C7 Corvette

[*SNOOP*]

Badass!!

[JC70SS]

ferrari copy. pretty ugly imo.

[spooln30]

Reading this thread I didn't know what they looked like so I did a search. YUCK! I applaud their achievements in their drivetrain engineering, they make great V8 engines. Where GM fails and fails big is the design of most their cars. The trucks don't look that bad but the cars are ugly, minus the Caddy CTS-V. This C7 Vette is really fugly and I don't understand why such a drastic change. They could've just did some updates to the already nice looking C6 body. GM should focus on improving on the quality of the materials they use on their cars. I couldn't believe how flimsy a lot of the body parts on the C6 are. For a $70k sports car or any car at that price the materials should be constructed better.

[WhatsADSM]

Supposedly much of the design goal for the new C7 is to improve on build quality particularly in the interior (where it was most notably lacking).

I would reserve judgement until after it is revealed ;)

My biggest gripe is that they went with an evolutionary change again instead of something revolutionary like they were considering (mid engine small v8). Don't get me wrong I'm sure it will be better than the c6 just would really like to have something really revolutionary.

[JC70SS]

The tail lights are such a FAIL! C6 owners will be happy.

[*SNOOP*]

Everything is still speculation so you can only make decisions/opinions on what people THINK its gonna be like....

[spooln30]

Yeah GM cars and trucks do have some super cheap interiors for sure. Shit KIA has better quality and constructed interiors. LOL.

[Prince Valiant]

I imagine the 'vette won't look too radically different. Slight changes to the front, more different in the rear, including getting away from the bubble hatch and actually having a C-pillar, which will, yes, make it look more ferrari-ish...which isn't a bad thing. Though I doubt anyone will confuse if for a ferrari, such is the nature of long hood, short back two-door grand touring cars.

Personally glad that they stuck to larger engines vs. a smaller 8...some have said that the 'vette will actually be rated for mid-30's on the hwy for fuel mileage, which I'm not sure will actually be the case...maybe 31-33mpg though? It's supposed to aggressively use multi-cylinder deactivation to help get great city and hwy mileage, along with the fact that it will be lighter than the current gen, along with superior aero-dynamics, it's within the realm of possibility.

[DurtyKurty]

6.2L V8 @ 450hp? HP/L seems kinda low? Maybe I am missing something.

[JC70SS]

Everything is still speculation so you can only make decisions/opinions on what people THINK its gonna be like....
Visit corvetteforum at all? Not really speculation anymore.

[Prince Valiant]

6.2L V8 @ 450hp? HP/L seems kinda low? Maybe I am missing something.my response is there is no direct relationship b/w hp/L...that said, 72.5hp/L isn't too far off the most powerful NA V8 production engines (AMG's 510hp 6.3 v8) 81hp/L. Interestingly enough, the SRT's V-10 sits right at 76.1hp/L.

But in general, as stroke length increases, the ability to generate impressive HP/L decreases; less generally then, as displacement increases, less HP/L is capable of being generated. It has to do with maximum piston speeds, and how that translates to max rpm's, which in turn helps determine ones HP generation. So while there is a fair relationship for NA engines between *torque* and displacement, there isn't b/w HP and displacment.

[DurtyKurty]

my response is there is no direct relationship b/w hp/L...that said, 72.5hp/L isn't too far off the most powerful NA V8 production engines (AMG's 510hp 6.3 v8) 81hp/L. Interestingly enough, the SRT's V-10 sits right at 76.1hp/L.

But in general, as stroke length increases, the ability to generate impressive HP/L decreases; less generally then, as displacement increases, less HP/L is capable of being generated. It has to do with maximum piston speeds, and how that translates to max rpm's, which in turn helps determine ones HP generation. So while there is a fair relationship for NA engines between *torque* and displacement, there isn't b/w HP and displacment.

Ah, Gotcha. Then is Ford doing pretty well with there 5.0L at 84HP/L (standard) 88.8 HP/L (Boss)? Or do I have that wrong?

[*SNOOP*]

Visit corvetteforum at all? Not really speculation anymore.

Yes, I am a member of the corvetteforum. Before I bought my 2013 GS Corvette I looked at some of the speculated pics and I didn't like them to much, now the pics Ive been seeing lately looks like I will be ordering one ASAP!!! But like I said who really knows for sure....

[*SNOOP*]

If it looks like this I will be ordering one asap... Then trade it in when the Z06 comes out...

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette_zps1a4bce77.jpg
http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette2_zps7e98fc5e.jpg
http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette3_zpsc75d2055.jpg

[Irish]

Meh.. Looks too much like a GTR.

[FourEyedFord]

ah, gotcha. Then is ford doing pretty well with there 5.0l at 84hp/l (standard) 88.8 hp/l (boss)? Or do i have that wrong?

Ha, awesome!

[Prince Valiant]

Ah, Gotcha. Then is Ford doing pretty well with there 5.0L at 84HP/L (standard) 88.8 HP/L (Boss)? Or do I have that wrong?But therein lies the rub...there is more a relationship of diminishing returns w/ regards to increasing displacement and HP/L. Smaller engines will always have an advantage. To use a far more mundane example, take the lowly base 1.8 liter "World engine"...138 hp for a 77hp/L from a boring little mundane 4 banger that ingloriously powered dodge calibers.

Eseentially, HP/L is, as been told to ricers everywhere, a meaningless metric.

Likewise, the hyundai/kia 2.4 producing 200 hp at 84hp/L, a fairly ordinary powerplant that yields similar specific output of the ostensibly hipo 5.0's 84hp/L. Then compare it to the honda f20c's 123.5 HP/L (slightly under 2.0, 240hp), Nissan's SR16VE N1's 123hp/L (197hp/1.6L)...of which easily outpaces the larger 8's...

[DurtyKurty]

I see what your saying.

From a layman's perspective, 450hp from a premiere GM 6.2L seems a little lackluster when it's lesser Ford counter part is right there at its heels (power wise) with only a measly 5.0L.

[JC70SS]

the camaro tail lights are a sin!

[WhatsADSM]

Ah, Gotcha. Then is Ford doing pretty well with there 5.0L at 84HP/L (standard) 88.8 HP/L (Boss)? Or do I have that wrong?


I see what your saying.

From a layman's perspective, 450hp from a premiere GM 6.2L seems a little lackluster when it's lesser Ford counter part is right there at its heels (power wise) with only a measly 5.0L.

Prince is spot on...

HP/L is a pretty meaningless number (keep in mind this is coming from someone who has owned almost exclusively imports). That's not what anyone should directly engineer against. What actually matters are things like:
Power / Torque per physical size,
Power / Torque per weight,
Fuel economy (actual efficiency)
Reliability
Servicabilty

So when you look at it that way its a great engine. We could slap a "4.9" badge on the side of the new gm lt1 and it would do its job just the same ;)

But hey if we are in a HP/L penis measuring contest Honda was likely besting the Coyote motor 20 years ago lol. Also the last NA Honda motor I built made nearly 140 hp/L. And even then it was a fairly mild off-the-shelf parts build.

[WhatsADSM]

Delete me

[GTSLOW]

If it looks like this I will be ordering one asap... Then trade it in when the Z06 comes out...

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette_zps1a4bce77.jpg
http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette2_zps7e98fc5e.jpg
http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette3_zpsc75d2055.jpg

Wow those look terrible! It's like a 3 way orgy between the new camaro, current corvette, and some type of ferrari. Terrible!

[Car Guy]

:puke

[DurtyKurty]

HP/L is a pretty meaningless number (keep in mind this is coming from someone who has owned almost exclusively imports). That's not what anyone should directly engineer against. What actually matters are things like:
Power / Torque per physical size,
Power / Torque per weight,
Fuel economy (actual efficiency)
Reliability
Servicabilty

So when you look at it that way its a great engine. We could slap a "4.9" badge on the side of the new gm lt1 and it would do its job just the same ;)

But hey if we are in a HP/L penis measuring contest Honda was likely besting the Coyote motor 20 years ago lol. Also the last NA Honda motor I built made nearly 140 hp/L. And even then it was a fairly mild off-the-shelf parts build.

Ok, HP/L doesn't mean a thing.

So let me ask my question a different way. If we take Fords track car The Boss, it's 5.0L is rated at 444 HP. Shouldn't the GM 6.2L with an additional 1.2L of displacement be doing a little better than 450hp? 1.2L isn't a small amount.

[WhatsADSM]

Ok, HP/L doesn't mean a thing.

So let me ask my question a different way. If we take Fords track car The Boss, it's 5.0L is rated at 444 HP. Shouldn't the GM 6.2L with an additional 1.2L of displacement be doing a little better than 450hp? 1.2L isn't a small amount.

Again totally different engine architectures. So no we shouldn't except it to be so much better because it has 1.2l more displacement. Displacement is simply a means to an end.

Other things you are conveniently failing to mention. First off you are comparing a base NA corvette engine to the high end ford variant. The base ford engine does 420. Then of course if its anything like the previous vettes the gm powerplant is spec'd at 87 octane junk gas while the ford makes its advertised numbers on premium... and of course the boss you mention IIRC makes 380 ft/lbs of torque while the gm makes 450!

So... I can can pose my response 2 different ways
1) If the GM powerplant is so crappy then why does it make more power, considerably more torque, all while running on a worse fuel, in a Vette that will almost surely get better fuel economy.

2) What's with ford and gm. To elaborate on my previous statement. Honda made 100hp/L from its B16A engine. That was available in a Japanese CRX as a 1989 model! Ford failed to do better 22 years (!) later with all the technological advances. Here 24 years later GM failed to do better as well.


Do I think a b16a is more impressive than a coyote or new lt1? No way.

[Prince Valiant]

So let me ask my question a different way. If we take Fords track car The Boss, it's 5.0L is rated at 444 HP. Shouldn't the GM 6.2L with an additional 1.2L of displacement be doing a little better than 450hp? 1.2L isn't a small amount.But therein lies another detail that's we don't *know* is accurate yet...that HP will be 450. We've been told to expect at least 450hp. It could be more...probably not significantly more, true though.

That said, since displacement and HP are not directly intertwined, the premise of the question is flawed. If you accept that HP/L doesn't mean a thing, then HP/L asked in a different way doesn't mean a thing :)

To put the meaninglessness of the stat in perspective in a different way that favors the GM powerplant: They estimate that peak power will be made in the GM engine at 6000rpm, while the ford needs to rev to 7400rpm to make it's peak power. Why does the ford need to rev so high to make less power???

Work is work. Peak HP compares engines directly in that it measures how much work it can do at it's peak work potential. Torque compares how much peak force an engine can generate. Avg HP compares how much work an engine can perform over the entire rev range. HP/L still measures nothing.

[DurtyKurty]

Holy cow, i get it bro. HP/L doesnt mean anything (for the second time). It's not the point im trying to make. So the 5.0L is not an apples to apples comparison, fine. I will try to make a comparison that's as close as I can to make my point that 450hp from a 6.2L sports car engine is kind of a let down. Let us compare it to Ford's run of the mill 6.2L F-250 truck engine. It's rated at 411hp and 434ftlbs. I'm sure this is somehow again going to be some sort of unfair comparison, but this is why in my eyes 450hp is kind of a let down from a corvette engine.

Prince, I hope your prediction is correct, that 450hp isn't accurate and it's more like 475-500hp.

[Crawlin]

My busa is at about 160 hp/L

You all fail.

This argument is stupid.

So get back on topic of how fugly that thing is an how closely it resembles this car (photo taken at Road America a couple years ago)

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i209/z28kid98/Road%20America/DSC00048.jpg

[Prince Valiant]

Well, I don't think 450hp is a let down...436hp in the previous (and heavier) gen C6 was more than enough to easily get mid/low 12's at nearly 115mph. This could well be a high 11 second standard vette...that ain't bad, and in fact, crazy fast. Likewise, as starter engines go, the LS series began with the 345hp LS1 in the corvettes (305 in the lesser camaro's/TA's), culminating with the 505hp LS7, 638hp s/c'd LS9. 450hp isn't the worst starting point in the world for the LT series.

But even juxtaposed with ford's "run-of-the-mill" 6.2 v8 that it actually puts in very few trucks, 450hp from the base LT engine isn't by any stretch a disappointment.

Though I'd say Ford's "run of the mill" v8 is the very nice 360hp 5.0. The 411hp 6.2 is a premium engine available in limited number of higher trim trucks...and I think the cheapest truck I could equip w/ a 6.2 when I first looked was nearing 40G, though that may have changed. But as comparisons go, the ford 6.2 v8 is approximately 1.9% more powerful, and develops approx 4% more torque than the not-so-run-of-the-mill L92 for trucks from GM (403hp/425ft-lbs)...but I've digressed.

Let's not forget...back in the day, GM's top 1/2 ton truck engine was 205hp, not terribly far from it's 240hp corvette engine. Ford's 5.8's 205hp was similarly closely rated to the 225hp 5.0 mustang. And mopar's 210hp 5.9 was the most powerful engine they had. Lots has changed....for the better.

Prince, I hope your prediction is correct, that 450hp isn't accurate and it's more like 475-500hp.
I'd be pretty confident that it *won't* approach those lofty numbers. If they say expect "At least" 450hp, I'd think the ceiling would be closer to 460-465, tops, and could well be a *mere* 450. Not that I think anyone's butt dyno would pick up the ~3% difference in power difference from my high end estimate to low.




As for the 'vette in general, for those who've objected to the looks, I don't think the renderings are all that bad...but always reserve final judgement until I've seen the car in person.

[brotherbenn83]

Well, I don't think 450hp is a let down...436hp in the previous (and heavier) gen C6 was more than enough to easily get mid/low 12's at nearly 115mph. This could well be a high 11 second standard vette...that ain't bad, and in fact, crazy fast. Likewise, as starter engines go, the LS series began with the 345hp LS1 in the corvettes (305 in the lesser camaro's/TA's), culminating with the 505hp LS7, 638hp s/c'd LS9. 450hp isn't the worst starting point in the world for the LT series.

But even juxtaposed with ford's "run-of-the-mill" 6.2 v8 that it actually puts in very few trucks, 450hp from the base LT engine isn't by any stretch a disappointment.

Though I'd say Ford's "run of the mill" v8 is the very nice 360hp 5.0. The 411hp 6.2 is a premium engine available in limited number of higher trim trucks...and I think the cheapest truck I could equip w/ a 6.2 when I first looked was nearing 40G, though that may have changed. But as comparisons go, the ford 6.2 v8 is approximately 1.9% more powerful, and develops approx 4% more torque than the not-so-run-of-the-mill L92 for trucks from GM (403hp/425ft-lbs)...but I've digressed.

Let's not forget...back in the day, GM's top 1/2 ton truck engine was 205hp, not terribly far from it's 240hp corvette engine. Ford's 5.8's 205hp was similarly closely rated to the 225hp 5.0 mustang. And mopar's 210hp 5.9 was the most powerful engine they had. Lots has changed....for the better.

I'd be pretty confident that it *won't* approach those lofty numbers. If they say expect "At least" 450hp, I'd think the ceiling would be closer to 460-465, tops, and could well be a *mere* 450. Not that I think anyone's butt dyno would pick up the ~3% difference in power difference from my high end estimate to low.




As for the 'vette in general, for those who've objected to the looks, I don't think the renderings are all that bad...but always reserve final judgement until I've seen the car in person.

Nevermind the fact that 450hp in a 3000lb uber-aerodynamic Vette is going to drive a hell of a lot different than a 450hp billboard-esque 7000lb truck.

[*SNOOP*]

Just got word the 2014 C7 will have a 1500hp NA LT1!!!

[*SNOOP*]

Lmfao!!

[*SNOOP*]

Here it is!!!!

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette5_zpse36c592b.jpg

[Prince Valiant]

definitely looks like it has more character in terms of overall definition, and not unpleasant character either. It does evoke other cars, sure...but imo, all cars evoke other cars. The front end evokes a viper to one degree, and a ferrari 458 (as crawlin' pointed out earlier). The rear 3/4, rather than looking like a GTR, it looks more like an aston vanquish to me. The rear won't be confused for a camaro imo, but could be confused for the all new (and yet to come out) acura NSX.

But like the 63 'vette, this vette represents a fairly radical departure from it's previous kin...though unlike the 63, there is still a family resemblance w/ previous generations.

I like what I'm seeing. A lot.

*snoop*, if you get one, may I please get a ride? puhleeeeeeeze?

[PureSound15]

I dig it!

[BigSnailBuick]

Looks pretty good....definitely needs to be in certain colors though

[spooln30]

Well it's doesn't look as bad in those magazines but I'd bet it will still be made like crap and its interior will be lacking to say the least. Why the hell did GM pull cues for the rear off the Camaro. Don't get me started on that ugly car.

[WhatsADSM]

Well it's doesn't look as bad in those magazines but I'd bet it will still be made like crap and its interior will be lacking to say the least. Why the hell did GM pull cues for the rear off the Camaro. Don't get me started on that ugly car.

Like i said before you can almost guarantee the interior won't be crap. That was one of the biggest design goals.

[BOSS LX]

Ewww, and 450hp out of 6.2l in a top shelf sports car is weak. Before I am labeled the Gm hater, I am a c6 zo6 fan.

[nismodave]

http://www.corvetteblogger.com/images/content/2013/011313_1b.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/11/2012-nissan-gtr-opt.jpg

Looks like a sleeker GTR.

[*SNOOP*]

http://www.youtube.com/user/Chevrolet?v=zsQGcD0TJvw

[team beater]

http://www.youtube.com/user/Chevrolet?v=zsQGcD0TJvw
skip to 21:33

also here are pics from car and driver
http://www.caranddriver.com/photos-13q1/495547/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-photo-496748

[team beater]

I'm with you Snoop, I want one....wonder what the sticker is going to look like

[Lash]

I think it looks badass!

[*SNOOP*]

I think it looks badass!

Im sold... I think it looks badass too!!

[*SNOOP*]

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette10_zpse21e124f.jpg

[Josepy]

I think it looks awesome as well. Interior and gauges look like what they are putting in the 2014 Silverado as well.

[*SNOOP*]

Hope my fucking new wheels on the GS fits this thing....

[FourEyedFord]

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette10_zpse21e124f.jpg

So you have to be able to afford the vehicle in order to have an opinion on how it looks?

I am not a fan either, but as they say, opinions are like asssholes....

[Prince Valiant]

Ewww, and 450hp out of 6.2l in a top shelf sports car is weak. Before I am labeled the Gm hater, I am a c6 zo6 fan.Well, given that you are a HP/L guy, I'll just label you a ricer.

[Rocket Power]

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette10_zpse21e124f.jpg

Think it's ugly? Yep, that's putting it mildly.
Can't afford it? Maybe.
But unlike other cars I can't afford, I don't aspire to own one and wouldn't buy one even if I won the lottery.

[michelle]

I'm looking forward to seeing it in person. What are the official numbers on it?

[Irish]

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette10_zpse21e124f.jpg

Wow!! What a self centered, pretentious asshole!

[*SNOOP*]

LOL @ Irish!!! Watch your mouth punk.

[Irish]

LOL @ Irish!!! Watch your mouth punk.

Yea? Or what LOL?

[WhatsADSM]

The red one actually looks pretty good. I would like to see a shot of it looking straight on at the tail lights and not at some angle.

Interior is wayyyyyy nicer than before.

Boss you are days late on the stupid hp/l argument. A 1989 CRX and Busa already proved themselves to be far superior vehicles in comparison to anything Ford / GM have produced.

[*SNOOP*]

I would like to see a shot of it looking straight on at the tail lights and not at some angle.

Here ya go!! Tires need to be wider...

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette11_zpsa34aea75.jpg

[Prince Valiant]

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette11_zpsa34aea75.jpgI like how the rear glass tapers in...a little touch that adds some sleekness to an aready sleek car.

[CATNHAT]

Here ya go!! Tires need to be wider...

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette11_zpsa34aea75.jpg

#2 on the wishlist. Still LOVE the Ford GT as #1. This new vette is flat out awesome in every way. Black on black of course, but beggars shall not be chosers.

Cant wait to see one in person! And drive!

[Z28Envy]

Anyone happen to know if they will have this at the Chicago auto show?

[Josepy]

Porn http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i97/josepy121380/379304_10151358728857259_1645170956_n_zpsa8313010. jpg

[Prince Valiant]

Anyone happen to know if they will have this at the Chicago auto show?I would consider it a certainty. Basically the chicago show is much like the detroit show, just no new reveals....

[brotherbenn83]

Here ya go!! Tires need to be wider...

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette11_zpsa34aea75.jpg

Would look nicer if the rear bumper was body-colored IMO, that's an ugly look it shares with the camaro. The car overall is NIIICE though.

[*SNOOP*]

Would look nicer if the rear bumper was body-colored IMO, that's an ugly look it shares with the camaro. The car overall is NIIICE though.

I agree, I would paint that asap!!

[blackmage]

Here ya go!! Tires need to be wider...

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette11_zpsa34aea75.jpg

I think chevy said they went with skinnier tires because they widened the car and now don't need the wide tires to hold them in a corner, the car does the work. I think the wide tires are what make these muscle cars tho... so i agree with ya haha

[*SNOOP*]

Rims and body kit!!!

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette12_zps1a05ed28.jpg

[Got Boost]

i like it.

[hrsp]

thats awesome!!

[73MACH]

I think that last pic looks badass

[*SNOOP*]

The dash in action...

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/15/c7-corvette-reconfigurable-gauge-cluster-video/#continued

[PureSound15]

I will own one of these. I'm not a huge fan of the tail lights but I guess change is good!

[BAD LS1]

Convertible renderings! Non Z51 (StingRay) - No 1/4 panel cooling vents or stingray logos. Supposedly a hardtop vert too.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18bpqboz92vfojpg/original.jpg


http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18bpqboz5zsv5jpg/original.jpg

[Irish]

Convertible renderings!

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18bpqboz92vfojpg/original.jpg


http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18bpqboz5zsv5jpg/original.jpg

I actually like that! Still hate the tail lights though.

[BAD LS1]

The flat deck lid actually makes the rear end more acceptable it seems. It also doesn't seem too radical of a departure from the C6 in the vert form either for some reason.

Someone photochopped what they think the taillights should look like, i tend to agree!

http://www.corvetteforum.com/c7-there-fixed-it.jpg

[Irish]

The flat deck lid actually makes the rear end more acceptable it seems. It also doesn't seem too radical of a departure from the C6 in the vert form either for some reason.

Someone photochopped what they think the taillights should look like, i tend to agree!

http://www.corvetteforum.com/c7-there-fixed-it.jpg

I agree as well! The first guy that can get a set of those to market is going to make a mint!

[Prince Valiant]

The flat deck lid actually makes the rear end more acceptable it seems. It also doesn't seem too radical of a departure from the C6 in the vert form either for some reason. Probably because the truly the biggest departure from the C6 is the rear....minimizing/hiding the B-pillar and the addition of a true C-pillar. In Vert form, the "greenhouse" is effectively the same, showing how similar the rest of the car actually is...where the biggest difference is only the rear treatment and greater angularity.

It's amazing to me...it happened when the C5 yielded to the C6...suddenly the previous C6 gen looks old and dated to me.

[jbiscuit]

Yea its the tail lights that kill the car for me. I like the lines and the fact they want to change it up. I just don't dig the tail lights. I like that pic SNOOP posted with the kit and HREs!! And the car looks awesome in white!

[michelle]

Looks much better with those taillights.

[Neal Steffek]

The dash while looking cool at first, people who work with computers will tell you it is bad news. I hope that is just an over priced option, and we can still get the "old style" dash.

[WhatsADSM]

Agreed with what everyone else pretty much said.

Car looks fantastic from the side quarters front... but those rear taillights just don't seem right. Not really feeling it.

[WhatsADSM]

"It needs a splitter and maybe side skirts.
I also lowered it a little and blacked out the roof and grille."
(Not my rendering. Someone on LotusTalk)

NOM NOM NOM!

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/481388_405096546239869_1163867413_n.jpg

[73MACH]

Looks much better with those taillights.

X's 2!

[spooln30]

The interior reminds me of a MK4 Supras just with cheaper materials. LOL. The fronts not so bad but the ass looks like ass.

[WhatsADSM]

The interior reminds me of a MK4 Supras just with cheaper materials. LOL. The fronts not so bad but the ass looks like ass.

That's just ignorance talking.

Last I checked the mk4 supra did not have:
2, 8 inch LCDs
Napa leather
Aluminum
Microsuede
Carbon fiber
And magnesium framed seats


The interior from an mk4 supra and the C7 are worlds apart... you got that much right. Just that its the corvette with MUCH higher quality materials.

[jbiscuit]

mK4 Supra doesn't even have a nice interior? LOL. I mean for its time it was nice. But by today's standards its mediocre at best. Functional, but not stylish

[*SNOOP*]

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/IMG_0851.jpg

[brotherbenn83]

Agreed with what everyone else pretty much said.

Car looks fantastic from the side quarters front... but those rear taillights just don't seem right. Not really feeling it.

Do you like the front tail lights better? :goof

[WhatsADSM]

Do you like the front tail lights better? :goof

As much as the rear headlights

[Rocket Power]

http://www.corvetteforum.com/c7-there-fixed-it.jpg
Reminds me of the puppet from "Saw" :D


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[*SNOOP*]

Some REAL life pics.....

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette15_zpsd7b5ed7a.jpg
http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette14_zps17dbf6b7.jpg
http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette16_zps7a7a46f3.jpg
http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette17_zpsb73cf9d5.jpg
http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/C6VETTEBOY/NewCorvette18_zps376362b4.jpg

[*SNOOP*]

1st C7 SOLD FOR $1,050,000!!! Rick Hendrick!! Check out this video link!!!


http://youtu.be/s_2TcGZYRAQ

[WhatsADSM]

In general looks good... but sits like a damn 4x4 lol.

[*SNOOP*]

In general looks good... but sits like a damn 4x4 lol.

I agree, that thing needs to be slammed!!!

[jbiscuit]

Totally agree, sits WAY too high. Thats par for GM though. Look at stock ride height for the Camaros, especially the 4th Gens. Tommy's Camaro looked like a truck once everyone else threw lowering springs on their F bodies.

[Irish]

Only thing worse than the Corvette's ass end is Lexus's new grille! PUKE!!!

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/01/22/sugu6yhe.jpg

[CATNHAT]

^^uuuugly! But id still take a free one..

[*SNOOP*]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeXojbzVRK8

http://youtu.be/z49duwQ4Zao

[-stew-]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477706748956329&set=a.151668698226804.31314.151651434895197&type=1&theater

[michelle]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477706748956329&set=a.151668698226804.31314.151651434895197&type=1&theater


https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/644045_477706748956329_1653691735_n.jpg

[WhatsADSM]

^^ That must be the off-road edition.

[*SNOOP*]

http://youtu.be/3zW-u58dufc

[Prince Valiant]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/644045_477706748956329_1653691735_n.jpg

Mistook the rockface for high banked oval?


http://youtu.be/3zW-u58dufc

Man, it looks good on the streets...

[*SNOOP*]

Man, it looks good on the streets...

I thought so too!!