Corvette. From the glory days of Tom Wallace's leadership when an all-hands-on-deck exploration of a mid-engined C7 for 2011 actually went down to the last detail in 2007, to the pushing back of the C7 program to the 2013-2014 time frame at the earliest because of GM's financial situation, Corvette's future is - if not in doubt - definitely in a long holding pattern. Gene Stefanshyn, who is currently the vehicle line executive for all of GM's rear-wheel-drive programs, will assume the leadership of Corvette as part of his other duties. That should tell you all you need to know about Corvette's future right there. Wallace's focus was on Corvette. Now it will be just another car that GM has to figure out what to do with. Not Good.
-
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
Does anyone know anything about Stefanshyn? Is he an enthusiast, a bean counter with a sharp hatchet, or ????
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
Last Friday i bought 800 shares of GM for less than the price of an unrestored set of knock offs. If we hope to see a vette in the future 15000 members can put their money where their mouths are. If not don't say you wre not warned.
BillComment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
Bill! I also bought stock 740
$6.45 a share GM last year was $45 at one point
Comment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
clem------
Well, it definitely signals that Corvette is going to go into the long-term "holding pattern" that you mention. The current car will probably receive just minor revisions from year-to-year. Without a chief engineer dedicated to the car, I can't really see any development work, at all, going on for the C7. Eventually, the existing car will become "stale" and GM will have to make the decision to either develop a new car or just drop it. If they get "too far behind the curve" as far as development work goes, it will probably mean the car will be dropped.
In the world of the "automotive future" I do not see the Corvette continuing in its present form. A while back Tom Wallace was asked about the future for the car and he stated that it would likely continue but it would end up being smaller and lighter. I think that's the direction it will go IF it continues, at all.
I really don't see the V-8 engine having much of a future in GM's product plans. Some time ago, the replacement for the Cadillac Northstar engine was canceled. The Northstar is scheduled to go out-of-production around 2011. That means that Cadillac will be without a premium V-8. The thinking now is that Cadillacs will all be V-6 powered, AT BEST. A 4 cylinder Cadillac is planned, too.
With the new V-8 diesel engine for trucks coming out, I think that may replace the V-8 gasoline engines for trucks. Supposedly, it will be smooth and powerful and will be more fuel efficient for trucks than any gasoline engine. For gas engines, I would not be surprised to see turbocharged variants of the 4, 5, and 6 cylinder in-line truck engines.
If the V-8 engine goes away for trucks, it will go away for Corvettes, too. There's no way that GM is going to keep a V-8 engine in production for a very small product base. Certainly, I don't see any follow-on to the current V-8 gas engine.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
the trouble with diesel is unless you drive lots of miles a year they are not cost effective. also i don't think diesel cars will go over big here in the USA with all these self service gas stations because if you look at the diesel pump at these stations it looks like a toxic waste dump with all the spilled diesel fuel and the oil dry they spread around to dry up the spills. spilled diesel does not evapoate like spilled gasoline. i can't see many women in their dress clothes filling up diesel power cars because of this and the diesel smell takes forever to get off of your hands.Comment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
Maybe it will have a Hemi in it. I predict that the GOV will bail out GM and the aquisition of Chrysler will be approved. In addition probably a third of GM dealers will disappear along with all of the existing Mopar dealers as they tighten up. However, unless the board of directors of GM actually does something-replacement of the current cast of senior managers, then GM/Chrysler will disappear in 5 years or less. It very sad to see a once great company go the way of the dinosaur. A great example is the VOLT project, which is doomed to failure and is costing GM a billion dollars.Comment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
clem-----
I don't think you'll see widespread use of diesels in cars. For one thing, US refineries are not optimized for producing diesel fuel; they're optimized for gasoline. In Europe it's the opposite. However, I do think that diesels will take over for trucks. It's about the only way to get their fuel mileage up and that will have to be done under the new regs. The new GM diesel is supposed to be much more practical than any previous diesel, cheaper to manufacture, and gasoline engine-like in performance.
For cars, I think the V-8 engine is "dead" for the future. I think you're going to see just 4 cylinders and V-6's, many turbocharged to provide V-8-like performance with better fuel economy.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
Ken, I am with you. It is a shame to see G.M. on the edge. I remember reading an article some years ago about G.M.'s plan to move to a common platform for most vehicles. A fellow I know pointed out recently the speed and economy Toyota has in switching production from one model to another by using this same idea. Design, fit, finish and (in this day) economy of use are really important factors. The volt program is something that could be a saving grace for G.M. but even Hyundai has realized the need to appeal to the desires of the masses and simply not just assume public opinion is secondary to their own. There is always going to be a niche for cars like the Corvette but G.M.'s bread and butter is the cars used on a daily basis. So, imagine a tight fitting, molded and scuplted looking car, truck, suv that is quiet, innovative (perhaps plug-in hybrid/multi fuel/hydrogen/natural gas) with a common platform to cut the expense of production.Comment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
A couple months ago I was hearing the same thing about what a super deal WaMU was. I had friends that bought tons of it when it was $5, down from $30+. They said no way would a MAJOR bank fail and it will go nowhere but up from here. Today, their stocks are worth $0. These are very strange times we are in right now. Past history and trends mean nothing.Comment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
Thirty years ago Prof. Charles F. Taylor, retired head of the MIT Sloan Automotive Labs and author of the two volume 1300+ page tome, "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice," which is still the "bible", chided Detroit for saddling us with four-cylinder cars.
Taylor stated that small V-8 engines could deliver similar fuel economy to similar sized four-cylinders.
The move to fewer cylinders then and now is as much about cost as it is about fuel economy.
The V-8 configuration "packages" very well in most cars, is very smooth, and it is even more space efficient in pushrod form. Scaling the current LS-series down to a displacement range or 3-4 liters would considerably reduce volume and mass. The lighter weight valvetrain would be good for 7500-8000 revs with OE durability, and net output could be as high as 100 HP per liter.
I think current technology could yield a 2700 pound Corvette with a 4 liter V-8 (bore and stroke of about 3.38" in a "square" configuration) of at least 350 net HP without driving cost through the roof with expensive light weight materials, and such a configuration could achieve EPA fuel economy ratings of 20+/30+ city/highway driving, which is about what a current four-cylinder mid sized sedan can do.
There is a vehicle system engineering rule of thumb that goes something like this: For every unit of engine mass reduction, vehicle mass can be reduced by a proportional amount via lighter structure, suspension, and drivetrain. I don't remember what the exact amount is, but I think it's something between one and two, so a 150 pound reduction in engine mass means you can reduce vehiclestructure/suspension/drivetrain by up to 300 pounds for a total savings of 450 pounds, which gets you from the current 3200 to 2750. As design/analysis technology improves, "factors of safety", which are required to cover unknowns may be lowered, which yields lower mass parts. Also, current lightweight materials may come down in price in the next decade, which can add to mass reduction throughout the vehicle.
It's a matter of management's will!
DukeComment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
Diesels have been mentioned but not the current high cost of purchasing a diesel engine (at least in a pick-up) and the high cost of diesel fuel. As was pointed out, you have to drive a lot of miles to break even.Comment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
Aside from the financial aspects of GM's woes (pension/medical benefit costs/problems accessing capital), they seem to have substantially lost their way in recent years, unable to accurately identify what the public wants/incapable of building it in a timely/cost effective manner when they do find out, and most importantly, totally absent their previous world-beating capacity for innovation and design.
I refuse to believe that the pieces aren't there in the Corporation to tackle these issues; it seems that the sense of urgency and motivation, not to mention direction and leadership, are what's lacking. The UAW (and CAW here in Canada) can be blamed for some of the problem, but quality issues also stem from design and assembly techniques, squarely the purview of the engineers and designers. Nonetheless, some GM products have stood up extremely well against the competition, in design and innovation as well as quality: witness J.D. Power's recent ranking of Buick as tied with #1 Lexus in reliability; the first time in six years that Lexus has had to share the premier spot. Cadillac's recent offerings (CTS) are also being well-received as is the new Malibu.
I don't know how you reverse decades of antagonistic labour-management relations and get to the point of universal recognition that everyone has a stake in the company's future from the floor sweeper all the way up to the CEO, but it better happen fast...
As for the Corvette's future, if for no other reason, GM should continue its development in its traditional role: a showcase for corporate innovation and engineering and a performance flagship for the company. In this last aspect, it already should stand as one: Lemans wins together with world class fuel economy in a very driveable package at a reasonable price. I hope someone's awake at the Renaissance Center....
grantComment
-
Re: not good for our favorite car
The GM/Chrysler merger will happen. There is no other alternative. I'm concerned because I live in Michigan and the merger will result in the closing of 14 of 19 Chrysler plants and a loss of 25,000 jobs in Michigan alone. Michigan is headed for a depression. Forget recession. My house has depreciated 35% in one year. The rest of the country should be concerned as well as the auto industry is the largest industry in the country next to the US Government.
I don't see how an assembly plant that only makes on the average 40,000 vehicles a year can survive given the cost of development, logistics and the amortization of parts cost over the life of the program. If the M car is moving from Wilmington to Bowling Green the Solstice, Sky, Opel GT and Corvette will have to be a lot more in common than they are today to be built at the same plant.
I think the mid engine Vette was under consideration but will not happen. I think the C7 will be smaller and lighter with a smaller engine but retaining the power to weight ratio.Comment
Comment