I look at the changes in the C3 from 68-82 and see lots of change but they are all C-3's. The new C6 looks alot like a C-5 to me or am I missing some big change. Lyle
-
Lyle
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
Everyone has kicked this around for the last 6 months and no one has a good answer. Many suggest marketing hype, as a "new generation" always sparks sales.
But I think there may be some merit for new generation. In the past, it has marked a big change, where most of the car was not interchangeable with the previous model.
1962 to 1963 was like that, major chassis and body change, little carried over.
1967 to 1968 was less obvious. The body was an obvious change, but the chassis was mostly the same and some suggest it wasn't any different than '55 to '56. Yet really the body was not common anywhere, including the floor.
And while there are lot of changes from '68 through '82, you can intechange a lot of parts. At least functionally. The hood surround may have changed several times, but you can still glue a whole '82 front clip on a '68 with minimum difficulties. T-tops changed, yet can work with minimum work. Same on doors, etc.
And from what it seems from the articles, the spy photos, the press releases, and such we have seen, even though there is a resemblance from the 2004 to the 2005, apparently nothing interchanges.
And that seems to be the dividing line on generation. -
Re: Why is it a C-6
Everyone has kicked this around for the last 6 months and no one has a good answer. Many suggest marketing hype, as a "new generation" always sparks sales.
But I think there may be some merit for new generation. In the past, it has marked a big change, where most of the car was not interchangeable with the previous model.
1962 to 1963 was like that, major chassis and body change, little carried over.
1967 to 1968 was less obvious. The body was an obvious change, but the chassis was mostly the same and some suggest it wasn't any different than '55 to '56. Yet really the body was not common anywhere, including the floor.
And while there are lot of changes from '68 through '82, you can intechange a lot of parts. At least functionally. The hood surround may have changed several times, but you can still glue a whole '82 front clip on a '68 with minimum difficulties. T-tops changed, yet can work with minimum work. Same on doors, etc.
And from what it seems from the articles, the spy photos, the press releases, and such we have seen, even though there is a resemblance from the 2004 to the 2005, apparently nothing interchanges.
And that seems to be the dividing line on generation.Comment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
Lyle:
I think Mike stated the reason very well. We don't seem to disagree, with C1 generations ending and C2's starting at 1963 or C3's ending and C4's starting at 1984. Yet, many of us still look at this new car as just a C5 and a half, myself included.
Yet when reading the specifications, approximately 85% of underpinings are not interchangeable and the exterior panels are not interchangeable (or maybe one could retrofit them on a 2004 chassis) and the mechanical changes in the engine compartment are too numerous to go into.
I looked at the blue convertible, pretty closely and for a long time at Bloomington. I stood there listening to others comment about the new model, and overall, the statements made were for the most part positive, but nobody indicated in their opinion that it looked like it was a new generation car, more so, a revamped C5.Comment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
Lyle:
I think Mike stated the reason very well. We don't seem to disagree, with C1 generations ending and C2's starting at 1963 or C3's ending and C4's starting at 1984. Yet, many of us still look at this new car as just a C5 and a half, myself included.
Yet when reading the specifications, approximately 85% of underpinings are not interchangeable and the exterior panels are not interchangeable (or maybe one could retrofit them on a 2004 chassis) and the mechanical changes in the engine compartment are too numerous to go into.
I looked at the blue convertible, pretty closely and for a long time at Bloomington. I stood there listening to others comment about the new model, and overall, the statements made were for the most part positive, but nobody indicated in their opinion that it looked like it was a new generation car, more so, a revamped C5.Comment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
About 80 percent of the parts, excluding fasteners are new, which probably exceeds the new parts count for C3, which used the C2 chassis and drivetrains with only minor changes, and from '68 to '82 most C3 changes were to meet new safety and emissions requirements that were phased in over that era.
Though the C6 chassis looks the same to casual observation, most of the parts are redesigned including all the suspension pieces.
Similarly the new LS2 V8 has many new parts.
Make no mistake, the 2005 model is definitely a new generation
DukeComment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
About 80 percent of the parts, excluding fasteners are new, which probably exceeds the new parts count for C3, which used the C2 chassis and drivetrains with only minor changes, and from '68 to '82 most C3 changes were to meet new safety and emissions requirements that were phased in over that era.
Though the C6 chassis looks the same to casual observation, most of the parts are redesigned including all the suspension pieces.
Similarly the new LS2 V8 has many new parts.
Make no mistake, the 2005 model is definitely a new generation
DukeComment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
We must have been standing by the car at Bloomington "for a long time" at different times... I heard nothing but negative comments. Maybe that's all I heard because I dislike the car so much. Open headlights that look like a trailer-park Camaro... rounded, squashed nose thats an obvious sell-out to the Euro crowd (with a mini Viper grill, how nice). The Caddy frame is a nice touch too. Eccch.
The '03 stays in my garage for the long foreseeable future, I'm afraid. (not as long as the '63, though)Comment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
We must have been standing by the car at Bloomington "for a long time" at different times... I heard nothing but negative comments. Maybe that's all I heard because I dislike the car so much. Open headlights that look like a trailer-park Camaro... rounded, squashed nose thats an obvious sell-out to the Euro crowd (with a mini Viper grill, how nice). The Caddy frame is a nice touch too. Eccch.
The '03 stays in my garage for the long foreseeable future, I'm afraid. (not as long as the '63, though)Comment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
I don't like the lights, either. But I've only seen pictures. The pictures of the convertible, I liked (except headlights).
But then this occurs with each new generation. When the '97 was coming out, lots of negative on the big butt, too big, "two golf bags" trunk, etc.
But look at how they like it today.
The Billy Bob, remember? Horrible idea, we making them for trailer trash now? Hmm, can you say Z06?
The '68. Terrible. Left the true sports car out from the '67. How could they make it so big? So bulky. The last true Corvette is obviously a '67.
'84. I was overseas, so I heard a different view. But I'm sure there were detractors.
You may not change, and that is ok, but copy your note, put it somewhere to look at in 3 years, and see if you have changed your mind.Comment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
I don't like the lights, either. But I've only seen pictures. The pictures of the convertible, I liked (except headlights).
But then this occurs with each new generation. When the '97 was coming out, lots of negative on the big butt, too big, "two golf bags" trunk, etc.
But look at how they like it today.
The Billy Bob, remember? Horrible idea, we making them for trailer trash now? Hmm, can you say Z06?
The '68. Terrible. Left the true sports car out from the '67. How could they make it so big? So bulky. The last true Corvette is obviously a '67.
'84. I was overseas, so I heard a different view. But I'm sure there were detractors.
You may not change, and that is ok, but copy your note, put it somewhere to look at in 3 years, and see if you have changed your mind.Comment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
I understand your response, I've heard it quite a bit. And, while it's true in many instances, I doubt it applies to me.
I loved the new car in '68, but after owning several, I got tired of them. In '84, I was intrigued, tired quickly and now can't take C4's at all, especially with the dated pre 91 body and 1st design interior. They make me like the Sharks more. I liked the C5 right off the bat, (except the fixed top cars) and still do.
On the C6... I didnt like the pictures, but held out hope that I would like the car more when I saw it in the flesh (or plastic). Fact is, I flat out hated that car at Bloomington, and I'll agree the convertible is less ugly than the coupe. I'll give them credit for having some guts on the headlights... but they scream '82 Camaro to me. And like I said before, that squashed round nose looks like a pandering to the Eurosnobs that I dont want to impress anyway. I like the American look of the previous car.
But, as always, opinions are like.......Comment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
I understand your response, I've heard it quite a bit. And, while it's true in many instances, I doubt it applies to me.
I loved the new car in '68, but after owning several, I got tired of them. In '84, I was intrigued, tired quickly and now can't take C4's at all, especially with the dated pre 91 body and 1st design interior. They make me like the Sharks more. I liked the C5 right off the bat, (except the fixed top cars) and still do.
On the C6... I didnt like the pictures, but held out hope that I would like the car more when I saw it in the flesh (or plastic). Fact is, I flat out hated that car at Bloomington, and I'll agree the convertible is less ugly than the coupe. I'll give them credit for having some guts on the headlights... but they scream '82 Camaro to me. And like I said before, that squashed round nose looks like a pandering to the Eurosnobs that I dont want to impress anyway. I like the American look of the previous car.
But, as always, opinions are like.......Comment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
Steve:
Pretty much agree, after "seeing it in the flesh", my C5 will stay in the garage... no need to trade it in.Comment
-
Re: Why is it a C-6
Steve:
Pretty much agree, after "seeing it in the flesh", my C5 will stay in the garage... no need to trade it in.Comment
Comment