need a button is because it is manual. With an automatic the transmission control unit (TCU) can coordinate the cylinder deactivation events with the engine control unit (ECU). Basically, the TCU can warn the ECU that it is wanting to shift (particularly downshifts) and the ECU can enable the whole engine in preparation. With a manual, you are controlling the shifting, so you need a button to give the ECU that information manually.


RE: Bah
By Keeir on 7/10/2013 10:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM's system doesn't seem so hot if it only goes from 29 mpg to 30 mpg, though. And why can't they just have it work automatically instead of needing an eco mode?


Well, the EPA doesn't really test the condition of running 30 minutes at 65/75/85 in the expressway or cars in "ECO" mode. It probably raises fuel economy 10-15% -when active-. Since the EPA test doesn't allow testing of cars in optional modes AND is less than 50% "steady state" driving, cylinder de-activation is something that like start and stop that doesn't get fairly shown. (Of course, it can also be said it affects only certain subsets of the population and then only some of the time)


RE: Bah
By Concillian on 7/9/2013 2:23:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yeah, well...what are the chances you could gain 1 MPG by cutting 100 pounds from the weight of the car?


The article is talkign about highway MPG. Weight means next to nothing to highway MPG.

It's almost all aero and engine tech. And most of the aero that nets MPG gains these days is rear aero. I'm willing to bet money that they know the back end looks worse to most than the C6, but did it anyway because it's better for aero and got them to the magic 30 MPG.


RE: Bah
By Alexvrb on 7/10/2013 12:29:06 AM , Rating: 3
Research AFM. It's not "half horsepower only mode". When you accelerate hard, AFM "wakes" the deactivated cylinders. AFM is simpler on conventional automatics, which is why most if not all of their V8 autos have AFM. Heck on a conventional AT (with a torque converter), you wouldn't even know the vehicle had AFM unless someone told you, nor could you reliably tell when it changed modes without the PCM telling you via the dash display.

This is the first time they've enabled AFM for the MT option. It's primarily aimed at highway cruising speeds, but it still wakes the other cylinders under heavy throttle. It probably won't be quite as responsive in constant stop and go with light to moderate throttle, hence it only functions in Eco mode (all other modes disable AFM for maximum performance and responsiveness). GM isn't the only one that uses cylinder deactivation, by the way.

With regards to weight, they actually shaved quite a bit of weight off the C7 frame/body, and they did so while simultaneously stiffening the frame by a huge amount. However, the C7 Stingray comes standard with a whole lot more, upgraded seats/interior, structural improvements, bigger brakes, stouter axles, diff, better trans, standard engine cooler, engine upgrades, etc. So weight didn't drop, but it's a better vehicle in every regard. Also the new LT1 engine is both more powerful and more efficient than the outgoing LS3. So the C7 is faster, more agile, and still gets better fuel economy.


RE: Bah
By drycrust3 on 7/9/2013 12:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if I understand why running on less than the full complement of cylinders would put extra weight on the car? The engine management unit is there in both cars, so while there is a need for extra software the thing as a whole is pretty light and shouldn't add much to the weight of the car. Any extra weight here would be more likely in the 100 gram range than in the 10s of kilos. The fuel injection is the same in both cars so again there'd be no real weight change.
The rigid chasis strong enough to contain the V8 at full power exists in both cars, but any extra weight would be the result of the engine itself, the shape and meeting crash test requirements. The stress from running on less than the full 8 cylinders would be small compared to a full throttle standing start.


RE: Bah
By Alexvrb on 7/10/2013 12:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
Brandon is partially right, it did add some weight for the AFM hardware, since previous manual models didn't have AFM at all. It probably added ~25 lbs. The rest of the major engine changes that added weight were in the direct injection and VVT systems.

But 25 lbs isn't that much. There's lots of stuff they added to the C7 that added weight, so even though they reduced the weight of the frame and body by ~100 lbs, overall weight went slightly up. But everything they added was worth it, and improved the vehicle as a whole. Their engineers are very conscious of weight, and every addition they made was done for a reason.

If you ripped out the AFM hardware, mileage would stay about the same, and you'd have no Eco mode for that extra MPG. At high-speed cruising, it probably offers larger-than-rated gains.


RE: Bah
By superflex on 7/9/13, Rating: -1
RE: Bah
By Jeffk464 on 7/9/2013 1:42:53 PM , Rating: 4
cheap ass is what makes the vette great. The level of performance you are getting for the amount you pay is about the best on the market. To top it off you are getting much better reliability than you will get with most super cars on the market.


RE: Bah
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2013 3:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
True that.

As much as I love exotic cars, the truth is you just cannot drive them every-day. They are too high maintenance, too temperamental, and aren't very durable.

The Corvette is truly a supercar you can drive every day.


RE: Bah
By half_duplex on 7/9/2013 1:57:49 PM , Rating: 1
The back end looks like it was designed by high schoolers.

It just about ruins what overall would have been a better looking Vette than the C6 and close to as nice as the C5.


RE: Bah
By EricMartello on 7/9/2013 11:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hardly seems worth it - shutting off 50% of the motor for 1 more MPG


It's not and you have to wonder what GM was thinking by wasting dev and engineering time implementing this on a car that people buy for fun and for outright performance.

quote:
Having said that, anyone else think they failed on the rear end of the car? The front end looks Corvetteish - the rear end, though...doesn't.


They failed all over this car. It's hideous. It's like they saw the new SRT Viper and were entranced by how sexy it is, then they tried to copy it and make the vette have its own look similar to the Viper...in doing so made it fugly beyond belief. What do you expect from a company that's essentially funded by taxpayers and (indirectly) run government bureaucrats?


RE: Bah
By Kazinji on 7/10/2013 3:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hardly seems worth it - shutting off 50% of the motor for 1 more MPG (1 29th)?

quote:
fuel management is active in all drive modes unless the drivers using the manual-shift mode and steering wheel paddles.


Its already shutting off half the motor...really how do you get to 29 mpg. Eco-mode just seems to a little more of a push in eco. Prob less acceleration and it won't pop out of 4 cylinder mode.


RE: Bah
By zephyrprime on 7/10/2013 11:10:30 AM , Rating: 1
Looks good to me. The classic corvette looks is very dated and needs a refresher.


RE: Bah
By L1011 on 7/10/2013 12:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Having said that, anyone else think they failed on the rear end of the car? The front end looks Corvetteish - the rear end, though...doesn't."

No way, I love it!!! I think it's a much-needed departure from the old Corvette's rear end and brings a great new design language to the car.

The 30MPG is impressive too.


$ for $ nobody beats the performance of the C7
By javiergf on 7/9/2013 12:21:14 PM , Rating: 3
Not really sure why there are so many Vette haters when the vette has been the flagship or american sport cars for almost 60 years. A Porsche 911 S starts at $98,000, you add anything (most things that should be included are extras) and you get into a $125,000-130,000 car for 400 HP and 27 MPG. This one with performance package starts at $56,000, you load it up with extras and you have a $76,000 for 460 HP, 30 MPG and many more technology items not included in most competitors.
Sure the back is different but when you see the lights on the back looks quite different to a Camaro, plus I can't understand all the hate when most brands, for example BMW, makes all the back and front of the cars looks almost identical and don't even start me with Porsche selling the same design for over 30 years




RE: $ for $ nobody beats the performance of the C7
By Mint on 7/9/2013 12:51:31 PM , Rating: 3
It's a shame that people don't appreciate cost effectiveness much.

As an engineer, I find the Corvette's bang for the buck to be a far more impressive feat of engineering than a 911. Of course, desire and badge snobbery are something else entirely...


By javiergf on 7/9/2013 1:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
exactly, most people on this forum are American, so I understand less the hate for American made products. A corvette in Europe is not cheap at all, prices start around 70,000 euros but in US we have the luck to get an amazing car for a great price. Another example, just try to get a 911 and get it with black painted wheels, they will charge you $1,635 ... that's some really expensive paint!!!!


RE: $ for $ nobody beats the performance of the C7
By Spuke on 7/9/2013 2:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A Porsche 911 S starts at $98,000
I was about ready to call you out but decided to look first. HOLY SH!T!!! When the hell did that happen?


By jjmcubed on 7/9/2013 3:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
Spuke,

Sorry this is off topic, but you mentioned in an article yesterday about you were/are streaming F1. Mind telling me what you use for the service? I've searched, but don't trust the searches when I search Google. Thank you for your time.


By Spuke on 7/9/2013 5:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry this is off topic, but you mentioned in an article yesterday about you were/are streaming F1.
No Problem! I'm using the NBC Sports Live Extra app. You can also stream it from http://stream.nbcsports.com/liveextra/.


By mead drinker on 7/9/2013 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
I am sorry, if your comparison between a 911 and a Corvette is simply based on horsepower, a torque curve, and any other "performance" metric, you've missed the point of the 911 entirely. These cars are not in the same market segment, despite the pontification of Road & Track, Car and Driver, Motor Trend or any other rag that likes to do "side by side" comparisons.

The Corvette is not a chateaubriand, its a gourmet hamburger.


RE: $ for $ nobody beats the performance of the C7
By Spuke on 7/9/2013 5:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Corvette is not a chateaubriand, its a gourmet hamburger.
Yet REAL customers, not magazine reading, Bring a Trailer wankers, cross shop these two cars all the time. The beauty of the Corvette is that both the wealthy and the working class can enjoy this car new. Whereas, to my dismay, only the wealthy can own a new Porsche (used one's are still up for grabs thankfully).


RE: $ for $ nobody beats the performance of the C7
By tayb on 7/9/2013 6:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
You must have a really loose definition of working class. This car is $55,000.


RE: $ for $ nobody beats the performance of the C7
By Spuke on 7/9/2013 6:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
The median income in the US is $50,000 (average is nearly $80k but I'm not using that because high incomes skew that number upwards) and the average price of a new car is $30,000. Not only is that $30k the average price of a new car, that's how much people are spending on one. So it stands to reason that any household that has two average earners could afford a new Corvette. In reality, any household with a "cubicle worker" along with an average earner could afford a Corvette. So, yes, working class people CAN and DO buy vettes.


RE: $ for $ nobody beats the performance of the C7
By tayb on 7/10/2013 3:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
Median HOUSEHOLD income is $50,000. That's not individual. So, in reality, the vast majority of Americans cannot afford a car that is more expensive than the combined annual income of their entire household.


By flyingpants1 on 7/12/2013 4:53:45 AM , Rating: 1
Uh, the Vette starts at $690/mo. That is WELL within the reach of the working class.


By mead drinker on 7/10/2013 5:59:54 PM , Rating: 1
Most, if not all 911 owners I know, were once luxury car brand owners before they bought their 911. I don't know many of them that were cross-shopping the Corvette and the 911 at the same time they were considering buying their Porsche. Chalk that up to badge, prestige, comfort, luxury, snobbery, whatever it is, it is intangible. That's the pickle. It's easy to justify a Corvette purchase on paper/in a vacuum. It's the only car that occupies that price/performance level; it's sensible. Contrasting that, owning a Porsche is anything but sensible. I am not bagging on the Corvette, I just feel that once you get to the point where you can afford a 911, and are seriously considering it, you've outgrown the price-point of the Corvette. To give you an idea, when I was shopping around for my 911 S, I test drove the following cars; M6, Jaguar XKR, Mercedes SL, even the Audi R8.

The Corvette is made to entice boys whose father's may have owned a bowtie car but are certainly better off than their parents. The copy on it should be, "when you're all grown up, we will still be here making this for you".


By EricMartello on 7/9/2013 11:10:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not really sure why there are so many Vette haters when the vette has been the flagship or american sport cars for almost 60 years.


Early versions of the corvette were slow. It morphed into a sports car over time, and today I'd say that the SRT Viper is America's flagship supercar. Today's vette is yesterday's fbody.

quote:
A Porsche 911 S starts at $98,000, you add anything (most things that should be included are extras) and you get into a $125,000-130,000 car for 400 HP and 27 MPG.


The fact that you are even bringing up MPG when talking about cars that are purchased by people who a) want a car exclusively for fun or b) actually race them on the track shows that you probably drive around in a Kia and may someday be lucky enough to afford a Honda Camry.

The people who do drive cars like the Viper, Lamborghini, Ferrari or the higher-end Porches could care less about fuel economy or price. They really just want to know if they can get the car they want when they want it.

quote:
Sure the back is different but when you see the lights on the back looks quite different to a Camaro, plus I can't understand all the hate when most brands, for example BMW, makes all the back and front of the cars looks almost identical and don't even start me with Porsche selling the same design for over 30 years


There is no "hate" for the vette. It's just not the car that GM pays the media to make it out to be. It's not a "super car" because it lacks exclusivity and intrigue. You'll probably see at least five vettes on your daily commute to work and nobody really cares if you have one. The ZR1 had super-car level performance but to the average joe is just another vette like the hundreds he's seen before. Who cares if it's a little faster? Yawn.

Porshe is one of the brands that has tried to broaden its customer base by offering cheaper "stepping stone" vehicles. At least Porshe had the sense to offer unique vehicles for each price point, rather than taking the 911 and offering it in trim levels ranging from $40K to $160K. They did botch things up by making cars like the Panamera and the Cayenne SUV.

Ferrari, on the other hand, understands the value of exclusivity. You need to wait on a waiting list for several years to buy a new Ferrari and there's a fair amount of competition for getting used Ferraris. If you do manage to get one, you'll know that in addition to performance and style you are probably never going to have another guy roll up next to you in the same car, ever.


By Kazinji on 7/10/2013 3:58:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You'll probably see at least five vettes on your daily commute to work and nobody really cares if you have one. The ZR1 had super-car level performance but to the average joe is just another vette like the hundreds he's seen before. Who cares if it's a little faster? Yawn.

Your right there are a LOT of vettes around. Its rare to so another sportscar in Michigan. But its American why ppl buy them.
quote:
They did botch things up by making cars like the Panamera and the Cayenne SUV.

Prob did that to stay in business. Range Rover is a whole brand that does high end suv's, why can't Porsche.
quote:
Ferrari, on the other hand, understands the value of exclusivity.

Really all Ferrai cares about is racing, they only make cars so they can build better race cars. If they can do that with 100 cars sold to the public, they'll sell 100 cars.


Meh
By Broken on 7/9/2013 12:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
Still rather have a GT-R.




RE: Meh
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/9/2013 12:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'd take Chuck Norris over Godzilla ;-)


RE: Meh
By JackBurton on 7/9/2013 1:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
And I'd rather have a Ferrari F12berlinetta over a GT-R. :rolleyes: The GT-R is a $100K+ car verses a $60K car (C7). What point were you trying to make? You just like the GT-R?


RE: Meh
By BRB29 on 7/9/2013 1:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
The first GT-R was $75k. People seem to forget that was the first version and no one was able to purchase one for anything close to that price.


RE: Meh
By Chaser on 7/9/2013 3:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
If you can even afford that car enjoy the $2000.00 brake jobs.


Ignoreing EPA numbers for a moment...
By SAN-Man on 7/9/2013 11:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
I know several C5 owners who have gotten 30 MPG during regular (non spirited) commuting with their manual transmission cars.

I know personal anecdotes are easy to dismiss but if you look around the Web you can find others who have achieved this.




RE: Ignoreing EPA numbers for a moment...
By 7Enigma on 7/10/2013 11:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
Heck I get ~30mpg when on long trips (where I'm limited to closer to the 60mph optimum speed) on my 2000 Trans Am (modified). 6th gear is a fantastic fuel saver when you can set the cruise control and just blubber along at <1500rpm. :)


By freedom4556 on 7/10/2013 2:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
Any 350 cu in V8 will do similar if you had a 0.5:1 overdrive and a reasonable diff ratio (like 3.06). Good mileage isn't rocket science. It's all the other things that a modern car needs to do that make it hard to have good mileage at the same time.


By SAN-Man on 7/10/2013 2:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
I experienced the same thing with my 1996 Crown Victoria back in the day.

4.6L V8 engine, 2:73 rear gears. At 60-65 MPH it would do 30 MPG all day long. That was a good car.

Later, I had another Crown Vic with 3:55 gears. The best it would ever do was 24 MPG.


50% mileage improvement
By Azethoth on 7/10/2013 4:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
Over my SUV that is!




RE: 50% mileage improvement
By freedom4556 on 7/10/2013 7:31:30 AM , Rating: 2
It's probably half as heavy and more than twice as aerodynamic depending on what SUV you mean.


RE: 50% mileage improvement
By Azethoth on 7/11/2013 4:44:22 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot twice as fast.


Typo
By GGA1759 on 7/9/2013 11:52:38 AM , Rating: 2

Future should be feature.

quote:
Stingrays that FUTURE the six-speed automatic transmission also get Active Fuel Management, but that fuel management is active in all drive modes unless the drivers using the manual-shift mode and steering wheel paddles.




Hooray for me!
By inperfectdarkness on 7/10/2013 9:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
This means I'll be able to buy a c6 for WAY cheaper, thanks to the debut of the c7. The c6 is smaller, lighter and way prettier. In fact, the only things I think the c7 has done better are the headlights and steering wheel.




1991 Acura NSX gets 27 MPG HW
By hiscross on 7/10/2013 9:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
I drive it daily and for except for the 5 - 6 speed upgrade and 17"F & 18"R Tires, my NSX is stock. I will soon have DC Sports headers and exhaust installed so I may get a little better MPG. The Vette is a Vette, always cool.




corvette haters
By Richard875yh5 on 7/11/2013 9:41:52 AM , Rating: 2
I've never seen so many Corvette haters. I guess when a new posts starts in a negative way, many feel like they have to follow.
The Corvette is a piece of superior engineering with great looks. That's what most experts will say on just about all the webs sites. Wake up folks! Read other web sites what they say about the new Corvette!




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki