Notagain
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Threads
- 12
- Messages
- 1,253
- Reaction score
- 581
- Location
- United States
- Vehicle(s)
- yellow 2016 5.0 totaled white 2018 A10 now
LOL at any of these 3 cars competing with a C8.
Sponsored
I'm a Mustang fanboi, and when I see a convertible Ecoboost Mustang the first thing I think is 'rental car' (esp. if there's a middle-aged couple in tourist in it). Also, the license plate holders and/or bumper stickers are a dead giveaway.I've said quite a few times that in ten years Mustang and the pony car segment will be dead. I did notice that the author is a camaro fanboi taking a jab at Mustang as being a rental car.
Well, here's Automobile's Design Critic on the C8:LOL at any of these 3 cars competing with a C8.
I wish we could keep our 2015, but it’s just not in the cards. I will just enjoy it while we have it.I am glad I bought my 2015 GT Conv as a keeper. If the platform either grows, or is deleted, I still have my Pony car. Honda and Toyota are some of the few manufacturers that are keeping "Cars" in their lineup.
I'll just comment on the dry-sump engine part.. Corvette's have had a dry sump option since at least the C6 ZO6. I think the majority of C7 models are dry sump. Not exactly rocket surgery to change the oil in the C7, and I doubt GM made it more difficult on the C8.Well, here's Automobile's Design Critic on the C8:
"I am deeply sorry to be severely disappointed by the styling of the C8. I hoped for something really new and exciting, not a boringly generic supercar, mostly indistinguishable from the many and varied unimaginative devices that show up regularly at the Geneva auto show. Its styling is confused. Downright messy, in fact. I count a dozen horizontal lines, not to mention four convoluted taillights, four nice rectangular exhaust tips, plus varied slots, vents, grilles, indented surfaces, and wing elements... just across the rear fascia. The front is no better, and the profile with its short, stumpy nose is equally surprising. Maybe it's all meant to look purposeful, but to me it seems just a careless, cluttered, graphic composition, not worthy of Corvette history and what we expect of this technically brilliant descendant of the elegant, Jaguar-inspired original C1 from 1953. I have no doubt this will be a very good car, with truly world-class performance coupled with American-style daily usefulness and (probably) easy servicing - dry-sump engines are not typical dealer shop fare. But I'd have liked to see some traces of the Astrovette or the four-rotor mid-engine concept from the Bill Mitchell era."
... via http://www.autoextremist.com/on-the-table1/
Yeah, whats wrong with that? I said when I was on vacation, they are a blast to drive, I am middle aged. I wouldn't waste the money on one to own it but they are fun to drive on vaca.I'm a Mustang fanboi, and when I see a convertible Ecoboost Mustang the first thing I think is 'rental car' (esp. if there's a middle-aged couple in tourist in it). Also, the license plate holders and/or bumper stickers are a dead giveaway.
It's not because of lack of low end torque it's because FCA advertises the hell out of Challenger if Ford would even do just half of the advertising Mustang sales would a lot higherI never thought I'd see the Challenger's numbers get so close to the Mustang's.
Mustang: 75,482
Camaros: 50,963
Challenger: 66,716
IMO, it's because of the Mustang's lack of low end torque. If the Camaro wasn't so big, ugly, and hard to see out of and the Challenger just wasn't so big (great styling, IMO) they would both out sell the Mustang. The average car buyer just doesn't realize how much they would like a lot of low end torque.
It's interesting to read this critique of the C8. So the author seems to be saying that past Corvettes have great designs, and then points to the original. I think the 60s 'vettes had really good designs too. But have the last 4 iterations of the Corvette been great? Or have they been even worse than the C8? I think the C8 design is significantly better than the last few iterations.Well, here's Automobile's Design Critic on the C8:
"I am deeply sorry to be severely disappointed by the styling of the C8. I hoped for something really new and exciting, not a boringly generic supercar, mostly indistinguishable from the many and varied unimaginative devices that show up regularly at the Geneva auto show. Its styling is confused. Downright messy, in fact. I count a dozen horizontal lines, not to mention four convoluted taillights, four nice rectangular exhaust tips, plus varied slots, vents, grilles, indented surfaces, and wing elements... just across the rear fascia. The front is no better, and the profile with its short, stumpy nose is equally surprising. Maybe it's all meant to look purposeful, but to me it seems just a careless, cluttered, graphic composition, not worthy of Corvette history and what we expect of this technically brilliant descendant of the elegant, Jaguar-inspired original C1 from 1953. I have no doubt this will be a very good car, with truly world-class performance coupled with American-style daily usefulness and (probably) easy servicing - dry-sump engines are not typical dealer shop fare. But I'd have liked to see some traces of the Astrovette or the four-rotor mid-engine concept from the Bill Mitchell era."
... via http://www.autoextremist.com/on-the-table1/
While I don't think the C8 looks are anything to write home about, they are decent and definitely better than the C7 which is almost cartoonish looking.It's interesting to read this critique of the C8. So the author seems to be saying that past Corvettes have great designs, and then points to the original. I think the 60s 'vettes had really good designs too. But have the last 4 iterations of the Corvette been great? Or have they been even worse than the C8? I think the C8 design is significantly better than the last few iterations.