I read an interview with the guy responsible for the new 'Vette design. He said that the management mandate was to retain the 'Vette “look” and profile while still incorporating changes, to maintain the 'Vette image. It struck me that the mandate was typical modern GM thinking. GM seems to have forgotten that the thing that made the 'Vette a legend was that they came up with dramatic new and very sexy designs. The C2 was dramaticially different from the C1, and the C3 was dramatically different from the C2. If they’d wanted to stick with the 'Vette’s legendary history, it struck me that a better way would have been to develop a dramatic mid engined 'Vette, a true world class sportscar.
But, of course, GM wanted to play it safe. No cahunas at all. And therein lies part of the problem. All Chevys must by mandate look like Chevys.
GM, what happened to the drama? Exectly when did you lose your cahunas?
I don’t have a problem with the design. I have a couple mid-engine cars and they’ve got their own unique design problems. I don’t consider mid-engine an improvement.
The basic Corvette layout has been successful for 60 years ! 60 Years !
The car is an American Classic and so is Chevrolet, apple pie, and baseball !
Should we put pineapple in apple pies ? Change the rules of baseball ?
I don’t know about the mid engine part but agree its time for some dramatic style changes. People used to buy cars because of annual style changes but now a ten year old car can look the same as a new one.
And holy cow, what’s with having to make all the Chevy dealerships look the same with that ugly blue store front? I don’t want a Chev. Give me back my Olds or Pontiacs.
CSA, my feeling is that if GM had just kep massaginng the C1 design the 'Vette would not be the icon it is today. It was the C2 and ultimately the C3 that made the 'Vette synonomous with “world class supercar”. The layout is dated. It’s time for GM to follow in the tradition of the C2 and C3 and create a next generation. A management mandate to keep it looking like the existing model seems to me to be too risk averse for a world class automobile. Tacking a “Stingray” nameplate on it is, well, just cheezy.
I don’t see identical cars. There are enough similarities to let you know that they are both Corvettes, but I have no trouble discerning a C7 from a C6. Front, side, back, or top; there is no mistaking which model you look at.
I do, however, have a problem with mundane styling from Toyota. As I’ve said before, they took over from GM in that regard several years ago. Toyota’s styling committee needs to move on.
I have absolutely no problem with the design of a car I will never own. If I have the good fortune to get one as a gift ( are you listening son) not only will not complain about the design, I will accept it in my most dreaded color…red, with a smile and a thank you. GM, keep up the good work.
The early roadsters were a lot of fun to drive but subsequent models have gotten difficult to drive. The poor view of anything other than directly to the front is troubling as is the uncertainty of the clearance to the front and rear. If someone wants to give me one I’d be very grateful but I would sell it and spend the proceeds sitting on the beech at Cinnamon Bay.
Alll of the manufacturers have gotten bland. I can live with that on a $25K family sedan, but I hate to see such lack of styling innovation on a $72,000 Corvette. As I suggested before, the thing that made Corvette a legend was dramatic styling innovation combined with supercar handling. These days they seem to be lving off their past, and that’s a shame. They’re capable of better.
I’m hearing @rod and thinking that outward visibility, being directly related to safety, might have at least a part in how a car is designed and why so many look so much alike. In addition, the dictates of a wind tunnel testing might make it restrictive too. We could put fins on it like an old Plymouth fury…but I hope the design is more by function. I think that’s what really makes a car attractive.
I wholeheartedly agree that design should follow function…and not start with a manfdate to follow the previous design.
The 'Vette is supposed to be a flagship sportscar, a supercar. It should push right through the styling boundaries, like the C2 and C3 did. I just don’t think this one did. That interview I mentioned sort of confirms that it didn’t…and that it was intentional.
If it’s a Corvette…it will always have loyal fans somewhere. I hated the C4 when it first came out but came around to appreciating it when the C5 model arrived (I loved it at first sight). My taste in Corvettes was forever affected when my neighbor (and boss’s daughter) took delivery of her shiny red '57 Corvette in the mid-60’s. To me…it’s the epitome in Corvette design. I know others will disagree but they never saw Sandra drive by with her blond ponytail whipping in the breeze.
I saw the 2014 prototype of the Corvette go across the auction block at the Barrett auction and just like the mid 80s and newer, doesn’t do a whole lot for me.
What’s surprising is that despite being ordered to keep it looking like a 'Vette, they changed the single most iconic part of a Corvette - the tail lights. Now the tail lights look like they stole them from a Camaro.
Bisbonian, I had no doubt there would be those comments. There are definitely different perspectives on this. I’d like to see a dramatic new world class sportscar, others like the current iteration.
Shadow, I noticed that. The program head commented on that in the interview. He said that everyone has been using round lights for years so they changed them.
I’m fine for changes that are improvements, like abandoning concealed headlights in the C6. I do think the front-engine-rwd layout is iconic to the Corvette, just like the rear-engine-rwd layout is for the 911, so I wouldn’t change that. And aside from having to have 2 seats, pretty much anything else is open season.